Part 91 Issues
 

It will be interesting to see how some of the vintage / amateur built aircraft (eg things like Tigers, Austers and Champs) will comply with the requirement to be fitted with external lights (nav, beacon and strobes).
I also see the requirement to fly at altitudes complying with the hemspherical rule (odds/evens plus 500’) starts at 3000’ AMSL instead of the current 5000’.

Anyone spot any others yet?

Back in the dim, dark ages (late 1990s), pilots were not required to stick to hemispherical levels below 3000 feet.

Not sure when or why it was raised to 5000 feet.

All this is doing is returning to what was before....

Except that the regs will be 4 times as long, everything will be written down twice (in regs and again in the MOS), and the whole thing will be a celebration of confusion (they've had plenty of practice with part 61).

There is no requirement to fit strobes to the Auster. It has a working red light, white tail light, Nav lights and landing light. Either a red light OR strobes is the requirement.

Kaz

The gliding fraternity won't like it but who is going to police it anyway?

Kaz

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/reg...March%2018.PDF

Not sure I get the bits about simulating engine failures.

Section, 91.560 "Simulating engine failure", seems to say you can only simulate an engine failure if the flight is either:
a. a test flight of a provisionally registered aircraft OR
b. under the terms of a special flight permit OR
c. if an experimental aircraft and EF is approved for that type

That seems to rule out instructional EF/PFL or self practice(?)

Then later in: 91.575 "Single-engine aeroplane—VFR flights by day—engine not to be shut down"

it appears to say you can *shut down an engine* if for the purposes of training (and if with an instructor and within range of a suitable landing area).

I could very well be missing something but this seems to me to be saying

you cannot *simulate* an engine failure for training
but
you can however *shut the engine down* for training

Am I misunderstanding the wording or missing something? (wouldn't surprise me but I am curious what I am missing)

Jonkster, basically 91.560 is limiting the size of the Aircraft that can be used for Simulating an Engine Failure in Flight:

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) an engine failure is simulated; and
(b) the requirement mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met

So this part says if during the flight you do a simulated engine failure you've broken the sub reg but only if you do not meet (2) which is specifying

(2) The requirement is that one of the following must apply to the aircraft:
(a) the aircraft must be type-certificated to carry not more than 9 passengers,
or must have a maximum take-off weight of not more than 8,618 kg;

It's pretty badly worded I think, should state that an Simulated Engine Failure may only be conducted in an Aircraft that meets "X Requirements" but instead they've gone an ass backwards and terribly difficult to understand way of saying "You cannot do this unless you are NOT flying this".

The Aircraft types that would meet Sub Reg 2 Requires and therefore make it illegal to do are anything Certified to carry 9 or more pax or MTOW greater than 8,618kg, BUT then according to (b) you can do it in one of those aircraft types IF there is no Flight Simulator for it in Australia or if you have an approval from CASA then further requirements for others above 19 pax seats.

It then goes on to say in (d) that if you also can do an inflight Simulated Engine Failure if it is a test flight for a provisionally certificated aircraft, if you have a special flight permit to do it or if you have an experimental certificate that allows the aircraft to simulate a failure of an engine.

ah OK, so... because of clause (a) most ab-initio/licence training would not be subject to the reg (because it would be done in aircraft under 9 pax or 8618kg) and so clause (d) therefore doesn't need to be looked at (it does say only one of a, b, c or d must apply - I missed that bit :().
That makes sense.

appreciate the explanation cheers - I was going cross eyed looking at it!

not just vintage/amateur-built - my newish factory built Pitts has no lights.

not just any red light but a beacon.

True...a "red beacon light".

I haven't found a definition of navigation lights...I have red port, green starboard and white tail light. Is that it?

Kaz

Ahhh. That extraordinary legal reference, Wikipedia, tells me that the rules are those that apply at sea and I've spent more hours at sea than in the air so all good. Add the white light at the stern to the coloured thingamys.

Kaz

Folks,
The drafting of Part 91 (and so much other aviation regulation) in the "negative" guarantees confusion and the creation of "inadvertent criminals".

There is no good reason for this, other than CASA choice, you take a topic, write a regulation to ban it, then follow with a string of exception, usually with multiple cross references to grossly increase likelihood of misunderstanding.

If the same "regulation" was written in the positive, what you can do, it would be far more straightforward to understand.

Then we get to the poor quality of the actual drafting, and this leaves so many avenues to argue what you can actually do.

Tootle pip!!

Some of the rules seem a bit overdone.

91.275 Aircraft to be flown under VFR or IFR
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes
subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

I don't even know how to contravene that rule.

91.445 Additional right of way rules
Aircraft with right of way to maintain heading and speed
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) there is a risk of collision with another aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft has right of way over the other aircraft (in accordance with
regulation 91.440); and
(c) the aircraft’s heading and speed is not maintained until there is no longer a
risk of collision.

Really? I fly a slower aircraft, quite often I will modify heading and/or speed to allow a faster aircraft to go in front even if I have right of way. Is that forbidden?

(1) A person who fuels an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if a requirement
mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) at all times during the fuelling, at least 2 fire extinguishers:
(i) must be on the fuelling equipment or positioned at a distance of not
less than 6 m and not more than 15 m from the fuelling point; and
(ii) must be readily available for use by the person;
(b) each fire extinguisher:
(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and
electrical fires;

At least 2 fire extinguishers between 6 and 15 metres from the aircraft? Anyone know what capacity is considered suitable for extinguishing fuel fires?

I can see why you would set standards for someone who provides refueling facilities, and why you might have rules to protect bystanders etc. but if you set your aircraft on fire while refueling and the closest extinguisher is 25m away surely it's your problem? Do we need a 50 penalty unit offence?

What about the many RA and rural aircraft that routinely fuel from drums?

Surely the requirement should be applied to a fixed fuel supply or at least one of above 200 litres capacity rather than the aircraft?

Kaz

What a God-awful mess. The machine is broken.

I’d not usually look at any of the dross trotted out as draft aviation “safety” regulations these days, but andrewr’s cut and paste had me shaking my head in disbelief.

91.275? What do I say? Might as well make it an offence if you do not fly an aircraft during the hours of daylight or darkness. Gotta be at least 10 years in gaol for that.

Right of way rules? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times they’ve made an operational difference in over 30 years of flying. I do trust that the millions spent on reproducing the COLREGS in domestic law, again, will be worth it.

Fire extinguishers and refuelling? I’ve looked at the draft and, as far as I can tell, the rule quoted by andrewr applies to all Australian aircraft (as defined) in Australian territory. I’m disturbed to note that my dangerous behaviour has included never having had 2 fire extinguishers positioned anywhere during refuelling. And it won’t in the future. I’m disappointed to have been forced into a life of crime.

I’ve seen reference to simulating engine failures and “shut down”. I don’t have the energy.

To quote the Spodman once again: May Jesus pee in bucket, what are these wombats on?

I’m very much a law abiding person by nature, I now don’t give a rats about Aviation rules and purely use my own judgement as to what I think is safe. Sitting behind these difficult to understand regulations are pages and pages of even more difficult manuals of standards (MOS). They tell me the Reg reform program is about simplifying things!🤪😖

Does anyone have any insight into the practical safety risk intended to be mitigated by this regulation:Can I just cross my arms during a flight and decide: Guess what, I’m now flying neither VFR nor IFR. What safety risk does that create?

It’s naughty and unsafe to fly VFR when it’s not VMC. And it’s naughty and unsafe to fly IFR without the required rating/s and equipment. But how can someone unilaterally ‘choose’ to fly neither IFR nor VFR?

Somebody must have a concept in his or head that resulted in the draft regulation.

This simply means that you can't fly in instrument conditions without being equipped and endorsed for IFR. Pretty simple really.

Errrmmm...that’s not what the draft reg says.

If I’m fying e.g. VFR and I enter IMC, how does that contravene the draft reg? I’ve breached the VFR, but I’m still flying VFR.

It breaches it because you are not flying IFR and you are not flying VFR either. You can't fly VFR in IFR conditions.

If you are VFR and you enter IFR conditions and you are not equipped or endorsed/licensed for IFR, then you are flying neither and thus you are breaching.

It's about the "rules" not the weather conditions. It's Instrument Flight "RULES," not conditions.