Been a while since I've done it, and currently not in a position to try myself, but what answer do you get if you use the conversion information out of the AIP?

You won't have access to NAIPS in an exam, so I'd expect you'd have to use the AIP conversion method.

I wonder if it yields a different result. Wouldn't surprise me.

Interesting point LeadSled makes about the head of power. I must admit to never having turned my mind to it, having always just assumed that the AIP had effective force of law.

A very quick look appears to support LeadSled’s position, with one rather large ... but.

you see, the Head of Power for all aviation activities has this broad section

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20A

Reckless operation of aircraft
(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.

Now i am no QC but I would have thought that operating an aircraft in contravention the expressed and generally accepted collective wisdom (in this case the AIP - which has been around for wee while) might be considered to be reckless?

i would prefer to defend the affirmative position as defending the negative requires saying that as the AIP has no head of power, it therefore also must have no use.

wtf isn't there a simple definition and an authorized method of calculating latest vfr landing time enshrined in simple regulation? Wtf were people thinking? simply select one definition of last light one set of conversions between civil, nautical and astronomical one method of calculating and one method of approximating. Then the earliest or latest becomes your legal planning figure.

What do the yanks do? how hard can it be?

You make the quite common and reasonable mistake of believing “the AIP” has a head of power.

The AIP is, in fact, a compendium of lots of disparate stuff, from aerodrome data to immigration and customs entry requirements to radio terminology and so on. Whether a purported requirement in AIP is a legal requirement depends on whether that individual requirement is supported by a specific law or exercise of a specific statutory power. I gave the example, in a different thread, of purported restrictions published in ERSA (part of the AIP) on the use of airspace around Mildura. The purported restrictions had no basis in law and were therefore removed.

To put this the other way around: Just because something is published as a “requirement” in AIP does not make it so.

I will provide an example. Note that the legal requirement to carry NAVCOM and SSR equipment on VFR flights depends on the valid exercise by CASA of the specific power to issue instructions specifying that equipment, which power is contained in CAR 174A(1). The VFR equipment requirements specified in AIP either reflect or publish those requirements, or are fluff.

To put this another way, if someone in Airservices had a ‘bright idea’ that VFR aircraft should all be equipped with signal flares and managed to get that ‘requirement’ published in AIP, the outcome would not be a legal obligation to carry signal flares on VFR aircraft. That’s because Airservices is not CASA. It would just be another Mildura ‘bright idea’ with no legal basis.

If a person operates a VFR aircraft without the equipment as instructed by CASA under CAR 174A(1) and published in AIP, that’s an offence against CAR 174A(1), not an offence ‘against the AIP’.

With that background, could you identify the provision of the law that makes it an offence not to plan on landing, or failing to land, at least 10 minutes before the end of civil daylight if flying to day VFR rules?

As you’ve cited section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act, could you identify the recklessness in deliberately planning to land, and in fact landing, 5 minutes before the end of civil daylight?

I should note that I plan to land at least 20 minutes before the end of civil daylight at my destination, and in the last few decades have busted that margin - but still in civil daylight - only once. I’m only commenting as I am allergic to folklore as well as the false legal=safe illegal=unsafe dichotomy that infects much of the shallow gene pool of Australian aviation.

I’ll expand on my interpretation of your words, so you can identify where my interpretation is diametrically opposed to what you stated:

Lead Ballon,

i have no intention of getting into a pointless semantics debate with you. I would only point out the following two salient facts from my post that you appear to have misinterpreted..

Firstly I acknowledged that, despite never giving it much thought before, I agreed with LeadSled’s position on the AIP having no head of power

Secondly I stated that my position was that I would not like to defend starts with the premise that “as the AIP has no head of power”

if you want to believe that is me saying I do believe the AIP has a legal head of power, then I can’t help you any further.

i don’t intend to get in a slanging match, which this place devolves to far too often, so i’ll leave it at that.

Great!

Could you identify the provision of the law that makes it an offence not to plan on landing, or failing to land, at least 10 minutes before the end of civil daylight if flying to day VFR rules?

As you’ve cited section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act, could you identify the recklessness in deliberately planning to land, and in fact landing, 5 minutes before the end of civil daylight?