I now have it in writing from the RA-Aus but I need to seek the author's permission to publish to third party and in particular to the forum. I will happily do that when permission is granted

You're right, assuming I needed to take a second adult. But that wasn't the mission I built it for, I built it as a high-speed single seater that I could also take one of my kids with, until they got too heavy. 155Kg gave the option of: me + 4h of fuel, or Me + Mini-Me + 2 hrs fuel, and that was perfectly adequate until the kids grew up, then it was re-registered VH- as she remains today.

In the 4 years under RAAus administration, I flew with a second adult twice. Once with a colleague & pilot mate who was dying of cancer and weighed about 45kg wringing wet, we did a loop from Caloundra - Gympie and back with all of 30L on board, the other was 6 months later to scatter his ashes from the RV, with a 20 minute lap from Caloundra with his 60kg wife, who had flown GA hundreds of times and understood it well enough to accept & ignore the low fuel alarms on the Dynon

The point is, what they think they are allowed to do, and what they have a legal obligation to do, or are allowed to do are not always the same. There is no practical difference between an RV-9 and a J230 with its' 760Kg MTOW, yet I've never heard of a Jab causing the angst an RV does with RAAus....

To the best of my knowledge, no, not once. I didn't need to.

I don't think that is really the issue at all, and I believe legally the intent of legislation is a consideration, but then it cant really override the letter of the law. Intent can really only truly be understood by the person who drafted the law, and if this forum proves anything it is that people with different backgrounds are always going to interpret laws slightly differently.

However if we have ever wondered why people push aircraft into bad situations then this forum probably demonstrates part of the issue, as everything gets analysed by the peanut gallery who like to pretend they are saints who have never breached any laws at any point in their life. The point everyone is arguing over here is so technical as to be essentially irrelevant, but hey, I guess we all have to find something to be outraged by...

And to MCoates, no, I wasnt the pilot, and don't know the pilot.

Jabs only weigh 350-370kg empty which is why there’s no angst caused.

The issue with them registering an RV9 as a 2 seater is that once it’s in the system it’s hard to get it out, especially once it changes hands. If you don’t fly it overnight, the next guy probably will, as has happened before. They have to draw the line somewhere and or work to a formulae. Problem being that if they implement a formulae, it won’t please everyone and next they’ll be trying to withdraw rego on a converted 150 or a Colt or something and the cycle begins again.

POB
 

(Caveat - I'm not an RAA person.)

I would have expected that 20.16.3.12.2 and 20.16.3.13.2(2) should be relevant to the infant ?

My take is that the first requirement precludes the carriage ?

Wow, so much angst over 2 + kid. And only 2 seats...shock horror and dismay. Wtf !
Looks like their practical solution to me. Can’t just lock the kid in the car while you go off flying.
Dad plus Mum plus kid, and restrained in her seat belt... and within weight limits...so what.
Successful forced landing ...all good.

Is this country so bound up in bureaucratic bs that people can’t make their own decisions anymore.
Yes in spades. Commonsense and practicality are not allowed, Obviously.

Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again

Your common sense approach has no place here. The dumb thing is if it had a VH rego on the side it wouldn’t even be an argument (I’m sure the peanut gallery could still find something to criticise him for) so it’s not like what he did was some reckless breach of the rules putting lives at risk. In fact no one can actually tell either way if any rule has been breached... it seems like some GA vs RA pissing contest to me...

No one here is going to give a stuff, unless that written advice includes a reference to some form of legislation - that you don't understand that is ... amusing.

Wow. Way to show lack of empathy dude. How do you rate on the sociopath scale??


I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.

I don't see any problem there, either??

Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldn’t come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?

Very valid question, and I can’t find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations it’s written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.

I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.
I don't see any problem there, either??

Perhaps I should have been a little more expansive in my previous post.

(a) 20.16.3.12.2(b) specifies 2-6 passenger seats in the first entry of the table. 20.16.3.2 (definitions) specifies that a passenger is a person who is not a crew member, ergo passenger seats exclude crew seats and, a 2-seat aircraft presents a problem ? While I don't know the original logic for the Order's requirement, I would speculate that it had to do with a potential for interference with, or obstruction of, a second set of controls ?

(b) the reference to 20.16.3.13.2(2) was to draw attention to the requirement that an infant held on the lap of a passenger should not be restrained by the passenger's seat belt. This is a very dangerous practice considering crashworthiness and just about guarantees the infant's death in the event of significant decelerations during a mishap. The only sensible way to carry an infant is in an automotive car seat for which CASA has some airworthiness rules in place. I presume that the rule is for the reasonable benefit of airline carriage, although some airlines will provide for a baby seat on request.

Sometimes, the regulatory devil is in the nitty gritty detail. Putting aside the usual gratuitous, throwaway comments sprinkled throughout the thread, my concerns related to various comments including some in posts 11, 15, 16, 21.

Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldn’t come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?
Very valid question, and I can’t find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations it’s written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.

Refer definitions.

The main thing of interest, of course, is that the folk in the aircraft were unharmed by the mishap.

The main thing of interest, of course, is why is it on the beach?

Obviously it was the baby's fault!

(Thanks John, for your reasoned information)

Good question! There’s a heap of talk about this incident and I don’t think I’ve even seen anyone mention or question what happened to the engine; fuel or otherwise… it’s all about the baby.

It was noted that it was “minor” engine failure, so presumably partial power loss.

Pretty clear from a quick glance at the CAO that an extra passenger was prohibited in this scenario ie the Tecnam has one pilot seat and one passenger seat.

Whats the point of the regs if we just pick and choose which ones to comply with?

I have seen restraints that attach to a passengers seat belt and restrain the infant or baby. Since the restraint attaches to the belt it is the belt restraining the infant and not the adults arms, nor is the infant between the adult and the seat belt, which could crush them.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1be75b9b3.jpeg

I wonder if weight and balance is the issue when you discuss how many passengers should be on board rather than arguing if a baby, if properly strapped in, was the major concern.

Some adults carry more than the weight of a baby in their beer gut, yet I don’t see many weight scales at small airports.

Would love to see some of you lot in a court case:
You: "Your honor, my interpretation of the law is that what I did is allowed"
Judge: "Were you told by a delegate of the authority that your interpretation is wrong?"
You: "Yes your honor but once again, I don't think they were correct so I did it anyway"
Judge: "Mmmmhmm, well, whilst this was a complete waste of everyone's time, at least you made it quick, you're guilty"

I don't think judges work that way either. They tend to look at what the actual regulations say. not opinions - even if they are opinions of a delegate of the authority.

Yeah, admittedly I was being a bit facetious but you get the point, you'd be a brave person in this particular case to go out with 3 POB knowing a delegate has said otherwise just because you believe in your interpretation.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they were told that before the flight. If someone wants to prosecute them they really will have to find a regulation that says it's not allowed, and no-one has quoted one yet.

This thread is an illustration of the problems with Australian aviation regulation - everyone operates on a consensus of what they think the rules should be not what they actually say. If you want to refer to the actual regulations you are viewed as a troublemaker.

I have had a few dealings with the Australian Tax Office in the past where I have asked whether particular things are allowed. Without fail, their reply has included references to supporting legislation or rulings. If only our aviation authorities worked the same way.

Lots of interpretations of whether the Pilot in Command is guilty of non compliance of CAO 20.16.3.12.2, and here I am thinking two things:

(1) Well done on his actions to ensure the safety of the flight. Legal or illegal; right to wrong - well done. I hope he doesn’t lose his license for any wrongdoing.

(2) What are “metes”?

I was talking about people in this thread from some of the replies, not this flight, absolutely nothing suggests they thought otherwise.

Regulations are not the same as rules
 

The young guy did not break any CASA regulations by having a baby on board. He may have broken some as yet unpublished RAAus rule but he certainly didn't break the law. Do your homework. Its easy to find on the CASA website.

If this argument is correct, it indeed presents a problem.

If the number of passenger seats excludes crew seats, the number of passenger seats in a 152 is zero, the number of passenger seats in a 172 is 2 etc. 20.16.3.12.2 says the number of passengers can only exceed the number of passenger seats if the excess passengers are infants or children. So a C152 is not allowed to carry a passenger, and a C172 could only carry 2 passengers, not 3, unless the third was a child.

​​​​​I wonder if weight and balance is the ..

Probably not. W&B is readily addressed by routine pilot stuff, albeit that the calculated numbers are a tad rubbery.

CAAP 235-1(1), p11 is relevant regarding standard weights in small aircraft. The CAAP is based on a detailed report by John Klingberg, then an airworthiness performance engineer with the Authority (and a nice bloke to boot). If you are able to track down a copy it makes for excellent relevant reading.

​​​​​​.. passenger seats in a C152 is zero

Perhaps one might first read CAR(1988) 2 "crew member" which includes "crew" before offering conjectural comment. Likewise for C172. The sensible interpretation is that we are referring to minimum crew rather than available crew positions/stations. On that basis, one's C152 can have 0/1 pax seats and the C172 2/3.

CAAP 235-2(2) is essential reading for the carriage of small children in aircraft. The CAAP is largely based on earlier AWBs.

Quick glance is not enough
 

If you read carefully CAO 20.16.3 chapter 13 you will find that no regulation was broken in carrying a child on a mothers lap. Or even allowing two children to occupy one seat. There may be something in the RAAus manuals about it, but no civil aviation law was broken.

Are you suggesting that you can rely on 13 to the exclusion of 12 ?

As a matter of interest, you can put a child seat in a 150.

https://avfab.com/products/view/cess...eat-auxillary/

A normal STC mod program such as we see with numerous Types/Models.

12 and 13 go hand in hand. 12 also mentions children may exceed the number of seats provided and just re-enforces the same point. It specifically says that 1 extra person than seats available may be carried if that person is a child. There is even a CASA rule making about it called "CASA ruling 2/2004". There is no doubt about what CASA says about it. The only question is what RAAus say about it and I think they say very little.

I am familiar with the ruling (which I note is advisory only).

The ruling says exactly what 12 says and is addressing the confusion potential where the AFM/POH specifies the maximum POB.

In particular, you are misreading and misquoting both the CAO and the ruling. Perhaps you might reread it a little more carefully this time and come back to us on the wordiology ?

I am only belabouring the point as the newbies are at risk of confusion and part of our brief is education.

Perhaps one of our legally competent readers might consider offering a comment on the CAO words as I am an engineer, not a lawyer.

OK. When you said:
"While I don't know the original logic for the Order's requirement, I would speculate that it had to do with a potential for interference with, or obstruction of, a second set of controls?" I assumed you were saying the other front seat was not considered a passenger seat. However there doesn't appear to be a requirement that an infant be carried in the back of e.g. a 4 seater.

I think it is very clear.The number of passengers carried in an aircraft for which an emergency evacuation demonstration is not required may exceed the number of approved passenger seats fitted in the aircraft only if the excess number of passengers:

(a) has been approved by CASA; or
(b) does not exceed the number specified in column 2 of the following table opposite the number of passenger seats specified in column 1; and the excess passengers are infants or children:
Column 1 is number of seats (2-6), Column 2 is number of EXCESS passengers (1)
SO IF YOU HAVE 2 SEATS YOU CAN HAVE 1 EXCESS PASSENGER as long as that passenger is a child

Certainly CASA have drafted clear and concise aviation standards! :}

I think it is very clear.The number of passengers carried

Reference 12, let's drill down a little, shall we ?

Does the first column heading in the table refer to "seats", as you so strongly state ..... or, does it refer to "passenger seats" which is what the words in my copy say ?

OK. When you said:

Regarding the thoughts of the CAO drafters, I have no inside knowledge. The only things which make much sense to me are either, or both of, controls interference or aspects of emergency egress from the aircraft.

So far as seating is concerned, I was, for many years, a specialist authorised person under the Regs for seating design and certification. I don't know of any requirement which precludes the holding of an infant in the front seat of a light aircraft on single pilot private operations .... although, with the benefit of many pilot hours, I do think it a little silly.

At last we have agreement on the CAO words - hence my concern with a two place machine.

As I observed before, the main thing is no-one was hurt.

Years ago, in DCA days, the PIC would have received a talking to over coffee in the Regional Office and told not to do it again.

These days, the Regulator is driven by the big stick so, who knows what will be the outcome.

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

Not saying anything in substance that hasn't been said before here, however if we assume from the ABC article that:

(1) the child shown was carried on the a/c and is less than three years old
(2) the aircraft was not engaged in charter or public transport work

and for the sake of the discussion:

(3) the child was not being carried in a bassinet or infant seat
(4) the child was not sick, injured or disabled
(5) the a/c did not have dual controls, or the person occupying the passenger seats were suitably instructed not to interfere with controls etc
(6) the a/c is an Australian registered machine (not being familiar with '23-1600'?)

Without studying the wider body of legislation, here's a decision path showing relevant sections from current Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 - Air service operations - Carriage of persons (02/12/2004):

s1 Application
- This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft. (if correct this applies, carry on to the next section)

s2 Definitions
...
- An infant is a passenger who has not reached his or her third birthday. (assumed, therefore applies - note BTW that 'Seats' are not defined here)
...

s3 Seats
...
- except:
(i) infants, children and stretcher cases carried in accordance with subsections 13 and 14 respectively; and... (an exception to s3, therefore -> s13. s14)
...

s4 Seat belts and safety harnesses

s4.1 ... shall be worn by all persons at the times listed in paragraph 3.1. ... (s3 -> s13 already precludes, but noted here for completeness)
...

s13 Carriage of infants and children (relevant section)

...
s3.2 (1) An infant may be carried in the arms or on the lap of an adult passenger, in a ... (note the comma)

s13.2 (2) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) the seat belt, when required to be worn, shall be fastened around the passengers carrying or nursing the infant, but not around the infant. (there is no evidence this was not the case)
...
s13.2 (4) An infant must not be carried in an exit seat during take-off or landing unless the pilot in command is satisfied that the infant’s presence in the seat will not obstruct or hinder the escape of other persons from the aircraft.
...

Ipso facto, in the event the above is true opinio atrium legis de foris on this matter only is that there was was no offence committed per CAO 20.16.3 - not, of course, that a random observation from a rumour network carries any weight or deserves anything other than general derision :bored:

My two feather-weight kids shared a seat in a commercial R44 joyflight in Australia around a popular tourist site,10 years ago.

I thought it was a sensible commercial proposition.

Given the diagonal sash belt is usually not positioned optimally for children, I concluded their was an acceptable, very minor reduction in safety by sharing the lap belt.

Mjb