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.