PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/640682-forced-landing-collaroy-beach-nsw.html)

andrewr 30th May 2021 07:14

Originally Posted by Ixixly (Post 11053840)
you'd be a brave person in this particular case to go out with 3 POB knowing a delegate has said otherwise

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.

corrigin 30th May 2021 07:17

Lots of interpretations of whether the Pilot in Command is guilty of non compliance of CAO, 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”?

Ixixly 30th May 2021 08:32

Originally Posted by andrewr (Post 11053881)
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.

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

SBrommers 30th May 2021 08:36

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 He may have broken some as yet unpublished RAAus rule but he certainly didn't break the law.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.

andrewr 30th May 2021 08:49

Originally Posted by john_tullamarine (Post 11053278)
(a) specifies 2-6 passenger seats in the first entry of the table. (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

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. 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.

john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 09:17

​​​​​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.

SBrommers 30th May 2021 09:59

Quick glance is not enough

Originally Posted by StallsDeep (Post 11053328)
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?

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.

john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 10:19

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

Squawk7700 30th May 2021 10:29

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


john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 10:36

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

SBrommers 30th May 2021 10:48

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.

john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 11:22

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.

andrewr 30th May 2021 11:37

Originally Posted by john_tullamarine (Post 11053943)
​​​​​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.

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.

SBrommers 30th May 2021 11:44

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

Stickshift3000 30th May 2021 11:53

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

john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 12:19

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.

john_tullamarine 30th May 2021 12:46

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.

visibility3miles 30th May 2021 13:11

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

First_Principal 30th May 2021 22:09

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:

mickjoebill 30th May 2021 22:44

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:07.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.