Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW
 

Not sure if newsworthy, looks like a textbook forced landing, so good work to the pilot:
ABC News: Pilot makes emergency landing on Sydney's Collaroy Beach

3 people in a 2 seat aircraft... Not a good idea

always wanted to know which text book they referred too?

Can’t you have a baby on your lap? I always thought you can up to the age of 2

you need to get back in your box. It was a very young baby.

Check the CAO's.... LSA is a 2 seat aircraft, not a 3-seater. No, you can't have a baby/child on your lap, restrained or otherwise.

Unborn, yes but once delivered absolutely NO

Look at the rego....it's an RA-Aus aircraft. No more than 1 pax allowed.

And I’d say that’s probably why they were reluctant to be interviewed.
Absolutely in contravention to the Regs.

It’s honestly wild to me that anyone would fly with a young child unrestrained.

Legal or not, it defies common sense.

My goodness...a severe outbreak of wokeness!

I see no indication that the child was unrestrained. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? My younger brother spent many,many hours restrained in a child seat that was strapped into the baggage compartment of a Piper Arrow, effectively turning it into a illegal 5-seat aircraft. It was the 1970's, nobody cared.

OMG the humanity. I hope your brother survived with no long lasting effects from such a traumatic experience !! A Piper aircraft, eew! :-)

You sure about that? CAO95.55 says "One-place" or "Two place". Nothing about the amount of people on board. You'll also find their Ops Manual refers to "the carriage of passengers in a recreational aircraft", not "carriage of a passenger"...

as you know we operate under an exemption to the civil aviation order and regulations of 1998 and as amended thereafter. The exemption is known as 95.55 and this allows recreational aircraft to operate under this exemption.

It is very clear from the start, 1.1 that "this order applies to a single-place or a 2 Place aeroplane, other than a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute."

That's it, if it is registered with the RA-Aus, it is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute then the exemptions permitted which allow it to fly only apply to a single place or a 2 Place aeroplane.

This is straight from the legislation.

there is a section on interpretations of the order which give explanations about different things and it does not include anything to do with people because it is already identified are not subject to interpretation when you refer to section 1.1

It also refers you under regulation 200.025 of CASR paragraph 20AB (1) (a) saying that you must also operate under "the sport aviation bodies operations manual"

This also As a limit of 2 seats which therefore means 2 people maximum

Two seat's does not mean two people... You can carry an infant on your lap - sans seatbelt too - and you can legally have 2 kids share a seat if they're not over 77Kg - which is how you can get 5 people into a 172. The interesting thing about the relevant CAO, being CAO20.16.3, is it says 2 seaters can have 1 excess passenger - and it applies to all Australian registered aircraft. Not just those used for hire or reward.

While RAAus ops are exempted from pretty much all the CASR's, there's only a handful of the CAR's that they're exempt from, however, they are not exempt from complying with the CAO's, so CAO20.16.3 would apply.

If anyone can show me the RAAus Ops Manual chapter that says you must only carry one passenger, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure you won't...

M Coates, Well very interesting that you’re pretending to know about several rules which you clearly have no idea about in reality. Firstly, CAO 95.55 had been superseded by RA AUS becoming a part 149 organisation, hence why if you look it up on the com law website it will show as repealed in January this year. So any reference you make to that is now irrelevant. So I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Despite what many in RA AUS think, they are not exempt from all CARS/CAOS, only certain ones which relate to things like licences, aircraft certification etc. All other regulations still apply, and in this case that would include CAO 20.16, which will become relevant in a minute. Under part 141 RA AUS aircraft are still limited to a maximum of 2 seats. However under CAO 20.16 2 seats doesn’t mean a maximum of 2 people. An infant can, under the provisions of CAO 20.16, fly without needing a seat, as appears to have occurred in this situation. Now as you validly pointed out the CASR state that you must operate under the governing bodies operations manual. And given you clearly know all the rules so well, I’m guessing you know that the RA AUS ops manual states under section 2.01 (4) “that in order to carry passengers the pilot must have a passenger carrying endorsement”. Given it is referring to passengers in the plural I think it’s reasonable to assume they are allowing for the provisions of CAO 20.16.

So as wombat watcher said, get back in your box.

No you cant... not in and recreational aircraft.

Commercial aircraft have different rules.... some people just don't get it and I'm glad that I'm not flying anywhere near you if your understanding of the regulations are so poor.

it's in the CAO's, it is not in the RA-Aus technical manual as such because the CAO's define how many people can actually be in an RA-Aus registered aircraft and that is 2 people, no babies sitting on laps, no children in multiples in one adult seat etc... geeez

100% nailed it.

You don’t know the rules or the ops manual as well as you think you do. Now shush

Show me.

And a few more characters to keep Prune happy.

Point of order, the original one was, however, Senor Crawford signed another self-repealing version into force 25 January 2021, that expires 31 January 2024, or earlier of the Part 103/105/131 amendments kick off. From what I can tell, it's still current. Here it is.
It still refers to "Single-Place" or "Two-Place" which, as CAO 20.16.3 stipulates, does not mean "Single-Person" or "Two-Person".

Could it be it is not my understanding of the regulations is poor. You forget, I'm the one who argued their own rules against them and got my RV-9A registered with RAAus - and as a two seater too - when everyone else "Knew" you couldn't register one with them because "you won't meet the HP/Seat formula" or "Your stall speed is too high" or "You can't carry two adults"...I showed RAAus - and the naysayers where they were wrong. I've asked you to show me where I am wrong - because all you've done thus far is make a vague reference to "it's in the CAO's" while not understanding the very CAO under discussion applies to all Australian aircraft, rather, you've confused it with only applying to Commercial aircraft.

I wonder if I could get my two rugrat's in the RV now it's been re-registered VH? I'm not limited by a 600Kg MTOW anymore! :}

You are, as per usual, correct. And the RA AUS part 149 exposition refers back to it. However as I believe you and I have both pointed out, it only limits the number of seats in a recreational aircraft, not the number of passengers.

You’d like to think that the CEO of RAAus knows what he’s talking about.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/...-seaters-raaus

Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) CEO Michael Linke has told Australian Flying that the organisation has no interest in administering four-seat aircraft.

RAAus has a submission with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to raise the maximum take-off weight of recreational aircraft to 1500 kg, sparking speculation in the industry that the organisation is chasing the right to administer four-seaters.

Currently, recreational aircraft can carry only the pilot and one passenger.

"We've put the submission in, but we've been very careful to address the risk factors, the inertia factors, being heavier aircraft they're going to have different handling characteristics, different stall characteristics and different maintenance requirements," Linke said.

"The one thing we're not doing is increasing the number of people in the aircraft, seeking more passengers. That's not what RAAus is. We're about one person flying with a single passenger. We're not about carrying people around, it's not sightseeing; it's purely recreational with a pilot and passenger."

CASA is believed to be still considering the submission after RAAus responded to some questions the regulator wanted answered.

Then he may want to make the regulations match what he is saying then. Because at the moment they don’t match with him.

you cant argue with stupidity... Just wait for the court case, simples

Regardless of the passenger questions, thats one seriously good effort in achieving such a positive outcome from a forced landing, especially in that location. Good effort.

Or you could actually do your own research and attempt to verify your claims with references and data rather than try to show what a hero you are by playing the man, not the ball...
Just make sure someone is there to film the takeoff. See if they do any better than the Jab did...

That’s a quote from the “ex” CEO BTW.

When in doubt call the source....

Confirmation is, only 2 people can fly in an RA-Aus registered aircraft. No infants or 3rd person under any circumstance.

No dogs, unless you have a written exemption from CASA to carry the dog, and then it must be caged, there must be no chance of dog wee going anywhere in the aircraft.. my words not theirs, and the cage must be securely mounted.

Apparently this from the same source (aviation regulator) that had a CAO that said you could carry swine as long as it was restrained in a cage/box that would prevent escape by rooting.

Now they are worried about a bit of water. The same sort they seem to be full of!

CC

And the reference for this un-named persons opinion is.....?

RA-Aus of course 02 6280 4700

Ok so at best that's half an answer to KRAviator's question. WHO at RA Aus? Given phone numbers themselves aren't terribly good at providing air law advice I have to assume you spoke to a person. And frankly the air law knowledge of some of the senior operations staff at RA Aus isn't that flash either, given some of them don't know their own Ops Manual, and I have had some rather senior people say the AIP doesn't apply to RA pilots.

it's easy to see that a couple of the people here no more than the regulators.

The RA-Aus are delegated by CASA to register and license this end of the market segment. They should know their own rules and they were very clear with what they told me.

Maximum of 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft at any time, no 3rd person is allowed regardless of size or age.

I have to do acknowledge that they know what they're talking about because they are CASA delegated authority to this end of the industry.

They are not aviation lawyer wannabes.

As I said earlier, you can't fight with stupidity!

Just wait-and-see what happens, it'll either go away by itself because no offence was committed, or action will be taken.

It wasn't you flying the aircraft was it ? and that is why you are so defensive ?

honestly, it is pointless communicating with some of you guys. To avoid any confusion I contacted the CASA appointed body that controls Recreational Aviation Australia. The control is delegated to the RA-Aus by CASA.

They should know everything about flying aircraft registered with them. The answer I got was an explicit NO, only 2 people in an RA-Aus aircraft, no children, no infants

So, again, what reference where you provided?

You haven't even documented who you claim to have spoken to, apart from "RAAus". Was it the Tech Manager? Was it the CEO? The Chairman? Or the admin staff who answered the phone? You try to belittle other PPruner's by 'arguing against stupidity' but you yourself cannot provide a single reference to substantiate your position, only an obscure comment about a telephone call to someone in RAAus. :rolleyes:

As much as I would like to believe those in RAAus know what they're talking about, prior personal experience, documented both here and on other forums, demonstrate that is not always the case. I refer you to RAAus violating their own privacy policy by disclosing members addresses to aerodrome operators, before their (amended) privacy policy allowed it. I also refer you to a post of mine from 2014 where RAAus refused to allow my RV-9A - which met the requirements of CAO 95.55 - on to their register because their then-tech manager was sure he knew the legislation that administers their operations. And you know what? He was proven wrong, and for 4 years, I flew an RV-9A under RAAus administration, registered as a 2-seater, with a BEW of 445Kg and a 600Kg MTOW limit.

As you've said, you'd like to think they know what they're talking about - but if they can't even understand CAO 95.55 - arguably the most common piece of legislation that administers their operations - what hope do you think they have of understanding a relatively obscure CAO?

The person who seems to be creating the confusion while having no idea what communication is, is you Michael Coates. Perhaps if you simply provide the information that has been asked of you, then people might trust what you are saying. So far you have merely provided arrogant petulant comments; rather like a politician actually.

What a useless aircraft! 2 x 70 kg's crew and 15 litres of fuel. Based on that, you wouldn't even be able to fit a tie-down kit.

No wonder they tried to stop you... it doesn't pass the sniff test and based on history of other operators that put RV's on the register, they frequently flew over-weight, so I'm not surprised they did what they did.

Are you suggesting that you never flew that aircraft over 600 kg's?

Unfortunately we live in a society that continues to insist on making increasingly complex and expensive legislation because of an obsession by some to operate in a loop hole. What we need is legislation that defines an intent rather than an action then we'd only need one piece of legalise, "don't be a smartarse".
[edit] I hereby plead guilty :ugh:

It seems a bit out of line to be accusing someone of breaching the rules with no evidence other than your calculator. Perhaps KRAviator only wanted to fly single person, day VFR for shorter flights with the minimum of fuss and bother on the paperwork side. Given he has indicated it is no longer RA Registered then perhaps as their mission changed then they changed to VH reg to remain compliant with the regulations?