Another rabbit hole to Wonderland: “aerial work passenger”
 

The discussion about the LAT accident in WA got me thinking about the circumstances in which people other than crew would be permitted to be carried in the seats on board. (I realise that only crew were on board in this instance, but I’m interested in the current certification basis of the airframe and what it could be authorised to do in Australia. However, I stress that I have no knowledge of what certificates/authorisations/approvals/permissions etc were/are in place for the operation of LATs in Australia.)

Anyway, it was with some trepidation that I lifted the lid on CASR Part 138 and the Part 138 MOS. I’ve been traumatised by exposure to this stuff in the past.

CASR 138.305 says:

I accordingly focussed on the term “aerial work passenger”.

So, off to the CASR Dictionary. Part 1 of the CASR Dictionary says: So, off the Part 138 MOS. The Definitions Part of the Part 138 MOS has a definition of “aerial work passenger”. It says:Whattha? Welcome, again, to Wonderland! I look to the CASR Dictionary to try to work out the meaning of a term in the offence provision (CASR 138.305), the CASR Dictionary points me to the Part 138 MOS but the Part 138 MOS definition tells me to go back to where I started.

Then I worked it out. It was the usual confusion caused by partial information which is misleading by omission. In this case, it’s the ‘Note’ under the definition in the MOS and what it does not say. It starts by saying:Good. That’s correct and helpful. It goes on to say:That’s correct, too. There’s an offence if you carry an ‘ordinary’ passenger. But, we’re none the wiser as to what ‘aerial work passenger’ means and where exactly to find the answer.

The Note omits the most important snippet of information that would have helped solve the mystery intuitively. It could even have been expressed as a D&D clue. I’ve had a go at one at the end of this post.

I get it that there’s a legal reason for the prescription to be in the operative provisions, rather than the definitional provisions, of a MOS. But normal people don’t get that. These MOSs are supposed to be easy and intuitive reading for normal people and this one is the product of many years and many millions of dollars of effort. (And I should mention that CASR Part 138 has the second most silly section I have ever seen in Commonwealth legislation.)

On 20 November 2020, the then CEO of CASA proudly and forcefully said, to a Senate Committee, that: Mr Carmody omitted to add that the MOS he made back then had numerous Chapters and provisions marked as “Reserved”. Today, over two years later, there are still three Chapters marked “Reserved”. Section 15.03 is marked “Reserved”. All of the substance of section 5.02 is marked “Reserved”. Meanwhile, it has grown fatter. While CASA is left to its own devices, it will grow fatter forever.

Mr Carmody made numerous, breathtaking statements during his evidence before the Senate Committee on 20 November 2020. I nearly fell off my chair when the stuff I’ve bolded was uttered:So we’ll keep riding the horse to a stupid place on the other side of whatever stream we’re in the middle of, then do a review so that we can spend a few decades riding off in some other, hopefully less stupid, direction (at someone else’s expense, of course).

He also made this statement:That was untrue then, it’s untrue now and all of the similar statements made by his predecessors were untrue too. Anyone with expertise in this kind of task knows that the last 20% of the work takes up about 80% of the time. The regulatory reform program is nowhere near complete, and will never be completed while CASA is left to its own devices.

The D&D clue (which I consent to CASA adding to the notes in the Part 138 MOS, without attribution to me):

For classic clarity look at USA FAR119.23 and its cross referencing to other (also easy to understand) relevant FARs.
Oh but wait …our rocket scientists decided that we didn’t need an equivalent Part 125, so in theory our regulations could be even simpler. Fat chance.

But you haven’t even looked at the maximum number of aerial work passengers permitted. Or what makes a task specialist.

Pretty obvious - an aerial work passenger is a passenger in an aerial work aircraft, n'est pas?

Like someone's girlfriend riding in the back of a PA28 instructional flight for a jolly.

Or someone's wife riding along in a medivac Westwind.

It is true that all passengers on aerial work aircraft are passengers on aerial work aircraft.

But it is not true that all passengers on aerial work aircraft are aerial work passengers.

Simple.

except if you have more than 9 aerial work passengers.

then they have to be task specialists and undergo operator training.

But it may be that none of the passengers on board an aerial work aircraft is an "aerial work passenger", and are therefore being carried in breach of 138.305 (e.g. someone's girlfriend riding in the back of a PA28 instructional flight for a jolly or someone's wife riding along in a medivac Westwind). I think some may be missing that point, precisely because of the confusing structure here.

(Pls check your pms, cs)

This thread reads like a classic Yes Minister skit between Sir Humphrey, Bernard and a very confused Minister. 🤣

Indeed, MR. I'll try this way.

Put your hand up if you think that a passenger carried on an aerial work aircraft is always, by definition, an "aerial work passenger"?

If you have your hand up, you are not correct.

If you are now confused, QED.

You do realise Clinton, that the legislator responsible for writing it, just read this thread and fell backwards in his chair chortling at your confusion.

I’m not confused, any more. Once I found out where the actual guts of the definition are hidden, I worked it out.

I think the ‘legislator’ would be more likely to be chortling at the fact that they have a job, as far as the eye can see, working on the never-ending regulatory ‘reform’ program.

when he got there the cupboard was bare. :bored:

Indeed. Like way back in '82 when I was doing my PPL Navs, the Instructor permitted my (then) Girlfriend (a 'nice little Greek Girl' :ok:) to hitch a ride back to Adelaide.

The Instructor did say at the time that it was not exactly 'kosher' in doing so, but we'd get away with it if I didn't prang the A/C!:}:D

It should be there now. (The gods of all things IT autocorrected the user name in the first PM address to “Compressorstall”.)

All I’m trying to do is remind you to respond to CASA’s answers to the questions I sent them about Night VFR rules, because you expressed an interest in doing so, but only in the 182/YPOK thread. I posted CASA’s answers at post #211 in that thread a long time ago but you evidently overlooked them when the discussion in the thread turned to extrapolation of performance charts.

My first instructional flight in a PA28 (1971) included two other cadets in the back seat - they were also learning to fly under the same program. The air force makes sure it gets value for it's money.

There was no talk of whether carrying pax was legal or not.

How's this then:
CASA geniusses tell me that a survey equipment operator is a Task Specialist when the aircraft is on task. Fair enough and so far so good.

However, if the sensor is not operating and you are ferrying to the location, the same person is an Aerial Work Passenger.

Currently, you can do any commercial operation on a Class 2 Medical certificate providing you aren't carrying passengers. This currently includes survey, freight, Ag etc. Under Part 138 - if my Task Specialist magically turns into a passenger - do my survey pilots now need a Class 1 medical?

Once again, confusion reigns! You are allowed to carry aerial work passengers on an aerial work aircraft. What you aren't allowed to do is carry a passenger on an aerial work aircraft if the passenger is not an aerial work passenger. Simple! (Best to go off and find that definition... )

Just when you think the CAsAsylum can’t produce anything more idiotic and stupid, here we are with the
AWP / aerial work “passenger” conundrum.
From what institutions do they get the idiots that think up this ****e.?
Does the CPL PIC of the survey aircraft become downgraded to a PPL just because the aircraft is in transit to/ between job site, and no aerial work being under taken.? No?
Why then would the Equipment operator/ survey crew member become an “AWP” just because the equipment is not in use during transit.
We the taxpayers are being sorely shafted by the bureaucratic madhouses the have evolved throughout Oz.
And someone is paid a handsome salary to cobble up this ****e…unbelievable. And accepted by the Asylum.
Let me out of here !