turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Turbo, even the politicians who make the laws are not expected to be able to read and understand them.Maybe an "Explanatory Memorandum" outlining the basis of the CAA and regs can be developed that would be an introductory or first reference point for all pilots That's a cheap shot at politicians - they have their 5% rotten apples too, but many are lawyers and smart people like us. The reason you haven't got your Explanatory Memorandum is the people the Department employs, not the politician. I'm firmly of the belief that for every new Bill introduced there should be two rescinded, and that would make people think about what they were drafting. From memory, two weeks before Christmas the Victorian Parliament processed a Bill that related to not much more than "a Bill to fix the pot hole in Moonee Pnds parade before New Years Eve".
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 OK, hands up those ( and there must be a few of you based on the comments yesterday) who only thought they had to comply with what was written in RAA regulations, and didn't realise they had to comply with the Civil Aviation Act and all it's regulations, and have never learnt them? So, all good points, but I'm still looking for someone to open up and admit they've never heard of this, so we can incent RAA to work on education.
Chird65 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 So, all good points, but I'm still looking for someone to open up and admit they've never heard of this, so we can incent RAA to work on education. Nope, I always understood we are GA with exceptions and Ops manual requirements.
David Isaac Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 So, all good points, but I'm still looking for someone to open up and admit they've never heard of this, so we can incent RAA to work on education. Tubz, I don't think anyone will admit their lack of understanding on this issue, but to your point education is both the problem and the answer. Education has always been more effective than punitive measures and RAA should always be working on improving education and awareness and not just in students but in all pilots. We become increasingly less current and potentially less competent as the years go by and as each change to legislation and procedure is introduced. There is a fairly valid argument that suggests that all changes achieve is to make us all less current.
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Have faith Isaac, someone will come forth!
winsor68 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Win I'm taking it that you'll be hitting the books right soon. No not be heart, but by intent.Remember, you can't consult the manual in the air" Of course turbo.. What is should have added is that a thorough understanding of the intent of the rules and regular homework are all part of being a pilot... in regards to being able to remember and as such quote them word for word if quized? Better to know what you don't know then to know everything...flying and learning seem to go hand in hand.
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 We become increasingly less current and potentially less competent as the years go by and as each change to legislation and procedure is introduced. There is a fairly valid argument that suggests that all changes achieve is to make us all less current. I'd agree that's the net result of CASA's bloated bureaucracy's belching. It doesn't have to be that way though. I was successful in getting Dotars to put truck regulations on the Canberra site as living documents, constantly updated, and the last time I checked you could still find all the ADR's within a few minutes, and know you were up to date. I'm just surprised they didn't extend this to aviation.
David Isaac Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Folks, Allow me to make an objective controversial observation acting hypothetically as ‘devil's advocate' and it should NOT in any way be construed as a justification on my part for this operator's actions: How would you establish beyond reasonable doubt that in this particular incident the manner of flying was a 'reckless endangerment to the public'? We know the plane eventually crashed into the water apparently some distance from boats, but what particular manoeuvre was the 'reckless endangerment'? Were the actions stupid and irresponsible? … Definitely. … Reckless? ... probably. ... Endangerment to the public? ... Would that be difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt? Consider this in the light that we regularly travel freeways in Australia at the approaching speeds of motor vehicles in opposite directions as much as 220 kilometres per hour and we pass each other with only a few metres of separation. We have no idea if the approaching driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or indeed if he is about to nod off from fatigue, or perhaps be momentarily distracted by a child or insect in the car … we are only ever seconds from a potential disaster. Yet we think nothing of driving under these circumstances; we regard it as an acceptable risk, or we don’t consider it at all. I happen to regard it as a very high risk these days. Interestingly we allege 'reckless endangerment' at this operators antics, (and that may yet prove to be successfully argued if proven a deliberate act of intimidation). Do we charge drivers for reckless endangerment to the public because we pass at speeds of more than 200kph at a separation of a few metres? What if a driver makes a mistake not involving alcohol, drugs or fatigue, is distracted momentarily and drifts off the road almost hitting opposing traffic, would he be charged with 'reckless endangerment'? Are drunk drivers charged with reckless endangerment (they should be). It is indeed a very risky business this driving on Australian country roads and freeways, more risky than flying in my opinion. An argument may be put up that this operator was acting in an 'aggressive' manner and deliberately 'buzzing' (right over the top of the boat), but the photographs appear to show that he was to the side of the boat. Is flying low ‘reckless endangerment’ or is it just an offense of flying below 500’ without permission and without a low level endorsement? What this fellow has done is indeed perplexing; if he was uncertificated and had an unregistered aircraft, why would he antic to the level he did in such a public manner. It does not even make sense. Is it possible he was acting in a diminished mental capacity at the time? Is it possible he was on a death wish? Interesting points to consider. Maybe Kaz could give us a hypothetical scenario of how such charges could conceivably be defended. 1
facthunter Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 To get from where it is, to being intelligible, and a good working document, would require a lot of work and a change of policy. NO-ONE understands them, and those who say they do are liars. To add to what David has said. What if he was on pot?. or someone put something in his drink? Nev 1
Guest ozzie Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 maybe the guy was just flying along over the water enjoying himself and the boat came up from behind and started to harass him? maybe. i'll get the rope.
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 How would you establish beyond reasonable doubt that in this particular incident the manner of flying was a 'reckless endangerment to the public'? The big difference between driving a vehicle and driving a boat or an aircraft is that the vehicle is anchored to the road by its tyres and not affected by cross winds, pressure cells, waves or tides. So both marine and aviation legislation requires much greater separation. Kaz I think said "could" There were at least two incidents where photos were taken, more than one boat involved depending on how you read the news media, and if the witness report on "loops" is correct, at least three incidents in total. The last turn appears to have been a loss of control, possibly an out of balance situation, which could have happened in the earlier "turns around boats" reported. His conduct could have caused him to slide out of his turn into one of the boats, or plop into the water in front of one of the boats, so his actions inside the minium separation distance for boats with skiers (50 metres) may provide enough evidence. However, why would they bother to prosecute on this where they have two counts, licence and registration with penalties of 2 years each? 1
farri Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 I`ll go even furthur and ask, Hands up all those RAA pilots (And I would expect a certain number of GA pilots included ) who would know where to look in the CAOs and CARs for the sections covering their operations , let alone get their hands on a copy of the documents. Way back when, a guy put out a document called " Aviation Regulations Index "..... It contained every single current regulation and listed the appropriat section in the CAOs and CARs where these regulations could be found. For example: Carriage of a firearm.... Simply look in the " Regulations Index ", listed was the CAO or CAR and the section and page where you would find it. As with a lot of things, there was a fee involved in obtaining it and it soon went out of publication. I obtained a couple of copies and only threw them out a couple of weeks ago because I`d had them too long and they were so far out of date, they were no longer of any use. Frank.
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 That's the sort of thing we need Frank. These days you don't have to go to the Parliament or spend money to buy the out of date books and all the pieces of paper which usually flew down the street before you got back to your car, they're all online. But that Master Index sure would be handy. Carrying a Dog, would be a good one; I wonder if it still makes it mandatory to carry the firearm I handed back to John Howard?
Guest ozzie Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 One would think that there would be a duty of care to make sure that all the rules regs etc were easily accessable. A Master Index, that's too sensible for a polly or servant of the crown's overtrained brain to comprehend.
farri Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Turbo, you`ve given me a laugh again............Buggered if I ever saw anything on the carriage of dogs...... Frank. Ps, I know you couldn`t help it! I`ll forgive you.
Guest ozzie Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 In Oz they have to be in a box in light aircraft or on RPT in the cargo hold. I watched an episode of 'flying wild alaska' the other night and they had a whole dog sled team in the back. When i was in the US it seemed common to have a small dog sitting on pax 's lap or a cat in a box, got a dirty look from one cat owner when i asked if she wanted me to put the box she had in the overhead bin. i did not realise it was a cat.
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Well that's at least one positive regulatory step forward, probably easier than reaching for the 12 gauge when the family Afghan decides to panic and crawl into your lap.
David Isaac Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Frank, Dogs have to sit on an absorbent mat so that if they pee it is absorbed and does not go into the bowels of the aircraft where it could cause corrosion and they also have to be constrained. You also need a permit from CASA to carry a dog. Kaz knows the process, she carries her old girl with her so does Sue, well she used to carry her old Vizla when she was alive and I am going to get a permit for my young German Shepherd as well. Whoops we are off topic ...
David Isaac Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Well what about you David? I don't pee in the plane Tubz so I don't need a mat ... 1
farri Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Ok! Let`s get serious again!.....For those who don`t know!... .....Of course there are regulations on the carriage of dogs, on aircraft! Frank.
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 That's the sort of thing we need Frank.These days you don't have to go to the Parliament or spend money to buy the out of date books and all the pieces of paper which usually flew down the street before you got back to your car, they're all online. But that Master Index sure would be handy. Carrying a Dog, would be a good one; I wonder if it still makes it mandatory to carry the firearm I handed back to John Howard? You guys are forgetting the power of the search engine. Im pretty sure that "carriage of a dog" would be laid out in all its glory within about 5 mins max of commencing a targeted search online. The CASA website www.casa.gov.au has a specific section called "Regulations and Policy", and a subheading under that "Current Rules" It also has a search function for CASA material (which can also be achieved in google if people know how to use the advanced search tags to limit domains etc) However the only problam with that approach is that you "might" find individual answers to specific questions, and who knows they might even be the right answers...... but you'll likely never understand the framework and dare I say it "the intentions" behind the legislation. If looking for legislation alone something like www.austlii.edu.au can be used, or where you know that the law is Australia wide and commonwealth law only (without any state based law that relates) then www.comlaw.gov.au can be used as well....But law is not my profession and as such the advice is worth probably less than what you paid for it...... Andy
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 Well I went looking for it for 10 minutes to see if the firearm was still required, but got buried in irrelevant material. Maybe you can find it?
fatmal Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Dogs have to sit on an absorbent mat so that if they pee it is absorbed and does not go into the bowels of the aircraft . If you've got pee in your bowel you've got bigger problems than upsetting CASA! 1
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Well I went looking for it for 10 minutes to see if the firearm was still required, but got buried in irrelevant material. Maybe you can find it? VFR FG had it on Page 16. On the same page it discusses carriage of animals, non human....so 2 for the price of one. There is no legislation reference on animals and the Firearms refers CAR 143 (carriage) and CAR 144 (discharge) For those that dont know about the VFR Flight Guide it can be downloaded from here (about 23Mb in size) http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg-whole-high.pdf Andy
Recommended Posts