CAR 232

[cscotthendry]

What or where is CAR 232? In the back page of the CASA brochure about ramp checks that came with the magazine it mentions "Checklists - CAR 232". I've done a search of CASAs website and documents, but I can't find a CAR 232. Any ideas?

 

Nevermind, I found it. it's SECTION 232 of CAR 1988. Now if the CASA people had said THAT on the brochure....

 

 

[djpacro]

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00219

[slb]

Nevermind, I found it. it's SECTION 232 of CAR 1988. Now if the CASA people had said THAT on the brochure....

Appears to be listed for GA as well as Sport Pilots:

 

232 Flight check system:

 

(1)The operator of an aircraft shall establish a flight check system for each type of aircraft, setting out the procedure to be followed by the pilot in command and other flight crew members prior to and on take‑off, in flight, on landing and in emergency situations.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2)A flight check system shall be subject to the prior approval of CASA, and CASA may at any time require the system to be revised in such manner as CASA specifies.

 

(3)The pilot in command must ensure that the check lists of the procedures are carried in the aircraft and are located where they will be available instantly to the crew member concerned.

 

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

 

(4)The pilot in command shall ensure that the flight check system is carried out in detail.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(5) The operator of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to be flown if the following requirements have not been satisfied:

 

(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;

 

(b) if CASA has required the system to be revised—the system has been revised in the manner specified by CASA.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (3), (4) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are all probably at fault for that.

 

CAR stands for Civil Aviation Regulations and as you found out 232 is a section.

 

It was handy for me too; I was sure Performance and Operations calculations were mandatory before a flight, and where should they, but in 233 etc.

 

CASA being CASA don't include the words Performance & Operations to help us search quickly.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Surely this satisfied by the flight manual?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Surely this satisfied by the flight manual?

Well you have to comply with all Civil Aviation Regulations, but what Flight Manual are you referring to - RAA Operations Manual, or something else?

 

 

[jakej]

(5) The operator of an aircraft must not allow the aircraft to be flown if the following requirements have not been satisfied:

 

(a) the flight check system has been approved by CASA;

 

Anyone know how much CASA will charge for the approval ?

 

Regulation & money making by stealth IMO if it applies to both GA & Sports aircraft - what happened to the 'no requirement for a Flight Manual' ?

 

Jake J

 

 

[turboplanner]

Jake I think that will refer to another CASA document, and maybe google "flight check system" nut it is maddening for people trying to do the right thing to be faced by public service gobbledegook; we would not have a problem is it said "the flight check system outlined in CAAP 3209 or Visual Flight Guide page 123" (neither of these are applicable for you query, just an example of logical documentation.)

 

Hopefully Bruce will come back with the Manual he is referring to because I'd like to make a simple Performance and Operations summary, and relate it to each CAR to make a straightforward checklist, which might help more.

 

 

[coljones]

In the Quick Reference Handbook for the Piper Cherokee it says "

 

Normal Checklists

 

BEFORE STARTING ENGINE

 

1. Preflight Inspection..............................................COMPLETE

 

2. Flight manual/maintenance release ......................ONBOARD

 

etc"

 

The flight manual, onboard per 2, will contain a number of checklists setting out the procedure to be followed by the pilot in command and other flight crew members prior to and on take‑off, in flight, on landing and in emergency situations.

 

In the case of Jabiru it is called "PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK" and the checklists are called procedures

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Just a couple of points:

 

A procedure provides a systematic way of preparing the aircraft for a phase of flight or dealing with a fault or failure. eg before take off or engine fire. These are most effectively performed from memory.

 

A checklist should be completed after the procedure has been performed to ensure no steps were missed.

 

Think of procedure as a do list and a checklist to check you did do.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

We entered our checklists into OzRunways as documents and they are very readily available from the iPad Mini attached to our instrument panel. Works very well. We also have POH and Maintenance Manuals similarly available. Too easy.

 

 

[M61A1]

You may find that the term "operator" is the key, check the definitions. The operator is not necessarily the pilot, the "operator" is the one running the business. So this will be relevant if you run a flying school.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was referring to the Jabiru flight manual. This has checklists for emergency procedures. Of course it is all nonsense, the important thing to do in an emergency is to keep flying the aircraft. You maybe would have time to start reading if you were at 10,000 ft to start with. But CASA and Airservices often force us to fly at dangerously low altitudes without any real reason except that they can. When would you have time to start reading if you had an engine failure at 2000 ft agl? How they have the gall to call themselves a "safety" authority when they do this is impressive.

 

... Bruce

 

 

[M61A1]

I was just referring to the CAR232 bit. Also see reg 139, it makes things a little clearer, by telling you that you must carry the flight manual, but an aircraft under an AOC only needs an operations manual. as long as that manual covers the correct stuff.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

The really interesting part is where it says that " the flight check system has been approved by CASA" and our ops manual AFAIK is mute on this point. So should we all be submitting our checklists to CASA for approval? I think the answer is technically "yes" but as a practical matter??? So what's the alternative? We're all flying around with unapproved checklists, in breach of the regulations... I wonder how many other regulations we breach just by rolling the plane out of the hangar. It seems to me that the "safety" function of CASA and the "regulatory" function are at cross purposes and should be seperated. (Separated?) I wonder if we all submitted all of our checklists for approval (at the same time) and then whinged like billy-O about being grounded due to bureaucratic red tape, whether someone might get the message...

 

 

[M61A1]

The really interesting part is where it says that " the flight check system has been approved by CASA" and our ops manual AFAIK is mute on this point. So should we all be submitting our checklists to CASA for approval? I think the answer is technically "yes" but as a practical matter??? So what's the alternative? We're all flying around with unapproved checklists, in breach of the regulations... I wonder how many other regulations we breach just by rolling the plane out of the hangar. It seems to me that the "safety" function of CASA and the "regulatory" function are at cross purposes and should be seperated. (Separated?) I wonder if we all submitted all of our checklists for approval (at the same time) and then whinged like billy-O about being grounded due to bureaucratic red tape, whether someone might get the message...

Refer post 12, you're reading too much into it. It's not about private flying, it's about aircraft operated under an AOC.

 

 

[djpacro]

But Reg 209 states: "The operator and the pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in private operations shall comply with the provisions of these Regulations and such additional conditions as CASA from time to time directs in the interest of safety."

 

And only some of those regs are excluded: "In this Division, operator means an operator engaging in commercial operations" referring to regs 213-222 only.

 

Seems to me that reg 234 about carrying enough fuel applies to all so I can't see that reg 232 is excluded. But I am not a lawyer.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it for private pilots - simply follow the AFM i.e. any checklist should not have anything conflicting with the AFM unless CASA has specifically approved it (eg by an Ops Manual for a flying school - but even then, CASA does not approve such Ops Manuals - they accept them so they can't be responsible for content not having approved it).

 

I think it is good that CASA has made reference to the applicable rules in their ramp check guide - it has forced them to back away from at least one thing that had no regulatory requirement.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Refer post 12, you're reading too much into it. It's not about private flying, it's about aircraft operated under an AOC.

Maybe you're not reading enough into it.

Definition of "operator"

 

operator means a person, organisation, or enterprise engaged in, or offering to engage in, an aircraft operation.

 

[emphasis mine]

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here's a more direct CASA reference to Flight Check System: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/aocm/220r007_vol2.pdf

 

 

[turboplanner]

The CASA definition for POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) : Contain information that must be provided to the Pilot under relevant airworthiness stadards

 

The CASA definition for AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual): Information and instructions to operate the aircraft.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Here's a more direct CASA reference to Flight Check System: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/aocm/220r007_vol2.pdf

Ok that's interesting. All this started because the brochure that CASA handed out about ramp checks stated that one of the things they check are "emergency checklists" and the reference they gave for "checklists" was CAR232. No mention of anything else.

Turbo, how did you find out that those exemptions even exist? I see that the link is a page from the AOC handbook. As a recreational flyer, it's not something that I would have thought would apply to me. It's starting to look like we'll need to carry a lawyer with us when we fly, in addition to all the paperwork. Maybe our regs should be amended to allow us to carry that additional passenger.

 

Ramp check:

 

Sufficient fuel: check

 

Current charts: check

 

Aircraft log and POH: check

 

Lawyer on board and safely bolted in: check

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

 

[M61A1]

Maybe you're not reading enough into it.Definition of "operator"

operator means a person, organisation, or enterprise engaged in, or offering to engage in, an aircraft operation.

 

[emphasis mine]

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90276

Also, cut and paste from Turbo's link.

 

7.2 Aircraft exempt from approval

 

CASA has, by Instrument Number CASA EX38/2004 (the exemption), exempted some aircraft from the requirement to obtain CASA approval of FCS required by CAR 232(2). This instrument does not exempt operators from the requirement to establish and use a FCS, only the requirement for CASA to approve that system.

 

The following aircraft do not require CASA approval of a FCS:

 

• Single and multi-engine piston engine aircraft not above 5700 kg MTOW and not involved in RPT operations

 

• Aircraft engaged in agricultural operations

 

• Aircraft engaged in private operations

 

• Single turbine engine helicopters certified in the normal category and not involved in RPT operations

 

• Hot air balloons.

 

This would mean that while you are required to have and use a FCS, you are not required to have CASA certify it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, how did you find out that those exemptions even exist?[/Quote]A VERY good instructor in Pete Smith who gave up many nights for theory classes plus persistence and luck. I'm very critical of CASA's hopeless incompetence at cross referencing documents and simple Chrurchilian language.

 

It's starting to look like we'll need to carry a lawyer with us when we fly, in addition to all the paperwork. Maybe our regs should be amended to allow us to carry that additional passenger.

You've caught me working two seven day weeks, so haven't had enough time to lay out some details, but it seems to me this thread along with a few others has shown the existence of a huge black hole in theory training for RAA pilots,

 

and if you javen't had that training and passed those tests then sure, you would think you need to carry a lawyer, but apart from setting aside some nights to study, it isn't that bad, and in many cases eliminates a lot of the guess work and risk you have without it.

 

For example:

 

On the RAA site >> Operations >>Operations Manual >> 4.04 Rules of the air shows some little stick figures and contains these five rules

 

1. Passing Rule

 

2. Give Way Rule

 

3. Collision Avoidance Rule

 

4. Landing Rule

 

5. Take off Rule

 

The next page is "deliberately left blank" - famous last words

 

Surely no one thinks aviation is as simple as that? as simple as car rules might have been in the 1870's?

 

They aren't the full rules you have to live by; the minute you start the engine you are required to comply with CASA's Civil Aviation Regulations

 

 

 

Dave Pilkington gave you the link to these regulations in Post #2 - here it is again http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00219 You need to read them all and study them all, and RAA needs to urgently get rid of the stick crap and make a reference to them and conduct tests of all pilots who may not have been advised of them in training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the RAA site >> Operations >> Operations Manual >> 4.97 Pre-Flight Panning it says:

 

Most necessary pre-flight Planning will be found in the VFR Flight Guide, and it lists 29 subjects including Rules of the Air, and Visual Flight Rules

 

Given the some of these 29 subject involve severe strict liability penalties for omission, RAA needs to urgently update its instructions to reference these subjects, and provide training and testing on them

 

When you've read the Civil Aviation Regulations, then read these inadeqate RAA references, it's quite understandable the even pilots who have held a Certificate for some years would be bewildered by CASA Ramp Checks, when CASA thinks these people have been trained and tested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DonRamsay]

CASA has the right of veto over the RA-Aus Operations Manual which is in total re-write at the moment. Included with that power is the examination questions and standards for RA-Aus Pilot Certificate. With that oversight, we should be able to rely on the RA-Aus Ops manual, perhaps even in a court of law. If the Ops Manual is deficient then CASA must hold some accountability for any deficiency.

 

Having said that, I agree with Turbo that RA-Aus pilot education on the principles of Air Law (Rules, Regs and exemptions) and the actual Regulations is not good. I have always thought that I would like to sit in on a Bachelor of Aviation course, especially the Air Law part. It is not hard to get the feeling that we are underinformed despite having a strong desire to "do the right thing".

 

The likelihood of me, unescorted, wading through the thousands of pages of criss-cross referenced, double-dutch codswallop that claims to be Australian Air Law is about as likely as me re-reading the Tax Act for recreation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree CASA put safety at risk by the basket case of interrelated documents.

 

However, what everyone CAN do is read the CARS.

 

Overnight you would have several thousand pilots newly aware of their obligations.

 

In many respects the Civil Aviation Regulations are easier to read than the other documents spun off them.

 

It doesn't take you too long to realise you have to calculate fuel burn for a flight, rather than just run out and forced land, and so on.

 

And you should know that some of the things you should be doing but aren't. have $5000.00 penalties attached, and failure to do them has cost other people their lives.

 

I'd be interested to read a post from someone who reads the CARs, as to whether they discovered a whole new aspect to flying.

 

Here's the link again, could save you a lot of money, could save you your life: ttp://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C00219