Confusing over water and life jacket rules

[Stoney]

I was reading another thread where there was confusion over the latest rules and also separate exemptions to the rules. If our resident legal eagles get confused, what hope is there for the rest of us.

 

I have done a little research into over water and life jacket rules (for my own information) as there was a lot of misinformation being passed around during a recent conversation with a group of pilots. Here is my summary extract that I believe apply to RAAus 600kg MTOW aircraft.

 

Over Water Flight Rules

 

CAR258 states - Must not fly out of glide range of land

 

BUT AIP ENR 1.1 62 (1) & (3) overrides this by saying "No distance limit for private flights"

 

THEN CAO 95.55 7.1 © (RAAus 60kg MTOW) states not out of glide range, or if out of glide range but less than 25NM if wearing life jacket and have radio and ELT

 

Life Jacket Rules

 

AIP ENR 1.1 62.4 states - each occupant must wear a life jacket except if exempted by CAO 20.11

 

BUT CAO 20.11 5.1 1(a) states "equipped" with 1 life jacket per person if further than glide range from land

 

THEN CAO 20.11 5.1.7 advises they do not need to be worn unless below 2,000' and out of glide range.

 

What a ridiculous system that expects us to read multiple sections of three different documents and then filter out the extraneous information.

 

Then there are the further exemptions for crossing Bass Strait etc

 

Are there any more relevant rules or have I been lucky enough to find them all?

 

 

[BlurE]

I believe CAO 95.55 then goes on to clarify ‘land‘ means a place where you could land. I certainly wore jackets on my last trip around cape otway. Not much point being in glide range to cliffs and treed mountains - i would certainly ditch first.

 

besides you hardly notice inflatable jackets and they are only $100, recently $59 on sale at bcf.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

don't they have to be TSO'd

 

 

[ian00798]

Depends on if you consider an RA-AUS aircraft to be an Australian registered aircraft or not. However, as I am no lawyer, I would just comply with the regulations regardless. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/airworth/awb/25/013.pdf

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

He wants non confusing op regs?

 

Tell him he's dreaming.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

As far as I can see 95.55 gives us exemption for all the GA rules regarding life jackets and over water, so that means wearing a life jacket when out of gliding range of a possible landing area over water. Max distance off shore is 25nm with one exception in Bass straight. Life jackets do not have to be TSO'd for RAAus. If it's good enough for boats and meets the Australian standard it's good enough for me (and a darn sight cheaper).

 

 

[ian00798]

Nothing in 95.55 exempts you from meeting the equipment standards of the airworthiness directive. Keep in mind, a lot of boating life jackets may not be suitable for aircraft, particularly if they automatically inflate on contact with water. You may be right and maybe you could get away with a non tso life jacket, but if you ever get ramped and the casa officer disagrees, that's a lot of penalty units and it would have been cheaper to just by an approved life jacket. Or ask casa to approve the one you have selected.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I believe CAO 95.55 then goes on to clarify ‘land‘ means a place where you could land.

IIRC the actual phrase used is "suitable landing area" - worth looking up the definition as probably isn't what you might think

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Nothing in 95.55 exempts you from meeting the equipment standards of the airworthiness directive. Keep in mind, a lot of boating life jackets may not be suitable for aircraft, particularly if they automatically inflate on contact with water. You may be right and maybe you could get away with a non tso life jacket, but if you ever get ramped and the casa officer disagrees, that's a lot of penalty units and it would have been cheaper to just by an approved life jacket. Or ask casa to approve the one you have selected.

Which airworthiness directive do you refer to ian00798? At the start of CAO 95.55 there is a list of regulations which you do not have to comply with if you comply with 95.55. One of them is CAR 252. This regulation give CASA the authority to say what safety equipment must be carried. I comply with CAO 95.55 so I am exempt from CAR252. I have clarified this with RAAus. They recommend a TSO'd life jacket but say it is not a legal requirement. Of course I would only choose a life jacket that is suitable for aircraft use. A RAMP check holds no fears for me. Know your rules and stick to them and you will be ok.

 

 

[Pearo]

I do lots of overwater flights, so I am well versed on this subject. I also got smashed on this subject in my PPL pretest and my flight test because they all know I am a sailor and nautical fanatic who loves the coast and ocean!!

 

For private flights, you need life jackets if not in gilding distance of land. If not in gliding distance of land, you need to carry lifejackets. The lifejackets must be worn if flying below 2000ft. PAX must be briefed on operation and use of lifejackets.

 

The part about gliding distance is in CAR 258

 

The part about carrying life jackets if not in gliding distance of land is in CAO 20.11 5.1.1(a)

 

The part about when to wear is CAO 20.11 5.1.7 (I just found a mistake in the VFRG!! They say CAO 20.11 5.1.4)

 

VFRG is your best resource. Every pilot should have a copy of this. Its my go to resource when needing to know legislation. As per the error in the VFRG above, always check the legislation!

 

There is also further requirements for ELT and life rafts and reporting when venturing further out, but I think this would most likely only apply to those crossing Bass Straight.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The VFRG is a very good book and every one should have one, but, it says nothing about the differences between RAAus and GA, and there are a lot. The differences are spelled out in 95.55 and the other CAO's covering RAAus.

 

 

[Pearo]

The VFRG is a very good book and every one should have one, but, it says nothing about the differences between RAAus and GA, and there are a lot. The differences are spelled out in 95.55 and the other CAO's covering RAAus.

I am not familiar with RAAus rules, but I assume rules of the air are the same regardless.

 

 

[ian00798]

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/airworth/awb/25/013.pdf

 

This is the airworthiness directive for life jackets

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

The part about gliding distance is in CAR 258

Recreational aircraft are exempted from this (hence the alternative requirements in CAO 95.10, 95.32 & 95.55)

 

The part about carrying life jackets if not in gliding distance of land is in CAO 20.11 5.1.1(a)

Only applies to Australian registered aircraft not RAAus

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/airworth/awb/25/013.pdf This is the airworthiness directive for life jackets

Also only applies to Australian registered aircraft not RAAus

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[ian00798]

Has anyone asked CASA if TSO life jackets are required? I would probably prefer their ruling over that of RAA, and I would probably get the answer in writing. I suspect even with casa if you ask two people you will get three different rulings, so I work on what I can defend in front of a judge and 12 of my peers in a court of law if something goes wrong. Consider what would happen if for some unforeseen circumstance your marine grade life jacket didn't work, and your passenger drowned. The prosecuting attorney will have a field day tearing your decision apart. And from recent events we have seen that casa does prosecute.

 

 

[Pearo]

Recreational aircraft are exempted from this (hence the alternative requirements in CAO 95.10, 95.32 & 95.55)

Only applies to Australian registered aircraft not RAAus

 

Also only applies to Australian registered aircraft not RAAus

 

Cheers

 

John

Show the the legsialtion that shows the CAO's dont apply to RAAus aircraft

 

 

[ian00798]

Pearo, it's in the RA AUS ops manual, there are a series of CAOs exempting RA AUS aircraft from certain aspects of the CARs, CASRs and CAOs.it has to be kept in mind, no piece of legislation relieves the pilot in command from exercising their best judgement to ensure the safe outcome of the flight. Hence, you could quite possibly comply with the regulations but if a reasonable person would not have considered the flight safe, then you will still be in hot water. And everybody must keep in mind, casa is still the regulator, not RA AUS, so if you want a ruling on legislation, it's casa that is the authority. RA AUS is essentially equivalent to an airline check and training system, which allows the operator some level of autonomy with the regulator maintaining oversight.

 

 

[Pearo]

Pearo, it's in the RA AUS ops manual, there are a series of CAOs exempting RA AUS aircraft from certain aspects of the CARs, CASRs and CAOs.it has to be kept in mind, no piece of legislation relieves the pilot in command from exercising their best judgement to ensure the safe outcome of the flight. Hence, you could quite possibly comply with the regulations but if a reasonable person would not have considered the flight safe, then you will still be in hot water. And everybody must keep in mind, casa is still the regulator, not RA AUS, so if you want a ruling on legislation, it's casa that is the authority. RA AUS is essentially equivalent to an airline check and training system, which allows the operator some level of autonomy with the regulator maintaining oversight.

Fair enough. Just looking at that legislation gives me enough incentive to avoid RAAus registered aircraft. I was thinking about heading down that path but it basically puts a stop to a large part of the flying I intend to do. Learn something new everyday.

 

 

[frank marriott]

basically puts a stop to a large part of the flying I intend to do. Learn something new everyday.

Out of interest, what does it stop you doing? (Aeros, IFR, NGT VMC & multiple pax excepted)

 

 

[ian00798]

Pearo, my understanding is you just recently got your PPL, so you are pretty thouroughly in the GA system and I think the money required for the five hours to get a pilot certificate would be best spent on a csu and retractable endorsement. I see you fly out of Redcliffe, I fly there too. I'm taking an arrow with CSU and retractable up in a week or so, if you would like to come up and see what's involved let me know, I always love having a passenger so the damn thing stops turning left.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Does anyone care if they are TSO'd ... just get inflatable ones and put em on whenever flying over water...easy...done..dusted...you may survive and a lawyer would be hard pressed getting a conviction

 

Aldi have them on cheap for $50 twice a year , but you better be at the door before opening...and run!!! Ebay have them for about $59 delivered all year round..no punch up in Aldi required

 

 

[Pearo]

Out of interest, what does it stop you doing? (Aeros, IFR, NGT VMC & multiple pax excepted)

Overwater greater than 25nm, and I wasn't aware of any NVFR restrictions either, but that would be a show stopper for me also.

 

Pearo, my understanding is you just recently got your PPL, so you are pretty thouroughly in the GA system and I think the money required for the five hours to get a pilot certificate would be best spent on a csu and retractable endorsement. I see you fly out of Redcliffe, I fly there too. I'm taking an arrow with CSU and retractable up in a week or so, if you would like to come up and see what's involved let me know, I always love having a passenger so the damn thing stops turning left.

The interest in RAAus stems from the affordability of aircraft moreso than anything.

 

Done the CSU, not done retract yet. I am always interested in going flying. I weigh in at 100kg, so the aircraft might start turning right! Always keen for a flight.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have used marine self-inflating life jackets in the past, in RAA and GA water crossings, not realising there was a CASA spec for them. I know others who use out-of-time airline under-seat jackets. Hmm....

 

 

[ian00798]

Done the CSU, not done retract yet. I am always interested in going flying. I weigh in at 100kg, so the aircraft might start turning right! Always keen for a flight.

I weight 110 so it would work perfectly.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I would be going for a normal inflating life jacket as per sailors use.

 

I think the old airline ones are only useful to keep the body floating long enough for the sharks or recovery for burial.

 

A self inflating one could be a real bad idea if it stops you exiting a wet aircraft.