Head in the clouds Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Okay, here's a few examples...First of, is the CAsA bloke an Inspector, or an Investigator - it will make a difference in what they are actually allowed to ask for (not that they will tell you that...).Have I maintained a Nav Log? No. Nor am I required to do so. CAR78 only requires I log enough data to ensure I don't get lost. Have I maintained a fuel log? No. Nor am I required to do so. CAR234 only requires I have sufficient fuel for flight, nothing about keeping a log of it. Do I have a backup for my EFB? No. Nor am I required to do so. Can I see the last page of your logbook sir? The one that you're not required to carry - nor even actually produce for inspection for a week - but the one we say you "should" carry with you. I made a comment about belligerence previously, then there's also the word 'obstinate'. Being either of them certainly makes it a lot harder for anyone to have their ramp check conducted amicably. That's their choice, personally I've never experienced anything but politeness and civility from DoA, DCA, CAA and CASA variously, and that's during dozens of ramps over a twenty year commercial career. Others' mileage does vary ... You may be being a little 'particular' about the word 'log'. At the bottom of the manually-filled flight-plan form is an area which allows you to fill in the amount of fuel loaded, the taxi time, flight time, amount remaining for each leg of a flight, then the next set of boxes at the bottom of the same form has spaces for you to fill in for the amount of fuel loaded for the next leg, taxi time, fuel burnt etc etc and each has spaces for the required reserves which vary according to the type of flight you are conducting. This is known as the fuel 'log'. It's not expected that you make any entries en-route on a single leg of a flight, or on a flight that only consists of one single leg. Nonetheless you're still required to have at least the correct amount of fuel to conduct the flight safely and that takes weather into account. If you're required to have the correct amount of fuel AND you're required to prove or demonstrate that fact to a CASA Inspector (the Investigator comes later after you've been shown to have stuffed up), how will you demonstrate that you've complied unless you can produce something you've written down about it previously? CASA aren't breathing down your neck and telling you how you must keep this 'log', they're allowing you to be responsible and do it however simply you wish, as long as you do it somehow, and can show that you do it. I don't think that's at all unreasonable, and I think it's the least we can expect otherwise what answer will we have for our critics (the general public on the ground who see us on the news too often) who wish to have our sport banned each time some twit runs out of fuel ...? There are two kinds of people of who run out of fuel of course, those who knew they were and those who had no idea - if you have a log at least you hopefully knew you were too low on fuel. Similarly your Nav log can be as informal as you like, as long as you can demonstrate that you knew where you were, and when. By all means fly with one EFB and nothing else, since you're entitled to do that, and have fun finding yourself when it fails ... I still enjoy Nav so my primary nav is just as it was back when I was first taught. I draw a line on a chart and mark it off in 10Nm segments in pencil. I make a note of the time of departure and enroute I note the time that I pass distinctive features, or reach a 10NM marker, or enter/leave airspace. I cross-reference that with my GPS to reduce my workload but if the GPS fails it's no more than a minor inconvenience. When the rampie asks for my Nav log I show him the chart and notes, what could be simpler? There's no requirement to carry a 'last page of logbook' (meaning evidence of BFR currency) but I do carry a photocopy of mine with my licence because it saves me from having to produce that evidence later, but that's up to you, no-one says you 'should' carry it but it doesn't hurt to have a copy in your flight bag and save yourself some hassle. If your BFR and membership renewal coincide then your BFR date shows on your pilot certificate (for RAA pilots). You really do come across in a way that indicates you resent being ramped at all KR, and that's pointless because the CASA are required to police the air regulations just as the traffic police do on the roads, and that's not something that's going to stop just because some people don't like it. During a ramp check I've never been asked for anything I'm not required to carry, nor anything I haven't needed to have, to conduct the flight safely. Being a GA pilot you would naturally be aware of the "CAsA requirement" to carry photo identification with you, whenever you are exercising the requirements of your flight crew licence? No? Well that's what they say - but so far as I can tell, there is no requirement, aviation or otherwise, that says an Australian citizen must carry photo ID.It would seem their sport pilot one is a little better than their generic GA "ramp check guide" that is littered with incorrect references and "we say you should do this, but the CAR's say that" type statements, but they are still saying or suggesting you carry documents you are not legally required to do so, and for some FOI's, that's enough for them to say you're operating illegally, when in fact you're doing no such thing. You've made these statements but not provided any references so I can't really comment. Perhaps they're referring to a photo ASIC? Where is this "naturally be aware" comment made? You say that's what they say, but you don't say where they say it ... Which are the incorrect references and statements in the GA ramp check guide (which I've also pasted below)? I’m a GA pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check What happens now? The inspector will ask you for your CASA pilot licensing documents Flight crew licence (FCL) – You must carry your current licence and photographic ID. [Paper or electronic copy of licence acceptable] Aviation medical certificate – You must carry your current aviation medical certificate. You must be compliant with any restrictions or endorsements (e.g. the wearing of corrective lenses)[Paper or electronic copy of medical certificate acceptable] The inspector will then check your preparation for your flight Flight plan Have you maintained a navigation/fuel log? Have you made a careful study of forecast weather and applicable NOTAMs? Are you compliant with CASA flight time limitations (as applicable)? Are you carrying the appropriate, current charts and documents? Are they easily accessible by the crew? Are you using an EFB for your charts and documents? There are considerations for commercial versus private operations. Have you submitted a flight plan (if required by AIP)? Finally, the inspector will check your aircraft The inspector will check: Aircraft maintenance release Is the daily inspection signed off correctly? Are all required airworthiness directives completed and signed off? Are there any outstanding aircraft unserviceable items to be signed off? Flight manual (if required)– is it up-to-date? Checklists (normal and non-normal) — are they up-to-date and accessible to crew. [Paper or electronic copy of checklist acceptable] Evidence of pilot and passenger weights (standard weights should not be used in aircraft with fewer than 7 seats) Evidence of cargo weights (if carried) and appropriate securing equipment. Load sheets (if required) Required emergency equipment on board, serviceable and accessible. Document references Flight crew licence & aviation medical certificates Carriage of documents – CAR 139 Flight review – CAR 5.108 Recent experience – CAR 5.109 Operations Navigation logs – CAR 78 Fuel requirements – CAR 234 Weather and NOTAM – CAR 233 & AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 1. Flight plan submission AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 2. Flight time limitations – CAO 48.1 and CAAP 48.1 Charts and documents – CAR 139 and AIP ENR 1.10 paragraph 5. EFBs – CAO 82.0, CAR 233 and CAAP 233-1(1) Aircraft Carriage of maintenance release – CAR 139 Carriage of flight manual – CAR 139 Check lists – CAR 232 Carriage of passengers – CAO 20.16.3 – CAAP 235 Carriage of cargo – CAO 20.16.2. Load sheets and passengers lists – CAO 20.16.1 Emergency equipment – CAR 252A – CAO 20.11 *Regulation details current as of December 2013 1
geoffreywh Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 are any aircraft ever weighed at a ramp check?
Teckair Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 are any aircraft ever weighed at a ramp check? I think so, fear of that probably helped to kill Nafly. 1 1
djpacro Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 are any aircraft ever weighed at a ramp check? I've seen it happen at MB many years ago.
facthunter Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Your load sheet and figures should be enough. Nev
Teckair Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 The reality is a lot of certified 2 seaters are limited to 450 kg, do the math.
KRviator Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I made a comment about belligerence previously, then there's also the word 'obstinate'. Being either of them certainly makes it a lot harder for anyone to have their ramp check conducted amicably. That's their choice, personally I've never experienced anything but politeness and civility from DoA, DCA, CAA and CASA variously, and that's during dozens of ramps over a twenty year commercial career. Others' mileage does vary ...You may be being a little 'particular' about the word 'log'. At the bottom of the manually-filled flight-plan form is an area which allows you to fill in the amount of fuel loaded, the taxi time, flight time, amount remaining for each leg of a flight, then the next set of boxes at the bottom of the same form has spaces for you to fill in for the amount of fuel loaded for the next leg, taxi time, fuel burnt etc etc and each has spaces for the required reserves which vary according to the type of flight you are conducting. This is known as the fuel 'log'. It's not expected that you make any entries en-route on a single leg of a flight, or on a flight that only consists of one single leg. Nonetheless you're still required to have at least the correct amount of fuel to conduct the flight safely and that takes weather into account. If you're required to have the correct amount of fuel AND you're required to prove or demonstrate that fact to a CASA Inspector (the Investigator comes later after you've been shown to have stuffed up), how will you demonstrate that you've complied unless you can produce something you've written down about it previously? CASA aren't breathing down your neck and telling you how you must keep this 'log', they're allowing you to be responsible and do it however simply you wish, as long as you do it somehow, and can show that you do it. I don't think that's at all unreasonable, and I think it's the least we can expect otherwise what answer will we have for our critics (the general public on the ground who see us on the news too often) who wish to have our sport banned each time some twit runs out of fuel ...? There are two kinds of people of who run out of fuel of course, those who knew they were and those who had no idea - if you have a log at least you hopefully knew you were too low on fuel. Similarly your Nav log can be as informal as you like, as long as you can demonstrate that you knew where you were, and when. By all means fly with one EFB and nothing else, since you're entitled to do that, and have fun finding yourself when it fails ... I still enjoy Nav so my primary nav is just as it was back when I was first taught. I draw a line on a chart and mark it off in 10Nm segments in pencil. I make a note of the time of departure and enroute I note the time that I pass distinctive features, or reach a 10NM marker, or enter/leave airspace. I cross-reference that with my GPS to reduce my workload but if the GPS fails it's no more than a minor inconvenience. When the rampie asks for my Nav log I show him the chart and notes, what could be simpler? There's no requirement to carry a 'last page of logbook' (meaning evidence of BFR currency) but I do carry a photocopy of mine with my licence because it saves me from having to produce that evidence later, but that's up to you, no-one says you 'should' carry it but it doesn't hurt to have a copy in your flight bag and save yourself some hassle. If your BFR and membership renewal coincide then your BFR date shows on your pilot certificate (for RAA pilots). You really do come across in a way that indicates you resent being ramped at all KR, and that's pointless because the CASA are required to police the air regulations just as the traffic police do on the roads, and that's not something that's going to stop just because some people don't like it. During a ramp check I've never been asked for anything I'm not required to carry, nor anything I haven't needed to have, to conduct the flight safely. You've made these statements but not provided any references so I can't really comment. Perhaps they're referring to a photo ASIC? Where is this "naturally be aware" comment made? You say that's what they say, but you don't say where they say it ... Which are the incorrect references and statements in the GA ramp check guide (which I've also pasted below)? I’m a GA pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check What happens now? The inspector will ask you for your CASA pilot licensing documents Flight crew licence (FCL) – You must carry your current licence and photographic ID. [Paper or electronic copy of licence acceptable] Aviation medical certificate – You must carry your current aviation medical certificate. You must be compliant with any restrictions or endorsements (e.g. the wearing of corrective lenses)[Paper or electronic copy of medical certificate acceptable] The inspector will then check your preparation for your flight Flight plan Have you maintained a navigation/fuel log? Have you made a careful study of forecast weather and applicable NOTAMs? Are you compliant with CASA flight time limitations (as applicable)? Are you carrying the appropriate, current charts and documents? Are they easily accessible by the crew? Are you using an EFB for your charts and documents? There are considerations for commercial versus private operations. Have you submitted a flight plan (if required by AIP)? Finally, the inspector will check your aircraft The inspector will check: Aircraft maintenance release Is the daily inspection signed off correctly? Are all required airworthiness directives completed and signed off? Are there any outstanding aircraft unserviceable items to be signed off? Flight manual (if required)– is it up-to-date? Checklists (normal and non-normal) — are they up-to-date and accessible to crew. [Paper or electronic copy of checklist acceptable] Evidence of pilot and passenger weights (standard weights should not be used in aircraft with fewer than 7 seats) Evidence of cargo weights (if carried) and appropriate securing equipment. Load sheets (if required) Required emergency equipment on board, serviceable and accessible. Document references Flight crew licence & aviation medical certificates Carriage of documents – CAR 139 Flight review – CAR 5.108 Recent experience – CAR 5.109 Operations Navigation logs – CAR 78 Fuel requirements – CAR 234 Weather and NOTAM – CAR 233 & AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 1. Flight plan submission AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 2. Flight time limitations – CAO 48.1 and CAAP 48.1 Charts and documents – CAR 139 and AIP ENR 1.10 paragraph 5. EFBs – CAO 82.0, CAR 233 and CAAP 233-1(1) Aircraft Carriage of maintenance release – CAR 139 Carriage of flight manual – CAR 139 Check lists – CAR 232 Carriage of passengers – CAO 20.16.3 – CAAP 235 Carriage of cargo – CAO 20.16.2. Load sheets and passengers lists – CAO 20.16.1 Emergency equipment – CAR 252A – CAO 20.11 *Regulation details current as of December 2013 I don't think my attitude is either belligerent or obstinate I think intolerant is a much better description. Intolerant of the bullshit CAsA serves up on a daily basis. Intolerant of a Safety regulator who cannot understand the very legislation they administer. Intolerant of a culture of "strict liability" for any and every aviation regulation and intolerant of people who should know better, but don't (and that's not a dig at you personally, but a generalisation.)Look at some of the references they specify for the requirements they are claiming they oversee. Now, bear in mind this ramp check guidance is aimed at the weekend-warrior, as a professional pilot will...should....have a pretty good idea of what they would be in for. CAR 5.108 - Recent experience... A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review. There's no mention of the requirements for GA pilots who hold only a PPL that is actually covered under CAR 5.81. Same for Recent Experience. Covered under CAR5.109 that only applies to CPL holder's, not PPL's. Again, that is actually found under CAR5.82, but no mention of that in the references. Why not? Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found? I've tried (very) hard to find it, but if you have a licence that does not have your photo on it, CAsA says you must carry ID....Without the supporting regulations to back it up. But try telling that to your "friendly" FOI and the answer will be "Sorry, Bucko, here's your $3,500 'administrative fine', merry Christmas". Nav & Fuel logs. No requirement for them, and remember CAR234, you only have to have enough fuel to complete the flight "safely". Did you land with fuel in the tanks and clean undies? Then you had enough fuel. IT is not up to you to prove to the FOI that you did, it is up to him to prove you didn't. CAsA seem to be trying to go over and above what the regulations actually say you must comply with, and while in many cases going above and beyond is a good thing, in this case, it isn't, as the FOI's on the ground will run with what they see in a glossy brochure, rather than what I have to comply with. They aren't always the same. 2
dutchroll Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I don't think he was taking about himself. I realise that. For example I get confusing messages about the need to carry a "maintenance release" . I don't carry one and don't plan to in the future, as I am the only one that flys my plane i don't see a need to. Just because you're the only one who flies your plane doesn't exempt you from carrying the Maintenance Release (or equivalent). CAR 139 specifically requires the carriage of the MR in an Australian aircraft, unless otherwise approved by CASA. If you have approval to not carry it from CASA, that's fine. If you don't, you must carry it. If you have exemptions from certain things from CASA as an RA registered aircraft or any other aircraft type, that's great. However if you don't, you must comply with the CARs as they are written. ..... what is the point of carrying these documents if the aircraft ends up like the one which is the subject of this thread, and they are destroyed in the fire? How is that going to assist the investigation? The documents are not carried to assist an accident investigation. They are carried to show that the aircraft and pilot have fulfilled their statutory obligations. Like having a compliance plate on your car, except that the requirements for aviation are much more onerous. We can argue all day over why or whether they should be, but the fact is that they are. Intolerant of a culture of "strict liability" for any and every aviation regulation. "Strict liability" is a legal concept very commonly applied to regulatory regimes and not just in Australia. There are many legal debates and discussion papers on this topic. Yes there is an argument that not all aviation regulatory breaches should fall into this category, but that's not how things work at the moment for any regulatory regime. At least they're not offences of "absolute liability"!
djpacro Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found? See part 61.420 then read 61.340. Nav & Fuel logs. No requirement for them ... Nav log per CAR 78 as was mentioned. I refer your later comment about some stuff being good to do and my opinion is that a fuel log is definitely one of those. CAsA seem to be trying to go over and above what the regulations actually say you must comply with .... Yep, they seem to have written it as if Part 91 was imminent - well, it was imminent at one time. But don't you worry, when Part 91 comes out it will have all of this stuff in it - , fuel log, W&B calcs for every flight to be carried with you, carry copies of weather forecasts and NOTAMs etc to prove that you got them etc etc. Lots of worse draconian stuff in it. It will have this stuff in it unless WE push it back (as AOPA did when it was about to be implemented). 1 1
dutchroll Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I think fuel and W&B for every flight is over the top. If you're doing a local flight for example, a fuel log is pretty pointless (not so for a cross country, where I agree it's a good idea). Likewise, if you're flying solo on a local flight without baggage and you know that there is no possible fuel loading which will put you outside CoG limits, doing a W&B is kind of pointless. This scenario is actually pre-calculated and listed in my W&B sheet which resides with the MR folder anyway! I would argue that one with CASA. 1
jakej Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Fuel Log - I agree with the idea but would the way a glass cockpit handles it be a better method ? Example - most good 'glass' detect when you have added fuel, ask you to confirm, then gets you to accept what you've entered. Then the fuel flow sensor does it's job very accurately as the 2 units mainly used are Pma'd & used in certified aircraft. The 'glass' screen can show any of these or all at once, Fuel Remaining, Fuel Flow. Fuel to next waypoint, Fuel required, Fuel at destination etc etc - now tell me, is this ok or do we have to write up a Fuel Log ? "I don't think my attitude is either belligerent or obstinate I think intolerant is a much better description. Intolerant of the ******** CAsA serves up on a daily basis. " You would understand a comment like that if you have been a victim of the bastardisation by some CASA employees. Example - an NCN (non compliance notice) was issued because a repair facility did not use a particular brand of torque wrench despite the one used had required calibration & records kept. That just one of heaps of situations that have caused grief to many. 2
dutchroll Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Yes modern glass instrumentation handles it well and also keeps a downloadable electronic record. I don't see why that wouldn't be an acceptable substitute for paper providing it has the appropriate functionality. We use the same principle for electronic charts, etc, and they're approved. 1
KRviator Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found?See part 61.420 then read 61.340. Always glad to learn something, thank you!
Teckair Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 I don't think he was taking about himself. I realise that. That's a bit sad. If you have maintained your aircraft to a high standard and you've been diligent in ensuring your aircraft and personal documentation is up to date, you shouldn't fear a ramp check. If you haven't done these things, well maybe some self-reflection is required. OK but you might be able see how someone could think you are addressing this person.
BLA82 Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 Judging by the final report from the ATSB on the crash of VH-EGT the rules might soon change. "In response to the identified safety issue, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA to take action to require builders of amateur-built experimental aircraft to produce a flight manual, or equivalent, for their aircraft following flight testing. " 1
anjum_jabiru Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 I gues RAA should consider making it mandatory to fit black boxes (like a dash cam for cars) in all RAA registered aircrafts.
KRviator Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 The enterprising owners among us already have things like that! With datalogging enabled in SkyView and an HD dash-camera riveted to the roll bar, if I ever spear in and they can recover the data, they can see exactly what happened, in full HD. Here's a still from short final on the first flight a few weeks ago as an example. Ignore the big hole in the left side, that's for the other Dynon screen when I can afford it...
jakej Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 It's a case of technology available, at a low cost, being way ahead of the regulators. I know of a case way back in the late 90's where we were able to get the data from a Gps that showed the pilot was using it to have his own homemade Gps approach, crashed into ground way before the airport. So, although I ocassionally have a go at the regulator, it's up to all of us to do the smart thing & hopefully show that we are not cowboys/girls. The 'glass' technology can be a very good tool for accident investigation , after the event, but it won't stop some idiots from making our industry look real bad. End of rant. 3
frank marriott Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 I gues RAA should consider making it mandatory to fit black boxes (like a dash cam for cars) in all RAA registered aircrafts. "MANDATORY" Fit one if you like but leave the rest of us alone - more bloody regulations! 3 6 1 1
poteroo Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 In response to the identified safety issue, the ATSB has issued a safety recommendation to CASA to take action to require builders of amateur-built experimental aircraft to produce a flight manual, or equivalent, for their aircraft following flight testing. I thought that everyone already did that? Both my RVs have had AFM/POH compiled for them as I did the test flying. Best time to collate all the numbers. Both have fuel computors, and surprisingly accurate fuel gauges. In both I was very careful to run the initial calibration of the fuel computer by running both tanks dry, then refilling so that the fuel computer shows your real usable fuel. The electronic fuel contents gauges were calibrated by draining the tank, then adding in 5L increments. When I eventually fail a medical and have to sell my RV - the new owner will be pleased to have a most comprehensive AFM/POH included with the aircraft. happy days,
aro Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 If you're required to have the correct amount of fuel AND you're required to prove or demonstrate that fact to a CASA Inspector as long as you can demonstrate that you knew where you were, and when. The question is whether you need to prove you haven't committed an infringement, or whether CASA need to prove that you have. It's a whole lot easier for CASA if they convince you that you have to 'fess up as soon as you are asked. When the police pull you over they may ask how fast you were travelling, but you don't have to tell them. However if you do it can make it a whole lot easier to prosecute you e.g. if they didn't actually get a reading on your speed. For those who think they always fly by the rules so have nothing to worry about: how many people weigh every passenger? For our size aircraft we are supposed to use actual passenger weights for W&B - how do you do that without weighing every passenger? I don't see any exemption for when it's obvious that the aircraft would be within weight and CG limits, allowing you to estimate your passenger weight if they don't look overweight etc. (If it's there I'm happy to be corrected and learn something.) That would be getting pretty technical for 2 people in a 172, but not necessarily for a 152 or smaller. Or if you just flew 55 miles without calculating fuel for an alternate... how much information do you want to volunteer to CASA? An interesting look at the situation in the USA is at: http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Legal-Issues-for-Pilots-221888-1.html The upshot seems to be that (in the USA) you are not required to provide information that might incriminate you, and the FAA are reasonably aware of that fact. 1
kaz3g Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 Innocent until proven guilty...but where strict liability applies the proof is just about whether you did or didn't do the particular thing rather than having to prove intent. CASA can't make you answer questions that may incriminate you but you can still be prosecuted for not producing those documents and other things (like fuel) that the Regs require you to demonstrate that you have available for the flight and, of course, they may contain/represent incriminating evidence. It does seem to me that the contents of both fuel log and flight log can be pretty basic under the current regs but remember CASA recently sent out a draft NPRM on fuel that could have dire consequences for some owners and pilots, especially aircraft like Pitts and warbirds that often have very limited endurance. It would require far more detail AND make it an offence to use the increased mandatory reserve. I can see them next trying to mandate recorded times and track variations at points no more than x distance or y minutes from the previous fix...could be interesting out in the desert country where it can be a long way between identifiable features. Kaz 1 2
aro Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 you can still be prosecuted for not producing those documents and other things (like fuel) that the Regs require you to demonstrate that you have available for the flight Do the regs require that I can demonstrate it, or just that I have sufficient fuel? There is information that CASA has the power to demand, like license, maintenance release, log books etc. Other stuff I think they still have to prove an offence has been committed, and I don't have to provide information to help them. The law requires that I obey the speed limit, but as far as I know the police can't turn up and ask where I left from, at what time and require me to demonstrate that I obeyed the speed limit on the journey. CASA's rules may be different, but I'm hoping it's actually only the ramp check guidelines not the actual legislation. The article I linked to is clear about that in the situation in the USA: If the FAA ask about anything that happened in the past, e.g. a flight that previously happened it becomes an investigation not a ramp check, and protections against self incrimination apply. However I fear that in Australia any resistance to CASA e.g. not disclosing where you came from (Is there any regulation that requires you to provide that information to CASA?) would be viewed as uncooperative, and things would go downhill from there...
kaz3g Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 The existing Reg requires you to plan uplift of sufficient fuel to conduct the flight safely. The reason CASA would like to change it is undoubtedly at least in part because it is difficult to quantify the necessary uplift amount that will get the aircraft to its destination safely and/or an amount of fuel that should be remaining in the tanks on landing. But do you want to contest a charge filed by a Regulator who has far deeper pockets than your own and has shown itself willing to use its advantage on numerous occasions? It's interesting that, even though the charge is one of strict liability, the question of "reasonableness" has been incorporated into it. It is this that has allowed some defendants to beat the rap on a standard of proof that is "beyond reasonable doubt". The Regulator has been known to pursue pilots in the AAT to secure an administrative penalty where the standard is the balance of probability when it's criminal proceedings have failed. Here is the Reg again... [Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Regulation] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help] CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 234 Fuel requirements (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the operator's operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters: (a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination; (b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly; © the possibility of: (i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and (ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and (iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and (iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and (v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft--an engine failure; (d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation. (4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
aro Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 I know what the reg requires, but the question is whether I need to demonstrate that I did comply, or whether CASA need to prove that did not comply. Does the right to avoid self incrimination apply in Australia? Does it apply to Civil Aviation Regulations? If I get ramp checked and I know I have broken every rule in the book, exactly how much information am I required to provide to CASA - knowing it can all be used to prosecute me? If I have attempted to follow every rule, but it is possible I made an error and information I supply could be used to prosecute me, how much information am I required to provide? CASA reassuringly tell us that ramp checks are about education, but there is no actual guarantee. It is education, until they find something that they want to prosecute, at which point all the information you provided can be used against you. Asking where you came from, how much fuel you carried etc. is fundamentally an investigation to see whether you have broken the law. CASA are trying to say that they can gather all the evidence before they decide to launch an investigation. I'm not sure that it is wise to go along with that. This is probably not an argument that you want to have during an actual ramp check. It would be much better to have the ramp check guidance material reflect the information you are actually legally required to provide, rather than a CASA wish list. (The bit of that regulation that really raises my eyebrows is: in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient... a court must... take into account... any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA A court MUST take into account any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA... and this is a strict liability offence.) 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now