CAsA - Making crashing illegal

[KRviator]

I came across THIS Part-91 ready-reckoner from our favourite regulator today and had to chuckle. You folks probably will too, when you read Example 1, Regulation 91.410. Or else you'll cry...

 

Now, the instant you run off the runway, overshoot the far end, or even crash in the trees following an engine failure, you are an instant felon, and probably for most of us, twice over - once as the PIC, the other as the Operator. Per Subregulation 2(a)iv, the place you chose was clearly not suitable, as you crashed trying.

 

91.410 Use of aerodromes

 

(1) The operator and the pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight each contravene this subregulation if:

 

(a) the aircraft takes off from, or lands at, a place; and

 

(b) the place does not meet the requirement in subregulation (2).

 

Note: This regulation does not apply to the operation of an aircraft if regulation 121.205 applies to the operation: see regulation 91.035.

 

(2) The requirement is that:

 

(a) the place is one of the following:

 

(i) a certified aerodrome;

 

(ii) a registered aerodrome;

 

(iii) an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force;

 

(iv) a place that is suitable for the landing and taking off of aircraft; and (b) the aircraft can land at, or take off from, the place safely having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take off (including the prevailing weather conditions).

 

(3) For the purposes of the definition of aerodrome in the Act, a place mentioned in subparagraph (2)(a)(iv) is authorised to be used as an aerodrome.

 

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1). Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

[Keith Page]

Just what are they coming too. Yep generates a smile.

 

I think - how can someone dream that up then write it, how can they be taken seriously?

 

KP

 

 

[440032]

Has anyone (other than me) taken a look at those mentioned regulations (and more) in the CASRs Vol 2 and 3 (on the CASA website today).

 

Let me know how you go.

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If I am ever low on fuel I will not make a precautionary landing in a field but will now press on in the hope of reaching a legal landing point. Thanks CASA.

 

 

[djpacro]

Has anyone (other than me) taken a look at those mentioned regulations (and more) in the CASRs Vol 2 and 3 (on the CASA website today).

 

Are you referring to the Part 91 MOS? Do you have a link?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I came across THIS Part-91 ready-reckoner from our favourite regulator today and had to chuckle. You folks probably will too, when you read Example 1, Regulation 91.410. Or else you'll cry...

 

Now, the instant you run off the runway, overshoot the far end, or even crash in the trees following an engine failure, you are an instant felon, and probably for most of us, twice over - once as the PIC, the other as the Operator. Per Subregulation 2(a)iv, the place you chose was clearly not suitable, as you crashed trying.

 

When lawyers draft regulations, they have to use precise definitions to avoid any ambiguity, so sometimes they have to lay down what they want, then they have to lay down the conditions under which they want it, then they have to lay down any conditions under which it doesn't apply. This requires careful reading before you decide what is meant, and what you should do.

 

Let's consider "a place that is suitable for landing and taking off of aircraft"

 

That probably wouldn't be  where there are wombat holes all over the strip, an irrigation ditch across it, or trees in the splay which are too high.

 

or,

 

"aircraft can land at or take off from", and there's even a hint about prevailing weather.

 

If you're one of the people who has never bothered to learn P&O, or apply it before a flight, I can understand how you might see these clauses as silly and get a good laugh at CASA's expense once again.

 

However,  what that all means is, you have to KNOW,  that the airfield hasn't had a Ferris wheel erected in the splay, or a ditch dug across it before the grass was allowed to grow etc.

 

And you have to KNOW that YOUR aircraft can land at the airfield and take off from it.

 

One example of non-compliance was a PPC getting snagged in a fence trying to take off from an RC model aircraft runway.

 

On the take off side, if you've done your P&O and the strip is in the hills and short and those inputs show that the maximum Outside Air Temperature this can be achieved at is  23.4 degrees and it's 35 degrees, and you take off and crash, you not only deserve to be prosecuted under this regulation, but will probably attract a Culpable Negligence charge as well.

 

One example of that was the property owner in a 172 who flew across to the neighbour's place, to pick up a machinery part, taking his two daughters. He landed in a Claypan, walked to the neighbour's, to pick up the part, talked for a few hours, and when they got back to the aircraft the midday sun was beating down. He failed to abide by the above regulation to ensure that his aircraft could take off from the clay pan (it could easily have done so at his arrival time). When he ran out of claypan he decided not to shut down, but to use the swamp bank as a ramp, and lifted a couple of metres into the air, where he was facing a power/telephone line. He opted to shove it back on the ground and got safely under the line. Not knowing that his P&O figures would have told him he didn't have a prayer of making it fly, he yanked the airctraft back into the air, stalled, and killed himself and his two daughters.

 

So the bottom line with the raw regulations is you have to read each sentence and ask yourself why these words, and sometimes have to look up the clause or regulation referred to to make sense of it.

 

I agree it's not easy, but those words remove much of the doubt you get when you read someone else's explanation (which often misses the legal intent) or publications like the VFG, but over time I've come to prefer going to the regulations themselves and finding out what the law really is.

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm not seeing much change, that is written virtually the same as previously.

 

I would suggest that if you crash because the area you chose to operate out of was unsuitable, then you have a problem.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Pretty much anyone wanting to get a PPL or who has read any version of the VFRG will have seen these clauses and been put through all of the guff in AIP, ERSA, part 61 and 91. In my opinion, what is missing is context. In this case the context might be "you as pilot in command will make yourself informed and make decisions the contribute to the safe completion of the flight in accordance with CAR233 and don't say you didn't know".

 

As far as I know, all sport aviation authorities have similar wording in their training.

 

In terms of landing safely away from an aerodrome with some fuel vs arriving with less than a 30 minute reserve, both are examples of routinely reportable incidents. See AIP ENR (ERSA) 1.14 and 3.2.1 for other examples. These incident reports are sent to ATSB Repcon not CASA. Alternatively the sport aviation authorities have their own reporting mechanisms.

 

Landing or taking off from a public road, flying tired or parking up in a field before a storm hits or the fuel runs out won't necessarily get the pilot into trouble. Failing to report it within 72 hours with an explanation as to how this situation arose definitely will, especially if someone else reports it first. 

 

I've not heard of anyone in private operations being prosecuted after issuing a notice of a routinely reportable matter (RRM). 

 

Perhaps this might be where the discussion can turn? Who has been prosecuted for a routinely reportable matter?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If I am ever low on fuel I will not make a precautionary landing in a field but will now press on in the hope of reaching a legal landing point. Thanks CASA.

 

After your three circuits at the levels recommended,  your assessment should be reasonably professional, so you might not even be prosecuted, whereas if you opt to push on and force land into a stump you'll cop a fuel exhaustion charge. (I didn't check the exeptions mentioned, but an emergency is always handled differently).

 

Generall speaking the penalties attached to this regulation are not much different to those on a road, where if you are involved in an accident and bit another car, cyclist, or pedestrian, even when they are at fault and you did your best to avoid them, you will usually cop a careless driving penalty because you couldn't stop in time etc.

 

 

[440032]

Looking at the part 91 regs on the CASA website, today, there is nothing between 91.005 and 91.830. Nada. Nought. Nuffink. (No MOS DJP...)

 

Regarding the "strict liability" penalties, see attached.

 

strict liability.pdf

 

 

[facthunter]

By law you are supposed to operate your aeroplane in the safest manner possible considering all the known influencing factors at the time. If you are flying a commercial jet, putting it down on a road or in a paddock is a really big deal and not very common or recommended. (thankfully)   However, it's No big deal for an Ultralight  with a very low stall speed ,largish tyres and a competent pilot. Laws of strict liability are good for the prosecuting Authority as it's easier to get a conviction. That's explained in that link above. Rules written by aviation Lawyers  interpreting legislation are hard to interpret even by Lawyers involved in AVIATION Law,( specialists) so how could anyone reasonably expect the average pilot to fly by such statements without a practical guide to how they are going to operate in a practical situation . Secondary Possible/ likely effects of such rules are not considered.  The" real world" effects  of the directions, are not addressed. If you combine the 30 minutes of fuel criticality and the aerodrome definition suitability issue, which are both written for airline ops, you should be able to see an emerging dilemma  for the average U/L flyer. for whom an outlanding is not considered   a national emergency any more than it is for a Glider The risk of minor damage to an aircraft is a far better position to be in than many alternatives such as fuel starvation and an engine out landing on something Houses or tall trees you didn't have a lot of time in surveilling or going into less than VFR weather and most likely losing control of the plane in cloud, with fatal results. I know what I would have to responsibly teach students. Nev

 

 

[aro]

That regulation is in fact very permissive.

 

CASA is basically authorizing you to use ANYWHERE as an aerodrome, as long as it is suitable for landing and taking off aircraft and you can do it safely. it's hard to imagine how it could be less restrictive.

 

Do you want to land in a paddock? Operate your helicopter out of your backyard? This is the rule that allows it - as long as you can do it safely.

 

Of course, there may be other rules that apply - landowners permission, council, national park rules etc. but CASA are authorizing you to land where-ever you like.

 

 

[mnewbery]

"Hot Air Balloon Flying" .... Nope that's all I'm adding

 

 

[mnewbery]

...

 

 

 

nothing between 91.005 and 91.830. Nada. Nought. Nuffink. (No MOS DJP...)...

 

See division 91.D.5 of

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01783

 

 

[facthunter]

Aro I doubt that's how THEY see it or how it will operate in practice, and they will frequently let it be known  "WE have deeper pockets then you do" Nev

 

 

[aro]

Aro I doubt that's how THEY see it or how it will operate in practice, and they will frequently let it be known  "WE have deeper pockets then you do" Nev

 

Of course it's how it operates in practice. 2(a)(iv) covers every operation at a location that is not a certified, registered or defence aerodrome. These operations are happening all the time, but CASA doesn't want to be involved in assessing every farmer's paddock that they want to use as an airstrip.

 

The regulation says that the pilot must not use a location that is not a certified, registered or defence aerodrome unless it is suitable and safe. What is the argument with that?

 

I recall covering this in theory classes 20+ years ago. The question was where can you take off and land, the answer was CASA has effectively authorized the whole of Australia for use as an aerodrome as long as it is safe to do so. If you have an accident e.g. put a wheel in a rabbit hole it would be strong evidence that the location was not safe so you have contravened the regulation. The safe and suitable clause in this regulation doesn't apply to certified or registered aerodromes, so if you put a wheel in a rabbit hole on a certified or registered aerodrome you have probably not contravened this regulation.

 

The rule doesn't appear to have changed significantly, and I haven't heard anything about CASA prohibiting operations from locations other than certified and registered airfields, OR absolving the pilot of the responsibility to ensure it is safe.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Thanks for the discussion, much clearer to me now.

 

 

[djpacro]

(No MOS DJP...)

 

Due sometime this year. The devil is in the detail. The last draft of the MOS was diabolical.

 

 

[facthunter]

Till anything happens and then it clearly wasn't SUITABLE. . Combine airy fairy definitions Like "suitable" with  strict liability and you have the perfect Catch 22. If you have any incident or crash it you have no defence.. You MAY be right but I've dealt with them and seen what they do to others  too often to suddenly trust to a concept much different being there now from what it's always been. .Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

By law you are supposed to operate your aeroplane in the safest manner possible considering all the known influencing factors at the time. If you are flying a commercial jet, putting it down on a road or in a paddock is a really big deal and not very common or recommended. (thankfully)   However, it's No big deal for an Ultralight  with a very low stall speed ,largish tyres and a competent pilot. Laws of strict liability are good for the prosecuting Authority as it's easier to get a conviction. That's explained in that link above. Rules written by aviation Lawyers  interpreting legislation are hard to interpret even by Lawyers involved in AVIATION Law,( specialists) so how could anyone reasonably expect the average pilot to fly by such statements without a practical guide to how they are going to operate in a practical situation . Secondary Possible/ likely effects of such rules are not considered.  The" real world" effects  of the directions, are not addressed. If you combine the 30 minutes of fuel criticality and the aerodrome definition suitability issue, which are both written for airline ops, you should be able to see an emerging dilemma  for the average U/L flyer. for whom an outlanding is not considered   a national emergency any more than it is for a Glider The risk of minor damage to an aircraft is a far better position to be in than many alternatives such as fuel starvation and an engine out landing on something Houses or tall trees you didn't have a lot of time in surveilling or going into less than VFR weather and most likely losing control of the plane in cloud, with fatal results. I know what I would have to responsibly teach students. Nev

 

Interesting though...gliders are subject to those rules too.

 

Fortunately, like many ultralights and Austers, they have stall speeds <30 knots and handle rough ground pretty well. They definitely do not like SWER lines, however.

 

 

[440032]

...

 

See division 91.D.5 of

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01783

 

Ah! Yes, "Effective from March 2021" ..... of course! That's why it does not show up today. Not active yet. Thanks for that mnewb.

 

So it's not illegal to crash, just yet!

 

Case closed, off for tea and medals!

 

 

[Keith Page]

When lawyers draft regulations, they have to use precise definitions to avoid any ambiguity, so sometimes they have to lay down what they want, then they have to lay down the conditions under which they want it, then they have to lay down any conditions under which it doesn't apply. This requires careful reading before you decide what is meant, and what you should do.

 

Let's consider "a place that is suitable for landing and taking off of aircraft"

 

That probably wouldn't be  where there are wombat holes all over the strip, an irrigation ditch across it, or trees in the splay which are too high.

 

or,

 

"aircraft can land at or take off from", and there's even a hint about prevailing weather.

 

If you're one of the people who has never bothered to learn P&O, or apply it before a flight, I can understand how you might see these clauses as silly and get a good laugh at CASA's expense once again.

 

However,  what that all means is, you have to KNOW,  that the airfield hasn't had a Ferris wheel erected in the splay, or a ditch dug across it before the grass was allowed to grow etc.

 

And you have to KNOW that YOUR aircraft can land at the airfield and take off from it.

 

One example of non-compliance was a PPC getting snagged in a fence trying to take off from an RC model aircraft runway.

 

On the take off side, if you've done your P&O and the strip is in the hills and short and those inputs show that the maximum Outside Air Temperature this can be achieved at is  23.4 degrees and it's 35 degrees, and you take off and crash, you not only deserve to be prosecuted under this regulation, but will probably attract a Culpable Negligence charge as well.

 

One example of that was the property owner in a 172 who flew across to the neighbour's place, to pick up a machinery part, taking his two daughters. He landed in a Claypan, walked to the neighbour's, to pick up the part, talked for a few hours, and when they got back to the aircraft the midday sun was beating down. He failed to abide by the above regulation to ensure that his aircraft could take off from the clay pan (it could easily have done so at his arrival time). When he ran out of claypan he decided not to shut down, but to use the swamp bank as a ramp, and lifted a couple of metres into the air, where he was facing a power/telephone line. He opted to shove it back on the ground and got safely under the line. Not knowing that his P&O figures would have told him he didn't have a prayer of making it fly, he yanked the airctraft back into the air, stalled, and killed himself and his two daughters.

 

So the bottom line with the raw regulations is you have to read each sentence and ask yourself why these words, and sometimes have to look up the clause or regulation referred to to make sense of it.

 

I agree it's not easy, but those words remove much of the doubt you get when you read someone else's explanation (which often misses the legal intent) or publications like the VFG, but over time I've come to prefer going to the regulations themselves and finding out what the law really is.

 

Hello Turbo..

 

P&O = P&O Cruisers........ this is my P&O....So is that what you mean or you have something else in your mind?

 

KP

 

 

[spacesailor]

K P

 

I was going to ask (shy'ly) that same question !.

 

" you're one of the people who has never bothered to learn P&O " Please inform me ?.

 

P" pilot practical petrol ?, & O orientation, owner, the list goes on.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kaz3g]

If I am ever low on fuel I will not make a precautionary landing in a field but will now press on in the hope of reaching a legal landing point. Thanks CASA.

 

Performance and Operation....learn how to get the best out of your airframe and engine in different circumstances, use P charts, power settings, and a lot more and why.

 

  Often has planning included.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hello Turbo..

 

P&O = P&O Cruisers........ this is my P&O....So is that what you mean or you have something else in your mind?

 

KP

 

Performance and Operations, a set of subjects every pilot is required to calculate before each flight. In some cases, such as training circuits, the basics have been done long ago by the flying school.