What do we follow?

[Guest airsick]

I have been having a good look over the latest Ops Manual and there are some conflicts between it and the CASA regulations. One example is aircraft markings, CASR 45 covers this area as follows.

 

45.045 Number and location of sets of markings — fixed-wing aircraft

 

(1) On a fixed-wing aircraft, 3 sets of the aircraft’s markings must be

 

displayed, as follows:

 

(a) 1 set either on the under surface of the port wing or across the under surface of both wings, in each case as set out in subregulation (2);

 

(2) A marking on the wing of an aircraft:

 

(a) must have its top towards the leading edge of the wing; and

 

(b) must be as nearly as possible parallel to the leading edge, and half-way between the leading and the trailing edge, of the wing.

 

(There are some other bits in there too but this is enough to illustrate the problem.)

 

There are some exemptions to CASR 45 though:

 

5.2 Under the terms of the exemption, applicable aircraft will be exempt from:

 

* Displaying markings on the undersurface of the wings as required by 45.045(1);

 

* Displaying lateral markings of 300mm as required by 45.065(3)(b)(ii) & © item 1

 

– Under the terms of the exemption the minimum height must be 150mm; and

 

* Carrying an aircraft registration identification plate as required by 45.145(1), provided the aircraft carries a fireproof manufacturer’s data plate as required by CASR 21.820. See Section 9.3 ‘Aircraft Registration Identification Plate’ for an explanation of the term ‘Fireproof’.

 

5.3 The exemption has been issued because the design of some new generation aircraft and technical limitations applying to the surfaces of composite materials used in newer aircraft makes compliance with the requirements not possible.

 

So it appears that if your aircraft is made from composite materials then you do not have to display your rego on the underside of the wing as long as you operate wholly within Australia. But the Ops Manual sees things differently:

 

Under Section 4.09 it states that:

 

Recreational aircraft operated in accordance with this manual are required to:

 

a. have current RA-Aus Registration Certificate (the period of validity is 12 months and is subject to the satisfactory completion of the relevant Periodic Inspections); and

 

b. display RA-Aus aircraft registration markings.

 

It then goes on to say that this means displaying rego on the underside of the wing.* Given the contradiction which direction do you follow? I am erring towards the CASA stuff. There are several contradictions such as this so it would be nice if this could be cleared up.

 

* I would reproduce the actual text here but in their infinite wisdom RA-Aus has protected the Ops Manual and prevented copying of the text. It seems they want to discourage easy discussion of it in places like this (there I go again, shooting from the hip). CASA on the other hand doesn’t seem to have an issue and allows people to copy and openly share the text thus facilitating the easy discussion and dissemination of its contents. Seriously though, why would RA-Aus do this?

 

 

[sain]

Personally I'd follow the RA-Aus rules - after all, the plane is registered with them, and your flying under the conditions set by their rules.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

It is still unclear though. Part 45 of the CASR applies to all Australian aircraft where the act defines Australian aircraft as:

 

 

(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and

 

 

 

 

 



(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft

 

 

 

 

 

and state aircraft.

 

 

So it applies to RA-Aus as well. Hence my erring towards the CASA documents.

 

 

 

[Captain]

* I would reproduce the actual text here but in their infinite wisdom RA-Aus has protected the Ops Manual and prevented copying of the text. It seems they want to discourage easy discussion of it in places like this (there I go again, shooting from the hip).

Not only are you shooting from the hip, but you are also over the top with the above ..... in my humble little opinion.

 

 

 

If you really do feel that all is great and good with CASA and all is so dark and gloomy with RAA, then you have a clear option. Go and operate with a PPL.

 

 

 

As I understand it, CASA have delegated control of RAA class aircraft to the RAA and CASA have approved the rules and regs under which RAA operate .... (or something generally similar).

 

 

 

That works pretty well, thousands of pilots and owners are happy with that situation, so why bush-lawyer the words and inflections in what I sense is an unhelpful manner in your post?

 

 

 

But to answer your original question .... follow whoever you want and go with the CASA umbrella if it turns you on so much. You and 5 or 6 others may well be the ones who are actually in step.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Consider the ops manual your bible and follow that to the letter because 95.55 is a privelage, not a right.

 

There are always exceptions to what you might understand from reading from CASA, eg, did you realise that my experimentally GA registered Jabiru only needs to have rego numbers that are 75mm high, INCLUDING under the wing! yes that's right!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Sorry Captain, my sarcasm seems to have missed the mark. I finished this comment with 'seriously...' hinting that perhaps what I said before it was a bit tongue in cheek. But I reiterate my underlying point, I would have thought RA-Aus would promote the wide disemmination of this stuff.

 

But back on topic.

 

You could be right in the sense that the RA-Aus manual takes precendence but all I want to do here is, in your terms, un-bush lawyer it. I am simply asking in these instances what rules I should follow. CASA regs are notoriously hard to decipher, you have to wade through mountains of sections, clauses, sub-parts, etc. to get to the point. It isn't easy to understand. Right now I don't know whether I and the five or six others are the ones in step or not. But wouldn't it be better if we were all in step? Surely if we have rules then we should follow them rather than blast those who ask questions about them.

 

So my question stands, what rules do we follow when there is an apparent contradiction like this? Perhaps some input from an RA-Aus person is warranted here.

 

And for the record I am not anti RA-Aus at all. I think they do a great job but like any organisation I think they can do better (as could we all for that matter). They are not gods and are not beyond questioning or criticism in my book. The day we stop questioning them is the day we may as well take our bat and ball and go home. If we don't strive for continual improvement then what have got to look forward to? Some of us want higher weight limits, some of us want CTA endorsements, some of us just want the organisation to be more transparent. We can push for these things or alternatively we can just sit on our hands and accept the status quo for now and forever.

 

 

[Captain]

So my question stands, what rules do we follow when there is an apparent contradiction like this?

Sorry I missed your tongue-in-cheek bit. Will look harder next time.

 

 

 

I reckon that the answer is crystal.

 

 

 

If you have an RAA registered aircraft and an RAA licence, then stick strictly to the RAA's rules .... and I agree with bc's post today re 95.55. So if the Pip that you fly is an RAA aircraft and you fly it on an RAA licence then use the RAA regs as your Bible.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if the 172 that you fly is CASA registered and you have a PPL, then the CASA regs should be your Koran.

 

 

 

I can't see any merit in trying to cross-pollinate (or X-interpret) the two.

 

 

 

But having now read and re-read your final small words at the bottom of post #6, there seems to be a move by many current or ex PPL holders to turn the RAA licence into a sudo PPL with many similar endorsements and while advancements in such a manner may well have some merit, my sense of the RAA membership (and the hairs n the back of my neck) tell me that the LAST thing we want is to have such changes bring us back under direct CASA control. So I endorse those at the helm of RAA to move carefully in this area ....... and having watched it all unfold at Natfly, I'm buggered if I can see how you can claim that the RAA is not reasonably transparent.

 

 

 

[Matt]

As per Brent's comments, if it's registered with RA-Aus follow the letter of their law - it's been reviewed and approved by CASA. We have the same type of contradictions (in fact a lot more!) with LIMITED category aircraft (ex-Military) which are now administered by the Australian Warbirds Association under the same type of approval & guidelines as RA-Aus for "ultralights". Operate under the rules which have been defined for you and your aircraft and the law will be on your side.

 

My 2.2c.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Thanks Captain. I don't see any merit in cross pollinating the two either but unfortunately I think that is the way it is.

 

My understanding is that the CASA rules over see everything unless an exemption is granted. I couldn't find any exemptions to CASR 45 so I figured it applies. Having said that there is mention of the same topic in the Ops Manual. :confused:

 

Common sense would suggest that what you and Brent have both said is probably correct. But in the world of aviation common sense seems to be thin on the ground (GA, RA and us pilots alike) so I think having an RA-Aus input into this would be helpful.

 

 

[Captain]

Operate under the rules which have been defined for you and your aircraft and the law will be on your side.

Not to mention the Insurers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(But I said "not to mention" them!)

 

 

[Guest airsick]

After a bit more digging and some input from Mick Poole I have clarified this. Mick's statement was quite simple and fits with the common sense suggestions put forth here - go with the Ops Manual.

 

I looked a bit more into the regs which helped too. Sorry Captain, gonna bush lawyer it up some more. If you're interested read on, otherwise tune out now. :)

 

CAO 95.55 lists a set of exemptions one of which is CAR 133. CAR 133 covers the conditions that must be met before an aircraft can be flown. One of these conditions is that "the aircraft has a nationality mark and a registration mark painted on, or affixed to, it in accordance with Part 45 of CASR".

 

Part 45 of CASR states the requirements to display the rego under wing, on the fuselage, etc. There is an advisory circular (AC 45-01(1)) that lists some exemptions from the requirements of Part 45 of the CASR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given that RA-Aus is exempt from CAR 133 they (and we) are also exempt from the exemption granted under AC 45-01(1). Does that make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short there is no contradiction, you have to have the rego under the wing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My statement from above is reinforced - CASA rules and regs are a nightmare and take some wading through to get to the bottom of things. I am wondering whether the other discrepancies I have found are in fact discrepancies after all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As an aside Mick Poole also told me that the new Ops Manual will be distributed (as we know) with the RA-Aus magazine. To quote him, "When this happens effectively the new manual will become effective".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain]

..... rego numbers that are 75mm high

Have a look at the photo at http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5176&d=1207567966

 

 

 

I noticed it up at Narromine and those rego letters looked less that 75 mm to me.

 

 

[Matt]

That'd be one of the exemptions in the CASA regulations for LIMITED (ex-Military) aircraft I was speaking of. Specific regulation for LIMITED category aircraft stipulates markings of at least 50 mm and only to be on each side of vertical tail or side/outer surfaces...the actual regulation is much more wordy and confusing. The intent is to minimise the impact on the original "look" of the aircraft of applying registration marks.

 

 

[TechMan]

As an aside, the new ops manual has been temporarily removed from the RA-Aus site as it was causing too much drama with the "which one do we follow' question. As Mick has indicated, the new Ops manual will become effective as soon as it has been distributed to the membership (hopefully with the May issue of the Mag), after which it will be placed on the web again. So, until then, Issue 5 is the current issue.

 

Chris

 

 

[Yenn]

"Under the terms of the exemption, applicable aircraft will be exempt"

 

I think what you have missed here is the term "applicable"

 

The exemption does not apply to all plastic fantastics, but to a select few. No doubt Jabiru would not be included as there is little chance of damage being caused by underwing numbers. Unless you insist on flying upside down.

 

 

 

[jcamp]

"No doubt Jabiru would not be included as there is little chance of damage being caused by underwing numbers

The J160C has the underwing markings as outline only. I presume this is to minimise thermal effects from radiant energy from tarmac etc.

 

 

[farri]

Aircraft Rego Numbers.

 

Hi Airsick,

 

Raa versus CASA regulations, is an old issue,it`s caused confusion ever since we first started the AUF.

 

As I see it the RAA Ops manual has been approved by CASA and therefore it is our bible and whatever is in it is what we need to work to.

 

The only real problem is that we can be held to the CAO`S and CAR`S and in that case it would require a court ruling to make a decision,in my opinion,we can`t go too far wrong staying within the Ops manual.

 

Frank.