Emergency landing at Sydney beach

[KRviator]

22 hours ago, RossK said:

Yeah ? RAA reg plane, 3 people?

 

Edit:  Great result though, well executed forced landing.

Nothing wrong with 3 people in an RAAus bird if one is an infant or two are kids under 77Kg total.

19 hours ago, 440032 said:

3 persons on board so the news describes. Lets assume that is true.

RAAus registered confirmed by the pics.

CAO 95.55 describes it's for 2 place aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 place aircraft (places for only 2 people) Yes.(assume not modified with a third seat.)

RAAus Ops manual describes 2 seat aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 seat aircraft? (seats for 2 people) Yes. (assume not modified with a third seat.)

See where I'm going with this?

Is there actually an RAAus rule about the number of passenger(s) you may take? i.e ONE. I can't find one, though it is probably there? Is it?

Interesting eh?

RAAus Ops manual says a passenger endorsement allows the carriage of "passengers" plural not "a passenger". CAO20.16.3 says it applies to "all Australian registered aircraft" and in turn, that a 2 seater can have 1 excess passenger.

 

So Mum, Dad + Infant in an RAAus aircraft? Rare, but legal. Good on 'im for knowing the rules and getting his rugrat airtime.

[kasper]

2 hours ago, KRviator said:

Nothing wrong with 3 people in an RAAus bird if one is an infant or two are kids under 77Kg total.

RAAus Ops manual says a passenger endorsement allows the carriage of "passengers" plural not "a passenger". CAO20.16.3 says it applies to "all Australian registered aircraft" and in turn, that a 2 seater can have 1 excess passenger.

 

So Mum, Dad + Infant in an RAAus aircraft? Rare, but legal. Good on 'im for knowing the rules and getting his rugrat airtime.

No.  Sorry. Completely wrong.  

 

The CAO under which the aeroplane limited it to two places.  Once you add a third you are outside the CAO and outside the raaus.  
 

in addition the aircraft is an SLA which has a certificate in place that specifies its a two place aircraft.  
 

no matter your twists and turns IF there was a child on board and the two parents then it had three people and was outside it’s LSA certificate and the the CAO under which that LSA certificate can be registered and operated in Australia. 

[KRviator]

Two places does not limit it to two occupants. That must be clearly understood.

# of seats /= # of occupants. I suggest you re-read the relevant CAO's and tell us if they say "Single-Place" / "Two-Place" or "Two-Passenger". The devil is in the detail - and like an awful lot of people found to their detriment about my RAAus RV-9, what they think it says and what it actually says are not the same...

The C172 is a "4 Place" aircraft, per the Type Certificate, however, you can legally carry 5 people in it in accordance with CAO20.16.3 - which also allows you to carry 2 adults + an infant in an RAAus aircraft, if you can stay within the W&B limitations.

Edited May 27, 2021 by KRviator

[Marty_d]

Whether it's allowable or not, surely the purpose of recreational aviation is to get AWAY from the kids???

[kasper]

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

Two places does not limit it to two occupants. That must be clearly understood.

# of seats /= # of occupants. I suggest you re-read the relevant CAO's and tell us if they say "Single-Place" / "Two-Place" or "Two-Passenger". The devil is in the detail - and like an awful lot of people found to their detriment about my RAAus RV-9, what they think it says and what it actually says are not the same...

The C172 is a "4 Place" aircraft, per the Type Certificate, however, you can legally carry 5 people in it in accordance with CAO20.16.3 - which also allows you to carry 2 adults + an infant in an RAAus aircraft, if you can stay within the W&B limitations.

Well I can keep directing people back to it’s not allowed.

 

On this one I kick out because cao95.55 under which the p2008 can be registered with RAAus specifically removed reg 208 from the airframes.  And so anything under reg 208 can’t apply to cao95.55 aircraft.  
 

the whole of cao20.16.3 that allows exemptions from seating requirements is created under the power of reg 208 therefore is not applicable to anything registered under 95.55. 
 

So no.  You cannot have three people in an raaus registered aircraft relying on the certified aircraft exemptions for more people or kiddy extension belts.  Two seats.  Two occupants.  Each fired with three point seat belts.  And the p2008 airframe has to comply with both the LSA designed requirements and the certificate approved by casa.  
 

two seats and two occupants.  No wriggle.  

[jackc]

Sooner or later we are gonna find out IF the PIC gets hung out to dry, or not……

[KRviator]

Quote

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 208

Number of operating crew

             (1)  The operator of an Australian aircraft must ensure that the minimum operating crew of the aircraft is not less in number than that specified in the certificate of airworthiness of, or the flight manual for, the aircraft, and that it is supplemented by such additional operating crew members, having such qualifications, as CASA considers necessary and directs, having regard to the safety of air navigation.

Penalty:  50 penalty units.

             (2)  An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

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

We are talking about the same CAR 208 are we? A CAO is drafted under authority of (IIRC) CAR 5, not 208...

Nonetheless, RAAus, under authority granted by CAO 95.55, is exempt from any obligation to comply with CAR 208. Nowhere in CAO20.16.3 does it exclude RAAus, nor limit its' applicability to certificated aircraft only. It's quite clear that it applies to "Application: This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft."

[kasper]

15 minutes ago, KRviator said:

We are talking about the same CAR 208 are we? A CAO is drafted under authority of (IIRC) CAR 5, not 208...

Nonetheless, RAAus, under authority granted by CAO 95.55, is exempt from any obligation to comply with CAR 208. Nowhere in CAO20.16.3 does it exclude RAAus, nor limit its' applicability to certificated aircraft only. It's quite clear that it applies to "Application: This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft."

Ok. 
 

1.  Australian registered aircraft for the purposes of the regs are only those with vh- 

 

2. google your cao20.16.3 and read the first line under the heading ... I’ll wait if you like but to save time it reads 

“Made under 208(1) and 235(7) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988”

 

So once you go to 95.55 and you are removed from reg 208 under para 3.1(e) of that cao you cannot go to any other regulation that exist due to powers from 208.  

[ian00798]

1 hour ago, kasper said:

Ok. 
 

1.  Australian registered aircraft for the purposes of the regs are only those with vh- 

 

2. google your cao20.16.3 and read the first line under the heading ... I’ll wait if you like but to save time it reads 

“Made under 208(1) and 235(7) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988”

 

So once you go to 95.55 and you are removed from reg 208 under para 3.1(e) of that cao you cannot go to any other regulation that exist due to powers from 208.  

As you quite validly pointed out, it is made under CAR 208 (1) and CAR 235 (7). And also as you validly pointed out, CAO 95.55 exempts RA AUS pilots from complying with CAR 208. However given CAR 208 (1) covers operating crew, it isn’t at all relevant to carriage of passengers. What you fail to mention is that RA AUS isn’t exempt from CAR 235 (7) to which CAO 20.16.3 also references. Given CAR 235 (7) references the loading of passengers it’s far more relevant to this discussion. Now in reality I don’t think it’s reasonable for your normal person to read a CAO and figure out what gets its power from CAR 208 and what gets its power from CAR 235, and given an RA AUS pilot is required to adhere to CAR 235 then they effectively have to comply with all of CAO 20.16.3. The civil aviation act describes So ultimately KRAviator is correct. Also your forgetting that the wording in CAO 95.55 is that RA AUS aircraft are exempted from following those regulations. Exempted being the critical word. Exempt means not obliged to follow, not that you can’t follow. So your assertion that you cannot go by the regulation is just totally wrong. Now the ultimate question would be why on earth are the rules so complex and contradictory that there is so much grey.

Edited May 27, 2021 by ian00798

[kasper]

Well if anyone can show how an raaus registered aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft under the civil aviation regulations then I might accept that cao20.16.3 might give a hope for three people in an raaus aircraft ... But to be an Australian registered aircraft you have to be registered with CASA and have vh- on the side.

As it stands it's late and I'm over a night of cross referencing regs,act and orders.  Night night. 

[ian00798]

6 hours ago, kasper said:

Well if anyone can show how an raaus registered aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft under the civil aviation regulations then I might accept that cao20.16.3 might give a hope for three people in an raaus aircraft ... But to be an Australian registered aircraft you have to be registered with CASA and have vh- on the side.

As it stands it's late and I'm over a night of cross referencing regs,act and orders.  Night night. 

So under this logic RA aircraft don’t need to follow CAO 20.18? I guess we can save a few dollars by skipping those pesky minimum day VFR instruments. Or how about CAO 20.11? Guess I can skip hiring that life raft for my next trip to Lord Howe. And life jackets are for those GA wimps really...

[jackc]

23 minutes ago, ian00798 said:

So under this logic RA aircraft don’t need to follow CAO 20.18? I guess we can save a few dollars by skipping those pesky minimum day VFR instruments. Or how about CAO 20.11? Guess I can skip hiring that life raft for my next trip to Lord Howe. And life jackets are for those GA wimps really...

All these rules that cross reference everywhere lost me……what a convoluted  mess, just to fly an aircraft.

[spacesailor]

BUREAUCRACY, 

At it,s best.

spacesailor

 

[440032]

Civil Aviation Act:

Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia

 

Many years ago, it did say something along the lines of "Aircraft on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register" - which was only VH aircraft. Presumably they had to change it to capture/include all other aircraft registered in Australia by various self administering aviation bodies. Before that change, all these other aircraft were not "Australian Aircraft" that the regs were written for.

[spacesailor]

SO

All Derego,ed aircraft are

FREE

spacesailor

[kasper]

3 hours ago, ian00798 said:

So under this logic RA aircraft don’t need to follow CAO 20.18? I guess we can save a few dollars by skipping those pesky minimum day VFR instruments. Or how about CAO 20.11? Guess I can skip hiring that life raft for my next trip to Lord Howe. And life jackets are for those GA wimps really...

I am not allowed to attack the person so I’ll stick to the argument and probably ignore you. 
 

1. day vfr for raaus aircraft comes I through the cao 95.55, 95.32 and 95.10 as appropriate so yes.  You so ignore the cao that puts that require my on vh - reg aircraft. 
 

2. Yes you can ignore the requirement to hire a life raft to fly to lord Howe... because cao 95.55, 95.31 and 95.10 as appropriate for the raaus aircraft prevent you flying to lord Howe ever without written permission from casa and that permission will set your minimum regs not the cao you list.  
 

can people coming at this from a GA perspective please put aside your GA background and the regs that cover much of that area of aviation.  It does not apply to raaus aircraft.  

Edited May 27, 2021 by kasper

[turboplanner]

46 minutes ago, 440032 said:

Civil Aviation Act:

Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia

 

Many years ago, it did say something along the lines of "Aircraft on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register" - which was only VH aircraft. Presumably they had to change it to capture/include all other aircraft registered in Australia by various self administering aviation bodies. Before that change, all these other aircraft were not "Australian Aircraft" that the regs were written for.

That makes sense. Within the SAO History there may be something like Civil Aviation, Self Administering Organisations Act or Civil Aviations Aircraft Reform Act or something like that which spells out the separation from VH.                                        

 

For example, in Victoria there is the Motor Car Act 1958, a relatively simple Act controlling registered cars. When some dealers started importing non-compliant relatively new second-hand cars which had been put off the road in Japan, which only allows a limited life, there was a need to stop the flow and The Motor Vehicle Standards ACT 1989 was enacted. The two Acts continue concurrently, but you don't find people being allowed to bring in a non-standard vehicle on the grounds that it doesn't contraven the Moros Car Act 1958.

[aro]

The rules on carriage of passengers include perhaps my favorite piece of Australian aviation legislation, CAR 250:

 

 (1A)  The pilot in command of an aircraft must not permit a person to be carried on:

                     (a)  the wings or undercarriage of the aircraft; or

                     (b)  any part of the aircraft that is not designed for the accommodation of the crew or passengers; or

                     (c)  anything attached to the aircraft.

 

(1B)  Subregulations (1) and (1A) do not apply to prevent a member of the crew having temporary access to:

                     (a)  any part of the aircraft for the purpose of executing repairs or adjustments to the aircraft or its equipment

 

because you wouldn't want to make a rule that would stop people climbing on the wing or undercarriage to make repairs or adjustments in flight!

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, aro said:

The rules on carriage of passengers include perhaps my favorite piece of Australian aviation legislation, CAR 250:

 

 (1A)  The pilot in command of an aircraft must not permit a person to be carried on:

                     (a)  the wings or undercarriage of the aircraft; or

                     (b)  any part of the aircraft that is not designed for the accommodation of the crew or passengers; or

                     (c)  anything attached to the aircraft.

 

(1B)  Subregulations (1) and (1A) do not apply to prevent a member of the crew having temporary access to:

                     (a)  any part of the aircraft for the purpose of executing repairs or adjustments to the aircraft or its equipment

 

because you wouldn't want to make a rule that would stop people climbing on the wing or undercarriage to make repairs or adjustments in flight!

This reg makes the pilot responsible for checking for last minute stowaways, as against anyone airside. There certainly have been a lot of undercarriage stowaways. Wings is probably intended for the smart alecs who do it from time to time.

[ian00798]

51 minutes ago, kasper said:

I am not allowed to attack the person so I’ll stick to the argument and probably ignore you. 
 

1. day vfr for raaus aircraft comes I through the cao 95.55, 95.32 and 95.10 as appropriate so yes.  You so ignore the cao that puts that require my on vh - reg aircraft. 
 

2. Yes you can ignore the requirement to hire a life raft to fly to lord Howe... because cao 95.55, 95.31 and 95.10 as appropriate for the raaus aircraft prevent you flying to lord Howe ever without written permission from casa and that permission will set your minimum regs not the cao you list.  
 

can people coming at this from a GA perspective please put aside your GA background and the regs that cover much of that area of aviation.  It does not apply to raaus aircraft.  

I will concede you are correct there. However others have also correctly pointed out that as per definitions in the Civil Aviation Act an RA aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft. Hence CAO 20.16 would apply. I always used to think there was a definition that said an Australian registered aircraft was an aircraft on the Australian civil register, and then a recognised aircraft was that of a foreign state, or that of another body such as the GFA or UFA. However that definition seems to have gone and a recognised aircraft is now only that on a recognised foreign aircraft register or that of a foreign state.

[ian00798]

6 minutes ago, aro said:

The rules on carriage of passengers include perhaps my favorite piece of Australian aviation legislation, CAR 250:

 

 (1A)  The pilot in command of an aircraft must not permit a person to be carried on:

                     (a)  the wings or undercarriage of the aircraft; or

                     (b)  any part of the aircraft that is not designed for the accommodation of the crew or passengers; or

                     (c)  anything attached to the aircraft.

 

(1B)  Subregulations (1) and (1A) do not apply to prevent a member of the crew having temporary access to:

                     (a)  any part of the aircraft for the purpose of executing repairs or adjustments to the aircraft or its equipment

 

because you wouldn't want to make a rule that would stop people climbing on the wing or undercarriage to make repairs or adjustments in flight!

Well I mean Kingsford smith did at one point have Bill Taylor climbing all over the Southern Cross to do an inflight oil transfer..

[aro]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

This reg makes the pilot responsible for checking for last minute stowaways

I'm not sure about that... I think there is a difference between e.g. "the pilot must ensure that no person" and "the pilot must not permit a person".

 

But it was the section specifically allowing it for repairs and adjustments that makes me chuckle.

 

2 minutes ago, ian00798 said:

Well I mean Kingsford smith did at one point have Bill Taylor climbing all over the Southern Cross to do an inflight oil transfer

Yes, I am imagining a meeting where they were trying to write Reg 250 and someone kept saying "but what about Kingsford Smith" until they put in 1B to shut him up.

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, ian00798 said:

I will concede you are correct there. However others have also correctly pointed out that as per definitions in the Civil Aviation Act an RA aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft. Hence CAO 20.16 would apply. I always used to think there was a definition that said an Australian registered aircraft was an aircraft on the Australian civil register, and then a recognised aircraft was that of a foreign state, or that of another body such as the GFA or UFA. However that definition seems to have gone and a recognised aircraft is now only that on a recognised foreign aircraft register or that of a foreign state.

That change would be explained if an amended ACT or regulations have been introduced as I mentioned above. I've never looked for any and a name to search for doesn't come to mind. One of the Achilles heels of Australian Aviation is the lack of a Master Index, Sequence and Contents of changes, which makes it so hard to stay current.

[ian00798]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

That change would be explained if an amended ACT or regulations have been introduced as I mentioned above. I've never looked for any and a name to search for doesn't come to mind. One of the Achilles heels of Australian Aviation is the lack of a Master Index, Sequence and Contents of changes, which makes it so hard to stay current.

That’s the point of part 91 isn’t it? To get rid of this ridiculous system of contradictory rules that no 2 people read the same way, and a series of documents that are impossible to follow.

[pmccarthy]

In the good old days we got all updates by mail, every week or two. A conscientius person (I was back then) would go through all the ring biders and write in the amendments. It was inefficient, but after a while you got to know your way around all the regulations etc.