Performance and operations

[Barefootpilot]

Hey Jcamp,

 

I think we both agree that the advisory is a wise move there is no doubt about that! But for experiance in commercial operations ( in my ops manual) you can nominate any fixed reserve you like (we have a 30 minute fixed resereve for all flights under 60 minutes)

 

Yes the court would take into acount the CAAPs as they are advise from the regulator again this is where you would have to explain why you didn't follow them. Still doesn't mean you have to do it just means you do so at your own risk.

 

Adam.

 

 

[jcamp]

this is where you would have to explain why you didn't follow them. Still doesn't mean you have to do it just means you do so at your own risk. Adam.

Check the meaning of "offence of strict liability"

 

Last year I had an engine failure over a built up area. From the fuel pressure warning light and sound of the fuel pump assumed out of fuel. After some savage sideslips restarted and landed 10 min later. A fuel drain from the carb line gave ~ 60 min fuel, estimated and actual flight time was 40 min.

 

Subsequent action has been fitting a level switch in the header tank (~ 10 min full power) or less than full on the basis that gives me a descent to whatever with the option of a go round to plan C.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In the post prescriptive era there are two considerations:

 

(a) an offence of strict liability means you are in it deep, so if that's attached, it's not voluntary.

 

(b) If something does go wrong, and you knew about the requirement but had argued it was voluntary, you're pretty well looking at a criminal charge for negligence, because there's no argument that the accident happened, which destroys your argument that your decision was safe.

 

 

[facthunter]

Reality.

 

The substance is, and always has been, IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG AND IT IS NOTICED, YOU ARE IN THE S**T. For those who like philosophical considerations, there are occasions where you actually have to break the law to save the ship. A board of inquiry may give themselves months to deliberate what you had a few seconds to deal with.. Nev.

 

 

[Guest Decca]

It was an interesting debate, but it’s a pity we don’t have access to an independent arbitrator (as opposed to moderation) here instead of finding ourselves bogged down in what is personal difference of opinion.

 

Instead of hinting, I should have said in post 19 that all CAAP’s and indeed the visual flight rules guide and other “advisory” instruments of CASA are simply plain English language interpretations to make it easy for dummies like us to understand and obey the rules. These and other “advisories” always quote the CAR’s and CAO’s they are meant to interpret.

 

Maybe it would be better not to have “advisories”, but then we would all have to struggle to work out what’s relevant to us in all the legalese.

 

Back to basics; Did anyone have any trouble with the questions? If no response here then I assume it's easy. I'm sure it won't get much harder:cool:.

 

Well that’s it from me, I’m ready to move on. Can’t wait for the next instalment from Turbo.

 

Regards, Decca.

 

 

[facthunter]

Confusion.

 

This topic, like many others, extracts so many well intentioned comments that vary as to what is expected . Surely the system is wrong. The "Authority" has the responsibility of making the rules understandable, non ambigous, and therefore workable. Students of aviation law can peruse and debate the legislation, if they wish. The interpretations and practices that are recommended should conform to and be a consequence of the legislation, and be WORKING documents, that you can rely on to operate safely. To have "on the spot fines and penalty points" under these circumstances, doesn't impress me at all. I believe that to be inappropriate, as the system is geared against the pilot, IF the system doesn't promote understanding.

 

Nev..

 

 

[turboplanner]

yes, and it would be interesting to know how many people CASA employs overseeing this can of spaghetti.

 

Even if we had a Master Index which showed us what we needed for each training stage and licence category, and where we could get it.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Of course it is geared against the pilot. is there anything in this stupid over regulated country that is not geared against the end user being able to work it out without a degree in law or a pocket full of cash to feed some 'klingon' barrister.

 

vote 1 ozzie for pres!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

MR's will probabily go in the same bin one day as the old CASA created 'Approved aircraft flight manual.' with no two of those ever being of the same format. A totally useless invention that has wisely been replaced now by the 'pilot operating handbook', or POH for short. This is what the rest of the aviation world has used for years, whilst we insisted on staying in the dark ages with the so called CASA 'approved' flight manual.

 

We have a bad history in this country of continually wanting to reinvent the wheel, and ignoring stuff that works, and has worked well for years. That is simply not being smart or progressive. We only change when CASA gets sued, or firmly beaten in court, or when somebody finally realises.." hey that's a whole lot better than what we have been perservering with for years !!.................................................

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So right there, Major. to broaden the comment a bit futher..

 

at the recent retirement of Telstra's Manager, his comment was that Australia is a joke and far lacking progression compared to the US and most of the other 1st world countries in relation to telecommunications. The pollies and media took it as an insult. well you and i know that the guy is right and there is really no polite way of saying it.

 

don't blame him for grabbing his money and saying "so long suckers".