aro

A careful reading of CAO 95.55 suggests those who say the 1000ft/glide clear of closely settled area restriction applies during takeoff and landing are correct. The takeoff and landing exception says: An aeroplane ... may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing It doesn't say An aeroplane may be flown at a height of less than 1000 feet above ground level over a closely‑settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing or An aeroplane may be flown at a height from which it cannot glide clear of a closely-settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing Below 500 feet and over closely settled areas are completely different things. Also, 7.1.(b) specifically calls out 8.1 as an exception, whereas 7.1(h) does not. So the 500 feet exemption seems to only apply if you are over an area where you can already fly at 500 feet, i.e. not a closely-settled area. The intent of CAO 95.55 clearly seems to have been that RAA aircraft will not be flown over closely settled areas below 1000 feet or where they cannot glide clear, full stop. The CTA section muddies the water a bit by also referring to closely settled areas, but I don't see that it overrides 7.1(h). I suspect it was added later without clearly understanding the implications of the other sections. So how do people fly RAA aircraft in and out of airports which require flight over closely settled areas below 1000 feet? I guess it is like the rest of the aviation regulations - some parts are just ignored on the basis that everyone does it, and people then come to believe that it is permitted. It would be better to either clarify and enforce the regulations, or update them to reflect what people actually do - but CASA don't want to relax regulations, even if it only reflects current practice.

I wonder why people confuse "near" and "nearly". "Near" describes the miss i.e. it was a miss that was near, not "nearly missed". Likewise a near neighbor is not someone who is nearly a neighbor.

That is my understanding too. So my assumption was that it would effectively be a training flight (area familiarization etc.) with a passenger, obviously with no emergency procedures practiced. I think their logic was that if the instructor was paid they were charging for the carriage of a passenger i.e. charter. I would have said that I was paying for hire of the aircraft and the services of the instructor, but there was no charge for carraige of the passenger.

The whole thing didn't add up. I think the student pilot license thing came from students being allowed as observer/passengers on certain training flights so it must be OK somehow, even if they're not sure why.

That's the list from CAR 2(7). But that list overlaps the list of operations in CAR 206 that require an AOC, so what is the result for the items in both?

Agree about the confusion. I was on holiday and wanted to hire a C172 for a scenic flight. I had all required licenses and endorsements, however due to the busy area and proximity to CTA I decided that it would be good to have an instructor along for local knowledge. I was told that an instructor was not permitted on a flight with a passenger. If there was a passenger and someone being paid it became Charter which I couldn't fly without a commercial license. So I could hire the aircraft and take a passenger, or fly with the instructor without a passenger, but it was supposedly illegal for me to fly with both passenger and instructor onboard! Unless, that is, the passenger had a student pilot license which would somehow make it OK again. Talk about confusion. This seems like bits of 3 or 4 different regulations badly combined and misunderstood. And yes, the instructors present did actually vote about whether they reckoned it was charter or not. In the end we just booked it as a scenic flight with the instructor flying (same price). Then after we took off the instructor says "Would you like to fly?" I did for a while but flying from the right seat wasn't really working for me so I ended up handing it back to him and enjoying the scenery.

That's what it says (or to be more specific, requires an AOC which is what CAR 206 is about). Although as I also said, that's not how it is usually interpreted. The problem with the regulation we supposedly follow is that they are so complex and badly written that no-one actually follows them at all. They follow a version that has been passed down and interpreted by generations of flying instructors who have learnt what is required to pass the test. Walk into a flying school and ask if something is allowed under the regulations and it is rare that anyone will actually get them out and read them - you're more likely to get an informal vote amongst the flying instructors about what they reckon. "3 out of 5 flying instructors reckon..." isn't much of a way to regulate aviation, but it's how it works...

Where does it say that CAR 2(7) etc. is an exemption from CAR 206? CAR 2(7) are definitions for the purposes of the (Civil Aviation) Regulations i.e. general blanket definitions CAR 206 are definitions for subsection 27(9) of the (Civil Aviation) Act i.e. very specific - and also referenced in part by CAR 2(7) So CAR 206 should override CAR 2(7), for the specific sections to which it applies.

That seems to be the usual interpretation although I think the regulation reads differently. The CAR 206 says flying, for the purpose of aerial photography is commercial. It doesn't say anything about payment. If I read strictly I think it says any flight where the purpose of the flight is to take photos from an aircraft (air to ground or air to air) is commercial according to CAR 206. It doesn't matter what happens to the photos afterwards. Conversely, it seems like if the purpose of the flight was not photography, i.e. you were flying from one place to another you should be free to sell photos taken along the way. Making it more murky and confusing is CAR 2(7)(iv) which says "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted" is a private operation. CAR 206 defines when an AOC is required, CAR 2(7)(iv) defines private operations that can be performed with a private pilots license. So I don't understand how these interact - does it mean that operations under CAR 2(7)(iv) can be performed by a private pilot, but require an AOC??? I'm not sure which definition of commercial/private is used for RAA - CAR 206 or CAR 2(7) so the original statement might be correct if RAA is exempt from the requirement for an AOC?

The circumstances where cost sharing is relevant are actually quite limited. It is basically saying that if you ask for a payment for the flight everyone including the crew must share equally, and the number of people must be no more than 6. Curiously, it seem to prohibit asking for less than the equal cost of the flight, e.g. if you hire an aircraft for $300 and take a mate if he contributes $50. No one said this all makes sense.

Seems pretty clearly to be flying for the purposes of aerial photography which is a commercial purpose (airwork) under CAR 206. Who paid what doesn't make any difference in this case as far as I can see.

The tricky thing is that aspect ratio doesn't actually affect induced drag - despite what is taught. Induced drag is dependent on airspeed and wingspan. If you change aspect ratio while keeping wing area the same, the induced drag changes - because span must change to maintain the same area. This is the source of the misunderstanding that induced drag is dependent on aspect ratio - because comparisons are made between aircraft of similar wing area. An aircraft with a 10m wingspan and 1m chord will have essentially the same induced drag as an aircraft with a 10m wingspan and 2m chord (at the same weight and airspeed) despite one being 10:1 aspect ratio and the other 5:1. Of course if you need to pass an exam you need to learn the expected answers - even if they are not completely correct!

The glaze is what you are trying to create with the conditioning procedure. The glaze surface (plus I think material transferred to the disks) is what gives the friction and holding power. Light usage can wear the glaze layer away (rusty disks probably don't help). The brake companies suggest that rust on the disk surface itself will normally be removed by the braking action. From the article linked to above: If properly conditioned, the pads will have a uniform shiny appearance (glaze) on the surface. Conditioning removes high spots, and creates a layer of glazed material at the lining surface. Normal braking will produce enough heat to maintain glazing during the life of the lining. Glazing can be worn off during light use such as taxiing.

I don't know what sort of brakes the Savannah has, but one reason the brakes might be weak is that the pads need to be conditioned. The procedure is to get the pads hot, which creates a layer on the surface that gives higher friction. This link has the procedure for Matco brakes: http://www.foxbat.com.au/public/editor_images/Foxbat%20Documents/11%20Matco%20brake%20conditioning%20procedure.pdf

GPS altitude is generally far less accurate than horizontal position, for some reason to do with satellite geometry.

The issue is not about pilot competence, it is aboout complying with the law as it currently stands. CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from certain parts of the regulations on the condition that the pilot is a member of RAA and has a valid pilot certificate. If you try to claim CASA are not allowed to do that, you might throw out the whole exemption rather than the requirement for a pilot certificate. If anyone can fly aircraft that are not required to comply with certain regulations, what is the point of those regulations? The exemptions were negotiated by the then AUF for their members. This is why the exemptions specify that you must be a member and have a valid pilot certificate.

302 is under Miscellaneous not Infringement Notices?? It seems pretty clear that it is referring to documents relating to the aircraft e.g. certificate of registration, airworthiness certificate, log book, maintenance release, POH etc. It is drawing a long bow to suggest that includes flight planning information for a particular flight. Maybe a court could be convinced, but I think they would be wrong and this is not the intent of this section. Is there any section that sets out the form a flight plan or fuel plan has to take, or that it has to be in an enduring form? "70 miles, 120 knots, 40 l/h, 160 litres on board... that ought to cover it" is a fuel plan. You can do it in your head, and people are doing it every day for private flights. It's hard to produce evidence of this after a flight, apart from the fact that you didn't run out of fuel. 296J seems to say that even if the matter can be dealt with by an infringement notice they don't have to, they can take you to court instead - but I'm not sure of the relevance?

Yes, 32AK allows them to detain an aircraft for the purposes of an investigation. Is a ramp check an investigation? Do they need to satisfy any grounds before starting an investigation? What is a "reasonable period"? I am interested to know whether the people conducting ramp checks are usually appointed investigators or simply authorised persons. CAR50D is in relation to Aircraft Maintenance Log Books, not flight plan and fuel calculations. Part 4A - Maintenance -> Division 10 - Aircraft Log Books -> 50D Inspection of Records. It only applies where you are required to "keep or retain a record" so presumably doesn't apply to anything you are allowed to discard after a flight. CAR 227 allows admission to crew compartment in flight during air service operations. It doesn't appear to apply to your typical private operation.

And I think the CASA rep is making stuff up.

By my reading of IIIA, an investigator can only require you to answer questions when you are on premises where a magistrate has issued a warrant. CAR 6 allows an authorised person to: Inspect the maintenance release Inspect aircraft log books Investigate defects in an aircraft Inspect your license Inspect the aircraft I haven't found where they can require you to answer questions, or ask you to produce anything else.

Probably the AIP SUP e.g H06/15 https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h06.pdf

Please supply a reference to a regulation that says that you cannot carry an expired chart.

They can't weigh the fuel you burned to get there. It may be hard to prove that you flew direct rather than stopping on the way without relying on what you tell the investigator. Regardless of how much you deserve it, I'm just wondering whether there is any protection against self incrimination in Australia. Are you permitted to get legal advice before answering questions?

I can't find any examples where powerlines show height AGL on a map. Can you give an example? I know someone hit a powerline across the valley at Eildon, but I don't see any information in the WAC that suggests that powerline is more of a danger to aircraft than any other.

Interesting... so if during a ramp check you admit to eg. flying overweight and without the required fuel reserves, CASA have to find independent evidence of that? Or can they use your answers as evidence of wrongdoing?