Can someone please explain this part of regs?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please explain this part of regs?
Hi everyone,
In CASA's CAR's part 258 about flights over water says that you mustn't fly a plane over water unless you can reach land, but then in CAO 20.11 part 5, says you can fly over water as long as you have life jackets/life rafts etc.
I've also seen the same things with the CAR's saying a non-authorised person (normal passenger) must not sit in a control seat of the aircraft, but then in the CAO's it says they can if they are told not to interfere.
I don't understand why in one thing it says you can't but in the other document it says you can. Which one has a 'higher' authority if you will?
Thank you.
In CASA's CAR's part 258 about flights over water says that you mustn't fly a plane over water unless you can reach land, but then in CAO 20.11 part 5, says you can fly over water as long as you have life jackets/life rafts etc.
I've also seen the same things with the CAR's saying a non-authorised person (normal passenger) must not sit in a control seat of the aircraft, but then in the CAO's it says they can if they are told not to interfere.
I don't understand why in one thing it says you can't but in the other document it says you can. Which one has a 'higher' authority if you will?
Thank you.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have missed the relevant sub section of CAR 258:
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the flight was:
(a) in accordance with directions issued by CASA;
The "directions" are instructions contained within the relevant CAO.
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the flight was:
(a) in accordance with directions issued by CASA;
The "directions" are instructions contained within the relevant CAO.
The "directions" are instructions contained within the relevant CAO.
i.e. You cannot combine the "approval" in CAO 20.10 "Hot Refuelling - Helicopters" with the Exemption in CAO 97.7.7 - Exemption from general requirement for pilot to be at controls.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's BS like this that's stuffing aviation. The answer to a simple question is hidden in reams of legalize gobblygook in several different places. In this computer age and given the millions spent "simplifying" the regulations there should be a search engine where you can simply type for example :-"private flight over water"and bingo-all the information required comes up. As it stands now I'm surprised the regs aren't written in Latin just to add to the challenge of understanding them. What is the use of making laws and rules if the users can't find them or if they do then can't easily understand their meaning. If I wanted to confuse , mislead and entrap I could hardly do better than the current way our rules are presented.
Folks,
Going back to basics, it is all about "style", and whether you have regulations written in the negative (prohibited behaviors) of the positive (permitted behaviors).
Whether it is outcome based (nominal Commonwealth policy --- although well disguised by the present Government) --- or prescriptive.
There are plenty of example of both in Commonwealth law. Many people, including me, believe that outcome based law produces better outcomes (air safety outcomes, in this case) than prescriptive regulation.
Despite the above, Australian aviation law is generally written in the negative and is overwhelmingly prescriptive.
Thus, a regulation will often have a general prohibition of something, then page after page of when the prohibition conditionally doesn't apply.
Dropping things for aeroplanes is a good example ---- (and because toilet rolls and paper bags full of flour are not included, fun Aero Club streamer cutting and flour bombing competitions were killed by the Civil Aviation Act 1988) --- after the prohibition, there are pages of exceptions.
In the NZ or FAA regulations, the same thing is covered in one or two short paragraphs.
Finally, that Australian aviation law is all criminal law introduces considerable complexity in how the rules must be written, but that is a whole subject in itself.
Tootle pip!!
Going back to basics, it is all about "style", and whether you have regulations written in the negative (prohibited behaviors) of the positive (permitted behaviors).
Whether it is outcome based (nominal Commonwealth policy --- although well disguised by the present Government) --- or prescriptive.
There are plenty of example of both in Commonwealth law. Many people, including me, believe that outcome based law produces better outcomes (air safety outcomes, in this case) than prescriptive regulation.
Despite the above, Australian aviation law is generally written in the negative and is overwhelmingly prescriptive.
Thus, a regulation will often have a general prohibition of something, then page after page of when the prohibition conditionally doesn't apply.
Dropping things for aeroplanes is a good example ---- (and because toilet rolls and paper bags full of flour are not included, fun Aero Club streamer cutting and flour bombing competitions were killed by the Civil Aviation Act 1988) --- after the prohibition, there are pages of exceptions.
In the NZ or FAA regulations, the same thing is covered in one or two short paragraphs.
Finally, that Australian aviation law is all criminal law introduces considerable complexity in how the rules must be written, but that is a whole subject in itself.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thing about Australia - which is not always obvious until you've lived somewhere else - is that we're an incredibly 'permission based' society. Things are forbidden unless you're given permission. In the Netherlands, for example, I found it almost the opposite in civil life: the idea is to go ahead and make your decision as an intelligent individual. There's a lot of generalization in that statement and, sad to say, the Netherlands (for one) is now catching the over-regulation disease. But the permission-based attitudes are definitely a noticeable annoyance in Australian life although, as a native, I love living here.
My day job involves simplifying and communicating complex technical data and human relationships. In my 25 years as a PPL I can only admire the stoicism of professional aviators, LAMEs etc. While I can afford to temper my occasional regulatory frustrations with a chuckle, the sheer bloody arcane-ness (nearly all of it unnecessary) must drive those in the industry to distraction.
To return to the OP's point, there is absolutely no defensible reason why a PPL shouldn't be able to look up a definitive legal position on over-water flights. Personally, I use the VFG quite a bit but accept it doesn't always address the conflicts he points to.
But look..we're still using teletype code for weather forecasts and the nonsense of that seems to be lost on all but a few aviators. How difficult would it be, in 2013, to provide a decode, along with the coded version? As a one-time radio amateur, I love my morse code - but I try not to rely on it for effective, clear, daily communication
My day job involves simplifying and communicating complex technical data and human relationships. In my 25 years as a PPL I can only admire the stoicism of professional aviators, LAMEs etc. While I can afford to temper my occasional regulatory frustrations with a chuckle, the sheer bloody arcane-ness (nearly all of it unnecessary) must drive those in the industry to distraction.
To return to the OP's point, there is absolutely no defensible reason why a PPL shouldn't be able to look up a definitive legal position on over-water flights. Personally, I use the VFG quite a bit but accept it doesn't always address the conflicts he points to.
But look..we're still using teletype code for weather forecasts and the nonsense of that seems to be lost on all but a few aviators. How difficult would it be, in 2013, to provide a decode, along with the coded version? As a one-time radio amateur, I love my morse code - but I try not to rely on it for effective, clear, daily communication
Join Date: May 2008
Location: on the beach :-)
Age: 51
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the sheer bloody arcane-ness (nearly all of it unnecessary) must drive those in the industry to distraction.
Questioning it or those who lives are based on the absolute belief that the advisories, rules, regulations, laws, acts etc are gospel leads one down most interesting rabbit holes.
I was once told "The Laws are for the obedience of Fools and the guidance of the Wise, you may break any Law you want but you'd better have a bloody good reason for it to back yourself up and that bloody good reason had better be backed up by some damned good logic and experience!!", that was by a very senior ground instructor who had been in aviation for 50+ years as everything from GA through to C&T at Qantas, BAE, RAAF...etc...etc... He was also quick to point out that Laws like that of Gravity were the obvious exception!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Struggling to find the context of this thread other than to have an (oft heard) bitch about the 'legalise' of the Regs/orders...
Why would you undertake a flight over water unless you had the possibility of landing somewhere??
Why would you undertake a flight over water unless you had the possibility of landing somewhere??
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get where you want to go of course. In thousands of hours flying over Cape York,the Gulf Country,Arnhem Land and The Kimberleys I reckon I've flown over a lot more unsurvivable land than unsurvivable water.There's always some risk in flying.
RA
RA
Same as me now Rutan Around, I'm regularly flying over water in a single well beyond gliding distance (Longest point from land is about 35nm at mid point between islands) and done a fair bit round the NT as well and would have to agree. It was a bit of a readjustment to get used to it but you eventually realise that what you said is pretty true.
Had the argument over many a beer as to whether you'd rather have to put down on the water or the land, seems to boil down to Water being better because it allows for a slightly softer landing because trees bring you to a pretty sudden halt, but if you get knocked out you'll drown in the water. And Land is better because even though you come to that sudden stop when you hit the trees if you get knocked out or are injured you might have more time to get out to safety.... You can go round and round and round as much as you like with that argument, either way i'd just rather not have to do it!!
Had the argument over many a beer as to whether you'd rather have to put down on the water or the land, seems to boil down to Water being better because it allows for a slightly softer landing because trees bring you to a pretty sudden halt, but if you get knocked out you'll drown in the water. And Land is better because even though you come to that sudden stop when you hit the trees if you get knocked out or are injured you might have more time to get out to safety.... You can go round and round and round as much as you like with that argument, either way i'd just rather not have to do it!!
