[Choppagirl]

Inset pic reference links: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10542201 &

Choppagirl (Rossair crash) - Mythical reform post #109 & Catch Up or Ketchup? 

Here's an example of just how screwed up our reg's are.

91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

Australia – 351 words

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

© the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

USA - 94 words

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

© Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

New Zealand - 96 words

91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.

Author's note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelfware"; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of amateurish regulatory framing

It is interesting to note, in light of the recent criticism of CASA legislation, that there was no response to a link I posted regarding legislation passed which exempts holders of flight instructor ratings from being required to occupy a control seat in certain situations. Having recently reviewed the legislation again I think I might know why.

The legislation in question is here

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...rol%20seat.

This legislation was passed after the Rossair tragedy in which a CASA inspector occupied a jump seat for the purposes of passing the Chief Pilot to be able to perform check and training on the Cessna Conquest 441. At the same time, and prior to qualification, the Chief Pilot was also checking an inductee pilot who occupied the left-hand seat. This inductee pilot was type-rated on the Conquest however he had very little recent experience, albeit he had almost 15,000 hours flying experience.

As most of you will be aware the flight crashed approximately one minute after take-off, whilst simulating an engine failure after take-off manoeuvre, with the resultant loss of all three pilots.

I have a CPL(H) and am currently studying for a law degree, however when I read the explanatory passage noted at point 4 of the legislation, I found it to be so grammatically incorrect and long-winded that I had to pick apart each point in order to understand what was meant. The paragraph in question states:

4.  Exemption
        (1)     The holder of an authorisation mentioned in an item in column 1 of Table 1 is exempt from compliance with subregulation 61.065 (1) of CASR to the extent that the subregulation requires the holder to occupy a flight control seat to be authorised under the provision mentioned in column 2 of the table for the item to conduct an activity mentioned in column 3 of the table for the item.

 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that this legislation makes it legal for a CASA inspector to occupy a jump seat in the situations referred to in Column 3. This is effectively passing legislation which retrospectively makes it ok for the events which occurred during the Rossair accident.
Could it be that we have here a situation akin to the Emperor’s New Clothes? No one is prepared to say that they find the legislation difficult to understand for fear of appearing stupid??? I certainly felt stupid when I had to read it several times in order to ascertain the meaning.

When questioned about the legality of the situation shortly after the accident, CASA’s response was that it was always done that way. I believe this is not good enough and pushing through this legislation seems to me to be a classic arse-covering exercise. Once again, CASA are ensuring that the finger cannot be pointed at them and the word 'accountability' is missing from their vocabulary.