Mythical reform.
#81
Just had another discussion with my mate..

Take the Extra 300. It carries 40 litres (38 usable) in the acro tank, and 120 litres in the wing tanks.

Section 2.4.1 in the POH reads:

Quote:Fuel

Minimum grade aviation gasoline : 100/100LL; for alternate fuel grades see latest revision of LYC S.I. No. 1070
Total fuel capacity 160 litres (42.3 US gallons)
Useable fuel capacity 158 litres (41.7 US gallons)
For acrobatic flight wing tanks must be empty
Total fuel capacity for acrobatic flight 40 litres (10.6 US gallons) in acro tank
Useable fuel capacity for acrobatic flight 38 litres (10.04 US gallons) in acro tank

Bolding mine..

So if you were to fly a competition, or even practice, you'd start with 40 litres on board.

Fuel consumption on a standard day at 65% power is around 50 litres/hour (from a quick glance at the chart..)

Therefore, a MAYDAY would be required before you even start....at least, that's my understanding..
Reply
#82
Order – Gentlemen – please.

Had a ‘chat’ with Wannabe. Turns out that ‘his mate’ actually does operate quite legally within even the new part 91. Fuel from ‘mains’ is used until exhausted, timed neatly to coincide with the start of his 5 or 6 minute sortie – which leaves about 40 minutes on board to complete the flight very ‘legally’.

Part 91 remains as big a crock of technically incorrect shite as it always was – just more pages to plough through, safety at work eh? With or without the frills  - don’t do the crime if you can’t justify the time.

No penalty for CW – this time – he posted without thinking it through. Let he who is without sin chuck the first brick – (Sellah - applicable under section 36-24-36 of ‘the AP act’)…

Chuss....
Reply
#83
Latest on the flat earth society & Part 91 - Dodgy

Cribbed from the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10119954

Quote:LeadSled - Folks,

The drafting of Part 91 (and so much other aviation regulation) in the "negative" guarantees confusion and the creation of "inadvertent criminals".

There is no good reason for this, other than CASA choice, you take a topic, write a regulation to ban it, then follow with a string of exception, usually with multiple cross references to grossly increase likelihood of misunderstanding.

If the same "regulation" was written in the positive, what you can do, it would be far more straightforward to understand.

Then we get to the poor quality of the actual drafting, and this leaves so many avenues to argue what you can actually do.

Tootle pip!!


andrewr - Some of the rules seem a bit overdone.

91.275 Aircraft to be flown under VFR or IFR
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
at any time during the flight, the aircraft is not flown under the VFR or IFR.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes
subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.


I don't even know how to contravene that rule.

91.445 Additional right of way rules
Aircraft with right of way to maintain heading and speed
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if,
during the flight:
(a) there is a risk of collision with another aircraft; and
(b) the aircraft has right of way over the other aircraft (in accordance with
regulation 91.440); and
© the aircraft’s heading and speed is not maintained until there is no longer a
risk of collision.


Really? I fly a slower aircraft, quite often I will modify heading and/or speed to allow a faster aircraft to go in front even if I have right of way. Is that forbidden?

(1) A person who fuels an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if a requirement
mentioned in subregulation (2) is not met.
(2) The requirements are the following:
(a) at all times during the fuelling, at least 2 fire extinguishers:
(i) must be on the fuelling equipment or positioned at a distance of not
less than 6 m and not more than 15 m from the fuelling point; and
(ii) must be readily available for use by the person;
(b) each fire extinguisher:
(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and
electrical fires;


At least 2 fire extinguishers between 6 and 15 metres from the aircraft? Anyone know what capacity is considered suitable for extinguishing fuel fires?

I can see why you would set standards for someone who provides refueling facilities, and why you might have rules to protect bystanders etc. but if you set your aircraft on fire while refueling and the closest extinguisher is 25m away surely it's your problem? Do we need a 50 penalty unit offence?

Lead Balloon - What a God-awful mess. The machine is broken.

I’d not usually look at any of the dross trotted out as draft aviation “safety” regulations these days, but andrewr’s cut and paste had me shaking my head in disbelief.

91.275? What do I say? Might as well make it an offence if you do not fly an aircraft during the hours of daylight or darkness. Gotta be at least 10 years in gaol for that.

Right of way rules? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times they’ve made an operational difference in over 30 years of flying. I do trust that the millions spent on reproducing the COLREGS in domestic law, again, will be worth it.

Fire extinguishers and refuelling? I’ve looked at the draft and, as far as I can tell, the rule quoted by andrewr applies to all Australian aircraft (as defined) in Australian territory. I’m disturbed to note that my dangerous behaviour has included never having had 2 fire extinguishers positioned anywhere during refuelling. And it won’t in the future. I’m disappointed to have been forced into a life of crime.

I’ve seen reference to simulating engine failures and “shut down”. I don’t have the energy.

To quote the Spodman once again: May Jesus pee in bucket, what are these wombats on?
 
Big Grin Big Grin
MTF? - Hmm...no doubt - P2 Tongue
Reply
#84
Fire – (Somebody please).

There is a very large dollop of purblind stupidity, of the type unique to CASA contained within the Part 91 paragraphs posted  above. If you ever wanted to identify, with precision, a definitive example of why CASA should not be allowed anywhere near the regulations; this one will serve you very well indeed.

Lets take a short look at what the ‘Reg’ does not mention in a simple operation conducted hundreds of times a day. For simplicity lets use a Cessna 172 at a country airstrip; pulled in to top up the tanks, stretch the legs etc. The aircraft pulls up at the bowser, the passengers toddle off to the bushes, and Pete the pilot gets set up to load fuel. What is the first thing he needs? We may assume the brakes are off and there’s a chock under a convenient wheel, so the aircraft may be pushed quickly and easily out of any spilled fuel without starting the engine.

[Image: Fuel-1000x600.jpg]

The second and probably the most important is the attachment of an ‘earth’ or ground wire. Ever get one those ‘static electricity’ shocks when you touch something – well an aircraft can and usually does carry quite a charge after flight; a properly attached ground wire discharges any built up static quite safely back to mother Earth; preventing any chance of a spark igniting vapour. It is a jolly good idea, yet there is no 50 penalty point for failing to attach the wire; thus it remains quite legal not to do so. But no matter – we have the heroic ‘fire extinguishers', close at hand.

(i) must be of a type and capacity suitable for extinguishing fuel and electrical fires;

What, exactly, is an electrical fire? Electricity don’t burn – so we enter the realms of supposition where the cause (or seat) of the fire is electrical; first and foremost in this event we must turn off the electrical power; then we may address the burning material which has actually caught fire. Now then, at a fuel bowser what kind of material do you imagine would be ‘on fire’ – there ain’t much around to burn – except petrol. Which leads us to ‘fuel fed’ fires.

If old Pete has not ‘earthed’ the aircraft and is up on the step ladder with the fuel cap open and the fuel pumping in and there is a static discharge – what do you imagine will happen – if its not his lucky day – WHUMPA is what and a crispy critter to remove from the charred remains of the aircraft the result.

Lets say its still not Pete’s lucky day and there is a small ‘weep’ or wee leak at the pump and there is a ‘spark’ what do you reckon comes next – Uhm – WHUMPA perhaps?

WHUMPA is the noise made when petrol vapours ignite. So we must use a little imagination to identify exactly what manner of fire the CASA genius who penned this twaddle was raving about. We need a recognizable ‘fire and smoke’ situation which Pete can actually see; so upon spotting the fire Pete climbs down the step ladder, walks the 15 meters to the extinguisher, unhooks the unit (not chained to prevent theft), ambles back to the fire and calmly puts the beast out.

Bollocks – fire near a petrol pump – if Pete survived a petrol fuelled fire ignition, he’d be doing 30 knots as he went past the carefully positioned fire extinguishers, screaming for the fire brigade who will stand back (a long way) until it is safe to ‘mop up’; which is most sensible – IMO.

But if your extinguishers are not more than 15 meters and not less than six meters, why you're legally as safe as houses, which is always nice to know. So carry a tape measure and if those extinguishers do not meet the exacting CASA positioning standards after your careful measuring; move those errant things to their correct position. There now all legal, safe and tidy; don’t you just love the CASA safety methodology.

Best load of Bollocks of the year candidate, in a very competitive field. Fuel pump standards (not CASA responsibility) and educated airmanship (not CASA responsibility) all yours for about AUD $100, 000 per page.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#85
Meanwhile in another hemisphere - Rolleyes

Via AvWeb... Wink

Quote:Guest Blog: Europe Leads In Simplifying Regulation
 
By Jason Baker | April 23, 2018

Related Articles
The Aero Expo in Friedrichshafen promotes itself as the pulse-meter of the European GA market and that often doesn't come across in a factually balanced news release. By American standards, Aero is not a huge show, but it’s a busy one and a target-rich environment for new stuff.

Yes, there was a clear dominance of electronics, electric propulsion systems and upgraded technology. I suppose it’s fair to say knowledge of all the gewgaws is required in order to remain eye to eye with a fellow aviator. That's all fine and dandy, but there’s a lot more going on here in Europe than is apparent from just wandering the stands.

The big surprise was attending the news conference EASA put on and paying close attention to just how significantly this agency has changed itself over the last five to six years. I left the conference with a somewhat spooked feeling, because so much collaboration and exchange and such open words from an aviation regulatory body feel almost unreal. In fact, after listening for the first 15 minutes of the two-hour conference, I started secretly looking around for some sort of hidden camera. Clearly, at any moment, we would be coughing and trying to wipe the dust off our shirts when the show would end and yet another 1900-page rule book would crash to the table.

Instead, I learned that a whole team at EASA spent a lot of time condensing the previous 1900-page rulebook down to a lot less, focusing on significance and intended purpose. The question they asked was: "How many pages of rules and regulations does one have to read or thumb through to arrive at something relevant that is easy to understand and doesn't require an attorney’s interpretation to comply with?"
 
With some of us munching away on the catered items and refreshments provided, I wondered if we would have a chance in the U.S. to see similar sentiments from our own FAA. EASA tells me it’s working hand in hand with the FAA on relaxing the system from its at-times incredibly constipated bureaucracy. Yet no one at EASA said a negative word about the FAA being behind the airplane on the "Roadmap For General Aviation."

EASA's presence and effort appeared personable and authentic and it was definitely clear that the agency is listening to manufacturers, associations, pilot groups and proposals from outside and within the European aviation universe. While one has to wonder just how much of this behavior will rub off on our friends in Washington, let the following perceptions sink in:

EASA has recognized that it has lacked the insight into the field to sensibly regulate general aviation while at the same time effectively evaluating and mitigating risk and promoting a safety culture among all players. Recognizing fault is the first step to getting better, right? This monumental task requires stakeholders and regulators alike to sit around the table and discuss things and to actually listen actively.

One catalyst here is the unmanned aircraft industry, the rapid implementation of which has shaken regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Integrating a rapidly growing drone industry is a challenge, together with the constantly expanding possibilities of electronics, VTOL technology, octa-copters, airspace restrictions, environmental concerns and a generally easily entertained but hard-to-reach and rapidly aging audience. All of it requires collaboration and open minds.

EASA has gotten the memo that raising the regulatory finger and throwing the dusty old rulebook at its industry isn't a path to success. Once the market has been regulated or taxed to death, their jobs become obsolete, too.

I’m not saying that all wishes are fulfilled or that none of our wants are pink or floating around on fluffy clouds over here. Far from it. Instead, I would encourage conversations about how the FAA can be convinced that things must be simplified and pronto.

To be fair, the FAA is moving in the right direction, as evidenced by its cooperative attitude toward installation of non-certified avionics in certified airplanes. That’s a start.

But even though the U.S. remains the world aviation mecca, it’s the Europeans who are showing us how a regulatory agency can transform itself and actually be a catalyst to market growth instead of a hindrance. Who would have ever thought this would happen?  

1900 pages? - Jesus wept, most people in industry here would be happy to have a 1900 rulebook... Dodgy

From post: Red tape embuggerance continues unabated at Aviation House

Quote:Lead Balloon:


Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?

My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.

I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.




"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."
 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#86
Meanwhile in another hemisphere - Part II

Via @FAASafetyBrief on twitter:

Quote:[Image: sckaPmh2_bigger.jpg]FAA Safety Briefing
@FAASafetyBrief

We recently reduced/relieved existing regulatory burdens & costs on the general aviation (GA) community including
#pilots, flight schools, and part 135 operators. Here are brief descriptions for each of the 13 provisions with the scheduled effective dates: https://adobe.ly/2oLPzTL 

[Image: DpJkCcEWsAA5Wum.jpg]



--by FAA Safety Briefing Magazine

On June 27, 2018, the FAA published a final rule with provisions that will reduce or relieve existing regulatory burdens and costs on the general aviation (GA) community including pilots, flight schools, and part 135 operators. Many of these rule changes resulted from GA community recommendations including petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, and requests for legal interpretation. Here are brief descriptions for each of the 13 provisions; please note the scheduled effective dates for each. To view the complete final rule, click here (PDF download) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-06-...-12800.pdf

Meanwhile in Aviation's Dunceunda Land: 

From ASAP minutes: 1) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/as...march-2018

2) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/as...ember-2017

3) https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/av...ember-2017

Quote:2017‐1/1 - CASA to consider updating and re-issuing the guiding principles for development and implementation of safety regulations to place a stronger emphasis on: risk; simplicity & clarity, approach to harmonisation and timeliness.

2017-1/4 - CASA to consider regular communications about the status of regulations being developed and priorities being worked on.

Hmm...I guess the CASA Iron Ring have considered and decided that it is not in their self-interest/self-preservation to change their overly prescriptive, strict liability, Big R-regulator methodology for the writing of regulations; nor is it apparently in their interest to reduce industry regulatory burden by harmonising our aviation rule-set with the rest of the world... Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#87
My tweet:-

“CASA’s ASAP committee March minutes-no mention of medical reform mooted Nov17 ???? Obvious reading tech working groups (Mar minutes) CASA is incapable and way past the practical limits of reg complexity. Go to FARs and overcome this wasteful farce.”

I have to take my hat off in admiration for the volunteers on the Technical Working Groups (TWG) who are sacrificing their living time, working time and family time, on the alter of the great CASA god of Government Total Control. What a joke, CASA’s drafting people can’t spell or write grammatically, let alone understand how things happen in the real world of flying. Reading the TWG minutes its obvious that many rules are tripping over each other because they are inconsistent, convoluted and prescriptive beyond practicality.

I read the Nov 17 ASAP minutes and CASA was going to look at the planning for implementation of medical reform. Mar 18 minutes, not even a mention of that subject. Looking at the composition of the ASAP members I suppose they don’t really care about this issue. I’d love to know what has happened to this reform, has Mr. Carmody actually caused any worthwhile medical reform?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: