30 Sport Pilot. FOR RECREATIONAL PILOTS
T
HE article entitled ‘You and the Aviation Reg-
ulations’ (Sport Pilot February 2015) raises
the question of how aviation regulations are
interpreted. In the article it states: “It is a matter for
individual members whether they choose to follow
the regulations as interpreted by CASA and commu-
nicated by RA-Aus or follow some other path.”
But how do we know if one of these organisa-
tions has a different interpretation than ourselves?
Surely if a regulation is open to interpretation, then
it is no longer a regulation, it is a suggestion. To be
classed as a regulation, it has to be unambiguous.
Unfortunately, CASA does not make understand-
ing regulation easy. It uses more than 1,000 acro-
nyms and abbreviations.
In the above mentioned article, the last section
under the subheading “CASA Advice” may as well
have been written in Chinese. If the description had
not stated it was an extract on the requirement to
hold a RA-Aus Pilot Certificate, it would have had to
be sent to a code breaker to determine its purpose.
How many readers were able to understand the ar-
gument put forward? How many looked up the refer-
ence given in that section of the article? How many
readers gave up after the second paragraph?
I will relate my own attempt at trying to obtain
an understanding of CASA regulations. I hold an RA-
Aus Pilot Certificate, a PPL (not current) and an RPL.
I was seeking information, not trying to dream up a
novel interpretation as suggested by the authors of
the original article.FLIGHT REVIEW
I needed an Aeroplane Flight Review (AFR) to make
my RPL current so I could enter controlled air space.
So I started a search of CASA regulations dealing
with flight in controlled airspace. I wanted an AFR
but wondered if CASA would accept my RA-Aus BFR
as a CASA AFR.
I use the word regulation loosely to cover all of
the CASA documents which indicate a directive. My
progress went something like this:
I looked up Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instru-
ment 2011, Exemption from provisions of the
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight
aeroplanes. I thought this regulation encompassed
RA-Aus registered aircraft. Under Flight conditions
I found this statement. 7.3 An aeroplane, to which
this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or
D airspace only if all of the following conditions arecomplied with: I will skip several subparagraphs
because my aircraft satisfied those sections and
come to subparagraph (e); the pilot has satisfacto-
rily completed an aeroplane flight review in accord-
ance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR
1988 ; This paragraph refers to other sections of the
regulations, therefore I thought that those sections
must be applicable to certain ultralight aeroplanes.
I looked up 5.81 and found subparagraph 5.
Originally, this regulation stated that; A private pilot
who, within a period of 2 years immediately before
the day of the proposed flight, has: in sub-subpar-
agraph (b), satisfactorily completes an aeroplane
proficiency check; is taken to have satisfactorily
completed an aeroplane flight review”.
Having done a BFR in the period mentioned I
considered I met the requirements of this regu-
lation.
It appears this regulations has now been
amended to read the following; 5.1 In this CAAP
the process of undertaking a biennial assessment
of a pilot’s skills and knowledge is referred to as a
flight review. In Australia the terms Aeroplane Flight
Review (AFR) and Biennial Flight Review (BFR)
are commonly used. However, the intention is to
address flight reviews for all licences, categories
of aircraft and appropriate ratings. Although the
CAAP is numbered after CAR 5.81, it is not limited
to the Private Pilot Licence (PPL) and aeroplanes.
The current regulations specify flight reviews for all
licences and for the Private Instrument Flight Rules
(PIFR) rating.
My reading of the original regulation meant thatmy BFR was acceptable as an AFR. I am not sure
that the amendment changes that conclusion.
However, my authority for entering controlled air-
space was put to CASA via RA-Aus and CASA came
back with the answer that a BFR is not acceptable
as an AFR.HOW TO GET AN AFR
I emailed CASA to see if I could carry out an AFR in
my RA-Aus registered aircraft and, if not, why not.
Two days later I received a phone call from a
CASA representative. He stated I could not carry out
an AFR in an RA-Aus aircraft. He also stated that
even if I had an AFR I could not fly in controlled air-
space in an RA-Aus registered aircraft. The reason
he gave was that the regulations prevented it from
happening. I accepted that statement and decided
I might re-register my aircraft as a GA aircraft, so I
asked the representative how did I go about chang-
ing my registration to VH. His reply was, “I have no
idea.” So I hung up to consider my options.
About 20 minutes later I received another call
from CASA. This time from a different representa-
tive and he started the conversation by saying,
“ignore what you were told by the earlier caller be-
cause the information was incorrect” or words to
that effect. He then went on to explain what I had to
do to get myself an AFR.
I brought up the subject of carrying out an AFR
in the aircraft I had mostly used in the past 10
flights - my RA-Aus registered aircraft. He told me
that requirement had been deleted from the regu-
lation and that I could do my AFR in any VH regis-Seeing the light
VIEWPOINT
BY OWEN BARTROP