Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules. Issues Assessment Group

Transcription

1 Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules Issues Assessment Group Meeting Record Chair / Facilitator: Chris Scribe: Lisa Farrelly Date: 18 July 2007 Time: 14:00 Location: Sky City, Auckland Allan Bostock Ardmore Unicom Services Ltd John Clements FE for ASL NSH Andy McKay - Heliflight John Oaken Central South Island Helicopters Ltd Chris Bell International Aviation Academy Warren Sattler Ardmore Flying School Grant Biel Heli Harvest Ltd Darryl Robertson Eagle Flight Training Graeme Polly - Airclaims John Funnell Helicopter Services Wayne Taylor Eagle Airways Limited Lloyd Klee Aviation Safety Jay Peters Canterbury Aero Club Penny Mackay Nelson Aviation Club Mike Barnes Air Hawkes Bay Ltd Ian Stockwell - NZTE Adam Eltham Ardmore Flying School Johnny Walker - NZALPA Phil Hooker Bay Flight Chris - CAA Peter Blackler - CAA Merv Falconer - CAA Jack Snow - CAA Qwilton Biel ACAG/Rural Aviation Agenda Item 1 Introduction Subject 2 7/ISS/32 Aerodrome Traffic Circuit Direction Requirements 3 7/ISS/54 Night VFR Instruments and Equipment 4 7/ISS/59 Flying Equipment and Operating Information 5 7/ISS/60 Minimum Height for VFR Flights 6 7/ISS/76 Carriage of Appropriate Life Preservers General Discussion on: Issues already assessed for inclusion on a Part 91 Update Project 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07

2 Discussion 1 Chris 2 Chris Attendees introduced themselves and Chris explained that Issues Assessment Groups (IAGs) are convened to assess an issue or a number of related issues that have been identified during the Trigger Phase of the rule development process. The purpose of each IAG is to focus on the problem identification and definition of each issue, undertake the risk assessment for each issue and identify solution options (rule-based and/or non rule-based). Each rule issue being assessed is reviewed to ensure that the issue description and risk details are accurate and that the appropriate solution is chosen. It was clarified that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the specifics of rule amendments (assuming that this was the appropriate solution) and that any rule solution would still need to be discussed in detail with a Project Working Group (containing key industry stakeholders) should a Part 91 Update Rule Project be included on a future rules programme. 7/ISS/32 Aerodrome Traffic Circuit Direction Requirements As part of the public consultation on the Part 93 Right-Hand Aerodrome Traffic circuit rules project (4/CAR/9), the Wellington Gliding Club commented on the use of the term aeroplane and aircraft in respect to rule They refer to the use of the terms aeroplane, aircraft and helicopter in rule and comment that the rule is unclear about the circuit direction requirements for other categories of aircraft such as gliders and microlights. The Gliding Club considered the loose use of the term aeroplane and aircraft makes interpretation of this rule more complex. They consider that any requirement to perform a standard or non-standard aerodrome traffic circuit should be on the pilot of any category of aircraft and not just the pilots of aeroplanes The current activities at Ardmore, Matamata and the North Shore were discussed in relation to a proposed amendment of , where it was clarified that does makes reference to special aerodrome traffic rules prescribed in Part 93. Issue Outcome: It was agreed that this issue requires a rule amendment to include gliders and microlights, and other aircraft as appropriate. It was also suggested that the rule amendment include a review of definition of a microlight. 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07

3 3 Chris 7/ISS/54 Night VFR Instruments and Equipment CAR specifies instrument and equipment currently required for night VFR. For night privileges a pilot is required to have at least 2 hours instrument flight time. It is undesirable to only teach limited panel techniques as the only instrument flying technique which is all that is possible under the current instrument and equipment requirements (one turn and slip, an airspeed indicator and an altimeter). Advisory Circular AC 61-3 specifies the requirements for night flight training. The AC specifies that 'helicopters used for instrument flight training should have operational instruments consisting of at least an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a turn and slip indicator, a magnetic compass and a VSI'. Similar equipment requirements were previously specified in Regulation 106 and CASO 20. The instrument and equipment requirements for night VFR need to be reviewed and updated to reflect both training and operational requirements. There was lengthy discussion on amending the equipment requirements for night flying. Discussed were the likely resulting factors and, should aircraft be required to be equipped with the same instruments used in night flying training. It was agreed that it is appropriate for AC61-3 to specify additional instruments that are required for the instrument flight time that is required for the night flight training, but these additional instruments are not required for night VFR operations under It was considered that should not be amended as the additional instruments could tempt some pilots to fly VFR at night in less than desirable conditions. The addition of AH equipment was raised and discussed with differing views expressed. The value of the 2 hours instrument flight time for the night flight training was discussed and many considered that 2 hours instrument time was insufficient. However this is a Part 61 training issue rather than a Part 91 matter. It was agreed that rule does not require a rule amendment. It was also agreed that there are concerns which should be looked into with the current requirements for night flying training. 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07

4 4 Chris 7/ISS/59 Flying Equipment and Operating Information CAR does not require the pilot-in-command to have NOTAMs and Aeronautical Information Service briefing documentation appropriate to the flight and copies of the relevant Aeronautical Information Publications and plates readily accessible. The meeting discussed the wording readily accessible used in the raising of this issue and also the practicality or necessity to hold this information on board a flight. NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information Service briefing documentation are required for flight planning and do not need to be carried on the aircraft. It was agreed that a rule base solution is not required, although education on best practice with regard to NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information Service briefing documentation would be beneficial. 5 Chris 7/ISS/60 Minimum Height for VFR Flights CAR provides for flights below the minimum heights for a bona fide reason. Some pilots view bad weather as a bona fide reason. The rule needs to make it clear that bad weather is not a bona fide reason for low flying. Recommend that (c) be amended to make it clear that bad weather is not a bona fide reason for low flying. It was suggested that Rotary Wing be separated from Fixed Wing in regard to It was suggested that there are wider issues that need to be addressed in a review of and in particular (c). A rule amendment is required to address a number of issues in regard to low flying, including flying below cloud. 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07

5 6 Chris 7 Chris 7/ISS/65 Aerodrome Traffic Circuit Priorities Long established conventions require other aircraft to give way to aircraft already established on an aerodrome traffic circuit. These requirements are published in the AIP (AD 1.5-2, 2.1.1(c)). It has been identified that the rules do not support this convention, and that the right-of-way rules in CAR apply. The meeting suggested that this rule take into account the international/icao Standard, and that there needed to be a match between the rule and the AIP. The meeting heard that scheduled traffic should have the right of way although this is not currently documented in the rules. And that many thought circuit traffic have the right of way. A rule amendment is required to clarify the right of way rule. 7/ISS/76 Carriage of Appropriate Life Preservers While CAR requires a life preserver to be carried for each person on board the aircraft, there is currently no means to ensure the correct type and allocation of life preservers are carried for different pax (i.e. Adult, Child etc). Suggested wording of : one life preserver "appropriate" for each person on board. Appendix A.14 (b) specifies the life preserver design standard which includes minimum buoyant forces for different categories. A.14 (a)(1)(i) requires a minimum buoyant force of 150N precluding children s lifejackets of a lower force. Para (a)(1)(i) could be deleted as standards specified in Para (b) should already cover. There was lengthy discussion about the types of life preservers currently used on various types of aircraft and how suitable they are for the particular type of operation/aircraft. It was suggested that in the latest amendment to Part 91 the suspender life jackets are now not compliant. The CAA said they would check David Gill s letter with regard to approval of alternative life jackets. NZ CAA Standards and the Maritime Standard were discussed. Reference in the rule for maintenance checks annual or bi-annual were seen as a necessary inclusion to any rule amendment. Emergency Packs in life rafts was also raised where it was suggested that it is possible to meet the requirements of the FAA rule but not the NZCA Rule and that it would be desirable to align with the FAA rule. Lloyd Klee said that he would raise this issue via CAA s official process. It was agreed that a rule amendment is required to address the issue of appropriate life preservers for each person on board. The other issues raised will also be further considered. 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07

6 8 Chris General Discussion on: Issues already assessed for inclusion on a Part 91 Update Project The meeting briefly reviewed the rules issues already determined as requiring a rules based solution but considered issue 6/ISS/47 Optional equipment items in flight manuals as not requiring a rules based solution. This issue arose from a TAIC report into the ditching of ZK-VAC and the pilot s misunderstanding of the aircraft s low fuel warning system. The meeting agreed that this issue would be more appropriately dealt with through the airworthiness design approval and flight training processes rather than a rule amendment. In addition, defining `optional equipment items of operational significance would be problematic. 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 6 Date saved: 02/08/07