Hi Daniel,

Your points are valid and demonstrate exactly the kind of care you need to take when analysing the language used in the CASA exam questions.

With Question 12, you are correct, you do not need to carry life jackets if your flight is over water and you always remain within gliding distance of land suitable for an emergency landing. Strictly speaking then, life jackets must not ALWAYS be carried if you are over water. However, that being said, of all the options, this one is the most correct.

Question 15 is another "pick your best answer". Yes, you MUST maintain track until at least 500ft AGL so strictly speaking it is not a recommendation (in the sense of you can choose to do it or not) but rather an obligation. Once again though, the other options are absolutely incorrect.

Unfortunately, as others have reported, in the CASA exam you may well find yourself choosing answers based solely on a process of elimination so this is all good practice :laugh:

I'll have a word with Bob and check whether those questions should be reworded slightly. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.

Cheers,

Rich

Thanks for your reply, Rich. Sorry to seem overly pedantic about it all, I just wanted to make sure I wans't missing something. As you know each document likes to give it's two cents, sometimes in ambiguous and obscure ways. You're right, though, it's good practice for choosing the most correct answer.

Thanks for your time, mate! I'm sure to have other questions for you! =)

Funny, I was sure I'd answered this post - maybe I forgot to press the 'submit' button - or maybe it's just old age!!

Regarding Question 12. In the jargon of the trade, 'over water' is usually taken to mean out of gliding distance of land. In other words, if you can glide back to land you are not considered to be an 'over water' flight. However I must admit I cannot find a specific reference to that effect in any document. I have changed to questions to include 'out of gliding distance'. Thanks for your feed-back.

Regarding Question 15. This is typical of my never-ending endeavours to keep up with CASA. An amendment came out some time ago that removed all mention of 500 feet in the turn after take-off so I changed the question to 'recommended'. Now they have made a further amendment and 'presto', the 500 feet is back again. I have now changed it back again in future prints of the book. Thanks again for your feed-back.

Bob

I've put this into the [url= http://www.bobtait.com.au/books/errata/101-cpl-air-law ]errata list[/url] for CPL Air Law and the E-Text is now updated. Thanks Bob!

Cheers,

Rich

Thanks for your help, Bob!

I have one more question for you Rich, Bob or both!
In the section, revision of operational MET, there are a couple of METARs and SPECIs that have the weather code preceded by RE. It says underneath that 'RE' means the respective weather has occurred since the last report but isn't occurring anymore. How come the only reference to this is in the definitions section of AIP GEN, I mean, it seems sort of stupid not to reference it under the MET services available! Is there a reason that you know of for this? Or is CASA as confusing to you as they are me sometimes.

Also, regarding flight through designated remote areas. This seems to be a bit of a grey area, to me. There has been talk of needing a HF radio, and I remember at one point one of my instructors told me that to fly through a DRA you needed to have an ELT, regardless of the distance from your departure aerodrome. What are the real requirements? So far all I've found are: you need to submit a flight notification with SARTIME or leave a responsible person a flight note, carry an ELT when flying at a distance of more than 50nm from your point of departure and carry survival equipment suitable for the area. Is that all? Does th HF radio requirement still stand?

I've got my Air Law exam next Tuesday so I'm just trying to work out all the little tid bits of confusion.

Cheers!!

I am not aware of RE being explained anywhere but in the definitions in AIP GEN - "Recent".

There once was a requirement to have HF for any flight in a DRA if an ELB was not carried. That has been removed. You don't need HF any more but you must have at least a flight note, survival equipment and, if going more than 50nm, a beacon. There's really no need to mention the beacon, because that rule applies where ever you fly. So it all boils down to "tell someone where you're going, and carry survival equipment."

Thanks, Bob.

Sorry to hassle again, but is the code NDV (no directional variation) still used? I can't find reference to it anywhere in AIP.

It looks like you're right. I note that 'no cloud detected' [NCD] for automatic cloud reportiong is still being used - see AIP GEN 3.5 para 12.14. However 'no directional variation' [NDV] for automatic visibility reporting seems to have vanished. Thanks for that. I'll check it out and change the book if necessary.

[b][i][color=#880000]EDIT 28.10.2011:[/color][/i][/b] It looks like NDV has been depreciated and the VFRG hasn't caught up yet. See comment by Jimbo below.

The term NDV is still described in the Visual Flight Rules Guide (even though it has disappeared from the AIP):

When the data has been obtained from only one sensor, the data will be followed by NDV to indicate that no directional variation can be reported (manual observations of visibility will include, when certain criteria are met, a directional variation in addition to the prevailing visibility).

NDV = No Directional Variation reporting capability (by vismeter) [used in automated METAR/SPECI]

Cheers,

Rich

Ahh, thanks for that, Rich! Possibly it's still in the VFG because it doesn't get updated as often as AIP and it's yet to catch up...? Either way it'll definitely be in my mind for when I take the exam!

If you look at the Sept - Oct 2011 edition of Flight Safety Australia; in the Flying Ops Quiz, Question 4, you note that the term "NDV" has been deleted.

I found that just by accident, by doing those quizzes!!!

Jimbo

Excellent find there, Jimbo !

That's sorted it then. Looks like the term "NDV" can be put to rest. Oh well, another errata on the way 😛

Cheers,

Rich

Well - there you go! You learn something new every day. I'll check it out and make the necessary changes to the MET and IREX books. Thanks guys for the feed-back. I owe ya one!!

Guess it just goes to show that there's a benefit in doing those little quizzes that someone in CASA put in that magazine.

I'm half-certain that I'd read it somewhere else too! Might have been in the front of one of the recent AIP amendments, although it's not in #68; maybe it was #67??

Cheers

Jimbo