That particular section of the CAO's say something about "when the aircraft is being refueled with fuel that is NOT avgas"..

OK I grabbed my CAO and here's what it says. CAO 20.9 para 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 as you have found:

(.4); The operator of an aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of less than 20 may allow fuel that is not: a) avgas; or b) an aviation turbine grade which does not contain an anti-static additive; to be loaded on to the aircraft if: (goes to mention ambulatory pax)..

SO..!

If we look a bit closer at the options;

A) says ANY type of fuel, so as long as we are looking in the correct section of CAO (4.2.4), it says fuel that is not avgas. So takes out that option.

B ) refers to 4.2.2 (more than 20 seats)

and

D) only says avtur, it doesn't say anything about the additive, which if this were the correct answer, would have to say so (can't assumptions).

I would choose option C)

Good luck!

This might be a bit late since you've got your exam tomorrow but here's my take on this question:

First off, the actual wording of [url= http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao20/2009.pdf ]CAO 20.9 4.2.3 - 4.2.4[/url] as of the 3 Mar 2010 amendment is:

4.2.3 Subject to paragraph 4.2.4, the operator of an aircraft without an underwing
fuelling system must ensure that fuel is not loaded on to the aircraft while
passengers are on board, or entering or leaving, the aircraft.
4.2.4 The operator of an aircraft that cannot be underwing fuelled may allow fuel to
be loaded onto the aircraft while a passenger is on board if:
(a) the passenger’s medical condition is such that he or she cannot leave the
aircraft without assistance; and
(b) the aircraft’s cabin door is open; and
(c) the equipment used for loading or unloading passengers (if any) is in
position at the door; and
(d) the requirements and conditions set out in paragraph 4.2.2 are satisfied.

Option A is definitely wrong because of the exclusion of AVGAS in para 4.2.1.

Option B is out as well since (as mentioned in the [b]explanatory note[/b] to CAO 20.9) Para 4.2.2 refers to aircraft with 20 or more seats so the conditions of para 4.2.2 do not apply to the aircraft in the question.

However, In Ellzy's quote of para 4.2.4, it still mentions the 20 seat limit and I suspect this reference has been since removed as of March 2010. Is it possible you've got an older CAO 20.9 Ellzy? If that's the case then the explanatory notes no longer completely match the actual regulations since CAO 20.9 makes no specific mention of the 20 seat limit in 4.2.2 or 4.2.4 anymore. In that case, option B is also correct as long as we're talking underwing fuelling.

Option C is a worry for me since "Not AVGAS" is pretty non-specific. It includes a lot of other fuels, including (theoretically) Jet A which won't necessarily fulfill the criteria of 4.2.2. And what about MOGAS (e.g. 4-star) :blink: ?

This leaves option D. Avtur is aviation grade turbine fuel and Avtur in Australia will be Jet A-1 and Jet A-1 must by law include an anti-static additive (please correct me if I'm wrong there).

So, for my money, I'd go for option D since we're talking AVTUR, and the "non-ambulatory" passenger is covered specifically by 4.2.4. Also the removal of the "20 seat" texts means we're covered for over and under-wing fuelling as long as we're using AVTUR and we satisfy the other criteria of 4.2.2.

By the way, another common type of jet fuel is Jet A but it is only used in the US and does not require the inclusion of an anti-static additive - and it usually doesn't. This could explain why CAO 20.9 4.2.2 makes a specific comment that fuel "loaded in the USA ... meets the ASTM D 1655 standard".

I suspect there have been some significant wording changes in CAO 20.9 last year. This might have made this question more difficult than it used to be.

What do you reckon Bob?

Good Luck with your exam George!

Many thanks guys.

I think my confusion came from not realizing that when CAO 20.9.4.2.3 says "...conditions of para 4.2.2 are satisfied", that does not mean 4.2.2 subparagraphs a- l have to be satisfied as well (the reference to attendants for 72 pax should have told me that). I was worried when I couldn't find the 20 pax reference too.

I think a law degree would help!

I am also, sadly, ignorant of the finer points of avtur composition. (still saving for the Cessna Mustang!) so all combined, got it wrong. But it is the elimination elimination technique and the best answer that get you there.

Many thanks again, CaptainEllzy and Richard. Kudos and Karma to you both!

George

Good luck today mate! Let us know how it goes !

Oops, as I started reading your reply Richard I thought I might have had an amendment lying around that I haven't got around to putting in, (it's actually still in it's plastic wrapper right next to the computer) sorry if I misled you mate!

Let us know how you went with the exam,

Cheers

Many thanks guys...88% which is a bit disappointing but a pass. One question that really got my goat was a question on smoking that asked when pilots had to advise non smoking time. Many of the answers suggested that a sign must be displayed. I chose the alternative that suggested that pilots had to verbally warn pax when not to smoke, since my reading of the various CAOs and CARs suggested that a sign may be used. Emphasis on the word "may" (also with permission from the authorities) made me answer that way. Does anyone know any specific reg to do with smoking that suggests a sign must be visible?

A prime example of a question that would not be accepted in a HSC style exam due to ambiguity and opaque wording.. Maybe we teachers are too keen not to be accused of unfair questions.

Now for the practical part of the CPL (and revision of the KRUD! (as I like to call the KDR)

Ask a pilot who is an ex-smoker when it is ok to smoke. I'm sure they will tell you when.

Dear Peter,

Thanks for that cogent response.

G

Hi George! Congratulations on the pass and 88% isn't a bad score at all. A nice way to finish off the theory exams 🙂

As to your question about the regs, CAO 20.16.3(8) (Notices/signs) talks about "may display" which might read as if having signs are optional. However, I interpret "may" in that case to be an "is allowed to". In other words it is a CASA permission for aircraft under 5700kg with a single pax compartment to permanently display a no-smoking sign so as to satisfy the requirement for permission as described in CAR 255 (2).

CAR 255 (3) is also critical: if you don't have a sign permanently installed then you must have a (assumed temporary) notice displayed forbidding smoking during loading and refueling, during times as specified for the purpose in the flight manual and whenever the pilot considers it should be prohibited in the interests of safety. Which, as we all know is anytime 😛

Also CAR 289 states that you can't smoke within 15 metres of an aircraft or of a sign forbidding smoking. So, the pilot would need to make the passengers aware of that early enough to prevent anyone trying to have a quick puff before boarding.

However, just an oral warning isn't enough. As I said, CAR 289 forbids smoking within 15 m of an aircraft and CAR 255 (2) says you "must ensure" a notice is displayed at all times when smoking is forbidden so you could argue that you do actually need to have a "no smoking" sign in the aircraft at all times.

Combine that with the implicit CASA permission in CAO 20.16.3 (8) for a permanent sign and I'd say that any aircraft (including aircraft under 5700kg) must therefore have a sign on permanent display forbidding smoking at all times.

That's how I interpret it anyway. I'd be interested to know if that matches any of the answers they offered in the question.

Cheers,

Rich

Dear Richard,

Thanks for that. Have reread CAR 255 and see what you mean. It was probably my erroneous interpretation of the word "may"!

Will go and get one for the Archer!

Thanks for the kind words and patient help!

George

You're very welcome. Before you go drilling holes or putting stickers on the Archer, remember this is only my interpretation of the regs as I see them.

I'd be interested in hearing a clear ruling on this one in any case. Maybe it's just me but the regs do seem a bit all over the place on this topic.

I'm also intrigued by some of the refuelling questions, in particular Q11 in Sample Question Set 1, a similar question came up in the practice Cyber exams (CLWA_122).

Passengers may not embark or disembark from and aircraft of 6 seat capacity
a) During Refuelling with AVGAS
b) During refuelling with AVTUR with Anti-Static Additive
c) During any refuelling operation
d) When no earthwire is connecting the aircraft to an earthing point

The reference for the question is CAO 20.9.4.2.3 which prohibts refuelling on aircraft without underwing capability and makes no mention of seating capacity. Now I got the Cyber exam question right by choosing C because when I did the sample question I got it wrong as I chose refuelling with AVGAS but I'm not convinced that is the correct answer.

The March 2010 amendment removed references to a 20-seat limit in several sub-regulations. I suspect that is making these refuelling questions a little ambiguous.

In any case, I don't know of any 6-seater aircraft that has underwing fuelling capacity. So, as it stands, in this question I reckon you'd be safe to assume that CAO 20.9 4.2.3 applies. You would therefore be explicitly prohibited from embarking/disembarking pax during refuelling ops. Option C would be the correct answer.

By the way, 4.2.4 only applies to non-movable patients and is an amendment built in for Aeromedical operators as described in the printed explanatory notes for the Mar 2010 amendment to CAO 20.9.

Answer A is sort of correct since you definitely cannot load pax while refuelling with AVGAS. However, that answer infers it is ok to load pax while refuelling as long as it's not AVGAS. That is definitely wrong.

Does that help, James?

In any case, I don't know of any 6-seater aircraft that has underwing fuelling capacity.

I can see where you are coming from and knowing that the rules behind the question does make a bit of sense, just have to hope if I get a similar question in the exam they've updated it 😉