I've got Heli air law coming up, I sat fixed wing air law over 10 years ago and obviously a heap has changed with Part91. I scored 98% at the time thanks to Bobs book.
I bought Bobs latest version of the book as a way of relearning and navigating the new regulations. But I'm losing my mind trying to find a reference to a practice question that appears twice in the latest version of Bob Tait air law.
This is an example below of the question:

One situation in which a passenger is required to wear a seatbelt is when
(a) flying over water
(b) a passenger occupies a control seat
(c) flying below 5000ft AMSL
(d) flying below 1000ft AGL

The book gives the answer as flying below 1000ft AGL.

This appears to be a left over question from CAO 20.16.
CASR 91 does not specify an altitude.

Below is an extract from 91.570, yes there are many other parts relating to seatbelts from 91.520 onwards but 91.570 seems to be the closest regulation I can find that may hint at seatbelts still having an altitude requirement.

The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, before doing a thing mentioned in subregulation (2), a passenger is not directed to do the following:

(a) to fasten the passenger’s seatbelt or shoulder harness;

(2) The things are the following:

(a) taxiing;

(b) taking off;

(c) landing.


Yes that is a regulation using words such as "thing" and "things, this is a direct copy.
In my mind IF a level requirement does still exist then it must be in the definition of takeoff or landing, but I cannot find a definition to confirm that.

The reason why this is bugging me so much is I was marked incorrect on the RPLH exam on the seatbelt question. I went with the usual method pick the "MOST CORRECT" and I selected the only option that didn't include the requirement to use a seatbelt below 1000ft as this is not listed in Part91.

Is anybody able to correct me in where I am going wrong?

I agree and cannot find the relevant reference to this in any up to date docs.

Anyone figured out if this question is still relevant?

Thanks

G'day

Your assumption is correct and it appears to be a left over question from CAO 20.16. that has slipped though I'll amend the question to reflect the new regs. Sorry for the confusion we try our best, but the constant changes sometimes catch us out.

Cheers