Aviation Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Aviation Law - Case Study Example (a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned; (c) that the aircraft is in every way fit for the intended flight, and that where a certificate of maintenance review is required by article 14(1) to be in force, it is in force and will not cease to be in force during the intended flight; (e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with; x x x " [Emphasis supplied] 'Commander' in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person, the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft; [Emphasis supplied] In the situation given, it is clear tha... ion to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person, the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft; [Emphasis supplied] In the situation given, it is clear that Carl was the commander of the aircraft for purposes of Article 52 of the ANO because Carl was the pilot in command of the aircraft. As a commander, it is therefore Carl's responsibility to conduct all pre-flight action as required of him under Article 52 of the ANO. Specifically, Carl's responsibility is to ensure before the flight that the aircraft has sufficient fuel for the intended flight. Based on the situation given, the aircraft's engine stopped due to fuel starvation, there being insufficient fuel for the intended flight. Moreover, considering Carl's failure to check the sufficiency of the fuel, he likewise failed to - (1) ensure "that the flight can safely be made," (2) take "into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available," (3) ensure that "the equipment required" in the circumstances of the intended flight is carried and "is in a fit condition for use"; (4) see to it "that the aircraft is in every way fit for the intended flight," and (5) carry sufficient fuel for the intended flight, all in violation of Carl's duty as commander pursuant to Article 52 of the ANO. Furthermore, and as previously stated, Article 52 of the ANO requires a commander like Carl in the given situation to ensure that the flight may commence under and in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to the operator under Article 21 of the ANO, which provides as follows: "Minimum equipment requirements 21 (1) x x x. (2) An