Use of Airspace Surrounding an Aerodrome

[lethalw]

Hey All,

Some of you may be familiar with the airport I'm referring to, being not too far away from my home base......but....

My question to the masses is, how much legal "control" or "authority" does a council / shire etc have in regards to the airspace around an airport that they own??

I've been looking through some documents relating to Airspace Act and CommLaw and that sort of stuff, but alas I'm not a lawyer, but a pilot, and can't make much sense of it all.

There has been some restrictions placed on activities that may not actually involve landing, and I've had more than a few people ask me what the deal is. The benefit of using this airport is that it has 2 approach aids, making it useful for NVFR / IFR work.

Thoughts? (Apart from the old 'dont-give-a-radio-call option....!) I know applications can (and will) be made for these activities, but I'm more curious about the rights of using airspace, so to speak......

[LeadSled]

lethalw,
First question, which state are you in?
Tootle pip!!

[Awol57]

I am going to guess WA, and an aerdrome south of Perth. But not too far south! ;)

[lethalw]

Yeah,

WA is right on the money, and AWOL I think you're onto it.......

I would assume different states have different by-laws and things as such??

[YPJT]

I believe this came about because of the environmental restrictions / conditions placed upon the airport as part of the development approval.

[PLovett]

The answer..................virtually none.

At common law a landowners rights extended to the center of the earth and to the heavens above. However, a few judicial decisions and the avarice of governments put a stop to that.

The primary case was in the UK where a lord attempted to stop pesky photographers from using aircraft to take pictures of his stately pile. The courts quickly slapped that down and said that essentially a landowners rights only extended to a short distance above and below ground level, essentially only that which they could reasonable expect to utilize.

The best that local and state governments can do is request the Commonwealth to limit aviation or to apply a "fly friendly" zone. They have no legal rights over airspace in their own right.

[YPJT]

PLovett,
Just wondering how does that compare with the curfew restrictions of Sydney Airport? Who imposes those restrictions and how are they enforced?
Getting back to our airport in question then, I wonder how they would enforce their imposed restrictions?

[PLovett]

Just wondering how does that compare with the curfew restrictions of Sydney Airport? Who imposes those restrictions and how are they enforced?

The airport authority imposed the restrictions which essentially says you can't land or take off between 2300 and 0600 (with exemptions for the more pedantic). In relation to the WA airfield the local council, if it is the owner, can certainly restrict use of the field but not the airspace above it.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

On a 'similar' theme,

Some years ago at a WA RAPAC meeting, it was brought up that the Shire of Cunderdin were sending invoices for aircraft doing navaid awk - not landing mind you - just using the airspace above their airport.

The navaid (s) belong to the C'wealth Govt of course. :ooh:

I did not hear the 'resolution' to this - although I couldn't see that situation lasting long....:=

Anybody?

Cheers:ok:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A couple of things:
(1) Curfews at YSSY and similar are Commonwealth legislation, nothing to do with the airport operators or ATC.

(2) At least one state (VIC) has legislation allowing the charging of aircraft if they are practicing instrument procedures associated with an aerodrome. If this was an ILS or similar, there may be some justification, but when it is GNSS approaches it is a bit hard to justify.

(3) Very much depending on the circumstances, the "enforcement" of "fly neighborly" agreements can be moot, particularly if they conflict with aviation safety regulation.

Without a lot more information about the particular airfield and the nature of the restrictions, it is hard to comment.

For example, some time ago, the local council at Margret River purported to ban visiting aircraft being hangared when there were TS in the area, apparently to discourage aircraft visiting the area. The WA Dept. of Transport stopped that one dead in it's tracks.

How about a bit of detail.

Tootle pip!!

[The Green Goblin]

I believe you can't apply to have an airfield registered if it is within x amount of miles of one that already has that definition. AKA RACWA registering Murrayfield to prevent JAH from moving Jandakot to Mandurah.

I think if you want to have an airstrip on your property, you should be more worried about your neighbours!

[aroa]

The landing charge at Cunderdin was bad enough ($17?)... without the fraudulent impost from the Council for using the Air Services aid, which was probably on a plot of land excised from the 'drome anyway.

Trust all those that got a "Invoice" gave it the one finger up, the Council thumbs down, and filed it in Bin 13/waste paper basket.

The way Councils and bureaucrats can think up fees and permits when there's a sniff of being able to milk a ratepayer/client/victim, defies belief.

Bureaucratalia... we're deep in it.:\

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled is correct wrt the Victorian legislation. It was brought in to favour one particular aerodrome leasee who owns an awfully huge fleet of trucks and has a penchant for wearing dowdy cardigans.

To the letter of that law...any arodrome owner in Victoria could well make the same charge as those levied at AV. One wonders how the Federal Government looks upon this, considering revenue is being raised from the use of a Federally owned and maintained navigation aid.

[Sunfish]

First of all you need to look at who has the power to regulate aviation activities. Victoria, ACT and Queensland ceded their powers to the Commonwealth around 1920. WA, NSW and SA did not. Those three states can therefore tell exactly where you can go and what you can do.

My understanding is that in Victoria at least unless you are running a business which requires building permits, etc. the local council or state government has no control whatsoever over what you do with an aircraft or where you land it. However if you want to use a council owned aerodrome, that is another thing.

To put it another way, there is no Victorian "Department of Aviation." The Warsaw convention and Commonwelath legislation trump states rights.

It would have been interesting if the Victorian "Legislation" prohibiting a blimp from advertising over the MCG was ever tested in court.

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
I think you will find that the several states that ceded power over aviation to the Commonwealth later withdrew. However, CASA now claim power from the states ceding the Corporations powers to the Commonwealth, as well as the undoubted Commonwealth powers under S.51 of the Constitution ( the Gordon Below Franklin Dam case)

As far as I know, the former has never been tested, and presumably would only to a body incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001.

All in all, it can be very complicated. Some years ago, Queensland amended their Criminal Code to include aircraft in the definition of a vehicle, and there has been at least one conviction with a jail term for reckless and negligent operation of an Ultralight. No crash, nobody was injured, alleged low flying, a very nasty case.

What has never been tested is the extent (limits) of the Commonwealth's powers under S.51, where there is no mention of a particular activity in any ICAO Treaty, the principle one being the Chicago Convention of 1944, or to give it the proper title, the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

In short, does the Commonwealth have a power to make laws for any aviation matter not included in any of the various aviation Treaties Australia has signed.

ICAO has no power to direct conduct of domestic aviation activities in any signatory country.

It seems almost certain that there are several areas ( one conceded by a former CASA legal council, but I don't want to blab about it here, and it is not a very important area) where there is no mention in any ICAO Treaty, but who has the cubic dollars to spare to mount a High Court challenge.

Tootle pip!!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Was not the Busselton airport built by the WA State Gummint to 'foster tourism in the SW' with the longer term aim to have DIRECT flights to / from YBLN to / from other places..??

I realise that the Busselton Shire is now the ad.operator, but hey, it was built with OUR $$'s..?? (WA Residents)

Short memoried arrogant b's....

Wouldn't it be 'nice' to take half a dozen 210's down there and all do a 6am 'low level' departure - at 5 min intervals.....:}:}

[Creampuff]

lethalw

Find a competent lawyer and get them to advise you on the consequences of section 4 of the Western Australian Damage By Aircraft Act, in the context of the circumstances to which you refer: DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT ACT 1964 - SECT 4 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/dbaa1964139/s4.html)

[Capn Bloggs]

Griffo, they are a bunch of loonies. At chrissie, there was lots in the local press about expanding the airport, and this is on the ABC website:

Airport expansion for Busselton - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/16/3095149.htm)

How is that going to sit with the ear-plug brigade?

[max1]

This is starting to sound like Aviations version of The Castle.
LeadSled and Sunfish can decide who is going to be Dennis DeNuto or Laurie?
Lethalw is obviously Darryl, I'm putting Griffo up as old Stan round the corner.
Sorry Creampuff, but that leaves you as Farouk. Don't be too upset though as I either get to play one of the boys, or Son of Coco:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I dunno Bloggsie,

I think ya better take the 'ole '71' down....and give them a good 'TASTE'....

:}:}

(Pity we don't have a spare '72' around....now that's NOISE!! Lurved that 'crackle' on a cold winter's morn)

Cheers:ok::ok:

p.s. max......'Old' Who..??

:p

[YPJT]

Max1, that's a bit unkind. I would have thought you could have at least bestowed the honour of playing retired QC Lawrence Hammil on Creamie :E

[Creampuff]

Oi Max1: You have friend, I have friend. My friend go to your house, put bomb under your car and blow you to fu**ing sky!

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Having found out what is actually going on, the remedy is with the WA Dept. of Transport. If interested aviation parties approach them, and make their case, I have little doubt that the outcome will be the same as when the Greens (or whatever the local equivalent was) got control of the Margret River council, and set about trying to severely restrict aviation. As previously mentioned, one the "bylaws" purported to make it an offense to provide hail protection to visiting aircraft in the event of TS.

All in all, the WA Dept. of Transport have a very sensible and pragmatic policy approach to local pressure groups that try to restrict the use of local transport infrastructure that has been funded, in part or in whole, by the state of WA.

Indeed, WA is about the only state that even has a broad policy approach to aviation as an economic contributor to the state.


Tootle pip!!

[max1]

"Oh, and Creampuff put the gates round the back"

[SgtBundy]

Council: "Dug a hole dad"