CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

[1a sound asleep]

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tv-star-faces-charges-for-chopper-antics/story-e6frg6nf-1226242939104)


Mr Jones, a Northern Territory cattleman and charter helicopter baron, has spent nine months attempting to derail Civil Aviation Safety Authority attempts to lay charges over his antics, screened on hit Channel Ten program Keeping Up With the Joneses last year.

The series, a docudrama about Mr Jones's family life on a 400,000 ha cattle station, also showed Mr Jones using a helicopter to tow his waterskiing teenage son which, if proven, could carry a two-year jail term.

CASA needs the unedited footage to prove the events actually occurred and were not confected for entertainment value. But the show's Melbourne-based producer, WTFN, refused to provide the video, prompting a CASA raid to seize the videos on March 1 last year.

n an affidavit sworn on March 1, CASA investigator Mark Haslam alleged Mr Jones may have committed numerous offences including consuming alcohol within eight hours of flying, in defiance of civil aviation regulations.

Mr Haslam also alleged Mr Jones used two helicopters to collect crocodile eggs without a commercial licence, also punishable with two years' jail.

Mr Jones was also suspected of picking up a passenger mid-flight and leaving his helicopter unattended with the engine and rotors turning, including on one occasion when there appeared to be "children in helicopter when engine started - no pilot at controls".

Mr Jones declined to comment yesterday, other than to say "we don't deny anything because we haven't been charged with anything yet".

Last year asked about the waterskiing incident, he said the CASA investigation was a "witch hunt" and he was "just having a bit of fun" with the 15-year-old boy.

"It was perfectly safe. I've been flying for 20 years and am very experienced," he told the NT News.

Mr Jones's North Australian Helicopters has a fleet of 41 aircraft running sightseeing flights as well as charters for mustering and government work in the NT and north Queensland.

[Sarcs]

I thought that investigation (like so many others) had fizzled out! Sounds like Milt might have their measure.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

IF he is proven do have done those things, then he is obviously too stupid to hold a licence (which comes with rights and responsibities) then throw the book at him. Doing them is one thing, being filmed for national TV is another!!

[Kharon]

Those are 'our' millions. Great return on the tax dollars. :ugh:

Give that man a ceegar.

[aroa]

When certain CASA persons get "a flea in the ear" about someone, then the requirements regarding expenditure of the taxpayers money as per the "code of conduct" and the CAC Act just go flying out the window.

Rotary winger JQ, his losses aside, can be added to the wastage of funds in pursuit of a "nothing".Half a million of taxpayers, and counting is it? And to what end ?.
Expensive way of demonstrating that Richard Craniums Rule!! :mad:

Since there is no managerial oversight to pull RCs into line, or worries about the costs involved, they are free to rampage the countryside and create whatever mayhem they like. Corrupted by unfettered power they damage both CASA and its "clients".

Sure seems a dumbar$e way to run (sic) an "Authority". :*

May the change be with us.

[peterc005]

Jones looks like an accident waiting to happen.

It's one thing to do something stupid, but much worse to show no insight to capacity to change by saying things like "... I'm very experienced ..." (so it's ok).

CASA would most likely be saving his or someone else's life by taking his license.

[blackhand]

CASA would most likely be saving his or someone else's life by taking his license. CASA get somethings wrong, this isn't one of them. They want the tapes of the show to see if there is any editting done to "enhance" the drama.

Some may remember the Bell212 in Who Dares Wins, and the imagary of flying with a Txm chip light on, which in fact on the tapes showed that the flight had been aborted and landed for maintenance inspection.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

God this place is full of whingers! Whinge if CASA do nothing, whinge if they do something.
From all accounts (video footage aired on TV) this guy has committed a number of offences. In order to give him a fair 'trial' an investigation MUST be conducted. Guess what folks, investigations cost money.
To what extent can someone break the rules (alleged) and get away with it, because "it would cost too much to investigate'?
Sure some might not be cost effective, but if you have someone possibly breaking a number of rules, telecast on national TV, and CASA DIDN'T investigate, that would be something to whinge about.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
I for one am happy for my tax dollars to be spent to investigate and charge or clear this guy.
Even if you hate CASA, please be objective enough to look at what it does objectively. Unfortunately we are a nation of 'black and white', there is often a shade if grey. Why can't we at least give credit where credit is due?

[VH-MLE]

“Even if you hate CASA, please be objective enough to look at what it does objectively. Unfortunately we are a nation of 'black and white', there is often a shade if grey. Why can't we at least give credit where credit is due?”

I love the innocence of youth! Unfortunately "allthecoolnamesarego" in due course you will hopefully learn that this industry contains a disproportionate number of spiteful, venomous creatures - such as the usual "contributors" (and I use that term very loosely) to this thread.

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[puff]

allthecoolnamesarego - totally agree mate. We have a TV show where Mr Jones 'appears' to have broken several fairly strong rules, for which many other individuals out there have been prosecuted for. If CASA chooses to ignore something as obvious as regulations being broken on a primetime tv series, what does that say about them turning a blind eye when they can't see it on their 50 inch plasmas sitting at home !

There may be approvals in place by Mr Jones, and things may have been made to look different on the tv show than what happened, but surely if he has nothing to hide he shows the tapes and CASAs allegations are unfounded. How would you feel if you were prosecuted by CASA for an offence and a bloke doing it on tv gets away with it?

Seriously though, what happened to his 'control' of what went to air. I've spoken to a pilot involved in the US discovery series 'flying wild alaska', and part of the agreement the CEO of that company had was a total veto on what went to air in regards to anything to do with the operation of his a/c, not to cover up any dodgy ops, but to ensure that nothing that may have appeared dodgy went to air so they had no issues with the FAA.

Love the I'm very experienced line, no experienced pilot has ever died, you let the footage go to air you have to had expected the heat from the regulator !

[Desert Flower]

"It was perfectly safe. I've been flying for 20 years and am very experienced,"

How many times have we heard these words before, only to read later where the sayer of them kills either himself or someone else? In my opinion, the guy's up himself!

DF.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Cheers Puff :)

MLE, thanks for the compliment re youth. Unfortunately my youth is on it's way out.... It is only through the "wisdom" ;) of age that I can now say I'm mature enough to look at actions for what they are, not for who has done them.

Shame we feel 'obliged' to stick with our prejiduces, despite facts to the contrary often staring us in the face

Ohhh for the innocence of youth...

[SgtBundy]

I've spoken to a pilot involved in the US discovery series 'flying wild alaska', and part of the agreement the CEO of that company had was a total veto on what went to air in regards to anything to do with the operation of his a/c, not to cover up any dodgy ops, but to ensure that nothing that may have appeared dodgy went to air so they had no issues with the FAA.

They may need to be more careful. Last episode I watched they were talking about VFR flying and rules for visibility when they flew straight on into cloud (in mountainous terrain) trying to push on to the next snow strip. The pilot was visibly alarmed but kept going, and was lucky to find a hole in the cloud to put down though. Maybe it was made to look more dramatic than it actually was, but my first thought it was a bit risky to broadcast it just from a CYA point of view.

[gobbledock]

I think Jones and those who have the purported evidence take a leaf out of the regulators book and play cat and mouse with them. Hide or destroy any evidence in your possession, do whatever it takes to deflect, spin, obsfucate, anything basically as long as you don't get caught.
That's what CASA do when it suits them so you may as well follow their example. Give them nothing, make it as hard for them to ping you as possible, pay off an eye witness if you have to, it is worth it. They don't play by the rule book so neither should Jones. If he is smart he should know by now that they are out to hang him my any means available. Fight fire with fire.

Whether this guy is right or wrong I don't give a sh#t any more to be honest. CASA can't be trusted so it is time the entire aviation community went to ground and do a 'hear no evil see no evil', don't communicate with them, report, advise, update or inform them if you can avoid it. They will only burn or destroy you. They can't be trusted and are not interested in fairness so it is time to go to ground and be as uncooperative as humanly possible.

To all CASA I give you the 'one finger salute'!

[VH-MLE]

Gobbledock,

On the other side of the coin, I'm sure many in CASA would say to you - go forth and multiply...

VH-MLE

[Jabawocky]

In my opinion gobble dock is mostly correct and unfortunately CASA deserve what they get. They can't be trusted as has been shown before.

The issue I see here is this Jones case is actually a product of CASA and their lack of doing the job properly.

With reference to my previous posts about CASA despite many good folk doing a very good job, there is a cultur amongst some that is all about mounting trophies on their walls rather than being an out there in the trenches working side by side with the industry. As I have said before the field folk should be educators not prosecutors, they should be welcome to wander into any operation just like your best mate.

Can you imagine a relationship with a local CASA man and Mr Jones where jones gets this gig offer from a tv mob and he phones up Mr Smith the local CASA dude and says, "hey Smithy, would you mind dropping in some time this week, this tv mob want a film done and they want to shoot some wild chopper stuff, I want you to be involved so it is done with safety in mind but right up to the edge of the rules, the script calls for some stuff that might upset people in your head office, and the beers are on me, see ya Friday arv"

Instead, my guess is the CASA folk would have known what was going on but let it sail through so that they could skin him alive later.

Big difference in the two philosophies of running the business. Now which system will have a better safety outcome, the one hypothetical above, or the one we have which justly motivates the kind of response gobble dock mentions in going to ground.

Too much strict liability and all that stuff and not enough real safety.

[Capt Fathom]

Aviation in Australia is in a sorry state. The reason, CASA.

They provide limited mentoring to the industry. They provide no encouragement or support.

They produce mountains of useless regulations, then police it using their unlimited funds.

They must spend hours watching TV and Youtube in search of victims.

I shudder to think the number of individuals and companies, both large and small, sent to the wall by their bureaucratic processes!

They need to distance themselves from the Canberra mentality, and get out into the real Australia and help!

[blackhand]

They need to distance themselves from the Canberra mentality, and get out into the real Australia and help! Where is this place "real Australia" and what should the regulator do to help?
The issue I see here is this Jones case is actually a product of CASA and their lack of doing the job properly.
Sorry Jaba, that just caused my mind to lock up. Expain a bit more mate.

[Jabawocky]

Ahhh your mind needs de-casa-izing :eek:

What that means is the Jones case has come about because of the kind of organisation CASA have become over many many years. The fact they have acted like rogues with scant respect for the regulations is a by product of CASA not doing their job properly.

Lets face it, in my hypothetical story above, can you really imagine any operator cordially inviting the local CASA FOI into their fold to work on such a plan? I doubt it, and from what I hear up north, not in your life!!

On the other hand I have seen some very good pro-active efforts from within CASA in particular the new GA Task force and the guy heading that up. I surely hope he is not the one who is grinding the axe on a nail Jones at all expense program. The problem however will have had its roots long before Peter John was given this job to do so maybe he is handed a poisoned chalice in this case. I have no idea who is responsible for such cases as the Jones case.

If the CASA was built around a different philosophy, safety would be improved, and would grow organically rather than being synthetically injected into us all.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

In 'another era', many a 'problem' has been avoided / solved over a beer on a Friday evening at the local aero club, with the local 'Examiner of Airmen' of the day, and some instructors / pilots where definite education of 'boundaries' were discussed / drawn, and in general, pro-active 'safety issues' freely discussed.

A bit like having a 'quiet lunch' these days - or 'a friendly visit', 'tea and bikkies' - 'hats orf' - on some ocassions...(?)

Doesn't seem to happen any more.

I've seen 'our local bloke' twice in 20 years and that was only to say 'G'day' in passing.

What happened to being a PART OF the industry..??
As distinct from being 'apart from' the industry..??

Cheers :(

[T28D]

Griffo, painfully gone, and we suffer for the loss of knowledge that used to transfer when there was no threat of punishment, just the good sense that if something was trending badly the chance of fixing it was in the hands of the experienced to help the less experienced to not stuff up and take other with them.

Now we prosecute to ensure "safety" how that works in practice I am not sure I could envisage. Maybe if we are all in Goal as Not Fit And Proper it all becomes safer.

I guess less airtraffic would do that naturally !!!!!!

In the 60's and 70's we had a working relationship with the regulator, now we have an adverserial relationship, and this is progress ??????

Maybe the whole thing will collapse under its own bureacratic weight and we could all go back to Sir Donald Anderson and real people administering a fundamentally safe self reporting system that was co operative and relied on mutual respect.

Need a new soap box.

[jas24zzk]

I dunno,
but from what I have learnt/seen over the years, I become convinced that CASA are using VicPol as their role model. (just got notification I need to pay for being 1km over the limit.....adjusted down by 3km in a 60 zone....so much for the 10% error the manufacturer is permited)


I've been lucky to have only been ramped twice in all my years flying....both within 5 years. All i can say is that difference of 5 years was amazing. First 2 FOI's despite their questions, were very helpfull. (I wasn't local and was also going somewhere unfamiliar)
The second time, I was local, needed nothing from them, all my boxes ticked, and they were very adversiarial. It showed so badly that one of my non aviation passengers commented on how officious the 2 blokes walking up to us looked. They were rude and self righteous through the whole encounter. What a difference a few years make.

If that trend has continued, then I hope big Milt does em bareback!....slowly;)


Edit: They also look VERY unprofessional!. 500 id tags hanging from their necks. Put the tags in the bin, stick em in a common uniform instead of a $2 suit from 1971 and get some pride going in the coal face workers.

[thorn bird]

Sad aint it...I once had an FOI say he was part of the Industry same as me...Na sorry..CASA is not part of the industry, not any more.
The corruption is now too embeded...do NOT talk to these people...you do so at your peril....Just a thought...withdrawal of service...what would happen if GA shut down for a day around Australia in protest???...would there be any effect???

[Checkboard]

You'd think if CASA were on the job, then Mr. Jones would have been aghast at a TV crew asking him to do some of these stunts ... "What! The regulator would be on my arse in no time!"

It speaks volumes that the thought obviously never went through his mind...

On so many films you see the disclaimer:
"No animals were harmed in the filming of this picture"
.. even when it looks like horses were blown up/stabbed etc - it's all "movie magic".

One would think that an operator would insists on the following disclaimer after each episode:
"No aviation rules were broken during the filming of this episode. Some events were edited later for entertainment purposes, and scenes shown as one event may contain footage filmed at different times."

[jas24zzk]

Check,
i think a similar thing was covered recently with the FWA series and a Txm light being on.

Damm good disclaimer..................let the regulator sort out what was real and what wasn't

Shame is they will make a 'determination' and the AAT will uphold their 'educated decision' :{

Its a croc!

[Slippery_Pete]

Some of the comments on here are unbelievable.

We all know CASA has spiralled into disarray, with a largely disfunctional and non-engaged workforce and "rent-a-cop" attitude. I have been saying for years (to my local FOI, among others) that CASA needs to start working with industry, rather than against it.

But blaming CASA for making Jones the operator he has become is just BS. Whenever we commit aviation, we all have a choice to make between operating legally and illegally. You can't use CASA's problems as justification for willful violation of the law.

Encouraging this sort of behaviour and avoiding the consequences just because of a grudge against the regulator stinks of immaturity.

I encourage that whatever money needs to be spent should be spent to determine whether this guy needs to be prosecuted.

I love to hate CASA and have had as many issues with them as the next guy... but I love my family and friends more than I love hating CASA, and don't want them getting into a helicopter with a :mad: like Jones.


Whether this guy is right or wrong I don't give a sh#t any more to be honest.


Would you give a sh#t if CASA left him alone and he killed your wife, a family member or friend?

[gobbledock]

Would you give a sh#t if CASA left him alone and he killed your wife, a family member or friend? Interesting scenario but his family are more likely to win lotto or get struck by lightning.
CASA are still pony poo.

[Jabawocky]

Pete, you can look at it that way, but in doing so all you achieve is more of the same.

The definition of STUPIDITY is to keep doing what you are doing while expecting a different result.

Now lets look at these few valid points you raised

But blaming CASA for making Jones the operator he has become is just BS. Whenever we commit aviation, we all have a choice to make between operating legally and illegally. You can't use CASA's problems as justification for willful violation of the law.


Yes you are correct in that when I choose to commit aviation I do not set out to be willfully breaking rules or operating dangerously. I do not think anybody does that. And CASA's cultural problems do not forcre someone to do that either. However, the way they have become, has two side effects, one is they are too damned busy with a "prosecute safety into existance" to the point where for every hour spent on trying to fix one problem, they could be out preventing 10 of the same from beginning. The other is They are not spending quality time working with Industry....they make them hide instead for fear of prosecution.

Encouraging this sort of behaviour and avoiding the consequences just because of a grudge against the regulator stinks of immaturity.

Nobody here is encouraging this sort of behaviour at all. Don't believe this is true at all.


I encourage that whatever money needs to be spent should be spent to determine whether this guy needs to be prosecuted.

Perhaps so, in my personal opinion he is probably guilty as charged and should have known better. That being said, the fact that we are wasting so much $$ on this tells me the system as it is at present is not working very well at all. I know a system that is vastly different from this works better. Refer all my other posts on the matter in the other threads.

If that culture existed, I doubt this topic would exist today.

T28D said
Griffo, painfully gone, and we suffer for the loss of knowledge that used to transfer when there was no threat of punishment, just the good sense that if something was trending badly the chance of fixing it was in the hands of the experienced to help the less experienced to not stuff up and take other with them.

Now we prosecute to ensure "safety" how that works in practice I am not sure I could envisage. Maybe if we are all in Goal as Not Fit And Proper it all becomes safer.

And believe me we do not often see thigs the same way, but I think he summed things up quite well in that post. :ok:

[peterc005]

At the end of the day the operator is a fatal accident waiting to happen.

From what I saw he is so far outside the bounds of not only the law, but common sense, that any CASA prosecution is doing him and any potential passengers a favour and will probably save lives.

[Cirronimbus]

IF the operator has broken the law AND demonstrated it on national television, wouldn't that set a really bad precedent if the regulator did not take some sort of follow up action?

To put that another way, if some yobbo televises a 'stunt' (say driving a car through a red light), wouldn't you expect the police to charge him?

Can any regulator afford to be seen to be not enforcing the law, particularly when the alleged offender is known and the alleged offences were also broadcast on national television?

Personally, I think he is remarkably foolish for doing those things but more so for actually allowing his stupidity to be filmed and broadcast on national television. I think he deserves a kick up the backside!

[Jabawocky]

I think we all agree on that. :ok:

But what Supervised System gets us all to the point where a large well known operator gets to this?

They, the regulator HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THEIR JOB..........long before this TV crew turned up I would reckon.

Again like another thread recently, the actions of a few bit us all on the A$$ sooner or later.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Probably need to look at where money is being spent or not spent. Industry facing inspectors have been reduced over the years. It is all about systems and SMS with a tick box approach. Nothing wrong with that but inspectors can dig bit deeper and Check processes are working, also there to offer help and guidance.

[Sarcs]

It is all about systems and SMS with a tick box approach. Nothing wrong with that but inspectors can dig bit deeper and Check processes are working, also there to offer help and guidance.

Not according to CASA's award winning mag 'Flight Safety' (current issue). Their article called 'Common Sense', yeah I know that's laughable, on SMS implementation states:

Using parts of an SMS without tailoring them to your
own organisation or circumstances is contrary to the
central idea of SMS. ‘Such a box-ticking exercise would
be both dangerous (thinking you are being safe when
you are not) and a waste of time,’ he says.
Box-ticking is in many ways the opposite of safety
culture. Just as with 'culture', there is no exact definition
of 'safety culture', but a 2006 ICAO document makes
a good stab when it refers to a good safety culture as
‘a corporate safety culture that fosters safe practices,
encourages safety communications and actively
manages safety with the same attention to results as
financial management.’
:ok:
Link:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100142/jan-feb2012.pdf

Good to see they practise what they preach (not)!:=

[Slippery_Pete]

Hi Jaba.

I will answer a few of your points, but bear in mind we are on the same team - we both have concerns with CASA.

Yes you are correct in that when I choose to commit aviation I do not set out to be willfully breaking rules or operating dangerously. I do not think anybody does that.

I disagree. I do agree however that the majority of infractions against the law are probably due to lack of education, or lack of knowledge, or lack of support.... and that CASA are probably partially to blame for this. But towing someone on waterskis using a helicopter - give me a break! That's simply a complete, utter and INTENTIONAL break of the law.

Nobody here is encouraging this sort of behaviour at all. Don't believe this is true at all.

I think this comment from jas24zzk IS encouraging this sort of behaviour.

If that trend has continued, then I hope big Milt does em bareback!....slowlyhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

As for this:

If that culture existed, I doubt this topic would exist today.

CASA could and SHOULD spend a lot more resources on working with industry and encouraging a collaborative approach to air safety.

The fact remains, however, that there will always remain a small minority who decide they are above the law and place the lives of Australians at risk.

Jaba, you need to pick your battles. There are probably a few thousand examples where you can easily and rightfully stick the boot into CASA about their fundamental issues and regulation vs. safety outcomes philosophy. Unfortunately, this scenario is not the right one.

You said T28D summed it up best, but I think peterc005 is on the money.


At the end of the day the operator is a fatal accident waiting to happen.

From what I saw he is so far outside the bounds of not only the law, but common sense, that any CASA prosecution is doing him and any potential passengers a favour and will probably save lives.

[Jabawocky]

Pete

Yeah I would say we are almost on the same page, in fact probably more so that it appears on the surface.

I just do believe that if the regulator was doing its job of being a warmly welcome part of proactive safety culture, did not have criminal prosecutions over minor and petty things (this case is not minor OK..we do agree about skiing with helo's is not a good idea) which seems to be the MO of late, that the whole way people view CASA and their work would change. Again refer to my posts on the JQ threads.

Once this has changed you might find the greater number of folk would actually participate.

As an example, have you ever trained a dog or raised children? Probably yes, and this is not much different. Now did I smack our kids.....yep! :ok: It helped remove those sub standard wooden spoons from the kitchen....culinary saftey and all that! So with training a puppy do you flog it from the outset? NO

The educate and reward process works, it is the only one that works. However at times, when naughty puppy goess off and chews your boat trailer wiring you soon find that flogging said puppy with the cable, actually works.

Now a good helicoptor operator will respond better to education and reward, perhaps Mr Jones needs flogging with a R22 rotor blade, but had the education and monitoring process been done properly, the rotor blade floggings would not be needed now.

As for jas24's comments.......ooops I missed them, I must have written them off as some kind of silly gag and not serious commentary.

Maybe that closes the gap a little, and yes, I think Mr Jones should get some severe administrative penalties, but unless Mr Jones wanted to take those to court and risk the cost of losing, CASA should not be chasing criminal charges and wasting millions.

They could have taken the TV tapes and said we have this long list of breaches and fines attached, now show us why you think we are wrong, if you can't here is abunch of fines and an AOC suspension or whatever, and if you really think we are unfair off to court but you pay if you lose. This way if he knows he is screwed, he learns the lessons pays the fines and or suspensions etc, and a big lessoned learned at a fraction of the expense.

If however he is a total pratt about it, well all guns blazing on both sides. But that only lines the pockets of lawyers and empties the taxpayers. This should e avoided if possible.

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Only a few years ago, after a rather extensive audit, a CASA FOI told Milton's Chief Pilot that his organisation was "a model for the rest of the (mustering and outback tourism) industry".

What you're seeing on television is on his own land, not for hire or reward and something that he's been doing (without one incident) for over 20 years.

Your family and friends could do a lot worse than get into a machine with Milton Jones at the controls.

[T28D]

There is a Movie starting this month called Red Tails the story of the Tuskagee Airmen, directed by George Lucas.

It is a great story, magnificent visuals, and if any of you truly believe the flight sequences are real, I feel for you.

Cinematographers can do magic with visual effects and I am sure in the case of the Channel 10 director and camera men in the Jones doco suitable visual crafting was applied and the effects dramatised the actual performance.

CASA might rely on "footage" that is crafted to entertain an audience and which bears little resemblance to the actusl events.

The presentation of the evidence in a court will be to say the least an edifyling experience once the "cinematographers" account for the way they use their craft to enhance visual experience in order to entertain.

Yup I wait with anticipation to see them present an untainted case that impeaches without doubt !!!!!!!

[Jabawocky]

Yup I wait with anticipation to see them present an untainted case that impeaches without doubt !!!!!!!

Yup:ok: And i wonder where JQ would place his bet?

[Slippery_Pete]

Hi Jaba - truce called :ok:

I think we both agree about the fundamental philosophy change which is required at the regulator.

Your comments about training a dog apply to training a pilot. Any good instructor understands this most basic of principles - it's called POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. It seems the regulator doesn't understand this simple concept, which it itself requires flight instructors to understand and demonstrate.

And in 99.9% of cases - it works.

In the case of the 0.1% (say a Rottweiler bred for fighting, or pilots who tow water skiers on national TV) - the positive reinforcement technique, or in fact any other technique, is unlikely to work.

Only a few years ago, after a rather extensive audit, a CASA FOI told Milton's Chief Pilot that his organisation was "a model for the rest of the (mustering and outback tourism) industry".


That's fair enough, but things change in aviation - mighty fast! It could well have been the performance of said CP and not the owner which led CASA to this position. Is it the same CP now as then?

What you're seeing on television is on his own land, not for hire or reward and something that he's been doing (without one incident) for over 20 years.

Fair enough, but rules apply to private operations too. If he were such a model aviator, he would understand that simply by committing these acts (on national TV) he is setting a terrible example to junior pilots under his employ who look to him as a mentor.

Qantas didn't run off a runway for the 20 years before QF1.

Hopefully it turns out this was all computer graphics and we can all get down off our soap boxes :D

[jas24zzk]

Pete,
in no way am I advocating knowledgable breaking of the rules. Jaba missed my post because he read it as it was, and that was a light hearted summaray of what should happen.

i'll put my super serious hat on now..........

I made my comment based on the fact that this is a national airtime show, and it is the producers job to sensationalise what they air to sell tv time. Not all of what goes to air can be considered an accurate representation of the truth. Much of the editing is going to get any pilot into trouble, regardless of his/her adherance to the rules. I call heavily on the FWA and Ice Pilots series for that.

A good investigation would reveal anything prosecutable. But that is not how our regulator chooses to act. It appears clear to me that they prosecute at the drop of a hat, and make the evidence fit the crime, even when the government prosecutors choose not to follow up the claim.


Our regulations, give a penalty unit for transgressions of the law. CASA it appears to me, does not apply those penalty units, but seeks revocation of your privileges under the not a fit and proper person banner.

I see NOTHING positive or pro-active in promoting safety in that approach. A person who has been bitten in the wallet is more likely to spruik the safety message than one who has lost their privs. The later person is more likely to gain support for their wrong actions by those wishing to crucify the establishment.

I live in Vic, the policed state.....our road rules and penalties are some of the harshest in the land. You cock it up, the first thing you do is pay. Could you imagine Vicpol applying to the courts to take your ticket permanently becuase you are not a fit and proper person..there would be community uproar!

The whole idea of a fine system is to re-inforce education. Casa should use it. You bust the 250kt limit below 10k and think its ok. Imagine if that trangsression cost you $250? would you pay more attention to that rule? I bet your arse you'd only pay that fine once in your life. But current culture in CASA will see that you never fly again.
Is that penalty worth the resultant loss of career? experience to the industry?


The jones skiing footage.haven't seen it, but hell yer, i'd have a go down a slalom course. I ain't a bad skier, and the chopper jock ain't gunna put me in any danger, because i'll throw the handle at him a long time before he does.....what he does to himself.............


Cheers
Jas

[jas24zzk]

Hopefully it turns out this was all computer graphics and we can all get down off our soap boxes


Unfortunatley, i don't think that the graphic guys are that good...............


And I know we won't be getting off our soap boxes any time soon...not whilst our controlling body is heavily handedly reactive, instead of pro-active.

[jas24zzk]

its kinda like the dead horse you have to flog because there is nothing else to do :ugh:

[Checkboard]

Assuming the guy has a sling load endorsement - do the regs actually forbid waterskiing? :E

Troy Dan did it in 2007:
Troy Dann using a helicopter to water ski - YouTube

... and there are plenty of other You-tube vids on it:

Waterskiing with Helicopter - YouTube

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ha Ha Ha ....@ say, $100 per 5 minutes, AND + the video....a man could make a fortune....:D:D:D

[thorn bird]

Checks,
I was mulling over the same question.
Is water skiing behind a chopper any more dangerous than behind a boat?
Is towing a water skier more dangerous than slinging a load? or winching a paramedic down among the trees?
Bloody expensive way to ski, but any more dangerous than a conventional tow?

[blackhand]

As long as ski towing is in his ops manual

[Jabawocky]

Towing skiers is possibly not where it is at, leaving kids in a running helo might be.

I also do not see any issue about croc or egg collecting either, there is no safety issues there. But it seems they are throwing buckets of poo in the hope they get some to stick. Sound familiar?

[404 Titan]

There is nothing safe about towing a water skier with a helicopter just as there is nothing safe about towing a boat with a helicopter. I’m sure that a charge of reckless flying could easily be upheld in a court.

Helicopter crash towing a boat

[Checkboard]

That chopper crashed because there was
no release mechanism
no plan
the boat was MUCH heavier than a skier.


You can't say with certainty anything about a single skier with a hand-held tow rope.

[404 Titan]

Checkboard

I can say with certainty that it is a clear case of reckless at best and endangering life at worst. As far as I’m concerned a chopper as light as an R22 towing a water skier is just as dangerous as a B206 towing a small boat. There is absolutely no room for error if something goes wrong. It demonstrates a clear case of reckless flying which is legislated for in the CAR’s.

[Checkboard]

There is absolutely no room for error if something goes wrong

Really? :hmm: NO room at all, eh? Sling load NEVER happens under an R22?

Sling Training in an R22 - YouTube

Those guys training wouldn't have a cable release system?

A skier has NO hope of letting go of a tow cable? :rolleyes:

[404 Titan]

Checkboard

You and I know that the load on a sling load is roughly constant where the load on the cable from a water skier is variable at best just as it is behind a boat. This alone would make the control of the chopper variable. I also don’t see a water skier under a sling load 100% of the time. Also last time I looked a sling endorsement doesn’t authorise a pilot to tow a water skier. There is a reason for this. Because it’s reckless.

[blackhand]

G'day 404 Titan
You will not get these people to agree that this rascal did anything wrong.
It is either CASA's, ASA's or QANTAS' fault.
Perhaps even caused by chemtrails or Political Correctness gone stark raving mad
Em tasol

[tail wheel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/VH-TLO2Red.jpg

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

For dat one,......only $20 for the 5 minutes....AND + the video!

:ok:

[Jabawocky]

But it is still a boat! ;)

That could just as easy be 185skywagon and Beachking on the Warrego :ok: :}

[Desert Duck]

Jaba

Would be great if the Warrego looked that good.

[Brian Abraham]

there is nothing safe about towing a boat with a helicopter
Fully understand the message you are trying to give, but it can be done if you go about it in the correct manner, and willing to accept the attendant risks, if any.

A Columbia 107 towed a hover barge over 50 miles of broken ice to an offshore drilling island. The barge was then loaded with equipment bringing its total weight to 220 tons, and towed back to shore. The 107 was able to tow the hover barge with a 600-foot longline with speeds up to 10 knots proving a new method of equipment transport.

http://www.colheli.com/images/site/gallery/06/the-hover-barge.jpg

[Sarcs]

Brian Abraham top phot that!!:ok::ok::D

[BEACH KING]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/VH-TLO2Red.jpg
Pretty sure that's Lake Neverfill at Roma;)

That could just as easy be 185skywagon and Beachking on the Warrego
I wouldn't think so. C185's don't go fast enough to barefoot behind.

[Kharon]

In all but one (whoops), you have to admire, even be a bit in awe of the skills some of these guys have.

It may (or may not) be "technically" legal, but wow anyway.

[Desert Flower]

Troy Dan did it in 2007:

Yep - he was another clown. Don't know what it is about some of these outback station owners. :ugh:

DF.

[Flying Binghi]

...It is either CASA's, ASA's or QANTAS' fault...



Dont ferget RA-Aus. Them lot get blammed fer everything..:}



Poor ol Milton, perhaps he shoulda joined them Sea Shepherd lot who drag cables under sea going ships and shine lasers at ships captains. Milton woulda had that dipwit Bob Brown giving him Oz military support if he were flying a black heli with a pirate insigna..:hmm:






.

[Checkboard]

I also don’t see a water skier under a sling load 100% of the time. Also last time I looked a sling endorsement doesn’t authorise a pilot to tow a water skier. There is a reason for this. Because it’s reckless.

Obviously it's not seen 100% of the time. It does seem to have crossed the mind (and video cameras) of those with both water skiing and helicopter experience, though. The sling endorsement doesn't authorise a pilot to tow a skier - but the point is: is there any legislation forbidding it?.

After all, live loads on slings are not forbidden (otherwise helicopter rescue wouldn't be possible). Dragging things is not forbidden... Is it "reckless"? - I am not aware of any heli-water skiing injuries, so it can't be that much of a problem.

I think that it is one of those things which LOOK "exciting", but are pretty mundane when performed by knowledgeable people.

Now having said that, it doesn't exclude the allegations of leaving a helicopter running with passengers on board but no pilot etc etc.

[gobbledock]

I have never been one for deliberately and willfully breaking or violating rules or ignoring regulations but due to the aggressive punitive blood letting attitude that CASA has delivered in the past few years I think I might go and hire a chopper again (its been around 8 years!) and get somebody to film me doing some very very naughty things. Perhaps I may even hang my hairy spotted ass out of the open flight deck! Then I will have the footage expertly edited and doctored to the point that the only possible identifier will be if somebody recognizes my robust freckle!!
Upload it to YouTube from an Internet cafe and enjoy the chase as Fort Fumble commences it's investigation! F#ck the lot of them.
If they are going to take industry down we may as go down in style! I know they will investigate even if as they claim they are only interested in the protection of the fair paying public. That's the ironic thing with Milt, they are out to hang him yet 'technically' he was a risk to himself and the skier, which hardly constitutes te fair paying public or innocent public especially when the tomfoolery took place in a safe environment (for example not under the Sydney Harbor Bridge).
Speaking of only giving a **** about fair paying public and innocent bystander public it is also interesting that CASA assigns pretty much no oversight or surveillance to the freight industry. 737's, A330's, some 747's, 146's, all big enough metal to cause some carnage yet not on the CASA radar when it comes to 'risk management'? Again it makes them look like tools when they are not concerned about those operations yet they go after farmer Joe who has been a bit of a goof.

[jas24zzk]

Too bloody right gobbles!

I'm a pretty fair skier, you can tow me down the river!...it'd be an interesting experience to run a slalom course with no wake to deal with :ok::ok::ok::ok:

Actually, you'd be at more risk than me, because of the pressure that a decent skier can put on the tow vehicle. At the end of the day my safety is assured, because if I don;t like the way you tow me, I can always throw the handle at you.

[Kharon]

'The Australian' article implies that CASA are being forced to the High court, at great expense in order to obtain 'uncut' un – edited footage. We have all seen 'Lord of the Rings' an so on, so it is fair to assume that the average 'punter' is very much aware of the incredible powers 'movie makers' have to distort reality.

Things that trouble me are:- the TV (media) natural, inherent and commercially driven need to draw attention to their product; the lack of communication in the first place between a named "star" operator and the authority; an finally that none of this is anymore than quasi legal speculation at the moment.

Not one to defend this iteration of CASA, but a 'proper' regulator should (would ?) be given the tapes to help satisfy their questions and if required, lay their charges; I for one would want those charges laid, then proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if the tapes disprove the allegations, I want someone's head on a pole for the impost to the country and for being dumb enough to believe everything they see at the movies is real.

I don't believe the disputed 'evidence' can be denied CASA indefinitely, so why bother; except for the obvious reasons. Shades of JQ appear around the edges of this; but I would like some qualified opinion related to the Act and air operations conducted on private property (private operations is a whole other mess); whether it is, or is not illegal to tow a skier behind a chopper and, is it legal to let the rotor slow down unattended after engine shut down ?.

Can anyone not a bar room barrister assist, because on the face of it, it's mess.

Steam off.

[blackhand]

But if the tapes disprove the allegations, I want someone's head on a pole for the impost to the country and for being dumb enough to believe everything they see at the movies is real.And who are you to demand anything.
And further more only a complete idiot would imagine that any of this clowns activities could be allowed under any regulatory regime.
Get back to worrying about chemtrails, JQ's supposed birds, and assorted other conspiracy theories that you seem so concerned with.
but I would like some qualified opinion related to the Act and air operations conducted on private property
What the face, Mr Know it All Kharon wants an opinion??
Bit of a come down isn't it?
Cheers
BH

[Sarcs]

Hey blackhand unless you got something worthwhile to contribute to the thread....why don't you PM or e-mail Kharon if you want to give him a mouthful?:ok:

[tail wheel]

"Would be great if the Warrego looked that good."

"Pretty sure that's Lake Neverfill...."

Would be great if the Warrego or Lake Neverfill had that much water!

Beachie.

Been a bit of fireworks in your home town lately! :E

Your Mayor has been making this place look untidy in his quest for "higher office"! :oh:

[T28D]

Kharon,
All the TV "footage" or "Images" belong to the production company who it would seem have no desire to hand them over to a 3rd party, i.e, a party not contracted to them.

This creates a problem for CASA, no "footage" = no probable cause = very difficult to prosecute , the DPP would be somewhat reluctant.

So off to the High Court to argue that CASA has a right to the footage so they can use it to establish probable cause and proceed to prosecute.

Difficult argument given the ownership of the footage and no capital crime.

Plenty of precedent says they won't get it !!!!!

[thorn bird]

Black Adder..sorry hand.

"And who are you to demand anything."
err Pardon??
And who the hell are you to say that?? unless of course
you are a member of the CASA clubs corrupt,unaccountable incompetents.
Even then you have no right.
Last time I checked Australia, despite the efforts of the emasculated Harpy and the rest of her cohorts is still a democracy.
CASA is a government Institution, are you suggesting that a citizen of this country has no right to question the actions of a public institution?
If that is what you believe perhaps the new leader of North Korea would welcome you into his institution, I imagine you'd be exactly the sort of person he'd be looking for

[T28D]

The rule of Law is paramount here, no matter how desperate CASA might be or how damning the suggested footage is, the real position is the High Court will be asked to test and interprate the Law.

My bet is they will stand with the owner of the footage, not accede to populist opinion but uphold the rights of the owner.

Without mounting a formal legal argument here there are authorities that in the normal course of argument support this position.

Possession is a powerful position.

[jas24zzk]

Hang on a sec...........


blackhand, back in your box old bean.....................


Some interesting points raised, mostly about CASA seeking access to the real footage. If you go back to JQ's case, they don't need it, they don't need a successful prosecution! They only need the AAT to tick off their dubious decision which was never tested in a court of law....and thats where it sux for all of us.

[blackhand]

G'day Thorn Bird
And who the hell are you to say that??I was replying to The Ferry Man's claim I want someone's head on a pole for the impost to the country and for being dumb enough to believe everything they see at the movies is real.Which is a most unintelligent statement.
Of course we all should want justice seen to be done.
My bet is they will stand with the owner of the footage, not accede to populist opinion but uphold the rights of the owner.I would have thought that if it was evidence it would have to be handed over.
But perhaps that applies to police investigations and not CASA investigations.

Cheers
BH

[Kharon]

T28D- The rule of Law is paramount here, no matter how desperate CASA might be or how damning the suggested footage is, the real position is the High Court will be asked to test and interpret the Law.
Good point, can/could CASA under obtain a search warrant and just go get them ?. They have before, on many occasions. Do the rules for search apply if it is just alleged a crime has been done ?; the dreaded 301 opens up a lot of otherwise closed doors; are the alleged criminal aspects of this case substantial enough to allow this to happen?.

T28D - Without mounting a formal legal argument here there are authorities that in the normal course of argument support this position.Agreed, understood and it's what you would expect, but this is the CASA, who knows. This 'legal' bit is interesting enough as it could affect everyone with an aircraft strapped to his arse appearing in a photo or video.

Another thing that puzzles me is that if criminal charges are brought do the rules of disclosure work equally i.e. the defence has to provide 'their discovery' to the prosecution (i.e. the tapes')?. Just these points alone must be worth a new swimming pool and a trip to Europe for some lucky lawyer. ( We are definitely in the wrong profession).

Disclaimer – I am not defending or attacking anyone here, just trying to understand a complex issue which has now made several appearances, to whit; guilty as charged out of a court room with only 'video' evidence.

[Super Cecil]

Just these points alone must be worth a new swimming pool and a trip to Europe for some lucky lawyer. ( We are definitely in the wrong profession).
There's help at hand :8
Blood Sucking Lawyers - The Law Firm (http://www.bloodsuckinglawyers.info/)

[Sarcs]

SC that is priceless!:ok::ok: Love the Captain's testimonial:

I was a captain of large bodied JETS. I had some misfortune with my airline and it seemed as though I'd never see the inside of a cockpit again. The BSL team had the airine shaking in their boots hahahah. Now, thanks to Lex and his team of specialists I've nearly finished my flight attendant training and I'll be back in the air in no time.

...and this


I'm an airline pilot and I got into a spot of rough air. I never thought I'd fly again until I contacted the BSL team. Thanks to their innovative approach, I may be out of pocket but I am back at the sharp end. Thanks BSL
Captain (withheld)

Good find and oh so true!:D

[truthinbeer]

What about the Australian Film Industry. If CASA go Milton and succeed then shouldn't they also go any Aussie made film that shows / depicts some sort of stunt flying?
FWIW my view is the bloke was overflying his own property, no public safety issue.

[Sarcs]

If CASA go Milton and succeed then shouldn't they also go any Aussie made film that shows / depicts some sort of stunt flying?


They would have to start with 'Skippy', I can destinctly remember Skip doing aeros with Sonny in the Park chopper!:E

[D B Cooper]

Hmmmm...

It seems to me that in pursuing the "unedited" tapes before being able to lay charges, or to confirm that an offence has been committed, CASA are accepting that that information would be required for a successful prosecution in a Court of Law.

However, it seems when it's CASA deciding JQ's fate in the court of CASA, dodgy footage downloaded from youtube is all that is necessary to permanently expunge his CASA granted work permit (his licence), and destroy his livelihood.

Are CASA afraid that if they were to apply the same "rules" to someone with the pocket depth that perhaps Milton Jones might have, it could end up before a Court of Law, where they might actaully have to prove something?

[Sarcs]

DBC mate you have hit the nail on the head!:D Not that it does JQ any good though!:ugh:

[flyingfiend]

If you check the on-line court records, you will find that the court below permitted the warrant to be executed and the original tapes have already been seized.

This was despite Mr Jones's attempt to have the warrant set aside.

Mr Jones sought leave to appeal the release of the tapes to CASA. The tapes are in the possession of the court.

Leave was granted and the tapes are held by the court pending the outcome of Mr Jones's High Court appeal which, not surprisingly, is an action seeking to prevent the release of the original footage.

The action on foot is neither the High Court considering the merit of the case, nor is it a consideration of the characterisation of the purported deeds performed by Mr Jones.

T28D, Gobbledock; the law and how it 'works', to put it in layman's language is obviously not your strength.

To be fair, neither of you purport to be 'learned in the law' so may I suggest you stick to 'google' and the various court websites and then you may just have a better than even money chance of making sense when you talk about legal matters.

[Kharon]

If you check the on-line court records, you will find that the court below permitted the warrant to be executed and the original tapes have already been seized.

Thanks FF, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif found that nugget this afternoon. So to be clear, CASA applied for and were granted the pertinent warrant and the tapes where seized. Now the courts are holding the 'evidence' until the injunction (my word apologies to the purists) is resolved.

The action on foot is neither the High Court considering the merit of the case, nor is it a consideration of the characterisation of the purported deeds performed by Mr Jones.

Is the question being tested related to the warrant being issued and executed, the 'law' on which it relies;or, other. Serious question. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Information a bit scarce on this or would do my own research, any insight into how the process works would be welcome. Not of'en the chance comes along where the industry can have a clue about the aviation rules being tested and see the 'big guns' doing their thing.

You'll admit it's deep stuff.

Heigh Ho.

[flyingfiend]

Kharon,

I will start by saying that the following in no way should be interpreted as other than the jottings of an observer who has no interest in the matter other than a professional one in the outcome.

I wish all parties well; this information is in the public domain and will shortly be before the courts when comment again would be inappropriate.

So,

This is Jones requesting leave to appeal to the High Court for 'special leave' to appeal to the High Court.

This may sound a bit convoluted but Jones requires the High Court's permission to actually bring his appeal before that court.

It appears that Jones has a date for the High Court to consider whether it will hear his appeal of 08 Feb 12.

If the High Court agrees to hear his appeal, then there will be a hearing of the substantive appeal (more than likely) at a later date.

Here is the last 'action', so to speak:
Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 1416 (9 December 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1416.html)

In particular, DODDS-STREETON J, said, inter alia, on allowing Jones to go forward to apply for 'special leave to appeal':

'The appellant’s principal argument, however, may fall into the category of special leave application referred to in Westpac, concerning an alleged significant irregularity in the way the court below dealt with the case, said to involve a potentially unlawful invasion of the rights and liberties of a citizen.
In the light of the above, while the appellant has not at this stage precisely articulated the proposed grounds, I proceed on the basis that the appellant has some, but not substantial, prospects for success in an application for special leave, which may be perceived to relate to an issue involving the interests of justice in a particular case.'

So, the judge thinks he may succeed with his application for special leave to appeal. i.e. the pleading will not be 'hopeless'. This is not a comment on the substance of the appeal.

Here is the original action:

Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 632 (6 June 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/632.html)

I will not rewrite it all here due to time and space issues but I think you will find paragraphs 14 to 25 informative as to the contentious issue, namely the correct interpretation of the word 'suspicion'.

So, the first hurdle is for Jones to convince the HC that it should hear his appeal.

Then, if there is an appeal, the HC will consider the substantial issues in point.

Now, I will caveat what I have said with the health warning that my summation has been a 'quick and dirty' one and that this is not a case that I have followed with other than a passing interest.

However, the substance of the appeal is LIKELY to be that the magistrate erred when he issued the warrant, and that he has misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'suspicion' as it relates to the legislative provisions.

Others who are either closer to the case than I, or who prefer to differ from my 'read' are more than welcome to comment; I certainly will not take offence.

You are right on the money when you said that this is the big time.

I also note that all costs, including the upcoming action on the 08 Feb are billed to Jones.

CASA has spent very little money, if any at all so the public purse is protected so far.


Others may disagree with me but one thing I do know; it is far preferable to never be in a position to have to have a thread like this one written about you than to be the one to fly the escutcheon of righteousness.

Hope this helps.

FF

[flyingfiend]

I should add, EVERY lawyer is interested in the decisions of the High Court.

This is the highest court in the land and as such, its decisions invoke 'binding precedent'.

In law, this is the 'superbowl'.

:ok:

FF

[Kharon]

FF. Thank you for the links, very much appreciated. This is what I was hunting for. :D http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

It's amazing 'how' cold blooded facts and the (for want of a better expression) the law works in real life. The 'links' are a pretty tough study, but recommended reading for all who are interested in how the system works and more instructively, what makes it tick.

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Super Bowl indeed; this is not a simple, clear cut and dried issue, not at all. However, unaccustomed as I am to defending the 'Authority'; the first thing that struck me was none of the allegations mention acting contrary to the approval (s) granted. It is an important point. Even on it's worst day the Authority has always been approachable about 'special' events, awkward airwork exercises and 'stuff' a bit out of the square. For instance.

'Dear Plod. The producers of documentary we are making have asked if we could do a scene showing us towing a water skier behind a Robbie'. 'The guy is an insured stunt skier, the pilot has done 5 zillion towing exercises (flags, banners etc) and we will have safety boats out along a 1 mile stretch of very isolated dam on a private property'. 'What do you think?. Huh ?. 'Best regards Dodgy Ops'.

This achieves two very desirable outcomes. 1 CASA can answer any questions that may be asked of it when, very publicly, a 'perceived' breach of CAR 149 is viewed in a million homes; 2, it provides them an opportunity to have a say in the overall safety of the operation and provides 'cover' to ensure that if it all goes pear shaped, they don't have to mess about prosecuting someone. (Ma'am, I can assure that absolutely no rabbits were harmed in the making of this commercial).

Instead of;

It is alleged that between August 2009 & August 2010, Mr Milton Jones was the pilot in command of a Robinson R22 helicopter registered VH-HZI when he towed a person underneath and behind the helicopter on a water ski endangering the person.

149 Towing Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(5) It is a defence to a prosecution under sub regulation (1) if:
(a) the pilot in command had the written permission of CASA
for the towing; and
(b) the towing was done in accordance with the directions (if any) specified in the permission
Which has now become a 'Reckless and negligent' allegation with 2 years pokey.

The links provided by FF are worth the trouble to read.

To borrow 'the Kelpies' tag. More to follow.


Paulina: "Here's ado to lock up honesty And honor from th' access of gentle visitors."

[Sarcs]

As you say K definitely worth the read!:ok:

All that legal 'toing and froing' just so the CASA investigator can view the uncut footage, says a lot about the legal system!:ugh::ugh:

Now because of all the stalling the investigator (MH) is concerned that the proposed evidence that the uncut footage may/may not show could become null and void as it approaches a statutory time limit (3 years). No wonder the appellant's lawyers are stalling!

This explains a lot in another CASA investigation that I am aware of.

Kharon said:'Dear Plod. The producers of documentary we are making have asked if we could do a scene showing us towing a water skier behind a Robbie'. 'The guy is an insured stunt skier, the pilot has done 5 zillion towing exercises (flags, banners etc) and we will have safety boats out along a 1 mile stretch of very isolated dam on a private property'. 'What do you think?. Huh ?. 'Best regards Dodgy Ops'.



It is a blight on the regulator that we have come to this impasse. No longer do operators feel free and unencumbered to consult with the regulator on operational matters. Dodgy operators now seem to take great delight in thumbing their nose at the regulator, as a consequence there is less incentive for an operator to be compliant and ultimately safer!

The regulator has become more and more disassociated from the industry, they have lost their mandate to regulate and consult. Sadly this will probably mean we will see more of these types of cases (for those that can afford it) tying up the courts!

[Jabawocky]

It is alleged that between August 2009 & August 2010, Mr Milton Jones was the pilot in command of a Robinson R22 helicopter registered VH-HZI when he towed a person underneath and behind the helicopter on a water ski endangering the person.

Can this be challenged? Sure I do not think skiing behind a Robbie is a smart thing to do, and for 360 days a year doing 300km/h down conrod straight in a road car is not a smart thing to do, but the other 5 it makes perfect sense.

[T28D]

I would think it is no more dangerous than the Bridge to Bridge ski race on the Hawksbury River.

Issue would be finding a credible expert witness that can testify strongly enough to counter the CASA "we will all be killed" argument.

Brings a new meaning to slung load though.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A point that will have most definitely occurred to the defense counsel is a matter of the fundamental meaning of "reckless" behavior.

I quote from the Act:

20A Reckless operation of aircraft
(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.
Firstly, it is fundamental that you can't be reckless and negligent to yourself (although and older version of S20A(2) purported to advance that curious legal concept), so it remains for CASA to prove that towing a water skier is being "reckless" to the person being towed.

This is a completely different issue to the matter of whether regulations have a provision for towing anything, water skier or whatever, from a chopper.

The legal test for "reckless" (and negligent) is a high test. Even if CASA get their hands on all the footage, to prove the event, they will still have a long way to go to prove recklessness and/or negligence ---- particularly as the water skier was obviously a willing participant.

Voluntary assumption of risk by the person towed will be significant.

flyingfiend,

T28D, Gobbledock; the law and how it 'works', to put it in layman's language is obviously not your strength.I can assure you that T28D (being a lawyer) has a very good grasp of the law!!

Tootle pip!!

[Wallsofchina]

Well unless the rope was tied around the skiers neck I guess that's the end of that charge then.

[VH-XXX]

Except that if the individual being towed was under the age of 18 and possibly not mature enough to assess the risks for themselves. It's been a while since I saw the episode so I can't confirm his age.

[Wallsofchina]

If he's old enough to water ski he might just know how to let go of a ski rope.

[Squeaks]

If I may put in a couple of points, assuming that most of you here are stiff wing drivers and maybe not overly familiar with rotary ops and the background of towing from a hook?

When towing from a hook there are stresses imposed that the hook and/or frame are not always designed to take: within reasonable limits the hook load is expected to be perpendicular to the airframe. When towing, that stress becomes an aft pull at a point below and around the CG thus pulling the nose down: some airframes can cope, some cannot. With its tall mast and teetering head the R22 falls more into the latter category; towing a water skier from the hook on a 'loose' line would meet many definitions of high risk.

I know that CASA have approved towing of this nature under a permission, but one requirement was to have a heavy deadweight on a long line off the hook and attach the tow line to that weight. The pull is then on the bottom of the long line, keeping the line more perpendicular to the hook.

The other safety feature of pulling from the bottom of a long line (50 - 100ft) is to safeguard the tail rotor should the skier let go of the tow rope. Straight off the hook the tow rope could well fly up into the TR, especially given the sudden release of a force giving a nose down moment at the same time.

None of this is rocket science: it's just not particularly bright to let oneself be filmed for national TV doing it in such a cavalier manner, and then try to dismiss it as perfectly OK and safe.

It isn't, and it wasn't.

[Flying Binghi]

When towing from a hook there are stresses imposed that the hook and/or frame are not always designed to take...

...not always, though in this case do we know the particulars of the hook STC.. ?


...With its tall mast and teetering head the R22 falls more into the latter category...

Personly ah thinks the R22 is a danger just sitting on the ground, let alone actualy flying one - though each to his own..:) (note - I fly other brands of heli)



The other safety feature of pulling from the bottom of a long line (50 - 100ft) is to safeguard the tail rotor should the skier let go of the tow rope...



Use a shorter rope and fly faster....;)


Barefoot Waterski Record - YouTube

[Kharon]

A stand alone alleged breach of 149 if proven carries a 50 point penalty, so to get a Judge sufficiently interested in issuing a search and seizure warrant you'd have to 'spice it up a bit' otherwise no warrant. I think it would be hard to get a 'conviction' on this item. It's not illegal under the FAR, happens all over the world regularly, willing participant and it is an event for which CASA may issue an approval. So scratch bait towing from the list of heinous crimes and assign it to the naughty boy pile, (a fine perhaps). Whether it was foolhardy or not don't signify much; Mum went ballistic but his mates thought it well cool. The CASA hysterical screams of reckless and negligent seem to fade away a little about now.

Now this one is sinister:-
It is alleged that between August 2009 & August 2010, Mr Milton Jones was the pilot in command of Robinson R22 and Robinson R44 helicopters and performing commercial operations (collection of crocodile eggs) for which a commercial helicopter licence is required when he was only the holder of a private helicopter licence.I expect the crocodile community and the local green welly mob are grateful for CASA safety concerns in the airspace surrounding their habitat. That said we are back to the PP regulations defining what is or is not a 'commercial' operation. Now the FAR are tough on people conducting a pre determined 'commercial' operation with a PPL. The great egg hunt may or may not 'technically' be illegal under Gods Own Rules, but again stand alone what is it. I doubt it is sufficient grounds for 'his honour' to issue serious paper work, more like he'd sling 'em out of his court.

This proceeding raises for consideration whether there was a proper basis for the issue of a warrant to seize material. This, in turn, necessitates an examination of the provisions of 32 AF Act1988 An answer will then be provided to the following question: did the second respondent Magistrate have a sufficient basis for being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was a particular thing on certain premises that may afford evidence of the commission of a civil aviation offence? For reasons that follow the answer to that question is, yes. Depends on how the information was provided to the layman I should imagine. But when the Daemon of myth and legend "The Safety Monster" raises it's head seems all bets are off.

[Kharon]

Fedral Court: It is alleged that between August 2009 & August 2010, Mr Milton Jones was the pilot in command of Robinson R22, helicopter registered VH-HZI when he consumed alcoholic liquor within 8 hours of the departure of the aircraft.Willyleaks: It is alleged that between August 2000 & August 2001, Mr S. Clause was the pilot in command of Reindeer R6, sled registered NP-HOHO when he consumed alcoholic liquor within 8 hours of the departure of the mission.Willyleaks: It is alleged that between August 2002 & August 2003, Mr E. Bunny was the pilot in command of Chocolate Egg, blimp registered EB YUM when he consumed alcoholic liquor within 8 hours of the departure of the blimp.

Willyleaks: It is alleged that between August 2003 & August 2004, Mr H. Potter was the pilot in command of Nimbus 2000 racing broom registered HP TRIX when he consumed alcoholic liquor within 8 hours of the departure of the broom.

CASA are developing skills previously unknown to mankind, what's next, telepathic Show Cause; or perhaps a bit of spoon bending, to while away the hours waiting for the next signed confession to arrive.

I thought this was all just a rumour, but the way I am hearing it, seems not.

[Frank Arouet]

I guess it just shows nobody here knows anything about trolling for croc's.

[Up-into-the-air]

The best spoon bender is the whitch doctor of casa, has a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University

[Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom - Published 1996]

[gobbledock]

I will start by saying that the following in no way should be interpreted as other than the jottings of an observer who has no interest in the matter other than a professional one in the outcome.
Now that is 'standard CASA deflection 101'! So you are merely a legal jotter who happens to be interested in aviation mischief ? Your trying to make the point that you are not related to CASA (you have also done this in a previous post) is laughable flyingfiend. It is also a standard attitude of a CASA employee to think he is smarter than the rest of the aviation commnity.
Flyingfiend You may comment that I am not 'as well versed in the law as you' but I can confidently say that 'you are not as versed at being grieved by a corrupt malfeasant organisation' as I have been on the receiving end of. Anyway, don't you have some high level philosophical wankery to attend to in Canberra? On your way.

The best spoon bender is the whitch doctor of casa, has a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University Yes, that makes him an aviation expert doesn't it?

[Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom - Published 1996]
Now don't everybody rush out and buy a copy. However I am certain Blackhand, Clinton and Flyingfiend have a laminated autographed copy on their bookshelves! I would however happily accept a few free copies to place in the men's ****ter on the ramp, they would be used very quickly and 'robustly'. Reading that crap would be as exciting as watching the lawn grow or watching Julia Gillard act in 'The Taming Of The Shrew' !
(sorry Kharon, I know, Julia acting out Shakespeare is nauseating but then so is CASA's reg reform program)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Now I understand 23yrs reg reform has been going. Am I right in thinking jmac has completed 3 of his 5 yr term? Do you think he will want to do another 5yrs and chances of being offered? Will it be more regulator with a capital R or return to small r regulator?

[Kharon]

I HEAR the only reason he's still there is that RMcD sister can't afford to pay him out. Apparently, so I hear; he and his 'appointees' days are numbered . (Goldan weeks spent quietly in chambers, academic like). Only a rumor of course but, it seems he and a couple of his mates will be 'an embarrassment' to the new Government Minister. Can't think why; or 'where' they got their information; aye, 'tis a puzzle all right.

Betting on the election date is tight - 1 Bad prawn will do the trick (so I hear).

Bring back Dick, bring back Dick.

Joking , joking, I am, seriously, honest. No no no; Urghh!. :D :D

[Selcalmeonly]

I heard that JMc won't extend beyond his current term. Those blokes rarely (if ever) extend - I cant think of any in the past 20 years or so; in fact, most have got the chop before their term is completed!

[blackhand]

I guess it just shows nobody here knows anything about trolling for croc's.
You are a bad man Frank.:ok:

Cheers
BH

[Kharon]

Glad someone picked it up. ( wuz gettin all wurried about it). Thought I'd try to slip it in with the next bit about the croc eggs, you know - "Crocs Sue CASA, creating undue hunger and hardship in the community'.:D

Nice to have you back http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[gobbledock]

I heard that JMc won't extend beyond his current term. Those blokes rarely (if ever) extend - I cant think of any in the past 20 years or so; in fact, most have got the chop before their term is completed!
I heard similar about the Skull. Mind you, the Director/CEO whatever you want to call him each time is merely a fall guy anyway. As pointed out, they only last a couple of years, a bigger issue is the cockroaches that support the Director/CEO, you know, the ones that the can of Baygon misses every time, the ones that have been trough dwelling for 10, 20+ years. Sadly every time a spring clean is done these vermin escape the clean out and remain to infect yet another generation of hot shot managers who tend to come and go.
Hopefully soon when Gillard gets booted out we may end up with some aviation changes? I mean, to be honest, labor, liberals, greens they all are usless piles of steaming pony poo, just like CASA, but maybe the new government will use CASA as it's way 'to make it's stamp' on the political scene for the next 3 years ?

Will it be more regulator with a capital R or return to small r regulator? Big R, small r, what is the difference really, you could label it 'Capital P for pony pooh' and it will still be a bureaucraticaly incompetent steaming pile of monkey crap.

Betting on the election date is tight - 1 Bad prawn will do the trick (so I hear). Abuse of Ministerial credit cards, lying under oath and using taxpayer funds to pay for hummers is a possible latent condition that could bring the election date forward! Anyway, I am off to put $250.00 into the pokies, see ya.............

[flying-spike]

"using taxpayer funds to pay for hummer"
Jeez Gobbledock, I hope you mean the motor vehicle! If not all CASA employees will have to pause negotiations to ensure that is included in the EBA.

[truthinbeer]

I don't know how Milton towing the skier rates but check this one behind what looks like a Maule(?) - Super Cub fly-skiing on the MO river - YouTube

Edit: Dopey me, the caption says it is a Super Cub.:ugh:

[Kharon]

or watching Julia Gillard act in 'The Taming Of The Shrew' ! (sorry Kharon, I know, Julia acting out Shakespeare is nauseating but then so is CASA's reg reform program)
Strewth GD. Don't do that to me again without warning, bloody near bust a gut laughing. Now I've got it stuck in my head; keep doing Bianca and Kates' lines a'la Gillard. Dog reckons I've finally lost the few remaining marbles. So for punishment a puzzle:-

Tra. Saw you no more? mark'd you not how
her sister
Began to scold and raise up such a storm
That mortal ears might hardly endure the din?

Luc. Tranio, I saw her coral lips to move,
And with her breath she did perfume the air;
Sacred and sweet was all I saw in her.
:D :D

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr 'K'....

Reur - 'Bring back Dick, bring back Dick.'

I've just 'splattered' a VERY nice 'White' all over my new keyboard......

Wot's up Doc???

And I thort The 'Record Breaking Heat Wave' is over here..!!:eek::eek:

(P.S. Thanks for the redundo - Dick...)

:ok::ok:

[Kharon]

I did get done in on the next line. Took me medicine like a good'un. :Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

So PPRuNe has been very quiet on this topic of late. Any more info other than what The Australian has to say at CASA win on TV reality footage (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-win-on-tv-reality-footage/story-e6frg95x-1226366170970)? Or is this just a re-hash of old January news brought back for a slow news day?

I have to say that Milton's words "I am very experienced" made my spidy senses tingle.

FRQ CB

[blackhand]

Or is this just a re-hash of old January news brought back for a slow news day?


Seems to be a ruling that CASA can view the original footage, Milton was trying to stop them.

[Sarcs]

Seems to be a ruling that CASA can view the original footage, Milton was trying to stop them.

It might all be too late as the statutory limitations start to become an issue i.e. to pursue a prosecution. That was a concern voiced by the CASA investigator in the original Federal Court injunction...

[jas24zzk]

Hold 5....apparantly CASA don't need a prosecution anyway

[gobbledock]

Do they even care if they get a win? I doubt it. Egos were hurt and pride tarnished, they will just keep at him for nothing
more than 'sh#ts and giggles'. Remember it's not their money they are using, it's ours. Our money is their plaything.

[Sarcs]

With all the change of government..PelAir Senate report..Hempel..Barrier blahblah I'd completely forgotten about 'keeping up with the Joneses' saga and in particular Milton's wrangling with FF:rolleyes:

Well from what I was able to glean from the AAT site it would appear that FF are yet to lose an appetite for some of that prime Brahman Jones beef (as a side dish best served with a classic Penfold's Grange)...ahh I digress :E.

Anyway it would appear that old Milt has had a temporary win and that FF are prepared to hump it for another mil or two to catch that scallywag old Milt!:=

Read it and weep:{:yuk::yuk:: Jones and CAsA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2013/674.html)

[Desert Flower]

Was watching some re-runs of this a couple of weeks ago & wondered where the investigation had got to.

DF.

[Paragraph377]

Don't worry, Part 61 will sort out all the chopper operators. There won't be any left to prosecute.

[Kharon]

Did a little digging – HERE – (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean;query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety% 20Authority;meta=%2Fau;mask_path=au%2Fcases%2Fcth%2FAATA;vie w=date;offset=0)

The results for the fixtures.

Gosman 1 v CASA 0. Medical.

Sullivan 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.

Hansen 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.

Landers 0 v CASA 1. Medical.

Repacholi 1 v CASA 0. Medical.

Oasis 0 v CASA 1. AOC application.

Anderson 0 v CASA 1. Complex Helicopter.

Bryant 1 v CASA 1. Maintenance.

Green 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.

Marsh 1 v CASA 0. Exam fraud.

Milt Jones saga. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/674.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20Aviation%20Safety%20Authority)

There was a robust dispute with respect to the facts of the case and the appropriateness of the regulatory action, so I was not prepared to say the case was without merit. Given the volume of technical and expert analysis the applicant is expected to produce to rebut the video evidence that CASA says will speak for itself, undue haste is unlikely to improve the quality of the hearing, and may undermine the effectiveness of the review. Ordering a stay would permit the parties to take a more measured approach to the evidence in accordance with the current timetable. I am satisfied it is appropriate to order a stay of CASA’s decision to cancel the applicant’s licence until the conclusion of the hearing or further order in order to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the decision under review. For the reasons I gave on 27 August 2013, which have been summarised above, I accept it would be desirable to make that order.
The links should work - Be careful out there.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Desert Flower]

Just watching a re-run of this series now. Up to the bit where they go looking for the crashed helicopter from a neighboring station. Milt's expert diagnosis on the reason for the crash? Too hot, too heavy & inexperience! :ugh:

DF.

[Kharon]

DF – can you get a grab of the bit where they go croc hunting, dragging the kid along behind for bait (water skiing bit). It's certainly another, long drawn out saga and a laugh whould break the monotony of litigation....:D

[Sarcs]

Kharon: DF – can you get a grab of the bit where they go croc hunting, dragging the kid along behind for bait (water skiing bit). It's certainly another, long drawn out saga and a laugh whould break the monotony of litigation....:D If the footage ever made it onto poohtube it is obviously now pulled and probably being video shopped by some FF IT video guru as we speak. I did however capture a tiny segment from a ntnews.com article:cool: (love the headline:E): It's our chopper and we'll ski if we want (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2011/03/29/220831_ntnews.html)

By the way it isn't the first time that a reality outback adventure tale has featured water skiing behind a chopper:rolleyes::[YOUTUBE]Troy Dann using a helicopter to water ski - YouTube

MH (FF senior investigator): "Did you catch the rego of that chopper...don't bother we're past the statutory limits on that one!":ok:

[Paragraph377]

Solid work boys, very nice. But shhhhh don't tell our CAA but some of our chopper boys pull off better stunts on a more regular basis. It helps having such a big chopper industry, but Wannaka, Milford and even around Franz Josef create a great environment for a little fun stuff :8
And unlike your CASA, the CAA tend to focus less on the risk takers such as joyflighters etc, and more on RPT.

[Sunfish]

The AAT seems to have had a rush of common sense to its head. This is the best and funniest appeal judgement I have ever read.


31 October 2014

Milton Jones holds flight crew licences that include a private helicopter pilot licence.

At least he did, until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) cancelled them after reviewing footage shot in the course of a reality television series based on the life of Mr Jones, his family and employees on Coolibah Station in the Northern Territory.

The show – called Keeping up with the Joneses – featured a number of activities and incidents that CASA says are in breach of the rules and regulations applicable to helicopter pilots. CASA cancelled Mr Jones’s licences on the grounds referred to in regulation 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) (CAR).

Mr Jones has asked the Tribunal to review the cancellation decision.

At the hearing, CASA referred to a series of incidents or matters depicted in the television program that provided a basis for regulatory action against Mr Jones.

Mr Jones, for his part, conceded he made a number of errors. He disputes the seriousness of some of the breaches alleged against him, and there is disagreement over whether some of the matters alleged against him were actually breaches of the rules.

After hearing all the evidence and considering the extensive submissions, it is clear regulatory action is required. As it happens, I would reach the same view about what action was required regardless of whether I accepted the applicant’s or respondent’s view of the extent of the breach of the rules. In summary, I am satisfied the evidence establishes Mr Jones is an intelligent and skilful pilot, but the pattern of conduct recorded in Keeping up with the Joneses demonstrates:

his knowledge of the relevant rules and procedures is deficient; and
his unusual experience doing dangerous work in a remote location has seen him develop a skewed perception of, and tolerance for, risk.

I am satisfied Mr Jones is capable of correcting his shortcomings. He needs to undertake remedial training in relation to the rules and his role and responsibilities as a pilot. I will have more to say about that in due course. I am satisfied it is unnecessary to cancel his licences pursuant to CAR 269(1). I explain my reasons below.

The highlights:

CASA believes that if you have a fixed camera on your aircraft you are committing aerial photography - requiring a commercial licence and a suitably endorsed Air Operators Certificate - take that GoPro!

............... The discussion of sling load operations in
CAO 95.7.2 also refers to objects without qualification. Mr Jones says a person is an object, and there is no contravention. .........

.................there is something strange about insisting an individual wear a high visibility vest when being lowered into a crocodile nest armed only with a radio and a stick..............

................There were a number of instances shown in Keeping up with the Joneses where Mr Jones was shown flying low in circumstances that were plainly unrelated to his agricultural and sling load operations. The scene in which he hovered above a watercourse while baiting a bull-shark is one example; so, too, the scene in which he hovered above a waterhole attempting to snare and tow an enraged crocodile. Even more dramatically, there was a scene in which Mr Jones flew low over a stretch of water as he raced his brother-in-law on a jet ski, and another scene in which he towed his son Beau on a wave board.

The last two scenes in particular contravene the general prohibition against low flying in CAR 157. In neither case was the applicant “engaged in private operations or aerial work operations...that require low flying”..............................

.............There are also a number of incidents referred to where the applicant is outside the helicopter talking to other people while the engine turns with no one at the controls – and in one memorable shot, Mr Jones is seen outside the helicopter as his young son sits at the controls with the engine running.
There are also a number of shots of the applicant landing his helicopter and alighting from the aircraft to open gates while the rotors turned, and one in which he does a spot of fishing.

Mr Jones was asked about these incidents during his oral evidence. He pointed out there were good reasons not to shut down the engine when the helicopter landed at a remote point: if the engine did not restart, the pilot might be stranded. On that basis, he defended his decision to keep the engine running when alighting from the helicopter to undertake essential tasks like opening and closing gates and collecting crocodiles from traps.

There is something to be said for this argument. The environment is rugged and isolated. If a pilot were stranded in a helicopter that refused to start, he or she might be in real danger. But while that might have justified the practice when Mr Jones was operating alone, that did not excuse him leaving the controls while being filmed during Keeping up with the Joneses as he was not alone on most of those occasions: he was being trailed by a film crew who could have come to his rescue if the helicopter had not restarted. .......................

.........Recklessness is a very high standard (or a low one, depending on one’s perspective). Mr Jones does have considerable experience in operating a helicopter at low altitude and amongst obstacles when mustering cattle. He routinely and necessarily undertakes flying operations in hazardous circumstances, and he has demonstrated a high level of skill in doing so. The flying he undertook on this occasion was not inherently more risky than other flights. The problem on this occasion was that he did not need to take the risk he took (although there was also an increased risk to Hamish and the spectators who would not ordinarily be present when Mr Jones was mustering). I do not think that necessarily adds up to a contravention of s 20A(1). ............

............Mr Jones was also shown attempting to snare and tow a crocodile that had taken up residence in a waterhole close to the house. I am not sure of the approved and regular ways of catching a crocodile, but this is unlikely to be one of them. The conduct contravenes CAR 149, which prohibits towing objects.....................

..........Mr Jones said it was impractical to wear life jackets in the heat. He said a life jacket might be a source of risk if it caused the pilot to overheat or be restricted in his movement. It was not clear from the photograph whether Mr Jones was in fact wearing a life jacket, but the hapless passenger on the sling was not.

One might wonder about the utility of a life jacket in the case of the individual carried on a sling as the aircraft flew over the Adelaide River. I was told that stretch of the Adelaide River is infested with crocodiles. An individual who fell into that body of water would have limited prospects of survival whether he had a life jacket or not................

..................Mr Jones was shown teaching his son, Little Milton, how to start the helicopter. Mr Jones sought to justify the conduct at one point in his evidence by explaining that children who grow up on farms need to know how machinery operates for their own safety. They also needed to know the danger associated with snakes and crocodiles: Little Milton is shown at one point in the series warning of the risks of being on the side of a waterhole or riverbank where crocodiles might lurk.

Anyone who grew up in a rural environment is familiar with this robust approach to parenting. Many country kids learn to drive, interact with dangerous animals, operate heavy machinery and use weapons long before they reach the age of majority. Little Milton is no exception: he was shown driving a car when he was a small boy. But he should not have been shown how to start a helicopter.

In the course of his evidence, Mr Jones conceded it was dangerous to show Little Milton how to start the engine of a helicopter. He is right. Small boys are inquisitive and helicopters are dangerous machines. Mr Jones’s behaviour clearly contravenes
CAR 230(1) because Little Milton is not an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of the regulations. .............




And the more sinister implication by CASA - defending yourself means that you are not a fit and proper person:

CASA is in no doubt that the questions over Mr Jones’s judgment ought to be resolved against him. CASA says Mr Jones was prepared to disregard the rules in the interests of making good and exciting television. It drew an analogy with the case of Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 where the pilot was found not to be a fit and proper person because he was prepared to ignore the rules in the interest of entertaining the passengers. But I think there is a difference between this case and Quadrio: I am not satisfied Mr Jones actively ignored the rules. He was not adequately aware of the rules in the first place.

CASA also pointed to the fact Mr Jones did not cooperate with CASA: indeed, he actively resisted aspects of CASA’s investigation. The applicant says his litigation strategy should not count against him as he was merely resisting the potential legal consequences of CASA’s actions.



Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820 (31 October 2014) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2014/820.html)

[Sarcs]

At last sanity prevails in the AAT...:D

As it happens, I am not convinced the need for specific deterrence weighs heavily against the applicant. I was left with the clear impression from the evidence that Mr Jones rues the days on which he engaged in some of the conduct which led to his current predicament. He is an intelligent and thoughtful man; he does not need further opportunities to reflect on the seriousness of what he has done. But I am satisfied it may be relevant to fashion any regulatory action so as to deter bad behaviour by others.
I previously noted the errors were demonstrated on national television. Mr Jones already enjoyed a level of prominence as a result of his success as a pastoralist, pilot and businessman before the production; the fact he made such public mistakes in a television series that celebrated his life and focused on the use (and, as it happens, the misuse) of helicopters cannot be ignored. Aviators throughout northern Australia in particular must not be left with the impression that it is permissible to ignore the rules which Mr Jones flouted so casually. The rules are meant to be taken seriously, and aviators everywhere must be clear that transgressions will be detected and pursued.
Having regard to all those matters, I am satisfied the discretion in CAR 269(1) should be exercised. Regulatory action is required. I am not satisfied it is necessary or appropriate to cancel Mr Jones’s licences, as his identified shortcomings – while serious – do not suggest to me that he is beyond redemption. Those shortcomings can be addressed (and may, to some extent, already have been addressed) through appropriate training and testing. I stress it is principally because of the particular qualities that Mr Jones demonstrated in the witness box that I have arrived at this view, and in light of the evidence of CASA’s immensely experienced witness, Mr Lamb, who did not resile from the suggestion Mr Jones was capable of being brought up to an acceptable standard through a process of standardisation.
While cancellation is not appropriate, I am satisfied Mr Jones’s licences should be suspended until:
a) he is able to demonstrate he has attended to the gaps in his knowledge. He can do that by seeking and receiving the certification from a person holding relevant approvals from CASA that he possesses the knowledge required by an applicant for the flight crew licences (with the same authorities, permissions and authorities) that he currently holds; and
(b) he has demonstrated the decision-making skills required of the holder of those flight crew licences. He can do that by seeking and receiving the certification from a person holding relevant approvals from CASA that he is able to satisfy any reasonable requirements in this regard that are applicable to the holder of the flight crew licences (with the same authorities, permissions and authorities) that he currently holds. & The decision under review is set aside. I decide in substitution that Mr Jones’s flight crew licences will be suspended until he obtains certification in relation to the matters referred to in these reasons. The suspension does not take effect until 28 days after the date of this decision. There you go Milt cap in hand..."yes your Honour I made some mistakes for which I am extremely repentant"...outcome - old Milt probably never missed a day when he couldn't go flying...;)Keeping Up With the Joneses star wins back helicopter licence despite stunts

by: Kay Dibben
From: The Courier-Mail
November 05, 2014 12:00AM

A REALITY TV star who used a helicopter to tow his wakeboarding teenage son while racing a jet ski, and even tried towing a crocodile, has won back his right to fly.

Milton Jones, star of Channel 10’s Keeping up with the Joneses, had his flight crew licences cancelled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after the show aired in 2011.

CASA took action against Mr Jones, a Northern Territory cattleman who also controls a company operating one of Australia’s largest helicopter fleets, for alleged regulation breaches.

It had identified a number of incidents shown in the series, which portrayed life on the Joneses’ 400,000ha Coolibah Station.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided while Mr Jones had breached some regulations, he should be allowed licences to fly helicopters after remedial training on rules and regulations.

Senior tribunal member Bernard McCabe found Mr Jones had seriously contravened the law on several occasions during production of two ­series of the show.

“The incident involving the jet ski and towing his son on the (wakeboard) were probably the most serious matters because they were obviously foolish actions that put other people in jeopardy,” Mr McCabe said.

While the scene involving Mr Jones’s teenage son Beau being towed by the helicopter made for excellent television, it demonstrated “alarmingly poor judgment”, he said.

Mr Jones also was wrong to allow his young son Little Milton to sit at the controls and start a helicopter engine, he said.

Mr McCabe found Mr Jones also breached regulations by doing aerial photography without a commercial pilot’s licence, low flying, failing to wear a lifejacket or a seatbelt correctly.

Mr McCabe said Mr Jones failed in his duty regarding safe navigation or operation of an aircraft but decided it was not necessary to cancel his licences.
However on a sour note the abomination which is Quadrio v Civil Aviation Safety Authority will continue to haunt...

"..It drew an analogy with the case of Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/709.html) where the pilot was found not to be a fit and proper person because he was prepared to ignore the rules in the interest of entertaining the passengers..."

...all such similar cases until that case is simply struck out and the record corrected...:ugh::ugh:

Hmm...wasn't the same investigator involved with Milt's case also on the periphery of the Quadrio matter?? :E

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Well done AAT, well done indeed. Bravo. Good sense and a fair, legally 'safe' ruling, Jones could not have hoped for better....:ok:..:D...:ok:...:D

What a pity John Quadrio could not have had the same sane, calm balanced decision making afforded. The poor bugger is still financially and emotionally crippled by a very 'un-safe' decision made against some of the most unsound, outlandish 'evidence' ever produced. I note the hyenas have dragged the rotting carcass underground in an attempt to hide the stench....:ugh:

MTF.

[Eddie Dean]

If you knew Milton like we know Milton, oh, oh oh what a guy.
You know the song.
Anyhoo well done to Milt he deserves the win.

[yr right]

Please remember this but. If you are flying below 500 feet and it's over your own poperty you do not have to comply with any rules at all. None zero
Swat. If you fly over your next door all rules have to be complyed with.

[Stikybeke]

C'mon now Steve, Really?

Is there a new CAR that we don't know about that relates to low level flying?

Please note that I'm not calling you a liar or inferring that!

(My post in another thread related to not calling you a liar but simply trying to identify the accident you referred to as the only ones that I could recall that involved 5 fatalities were Willowbank and Caboulture accidents, neither of which involved BASI and (given your age) I thought you might have been exposed to, hence the question mark regarding numbers.... so please share for once!)

So back to the point about operating an aircraft below 500ft over your own property. Can you point us to specific regulation or legislative guidance that allows that? The only regulation that I'm aware of that relates to low level flying is CAR 157 as follows:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157

Low flying
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter--600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter--300 metres;

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.

(3A) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or

(c) the pilot of the aircraft is receiving flight training in low-level operations or aerial application operations, within the meaning of Part 61 of CASR; or

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

(i) a search; or

(ii) a rescue; or

(iii) dropping supplies;

in a search and rescue operation; or

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.



Thanks for sharing,
Stiky
:ok:

[Pontius]

Please remember this but. If you are flying below 500 feet and it's over your own poperty you do not have to comply with any rules at all. None zero
Swat.

Bollox.

Please prove otherwise.

[Squawk7700]

I also call bollox.

Yr right, your statement is NOT correct.

All normal CAO's and CAR's must be complied with regardless of whose property you are flying from.

For low level flight other than for the purposes of taking off or landing, you need a low level endorsement AND a reason to be flying low, such as mustering, stock or water checking.

The only exception that I think may have confused you is under RA-Aus rules, several years ago before the last ops manual change, you were in fact permitted to fly under 500ft with land owner permission.

[kaz3g]

The only exception that I think may have confused you is under RA-Aus rules, several years ago before the last ops manual change, you were in fact permitted to fly under 500ft with land owner permission.

It doesn't seem that long ago that you got into a lot of trouble for flying your motorised broomstick ABOVE 500'.

Kaz

[fencehopper]

If i had the bucks to have a 400,000 ha property it would be a case of 'whose airspace ' and get the #@!$ out of my principality!

[yr right]

Read the cars. If is your own poperty toucan do what you wish below 500 feet. Little known car don't have time to look it up but I'm sure someone can find it.

[Squawk7700]

YR Right that is pure BS.

You are yet again making stuff up.

[waren9]

and this guy fixes planes. or says he does

i cant even

[Andy_RR]

...toucan do what you wish below 500 feet.

I think the service ceiling of a toucan is less than 500 feet anyway, so yr right's probably right on this one...

[wishiwasupthere]

and this guy fixes planes. or says he does

Based on some of the drivel he posts, I think he should stick to that. But I'd like to know which maintenance organisation he works for so I can give it a wide berth.

[yr right]

But of course because you not heard of it it can't possibly be true. I guess ness I had to place boat ergo on a seaplane that can't be true either. What small worlds some if you must live in !

[Pontius]

Please prove otherwise.

Few of us are going to accept the illiterate ramblings of engineer regarding air law as gospel. So, either provide the exact reference or stop spouting bollox.

I am more than happy to be proven wrong in my assertions that you're talking out of your arse.

[jas24zzk]

CAR 1988

Reg 157 Para 1 a & b.

My docs are a touch out of date, but I doubt that rule has changed....no safety case presented.


In the meantime, i'm getting some doughnuts to enjoy the show

:}

[Pontius]

Hi Jas,

Stikybeke has already quoted Reg 157 above. It seems pretty clear to most people on here but I'm just waiting for Yr Right to dig out the alleged regulation that counters 157 and allows us to fly unrestricted over our own property. I think, as we do not own the airspace above our property, that I may be waiting some time and you might need some popcorn to accompany the doughnuts :)

[Ultralights]

if yr right is correct, it makes those $100,000 10,000 acre properties look real attractive! im might start up the Cobar/reno air races! max height, 100 ft!

[jas24zzk]

Sorry Pontius..I missed stiky's response :ugh:

[asw28-866]

Great idea Ultralights, I'll buy the farm next door and do the same. It'll be more fun if you go clockwise and me anti-clockwise :rolleyes:

[Up-into-the-air]

As I said to Thorbird, recently:

Yes the Quadrio matter should be at the top of the heap [for fixing].

It is now six years since the alleged occurrence and a run-away investigator, who didn't even look at the weather on the day to see if it co-incided with the actual day alleged.

And the use of the known criminal as a witness??

casa, this is not going away.

I note that the Board member refers to the Quadrio matter in the Jones case.

I wonder how his comments be if it is drawn to his attention that the finding is "unsafe"?? as casa never revealed the provenance of the "witness", nor the "break-in" to Quadrio's workplace a few days earlier prior to being "summoned" to the FF cairns office.

And where are the FOI's who refused to support casa??

MTF

[yr right]

Had a conformation phone call last night saying I was correct. Please feel free to look it up your selfs. Remember your own property below 500 feet

[Stikybeke]

Steve
You might want to read CAR157. There is no other regulation regarding low level flight unless of course you have an instrument from CASA specifically allowing a particular type of low level flight like an Aerobatic display for example. I doubt your source is able to give you a regulation to turn to for guidance. If so, what is it. Others have asked the same question and so am I again. Over the years I've flown with many country pilots over their own properties, some of which been from where we've departed and landed. The rules have always been the same and have not changed since 1988. Ask Jim. He'll set you straight if he's being keeping up which given the windfarm stuff I'm sure he has.

Stiky
:rolleyes:

[thorn bird]

So as I understand most people in industry are of the opinion that the Jones verdict was a common sense and just adjudication.

Given that ruling,

When can we expect "Justice" for John Qadrio? and Karon Casey? etc.

[Squawk7700]

Had a conformation phone call last night saying I was correct

Was it actually a phone call, or did you simply hear a "voice?" Who was this call from; was it CASA?




TB - on the face of it, it appears to be common sense, but what would happen if the engine failed and he landed on his water skiing son and sliced him up, or the controls failed and he hit the jet ski? If you don't partake in such activities, you are less likely to have an accident. Can you even call it an accident if it happened when you were doing something stupid?

[yr right]

Has nothing to do with low level flight rules at at. You can do what you like over your OWN property below 500 feet. The aircraft dose not need a CofA nothing. It your place. You don't need a pilot lic either. What I here you ask no surely he is pulling it out of my arse. We'll I'm not. It the same as you don't need to ergo your car on your own place either. But if you leave your place you will be done.

Can't remember the whole story but I guy did get done some time back. Funny thing is not one person has ask how I know this. All so quick to point fingers but. Never mind.

[Tidbinbilla]

If you wish to retain credibility, then you should come up with some factual information to back up your claim.

[Andy_RR]

A telephone call from God in the middle of the night not enough factual information, Tidbinbilla?

[waren9]

retain?

thats generous.

[thorn bird]

7700,

I think you will find far more water skiers get sliced up by boat props than helicopter rotors, but I agree the risks involved in waterskiing makes it a rather stupid pastime.

Same all this low level mustering, the controls could fail and hit a stockman.

Maybe these fling wings are altogether too dangerous and should be banned altogether.

[jas24zzk]

There are exemptions to fixed wing ops below 500' as per CAR 157 1(b). I'll list them for you shortly, to save you looking them up.

I have not seen any regulation that permits the things you propose as a blanket exemption from the regs...ANYWHERE.

Maybe you should call back the person who rang you and said you were correct and ask for the legislative references, so you can post them here to qualify your statements.. If you can post the references, then quite a few of us will happily eat humble pie.

The 3 exemptions I can think of, are all ratings that require extra training.

Aerial Mustering
Aerial Spraying (ag ops)
Aerial Firefighting.

Not withstanding, approach and take off within the course of normal operations.
.........................

Relying on a phone call? that has ants on it....its the same as CASA telling you that you cannot operate an aircraft in Australia without an ASIC...its posted on their website so the FOI's will tell you that is true. A lil thought tells you, the statement is a LIE!. Even deeper looking will tell you that you can operate without an ASIC OR an AVID! And I can provide the reference for that :)

Back it up with the references or admit you might have made an incorrect reading of the rules

Without a Reference, its merely considered your delusion.

Enjoy

Jas

[Trent 972]

It's the constitution. It's MABO. It's just...the vibe. :ok: Denis Denuto

[jas24zzk]

Dang it Trent...posts like yours need a like button!

[Pontius]

You can do what you like over your OWN property below 500 feet.

What I here you ask no surely he is pulling it out of my arse. We'll I'm not.

Funny thing is not one person has ask how I know this.

Yes, I believe you are pulling it out of your arse and, thus far, you've done nothing to prove otherwise. Telling us that you got a phone call confirming it (well, that's what I assume you meant) does not constitute proof.

So, come on then, how do you know this? In order for you to know, rather than think you know, it must be the truth; in which case you'll be able to provide the reference.

If you can do this, then as I said before, I'm more than willing to retract and apologise for my accusations that you're talking (more) bollox. If you can't prove this then bog off back to Walter Mitty Land where you might have some credibility and leave this site to at least the semi-professionals.

[kaz3g]

Under CAO 95.55 aircraft registered by RAA are exempt from a number of regulations, including CAR 157.

However, para 10 of the RAA Operations Manual effectively re-iterates the restrictions imposed by CAR 157 on flight below 500'.

The common law inherited from Old Blighty from around the 13th century gave the owner of land property rights in everything from the bowels of hell to the heights of heaven. This broad view has been narrowed somewhat by legislation over the years.

This is why CSG miners can dig holes in your lovely Hunter farm and pilots can fly over it above 500' as long as they don't scare the chooks.

Your property rights as a land owner in the airspace above it is limited to that which is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment and use of the land itself. So you can dig foundations and complain about the skyscraper next door blocking your access to light but, as best as I can determine, you can't fly below 500' just because it is over your own property; you can't fly an unregistered aircraft there; and you need the appropriate licence to do it.

This MAY be a little different to some overseas jurisdictions so beware the perils of accepting everything on Google as Gospel.

Kaz

PS. This is my personal opinion only and should not be relied upon in any legal context. I do not practice in aviation law and have no retainer to do so.

[Powerin]

However, para 10 of the RAA Operations Manual effectively re-iterates the restrictions imposed by CAR 157 on flight below 500'.
Kaz, how can the RAAus Ops manual overule a CAO? Is there another law which says RAAus can trump an existing law? I can't find a para 10 in the Ops manual.

Here's the relevant bit of CAO 95.55 which applies to most Ultralight and LSA categories:

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:
(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or
(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or
(c) the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or
(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.

[Jabawocky]

The RAAus ops manual does not overrule CAO/CAR's, however it has exemptions from certain regs.

RAAus and its allowed operational limits are by virtue of exemptions, as best I can describe it.

[kaz3g]

CAO 95.55 provides an exemption from the CAR 157; it does not exempt RAAus pilots from the controls imposed by the Operations Manual.

The Ops Manual at section 2.01-3 deals with

"LOW LEVEL FLIGHT

10. No person shall operate an RAAus registered aircraft below 500' AGL a

UNLESS

a. the aircraft is operated to the requirements set out in CAO 95.55, 95.32, or section 6.2 or relevant legislation as amended from time to time

AND

b. holding RAAus Low Level endorsement

OR

c. Provides written proof to Operations Manager of recognised equivalent qualification

Note: b and c does ( sic) not apply to aircraft in process of taking off and landing in normal circumstances"

The "AND" between a and b is very important.

Kaz

[Squawk7700]

Not long ago the RA-Aus suspended the certificate of a member for flying low, even though the pilot held a Low Level endorsement and had written permission from the land over. It was because the pilot / member was flying low without a valid reason (other than for fun) and he wasn't engaged in flight training.

[dubbleyew eight]

yr right is actually correct. or he used to be before the regulatory embuggerment.

does CAsA have jurisdiction over New Zealand Airspace? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction over the airspace in your lounge room? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction in the airspace in the top of a pipeline? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction in outer space? no

so where does it have jurisdiction?

find where that is spelt out and you have your answer.
I think it is in the empowering act.
I gave all my paper copies of the acts to a chief flying instructor for reference so I can't dig out the answer.

[kaz3g]

yr right is actually correct. or he used to be before the regulatory embuggerment.



Until quite recently in relative terms, little old ladies who owned black cats were burned at the stake because the law held they were witches. But the rules about witches changed and anyone lighting fires under elderly spinsters today would be in a lot of trouble.

yr right's view of the law today appears misconceived.

Kaz

[Andy_RR]

You've all forgotten that the law is whatever those in power want it to be, despite whatever you've found written down somewhere.

Written law is worthless without consistent enforcement. We have more laws and regulations on the books than can be consistently enforced, which leads to the adoption of selective enforcement policies. Now how could that possibly go wrong...?

[Powerin]

CAO 95.55 provides an exemption from the CAR 157; it does not exempt RAAus pilots from the controls imposed by the Operations Manual.
Sorry to continue off-topic...I can't see how this would prevent you from flying below 500ft over your own property (or one where you had the owner's permission) if you hold a valid RAAus Pilot Cert with a low-level endorsement and are flying an aircraft referred to in CAOs 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 (which are ultralight or LSA).

In any case the relevant section (2.01-9) of the new RAA Ops Manual, released today, has changed slightly and now reads:

LOW LEVEL ENDORSEMENT (LL)
9. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as
pilot in command below 500FT AGL unless:

a. the aeroplane is operated in accordance with the
requirements set out in CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55, under
“Provisions relating to flight height limitations”; and

b. holds a RA-Aus Low Level (LL) Endorsement.The section of the CAOs referred to says:
8 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:
(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or
(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or
(c) the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or
(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.
8.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, that is flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from:
(a) a public road; or
(b) a person, other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or
(c) a dwelling, except with the permission of the occupier.
8.3 When taking off, or landing, an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a place or person referred to in subparagraph 8.2 (a), (b) or (c) that may be less than 100 metres but is:
(a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and
(b) as far as possible from such a place or person, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.
8.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it.

8.5 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 10 000 feet above mean sea level or higher in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3.
All of which says, it seems to me, given a few conditions and an endorsement, it's OK to fly <500ft over your own property and without needing any valid reason. Correct?

[Squawk7700]

Powerin, feel free to try it, put it on YouTube and see what happens. (See seriously)

[uncle8]

Sounds like you need a low level endorsement to take off and land.

[dubbleyew eight]

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:

(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot;

pre embuggerment CAsA had no jurisdiction of the airspace below 500ft unless it was in the vicinity of an airfield.
this is why the initial requirement on ultralights was to fly below 500ft. i.e. get the buggery out of our airspace.
HORSCOTS (house of reps subcommittee on transport safety) back in the late 60's flogged hell out of the ex-raaf for not including ultralights in aviation.
it seems to me that in many ways CAsA haven't learnt a bloody thing.

[kaz3g]

I seem to recall that the problem was the appalling rate at which those free spirits of the early AUF were killing themselves flying some rather basic machines close to the ground...their widows were complaining.

Kaz

[yr right]

I will state again. If it's YOUR poperty you can fly over it below 500 feet. You need no vh rego no m/r no pilot lic nothing to do with RAA.

You may over your property use an aircraft for fire fighting if it's your own aircraft and if it's your poperty. You however May not use it over at your nabours place

[Squawk7700]

Give up Yr_right you are just dribbling now.

Back it up with a fact or perhaps a regulation or just piss off :ugh:

[Tankengine]

Why is yr right wrong?
You can do just about anything on your own property, unlicensed underage drivers, drunk driving, modified cars un register able. All that is OK, so why not unlicensed pilots in unregistered aircraft as long as they are below 500' and over their own property as per powerin's post?

It is up to regulators to say what is NOT legal.:rolleyes:

[Squawk7700]

What happens when a legally operated survey aircraft or powerline inspecting aircraft flies along at 300ft and cleans up your unregistered Chieftain banging around your property at 499 ft with unlicensed self taught pilot at the controls?

[neville_nobody]

Why is yr right wrong?
You can do just about anything on your own property, unlicensed underage drivers, drunk driving, modified cars un register able. All that is OK, so why not unlicensed pilots in unregistered aircraft as long as they are below 500' and over their own property as per powerin's post?

It would depend on how high in Australia your property rights go up to. In the USA they have a specific altitude that you own up to, (hence why drones over there are a issue). Not sure what it is here, but there would be some limit.

[prospector]

What happens

Probably not a lot, missed him by a 199ft.

[thunderbird five]

See 20AA and 20AB of the Civil Aviation Act.:eek:

[Stikybeke]

Pleased to oblige,

Let's see now.....

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AA

Flying unregistered aircraft etc.
Flying an unregistered aircraft

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:
(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and
(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an aircraft that is employed in private operations and that possesses the nationality of a Contracting State.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).

(2) In subsection (1A), employed in private operations has the same meaning as it has in the regulations.

Flying without a certificate of airworthiness
(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:
(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and
(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

Flying without satisfying safety requirements
(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:
(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;
(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;
(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

Oh, maybe it's this one then....

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AB

Flying aircraft without licence etc.
(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or
(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) limits the power to make regulations under this Act that provide for an offence of undertaking another activity without the appropriate civil aviation authorisation or special authorisation under the regulations.

(4) In this section, flight time has the same meaning as in the regulations.

Nope. Still can't seem to find that regulation that allows the flight as proposed by Yr Right....In fact, it would appear that flight in contravention of these two sections of the Civil Aviation Act is view quite seriously (just like S700 suggested..) if you're caught out.

C'mon now Steve,

Stiky
:rolleyes:

[Tankengine]

There you go! Sticky looked up actual regulations!:ok:

[Jabawocky]

He is pretty sharp for a truck driving beekeeper hey :ok:

[kaz3g]

Why is yr right wrong?
You can do just about anything on your own property, unlicensed underage drivers, drunk driving, modified cars un register able. All that is OK, so why not unlicensed pilots in unregistered aircraft as long as they are below 500' and over their own property as per powerin's post?

It is up to regulators to say what is NOT legal.

Yr right is wrong because the law says he is wrong. No matter how much you, he, or anyone else might pine for those good old AUF days and believe they still exist, as has been expressed several times here, the law says otherwise.

There is an important difference between doing things ON the land and doing things OVER the land. The right's attaching to the property vary for given circumstances (read the previous posts where I explained this).

Yes, you can drive an unregistered motor vehicle on your land and without a licence because the various State laws controlling those activities apply to the operation of vehicles on a highway.

But be very careful doing while under the influence and be particularly careful you don't hurt anyone if you are hooning around at home because those matters aren't limited to operation on a highway. Be aware also that all Crown land, in Victoria at least, is a highway for the purposes of the Road Safety Act.

Answering your question in plain English, it's because the law says you can't (at least unless you hold appropriate endorsements and are acting pursuant to them).

Kaz

[kaz3g]

Quote:
It would depend on how high in Australia your property rights go up to. In the USA they have a specific altitude that you own up to, (hence why drones over there are a issue). Not sure what it is here, but there would be some limit.

We are not the USofA.

For goodness sake, your property rights are limited by even the local bloody council...


Try not slashing the long grass if they issue a pre-summer clean-up notice!

Try riding a trail bike around and around in your suburban back yard.

These days you can't even light an incinerator.


So why do some people think they can do what they like in an aeroplane just because they are below 500' over their own property?

Just do it folks and post it on You tube.

Kaz

[Draggertail]

It is hard to believe a person who purportedly is a master LAME and at home in the court room making CASA look like fools, is unable to come up with just one little reference to support his claim.

[jas24zzk]

Its almost as bad as CASA FOI's claim that you cannot fly without an ASIC....its posted on their website, so it must be true!

[kaz3g]

From the CASA website...

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Your ASIC questions answered (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90103)

Q: What are the security requirements?

You need a valid ASIC if you require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations. This is a requirement of the Aviation Security Regulations 2005.

If you want to use your CASA issued flight crew licence and you do not require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has RPT operations, you must apply for a background security check and you will be issued with an AVID provided your checks are successful. This does not apply if you are under 18.


Q: Are pilots still allowed to fly without an ASIC?

Yes. Pilots only need to have submitted an application for an AVID or an ASIC to operate an aircraft. The application will be processed and appropriate background checks undertaken prior to the AVID or ASIC being issued to an eligible pilot.


Kaz

[yr right]

Nah just no time or interest really to look it up. But gee better send the Feds around as I've been doing stuff illegally now for years same on me.

[rutan around]

Just had an interesting read in Airwaves (The insert that comes each month with Aviation Trader )
Page 5, 3rd colemn talks about Gyrocopters. It appears that at least with Gyrocopters you can legally fly at less than 500 ft AGL. Some of you may have to say 'Yr right yr right '

[Draggertail]

yr right did not mention gyrocopters or powered parachutes which may have some different minimum height requirements. However they still have to comply with rules to fly lower (Civil AviationOrder 95.12.1)

He stated:
"If you are flying below 500 feet and it's over your own poperty you do not have to comply with any rules at all. None zero Swat."

So, yr right is still yr wrong.

[dubbleyew eight]

I would encourage you guys to go back through your posts and take note of the general tenor of your comments.

you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.

the ATsB has commented that the GA accident rate in australia hasn't changed in over a decade.
so what that means is that all the safety initiatives that have been imposed in a decade haven't had one iota of effect.

it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.

[wishiwasupthere]

and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.

Says the guy who's posted over 1000 times on Pprune in just 18 months. :E

[Draggertail]

W8 said:
you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.

it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.

Mate, I flew about 800 hours last year and didn't face any prison time when ever I flew. I also have never pranged an aircraft and hope never to do so. You have no idea of my overseas travel and certainly no idea of my life.

If you've got something to contribute to the discussion feel free to type something relevant.

[cockney steve]

Some years ago,i read a report of an incident :-
A pilot flying across an isolated homestead, saw an odd aircraft at very low level, below him (ISTR the wings were different colours/patchy)

There was a Reg. which was written down and the unexpected encounter was reported.

The aircraft had been written -off. The homesteader had bought the remains, "repaired" them and installed an adapted V-8 (Rover?) car-engine, complete with cobbled-on water-cooling This, apparently, was not his first DIY training-flight/flight test.

He was successfully prosecuted, despite being miles from anywhere
.
Had an overflying stickybeak not dobbed him in, he could well be an accomplished pilot nowadays.....or a Darwin Award winner.

[Eddie Dean]

Cockney Steve, may not be the same one, bloke near Mt Isa had a v8 running through a VW gearbox driving the prop. Was reported to CASA but bugger me no one in the area had seen it fly, only doing taxi runs

[jas24zzk]

YAY Kaz...they finally updated that bit...

They are still talking about Student pilot licences tho... :D

[Kharon]

A strange tale (helicopter related). - I would like to ask, if I may what you would call this story, in nice (as in accurate) terms. The story, as it was recently told to me goes like this:-

CASA 'did' a chopper pilot (Chopper) over, the whole nine yards: license, reputation, job etc; not in court though; DPP didn't want a bar of it. So, off to the AAT with their star witness, who was looking a jail term, (on account of being dopey, naughty and getting caught), in tow. CASA produced statements, evidence and even video footage in support of their case; they even had the AFP collect and deliver the 'on bail' witness to the AAT.

Well, the case was heard, the decision made, the license stripped and a 'not a fit a proper' edict was supported. In the aftermath, all the usual things occurred after an event like that; divorce, depression, anger and anger management issues. During the breakdown of normal life, Chopper decided to 'scratch' around a bit; as he knew, for certain sure that he 'didn't do it".

In short; after some judicious searching and some time spent with the now released 'star' witness (SW) revealed some very interesting, provable facts. Things like SW recanting and reversing all previous testimony. SW is also reported as stating that subtle hints relating to a longer term at HMP could be provided should cooperation be less than enthusiastic; and, that maybe a room with a view and time off on account o'being good, could be arranged. Well, the 'paperwork' was all signed, sealed and delivered; evidence, statements, the whole shooting match. This was all duly despatched, on advice, to CASA legal, in the hopes of having things put to rights; - for Chopper you understand.

There was much talk of 'mounting' a thorough investigation, through the proper channels; so Chopper waits a while, then waits another little while, wondering, as you would, just WTF is going on.

Here's the crazy part – Eventually, word filters through that Choppers' plaint and righteous indignation have been ignored, not considered. It seems that the entire brief has been flipped and conjured into a complaint made by SW - against the 'investigator' (s) and marked for AFP attention : 'cept AFP have never heard of it, no paperwork etc..

Aye, it's passing strange. You'll admit that's quite a twist and a puzzle of the legal variety for a lay mind to grapple with. Not being privy to 'all' the 'paperwork', and only working with 'hearsay', the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc. SHMG is beyond my short reach. But, humour me, if it all turns out to be Kosher (or Halal if it pleases) what, precisely are we looking at here?

Toot toot (sotto voce)..:confused:

[thorn bird]

Kharon,

TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the AMERIC....sorry err..I should have said Australian, but it would seem those ideals are alien to aviation culture in Australia.

The CAsA person who intimidated a witness, and falsified evidence, in partnership with a no neck "enforcer"...they are the same ones that turn up at aviation events where the skull was expected to visit, or AAT hearings, note book and camera in hand, disguised in their Ray Bans and dark suits, is now out of CAsA in a high level GA job. As I've said, aint the industry a bunch of hookers.

His victim is a basket case, career gone, financially decimated and wondering what the hell he ever did to deserve that sort of attention, he'd always tried to be a compliant safe pilot.

It has subsequently been established he wasn't even the pilot of the chopper in the dodgy video that CAsA used as an excuse to pillory him.

The rule of the regulator is upon us people, the rule of law is defunct.

JUSTICE??? forget it, doesn't exist in Australia, unless you have the funds to fight in a real court.

Even then the "Regulators will continue to pursue you, look at CHC, comprehensibly blew CAsA out of court, costing the tax payer millions, rumor has it the pursuit by CAsA continues...they can never be wrong.

[Wallsofchina]

Unfortunately the old Chopper I knew admitted he did it, in writing, so if anyone was about to go down the slippery slide, they are probably going to find that admission.

[jas24zzk]

Three things need to happen...

The regulatory side needs to be stripped from CASA.. Make them work as enforcers of the law.

Enforcement needs to progress through the CDDP as a normal criminal matter.

The Power of the AAT to ignore the normal justice procedures (in all matters, not just aviation) needs to be curtailed.

IIRC the AAT was set up as a stepping stone to try to alleviate use of the courts time and resources, to try to get matters solved before. These days it appears they have grown the ability to over-ride the courts and make their own way through the muddle.

A law stating that it is a defence to declare to the AAT that you regard the charge as criminal matter, and that you wish it heard as such and force it back into the criminal system should be enacted.

In the criminal system, some charges are not normally handled by some courts, although that court might be your first appearance. I.e a charge normally handled by the county court will be initially heard at a magistrates court. The courts limited jurisdiction is announced to you as the defended and you are offered a denial so you can goto the higher court. People pleading guilty will invariably accept the terms, leaving the county court open for the appeal.

In the AAT your next place of help is the High court, you've already spent 'thousands' 'defending' yourself.

Sorry but the AAT is nothing more than death by bankruptcy, and sooner its 'powers' are curtailed the better

[rutan around]

Jaz
Three things need to happen...


Exactly:ok:

[dubbleyew eight]

you're missing the plot aren't you?

aviation regulations are all about trying to achieve a safe working environment.
where does criminality come into it?

The regulatory side needs to be stripped from CASA.. Make them work as enforcers of the law.


you've really got it wrong there.
if the aviation laws are all about codifying a safe approach to flying where do you get off with all this nonsense?

if you take off in an aircraft without a maintenance release it is 2 years in prison.
this is typical of the utter tosh masquerading as australian law.
a maintenance release won't keep you safe. if you think it will you are a dill with limited experience.
haven't you ever experienced an "administrative annual" resulting in a maintenance release that has no basis in fact?

the previous is only one example of the tosh in the regulations.
the regs occupy so many pages because they are full of bull****.
you can believe all this CAsA crap as much as you like ...but it will not keep you safe.

[Arm out the window]

Not commenting on any particular cases under discussion, but you've got to have some form of regulation or there'll be people doing all kinds of dodgy crap without any comeback if anyone gets hurt, and in our increasingly litigious society if they don't write the rules in legal speak to take out loopholes, then they won't work.

It seems many people won't accept that CASA could possibly do anything good whatsoever, and the only solution is to sack them all. What do you replace them with, though?

[4 Holer]

Replace them with the FAA Son, USA home to the reality shows, airplane repo, the wild wild west lives on........

[gassed budgie]

the wild wild west lives on........

......your goddammed mother fcukin sure as hell right it does.

The land of the free and the home of the brave, where the average speed camera lasts around three days before some bastard shoots it out. Exactly what should happen here.

[4 Holer]

Yeh ha, No speed Cameras or breath testing here son, Federal court ordered them down or disabled and "against the constitution" entrapment of the population not allowed need reasonable cause to be pulled over.


Any VH airplane's still flying down there or is it lights out ???

[Arm out the window]

So no breath testing, but they do that bull**** walk the line thing to see if you're over or not?

[gerry111]

4 Holer, Any of you guys Stateside wearing seatbelts in your cars yet?

[le Pingouin]

They got gun racks instead! And banjos. I hear banjos......

[Mach E Avelli]

I like the 'walk the line' test. At least it puts the onus on the driver to prove he/she can hold his/her booze. Practical law enforcement.
Instead we have an arbitrary limit imposed by a machine. At .049 you are safe to drive but at .050 a little switch trips in everyone's brain and we all become totally incompetent. That whole approach to the law is typical of aviation regulation.

[WAC]

You mean that horrible arbitrary limit supported by solid science and decades of research?

[Eddie Dean]

WAC - You mean that horrible arbitrary limit supported by solid science and decades of research?
Invoking the great god, science, that'll shut everyone up

[Mach E Avelli]

If everyone is affected exactly the same, how come the anaesthetist is always interested in one's alcohol consumption? If you don't want to wake up half way through the procedure, it is probably better for once to admit to your real intake, not the one you tell the CASA medico.

Arbitrary limits in law, and aviation in particular, are everywhere. Take the windscreen heat inoperative bird impact speed limitation below 8000 feet AMSL which appears in so many flight manuals. Not AGL, but AMSL. Go figure. Science has obviously determined that birds have altimeters calibrated to sea level, or get so dizzy at 8000 feet that they never venture higher. On that subject, oxygen limitations. Pilots who fly regularly in the Andes do not always bother with it - despite the requirement in the AFM - even though they may be sitting on the ground for an hour's turnaround at 12,000 feet. Not many Twin Otter pilots bother with it at similar levels in PNG either. Even the smokers seem to be quite tolerant at those altitudes, yet science tells us they should be seriously hypoxic. But if I tried it - even as a fairly fit non smoker - I KNOW I would be useless. On the other hand, at .050 BAC I am still quite functional, notwithstanding any science. Years of practice ...... or a 'functioning alcoholic'?......hmmm.

[WAC]

You might feel, functional, you may even appear functional to a casual observer, but testing will show significant degredation of reaction times and motor skills. These numbers are not pulled out of the air at random.

Statistical analysis is used to determine risk profiles and set standards. I bet if someone cares to dig they will discover a sharp drop off in bird strike risk somewhere below that 8000 limit. Doesn't mean risk is gone above, but means someone has determined the numbers are now low enough to reduce the risk profile and standards.

[le Pingouin]

How is walking a straight line in any way an objective measure of alcohol induced impairment? It's just another bogus "standard" like lie detectors that they seem so fond of in the US. At least the great god science should have some objective evidence to back it up as opposed to anecdotes and self assessed gut feelings.

Flapping wings relies heavily on oxygen consumption which varies with atmospheric pressure so AMSL is a better general measure of where you'll find the birds than AGL, unless they're soaring.

MEA. The science says nothing of the sort. it's called acclimatisation - just ask any mountaineer or performance athlete. Such rules are by their nature there to endeavour to cover everyone. How would you measure your tolerance to altitude o any given day? Wait until you feel hypoxic? What about when you have a cold or minor lung infection?

As to alcohol, you might feel okay but have you objectively tested your cognitive ability or reactions? Again, what happens when you're tired or unwell?

[Mach E Avelli]

Some of the above appears to partly support my argument. That is, cognitive ability and tolerance to the effects of alcohol - or altitude - vary between individuals and even within the same individual on different days. Yet, rather than applying a practical test, we impose a fixed number.
Not saying that walking the straight line is the be-all and end-all of tests, but the cops at least have a starting point when they pull over someone suspected of DUI and decide how far they are going to press the issue. Our system cuts us no slack whatsoever.

Re the birds. Do you reckon a birdstrike is more likely over water at 8000 feet or over a mountainous area at 18000? (not talking the Australian 'Alps' but proper mountains). I have seen birds at high levels that would pose a far greater risk to a cold windscreen than your average seagull down low. Plus those pesky high flying Canadian Geese that most definitely are not soaring at flight levels over the tundra. They are flapping at N1 Max Cruise. The below 8000 ft limitation was unlikely to have been imposed as a result of any statistical analysis or assessment of whether birds could only flap their wings in the lower atmosphere - more likely someone simply did not get the words in the original certification standard right, and it has remained ever since.
I could go on with arbitrary numbers in aviation. Maximum altitude for flap or gear operation anyone? And why the same number for completely different aircraft types? These are certification standards which must be demonstrated by test, nothing more. The aircraft builder may test beyond those standards. Or may not. What dire results occur if you exceed it by 500ft? 1500ft? Not saying that anyone should deliberately exceed any limitation, but an understanding of how and why a limit is derived is sometimes useful.

[le Pingouin]

Alcohol and altitude acclimatisation are entirely separate fish - you can't equate one with the other. How do you tell how affected someone is by alcohol without having an individual baseline to compare with? They might fail your subjective test stone cold sober.

Surely the 8000ft rule isn't about protection from all birdstrikes but to reduce risk. Hitting a large bird at whatever speed is going to be nasty, heated screen or not.

[Radix]

............

[le Pingouin]

You can still be done for impaired driving no matter what your BAC.

You guys really are missing the point. Rules such as the 8000ft heated/unheated are there to provide a degree of increased safety, not to eliminate all the risk. How would you as a pilot decide what a safe speed is when there are more than a few unknowns? You'd guess?