Sling load over public events

[mickjoebill]

Police warn Clive Palmer over helicopter stunt at Skilled Park during Gold Coast United soccer match | The Courier-Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/Queensland/police-warn-Clive-palmer-over-helicopter-stunt-at-skilled-park-during-gold-coast-united-soccer-match/story-e6freoof-1226301723573)

Business Oligark Clive Palmers' spat with Australian Football federation gets airborn with a banner towing message.


"The Major Sporting Facilities Act prohibits anyone from displaying signage in airspace that can be seen from a Major Sporting Facility during an event.

Police said they have contacted Gold Coast United and told them any plan to display advertising was unlawful.

“Since that time, a helicopter charter company has contacted the QPS and confirmed that they will be displaying signage,” the statement read.

“But (they) will do so away from populated areas, and not in the vicinity of Skilled Park, in accordance with the relevant legislation.” "


Is it a civil or criminal offense to break this law and who is the offender, the charter company or pilot?

Queensland

Mickjoebill

[Trojan1981]

I wonder if the Qld Govt has any jurisdiction over displays in the airspace. Sounds like a law that needs testing by someone with deep pockets :ok:

[Trojan1981]

Thanks for posting Brian. :ok:
A law is not a law until it is tested in court. I'm not a fan, but I think CP is just the person to do this, if he feels strongly enough. If you were the pilot it wouldn't be worth the risk though!

[John R81]

This law is to protect the event authorisor's revenue. It would be far cheaper to place your advert on a building overlooking the event, or hire a pilot to air-tow a banner. In that case, no more advertising revenue and no more event.

I suggest that you don't bother trying to challenge this one in court for 3 reasons.

1. the rule was properly passed into law
2. it is clearly and unambiguously written hence grounds to challenge seem "thin" at best; and most importantly
3. You are asking a court to interfere in a revenue stream - they are very much against that (take a look what happens to those who challenge "safety camerea" revenue stream"

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

I think also this has been challenged before .... maybe not in Queensland but in Victoria ....

Seem to remember a large lighter than air aircraft with installed light-show NOT being allowed to fly over around or near the environs of the Melbourne Cricket Ground (or was it the then "OPTUS Oval?) ???? ....

I was out of the country earning some 'small change' at the time and can't remember the detail??? (perhaps I am just not that interested?).

:confused:

[Trojan1981]

I suggest that you don't bother trying to challenge this one in court for 3 reasons.

1. the rule was properly passed into law
2. it is clearly and unambiguously written hence grounds to challenge seem "thin" at best; and most importantly
3. You are asking a court to interfere in a revenue stream - they are very much against that (take a look what happens to those who challenge "safety camerea" revenue stream"

I'm not advocating CP's behaviour at all, but state laws have often been found to be unconstitutional or superceeded by federal law in Australia. The power of state govts to legislate the sky is very limited. They can create the legislation, but that doesn't mean it will stand up in court. If there is precedent then a challenge may not be successful, however.

A perfect example is landing areas. Despite numerous attempts to determine where aircraft can and cannot land, including the introduction of state legislation and local govt by-laws; federal law regarding aviation have always been recognised as the only applicable law by the courts. The states have been largely frustrated in their efforts.


From FlightGlobal:

Australian regulations state that an aircraft cannot land or take off from any place that is not suitable for use as an aerodrome, but do not specify all the circumstances that should be considered when determining if a place is suitable for safe operations, says CASA.
I guess they leave that one to the courts :hmm: .