500 foot turns - why?

[compressor stall]

We must maintain runway track till 500 feet agl before turning unless at a controlled aerodrome where ATC permits us to do otherwise.

Why? if we can do it in CTA, then it must not be unsafe per se, so why can't we do it (legally) wherever we like, especially at some poxy ala in the middle of the desert?

[Dehavillanddriver]

Why would you want to turn before 500 ft ?

You turn outside the protection of the surveyed splay, you put yourself in a position where people don't expect top find you - traffic inbound would look up the extended centreline to try and find you.

Whats more the pax don't normally like being treated to a thrill a minute ride.

you go and fly in an airline environment and you would not be encouraged to wander around the skies like browns cows

[Not_Another_Pot]

I agree Stallie, 500' turns in an MBZ are fine but in the bush........

NAP

[compressor stall]

Surveyed Splays?

Half the places in my logbook would never have seen a surveyor, and I am sure that a lot of pilots around have a higher percentage than that.

Yes for 5700+ kgs, that's fine for CAO 20.7.1/FAR 25 performance, but for a little Cessna or light twin?


Hey NAP - check ya PM's!

[WhiteRat Wannabe]

Because stallie, that could pave the way for you having waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fun, especially in the 200!!

I;m sure the surveyors have been out to Eucla lately!! :E

WRW

[SM4 Pirate]

Don't US CTAFs recommend/mandate left turns only? Bring that on, not.

[Herc Jerk]

For safety's sake, Stallie... that rule is designed to keep you honest AND alive...

Honest, in that ATC may approve an early turn due operational reasons, but it doesn't happen all that often. When there is no "3rd Party" (ATC), such as your 400-odd metre collection of rocks and sand out at Wheelmebarrowback ALA, the decision is taken out of your hands and legislated... for safety's sake.

RWY surveys & etc aside, i believe this rule is more designed towards losing a motor once you're airborne... singles speak for themselves- you'll be making yourself very busy trying to recover from the turn while finding a spot to land... and in a light twin your performance on one is negligible at best, let alone after losing the "low" motor in a turn at low altitude/low airspeed and trying to recover to the correct attitude battling an increased Vmca and making all that extra drag in the process. Really is best to keep as much of the odds in you favour right?

Me thinks you knew all that already... but you did ask :ok:

HJ

[Capt Claret]

The rule could also be designed to reduce the chance of experiencing the illusion of slipping or skidding in the turn that can occur if the crosswind component is high enough, and being relatively close to the ground.

[currawong]

Loaded, not all aircraft will reach 500 ft.

So it is really a bit academic.

Ag, turn after T/O not below 100 ft, under certain circumstances.

Which is damn useful if your A/C will not outclimb obstacles.

:ok: Fly safe

[Kelly Slater]

A request for an early turn in CTA is a request for a turn at 500'. You are not permitted to turn earlier.

[kiki]

Watching a student one day, heard tower tell her, "request eairly turn" followed by "turn now" she did comply, all at an altitude of around 200ft. all to get a following twin away. wasnt that impressed.

[Skyway]

How about engine failure! Now do you really want to be in a turn at 200ft agl whilst number 2 has a bit of rest. The answer is simply No! Following engine failure in a twin you need to climb as high as you can man! MAC height I think I recall, then commence a turn for landing. In a single, 500 ft gives you a chance, but imagine being at 200ft agl when it quits, your in a turn and fire and smoke rage past your face, now you calmly remember I'm in a turn and descending more rapidly than when wings level. Plus wheres the landing area, in a turn you create more blind spots thereby narrowing down your options. So with this in mind, I think safety here is the priority, then customer service, lets keep the passengers coming back.

If aerobatics is what gets your fella partying then do it, in a controlled environment. People will pay to see you turn at 50ft, actually the closer to the ground the better. But paying passengers and freight, not all of them will come back.:ok:

[QSK?]

Kelly Slater:

A request for an early turn in CTA is a request for a turn at 500'. You are not permitted to turn earlier.

Is that quote correct? Do you have a reference for it (not that I'm doubting you, it's just that I never knew that before)? Best that I correct any bad habits to stay legal before someone from "Big Brother" decides to yank my licence.

Thanks

[Kelly Slater]

QSK, the advice is correct. It came from CASA in Darwin many years ago. Darwin Tower had the habit of asking for early turns which everyone took as an invite to turn as soon as the weels were on the way up; good fun but the poorest of airmanship. You may not be able to find a reference for this but nor are you likely to find a reference allowing you to turn below 500' except perhaps for a specific SID.

[Variable_pitch]

Have to agree with kelly re the early turn request from tower. We had the chief controller of the tower across for a bit of a getting to know you session the other week and he confirmed that an early turn meant as soon as 500ft agl had been reached before commencing the turn. He wasn't all that happy at the way that some of his juniors would use the request to try and speed things up expecting us to turn below that height. However to try and keep traffic flowing well it was decided that upon an early left/right turn request, an aircraft was to 'drift' in the appropriate direction and then everyone would be happy. But max rates at 200ft agl a definite no no despite how much fun they are!

[compressor stall]

CAR 166

....(g) after take-off, not alter heading from the take-off heading at a height less than 500 feet above the terrain unless air traffic control directs the alteration or unless the alteration is necessary due to the terrain.

I fail to see how this could be interpreted any other way than ATC can permit you to turn lower than 500'. Sounds like CASA interpretations of law again. One FOI's opinion does not override law.

Interesting observations!

CS

[tinpis]

:}

That is of course a LEFT turn Direct aywhere.

[Howard Hughes]

I was once told by an ATCer that an early right/left turn only clears you to turn prior to the upwind threshold, but still required to be above 500ft.

But of course I have never been able to find this in the publications.

Anyone got a reference?

Cheers, HH.

[Curved Approach]

what about when u get told to go-around due some mug on the runway....and they say "ABC when ready turn crosswind follow the twin turning base now."

CAR 166 says "after take-off, not alter heading from the take-off heading at a height less than 500 feet above the terrain, if the alteration was not:
(i) directed by air traffic control; or
(ii) necessary due to the terrain."

do ATC have more detail as to when they can direct this early deviation???

also i take it when told "when ready" that i can turn when im ready at any altitude so that i can fit back into the traffic pattern, of course this is at a GAAP, YSBK to be precise.

[swh]

CS,

I would have to agree with you, as ATC can issue you with a SID like DirectAnywhere has said that directs you to turn below 500 ft.

Also company surveyed OEI departures may require a turn at 400 ft before the aircraft accelerates to reduce the turn radius, and therefore the associated splay.

Float planes taking off in rivers can turn below 500 ft to avoid a bank, helicopters operating into city heli pads can do it, oil rigs etc etc.

Aircraft for CAR 166 means "any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air.", not just aeroplanes, likewise an aerodrome does not have to have a long black runway.

Obviously this does not apply to DoD, Customs, or Police aircraft.

:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Have recieved a request from EN twr to turn left within airfield boundary whilst using 26. Understand it had something to do with ML airspace using 17. Turn height was about 300 agl:D

Also seem to remember the use of the word "expedite". Also witnessed same departing the old BN 13 (I think) abeam tower, got call ELE make left turn to 360 climb to yadaa yadaa expedite....most amazing view of tower as apex of perfectly expedited turn ;) Do not know if this term is still in use. Doesnt show in AIP.

regards

Mark

[the wizard of auz]

I went up to 500ft once.............. got a blood nose and really scared. I reckon I'll leave that all up to you folk. ;)

[puff]

Seems to be a bit of a grey area...I remember when doing low level circuits at a GAAP that I was told to conduct a low level circuit, early left turn approved, I questioned the early left, and the tower guy said that unless u have an early turn approved the whole low level must be done at 500 feet AGL, the wording used for how low you could be was as soon as safety permits.....IE i guess u can do it as low as you want if you are approved, just don't go sticking your wing into things.....in my younger stupider days I remember 200 feet turns weren't out of the question, was great fun, probably not the smartest in hindsight!

[poteroo]

Grey is the Operative Term

Seems that if ATC direct you to do so, then a turn below 500 is perfectly legal.

If you are by yourself, on a long country airport, in perfect weather, nothing amiss - then it's 500ft. CAR 166 applies.

However, you should also consider CAR 157, which I'd think overrules CAR 166, insofar as it introduces all the reasons you can fly low. This would probably be applicable to the take-off situation too.

I think you could make a good defence for a low turn after t/o, based on phenomena such as squalls, dust devils, birds, smoke affecting in flight vis, noise sensitive areas ahead, etc. You can't always see these things until you are airborne.

The problem I see is where students or low time PPL's are asked to expedite a low turn - something they've not been taught. If it's in a 20 kt wind, then the problem of the slip illusion etc makes it a risky instruction.

happy days

[currawong]

Wizard,

Must have been a hot ship?

:}

[Jamair]

Wiz - does Daisy get that high.....?

[the wizard of auz]

Only with both engines making noise and me with my eyes closed.

[NDB APPROACH]

why would you want to turn below 500 feet? especially with a few people on board and some fuel, your just asking for trouble.
it happens too many times that cowboys get carried away and do ridiculous AoB turns to close to the ground. Your only saving a minute or two max in commencing a turn an extra 100 feet early or so. i would prefer to arrive one minute later but be alive and have the room to try and save the plane after an engine failur on up wind.
but each to their own

[Curved Approach]

NDB NDB NDB ..... i think ive seen you turn at about 300 feet in the past ;)

but its nice to see you posting! :ok:

[NDB APPROACH]

curved my friend
obviously you havent seen me fly, although you do spend a lot of time on the ground.
commencing a turn below 500 feet is danergous and illegal and i have never performed one

[Curved Approach]

CAR 166
......(ii) necessary due to the terrain.

yeah ure right ..... yeh its dangerous but still at times necessary ;)

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

I'm sensing a bit of sibling rivalry between the Approach brothers!!??

I launched otta Mitta Mitta in a Navajo once.........I didn't have time to look up this stuff in the books before the hills ahead loomed large. But I'm sure glad I didn't do anything illegal!

Now I best be off to the fridge for a cold calming ale!:ok:

[Tinstaafl]

Dangerous? It doesn't seem to be dangerous in the UK where they've been allowed since Sopwith was a lad. Why would it be more dangerous in Oz?

Similarly the rigid circuit pattern/3 legs of the circuit used in Oz compared to the UK.

[cjam]

NDB,
I reckon the most dangerous thing is that you've never tried it!
Low flying is great fun and can be done safely and legally.
Heaps of people make their entire living below 500ft. Grab one of them, chuck them in the seat beside you and you'll have a blast while improving your flying, you'll be a seafer pilot too because when you have to turn at 100ft one day it won't freak you out.
The other thing is that sometimes the chances of surviving an engine failure on upwind increase by turning early, ie straight out over a croc filled mangrove patch as opposed to an early (low AoB) turn over a nice flat paddock with a cow and daisies and stuff like that.
Off to practice my inverted approaches like the irresponsible crazy I am,
cjam

[Curved Approach]

cjam

I reckon the most dangerous thing is that you've never tried it! Low flying is great fun and can be done safely and legally.
This is slightly cr@p and also a little off the point of the original question! Admittedly NDB is being a little silly when saying he has never turned below 500' trying to take the piss out of me, haha, im sure he has. Low flying can be done safely and legally, correct, but this thread is more talking about after take-off. In that condition of flight when we are low and slow and just starting to accelerate away from the ground with, gear might have just come up or be retracting and we are nose up; and in a twin engine aircraft we dont really want to be banking too low that it jeopardises our chance of getting performance out of our aicraft if we have an engine failure before we end up back on the deck on our belly with little time to do anything!!! But as you say rather end up in a field than a croc infested swamp, i think we can say that comes under terrain in CAR 166....go for your life and turn.


but we could go on for ages about this topic, depends on what aircraft you are flying etc etc etc as to whether it is safe to be turning ......... and i guess what are the chances of an engine failure just after take-off, slim to none i suppose.

Tinstaafl,

Why would it be more dangerous in Oz?I suppose it isnt as such dangerous, but an unnecessary risk almost, its nice to have that safety buffer isnt it. So if something does go wrong there is more time to get performance and even if going in is unstoppable then we might be in the best possible position. CASA are mongrels for safety buffers which is a good thing.

[the wizard of auz]

I have near 6000hrs and 5000 would be below 100ft. I have had three forced landings and not scratched an airplane.
low flying is not any more dangerous than flight level flying if one takes the right attitude and approach to it.
A little bit of training and some risk management and its as safe as houses. lets face it, your airplane doesn't know the differance between 100, 300 or 500 feet.
I am only refering to single engine aircraft in this statement. when I fly my twin, I get as high as I can as soon as I can.

[Curved Approach]

wizard,
your airplane doesn't know the differance between 100, 300 or 500 feet.yeh tru tru but climbing away after take-off relatively slow and if we add turning to this it does ..... granted this is more so for larger aircraft as you say in your twin you get as high as you can as soon as you can.

but sure what are the chances of being put in a situation at that stage of flight just after take-off. It does happen though!

[OpsNormal]

Wiz wrote...
your airplane doesn't know the differance between 100, 300 or 500 feet.

Yeah, but I bet you have a harder time cleaning the heap more bugs you'd cop off it Wiz.... :}

Geez the Territory has been inundated with grasshoppers over the past few weeks... bug-gers to clean off! ;)

[the wizard of auz]

Yeah, I'm having a drama with the grasshopper mash at the moment too. you know that theres a problem when the mash slides off the cowl in lumps as big as a pizza.

[OpsNormal]

Now there's a good reason to keep the ball in the middle!:}

[cjam]

Yeah Curved, you're right about gear coming up and twins and stuff like that. I was talking about in your standard single and perhaps I should have mentioned that.
You said my post was slightly crap and getting away from the topic as the thread was about "after take-off". I was talking about after take-off Curved.. It's not crap. If you are low and slow etc as you described then that is because you have flown the a/c into that situation, you don't have to be slow, your nose doesn't have to be pointing at the sun,you don't have to climb out at Vx like the 300hr instructor told you to. Thats why I said to get someone who does a lot of low flying and put them in the seat beside you, they'll probably have kittens when you show them a go around from an ag strip and pull the nose up.
Seriously, find someone like Wiz near your place and have a blast. I bet you'll find that it can be done not only safely and legally, but after take off as well. No crap.

[Curved Approach]

yeh granted cjam, i totally understand the single engine bit. and the bit about high nose and slow etc is a little hyperbole (but they dont have that in the territory do they ;)) nah im right with the low stuff mate, quite an experience down that low. for interests sake what sorta jobs/flying r these guys doing where they log 5000 out of 6000 below 100 feet, ag stuff?? and im actually quite partial to climbing out quite fast after take-off at a cruise clmb sorta speed, depending on obstacles etc.

and when there are houses, schools, roads and what not ill tend not to turn below 500'.....we are all human and our aircraft are man made and sometimes f@rkups happen and its all about a safety buffer.

i actually totally agree with what you are saying, but its in the regs (i know there are exceptions when low flying etc is legal)

oh, and, i wouldnt even use Vx when just during cruise, let alone after take-off.....and my very first instructor was about a 10,000 hourera ;)

[cjam]

Sounds like we are on the same wave-length then Curved!
It is mainly ag guys that I have known that do so much low flying.
Around the hills in the sth isle NZ they do some amazing stuff. I'm sure they do here as well but I haven't had anything to do with it in Aus. I did some ground workfor some topdressing guys down south and they would do upwards of 140 landings and take-offs per day on strips that 95% of pilots wouldn't even recognise as a strip, short, bumpy, hills all around, loaded to the hilt. One of the guys had over 20,000hrs of it. I would have stacked it in the first 500hrs if I had gone down that path I reckon! It opens your eyes to what can be done though. No check-lists or airways clearances there! All that said, there is a time and a place, busy airports don't fit that catagory, later mate, cjam
PS The average flight time for those guys was about 3 mins.

[the wizard of auz]

for interests sake what sorta jobs/flying r these guys doing where they log 5000 out of 6000 below 100 feet, ag stuff??
Actually, I'm a mustering pilot. done a wee bit of ag as well, and now I get to do it all in a whirlymagig too.
As I stated before, I'm scared of heights. ;)

Ops normal, Maaaaaaaate, my balls are always well centered. :}

[compressor stall]

A good mixture of advice and the usual arguments! ;)

I have long wondered why (as Tinstaafl has indicated) the authorities consider it a more dangerous manoevre in Australia than anywhere else.

I am not advocating "gear up, turn onto heading" but as cjam there are numerous times that it would be safer to turn ASAP (and safe). Flying a 210/206 out of any strip in Arnhem land it is safer to get airborne and start a gentle turn once cleaned up so that if you have an angine failure at X00 feet, you can make it back as you are not committing a 180 degree turn. If no cross strip, it might mean landing across the strip, or through the parking area, but in anycase, it's better than putting in down into trees.

I would not like to have to argue that this is "due to terrain" to an over officious CASA official who has issued you with a please explain. Why can't me as a pilot be given the option of turning when I feel it is safe? Why do I need a rule?

After all, I can legally turn base at 50 feet....

[Curved Approach]

You have got to love the 500m landing reg....but justifying the 50' on base being that low below 500' for the course of approach and take-off......hmmmm

in the below 500' turn after take-off lets just let common sense prevail!! ;) and turn when appropriate for the situation

[compressor stall]

And that's the point Curved - we have rules preventing common sense prevailing!

[OzExpat]

There's lots of airstrips here that have take-off areas surveyed to only 500 metres from the departure end of the runway. No, they don't meet ICAO specs but, then, they aren't international airports either! :} Anyway, it's not uncommon to encounter very steep, high terrain just beyond the surveyed take-off area and, thus, a turn of some sort must be made well below 500 feet.

This sort of manoeuvring has official acceptance but there are special rules requiring pilot familiarity and competence at each such airport. I'm not sure how well this sort of thing would translate to the Oz environment these days... :suspect: :ooh:

[scramjet]

Here we go! Well perhaps when you are out there in your poxy ala in the middle of the desert when does it start and stop being an aerodrome as defined in the Civil Aviation Act

92 Use of aerodromes
(1) A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:
(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a licence granted under regulation 89C;
(c) the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;
(d) the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or
(c)) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the
landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.

Ok so section d) is the interesting bit so if its not an aerodrome then what is it, perhaps if you look at CAAP 92-1(1)

a Landing area is defined as:

“landing area” (LA) means an area of ground suitable for the conduct of takeoff and landing and associated
aeroplane operations under specific conditions;

ok so if its not an aerodrome and is a landing area then are you still required to follow the requirements of CAR 166 as most people have read in previous posts.

Now as for RPT under REG 92A it all gets a bit hairy, and CAAP 92A-1(0) you cant do it! but what bout airwork, private and charter? Whats everyone else's idea on the matter.

A aerodrome in the act is defined as:
aerodrome means an area of land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment), the use of which as an aerodrome is authorised under the regulations, being such an area intended for use wholly or partly for the arrival, departure or movement of aircraft.

A landing area in the regs is:

landing area means the part of the manoeuvring area primarily
intended for landing or take-off of aircraft. landing strip means a rectangular portion of the landing area, specially prepared for the take-off and landing of aircraft in a particular direction.

while a maneuvering area in act is:
manoeuvring area means that part of an aerodrome to be used for the take-off and landing of aircraft and for the movement of aircraft associated with take-off and landing, but does not include any part of an aerodrome to be used:
(a) for the purpose of enabling passengers to board aircraft or disembark from aircraft;
(b) for loading cargo on to aircraft or unloading cargo from aircraft; or
(c) for refuelling, parking or carrying out maintenance on aircraft.

Allright now every company that does operate out to airstrips has an ALA register Im pretty sure that the RFDS have some of the best and most comprehensiva ALA registers around. These standing for Authorized Landing Areas so by definition it is a landing area that is authorized by the organization you work for for flight operations into and out of.

ok so if its not an aerodrome and is a landing area then are you still required to follow the requirements of CAR 166 as most people have read in previous posts. E.g. is it by omission or otherwise acceptable to a) not do 3 legs of the circuit and b) take off and turn as "desired" not necessarily "req'd"

Well lets have it- Whats the legal opinion?:D

[swh]

scramjet,

CAR 92 deals with aircraft (ie helicoptes, gyrocopters, aeroplanes) etc, and is generic to cover all types of aircraft.

RPT with 30 seats or > 3400 kg, licensed aerodromes, no brainer. Under the new rules "Licensed aerodromes" to be known as "Certified Aerodromes", and a new class of aerodrome called a "Registered Aerodromes" which is an ALA with published data, and the ability to issue NOTAM.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998
- REG 139.040 When an aerodrome certificate is required

(1) A person must not operate an aerodrome to which subregulation (3)
applies if the aerodrome is not a certified aerodrome.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
(3) This subregulation applies to an aerodrome that:
(a) has a runway that is suitable for use by aircraft having:
(i)
a maximum passenger seating capacity of more than 30 seats; or
(ii)
a maximum carrying capacity of more than 3 400 kilograms; and
(b)
is available for use in regular public transport operations or charter operations by such aircraft.
Note A person must not operate an aerodrome that is available for public use and has a non-precision
approach runway if the aerodrome is not a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome (see regulation 139.030).


Under CASR 91 ALA's can be still used by small aeroplanes if you look at AC 91-225.

Don't think its fair to have a go at CS "when you are out there in your poxy ala in the middle of the desert" as CAR 166 is due to be amended as
part of NAS 2c (http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/nprm/nprm0401asB_draftregs.pdf) if people like CS don't make people think about the current rules, no-one will bother to read the NPRM's

ok so if its not an aerodrome and is a landing area then are you still required to follow the requirements of CAR 166 as most people have read in previous posts. E.g. is it by omission or otherwise acceptable to a) not do 3 legs of the circuit and b) take off and turn as "desired" not necessarily "req'd"

Yes CAR 166 applies to unlicensed aerodromes, however I am yet to find a definition of "terrain", under CASR 139.350 they have introduced “obstacle limitation surfaces”
Yes 3 legs
Yes but the aerodrome "owner" can specify the circuit direction for a runway

[the wizard of auz]

SWH, regarding your statement,
CAR 92 deals with aircraft (ie helicoptes, gyrocopters, aeroplanes) etc, and is generic to cover all types of aircraft. this is basically true, but if you thumb to the back of the Orders and have a poke around in the exemptions area, you will find some stuff on helicopters around the 95.7.5, 5.1., 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 (a) (i),(ii), (iii), (b), (c),(d), that, in reality, makes that a not so valid statement.
A tad pedantic I know, but I had to show off my new found reading skills. :} ;)

[swh]

Wiz,

but I had to show off my new found reading skills

The paragraphs you refer to do not exempt helicopters from CAR 92. CAO 95.7 does not even make reference to CAR 92. It does refer to parts of CAR 166; suggest your reading skills are still developing. Is that the reason for your VCA ? :} ;)

The exemptions listed in CAO 95.7 to my understanding is to facilitate "air taxi" operations along taxi ways, or operations from HLS, not to cut other aircraft in the circuit off, or to fly under other aircraft established in the circuit, which I have seen so many times. I have noted that the turbine helicopter operators seem to conform with normal circuits, R22 types seem to go wherever they please, just love it when the cross over an active runway at dot feet when I am on short finals oblivious to the presence of other aircraft.

CAO 95.7 does not exempt helicopters of maximum carrying capacity > 3400 kg from complying with CASR 139.040, i.e. the larger ones used for oil rig transfers.

[OzExpat]

Poor ol' wiz... nobody's gunna let ya forgit that VCA are they? :p

[the wizard of auz]

Nah, the VCA was just me, blundering around inside with a map covered in "Goobeldygook". :} ;)

The exemptions in relation to helicopters hovering, air transiting, air taxiing or ground taxiing on or over aerodromes will be 95.7.3 I believe.
You didn't read the 95.7.5 and .6 I guess.
you will also notice that CAR 165 states that "CASA may , in respect of any specified aerodrome, temporarily suspend, either wholly or in part, the application of the rules contained in this division"
Could the exemptions be an instrument in suspending the application of the rules contained in that division, without actually mentioning the part 166 and 92 specifically? (Oh, I just used my new skills ans saw that it does specify a reg)
So, now the question is Do I conform to reg 92 "Use of aerodromes" or 166 " operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome", to which I exempted????? :\
(I liked it much better when I couldn't read. life was easy then:8 )

[swh]

Wiz,

I have read them, they do not refer to CAR 92, not in the current versions I have anyway (ie CAO 95.7 not ANO ....)

The 95.7 exemption will basically become defunct when NAS 2c comes in, CAR 166 is due to change, see my post above, the paragraphs that it exempts change in the new CAR 166.

Could the exemptions be an instrument in suspending the application of the rules contained in that division, without actually mentioning the part 166 specifically?

No, A current example would be TLFO 01059, issued to Aquaflight, which is a CAR 165 suspension for "Temporary suspension of application of CAR 166(1)(d) and (g) at Trinity Inlet and Green Island QLD"

Exemptions, suspensions, directions, and instruments are very specific in what they allow, they are legal directions.

[scramjet]

Im not having a go at CS! I have a lot of respect for CS!

I spend 97% of my time flying into and out of "poxy ala's in the middle of no- where"

I have heard the comment that if its not an aerodrome and is an ALA then you didnt have to do 3 legs of the circuit!

So I was doing a bit of research on the matter when CS put his post which referred to the same reg (reg 166) - so i was keen to test the line of thinking in the wonderful world of "ppruner land" to see what others thought.

CS no offence intended!