Impressive display (of stupidity?) near Trafalgar.

[Barry Bernoulli]

Driving to the rellos for Christmas lunch about 11:30 Christmas morning and we were treated to a display of low flying by the pilot of a (ultra-) light aircraft just to the west of Trafalgar, Vic. After a number of low orbits over an admiring crowd at a local property which may have been between 100' and 200', the pilot conducted one last pass considerably lower before pulling up over the house and heading off in the general direction of Latrobe Valley Airport.

I would like to think that the pilot held the appropriate endorsements and approvals and was operating in accordance with appropriate risk management procedures. Perhaps someone who knows of the cirumstances and can set my mind at ease.

I wonder was the pilot aware that just three and a half hours earlier another pilot was killed conducting similar manouvres just a few miles to the south-west?

[7mile]

Setting up oneself in judgement of ones peers not only reminds us of 'there by the grace of god etc etc etc' and 'glass houses' and so forth but also reminds us of other people that have sat in judgement and they also were prats.:ok:

[nick2007]

I think he has a valid point, 7 mile.

This kind of activity only further tarnishes RAAus's image.

[framer]

Whats RAAus?

[The_Pharoah]

lol I read this post and laughed....if we were all 'by-the-book' and noone ever took risks, we'd really be quite boring wouldn't we? :} not to say that that was right, but c'mon, enjoy it for what it was...extremely good low level flying for a bit of enjoyment.

thats my $0.02 worth. *runs and hides* ;)

[VH-XXX]

With all due respect Mr. Barry B, the pilot of the "ultralight" you saw likely broke no rules whatsoever, however has displayed poor airmanship.

Under the current 95.55 regulations there are no restrictions on flying below 500ft over private property, unlike GA flying where you would need permission and an appropriate low level endorsement.

If you can get me an aircraft type and possibly a colour I can likely tell you who was piloting the aircraft and I can have a word in their ear or make further enquiries, however little action could be taken unless written statements were prepared and the author prepared to go to court.

But don't despair! When the part 103 gets approved there will be no operations below 500ft unless taking off or landing or with an appropriate low level endorsement.

As you say, similar to the happenings less than 50 miles away at 8:40am. The 172 aircraft had performed the stunt many times before but not in the area where the power lines were located and the area had not been surveyed by the pilot. How many times have others done something similar and had a close call? More of us that we would like to think no doubt!

[Barry Bernoulli]

Thank you XXX. I know little about ultra-light operations and you have set my mind at ease with respect to that aspect of the activity.

There are countless examples of accidents that have occurred under similar circumstances and I only hope that prior to all of these events the risks and needs are appropriately considered.

[Unhinged]

Gidday XXX,

Are you saying that CAR 157 doesn't apply to RAAus ops ?

It just says "aircraft" and I couldn't see anything in there which exempts RAAus (or other aircraft ).

EDITED: Don't worry about replying. Just had a better read of 95.55 and found the answer. It's amazing what you find !

[Green gorilla]

If hes in an ultralight single pilot and he kills himself and no one else good luck to him its the way he would like it.

[the wizard of auz]

I believe there is a mention of a low flying endorsement and also a lower limit to flying in the RAA rules. I will have to check to be sure, but I do seem to remember reading it.

[Horatio Leafblower]

VH-XXX, a bold assertion in defence of an act which you did not witness.

For the benefit of my learned colleagues, the appropriate reference is para 6.2 of CAO 95.55 which reads:

6.2 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (b), the conditions, 1 of which must be
complied with for an aeroplane to be flown at less than 500 feet above ground
level, are:
(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or
landing; or
(b) the aeroplane must be flying:
(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of
another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee
of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a
height; and
(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person
(other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane)
and from any public road; or
(c) the pilot of the aeroplane must be engaged in flying training and the aeroplane must be flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of the Regulations, authorised
low flying. (emphasis added).

VH-XXX, can you be certain that the miscreant has NOT flown within 100m of any person not associated with the operation of the aeroplane? (And please don't try to tell me that Ace's spectators are "associated with the operation of the aeroplane") :suspect:

The original reporter states that the pilot performed
"...a number of low orbits over an admiring crowd at a local property..." (emphasis added)

The RAAus has a long history of protecting its own :=

[VH-XXX]

Wizard, you are indeed correct and you have read that online or in the ops manual about the low level endorsement, however unless I'm horribly mistaken it hasn't come into effect yet.

HLB re: (ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person
(other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane)
and from any public road; or

If the people are let's say part of a family that had something to do with the pilot, and lets face it at this time of year that is highly likely, then there is little that can be done. You'd have to prove otherwise in court and you for one know how hard that can be.

Rest assured though pretty soon this won't be legal and if we see this kind of thing happening we can all start to dob, but again, unless you are prepared to put in a statement preferably with photos or video evidence, then little will be done about it!

There's always something that happens at this time of year. A few years ago it was a Skyfox that lost its wing after doing a lolly drop. This year it was a beatup hitting a power line.


Barry, I would be very interested if you could PM me an aircraft type. I know practically all ultralights in that area.......

[the wizard of auz]

yup, it was indeed the ops manual. The way it was written I was under the impression it had already been implemented.

[VH-XXX]

It's the same Ops manual that has the Controlled Airspace Endorsements in it also and as you may have read a while back that doesn't exist yet.

I'll have to follow up, some of the stuff in currently in force and some isn't.

From what I understand no training or syllabus has been provided to instructors for the low level endorsements so it would be a while, but then again if it was a requirement already, then one can assume we'll see practically no displays of this kind of airmanship until such time that training starts (in theory). It's a question for the Ops people when they come back from their holiday.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Why is it that RAAus can publish and distribute an Ops manual describing all sorts of fanciful things they aren't legally allowed to do? :confused:

[Deaf]

Chicken and egg situation eg low level

A lot of people are doing low level stuff (legally at present) for fences etc. This will not be the case under proposed CAR changes without appropriate endorsements. These endorsements require stuff in the ops manual.

There is a similar situation with controlled airspace at Cambridge handled by a special exemption.

IIRC the ops manual took more than 2 years of RAA/CASA to/fro.

[Wally Mk2]

Despite all the 'book' waving here of the Regs was this particular act a safe act? A good deal of acts like this very one would be borderline safe at best I'd say. It never ceases to amaze me, give a pilots licence to a 1000 people & there will always be some who use the 'hoon' mentality that we see on our rds day in day out whilst flying an A/C.
The sooner it's totally not allowed to fly less than 500' (accpet for the obvious) the better.


Green gorillaIf hes in an ultralight single pilot and he kills himself and no one else good luck to him its the way he would like it.

I love the above statement, one reads this all the time when one gets killed doing something they like. Just for the record if I ever get killed whilst flying it was NOT the way I would have liked to have gone okay?:sad:




Wmk2

[Deaf]

Unfortunately low flying to impress the assembled multitude is not a new thing. If we hear of a crash near a relative's/friend's house there is an automatic (usually correct) assumption as to the cause. A blast from the past I came across recently-

"Force Landed 21/02/29 Richmond NSW, after Striking a farmer during low level flight. The Pilot Sgt YYYY flew too low and struck his future father in law Mr ZZZZ and killed him. Sgt YYYY was charged with Manslaughter but was acquitted, and was reduced in rank and grounded. Later he regained flying status."

[Grogmonster]

Barry B,

Let em go mate. They are a law unto themselves. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. It is better that the annual winner of the Darwinian Award comes from RAA than GA. :ugh:

[OCTA]

Hey Grogmonster,
I'm sure no one has ever done anything stupid like that in a VH registered aircraft... oh hang on what about the one that was 50km away? Or the other 5 that come to mind straight away. Oh and how many Ultralight have had it happen? Your right though those ultralights should be banned. Good luck mate!:mad:

[VH-XXX]

Yeah, exactly, whinge about the ultralight flying over his mates house when 20 minutes away a GA pilot flies so low he cleans up the power line and kills himself!

There are bad eggs in every basket.

[Bob Murphie]

There is a lot of history documented with IFR Charter/RPT descending beyond minimums with catastrophic results.

I don't think the status and qualifications or vehicle of choice is dependant upon the outcome.

Pilots will do what they think they should do irrespective of hindsight or forsight.

So very sad indeed, and we never learn do we?

[Wanderin_dave]

Yeah, when was the last time we came up with a new way of killing ourselves? 30-40 years ago?

[multime]

Dear Guys
My patience with Tralfalgur Aero Club and the associated bs is at an end. No i wasn,t the wannabe in attendance. Winter last year we were a professionall crew and got constantly harrassed by the Aero Club and public.
We had the experience, equipment, liciences, lowlevel experience infact an AG rating and 12 years of experience, and had a job to do.
The politics is all too presush.
Having to explain why the aircraft is too !!! loud to a pedantic saftey officer.?
I tried to explain that noise is good. Silence is NOT.(720)
Think the local economy needs to look at the treatment your C152 instructor wannabes dictate to experienced Pilots.
Trafalgur has nothing going for it apart from pedantic whingers.:=
They have alot to answer for.
Thought they were pro aviation.?
NOT IMPRESSED.
M

[Diesel Fitter]

Errrm - Grogmonster, what with HM Christmas Message and the Holy Father from Rome I'm about up to here with sanctimonous pontificating.

Let em go mate. They are a law unto themselves. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. It is better that the annual winner of the Darwinian Award comes from RAA than GA.

So - hoping for a candidate from elsewhere to upstage the late Col P. (GA) or the late Barry H. (GA) were we Grogmonster? :=

[Jabawocky]

Sounds like the idiot from Xmas day repeated.........:ugh:

Accident = Confusing ambition with ability. :=

J

[Wanderin_dave]

Diesel Fitter, to bring Col Pay into the same sort of catagory as a stupid low flying numpty as you seem fit to have done is illinformed, ignorant, offensive, stupid (attempted) point scoring on par with the most useless of our politicians. There would be VERY few with more experience/competence at those sorts of heights, he certainly held all of the ratings/endos and was operating INSIDE the boundaries of the law. His record is well beyond reproach. I suggest you either delete the post or retract your statement.

I'm not saying that the guy was or wasn't doing the wrong thing, i don't really care and my reference to a 'stupid numpty' was general in nature, not this case in question. But to use Col Pay as an example of GA stupidity makes my blood boil, and does nothing but show us the rest of the post isn't worth paying attention to. I've seen some bad, really bad posts on pprune, but that's the worst (and the first i've ever felt obliged to stand up against).

[Diesel Fitter]

Really Wandering Dave?

More offensive than Grogmonsters sweeping suggestion that RAA neanderthals should be given enough rope eliminate themselves from this world by Darwinian selection?

I don't think so. It goes well beyond the bounds of acceptable banter.

Subsitute Aboriginals, Muslim, homos, lesbians, Jews, Pakis or Iraqis etc for Grogmonsters RAA pilots and you may gain some understanding of how to be really offensive

[Tidbinbilla]

Well this was a great thread, wasn't it?

You lot need to work together, not against each other if you want recreational aviation to survive :ugh:

TID