raa irony

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

Is it just me or did others notice this brilliant piece of editing. the latest raa magazine contains a safety insert 2009 one-off 29 page booklet and on page 4 there is a picture of a drifter ultralight illegally flying along a beach at what 10-20 feet? in breach of cao95.55 for a number of reasons including flight over water, altitude minimums AND with passenger and it dont look like fraser Island. ironically too it's placed amongst an article about BRS and at this altitude one would be as useless as the proverbials on a bull :ugh:



http://s843.photobucket.com/albums/zz360/recflyingdotcomdotau/raa-1.png

[Frank Arouet]

Recflyingdotcomdotau;

CAR 258: flights over water.

An aircraft shall not fly over water at a distance from land greater than the distance from which the aircraft could reach land if the engine were inoperative, except:

in accordance with directions issued by CASA; or

in the course of departing from or landing at an aerodrome in accordance with a normal navigational proceedure for departing from or landing at that aerodrome.

FLIGHTS OVER THE WATER (AIP ENR 1.1-78)

Aircraft engaged in PVT, AWK or CHTR operations, and which are normally prohibited by CAR 258 from over water flights because of their inability to reach land in the event of an engine failure, may fly over water subject to compliance to the conditions in this section. These conditions are additional to the requirements for flight over land.

There is no limitation for PVT, AWK or freight only CHTR operations.

Each occupant of the aircraft must wear a life jacket during the flight over water unless exemption from doing so under the terms of CAO 20.11.

And it goes on.

So instead of going for the jugular, and you state that it doesn't look like Fraser Island which to me sounds like you don't know where it is, can we assume, (because there is an absence of evidence and the burden of proof lies with the accuser);

1) the pilot and passenger are wearing life jackets.

2) it is a PVT flight.

3) the aircraft is on short final for a forced (or normal), landing at Green Is.

4) A precedent is in place for such a proceedure.

5) he was probably using a ballistic drag chute for braking.

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

The rules are different for raa. they operate under 95.55


(c) the aeroplane must not be flown above the sea at a horizontal distance
from land of more than:
(i) if all persons on the aeroplane are wearing life jackets and the
aeroplane is fitted with flotation equipment that is capable of
ensuring that the aeroplane will remain afloat if it is forced to land on
water — 20 kilometres; or
(ii) in any other case — the lesser of the distance that the aeroplane can
glide in the event of an engine failure and 20 kilometres;
(d) the aeroplane must only be flown in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.;

Note
Class G and E airspace are as defined in the Air Services Regulations.
(e) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area that has been designated in
the AIP as a prohibited or restricted area at such times as any such
prohibited or restricted area is active;
(f) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area designated as an area where the operation of ultralight aeroplanes would constitute a hazard to other aircraft; :D GAAP :D



For your information Bob, in the eyes of casa and raaus the burden of proof usually lies with the accused.

Maybe this pilot had one of those new low level endorsements. one of our guys got his last week with only 40 minutes ground school and 35 minutes flight time. who said the standards were the same? :ugh:

[training wheels]

What's the minimum height you can fly in an RAA vehicle over land or water? Is it 500 ft?

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

500ft twheels, same as GA with the usual exception such as permission from the land owner and taking off or landing. they have a mickey mouse low level endorement that you can get in as little as 35 minutes flight time or off the back of a weeties packet but you still need permission to be that low.

[Frank Arouet]

RA-Aus operate on "exemptions". RA-Aus is, in itself an "exemption".

So, 95.55 should be read in conjunction with, in this case CAR 258 (AIP ENR 1.1-78).

I know what terms of reference would be used against anybody, RA-Aus or GA that CASA decided to prosecute. The basics of both references are essentially the same in this case however.

The RA-Aus President has many Bass Strait crossings in his log book. He would be best able to put the RA-Aus interpretation on this sort of thing. Probably a better forum to put your concerns to rest.

If you need to study this further, PM me and I will point you to a case study of CASA bastardry that went badly for them regarding private overwater flights.

For your information Bob, in the eyes of casa and raaus the burden of proof usually lies with the accused.

Strict liability is often mis-used as a CASA tool. One day, after they are dragged to account, a Royal Commission will sort this little problem out.

I believe RA-Aus still work on the presumption of innocence.

As for 500ft, I recall when it was illegal to fly above 500ft in an ultralight.

(and lets not get too personal on the first date please).;)