A380 Over Melbourne.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Ay idea why the A380 was tearing all over the northern suburbs of Melourne about half an hour ago (10am)?

Didn't seem to be promotional.

Bbbbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzz

[Cookie7]

It did a flyover at the MCG for the Boxing Day test.

[mad.tobias]

Still a good sight at about 1500'.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Hmmm impressive over the mcg maybe but it did nothing for QF PR in the burbs. Plenty of "oh **** another Qantas problem" being muttered in our street.

Next time QF. Do your lousy advertising then piss off. 1000 feet numerous times over homes on boxing day is no place for an A380.

BbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzZz

[Capt Fathom]

Who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[ampclamp]

Some new deal with Cricket Australia being given a plug.Good to see the rat being given some advert time.

[Teal]

My wife spotted it from our home (Kew) and thought there was something wrong because it was so low. Checked webtrack which - if accurate - confirmed that it was at 1034' for several minutes, dropping to 928' in a turn over Richmond before tracking north and climbing. Landed at Tulla some 20 minutes later.

[Barney Rock]

Wake you all up for the Boxing Day Sales! It's still X'mas here well west of Greenwich.

[MMBenar]

Checked webtrack which - if accurate - confirmed that it was at 1034' for several minutes, dropping to 928' in a turn over Richmond before tracking north and climbing

These Australian skygods....can't they fly a level turn? My old Burmese flight instructor would have clunked his mike on my head if I had lost more than 20 feet during a steep turn on an old noisy B737-200! And I am a lowly third world line pilot.

[nicholas.nickle]

Arghhhhhh....you little piece of @@@###***????@@#! How dare you!:mad::mad::mad::*:*:*

[gobbledock]

Nice to see it didn't drop parts of a Roller over the MCG!
Would hate to have seen Ed Cowen taken out by a stray blade.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/galleries/2608962_25165/0242916755085.jpg

[Qantas 787]

It was for Cricket Australia - it got good coverage on Channel 9 and some explanation too, it wouldn't have made sense to anyone at the ground. At least Channel 9 gave it plenty of coverage - both 7 and 10 have been pathetic at covering fly overs at the Grand Finals and Grand Prix.

[UPPERLOBE]

Speaking of OQA, anyone have any photo's or info re the status of said a/c?

[compressor stall]

Looked bloody impressive from in the MCG.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Was it towing a banner? :E

[RENURPP]

Yep, it said "Fly Jetstar.com.au"

[Up-into-the-air]

Ready Reading for the Troops - CASR 156 and 157:

CASR 156 Flying over public gatherings

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over a regatta, race meeting or public gathering if:
(a) the pilot does not have the written permission of CASA for the flight; and
(b) the flight is not in accordance with the conditions specified in the permit.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2) Nothing in subregulation (1) shall apply to an aircraft passing over a regatta, race meeting or public gathering in the process of:
(a) arriving at or departing from an aerodrome in the course of its normal navigation for so doing; or
(b) passing from place to place in the ordinary course of navigation.

CASR 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 engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); 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.

Strict liability??, Incident?? Where's Alan??? Where's the FOI??? Call RR??? Lose some bits??? Low Speed event???

Who's choice??

[bubble.head]

You guys need to lighten up and have a beer!:ok:

[Capt Fathom]

Thanks for quoting all the regulations up-in-the-air, both here and the other 'Qantas' thread. You seem to have an issue going on there!

Most of us have copies of the regs, and are well aware of the contents.

By the way, the Flightradar24 website shows altitude based on 1013.2 mbs.
Therefore, it will not show the correct altitude above sea level if the actual QNH differs from that setting.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ay idea why the A380 was tearing all over the northern suburbs of Melourne about half an hour ago (10am)?

Didn't seem to be promotional.

Bbbbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzz
Ay. Buzzing you. :}

[desmotronic]

By the way, the Flightradar24 website shows altitude based on 1013.2 mbs.
Therefore, it will not show the correct altitude above sea level if the actual QNH differs from that setting.


So allowing for qnh and terrain he was about 750' agl ?:}

[theheadmaster]

Up in the air, might want to check what 'strict liability' actually means :rolleyes:

[Captain Dart]

This thread is getting interesting.

Did the QF flight have a permit from CASA? Did it descend below 1,000' agl over a built-up area? If the answers are 'no' and 'yes' respectively, the sky gods have broken the law.

And in a turn, the 'inside wingtip' on an A380 would be significantly lower than the air data altitude sensed.

Might be worth some 'investigative journalism'.

[Jack Ranga]

Personally, I don't think the flybys are low enough, what's the point if it's at 1500ft?

[Up-into-the-air]

From the Criminal Code:

Division 6—Cases where fault elements are not required

6.1 Strict liability

(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:

(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.

(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:

(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

And Section 9.2 says:

9.2 Mistake of fact (strict liability)

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if:

(a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and

(b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.

(2) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:

(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and

(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.


I think that means you are a "cooked goose"! but smarter people than I may have a view.

[theheadmaster]

UITA, you have done a lot of cut-and-paste, but have not done any statutory interpretation. The clue is in 9.2. If it is reasonable to believe that something is true, and you actually believe it to be true, you have satisfied 9.2. For example, if it is determined that you took off overweight, but the load sheet said you were not, it is reasonable to believe the load sheet, and you believe the load sheet, you will most likely satisfy 9.2.

Strict liability does not mean absolute liability. Here is a good layman's guide What is Strict Liability? (http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/resources/kb-articles/legal-strict-liability.php)

[C441]

That's nothing!:ooh:
Here in Brisbane there used to be an a couple of those terribly old, awfully noisy, crash-prone F-111's flying right over the city at night!!!
And what's worse every time they did, they were on fire. :eek:
I can't believe the Air Force were allowed to fly them so close to all those people watching the Riverfire, when they caught fire every time. :roll eyes:

http://downunderpoms.com/riverfire-longexposure-f111.jpg

[Frank Arouet]

Someone will correct me I'm sure, however I thought ALL CASA "strict liability" offence's are CRIMINAL offence's which only need a delegate or some other bureaucrat to "be satisfied" that an offence had taken place to make it thus. Not anything like the real world definition of a criminal with "intent". Did the pilot fly the aircraft at the stated altitude with intent? Well, it doesn't really matter if the FOI was satisfied does it?

Or does it?

I guess I am in agreement that there appears to be differences in strict liability offence's depending on whose mate did it, or some other **** who doesn't pay baksheesh of any kind did, to be in the club.

Of course I'm wrong!

We don't have regulations in Australia any more, (still working on them 23 years later), but we do have....................................... "EXEMPTIONS".

So it's not really unsafe if you have an EXEMPTION, but it is if you don't.

Stone the bloody crows!

[Up-into-the-air]

Thanks TH,

From the 2007 flight safety magazine[http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/2007/oct/12-13.pdf], casa goes to lengths to soften the edges of "strict liability".

But is it "Cooked Goose"??

[theheadmaster]

Try to answer the question yourself:

What offence is thought to be perpetrated?
Can the prosecution prove all the necessary elements of the offence?
Is there a defence? (9.2)
What are the burden of proof issues with the above?
What does the case law say?

[compressor stall]

I can't believe that this thread has descended into this.

The trouble with the internet is that it gives people a voice who have little better to do. Instead of actually having hard evidence of a breach, people launch into accusations and insinuations of (wilful) illegality.

The people running flight departments and getting out there and doing the business are busy doing what they are paid to do and should not have to answer such tripe. :mad:

And no, I don't work for QF.

[Frank Arouet]

Instead of actually having hard evidence of a breach, people launch into accusations and insinuations of (wilful) illegality.

I thought that's how strict liability worked, the burden of proof is on the accused. Perhaps somebody should put up the evidence that no offence occurred and everybody would go away. That way the media wouldn't involve itself in embellishing events like those of Fred Nurk, (Broadmeadow), who was recently interviewed stating.... I wouldn't want one of those "unsafe" A380's flying so low over my house with bits dropping off, they should all be grounded like they did with Ansett.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Agreed CS.
The original question was a genuine one. My Observation was that the fat bus seemed to stagger all over burbs under a 2000 odd foot cloud base. Many of our neighbors gathered in the street after the third pass and not a single " ooh ahh" was heard. The sentiment was one of concern.
If the intent of the low flying was to attract business then I would offer that it was a total failure; in my little part of town at least.
I love a good flyby like the rest of us, just thought it was inappropriate on several levels coming from QF. One minute Joyce is grounding thousands, next minute he is rubbing our noses in it at Christmas time. Stupid move if you ask me.

Bbbbzzzzzzzzzzbzbzbzbzzzz

[theheadmaster]

I agree CS. The same theme was being expressed in the overweight take off thread. Sometimes a little education can help stop the bush-lawyering, hence my posts.

Cheers

[Beer Baron]

Up-into-the-air, I'm sure you will be very disappointed to know that they DID have approval to conduct the fly past.
Posted on the intranet by the fleet manager: OQL departed on service for the first time today as QF11. The next task for that aircraft after it returns from LAX will be a flyover of the MCG on Boxing Day. **** **** and **** **** put in a grand effort to get the required approvals and hopefully the weather will be kind enough to enable the crew to complete the flypast.

Care to explain your perverse desire to try and pin Qantas with a breach of regs?

[prospector]

The sentiment was one of concern.



If that was the case it was obviously not a very well thought out publicity stunt.

[Angle of Attack]

I heard it was a pretty nice flypast from a mate at the MCG,
as for the regs and $hit WTF? yeah an internet tracking website showed it descended a few dozen feet below 1000ft, as if thats the absolute authority, one minute people are bitching about flypasts being too high and the next about being too low. Just get in your Cessna 152's and fly off to the furtherest point possible! (probably East sale!)

[teresa green]

If it puts Tendulkar off his game I am all for it.

[Selcalmeonly]

I agree with CS and the Headmaster - the suggestions in the latter part of this thread are really ridiculous!:bored:

[Tidbinbilla]

Heaven help us if all you lot can do is whinge about a flypast :ugh::ugh: