500 foot turns - why?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: East Coast of Oz
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
) 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
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for interests sake what sorta jobs/flying r these guys doing where they log 5000 out of 6000 below 100 feet, ag stuff??
As I stated before, I'm scared of heights.
Ops normal, Maaaaaaaate, my balls are always well centered.
Thread Starter
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....
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....
Last edited by compressor stall; 2nd Feb 2004 at 12:45.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: East Coast of Oz
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
in the below 500' turn after take-off lets just let common sense prevail!!
and turn when appropriate for the situation
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: YBBN
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grey or just reading what you want into it?
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?
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?
Last edited by scramjet; 4th Feb 2004 at 19:38.
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.
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 if people like CS don't make people think about the current rules, no-one will bother to read the NPRM's
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
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.
Code:
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 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 3 legs
Yes but the aerodrome "owner" can specify the circuit direction for a runway
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH, regarding your statement,
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.
CAR 92 deals with aircraft (ie helicoptes, gyrocopters, aeroplanes) etc, and is generic to cover all types of aircraft.
A tad pedantic I know, but I had to show off my new found reading skills.
Wiz,
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.
but I had to show off my new found reading skills
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.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
)
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
)
Last edited by the wizard of auz; 5th Feb 2004 at 16:22.
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.
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.
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?
Exemptions, suspensions, directions, and instruments are very specific in what they allow, they are legal directions.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: YBBN
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALA's
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!
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!
