CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleased to oblige,
Let's see now.....
Oh, maybe it's this one then....
Nope. Still can't seem to find that regulation that allows the flight as proposed by Yr Right....In fact, it would appear that flight in contravention of these two sections of the Civil Aviation Act is view quite seriously (just like S700 suggested..) if you're caught out.
C'mon now Steve,
Stiky
Let's see now.....
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AA
Flying unregistered aircraft etc.
Flying an unregistered aircraft
(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:
(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and
(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an aircraft that is employed in private operations and that possesses the nationality of a Contracting State.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(2) In subsection (1A), employed in private operations has the same meaning as it has in the regulations.
Flying without a certificate of airworthiness
(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:
(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and
(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Flying without satisfying safety requirements
(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:
(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;
(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;
(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Flying unregistered aircraft etc.
Flying an unregistered aircraft
(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:
(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and
(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to be registered under those regulations.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an aircraft that is employed in private operations and that possesses the nationality of a Contracting State.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(2) In subsection (1A), employed in private operations has the same meaning as it has in the regulations.
Flying without a certificate of airworthiness
(3) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if:
(a) there is no certificate of airworthiness under the regulations in force in respect of the aircraft; and
(b) the regulations do not authorise the flight without the certificate.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Flying without satisfying safety requirements
(4) An owner, operator, hirer (other than the Crown) or pilot of an Australian aircraft must not commence a flight in the aircraft, or permit a flight in the aircraft to commence, if one or more of the following apply:
(a) there is outstanding a requirement imposed by or under the regulations in relation to the maintenance of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft will require maintenance before the flight can end;
(c) there is a defect or damage that may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property;
(d) the aircraft is unsafe for flight.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AB
Flying aircraft without licence etc.
(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or
(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) limits the power to make regulations under this Act that provide for an offence of undertaking another activity without the appropriate civil aviation authorisation or special authorisation under the regulations.
(4) In this section, flight time has the same meaning as in the regulations.
Flying aircraft without licence etc.
(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:
(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or
(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) limits the power to make regulations under this Act that provide for an offence of undertaking another activity without the appropriate civil aviation authorisation or special authorisation under the regulations.
(4) In this section, flight time has the same meaning as in the regulations.
C'mon now Steve,
Stiky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is yr right wrong?
You can do just about anything on your own property, unlicensed underage drivers, drunk driving, modified cars un register able. All that is OK, so why not unlicensed pilots in unregistered aircraft as long as they are below 500' and over their own property as per powerin's post?
It is up to regulators to say what is NOT legal.
You can do just about anything on your own property, unlicensed underage drivers, drunk driving, modified cars un register able. All that is OK, so why not unlicensed pilots in unregistered aircraft as long as they are below 500' and over their own property as per powerin's post?
It is up to regulators to say what is NOT legal.
There is an important difference between doing things ON the land and doing things OVER the land. The right's attaching to the property vary for given circumstances (read the previous posts where I explained this).
Yes, you can drive an unregistered motor vehicle on your land and without a licence because the various State laws controlling those activities apply to the operation of vehicles on a highway.
But be very careful doing while under the influence and be particularly careful you don't hurt anyone if you are hooning around at home because those matters aren't limited to operation on a highway. Be aware also that all Crown land, in Victoria at least, is a highway for the purposes of the Road Safety Act.
Answering your question in plain English, it's because the law says you can't (at least unless you hold appropriate endorsements and are acting pursuant to them).
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
It would depend on how high in Australia your property rights go up to. In the USA they have a specific altitude that you own up to, (hence why drones over there are a issue). Not sure what it is here, but there would be some limit.
It would depend on how high in Australia your property rights go up to. In the USA they have a specific altitude that you own up to, (hence why drones over there are a issue). Not sure what it is here, but there would be some limit.
For goodness sake, your property rights are limited by even the local bloody council...
- Try not slashing the long grass if they issue a pre-summer clean-up notice!
- Try riding a trail bike around and around in your suburban back yard.
- These days you can't even light an incinerator.
So why do some people think they can do what they like in an aeroplane just because they are below 500' over their own property?
Just do it folks and post it on You tube.
Kaz
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is hard to believe a person who purportedly is a master LAME and at home in the court room making CASA look like fools, is unable to come up with just one little reference to support his claim.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CASA website...
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Your ASIC questions answered
Kaz
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Your ASIC questions answered
Q: What are the security requirements?
You need a valid ASIC if you require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations. This is a requirement of the Aviation Security Regulations 2005.
If you want to use your CASA issued flight crew licence and you do not require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has RPT operations, you must apply for a background security check and you will be issued with an AVID provided your checks are successful. This does not apply if you are under 18.
Q: Are pilots still allowed to fly without an ASIC?
Yes. Pilots only need to have submitted an application for an AVID or an ASIC to operate an aircraft. The application will be processed and appropriate background checks undertaken prior to the AVID or ASIC being issued to an eligible pilot.
You need a valid ASIC if you require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations. This is a requirement of the Aviation Security Regulations 2005.
If you want to use your CASA issued flight crew licence and you do not require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has RPT operations, you must apply for a background security check and you will be issued with an AVID provided your checks are successful. This does not apply if you are under 18.
Q: Are pilots still allowed to fly without an ASIC?
Yes. Pilots only need to have submitted an application for an AVID or an ASIC to operate an aircraft. The application will be processed and appropriate background checks undertaken prior to the AVID or ASIC being issued to an eligible pilot.
Kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 13th Nov 2014 at 19:49.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had an interesting read in Airwaves (The insert that comes each month with Aviation Trader )
Page 5, 3rd colemn talks about Gyrocopters. It appears that at least with Gyrocopters you can legally fly at less than 500 ft AGL. Some of you may have to say 'Yr right yr right '
Page 5, 3rd colemn talks about Gyrocopters. It appears that at least with Gyrocopters you can legally fly at less than 500 ft AGL. Some of you may have to say 'Yr right yr right '
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yr right did not mention gyrocopters or powered parachutes which may have some different minimum height requirements. However they still have to comply with rules to fly lower (Civil AviationOrder 95.12.1)
He stated:
"If you are flying below 500 feet and it's over your own poperty you do not have to comply with any rules at all. None zero Swat."
So, yr right is still yr wrong.
He stated:
"If you are flying below 500 feet and it's over your own poperty you do not have to comply with any rules at all. None zero Swat."
So, yr right is still yr wrong.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would encourage you guys to go back through your posts and take note of the general tenor of your comments.
you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.
the ATsB has commented that the GA accident rate in australia hasn't changed in over a decade.
so what that means is that all the safety initiatives that have been imposed in a decade haven't had one iota of effect.
it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.
you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.
the ATsB has commented that the GA accident rate in australia hasn't changed in over a decade.
so what that means is that all the safety initiatives that have been imposed in a decade haven't had one iota of effect.
it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W8 said:
you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.
it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.
Mate, I flew about 800 hours last year and didn't face any prison time when ever I flew. I also have never pranged an aircraft and hope never to do so. You have no idea of my overseas travel and certainly no idea of my life.
If you've got something to contribute to the discussion feel free to type something relevant.
you really need to do some overseas travel to broaden your minds.
you need to go flying.
and quite sincerely you all need to get a life.
it seems every time I fly I face a few years in prison; yet I've never pranged an aircraft in 42 years.
you really need to get a life guys 'cause you haven't got a clue most of you.
Mate, I flew about 800 hours last year and didn't face any prison time when ever I flew. I also have never pranged an aircraft and hope never to do so. You have no idea of my overseas travel and certainly no idea of my life.
If you've got something to contribute to the discussion feel free to type something relevant.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago,i read a report of an incident :-
A pilot flying across an isolated homestead, saw an odd aircraft at very low level, below him (ISTR the wings were different colours/patchy)
There was a Reg. which was written down and the unexpected encounter was reported.
The aircraft had been written -off. The homesteader had bought the remains, "repaired" them and installed an adapted V-8 (Rover?) car-engine, complete with cobbled-on water-cooling This, apparently, was not his first DIY training-flight/flight test.
He was successfully prosecuted, despite being miles from anywhere
.
Had an overflying stickybeak not dobbed him in, he could well be an accomplished pilot nowadays.....or a Darwin Award winner.
A pilot flying across an isolated homestead, saw an odd aircraft at very low level, below him (ISTR the wings were different colours/patchy)
There was a Reg. which was written down and the unexpected encounter was reported.
The aircraft had been written -off. The homesteader had bought the remains, "repaired" them and installed an adapted V-8 (Rover?) car-engine, complete with cobbled-on water-cooling This, apparently, was not his first DIY training-flight/flight test.
He was successfully prosecuted, despite being miles from anywhere
.
Had an overflying stickybeak not dobbed him in, he could well be an accomplished pilot nowadays.....or a Darwin Award winner.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve, may not be the same one, bloke near Mt Isa had a v8 running through a VW gearbox driving the prop. Was reported to CASA but bugger me no one in the area had seen it fly, only doing taxi runs
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One for the legal eagles pot.
A strange tale (helicopter related). - I would like to ask, if I may what you would call this story, in nice (as in accurate) terms. The story, as it was recently told to me goes like this:-
CASA 'did' a chopper pilot (Chopper) over, the whole nine yards: license, reputation, job etc; not in court though; DPP didn't want a bar of it. So, off to the AAT with their star witness, who was looking a jail term, (on account of being dopey, naughty and getting caught), in tow. CASA produced statements, evidence and even video footage in support of their case; they even had the AFP collect and deliver the 'on bail' witness to the AAT.
Well, the case was heard, the decision made, the license stripped and a 'not a fit a proper' edict was supported. In the aftermath, all the usual things occurred after an event like that; divorce, depression, anger and anger management issues. During the breakdown of normal life, Chopper decided to 'scratch' around a bit; as he knew, for certain sure that he 'didn't do it".
In short; after some judicious searching and some time spent with the now released 'star' witness (SW) revealed some very interesting, provable facts. Things like SW recanting and reversing all previous testimony. SW is also reported as stating that subtle hints relating to a longer term at HMP could be provided should cooperation be less than enthusiastic; and, that maybe a room with a view and time off on account o'being good, could be arranged. Well, the 'paperwork' was all signed, sealed and delivered; evidence, statements, the whole shooting match. This was all duly despatched, on advice, to CASA legal, in the hopes of having things put to rights; - for Chopper you understand.
There was much talk of 'mounting' a thorough investigation, through the proper channels; so Chopper waits a while, then waits another little while, wondering, as you would, just WTF is going on.
Here's the crazy part – Eventually, word filters through that Choppers' plaint and righteous indignation have been ignored, not considered. It seems that the entire brief has been flipped and conjured into a complaint made by SW - against the 'investigator' (s) and marked for AFP attention : 'cept AFP have never heard of it, no paperwork etc..
Aye, it's passing strange. You'll admit that's quite a twist and a puzzle of the legal variety for a lay mind to grapple with. Not being privy to 'all' the 'paperwork', and only working with 'hearsay', the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc. SHMG is beyond my short reach. But, humour me, if it all turns out to be Kosher (or Halal if it pleases) what, precisely are we looking at here?
Toot toot (sotto voce)..
CASA 'did' a chopper pilot (Chopper) over, the whole nine yards: license, reputation, job etc; not in court though; DPP didn't want a bar of it. So, off to the AAT with their star witness, who was looking a jail term, (on account of being dopey, naughty and getting caught), in tow. CASA produced statements, evidence and even video footage in support of their case; they even had the AFP collect and deliver the 'on bail' witness to the AAT.
Well, the case was heard, the decision made, the license stripped and a 'not a fit a proper' edict was supported. In the aftermath, all the usual things occurred after an event like that; divorce, depression, anger and anger management issues. During the breakdown of normal life, Chopper decided to 'scratch' around a bit; as he knew, for certain sure that he 'didn't do it".
In short; after some judicious searching and some time spent with the now released 'star' witness (SW) revealed some very interesting, provable facts. Things like SW recanting and reversing all previous testimony. SW is also reported as stating that subtle hints relating to a longer term at HMP could be provided should cooperation be less than enthusiastic; and, that maybe a room with a view and time off on account o'being good, could be arranged. Well, the 'paperwork' was all signed, sealed and delivered; evidence, statements, the whole shooting match. This was all duly despatched, on advice, to CASA legal, in the hopes of having things put to rights; - for Chopper you understand.
There was much talk of 'mounting' a thorough investigation, through the proper channels; so Chopper waits a while, then waits another little while, wondering, as you would, just WTF is going on.
Here's the crazy part – Eventually, word filters through that Choppers' plaint and righteous indignation have been ignored, not considered. It seems that the entire brief has been flipped and conjured into a complaint made by SW - against the 'investigator' (s) and marked for AFP attention : 'cept AFP have never heard of it, no paperwork etc..
Aye, it's passing strange. You'll admit that's quite a twist and a puzzle of the legal variety for a lay mind to grapple with. Not being privy to 'all' the 'paperwork', and only working with 'hearsay', the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc. SHMG is beyond my short reach. But, humour me, if it all turns out to be Kosher (or Halal if it pleases) what, precisely are we looking at here?
Toot toot (sotto voce)..
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon,
TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the AMERIC....sorry err..I should have said Australian, but it would seem those ideals are alien to aviation culture in Australia.
The CAsA person who intimidated a witness, and falsified evidence, in partnership with a no neck "enforcer"...they are the same ones that turn up at aviation events where the skull was expected to visit, or AAT hearings, note book and camera in hand, disguised in their Ray Bans and dark suits, is now out of CAsA in a high level GA job. As I've said, aint the industry a bunch of hookers.
His victim is a basket case, career gone, financially decimated and wondering what the hell he ever did to deserve that sort of attention, he'd always tried to be a compliant safe pilot.
It has subsequently been established he wasn't even the pilot of the chopper in the dodgy video that CAsA used as an excuse to pillory him.
The rule of the regulator is upon us people, the rule of law is defunct.
JUSTICE??? forget it, doesn't exist in Australia, unless you have the funds to fight in a real court.
Even then the "Regulators will continue to pursue you, look at CHC, comprehensibly blew CAsA out of court, costing the tax payer millions, rumor has it the pursuit by CAsA continues...they can never be wrong.
TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the AMERIC....sorry err..I should have said Australian, but it would seem those ideals are alien to aviation culture in Australia.
The CAsA person who intimidated a witness, and falsified evidence, in partnership with a no neck "enforcer"...they are the same ones that turn up at aviation events where the skull was expected to visit, or AAT hearings, note book and camera in hand, disguised in their Ray Bans and dark suits, is now out of CAsA in a high level GA job. As I've said, aint the industry a bunch of hookers.
His victim is a basket case, career gone, financially decimated and wondering what the hell he ever did to deserve that sort of attention, he'd always tried to be a compliant safe pilot.
It has subsequently been established he wasn't even the pilot of the chopper in the dodgy video that CAsA used as an excuse to pillory him.
The rule of the regulator is upon us people, the rule of law is defunct.
JUSTICE??? forget it, doesn't exist in Australia, unless you have the funds to fight in a real court.
Even then the "Regulators will continue to pursue you, look at CHC, comprehensibly blew CAsA out of court, costing the tax payer millions, rumor has it the pursuit by CAsA continues...they can never be wrong.
Last edited by thorn bird; 27th Nov 2014 at 18:27.