CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did a little digging – HERE –
The results for the fixtures.
Gosman 1 v CASA 0. Medical.
Sullivan 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Hansen 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Landers 0 v CASA 1. Medical.
Repacholi 1 v CASA 0. Medical.
Oasis 0 v CASA 1. AOC application.
Anderson 0 v CASA 1. Complex Helicopter.
Bryant 1 v CASA 1. Maintenance.
Green 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Marsh 1 v CASA 0. Exam fraud.
Milt Jones saga.
The links should work - Be careful out there.....
The results for the fixtures.
Gosman 1 v CASA 0. Medical.
Sullivan 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Hansen 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Landers 0 v CASA 1. Medical.
Repacholi 1 v CASA 0. Medical.
Oasis 0 v CASA 1. AOC application.
Anderson 0 v CASA 1. Complex Helicopter.
Bryant 1 v CASA 1. Maintenance.
Green 0 v CASA 1. Helicopter license.
Marsh 1 v CASA 0. Exam fraud.
Milt Jones saga.
There was a robust dispute with respect to the facts of the case and the appropriateness of the regulatory action, so I was not prepared to say the case was without merit.
Given the volume of technical and expert analysis the applicant is expected to produce to rebut the video evidence that CASA says will speak for itself, undue haste is unlikely to improve the quality of the hearing, and may undermine the effectiveness of the review. Ordering a stay would permit the parties to take a more measured approach to the evidence in accordance with the current timetable.
I am satisfied it is appropriate to order a stay of CASA’s decision to cancel the applicant’s licence until the conclusion of the hearing or further order in order to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the decision under review. For the reasons I gave on 27 August 2013, which have been summarised above, I accept it would be desirable to make that order.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Oct 2013 at 00:49.
Just watching a re-run of this series now. Up to the bit where they go looking for the crashed helicopter from a neighboring station. Milt's expert diagnosis on the reason for the crash? Too hot, too heavy & inexperience! 
DF.
DF.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DF – can you get a grab of the bit where they go croc hunting, dragging the kid along behind for bait (water skiing bit). It's certainly another, long drawn out saga and a laugh whould break the monotony of litigation....
Outback adventure tales
Kharon:
If the footage ever made it onto poohtube it is obviously now pulled and probably being video shopped by some FF IT video guru as we speak. I did however capture a tiny segment from a ntnews.com article
(love the headline
): It's our chopper and we'll ski if we want
By the way it isn't the first time that a reality outback adventure tale has featured water skiing behind a chopper
:[YOUTUBE]
MH (FF senior investigator): "Did you catch the rego of that chopper...don't bother we're past the statutory limits on that one!"
DF – can you get a grab of the bit where they go croc hunting, dragging the kid along behind for bait (water skiing bit). It's certainly another, long drawn out saga and a laugh whould break the monotony of litigation....
(love the headline): It's our chopper and we'll ski if we wantBy the way it isn't the first time that a reality outback adventure tale has featured water skiing behind a chopper
:[YOUTUBE]
MH (FF senior investigator): "Did you catch the rego of that chopper...don't bother we're past the statutory limits on that one!"
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solid work boys, very nice. But shhhhh don't tell our CAA but some of our chopper boys pull off better stunts on a more regular basis. It helps having such a big chopper industry, but Wannaka, Milford and even around Franz Josef create a great environment for a little fun stuff 
And unlike your CASA, the CAA tend to focus less on the risk takers such as joyflighters etc, and more on RPT.
And unlike your CASA, the CAA tend to focus less on the risk takers such as joyflighters etc, and more on RPT.
Last edited by Paragraph377; 13th Oct 2013 at 23:44.
Milton Jones vs. CASA
The AAT seems to have had a rush of common sense to its head. This is the best and funniest appeal judgement I have ever read.
The highlights:
CASA believes that if you have a fixed camera on your aircraft you are committing aerial photography - requiring a commercial licence and a suitably endorsed Air Operators Certificate - take that GoPro!
And the more sinister implication by CASA - defending yourself means that you are not a fit and proper person:
Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820 (31 October 2014)
31 October 2014
Milton Jones holds flight crew licences that include a private helicopter pilot licence.
At least he did, until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) cancelled them after reviewing footage shot in the course of a reality television series based on the life of Mr Jones, his family and employees on Coolibah Station in the Northern Territory.
The show – called Keeping up with the Joneses – featured a number of activities and incidents that CASA says are in breach of the rules and regulations applicable to helicopter pilots. CASA cancelled Mr Jones’s licences on the grounds referred to in regulation 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) (CAR).
Mr Jones has asked the Tribunal to review the cancellation decision.
At the hearing, CASA referred to a series of incidents or matters depicted in the television program that provided a basis for regulatory action against Mr Jones.
Mr Jones, for his part, conceded he made a number of errors. He disputes the seriousness of some of the breaches alleged against him, and there is disagreement over whether some of the matters alleged against him were actually breaches of the rules.
After hearing all the evidence and considering the extensive submissions, it is clear regulatory action is required. As it happens, I would reach the same view about what action was required regardless of whether I accepted the applicant’s or respondent’s view of the extent of the breach of the rules. In summary, I am satisfied the evidence establishes Mr Jones is an intelligent and skilful pilot, but the pattern of conduct recorded in Keeping up with the Joneses demonstrates:
his knowledge of the relevant rules and procedures is deficient; and
his unusual experience doing dangerous work in a remote location has seen him develop a skewed perception of, and tolerance for, risk.
I am satisfied Mr Jones is capable of correcting his shortcomings. He needs to undertake remedial training in relation to the rules and his role and responsibilities as a pilot. I will have more to say about that in due course. I am satisfied it is unnecessary to cancel his licences pursuant to CAR 269(1). I explain my reasons below.
Milton Jones holds flight crew licences that include a private helicopter pilot licence.
At least he did, until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) cancelled them after reviewing footage shot in the course of a reality television series based on the life of Mr Jones, his family and employees on Coolibah Station in the Northern Territory.
The show – called Keeping up with the Joneses – featured a number of activities and incidents that CASA says are in breach of the rules and regulations applicable to helicopter pilots. CASA cancelled Mr Jones’s licences on the grounds referred to in regulation 269(1)(c) and (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) (CAR).
Mr Jones has asked the Tribunal to review the cancellation decision.
At the hearing, CASA referred to a series of incidents or matters depicted in the television program that provided a basis for regulatory action against Mr Jones.
Mr Jones, for his part, conceded he made a number of errors. He disputes the seriousness of some of the breaches alleged against him, and there is disagreement over whether some of the matters alleged against him were actually breaches of the rules.
After hearing all the evidence and considering the extensive submissions, it is clear regulatory action is required. As it happens, I would reach the same view about what action was required regardless of whether I accepted the applicant’s or respondent’s view of the extent of the breach of the rules. In summary, I am satisfied the evidence establishes Mr Jones is an intelligent and skilful pilot, but the pattern of conduct recorded in Keeping up with the Joneses demonstrates:
his knowledge of the relevant rules and procedures is deficient; and
his unusual experience doing dangerous work in a remote location has seen him develop a skewed perception of, and tolerance for, risk.
I am satisfied Mr Jones is capable of correcting his shortcomings. He needs to undertake remedial training in relation to the rules and his role and responsibilities as a pilot. I will have more to say about that in due course. I am satisfied it is unnecessary to cancel his licences pursuant to CAR 269(1). I explain my reasons below.
CASA believes that if you have a fixed camera on your aircraft you are committing aerial photography - requiring a commercial licence and a suitably endorsed Air Operators Certificate - take that GoPro!
............... The discussion of sling load operations in
CAO 95.7.2 also refers to objects without qualification. Mr Jones says a person is an object, and there is no contravention. .........
.................there is something strange about insisting an individual wear a high visibility vest when being lowered into a crocodile nest armed only with a radio and a stick..............
................There were a number of instances shown in Keeping up with the Joneses where Mr Jones was shown flying low in circumstances that were plainly unrelated to his agricultural and sling load operations. The scene in which he hovered above a watercourse while baiting a bull-shark is one example; so, too, the scene in which he hovered above a waterhole attempting to snare and tow an enraged crocodile. Even more dramatically, there was a scene in which Mr Jones flew low over a stretch of water as he raced his brother-in-law on a jet ski, and another scene in which he towed his son Beau on a wave board.
The last two scenes in particular contravene the general prohibition against low flying in CAR 157. In neither case was the applicant “engaged in private operations or aerial work operations...that require low flying”..............................
.............There are also a number of incidents referred to where the applicant is outside the helicopter talking to other people while the engine turns with no one at the controls – and in one memorable shot, Mr Jones is seen outside the helicopter as his young son sits at the controls with the engine running.
There are also a number of shots of the applicant landing his helicopter and alighting from the aircraft to open gates while the rotors turned, and one in which he does a spot of fishing.
Mr Jones was asked about these incidents during his oral evidence. He pointed out there were good reasons not to shut down the engine when the helicopter landed at a remote point: if the engine did not restart, the pilot might be stranded. On that basis, he defended his decision to keep the engine running when alighting from the helicopter to undertake essential tasks like opening and closing gates and collecting crocodiles from traps.
There is something to be said for this argument. The environment is rugged and isolated. If a pilot were stranded in a helicopter that refused to start, he or she might be in real danger. But while that might have justified the practice when Mr Jones was operating alone, that did not excuse him leaving the controls while being filmed during Keeping up with the Joneses as he was not alone on most of those occasions: he was being trailed by a film crew who could have come to his rescue if the helicopter had not restarted. .......................
.........Recklessness is a very high standard (or a low one, depending on one’s perspective). Mr Jones does have considerable experience in operating a helicopter at low altitude and amongst obstacles when mustering cattle. He routinely and necessarily undertakes flying operations in hazardous circumstances, and he has demonstrated a high level of skill in doing so. The flying he undertook on this occasion was not inherently more risky than other flights. The problem on this occasion was that he did not need to take the risk he took (although there was also an increased risk to Hamish and the spectators who would not ordinarily be present when Mr Jones was mustering). I do not think that necessarily adds up to a contravention of s 20A(1). ............
............Mr Jones was also shown attempting to snare and tow a crocodile that had taken up residence in a waterhole close to the house. I am not sure of the approved and regular ways of catching a crocodile, but this is unlikely to be one of them. The conduct contravenes CAR 149, which prohibits towing objects.....................
..........Mr Jones said it was impractical to wear life jackets in the heat. He said a life jacket might be a source of risk if it caused the pilot to overheat or be restricted in his movement. It was not clear from the photograph whether Mr Jones was in fact wearing a life jacket, but the hapless passenger on the sling was not.
One might wonder about the utility of a life jacket in the case of the individual carried on a sling as the aircraft flew over the Adelaide River. I was told that stretch of the Adelaide River is infested with crocodiles. An individual who fell into that body of water would have limited prospects of survival whether he had a life jacket or not................
..................Mr Jones was shown teaching his son, Little Milton, how to start the helicopter. Mr Jones sought to justify the conduct at one point in his evidence by explaining that children who grow up on farms need to know how machinery operates for their own safety. They also needed to know the danger associated with snakes and crocodiles: Little Milton is shown at one point in the series warning of the risks of being on the side of a waterhole or riverbank where crocodiles might lurk.
Anyone who grew up in a rural environment is familiar with this robust approach to parenting. Many country kids learn to drive, interact with dangerous animals, operate heavy machinery and use weapons long before they reach the age of majority. Little Milton is no exception: he was shown driving a car when he was a small boy. But he should not have been shown how to start a helicopter.
In the course of his evidence, Mr Jones conceded it was dangerous to show Little Milton how to start the engine of a helicopter. He is right. Small boys are inquisitive and helicopters are dangerous machines. Mr Jones’s behaviour clearly contravenes
CAR 230(1) because Little Milton is not an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of the regulations. .............
CAO 95.7.2 also refers to objects without qualification. Mr Jones says a person is an object, and there is no contravention. .........
.................there is something strange about insisting an individual wear a high visibility vest when being lowered into a crocodile nest armed only with a radio and a stick..............
................There were a number of instances shown in Keeping up with the Joneses where Mr Jones was shown flying low in circumstances that were plainly unrelated to his agricultural and sling load operations. The scene in which he hovered above a watercourse while baiting a bull-shark is one example; so, too, the scene in which he hovered above a waterhole attempting to snare and tow an enraged crocodile. Even more dramatically, there was a scene in which Mr Jones flew low over a stretch of water as he raced his brother-in-law on a jet ski, and another scene in which he towed his son Beau on a wave board.
The last two scenes in particular contravene the general prohibition against low flying in CAR 157. In neither case was the applicant “engaged in private operations or aerial work operations...that require low flying”..............................
.............There are also a number of incidents referred to where the applicant is outside the helicopter talking to other people while the engine turns with no one at the controls – and in one memorable shot, Mr Jones is seen outside the helicopter as his young son sits at the controls with the engine running.
There are also a number of shots of the applicant landing his helicopter and alighting from the aircraft to open gates while the rotors turned, and one in which he does a spot of fishing.
Mr Jones was asked about these incidents during his oral evidence. He pointed out there were good reasons not to shut down the engine when the helicopter landed at a remote point: if the engine did not restart, the pilot might be stranded. On that basis, he defended his decision to keep the engine running when alighting from the helicopter to undertake essential tasks like opening and closing gates and collecting crocodiles from traps.
There is something to be said for this argument. The environment is rugged and isolated. If a pilot were stranded in a helicopter that refused to start, he or she might be in real danger. But while that might have justified the practice when Mr Jones was operating alone, that did not excuse him leaving the controls while being filmed during Keeping up with the Joneses as he was not alone on most of those occasions: he was being trailed by a film crew who could have come to his rescue if the helicopter had not restarted. .......................
.........Recklessness is a very high standard (or a low one, depending on one’s perspective). Mr Jones does have considerable experience in operating a helicopter at low altitude and amongst obstacles when mustering cattle. He routinely and necessarily undertakes flying operations in hazardous circumstances, and he has demonstrated a high level of skill in doing so. The flying he undertook on this occasion was not inherently more risky than other flights. The problem on this occasion was that he did not need to take the risk he took (although there was also an increased risk to Hamish and the spectators who would not ordinarily be present when Mr Jones was mustering). I do not think that necessarily adds up to a contravention of s 20A(1). ............
............Mr Jones was also shown attempting to snare and tow a crocodile that had taken up residence in a waterhole close to the house. I am not sure of the approved and regular ways of catching a crocodile, but this is unlikely to be one of them. The conduct contravenes CAR 149, which prohibits towing objects.....................
..........Mr Jones said it was impractical to wear life jackets in the heat. He said a life jacket might be a source of risk if it caused the pilot to overheat or be restricted in his movement. It was not clear from the photograph whether Mr Jones was in fact wearing a life jacket, but the hapless passenger on the sling was not.
One might wonder about the utility of a life jacket in the case of the individual carried on a sling as the aircraft flew over the Adelaide River. I was told that stretch of the Adelaide River is infested with crocodiles. An individual who fell into that body of water would have limited prospects of survival whether he had a life jacket or not................
..................Mr Jones was shown teaching his son, Little Milton, how to start the helicopter. Mr Jones sought to justify the conduct at one point in his evidence by explaining that children who grow up on farms need to know how machinery operates for their own safety. They also needed to know the danger associated with snakes and crocodiles: Little Milton is shown at one point in the series warning of the risks of being on the side of a waterhole or riverbank where crocodiles might lurk.
Anyone who grew up in a rural environment is familiar with this robust approach to parenting. Many country kids learn to drive, interact with dangerous animals, operate heavy machinery and use weapons long before they reach the age of majority. Little Milton is no exception: he was shown driving a car when he was a small boy. But he should not have been shown how to start a helicopter.
In the course of his evidence, Mr Jones conceded it was dangerous to show Little Milton how to start the engine of a helicopter. He is right. Small boys are inquisitive and helicopters are dangerous machines. Mr Jones’s behaviour clearly contravenes
CAR 230(1) because Little Milton is not an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of the regulations. .............
And the more sinister implication by CASA - defending yourself means that you are not a fit and proper person:
CASA is in no doubt that the questions over Mr Jones’s judgment ought to be resolved against him. CASA says Mr Jones was prepared to disregard the rules in the interests of making good and exciting television. It drew an analogy with the case of Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 where the pilot was found not to be a fit and proper person because he was prepared to ignore the rules in the interest of entertaining the passengers. But I think there is a difference between this case and Quadrio: I am not satisfied Mr Jones actively ignored the rules. He was not adequately aware of the rules in the first place.
CASA also pointed to the fact Mr Jones did not cooperate with CASA: indeed, he actively resisted aspects of CASA’s investigation. The applicant says his litigation strategy should not count against him as he was merely resisting the potential legal consequences of CASA’s actions.
CASA also pointed to the fact Mr Jones did not cooperate with CASA: indeed, he actively resisted aspects of CASA’s investigation. The applicant says his litigation strategy should not count against him as he was merely resisting the potential legal consequences of CASA’s actions.
Jones and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 820 (31 October 2014)
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Nov 2014 at 18:40.
Another win for the common man - "Onya Milt!"
At last sanity prevails in the AAT...
(b) he has demonstrated the decision-making skills required of the holder of those flight crew licences. He can do that by seeking and receiving the certification from a person holding relevant approvals from CASA that he is able to satisfy any reasonable requirements in this regard that are applicable to the holder of the flight crew licences (with the same authorities, permissions and authorities) that he currently holds.
&
There you go Milt cap in hand..."yes your Honour I made some mistakes for which I am extremely repentant"...outcome - old Milt probably never missed a day when he couldn't go flying...
However on a sour note the abomination which is Quadrio v Civil Aviation Safety Authority will continue to haunt...
"..It drew an analogy with the case of Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 where the pilot was found not to be a fit and proper person because he was prepared to ignore the rules in the interest of entertaining the passengers..."
...all such similar cases until that case is simply struck out and the record corrected...
Hmm...wasn't the same investigator involved with Milt's case also on the periphery of the Quadrio matter??
MTF...
- As it happens, I am not convinced the need for specific deterrence weighs heavily against the applicant. I was left with the clear impression from the evidence that Mr Jones rues the days on which he engaged in some of the conduct which led to his current predicament. He is an intelligent and thoughtful man; he does not need further opportunities to reflect on the seriousness of what he has done. But I am satisfied it may be relevant to fashion any regulatory action so as to deter bad behaviour by others.
- I previously noted the errors were demonstrated on national television. Mr Jones already enjoyed a level of prominence as a result of his success as a pastoralist, pilot and businessman before the production; the fact he made such public mistakes in a television series that celebrated his life and focused on the use (and, as it happens, the misuse) of helicopters cannot be ignored. Aviators throughout northern Australia in particular must not be left with the impression that it is permissible to ignore the rules which Mr Jones flouted so casually. The rules are meant to be taken seriously, and aviators everywhere must be clear that transgressions will be detected and pursued.
- Having regard to all those matters, I am satisfied the discretion in CAR 269(1) should be exercised. Regulatory action is required. I am not satisfied it is necessary or appropriate to cancel Mr Jones’s licences, as his identified shortcomings – while serious – do not suggest to me that he is beyond redemption. Those shortcomings can be addressed (and may, to some extent, already have been addressed) through appropriate training and testing. I stress it is principally because of the particular qualities that Mr Jones demonstrated in the witness box that I have arrived at this view, and in light of the evidence of CASA’s immensely experienced witness, Mr Lamb, who did not resile from the suggestion Mr Jones was capable of being brought up to an acceptable standard through a process of standardisation.
- While cancellation is not appropriate, I am satisfied Mr Jones’s licences should be suspended until:
(b) he has demonstrated the decision-making skills required of the holder of those flight crew licences. He can do that by seeking and receiving the certification from a person holding relevant approvals from CASA that he is able to satisfy any reasonable requirements in this regard that are applicable to the holder of the flight crew licences (with the same authorities, permissions and authorities) that he currently holds.
The decision under review is set aside. I decide in substitution that Mr Jones’s flight crew licences will be suspended until he obtains certification in relation to the matters referred to in these reasons. The suspension does not take effect until 28 days after the date of this decision.
Keeping Up With the Joneses star wins back helicopter licence despite stunts
Milton Jones, star of Channel 10’s Keeping up with the Joneses, had his flight crew licences cancelled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after the show aired in 2011.
CASA took action against Mr Jones, a Northern Territory cattleman who also controls a company operating one of Australia’s largest helicopter fleets, for alleged regulation breaches.
It had identified a number of incidents shown in the series, which portrayed life on the Joneses’ 400,000ha Coolibah Station.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided while Mr Jones had breached some regulations, he should be allowed licences to fly helicopters after remedial training on rules and regulations.
Senior tribunal member Bernard McCabe found Mr Jones had seriously contravened the law on several occasions during production of two series of the show.
“The incident involving the jet ski and towing his son on the (wakeboard) were probably the most serious matters because they were obviously foolish actions that put other people in jeopardy,” Mr McCabe said.
While the scene involving Mr Jones’s teenage son Beau being towed by the helicopter made for excellent television, it demonstrated “alarmingly poor judgment”, he said.
Mr Jones also was wrong to allow his young son Little Milton to sit at the controls and start a helicopter engine, he said.
Mr McCabe found Mr Jones also breached regulations by doing aerial photography without a commercial pilot’s licence, low flying, failing to wear a lifejacket or a seatbelt correctly.
Mr McCabe said Mr Jones failed in his duty regarding safe navigation or operation of an aircraft but decided it was not necessary to cancel his licences.
- by: Kay Dibben
- From: The Courier-Mail
- November 05, 2014 12:00AM
Milton Jones, star of Channel 10’s Keeping up with the Joneses, had his flight crew licences cancelled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority after the show aired in 2011.
CASA took action against Mr Jones, a Northern Territory cattleman who also controls a company operating one of Australia’s largest helicopter fleets, for alleged regulation breaches.
It had identified a number of incidents shown in the series, which portrayed life on the Joneses’ 400,000ha Coolibah Station.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided while Mr Jones had breached some regulations, he should be allowed licences to fly helicopters after remedial training on rules and regulations.
Senior tribunal member Bernard McCabe found Mr Jones had seriously contravened the law on several occasions during production of two series of the show.
“The incident involving the jet ski and towing his son on the (wakeboard) were probably the most serious matters because they were obviously foolish actions that put other people in jeopardy,” Mr McCabe said.
While the scene involving Mr Jones’s teenage son Beau being towed by the helicopter made for excellent television, it demonstrated “alarmingly poor judgment”, he said.
Mr Jones also was wrong to allow his young son Little Milton to sit at the controls and start a helicopter engine, he said.
Mr McCabe found Mr Jones also breached regulations by doing aerial photography without a commercial pilot’s licence, low flying, failing to wear a lifejacket or a seatbelt correctly.
Mr McCabe said Mr Jones failed in his duty regarding safe navigation or operation of an aircraft but decided it was not necessary to cancel his licences.
"..It drew an analogy with the case of Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 where the pilot was found not to be a fit and proper person because he was prepared to ignore the rules in the interest of entertaining the passengers..."
...all such similar cases until that case is simply struck out and the record corrected...
Hmm...wasn't the same investigator involved with Milt's case also on the periphery of the Quadrio matter??
MTF...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally.
Well done AAT, well done indeed. Bravo. Good sense and a fair, legally 'safe' ruling, Jones could not have hoped for better............
What a pity John Quadrio could not have had the same sane, calm balanced decision making afforded. The poor bugger is still financially and emotionally crippled by a very 'un-safe' decision made against some of the most unsound, outlandish 'evidence' ever produced. I note the hyenas have dragged the rotting carcass underground in an attempt to hide the stench....
MTF.
........What a pity John Quadrio could not have had the same sane, calm balanced decision making afforded. The poor bugger is still financially and emotionally crippled by a very 'un-safe' decision made against some of the most unsound, outlandish 'evidence' ever produced. I note the hyenas have dragged the rotting carcass underground in an attempt to hide the stench....
MTF.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember this but. 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. If you fly over your next door all rules have to be complyed with.
Swat. If you fly over your next door all rules have to be complyed with.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon now Steve, Really?
Is there a new CAR that we don't know about that relates to low level flying?
Please note that I'm not calling you a liar or inferring that!
(My post in another thread related to not calling you a liar but simply trying to identify the accident you referred to as the only ones that I could recall that involved 5 fatalities were Willowbank and Caboulture accidents, neither of which involved BASI and (given your age) I thought you might have been exposed to, hence the question mark regarding numbers.... so please share for once!)
So back to the point about operating an aircraft below 500ft over your own property. Can you point us to specific regulation or legislative guidance that allows that? The only regulation that I'm aware of that relates to low level flying is CAR 157 as follows:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 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 receiving flight training in low-level operations or aerial application operations, within the meaning of Part 61 of CASR; 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.
Thanks for sharing,
Stiky
Is there a new CAR that we don't know about that relates to low level flying?
Please note that I'm not calling you a liar or inferring that!
(My post in another thread related to not calling you a liar but simply trying to identify the accident you referred to as the only ones that I could recall that involved 5 fatalities were Willowbank and Caboulture accidents, neither of which involved BASI and (given your age) I thought you might have been exposed to, hence the question mark regarding numbers.... so please share for once!)
So back to the point about operating an aircraft below 500ft over your own property. Can you point us to specific regulation or legislative guidance that allows that? The only regulation that I'm aware of that relates to low level flying is CAR 157 as follows:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 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 receiving flight training in low-level operations or aerial application operations, within the meaning of Part 61 of CASR; 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.
Thanks for sharing,
Stiky
Last edited by Stikybeke; 5th Nov 2014 at 05:01.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember this but. 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.
Swat.
Please prove otherwise.
I also call bollox.
Yr right, your statement is NOT correct.
All normal CAO's and CAR's must be complied with regardless of whose property you are flying from.
For low level flight other than for the purposes of taking off or landing, you need a low level endorsement AND a reason to be flying low, such as mustering, stock or water checking.
The only exception that I think may have confused you is under RA-Aus rules, several years ago before the last ops manual change, you were in fact permitted to fly under 500ft with land owner permission.
Yr right, your statement is NOT correct.
All normal CAO's and CAR's must be complied with regardless of whose property you are flying from.
For low level flight other than for the purposes of taking off or landing, you need a low level endorsement AND a reason to be flying low, such as mustering, stock or water checking.
The only exception that I think may have confused you is under RA-Aus rules, several years ago before the last ops manual change, you were in fact permitted to fly under 500ft with land owner permission.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only exception that I think may have confused you is under RA-Aus rules, several years ago before the last ops manual change, you were in fact permitted to fly under 500ft with land owner permission.
Kaz
YR Right that is pure BS.
You are yet again making stuff up.
You are yet again making stuff up.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and this guy fixes planes. or says he does