Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

Old 6th Nov 2014, 23:18
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
So as I understand most people in industry are of the opinion that the Jones verdict was a common sense and just adjudication.

Given that ruling,

When can we expect "Justice" for John Qadrio? and Karon Casey? etc.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 01:20
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,179
Had a conformation phone call last night saying I was correct
Was it actually a phone call, or did you simply hear a "voice?" Who was this call from; was it CASA?




TB - on the face of it, it appears to be common sense, but what would happen if the engine failed and he landed on his water skiing son and sliced him up, or the controls failed and he hit the jet ski? If you don't partake in such activities, you are less likely to have an accident. Can you even call it an accident if it happened when you were doing something stupid?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 03:15
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,002
Has nothing to do with low level flight rules at at. You can do what you like over your OWN property below 500 feet. The aircraft dose not need a CofA nothing. It your place. You don't need a pilot lic either. What I here you ask no surely he is pulling it out of my arse. We'll I'm not. It the same as you don't need to ergo your car on your own place either. But if you leave your place you will be done.

Can't remember the whole story but I guy did get done some time back. Funny thing is not one person has ask how I know this. All so quick to point fingers but. Never mind.
yr right is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 03:40
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 734
Smile

If you wish to retain credibility, then you should come up with some factual information to back up your claim.
Tidbinbilla is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 03:43
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 49
Posts: 911
A telephone call from God in the middle of the night not enough factual information, Tidbinbilla?
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 04:00
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,308
retain?

thats generous.
waren9 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 05:02
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
7700,

I think you will find far more water skiers get sliced up by boat props than helicopter rotors, but I agree the risks involved in waterskiing makes it a rather stupid pastime.

Same all this low level mustering, the controls could fail and hit a stockman.

Maybe these fling wings are altogether too dangerous and should be banned altogether.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 10:34
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
yr right

There are exemptions to fixed wing ops below 500' as per CAR 157 1(b). I'll list them for you shortly, to save you looking them up.

I have not seen any regulation that permits the things you propose as a blanket exemption from the regs...ANYWHERE.

Maybe you should call back the person who rang you and said you were correct and ask for the legislative references, so you can post them here to qualify your statements.. If you can post the references, then quite a few of us will happily eat humble pie.

The 3 exemptions I can think of, are all ratings that require extra training.

Aerial Mustering
Aerial Spraying (ag ops)
Aerial Firefighting.

Not withstanding, approach and take off within the course of normal operations.
.........................

Relying on a phone call? that has ants on it....its the same as CASA telling you that you cannot operate an aircraft in Australia without an ASIC...its posted on their website so the FOI's will tell you that is true. A lil thought tells you, the statement is a LIE!. Even deeper looking will tell you that you can operate without an ASIC OR an AVID! And I can provide the reference for that

Back it up with the references or admit you might have made an incorrect reading of the rules

Without a Reference, its merely considered your delusion.

Enjoy

Jas
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 10:55
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 556
It's the constitution. It's MABO. It's just...the vibe.
Denis Denuto
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2014, 11:03
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
Dang it Trent...posts like yours need a like button!
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 06:14
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 734
You can do what you like over your OWN property below 500 feet.
What I here you ask no surely he is pulling it out of my arse. We'll I'm not.
Funny thing is not one person has ask how I know this.
Yes, I believe you are pulling it out of your arse and, thus far, you've done nothing to prove otherwise. Telling us that you got a phone call confirming it (well, that's what I assume you meant) does not constitute proof.

So, come on then, how do you know this? In order for you to know, rather than think you know, it must be the truth; in which case you'll be able to provide the reference.

If you can do this, then as I said before, I'm more than willing to retract and apologise for my accusations that you're talking (more) bollox. If you can't prove this then bog off back to Walter Mitty Land where you might have some credibility and leave this site to at least the semi-professionals.
Pontius is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2014, 07:31
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 705
Under CAO 95.55 aircraft registered by RAA are exempt from a number of regulations, including CAR 157.

However, para 10 of the RAA Operations Manual effectively re-iterates the restrictions imposed by CAR 157 on flight below 500'.

The common law inherited from Old Blighty from around the 13th century gave the owner of land property rights in everything from the bowels of hell to the heights of heaven. This broad view has been narrowed somewhat by legislation over the years.

This is why CSG miners can dig holes in your lovely Hunter farm and pilots can fly over it above 500' as long as they don't scare the chooks.

Your property rights as a land owner in the airspace above it is limited to that which is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment and use of the land itself. So you can dig foundations and complain about the skyscraper next door blocking your access to light but, as best as I can determine, you can't fly below 500' just because it is over your own property; you can't fly an unregistered aircraft there; and you need the appropriate licence to do it.

This MAY be a little different to some overseas jurisdictions so beware the perils of accepting everything on Google as Gospel.

Kaz

PS. This is my personal opinion only and should not be relied upon in any legal context. I do not practice in aviation law and have no retainer to do so.
kaz3g is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 10:06
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 2
However, para 10 of the RAA Operations Manual effectively re-iterates the restrictions imposed by CAR 157 on flight below 500'.
Kaz, how can the RAAus Ops manual overule a CAO? Is there another law which says RAAus can trump an existing law? I can't find a para 10 in the Ops manual.

Here's the relevant bit of CAO 95.55 which applies to most Ultralight and LSA categories:

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:
(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or
(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or
(c) the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or
(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.
Powerin is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2014, 11:21
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
The RAAus ops manual does not overrule CAO/CAR's, however it has exemptions from certain regs.

RAAus and its allowed operational limits are by virtue of exemptions, as best I can describe it.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 10:26
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 705
CAO 95.55 provides an exemption from the CAR 157; it does not exempt RAAus pilots from the controls imposed by the Operations Manual.

The Ops Manual at section 2.01-3 deals with

"LOW LEVEL FLIGHT

10. No person shall operate an RAAus registered aircraft below 500' AGL a

UNLESS

a. the aircraft is operated to the requirements set out in CAO 95.55, 95.32, or section 6.2 or relevant legislation as amended from time to time

AND

b. holding RAAus Low Level endorsement

OR

c. Provides written proof to Operations Manager of recognised equivalent qualification

Note: b and c does ( sic) not apply to aircraft in process of taking off and landing in normal circumstances"

The "AND" between a and b is very important.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 10:41
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,179
Not long ago the RA-Aus suspended the certificate of a member for flying low, even though the pilot held a Low Level endorsement and had written permission from the land over. It was because the pilot / member was flying low without a valid reason (other than for fun) and he wasn't engaged in flight training.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 12:45
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
yr right is actually correct. or he used to be before the regulatory embuggerment.

does CAsA have jurisdiction over New Zealand Airspace? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction over the airspace in your lounge room? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction in the airspace in the top of a pipeline? no
does CAsA have jurisdiction in outer space? no

so where does it have jurisdiction?

find where that is spelt out and you have your answer.
I think it is in the empowering act.
I gave all my paper copies of the acts to a chief flying instructor for reference so I can't dig out the answer.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 20:08
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 705
yr right is actually correct. or he used to be before the regulatory embuggerment.
Until quite recently in relative terms, little old ladies who owned black cats were burned at the stake because the law held they were witches. But the rules about witches changed and anyone lighting fires under elderly spinsters today would be in a lot of trouble.

yr right's view of the law today appears misconceived.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2014, 23:16
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 49
Posts: 911
You've all forgotten that the law is whatever those in power want it to be, despite whatever you've found written down somewhere.

Written law is worthless without consistent enforcement. We have more laws and regulations on the books than can be consistently enforced, which leads to the adoption of selective enforcement policies. Now how could that possibly go wrong...?
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2014, 01:17
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 2
CAO 95.55 provides an exemption from the CAR 157; it does not exempt RAAus pilots from the controls imposed by the Operations Manual.
Sorry to continue off-topic...I can't see how this would prevent you from flying below 500ft over your own property (or one where you had the owner's permission) if you hold a valid RAAus Pilot Cert with a low-level endorsement and are flying an aircraft referred to in CAOs 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 (which are ultralight or LSA).

In any case the relevant section (2.01-9) of the new RAA Ops Manual, released today, has changed slightly and now reads:

LOW LEVEL ENDORSEMENT (LL)
9. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as
pilot in command below 500FT AGL unless:

a. the aeroplane is operated in accordance with the
requirements set out in CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55, under
“Provisions relating to flight height limitations”; and

b. holds a RA-Aus Low Level (LL) Endorsement.
The section of the CAOs referred to says:
8 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:
(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or
(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or
(c) the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or
(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.
8.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, that is flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from:
(a) a public road; or
(b) a person, other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or
(c) a dwelling, except with the permission of the occupier.
8.3 When taking off, or landing, an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a place or person referred to in subparagraph 8.2 (a), (b) or (c) that may be less than 100 metres but is:
(a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and
(b) as far as possible from such a place or person, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.
8.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it.

8.5 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 10 000 feet above mean sea level or higher in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3.
All of which says, it seems to me, given a few conditions and an endorsement, it's OK to fly <500ft over your own property and without needing any valid reason. Correct?
Powerin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.