CASA spends millions chasing Milton Jones aviation business

[Pontius]

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.

[kaz3g]

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.

[Powerin]

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.

[Jabawocky]

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.

[kaz3g]

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

[Squawk7700]

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.

[dubbleyew eight]

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.

[kaz3g]

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

[Andy_RR]

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...?

[Powerin]

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?

[Squawk7700]

Powerin, feel free to try it, put it on YouTube and see what happens. (See seriously)

[uncle8]

Sounds like you need a low level endorsement to take off and land.

[dubbleyew eight]

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:

(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot;

pre embuggerment CAsA had no jurisdiction of the airspace below 500ft unless it was in the vicinity of an airfield.
this is why the initial requirement on ultralights was to fly below 500ft. i.e. get the buggery out of our airspace.
HORSCOTS (house of reps subcommittee on transport safety) back in the late 60's flogged hell out of the ex-raaf for not including ultralights in aviation.
it seems to me that in many ways CAsA haven't learnt a bloody thing.

[kaz3g]

I seem to recall that the problem was the appalling rate at which those free spirits of the early AUF were killing themselves flying some rather basic machines close to the ground...their widows were complaining.

Kaz

[yr right]

I will state again. If it's YOUR poperty you can fly over it below 500 feet. You need no vh rego no m/r no pilot lic nothing to do with RAA.

You may over your property use an aircraft for fire fighting if it's your own aircraft and if it's your poperty. You however May not use it over at your nabours place

[Squawk7700]

Give up Yr_right you are just dribbling now.

Back it up with a fact or perhaps a regulation or just piss off

[Tankengine]

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.

[Squawk7700]

What happens when a legally operated survey aircraft or powerline inspecting aircraft flies along at 300ft and cleans up your unregistered Chieftain banging around your property at 499 ft with unlicensed self taught pilot at the controls?

[neville_nobody]

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 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.

[prospector]

What happens

Probably not a lot, missed him by a 199ft.