ra-aus pilots being paid
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: NT
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pics i have seen, ashby is seated RHS, hanson other, now he's not an "instructor" so please explain.
Other query.......reported he's frequented controlled air space, ( RAA pilot....hello )
Other query.......reported he's frequented controlled air space, ( RAA pilot....hello )
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
love how the rules prohibit photography from aircraft, or class it as a commercial operation, since when did casa regulate the photography industry? if i take a pic, post it to instagram, and it goes viral, and i get payment of some kind for that photo some time in the future....or a sponsorship deal via instgram . etc etc...
Ultralights,
You clearly do not understand the threat to life and limb, the antipodean way of life, and the future of the human race, caused by taking photographs through a hole in the floor of an aeroplane.
Fear not, CASA is here to protect you and your fellow citizens.
Do not despair, you are in good company, the USA hasn't ever realised the need to "regulate" aerial photography either, beyond the aircraft complying with the normal rules of the air, airworthiness etc.
Australia has so often shown the way to the rest of the world in the "they should pass a law/there should be a rule" --- and not only for aviation.
This gets quite funny at times, it is often pointed out that CASA and its predecessors have never "had a go" at Dick Smith for his many magnificent books of aerial photography, but relentlessly pursued a chap in FNQ for fundamentally doing the same thing.
At one stage, many years ago, a particular Assistant Director of CASA developed the theory that, as only an aircraft that has a full ICAO Annex 8 C.of A can operate on an AOC, therefor photographs could only be taken from such an aircraft, and by some magical extension, and a leap of unfathomable "legal" logic, our laws covered "of", not just from.
That is, he stated that it was a criminal standard of naughtiness to take a picture of an aircraft that did not have a full C.of A. All in the interests of safety, you understand.
Just think of all those lovely air to air pics of, and taken from "Warbirds".
When I personally asked him what was he going to do about "enforcing the law" (his boss had just recently and very publicly announced that "all aviation law breakers had to be punished) given that photos of an "Experimental" aircraft had been very prominently been feature in the popular press and national TV news, that very day, contrary to (in his view) " the law", and presented to him proof of the "offense", the result was hilarious ---- for the rest of us.
The aircraft in question (this dates the period) was a prototype B777, long before certification, on its first visit to Australia, doing a bit of casual record setting --- I wonder, if it's VH- you need an AOC for that?? After all, isn't sponsorship just getting paid, therefor caught by CAR 206??
Tootle pip!!
You clearly do not understand the threat to life and limb, the antipodean way of life, and the future of the human race, caused by taking photographs through a hole in the floor of an aeroplane.
Fear not, CASA is here to protect you and your fellow citizens.
Do not despair, you are in good company, the USA hasn't ever realised the need to "regulate" aerial photography either, beyond the aircraft complying with the normal rules of the air, airworthiness etc.
Australia has so often shown the way to the rest of the world in the "they should pass a law/there should be a rule" --- and not only for aviation.
This gets quite funny at times, it is often pointed out that CASA and its predecessors have never "had a go" at Dick Smith for his many magnificent books of aerial photography, but relentlessly pursued a chap in FNQ for fundamentally doing the same thing.
At one stage, many years ago, a particular Assistant Director of CASA developed the theory that, as only an aircraft that has a full ICAO Annex 8 C.of A can operate on an AOC, therefor photographs could only be taken from such an aircraft, and by some magical extension, and a leap of unfathomable "legal" logic, our laws covered "of", not just from.
That is, he stated that it was a criminal standard of naughtiness to take a picture of an aircraft that did not have a full C.of A. All in the interests of safety, you understand.
Just think of all those lovely air to air pics of, and taken from "Warbirds".
When I personally asked him what was he going to do about "enforcing the law" (his boss had just recently and very publicly announced that "all aviation law breakers had to be punished) given that photos of an "Experimental" aircraft had been very prominently been feature in the popular press and national TV news, that very day, contrary to (in his view) " the law", and presented to him proof of the "offense", the result was hilarious ---- for the rest of us.
The aircraft in question (this dates the period) was a prototype B777, long before certification, on its first visit to Australia, doing a bit of casual record setting --- I wonder, if it's VH- you need an AOC for that?? After all, isn't sponsorship just getting paid, therefor caught by CAR 206??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah Photgraphy... The Safety agency's fcuk up
What was it Angry Man McComic said in a Senate hearing...
..' I say again ( thinks; you dumb arse senators) CaSA is a safety regulator not a commercial regulator.'
Wins the 2011? Golden Dog Turd award for the best BS statement of the Year !
Reg 206 (4) Photography. If you get paid for it, its a criminal offence doing it using an aircraft....its a commercial operation. Must have a CPL and an AOC !
Second bust for the same thing/ different dates 2(7) d Allowing the use of an a/c for a commercial purpose... which in my case was...photography.
And if you really want to know what a corrupt, vindictive and venal bunch of absolute bastards we are dealing with here...after all my fines for breaches of the above ...the CAsA round-robin email crowing their success was headed "For your amusement"
I kid you not.
Interested to see p 79 last Australian Flying Carbody spiel about the brave new medical world and etc an air to air? picture of a Baron, door off and a guy taking pictures..or holding a camera. Hope HE had an AOC and a CPL..!
In my case, the prosecutor (not under oath, so any old BS will do) told the Magistrate ...and I quote... ' No person in Australia can take a photograph from an a/c without an AOC and a CPL.'
CAsA attempted another prosecution years later on a different issue, failed due false CAsA sworn statements ...but what it was really about was the fact I had the temerity to tell the CAsA person...who had made a bad call...' why dont you take your bull**** regulations that deny people there rights and liberties and **** off. Which he did.
And the theatre went on from there.
A recent reminder of his earlier perfidy to one of the perjuring AWs ( Retski Cns office) got me an obscene phone call and a bashing threat.!
Yes, folks these are the SAFETY people !
And all overseen by legal acrobats and BS artists, that wil say and do anything to make a case ...or protect their evil doers/ in house criminals.
The Fat Lady hasn't finished her song yet.
What was it Angry Man McComic said in a Senate hearing...
..' I say again ( thinks; you dumb arse senators) CaSA is a safety regulator not a commercial regulator.'
Wins the 2011? Golden Dog Turd award for the best BS statement of the Year !
Reg 206 (4) Photography. If you get paid for it, its a criminal offence doing it using an aircraft....its a commercial operation. Must have a CPL and an AOC !
Second bust for the same thing/ different dates 2(7) d Allowing the use of an a/c for a commercial purpose... which in my case was...photography.
And if you really want to know what a corrupt, vindictive and venal bunch of absolute bastards we are dealing with here...after all my fines for breaches of the above ...the CAsA round-robin email crowing their success was headed "For your amusement"
I kid you not.
Interested to see p 79 last Australian Flying Carbody spiel about the brave new medical world and etc an air to air? picture of a Baron, door off and a guy taking pictures..or holding a camera. Hope HE had an AOC and a CPL..!
In my case, the prosecutor (not under oath, so any old BS will do) told the Magistrate ...and I quote... ' No person in Australia can take a photograph from an a/c without an AOC and a CPL.'
CAsA attempted another prosecution years later on a different issue, failed due false CAsA sworn statements ...but what it was really about was the fact I had the temerity to tell the CAsA person...who had made a bad call...' why dont you take your bull**** regulations that deny people there rights and liberties and **** off. Which he did.
And the theatre went on from there.
A recent reminder of his earlier perfidy to one of the perjuring AWs ( Retski Cns office) got me an obscene phone call and a bashing threat.!
Yes, folks these are the SAFETY people !
And all overseen by legal acrobats and BS artists, that wil say and do anything to make a case ...or protect their evil doers/ in house criminals.
The Fat Lady hasn't finished her song yet.
It is worth pointing out that an RAAus aircraft can be flown into controlled airspaces provided some conditions are met. Amongst these conditions is that the pilot has a CASA part 61 license. From the Exemption
7.3 A person must not operate a relevant aeroplane in Class A, C or D airspace, or an active restricted area, unless all of the following conditions are complied with:
......................
(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:
(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR; and
(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;
............
Perhaps this is where he has transgressed?..
Edit: Interestingly reading further you only have to have been issued a part 61 license and have done a flight review but there is no requirement to have a valid medical....
7.3 A person must not operate a relevant aeroplane in Class A, C or D airspace, or an active restricted area, unless all of the following conditions are complied with:
......................
(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:
(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR; and
(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;
............
Perhaps this is where he has transgressed?..
Edit: Interestingly reading further you only have to have been issued a part 61 license and have done a flight review but there is no requirement to have a valid medical....
Last edited by no_one; 12th Mar 2018 at 07:25. Reason: add comment about medical
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article mentioned that his licence (aka certificate) didn't allow him to fly into certain airports / controlled airspace, however it stopped short at alleging that he actually did. We're still in the dark until we hear the charges.
I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often.
Edit: Interestingly reading further you only have to have been issued a part 61 license and have done a flight review but there is no requirement to have a valid medical....
Im sure it doesn't, but if you asked CASA if their intention was to allow it, they certainly wouldn't have. They have made things so complex and difficult when looked at overall that there are inconsistencies everywhere.
Last edited by no_one; 12th Mar 2018 at 08:11. Reason: Spelling
Those who’ve been paying attention to the whole-of-government approach to aviation would have noticed the amount of time that was dedicated to scrutiny of the regulatory response to a drone that hovered over a parliamentary / press gallery rugby match a few months ago. That drone was controlled by - it is alleged - none other than James Ashby.
It’s abundantly clear that the focus of the committee is on the dire risks to aviation safety in the circumstances, rather than the wish to dispose of a political enemy.
It is, after all, about ‘safety’.
It’s abundantly clear that the focus of the committee is on the dire risks to aviation safety in the circumstances, rather than the wish to dispose of a political enemy.
It is, after all, about ‘safety’.
Folks,
The whole issue of RAOz pilots and "controlled airspace" is another anomalous nonsense brought about by our ratbag rules and the peculiarly Australian anal approach to "flight in controlled airspace".
Needless to say, the Australian approach to controlled airspace is worldwide unique.
You can have a GFA pilot certificate/license (not a PPL/ ICAO license) and fly in controlled airspace. There are several other examples. This includes flying a motor glider in "controlled airspace".
The RAOz case rose from a historical mistake in drafting so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it, so now it is some fundamental "safety" issue that has become a huge stumbling block, with a solution "real soon now" being the status for about 20 years.
God forbid anybody in CASA makes a decision, and approves a training package and "CTL rating", that would be too easy.
Tootle pip!!
The whole issue of RAOz pilots and "controlled airspace" is another anomalous nonsense brought about by our ratbag rules and the peculiarly Australian anal approach to "flight in controlled airspace".
Needless to say, the Australian approach to controlled airspace is worldwide unique.
You can have a GFA pilot certificate/license (not a PPL/ ICAO license) and fly in controlled airspace. There are several other examples. This includes flying a motor glider in "controlled airspace".
The RAOz case rose from a historical mistake in drafting so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it, so now it is some fundamental "safety" issue that has become a huge stumbling block, with a solution "real soon now" being the status for about 20 years.
God forbid anybody in CASA makes a decision, and approves a training package and "CTL rating", that would be too easy.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #27
Of course they thought they would have the last laugh. Pedantic, puerile and punative and diseased to the core. In the main GA is knackered by these knobs. Forget any age of aquarius it's age of nefarious .
In the fifties and sixties there was a widespread sense of fellowship and goodwill. Dead. Dead in the water. Except perhaps in some isolated pockets that hardly count.
And if you really want to know what a corrupt, vindictive and venal bunch of absolute bastards we are dealing with here...after all my fines for breaches of the above ...the CAsA round-robin email crowing their success was headed "For your amusement"
I kid you not.
I kid you not.
Of course they thought they would have the last laugh. Pedantic, puerile and punative and diseased to the core. In the main GA is knackered by these knobs. Forget any age of aquarius it's age of nefarious .
In the fifties and sixties there was a widespread sense of fellowship and goodwill. Dead. Dead in the water. Except perhaps in some isolated pockets that hardly count.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAA in CTA pilots is one issue, easily solved, but bulk of aircraft aren't allowed due to self maintained or "unrecognized" type
Then even some self maintained are OK but others aren't............
Then even some self maintained are OK but others aren't............
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good thing about RAA and CTA (if you can call it a good thing) is that the regs haven't changed from day dot... you still need an approved / certified factory built aircraft and a PPL to enter CTA under raaus, or in the GA exp world you can do it with an amateur built with PPL.
Those that want to do this, generally, go and get themselves a PPL and the right aircraft and away they go into CTA. CASA have been great and made it even easier and introduced the RPL which is a piece of piss to obtain.
However... I don't think it's a gen Y thing, but there seems to be an ever increasing number of RAA pilots wanting to enter CTA. A heightened sense of entitlement? ... but I don't know why.
There's process and procedures for entry so people need to learn them!!!
Those that want to do this, generally, go and get themselves a PPL and the right aircraft and away they go into CTA. CASA have been great and made it even easier and introduced the RPL which is a piece of piss to obtain.
However... I don't think it's a gen Y thing, but there seems to be an ever increasing number of RAA pilots wanting to enter CTA. A heightened sense of entitlement? ... but I don't know why.
There's process and procedures for entry so people need to learn them!!!
SWTT,
The "negotiations" with CASA (and predecessors) so that RAOz (ne.AUF) aircraft can operate in "CTA" actually pre-date the formation of CASA, and have made no real progress in all that time.
All it needs is the training package and rating agreed to.
As for the "airworthiness" issues, that is just another unjustified smokescreen, which is not risk based, but prejudice based.
Tootle pip!!
The "negotiations" with CASA (and predecessors) so that RAOz (ne.AUF) aircraft can operate in "CTA" actually pre-date the formation of CASA, and have made no real progress in all that time.
All it needs is the training package and rating agreed to.
As for the "airworthiness" issues, that is just another unjustified smokescreen, which is not risk based, but prejudice based.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much of RAA push is for the alignment of regulation. Doesn't make sense that a glider or VH reg experimental can enter CTA but a RAA aircraft cannot.
Similar for pilots, of course they need training and endorsement.
Bit simplified to argue just get a different plane?
Many just want to transit CTA and as non CTA airfields are built out and close it will become a bigger deal.
Similar for pilots, of course they need training and endorsement.
Bit simplified to argue just get a different plane?
Many just want to transit CTA and as non CTA airfields are built out and close it will become a bigger deal.
Jetjr,
You'r getting there.
It is the ratbag Australian rules, which means that two functionally identical Jabiru, both "Experimental", both "owner maintained", different only in that one is 19-, the other VH-, are treated differently re. airspace.
There is no shortage of other examples, and NO risk management justification re.the type of aircraft, type of engine or system of maintenance restrictions, that is all straight out prejudice.
As I have said, it dates back to early days of AUF, and has nothing to do with the great god, "Safety", but all that is long lost corporate knowledge in CASA, where the excuse for all inaction, all refusal to change (or the reason for restrictive change) is S.9A of the Act as a crutch.
Tootle pip!!
You'r getting there.
It is the ratbag Australian rules, which means that two functionally identical Jabiru, both "Experimental", both "owner maintained", different only in that one is 19-, the other VH-, are treated differently re. airspace.
There is no shortage of other examples, and NO risk management justification re.the type of aircraft, type of engine or system of maintenance restrictions, that is all straight out prejudice.
As I have said, it dates back to early days of AUF, and has nothing to do with the great god, "Safety", but all that is long lost corporate knowledge in CASA, where the excuse for all inaction, all refusal to change (or the reason for restrictive change) is S.9A of the Act as a crutch.
Tootle pip!!
