The Military Look After Their Own - Don't Require ADSB
Armoutthewindow, have you not ever seen the roulettes pull out of a loop at low level heading directly towards and then over the crowd? EVERY airshow they attend my friend.
How does someone get away with extreme low level aeros when the order says minimum 500 feet? Because of the 'specifically approved' part.
You probably have to differentiate between air shows run at military bases and air shows run at civil aerodromes. Only the latter are subject to civil oversight and that is regardless of who is doing the flying. I guess the ADF can make their own rules on a military aerodrome. That, of course, is not to say they are unsafe, merely that the CAo's probably do not apply.
Since when did any CAOs apply to ADF aircraft that are under the command of a member of the ADF in the course of his or her duties?
I don't recall ever seeing CASA ramp checking the Roulettes or any other ADF aircraft after landing at a civvy aerodrome...
I don't recall ever seeing CASA ramp checking the Roulettes or any other ADF aircraft after landing at a civvy aerodrome...
Wow, really taking a dig at Military flying....Its Military , not civil... They have no need to conform to whats fashionable in the civvie world.. They have their own set of rules and parameters which have been working since donkeys pulled carts.
Which is one of the reasons ADS-B is not a regulatory requirement for ADF aircraft.
ADF aircraft without ADS-B are permitted to fly in airspace in which civilian aircraft are not allowed to fly if they don't have ADS-B. Which gets us back to Dick's point.
Either it's sufficiently safe for an aircraft without ADS-B to be in a volume of airspace, or it isn't. The objective risk created by the aircraft while in a volume of airspace is the same whether the aircraft is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or Joe Citizen. If the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by Joe Citizen to be fitted, despite the cost, the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by the Commonwealth to be fitted, despite the cost.
All of which goes to show that the mandate has little to do with objective risk or objective cost/benefit.
ADF aircraft without ADS-B are permitted to fly in airspace in which civilian aircraft are not allowed to fly if they don't have ADS-B. Which gets us back to Dick's point.
Either it's sufficiently safe for an aircraft without ADS-B to be in a volume of airspace, or it isn't. The objective risk created by the aircraft while in a volume of airspace is the same whether the aircraft is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or Joe Citizen. If the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by Joe Citizen to be fitted, despite the cost, the risk is sufficient to require the aircraft owned by the Commonwealth to be fitted, despite the cost.
All of which goes to show that the mandate has little to do with objective risk or objective cost/benefit.
Thanks LeadSled, spot on.
As I said earlier, a military aircraft has *never* crashed at an airshow, a PC9 engine has *never* failed and the Roulettes have *never* collided mid-flight, so therefore they should be exempt from airshow guidelines and why should a small and very high speed IFR flight levels capable aircraft be fitted with ADSB, surely not required??? (Sarcasm intended)
As I said earlier, a military aircraft has *never* crashed at an airshow, a PC9 engine has *never* failed and the Roulettes have *never* collided mid-flight, so therefore they should be exempt from airshow guidelines and why should a small and very high speed IFR flight levels capable aircraft be fitted with ADSB, surely not required??? (Sarcasm intended)
