Pudniks and CASA [2021/5950]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How so? I think the fact that CASA allows SAFA to operate unlawfully + CASA does not meet their own COI policy is more of a worry for them than me.
I have asked CASA what they do to manage PG safety in Australia broadly speaking. I suspect not much. I have already established CASA does not hold a copy of SAFA's accident log. Pretty alarming...
I have asked CASA what they do to manage PG safety in Australia broadly speaking. I suspect not much. I have already established CASA does not hold a copy of SAFA's accident log. Pretty alarming...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I see in #70 is that you have the right to challenge your revocation of your flying permission by SAFA by writing to CASA, if CASA denies, you can then take CASA to AAT for that decision. If however you have flown before any decision is formalised, being aware that you were grounded, you have acted illegally as you are not authorised to fly. Same as if your drivers licence is revoked, you can't drive around while the matter is resolved, unless you are given express permission to do so.
SAFA grants certificates not licences. No such thing as a paragliding licence, so it is unlike driving.
I have rights as to freedom of movement. Aus Constitution says - only the courts shall decide the balance of my freedom of movement vs public safety. Not SAFA. Not CASA. We shall see :)
Yes - your application to the AAT is about CASA's refusal to issue you a Part 149 certificate, not SAFA's 'unlawful suspension'. CASA hasn't made a decision on your application yet, so there is no decision for the AAT to review. You might say that not making a decision is a decision, but the AAT evidently disagrees with you.
Given that you've admitted yourself into a big hole, the chances of CASA granting the certificate to you are pretty remote. So even if you get to the point where your application is considered by CASA to be complete, your application is likely to be refused. That's when the AAT will consider your application for review. (And guess what? The AAT isn't a court. Can you just lift your thumb off the PTT for a moment?)
A law passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia says that you commit a criminal offence if you fly your wing without a pilot's licence. However, that law also says CASA may grant exemptions from that requirement, subject to conditions. That's what CAO 95.8 is, along with all the other 95 series of CAOs.
If you comply with the conditions of CAO 95.8, you are exempt from the requirement to have a pilot's licence to fly your wing. If you do not comply with the conditions of CAO 95.8, you are not exempt from the requirement and, accordingly, you breach the law passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia if you fly your wing without a pilot's licence. That's why you're fronting one of those "court" things to which you so frequently refer. (You should consider taking your pyjamas and toothbrush along, if you're going to sprout to the court the kind of crap you've sprouted in this thread.)
Given that you've admitted yourself into a big hole, the chances of CASA granting the certificate to you are pretty remote. So even if you get to the point where your application is considered by CASA to be complete, your application is likely to be refused. That's when the AAT will consider your application for review. (And guess what? The AAT isn't a court. Can you just lift your thumb off the PTT for a moment?)
A law passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia says that you commit a criminal offence if you fly your wing without a pilot's licence. However, that law also says CASA may grant exemptions from that requirement, subject to conditions. That's what CAO 95.8 is, along with all the other 95 series of CAOs.
If you comply with the conditions of CAO 95.8, you are exempt from the requirement to have a pilot's licence to fly your wing. If you do not comply with the conditions of CAO 95.8, you are not exempt from the requirement and, accordingly, you breach the law passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia if you fly your wing without a pilot's licence. That's why you're fronting one of those "court" things to which you so frequently refer. (You should consider taking your pyjamas and toothbrush along, if you're going to sprout to the court the kind of crap you've sprouted in this thread.)
I quoted to you, earlier in this thread, the definition of “aircraft” from the Civil Aviation Act. Read rather than talk or type.
In Australia, it is an offence under the Civil Aviation Act to operate even a model aircraft without a pilot’s licence.
But an exemption from the requirement to hold a pilot’s licence to operate a model aircraft has been issued.
By CASA.
Subject to conditions.
If you operate a model aircraft without complying with those conditions, you are prosecuted for operating an aircraft without a pilot’s licence.
Get it?
If not, it will merely prove once again that people as thick as two short planks can still get a university degree.
In Australia, it is an offence under the Civil Aviation Act to operate even a model aircraft without a pilot’s licence.
But an exemption from the requirement to hold a pilot’s licence to operate a model aircraft has been issued.
By CASA.
Subject to conditions.
If you operate a model aircraft without complying with those conditions, you are prosecuted for operating an aircraft without a pilot’s licence.
Get it?
If not, it will merely prove once again that people as thick as two short planks can still get a university degree.
Mr. Pudniks, with respect, you do not understand what you are doing. Aviation law is criminal law. If you are convicted, you are a felon, same as an axe murderer. This matter will affect you and any family negatively in ways you cannot yet imagine.
For example you are highly unlikely to be able to get a visa from any country, certainly not USA nor Canada, possibly not even New Zealand, so you won’t be able to travel overseas again. You won’t be able to stand for Parliament. Certain fields of employment will be closed to you. You will not be eligible for an ASIC or MSIC and a wide range of permissions and licenses (for example firearm ownership). You may find yourself on a “no fly” list because your crime involves aviation and your name will be permanently entered on a huge range of undesirable databases including as a potential extremist or terrorist.
It matters not wether you are merely fined one cent or not. I’m not even sure that being discharged without conviction is free of deleterious effect.. In this digital age no one cares about the circumstances or the triviality of the offence. If convicted, you will have committed an aviation related criminal offence, you can argue all you like but no visa or immigration officer will care to listen to your story any more than they listen to convicted axe murderers explaining how they were minding their own business when the axe unfortunately slipped.
As for pursuing hang gliding or a new association, as a felon convicted of an aviation offense, forget it!
Please get high caliber legal advice right now.
You have done one good thing; your forthcoming case emphasizes the lack of fairness equity and natural justice in relation to aviation regulation that in my opinion has held back investment, growth and jobs in the industry for decades.
For example you are highly unlikely to be able to get a visa from any country, certainly not USA nor Canada, possibly not even New Zealand, so you won’t be able to travel overseas again. You won’t be able to stand for Parliament. Certain fields of employment will be closed to you. You will not be eligible for an ASIC or MSIC and a wide range of permissions and licenses (for example firearm ownership). You may find yourself on a “no fly” list because your crime involves aviation and your name will be permanently entered on a huge range of undesirable databases including as a potential extremist or terrorist.
It matters not wether you are merely fined one cent or not. I’m not even sure that being discharged without conviction is free of deleterious effect.. In this digital age no one cares about the circumstances or the triviality of the offence. If convicted, you will have committed an aviation related criminal offence, you can argue all you like but no visa or immigration officer will care to listen to your story any more than they listen to convicted axe murderers explaining how they were minding their own business when the axe unfortunately slipped.
As for pursuing hang gliding or a new association, as a felon convicted of an aviation offense, forget it!
Please get high caliber legal advice right now.
You have done one good thing; your forthcoming case emphasizes the lack of fairness equity and natural justice in relation to aviation regulation that in my opinion has held back investment, growth and jobs in the industry for decades.
Last edited by Sunfish; 2nd Feb 2022 at 18:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS. Why should a citizen need an exemption to operate a toy - when the toy is not an aircraft in the first place?
Last edited by skinduptruk; 6th Feb 2022 at 09:21.
Post the AustLII case law link to where CASA has prosecuted a model aircraft dude, and I will believe you. In the meantime, read about Repacholi as posted in link above. And Bellamy.
PS. Why should a citizen need an exemption to operate a toy - when the toy is not an aircraft in the first place?
PS. Why should a citizen need an exemption to operate a toy - when the toy is not an aircraft in the first place?
https://www.casa.gov.au/drones/drone...e-safety-rules
There's a link to the rules that were referred to above, you may not need a licence but you can still be prosecuted for failing to follow them. Say your toy drone/model aircraft weighs more than 250 grams and you fly it in your backyard 2km from Moorabbin airport you can be prosecuted. You can read the actual regulations in Part 101, the accreditation dispensation is under 101.374b, which allows you to fly 'toy' drones without accreditation.
SAFA grants certificates not licences. No such thing as a paragliding licence, so it is unlike driving.
Last edited by 43Inches; 6th Feb 2022 at 10:57.
Post the AustLII case law link to where CASA has prosecuted a model aircraft dude, and I will believe you. In the meantime, read about Repacholi as posted in link above. And Bellamy.
PS. Why should a citizen need an exemption to operate a toy - when the toy is not an aircraft in the first place?
PS. Why should a citizen need an exemption to operate a toy - when the toy is not an aircraft in the first place?
Post the AustLII case law link to where CASA has prosecuted a model aircraft dude, and I will believe you.
A number of successful prosecutions vs drone users in that piece. And don't draw lines between drones and model aircraft, they follow the same rules. The difference is between RPA and model aircraft, both being classed as drones. You will find less prosecutions vs model aircraft pilots as they are following the rules and most likely flying in sites designated for it. Where the multicopter drones are being used everywhere for various purposes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback 43, Squawk, FG.
The drone rules seem fair enough. I recall a large drone almost fell on a kayaker at some sports event once upon a time.
I should clarify something. When LB wrote "model aircraft" my mind went to model gliders. Because I see these fairly often at the beach, whereas I rarely see model aircraft with jets or engines etc. I see plenty of drones too of course.
So my next question is: are model gliders aircraft too? If so, what about a paper aeroplane... or a frisbee? Or a boomerang?
(Remember to consult the CAA 1988 definitions for aircraft and flight).
PS. Hey FG yes I'd be happy to post the outcome of the local court hearing + AAT review in due course. I hope it will be a learning experience for all parties involved.
The drone rules seem fair enough. I recall a large drone almost fell on a kayaker at some sports event once upon a time.
I should clarify something. When LB wrote "model aircraft" my mind went to model gliders. Because I see these fairly often at the beach, whereas I rarely see model aircraft with jets or engines etc. I see plenty of drones too of course.
So my next question is: are model gliders aircraft too? If so, what about a paper aeroplane... or a frisbee? Or a boomerang?
(Remember to consult the CAA 1988 definitions for aircraft and flight).
PS. Hey FG yes I'd be happy to post the outcome of the local court hearing + AAT review in due course. I hope it will be a learning experience for all parties involved.
Here's an idea: Why don't you ask the judge in your case? I'm sure the judge will be more than happy to answer whatever questions you may have.
The judge might even be smart enough to push 'Ctrl' and 'F' at the same time on a computer keyboard, to find the many dozens of instances of the term "model aircraft" in the civil aviation legislation. Then you could have a discussion about whether or not a paper aeroplane or frisbee or boomerang fits the definition.
After all, the judge won't be concerned about whether any of that has any relevance to your case. That's why you could also ask the judge whether s/he agrees that the 'drone rules' are 'fair enough'. That is, after all, what judges do: decide whether or not legislation is "fair enough".
When and where is your court appearance? I'm coming just for the entertainment.
The judge might even be smart enough to push 'Ctrl' and 'F' at the same time on a computer keyboard, to find the many dozens of instances of the term "model aircraft" in the civil aviation legislation. Then you could have a discussion about whether or not a paper aeroplane or frisbee or boomerang fits the definition.
After all, the judge won't be concerned about whether any of that has any relevance to your case. That's why you could also ask the judge whether s/he agrees that the 'drone rules' are 'fair enough'. That is, after all, what judges do: decide whether or not legislation is "fair enough".
When and where is your court appearance? I'm coming just for the entertainment.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Feb 2022 at 04:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well so long as LB is entertained, that's the main thing 
I already provided the CAN details above.
I thought local court was held by a Magistrate, not a Judge.
And you didn't answer the question: is a model glider an aircraft under the CAA 1988 definitions?
I already provided the CAN details above.
I thought local court was held by a Magistrate, not a Judge.
And you didn't answer the question: is a model glider an aircraft under the CAA 1988 definitions?
I believe it depends on the weight of the model. Under 110 grams doesn't rate.
Between 110 grams and 10kg (guessing here...it's been a while..) is a model aircraft.
Above that, and it's an aircraft needing registration and everything..
....at least, it was last time I checked the regs.
Disclaimer - that was a long time ago, and this *is* CAsA we're talking about..
Between 110 grams and 10kg (guessing here...it's been a while..) is a model aircraft.
Above that, and it's an aircraft needing registration and everything..
....at least, it was last time I checked the regs.
Disclaimer - that was a long time ago, and this *is* CAsA we're talking about..
Maybe LB if you're heading to the court anyway, you can go as his McKenzie friend and help out?
McKenzie friend - Wikipedia
McKenzie friend - Wikipedia
Mr. Pudniks, I'm going to assume that this whole thread isn't a deliberate and very good hoax and ask one question;
Have you ever been to court before and appeared in front of a Magistrate?
If the answer is "No" and you are very lucky on 21 Feb after you tell the magistrate that you are defending yourself, she MIGHT offer you an adjournment of the matter and a strong (perhaps very, very strong) recommendation that you seek legal advice before you appear before her again. If this option is offered, take it and take it graciously.
You have been warned.
Have you ever been to court before and appeared in front of a Magistrate?
If the answer is "No" and you are very lucky on 21 Feb after you tell the magistrate that you are defending yourself, she MIGHT offer you an adjournment of the matter and a strong (perhaps very, very strong) recommendation that you seek legal advice before you appear before her again. If this option is offered, take it and take it graciously.
You have been warned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it depends on the weight of the model. Under 110 grams doesn't rate.
Between 110 grams and 10kg (guessing here...it's been a while..) is a model aircraft.
Above that, and it's an aircraft needing registration and everything..
....at least, it was last time I checked the regs.
Disclaimer - that was a long time ago, and this *is* CAsA we're talking about..
Between 110 grams and 10kg (guessing here...it's been a while..) is a model aircraft.
Above that, and it's an aircraft needing registration and everything..
....at least, it was last time I checked the regs.
Disclaimer - that was a long time ago, and this *is* CAsA we're talking about..
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 101.023
Meaning of model aircraft(1) A model aircraft is an aircraft (other than a balloon or a kite) that does not carry a person:(a) if the aircraft:
(i) is being operated for the purpose of sport or recreation; and
(ii) has a gross weight of not more than 150 kg; or
(b) if the aircraft has a gross weight of not more than 7 kg, and is being operated in connection with the educational, training or research purposes of:
(i) a school in relation to which there is an approved authority under the Australian Education Act 2013 ; or
(ii) a higher education provider within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
(2) However, paragraph (1)(b) does not apply in relation to education, training or research conducted by or on behalf of an entity other than a school or higher education provider mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) or (ii).
Note: A model aircraft is not an RPA (see the definition of RPA in regulation 101.021).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come no one can answer a simple question about a model glider? Weird...
PS. Fun fact: An ICAO requirement is that CASA must have qualified people with credentials of technical expertise. Do they?