Pudniks and CASA [2021/5950]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curiously, over the phone (back when CASA legal were brave enough to engage with me in conversation), CASA suggested that a HG has been found as an aircraft by the NZ High Court. However, the high school physics point about action and *reaction* was never tested.
My reply at the time was "Wrong behaviour (deliberate dive-bombing)! Wrong country!! Wrong craft!!!"
CASA legal stopped engaging with me after that. They appear to dislike a fair fight...
Originally Posted by Para 4 from Smith vs NZ HC
It is not disputed by the applicant that a hang glider can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air. It is also not in dispute that it does so otherwise than by the reactions of the air against the surface of the earth. The sole question then is whether a hang glider is a “machine”. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is not a machine because it contains no moving part and is controlled by the controller’s body; that it is used by a human to perform an activity but is entirely passive in that the human controls the flight by shifting body position. The respondents submit that a hang glider is an aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they are not an aircraft, why did you submit the application to become a governing body for something that is not covered by the regulations?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather, I will contend that the authors' intent was to only include powered aircraft. This matches with flight being "under its own power". We shall see.
Last edited by skinduptruk; 14th Feb 2022 at 05:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though a PG is not an aircraft, it can certainly get in the way of aircraft!
Hence Part 149 means you understand the CA Act 1988 and all aspects of "safety of air navigation" aka good airmanship (air-person-ship?). Things like staying out of controlled airspace for a start. Carriage and use of VHF radio such that if you happen to be near CTAF you can interact as required. And every other aspect of *interacting* with aircraft - even though one may or may not be an aircraft oneself!
PS. Part 149 also asks for a safety management system (SMS) which I was able to draft in a weekend because I have 15 years of work experience in the field of risk management. But CASA doesn't care to read it! Which neatly circles back to the title of this thread, the AAT case to ask CASA to review my Part 149 paperwork in good faith
I know what you mean LB. I do hear you. However, if a PG is an aircraft by that definition, then so is every other physical object that moves through the air at its own unique glide ratio (note the definition does not mention "carry a person at altitude" etc). Such aircraft might include a kitesurfer, frisbee, paper airplane, even a rock as someone mentioned above! :o Every object known to man in fact.
Rather, I will contend that the authors' intent was to only include powered aircraft. This matches with flight being "under its own power". We shall see.
Rather, I will contend that the authors' intent was to only include powered aircraft. This matches with flight being "under its own power". We shall see.
The difficulty I see in your logic is that it does not result in you being exonerated. "Yes Mr Pudniks, it may well be that every object known to mankind fits the definition, in which case your PG fits the definition. We are dealing only with the charges against you. We will deal with the paper airplane throwers if and when they are charged."
As someone pointed out earlier, just about the only work done by the definition of "flight" in the regulations is the calculation of flight time for pilot logbooks. That's because flight time in a pilot's logbook includes - in the case of heavier-than-air aircraft - some time when the aircraft in question is not flying in fact. For example, heavy metal pilots will usually log 'chock to chock' time. (And, in any event, you didn't read paragraph (b) of the definition which does not mention power and, therefore, was drafted on the basis that a subset aircraft can be in "flight" without being powered.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Feb 2022 at 05:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a "rock" is either a "machine" or "craft" in terms of the definition (which definition in Australia is, BTW, different to the one in the NZ CAA Act). Words have meanings.
The difficulty I see in your logic is that it does not result in you being exonerated. "Yes Mr Pudniks, it may well be that every object known to mankind fits the definition, in which case your PG fits the definition. We are dealing only with the charges against you. We will deal with the paper airplane throwers if and when they are charged."
As someone pointed out earlier, just about the only work done by the definition of "flight" in the regulations is the calculation of flight time for pilot logbooks. That's because flight time in a pilot's logbook includes - in the case of heavier-than-air aircraft - some time when the aircraft in question is not flying in fact. For example, heavy metal pilots will usually log 'chock to chock' time. (And, in any event, you didn't read paragraph (b) of the definition which does not mention power and, therefore, was drafted on the basis that a subset aircraft can be in "flight" without being powered.)
The difficulty I see in your logic is that it does not result in you being exonerated. "Yes Mr Pudniks, it may well be that every object known to mankind fits the definition, in which case your PG fits the definition. We are dealing only with the charges against you. We will deal with the paper airplane throwers if and when they are charged."
As someone pointed out earlier, just about the only work done by the definition of "flight" in the regulations is the calculation of flight time for pilot logbooks. That's because flight time in a pilot's logbook includes - in the case of heavier-than-air aircraft - some time when the aircraft in question is not flying in fact. For example, heavy metal pilots will usually log 'chock to chock' time. (And, in any event, you didn't read paragraph (b) of the definition which does not mention power and, therefore, was drafted on the basis that a subset aircraft can be in "flight" without being powered.)
The point of my "every object" argument is that is clearly not what the authors meant. They meant aircraft that placed "an action" on the air - hence derive support from "reactions" of the air. So the statutory interpretation ought to consider that. How can we make every (un-powered and powered) object that moves through the air illegal - then allow CASA to pick and choose who to prosecute on a day to day basis. That is absurd. If kitesurfers are aircraft too, then CASA suddenly has a misfeasance problem for not prosecuting them!
For me the kitesurfer vs paraglider is a good example. How can both fit the definition? Yet only one is "an aircraft". This inconsistency is the vital issue of statutory interpretation. It also has an easy visual appeal to be debated. These two craft are identical in terms of the principle of operation, which is handy.
PS. A quick reminder, that my PG licence / certificate was unlawfully suspended by the club SAFA, which holds an unconstitutional monopoly over my freedom of movement. Oh well.
*sigh*
You should read the section for breach of which you've been charged. There is one definition for the purposes of that section: "flight time". You should read that too, so that you can then find out what the tern "flight time" actually means in the section for breach of which you've actually been charged.
Not every object is a "machine" or "craft". The drafters of the definition have already limited the scope of the definition so as to exclude, for example, rocks.
How do you know a kitesurfer isn't an aircraft as defined? Are you able to cite authority for that? The fact that CASA doesn't (so far as I am aware) treat kitesurfers as aircraft does not make it so. It may be that they are just kites, dealt with by the kite provisions of the regulations. The clue may be in the name.
You should read the section for breach of which you've been charged. There is one definition for the purposes of that section: "flight time". You should read that too, so that you can then find out what the tern "flight time" actually means in the section for breach of which you've actually been charged.
Not every object is a "machine" or "craft". The drafters of the definition have already limited the scope of the definition so as to exclude, for example, rocks.
How do you know a kitesurfer isn't an aircraft as defined? Are you able to cite authority for that? The fact that CASA doesn't (so far as I am aware) treat kitesurfers as aircraft does not make it so. It may be that they are just kites, dealt with by the kite provisions of the regulations. The clue may be in the name.
If this particular argument about the PG versus kite surfer came to light, common sense would say that a kite surfer is not a threat to the safe operation of another aircraft as it primarily spends it's time on the water. A PG or HG for that matter, can be launched and flown freely from the side of a cliff at high altitudes and may present as a risk to "real" aircraft if not flown safely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this particular argument about the PG versus kite surfer came to light, common sense would say that a kite surfer is not a threat to the safe operation of another aircraft as it primarily spends it's time on the water. A PG or HG for that matter, can be launched and flown freely from the side of a cliff at high altitudes and may present as a risk to "real" aircraft if not flown safely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A side point re Part 149.
As posted above, the APF are handed contracts to "agree with" after the fact (seems invalid under Contracts Law?).
Noting it was a 2014 sub, it becomes an interesting fact pattern ahead of the court case for the sad ABC news item here.
As posted above, the APF are handed contracts to "agree with" after the fact (seems invalid under Contracts Law?).
Noting it was a 2014 sub, it becomes an interesting fact pattern ahead of the court case for the sad ABC news item here.
Last edited by skinduptruk; 14th Feb 2022 at 09:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*sigh*
You should read the section for breach of which you've been charged. There is one definition for the purposes of that section: "flight time". You should read that too, so that you can then find out what the tern "flight time" actually means in the section for breach of which you've actually been charged.
Not every object is a "machine" or "craft". The drafters of the definition have already limited the scope of the definition so as to exclude, for example, rocks.
How do you know a kitesurfer isn't an aircraft as defined? Are you able to cite authority for that? The fact that CASA doesn't (so far as I am aware) treat kitesurfers as aircraft does not make it so. It may be that they are just kites, dealt with by the kite provisions of the regulations. The clue may be in the name.
You should read the section for breach of which you've been charged. There is one definition for the purposes of that section: "flight time". You should read that too, so that you can then find out what the tern "flight time" actually means in the section for breach of which you've actually been charged.
Not every object is a "machine" or "craft". The drafters of the definition have already limited the scope of the definition so as to exclude, for example, rocks.
How do you know a kitesurfer isn't an aircraft as defined? Are you able to cite authority for that? The fact that CASA doesn't (so far as I am aware) treat kitesurfers as aircraft does not make it so. It may be that they are just kites, dealt with by the kite provisions of the regulations. The clue may be in the name.
Sorry, I kept cropping the text in an effort to be concise, but that is causing issues I see. Here it is in full.
PG charge.
