An interesting NOTAM?
 

AUSTRALIA GEN (YBBB/YMMM)

C14/10

EFFECTIVE 31 MARCH 2010 CASA WILL BEGIN ISSUING
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES TO THE REGISTERED OPERATORS OF
ANY AIRCRAFT EXCEEDING 250 KTS BELOW 10,000 FT WHEN
NOT AUTHORISED BY ATC.

INFRINGEMENTS SERVED UNDER REGULATION 296b
WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED FROM DATA DERIVED
FROM AN AIRCRAFT'S ADS-B SYSTEM WHEN THAT AIRCRAFT
EXCEEDS 250 KTS BELOW 10,000 FT IN ANY CLASS OF
AIRSPACE.

WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURS IN CLASS C, D OR E
AIRSPACE, THE SYSTEM WILL CORRELATE DATS DERIVED FROM
THE AUSTRALIAN ADVANCED AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM TO
DETERMINE IF ATC HAD CANCELLED THE SPEED RESTRICTION.
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AN INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL
NOT BE ISSUED.

WITHIN 28 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF AN INFRINGEMENT NOTICE,
THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT IS REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE CASA WITH THE NAME AND ARN OF THE PILOT IN
COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT AT THE TIME THE OFFENCE WAS
COMMITTED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
REGULATION 296E, FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT DEALING
WITH THE INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT
NOTICE.

FROM 03 311300 TO PERM

Hopefully all the fees can go to buying a keyboard that hasn't got a sticking shift key :mad:

This is a significant development. CASA is using technology developed for improving the safety and efficiency of air traffic and using it to initiate punitive measures.

Can you imagine the difficulty in combating a bogus fine? What if the 'air traffic system' has a burp and doesn't record the issuing of a speed waver. CASA records it as a breach, sends out a fine and is chasing you and your license. 28 days or so later you find out about it and what have you got recourse to for evidence? CVR tapes long gone, ATC tapes - possibly not available. It's just your voice against theirs saying "but I was issued with a speed waver - I swear...!"

Easy fix for this is do not put ADS-B in your aircraft and all is fine, except Australia continues to go backwards in the world of professional aviation.

Nig

Who called me paranoid about "big brother" watching when the ADSB debate was in full swing. Mark this down as the first of many.:mad:

Of course 'revenue raising' wouldn't have anything to with this would it...? I should wash my mouth out with soap for even suggesting...! :yuk: :ugh:

Dear oh Dear :D

One to you Air Ace .... but you are 4 days early :E

Got ya Frank :D check the date and time of effect :}, assuming of course you can convert UTC to Local ;)

:D:D:D

Since when was today April fools day...? :confused: :}

Seriously though - would not surprise me at all...

Australia - The Nanny State...:mad::mad::mad:

F.F.S you sooks. :rolleyes: The real C14/10 is as follows:-
And when would 03 311300 UTC be ..... think about it :ugh:

As the teenyboppers and kiddies these days would say...

PWNED!!!!111

Thoug it did have me going for a bit too. Well done...:}

Isn't the aircraft speed as reported by ADS-B ground-speed from the GPS?

No ADSB reports IAS as well.

Had me going for a little while too:ok:

So this thread is about a false and misleading statement in the form of a NOTAM?:rolleyes: Why don't you try this on some of our airport "security" staff. They have a great sense of humour:uhoh:

You had me worried about my local flying. I'll probably get caught one day. But thanks for the "heads up" Chaser, I always thought with your caustic record you wouldn't bother.:hmm:

EDIT to add; Grandkids just told me the penalty for April fools jokes before the day or after 12 noon, (no mention of GMT or whatever), is a Chinese burn "AND" a "corked" shoulder. Someone's in deep trouble!:ooh:

Some of us have a sense of humour :) well done Air Ace

Considering the gumbiment continuously looks at finding new ways to generate revenue; like trying to fit GPS based speed detection devices to all newly manufactured cars, this would come as no surprise. :ugh: Probably why so many people were quick to believe it.

This has probably just given CASA an idea!

Starts with cheers - ends with tears.:{

I understand they are going to bring in a number of lower speed limits for aircraft in C above "pressure points" such as Hornsby - a bit like the lower speed limits in school zones.

I am told the proposed limit will be 145 knots.

The reason for the other decision is that one particular Airline has been flying below 10,000' at speeds up to 255- 258 knots giving them an unfair advantage over others who comply with the law.

Dick

With respect, but what a load of crap.

5-8 kts indicated from 30 miles is going to give you a whole 10-15 secs advantage by the time you configure.

As for 145 kts at Hornsby - well it wont be in 737's or other jets - might be alright for a slowtation - sorry citation...

Seriously Frank I don't think the 250 knot limit will ever be a problem for your "local flying."


I can proudly say that I smashed the limit a couple of years ago in a single engine piston. 9,500ft on descent over Tulla into Moorabbin, SR22, 200 indicated, add for TAS and a massive tail wind giving 270 knots. Can't complain.

Perhaps Dick is just getting into the spirit of the OP.

Its IAS anyway, not TAS and certainly not GS. Just as well as the GAM shrikes at AD and EN would have to slow down most nights in winter.

VH-XXX;

You can't claim a tailwind!

May 1974. FL 240 ISA, night flight Dubbo to Sydney 3 POB V35TC VH-DLO, 200 Kts straight and level before descent, normal predicted TAS.

GPS wasn't invented then. I descended at book figures, but ATC wanted a high speed ability below 10,000 due traffic separation which was accomplished OK.

A good tin aeroplane is probably as good as your modern "plastic fantastics":ok:

And what is the VNE for an SR22 Mr XXX ? := With an estimated TAS of 225 there! :uhoh:

I would not like you doing that in any Cirrus that I owned......not that I would!;)

J:E

And Frank, was the VNE on that model 195kts? What TAS did you achieve n the way down ? :eek:

Them tin bits may have parted company....... then what? :uhoh:

Just looked at the notes I still have. ISA VNE 195 Kts CAS. Full throttle, 2500 RPM 75% 214 BHP FL 240 is 230 MPH./ 199.64 Kts. Descent as previously stated, at book figures. Strong as a "bone". Max speed below 10,000 in those days was, from memory, 200 Kts.

I assume that the 199knots is TAS not IAS?

The V Tail must have a tolerence beyond 195 for TAS then if they publish that as being acceptable behaviour. Where is the Dr when you need him!:cool:

Fishing! :E

Dr :8

Easy Jaba. 201 KIAS. Only an irresponsible fellow would go over VNE.

Don't try that at home in the RV10 or you'll get that dreaded wing flutter I have been reading about.

Flutter? Scary stuff in a PA30...

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Mov...EM-0098-01.mov

Vne in the Bonanza is 196 kts. I believe that they are test flown to 10% above that before delivery.

So what is the "margin for error" ? Dunno, but the ruddervator beef-up AD is some comfort.

I rarely descend above top of the green - but that's just me.

Jaba doesn't seem to have the same reservations on descent in the Retard Vehicle - when trying to stay ahead of the FTDK! :E

Dr :8

I was NOBBLED???:eek:

The pansies who programmed my Boeing's FMS put in a limit of 245 BLO 10k, just so we don't get caught for hooning. Wusses. :ugh: :yuk:

:E yes, but we know 'the dart' will downhill much better than that :}

As long as it is not Class E :hmm:

C and D in Oz enable fast descents [for sequencing] because VFR hear IFR, and IFR hear VFR, you are known about by ATC, who is not going to let you hit one another ;)

In E, well, even 250kts reducing is gunna be a Mark 1 EB challenge.

At least in the 30nm CTAF/CAGRO IFR can hear VFR broadcasts

Chimbu Chuck,

How does this work??

Light aircraft don't (usually) have an ADC, or any other digitized IAS data, the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder plus GDL 90 GPS source has no IAS input of any kind, I was not aware that IAS was a required input into an ADS-B/C message??

Tootle pip??

PS: Re. Class E airspace, can ATC really give an exemption to a statutory speed limit. Last time I read the rules, ATC could only waive a speed limit in A and C??
But maybe I have missed an amendment??

Unfortunately, 250 kt. is often a very inefficient speed for many large aircraft, particularly on climb at heavy weights. Anybody for Flaps 1 to 10,000 on a 744 at max weight. Not any time this pilot is flying one, see the airplane flight manual.

Yep, 300, 250 or 200 woouldn't make any difference:

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w...SAwaytogo2.jpg

:E
In class E? I would not think so. Even if ATC technically could, not too many ATC's would accept responsibility for increasing the risk [higher closing speeds] to pilots [the unkown VFR and/or IFR] who are left reliant on seeing [and avoiding] each other.

In terminal area [where climb and descent is part of the conflict exposure] E, nobody knows with any certainty, the track or altitude intentions of a large proportion of the conflict scenarios i.e. the VFR component. In D or higher categories they do.

ARFOR,

That's the point, speed limits in A/C (have a think about the new D, maybe another legislative change coming up) can clearly be waived, but it is a statutory limit in E and G.

Therefor, only the pilot in command can, on legitimate safety grounds, can determine that 250 kt below 10,000 can be exceeded.

Unfortunately, our regulations are far from clear, as to the authority of the PIC is concerned, compared to FAR 91.3.

See also Part 91.117(d), whereas in AU, the power of the PIC to do as in (d) must be inferred.

Receiving a bluie (administrative fine) in the mail effectively (if not strictly legally) leaves you "guilty" unless you can prove your innocence, including by virtue of exercising the authority of the PIC.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Extract from FARs.

§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

I was referring to my day job, actually mostly night job, Boeing 767. We have been told that IAS is displayed to ATC - I remember thinking when told "FCK that SUCKS!!":E

Yes they are. The table of airspace services and requirements in AIP is quite clear. The PIC has no authority, except as granted by the CARs, to bust any speed limit in that table.

All that USA "authority" is just extra rules that the yanks have decided to impose. I wonder if they have lodged differences with ICAO? :cool: