Restricted areas in Oz for environmental purposes being used to suspend pilot licence
 

I have recently been told that a pilot had licence action taken for flying in the R766 “ environmental” Michaelmas Cay restricted area. It appears the pilot was identified by Airservices Australia radar and the controller reported it to CASA. No doubt more and more of these reports will be put in now that ADSB identifies the aircraft by registration.

Could it be true that there are going to be thousands of these restricted areas incorporated over every environmentally sensitive area of Australia? If there is one at Michaelmas Cay, why not everywhere else?

Does anyone know why the USA does not use restricted areas to protect nature?

Lead. Is this a correct usage of restricted areas?

Be interesting to see the LAW on this as opposed to CAsA's "just-arse" culture and methods.

While many birds are airborne around Michealmas Cay...is this "restricted" zone for wildlife protection ?.. therefore the province of the EPA.? Or "safety" and CAsA want to be in on the action.

Lots of cays , lots of birds all over the Barrier reef, even at places with chopper pontoons ...just ask John Quadrio., and learn about the disgusting treatment he got by those disgusting employees of CAsA. Scandalous in the extreme.
But unfortunately all too common.

It's quite obvious that the area has been established to prevent activities, in this case aviation, that are going to have an impact on the environment. I reckon that if I came and did burn outs in my Cortina with Conway Twitty blaring on the radio around Terry Hills I wouldn't have a driver's license for long either.

It doesn't really matter what the RA was established for, and if Ol' mate deliberately violated it then yes, he deserves the pineapple.

What makes an RA established for environmental protective reasons any less important than an RA established to keep you from being shot down by a live firing range or the RA over Sydney Harbour??

But what was he doing so low, so far out - and did he have the required life jackets and/or live rafts required for flight beyond gliding distance from land? Seems there could be a bit more than just a simple 'inadvertent' RA violation??

You have clearly misunderstood what I am getting at.

Are the fly neighbourly areas I introduced in the 90s to be replaced with restricted areas and licence suspensions?

We copied the fly neighbourly areas from overseas. Is there a problem here?

Well maybe you should provide more information.
I find it hard to believe your story with such finite details. I'd be very surprised if an accidental flight through an RA would result in a suspended license.
Couple in your token anti-ADSB sentiment and it seems like another sensationalist grab at some attention.
More facts, less emotion. Please.

By the way, in FAA-land if you disturb certain wildlife in designated areas you are breaking the law. They don't have "restricted areas" per se, but they do have some wildlife protections in place.

I understand what you are getting at and watch in dismay as National Parks try to intervene in aviation when they know sweet FA. I don't know this area or the RA but I know of other areas where do gooders are getting their way to the detriment of aviation.

I am surprised that the sentiment of this thread already seems to be backing CASA

Re " We copied the fly neighbourly areas from overseas. Is there a problem here?"

YEP!! Try landing at JT after the 6PM 'curfew', and under their 'good neighbour policy' ....I wonder where they got that from....fork out another $20....KA_CHING!!

For putting the wheels of a Tiger Moth down after 6pm local, when LL in Summer is around 7.50 pm......or thereabouts.....and those Summer evenings are LUVLY flying weather........

First word = 'Rip'

Second word = 'OFF'!!

NO Cheers......Bah Humbug! :mad::mad::mad:

Any idea how long R766 has existed for? At least 15 years. How many restricted areas do we have that were established for environmental reasons? One.

So no, it's not the thin end of the wedge but a very specific exclusion. It's a one nautical mile in radius due to extreme sensitivity of nesting birds. Boats are regulated to one vessel per day.

JADSBU - just another Dick Smith beat up.

Michaelmas is a sensitive bird breeding area, amongst other things

Interesting there is also a reference to "Fly neighbourly" on that website... just in case you thought you were missing out on some credit.

There are literally two other cays (three if you still count Upolo) within a couple of minutes flight time from Michaelmas, plus a bunch of others a little further away. So why did your mate think he was entitled to disregard the rules, given ignorance is not a valid defence?

References:

Airspace Regulations 2007 Part 6
DAH Section 13 PRD-31
CASA: Airspace Risk and Safety Management Manual Section 3.6

They said the same 50 years ago when transponders came in.

Don't bust restricted airspace without a clearance/approval.

What's the big deal?

It's a restricted area below 3,000ft. Simply don't fly over the Restricted Area below 3,000ft. I'm waiting for someone to complain about Millennials feeling "entitled", and then whinging about not being able to fly thru Restricted Areas.

According to Schedule 3 it's the only 'Environmental" Restricted Area in Australia.

YBBB/R766 MICHAELMAS CAY CONDITIONAL STATUS: RA3
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTED AREA LATERAL LIMITS: A circle of 1.00NM radius centred on
16 36 23S 145 58 22E
VERTICAL LIMITS: SFC - 3000
HOURS OF ACTIVITY: H24
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY: GBRMPA

@DickSmith - just as GNSS is a much better replacement for ADFs, ADSB will be a worthwhile upgrade to primary/secondary radar.

Please stop trying to scare people into a frenzy with half-baked claims and make a fact-based analysis.

I have recently been told that a pilot had licence action taken...

Not really first hand, verified information.

Does it comply with the law of the land?

What makes you think it doesn't? They're clearly allowed to:

Airspace Regulations 2007

6 Designation of prohibited, restricted or danger areas

(3) CASA must not declare an area to be a restricted area unless, in the opinion of
CASA, it is necessary to restrict the flight of aircraft over the area to aircraft
flown in accordance with specified conditions in the interests of any of the
following:

(a) public safety, including the safety of aircraft in flight;

(b) the protection of the environment;

(c) security.


https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00341

Because subsection (1) of section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act is cited so frequently as the justification for just about anything, few people get to subsection (2), which says:Subsection (2) has profound theoretical implications that are generally not realised practically, as a consequence of politics.

I have been in Cairns for 22 years and R766 has been active all that time. It is an important bird breeding site.
There have been many aircraft that have infringed this R area in that time, including an RAAF Hawk. As I understand it, most have just had a please explain. So do your own thinking as to why this person has had licence action.

DON'T LET THE FACTS...
 

Dick,

Your memory seem to have faded a little. Surely you remember that as a Queen's Scout we trust you to be truthful. I'm sure Snapppy and GLS would take umbrage at your suggestion that it was you, alone, who introduced FNA's.

As for Michaelmas Cay: As a newly minted Staff Officer and observer of the GBRMPA I visited the Cay in early 1987. Even though not having wings myself I was appalled at what I saw and took several photographs. When these were developed (yes, it was that long ago) I passed then around the flying types on the 9th Floor (of A Block, Russell Offices) and a warning was immediately issued to ADF pilots to avoid the area. Have you been there and seen the density of birds? Whatever the formal reason, it's a very practical example of one of the reasons "restricted areas" are declared - the safety of aircraft.

MJG
Getting on these days but still with some great memories to mind - did I spell that correctly?

Havent yet seen the specific details of what flying matey actually did...can someone fill that gap.
Within 1 mile ? Low? Over the cay ??

One aircraft flyby or whatever... ONE boat of tourists a day.
Obviously there's a sensitive ornothological difference.?? What ??

Protection of these places was/is needed. In the days of yore boaties used to go out an fishing trips and bring 'Fido' along for the days fun. Once ashore you can imagine the mayhem.!!

I do have a fond memory from long, long ago of a showery moonlit night, having to sleep on the beach at Upolu Cay?. Damp, dry, Wet, dry, crabs checking the head over for dandruff or whatever. And the noise !!.. birds came and went or flew circuits all night, calling to chicks ,mates or just sky yakking.. Certainly a 'lovely' night !!... cloudy with great swirls of birds, moonlit shadowy clouds and curtains of light rain.
Notable.

I once brought it to the attention of the previous DAS that there is far too much restricted airspace in Australia and that in the USA, you can pretty much fly over an Air Force Base at 3,500ft without talking to anyone, and you would have thought I had just been caught sleeping with the DAS's wife by the way he reacted!

To the average PPL out there, Restricted airspace is just a no-go area, don't bother trying to ask for a clearance, and there is a Gazillion square miles of the stuff along the east coast alone.

Why is the tops of the Restricted airspace at East Sale FL450? Nothing there flies that high! So why?