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?

The ESL areas are RA1s for the most part - you can plan though them and expect a clearance. They are usually released above FL200 to the civil sectors anyway. Hornets can go that high, but you usually don't see them down at Sale. I think they did a simplification a few years ago so there wasn't a heap of vertically spliced areas that made NOTAM lists hard to read. So hence we have 'just in case' airspace - we will activate the lot as it's easier to read, and then release what we don't need and you can flight plan though them. Reasonable compromise I'd say.

Don't you know about the bird?

There a re 3 kinds of bird..two-legged pneumatic front bumper ones, feathery ones that fly, and the finger one as in "giving the ...

And lots of them feathery ones around the cay that is the subject of the thread.

The Q remains..for a Licence issue for the perp. What did he/she do exactly?
Whats the get...?
Penalty notice and fine. (Max, of course) ? 3 Licence demerit points..or more,?
Licence suspended, and/or prosecution pending.?

I am aware there are some hairy -chested and heavy on the punitive side in the CNS CAsA office...bash folk and it makes it much safer.

I think Dicks point was that you may be breaking the law, but you aren't breaking the aviation regulations. My understanding is that if you fly lower than the specified altitude over a wildlife refuge, it's the US fish and Wildlife Service which prosecutes you for a violation of their laws ie: disturbing wildlife. Vs the FAA prosecuting you for flying low.

Ornithological designation for migratory ones "Red headed double breasted mattress thrashers":E

Well aroa, rutan... looks like you two know that the bird is the word!

A2- ok I understand, but why is it considered, by Dick, to be such a big deal about "who" does the prosecuting? With different rules should we have parks and wildlife, or whatever they are in QLD, prosecute the pilot instead? At the end of the day what is the REAL difference?

You’ll have to ask Dick. For what it’s worth he’s on a crusade that Australia should do things the way the US does them, at least in terms of Aviation.

A2, yes I'm well aware of the crusade. Personal agendas seem to be at play too, take the token dig at ADSB in the opening post, it just had to be slipped in there, when, on the current face value, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Just because the Americans do aviation one way doesn't necessarily mean it's "the best" way. Granted they do do many things better, but not all.

In my first reply to the topic I asked for more facts. None have been forthcoming.

Well, if CAsA are going to prosecute, and EPA are going to prosecute,..why not get the QPS to prosecute as well, and the AFP ???

Might as well shoot the poor fellow.

He /she infringed an area /restricted zone...for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons...birds flying, nesting and etc. Keep clear, keep it quiet.

So where is the safety implication that CAsA gets so frothy about. Killed a gull, caused the a/c to crash land?? Pray tell.

Not sure if Soft breasted Pushovers are migratory, but in the movie house Intermission Pee Wees move about a lot.

Ramrod,
Quite true, but the way US do it is way ahead of Australia, with Australia vying for the title of "How not to do aviation, but how just to do it over".
Which planet do you actually live on?? Can you read the relative statistics??
Tootle pip!!

One can imagine any pilot flying an aircraft with a current and signed maintenance release has access to an accurate and functioning device for measuring height. What such device does National Parks or CAsA have when relying upon witness or complainants at ground level to determine if indeed the aircraft is below that allowed.

Checked with Airservices or RAAF SSR or ADS-B?

and
So you since found out more?

"Checked with Airservices or RAAF SSR or ADS-B?"


Thanks Captain. A predictable reply which vindicates my objections to mandatory ADSB as a surveillance tool and not a traffic separation/ safety device. The fraud is exposed again. SSR likewise if used as a prosecution tool.


I'm off next week to Canberra to get my identity specific forehead implant. Doesn't hurt a bit so I'm told.

One event versus the thousands of times a day that ADS-B and SSR are used for separation, traffic and safety purposes, including prevention of penetration of controlled airspace and RAs :ugh:

Same planet as you buddy. I think, that is unless you aren't on this one.
As to the statistics, is that just a general question on the US vs Aus flying or what relative ones are you specifically referring to? And yes I can read.
Meow!!


Frank- ADSB, radar or not, if one doesn't do the wrong thing, especially intentionally, then one has nothing to worry about.


Aroa- are you suggesting that the restricted areas (and I suppose prohibited areas too) should be controlled by different bodies (Geosience Australia, Navy, Army, Air Force, CSIRO etc)? Why? Why not one central place (CASA)? Once again what is the REAL problem here, other than an anti-CASA rant?

Nope...just posing the Q...what was the 'crime'...and against whom, for what????

Maybe I'll have to just read about it in the papers or AAT or someplace.

We actually do not know. Dick has not been forthcoming with any details. As I said in my initial reply, I highly doubt that an accidental flight through an RA would result in license action. There's either more to the story, or Dick is just on yet another anti-CASA, anti-ADSB (it had nothing to do with the supposed incident), sensationalism-filled rant.

Come on. This is a rumour network.

It appears the licence suspension may have been for a series of problems.

I was mainly concerned about restricted areas being created for environmental purposes. Now I see it’s not new and it appears CASA has resisted rolling out 100’s

Thanks CASA!

Car Ramrod you seem to suffer the same difficulty with understanding the separation of powers as Joh Bjelke Petersen and look how he ended up.

How far would you want to separate the power though rutan?

For example hoon up and down the coastline at 10ft. Do you just want casa or a bunch of local city councils or coppers from different states (because you crossed the border) after you?
The way some councils work, I'd rather it be casa!

I see it as if you fly a plane in a manner or in a location you shouldn't, answer to the aviation side of things rather than some other department who has even less of a clue when it comes to operation of an aircraft. Mostly because that's simplicity; and I'm not afraid of casa like many others are.


Dick, thanks for your addition clearing the license action matter up a bit. I knew there would be more to it.