CASA approval required for a fly-in???
 

Rumour going around that CASA are planning to implement requirements associated with a fly-in depending on how many aircraft are to attend (how do you know that?). Anyone know of this proposal and when it has or will be tabled for industry consultation. A fly-in in this context is one that is not open or advertised to the general public.

Can you please write to them (CASA) and tell them that.

Source? and what is "fun" ramp check at a remote field or FF points & per diem?

Perhaps it should be a strict liability offence for more than a CASA-determined number of private aircraft to be in closer than a CASA-determined distance to each other, without CASA approval. Just cut and paste the bikie consorting laws. Let's face it: more than a few aircraft within a few square kilometres of airspace are bound to be a risk to the safety of air navigation and persons on the ground, and the pilots are bound to be in some kind of criminal conspiracy.

CASA should start with the Women Pilots Association's planned fly in to William Creek later this year. It's dangerous and unnatural enough to let one women fly, but think how dangerous and criminal it must be when more than one of 'them' get together!

I ran a number of airshows in the late eighties. In that era, guys from CASA would turn up and HELP. By help, I mean sleeves rolled physical moving things, etc. They would be a source of advice and I can recall one instance when were were in danger of doing something wrong and the CASA guy had a quite discussion with the airshow director, told him the concerns and helped in the countermeasure.

Just think about that. A CASA guy working face to face with people to provide advice and system to create a safer event. Not a wet behind the ear public servant holding a rule book and looking for a reason to prosecute someone.

How on earth did we get here?

Talking to some guys that run airshows now, the hardest parts is not CASA (although they could be in no way described as helpful). The hardest part is the local council, insurance, creating risk management plans, making sure all the food vendors have the proper food handling certificates, etc.

There used to be a lot of airshows - country flying clubs, etc. Now there are few. There was (to my recollection) no incidents that demanded making running them harder, but now you pretty much need 2 years planning and a full time guy to deal with the bureaucracy.

That would mean Trevor has been running a dangerous operation for many a year with his brood of Angels of the Outback. ;) Where are you Pilotette?

Don't know the strength of the story of an airshow celebrating the opening of a strip, but it was said many, many years ago that, whatever name CASA went by at the time, reps were going around pinging folks for landing at the airstrip which they deemed was not up to standards due to the proximity of power lines at one end. The question was asked of them how they were going to get their piston Aero Commander, the only twin present, out of there.

CASA Manual says

"Fly-in, Competition or Cross country event:
A gathering of aircraft at an event or competition not on the basis of a general public invitation (A club event where no invitation is made to the general public [[similar clubs or groups exempted]) does not need to apply for an air display approval from CASA. CASA recommends that the safety management and third party considerations are followed."

Nothing to see here people, but I still would not be shouting my intentions to run a fly-in too loudly, because they do have every right to show up on the day.
Reminds me of the time a CASA FOI took a close interest in my little Sonex at a fly-in. Noting the lack of equipment on board he casually asked how I navigated. I pulled out my trusty motorcycle atlas, complete with pencilled-in tracks and distances. He thought I was joking but truth is that is exactly what I used. I found it a whole lot more comforting to know where all the roads and country pubs were than information offered by any 'official' aviation publication.

I would suggest in future we don't actually go to any 'flyins" but should the local aero club be holding a bar-b-que lunch along with its Annual General Meeting then what ever means of transport we elect to use to attend that function is a matter for us alone.

CC

Sunfish,
Already done, the rapidly expanding Sports Aviation Office Empire/Fiefdom/Silo/Administrative Center of Air Safety Excellence/description of choice is very much in being, and under "new management" will be out to "make its mark".

At the risk of being just a teensie weensie bit controversial, which I am not normally, but in this case I will make an exception:

"CASA has no power to control airshows, to the degree that any legislation administered by CASA that seeks to control airshows is unconstitutional".

Quite simply (nothing to do with Constitutional interpretation is ever simple) and unlike many/most other countries, the Commonwealth of Australia has, in fact, very limited powers over aviation.

In a nutshell, aviation is "state's rights", not the Commonwealth Government.

The Commonwealth power, such as it is, depends on the treaty making powers of the Commonwealth under the constitution, if it isn't in an aviation treaty (Chicago et al) CASA (the Commonwealth) has no power.

Show me the "airshow/fly-in" provisions of any aviation treaty.

Let's see what this brings out of the woodwork??

Tootle pip!!

PS: I am not saying this is a "good thing", as it happens I think there should be cost benefit justified rules to control genuine risks at "airshows", but not the increasingly over the top nonsense of "perceived" risks.
And certainly not the CASA propensity to treat any gathering as an "enhanced localised opportunity to conduct intensive aviation safety surveillance" (ramp checks to you and me.)

You might want to expand on that statement. When the Constitution came into being aviation didn't exist so how can they lay claim to aviation as part of their residual powers?