PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Infringements Airspace (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/638722-infringements-airspace.html)

PoppaJo 17th Feb 2021 09:22

Infringements Airspace
 
Infringements can obviously be issued for breaching restricted airspace, but what about State Government departments issuing whatever the hell they want for breaching airspace limitations around state parks, island, bird breeding etc...First I’ve heard of this.

Perhaps they need to include these warnings in the ERSA? Of the financial consequences for doing so, even 1ft into such airspace you will be issued with a 4 to 5 figure fine.

Where exactly do they get the alt info from? I mean you could probably win these fairly easy in court if you claim you breached such airspace ‘in the interests of safety’ or some bulldust, or even claiming said departments are sourcing alt info from third party apps.

I’m all for following the rules but having some large scale fine appear in the letterbox for breaching bird breeding zones, by accident, by 50ft? Really?


Squawk7700 17th Feb 2021 10:23

Please tell us more, or a similar location where such airspace exists. Which department issued the “fine?”

triadic 17th Feb 2021 10:26

As I understand it, airspace is a natioal (federal) responsibility. If some other organisation or state govt dept wants to have some say over airspace then they need to consult the OAR at CASA who will consider all the factors, consult with industry and then make a decision which to take effect would be reflected by NOTAM or in ERSA or perhaps an AIP SUP.

cattletruck 17th Feb 2021 10:45

I too thought the feds ran the domain above the ground, maybe if you force land into one of these areas the state and/or local jurisdictions may hit you for littering. Otherwise it just may be a scam.

Sunfish 17th Feb 2021 12:20

ADSB - out allows the creation of an infinite number of "red light cameras" at zero cost. Do you think Federal, State and local Government will resist the opportunity to generate fines revenue generated from infringing all sorts of "zones" by a few metres? Think again.

Squawk7700 17th Feb 2021 19:37

50ft does not sound like an acceptable tolerance for the infringement either. Air pressure difference, calibration or equipment etc. It sounds like it would be very difficult to enforce, but none the less has the potential to cost you time and a decent amount of money to fight.

KRviator 17th Feb 2021 20:29

Didn't Dick Smith bring up something like this a few years ago? Some particular Class-R off the Queensland coast where it was alleged a pilot was hot-dogging at low level or something and scaring the birds?

I've never heard of a state Government even considering issuing fines for airspace violations, though it does sound like something Victoria would try on, after charging for approaches to ASA owned navaids in years gone by...

Car RAMROD 17th Feb 2021 22:33

But the USA, the place so many here like to say is so much better than Aus when it comes to flying/regs, definitely has restrictions against flying over certain national parks/wildlife refuges.


Having said that though, I’m not against charted areas of no-fly/height/distance type restrictions to protect our wildlife.
enforcement for breaching them? Yeah why not. It can be like any other rule.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 18th Feb 2021 06:58


If some other organisation or state govt dept wants to have some say over airspace
I seem to remember a couple of states recently mandating mask wearing for anyone in "their" airspace

Lead Balloon 18th Feb 2021 08:06

The declaration and regulation of airspace use for safety purposes is the Commonwealth's patch. That doesn't mean it's the Commonwealth's property ...

witwiw 18th Feb 2021 12:49

[QUOTEInfringements can obviously be issued for breaching restricted airspace, but what about State Government departments issuing whatever the hell they want for breaching airspace limitations around state parks, island, bird breeding etc...][/QUOTE]

Can you show us some evidence to support your claim? I can’t find anything relevant so would appreciate your help.

Styx75 19th Feb 2021 08:26

I read somewhere that there's rules for how low you can fly over the top of whales (1000ft from memory).

​​​​​​Ive noticed to that from about 2000ft whales will dive under water when flying near them so there's probably something to that rule.

PoppaJo 19th Feb 2021 21:41

Occurring from Townsville to Horn. Government Park Bodies.

Bird breeding areas appear to be very sensitive at the moment.

jonkster 20th Feb 2021 00:14


Originally Posted by PoppaJo (Post 10992125)
Infringements can obviously be issued for breaching restricted airspace, but what about State Government departments issuing whatever the hell they want for breaching airspace limitations around state parks, island, bird breeding etc...First I’ve heard of this.

Perhaps they need to include these warnings in the ERSA? Of the financial consequences for doing so, even 1ft into such airspace you will be issued with a 4 to 5 figure fine.

There are Fly Neighbourly Agreements - is this what you are referring to? The ERSA has details on these (GEN SP section).

I didn't think you could be fined for infringing these. Have you been fined - could you supply more details on who issued the fines if so?

Otherwise are these just restricted areas created on the basis of environmental sensitivity? I know there used to be some at one point - again these would be in ERSA and infringements would be same as infringing any other restricted airspace surely?

Or is this something else again not administered as part of airspace stuff?

Squawk7700 20th Feb 2021 00:36

Infringing by 50ft would not be legally enforceable, bin the “fine.” Waste of paper and postage fees.

How did they ascertain your altitude and when was the equipment last calibrated? Can of worms!

McLimit 20th Feb 2021 01:55

Haven't you lot heard of circuit breakers or on/off switches?

Sunfish 20th Feb 2021 10:50

Haven't you heard of CAO 20.18 9B(5)?

McLimit 20th Feb 2021 10:58


Haven't you heard of CAO 20.18 9B(5)?
And?

or

So what?

(Choose either answer)

Sunfish 20th Feb 2021 19:58

If you have it, you must use it. Switching off is not an option if its serviceable and compliant.


9B.5 If an aircraft in flight carries serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment, the equipment must be operated:

(a) for equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XI — continuously during the flight in all airspace and at all altitudes, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC; and

(b) for equipment that complies with the approved equipment configuration set out in Appendix XII, XIII, or XIV — continuously during the flight, within the airspace and within the altitude limits specified for the flight in the applicable Appendix, unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC.

McLimit 20th Feb 2021 22:16


If you have it, you must use it. Switching off is not an option if its serviceable and compliant.
And again;

And?

or

So what?


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:01.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.