Ultralight injures 2 in Mackay

[forexjohnny]

Aldo,

 

I wrote my comment because I understand the context of this thread. You want to hammer a fellow pilot because he had an accident at low altitude without you knowing the full story. Then you imply that all who fly at such altitudes are irresponsible regardless of their having every right to be doing so. I do not know the circumstances surrounding this accident and I hope both recover soon. I do not condone irresponsible and dangerous flying but clearly dangerous to one pilot is standard for others. The regulations are there to make the playing field level and give each individual pilot the right to determine their risk assessment within these parameters. You may not like it but well quite frankly you are not required to.

 

If flying without a radio is dangerous and all who do so are fools then you swing a big bat at a lot of people including the governing body of this sport that makes the rules. My CFI is a retired senior instructor with the RAAF and I would suggest has far more experience than you yet he has flown for years in his Aerochute without a radio. There are areas and situations where their use is required so I just avoid these. I understand and respect your opinions on these matters but you attitude sucks

 

John

 

 

[ianwells]

Aldo

 

I do always carry and use an airband radio, this area was CTAF R so legally required to do so, and good common sense. In a previous life as cross country paraglider pilot where every flight was a cross coutry flight with an outlanding somewhere, we were continually on the look out for power lines and were (still are I think) legally able to fly well below 500' many a time have been able to scratch up into another thermal from just above the deck, or ridge soaring inches above the trees.

 

I dont believe ANY paragliders or hangliders carried VHF raios, seperation was purely visual with many pilots in very tight thermals, radios would be useless in this situatuion, so do you still call all paragliders and hanglider pilots fools?

 

Regulations are different for different types of flying, and what you may think is foolish in your type of flying is common practice in others.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aldo, you may not be able to win this argument with these people, but CASA people look at this site every day like the rest of us, and they've certainly speeded up the chances of a tap on the shoulder or an audit of this area.

 

 

[johnm]

we will have to develope a code book and distribute via this membership ....................... and commnicate coded

 

we can be the free agents .......................................... CASA can be the .........

 

 

[503]

Yep two or three feet agl above a nice crop for a couple hundred meters is just the best fun , with permission and when legal.but yes the trees are softer at the top

 

 

[forexjohnny]

Aldo, you may not be able to win this argument with these people, but CASA people look at this site every day like the rest of us, and they've certainly speeded up the chances of a tap on the shoulder or an audit of this area.

Actually I met a CASA “people” in my area the other day and we had a great chat about flying in this area. Do you really think I do not know that CASA reads this site? They do a great job in very difficult circumstances and I for one do not fear their visits because if you bothered to read, all my flying is LEGAL.

 

This may as well be a GA site because all you are doing is promoting an us and them attitude when clearly the regulations support both. On that note I hope you and your “people” have a really nice day.

 

John

 

 

[nong]

It is my opinion and no doubt this is your opinion, I don't believe it is safe - being totally oblivious to what is going on around you and if you think that you can see any other aircraft in your vacinity then you really do have your head up your backside (unless of course you live in the middle of the Simpson desert) but your location doesn't seem to indicate that and I'm sure there is more than one or two a/c around the Whitsundays.I'm also fully aware of what the old AUF regs said, but we have moved on from there and now the law says that you are not allowed fly lower than 500' unless you have permission to fly over a property and then only down to 250'. The only time you are able to go lower than that is if you are in training or working.

 

If what you want is for CASA to take over RAA then keep doing the dumb sh.t flying around at 20' (power line height- you might eventually hit one) and you will get your wish. I assume that most people on this site like the limited CASA intervention in RAA but if we keep flaunting the regs that will surely change.

Aldo.

Please point me to where it says you can't go below 250 feet if having permission to do so from the landholder. Such a dizzying height might be considered adventurous or even unobtainable in a real ultralight. I always thought it was normal to have to climb to clear fences when enjoying a little sky...larking.

 

 

[boingk]

Aldo.Please point me to where it says you can't go below 250 feet if having permission to do so from the landholder. Such a dizzying height might be considered adventurous or even unobtainable in a real ultralight. I always thought it was normal to have to climb to clear fences when enjoying a little sky...larking.

You trollin', bro?

 

- boingk

 

 

[rankamateur]

Aldo should go for a spot on the RAA board, such popularity.

 

 

[Guest czechmate]

Shame some of the pilots grounded for low level flying atm don't appear here with their comments. They had LL endorsements & permission from land owners or were flying in designated low level flying training areas (not training). One was making a video of his flight for Youtube. The reason they were grounded was because they did not have a valid reason for undertaking the flight below 500'. Fun flying is not a valid reason. I believe the same rule applies in GA as well.

 

 

[nong]

Shame some of the pilots grounded for low level flying atm don't appear here with their comments. They had LL endorsements & permission from land owners or were flying in designated low level flying training areas (not training). One was making a video of his flight for Youtube. The reason they were grounded was because they did not have a valid reason for undertaking the flight below 500'. Fun flying is not a valid reason. I believe the same rule applies in GA as well.

"did not have a valid reason"............ Huh? and you are referring to which part of aviation law? In relation to ops governed by the RAAus, can you quote a CAR or some other instrument to back your claim, bearing in mind CAO 95.55. I think you will find that fun flying is a great reason (!!!) but the law does not, in any case, require you to have a reason, "valid" or otherwise.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Where are you going with this Nong - the thread is about two people seriously injured.

 

 

[nong]

You trollin', bro?- boingk

Bugga. Ya wise to me game, boingk.

 

 

[nong]

Well Turbs, its about countering what I reckon is misinformation posted on this thread by others. The law was written so as NOT to exclude low flying for fun. This was very deliberate, and was done so as to allow traditional ultralighting and rural work to continue to be undertaken. There was also the recognition that it was going to happen anyway. Thats how Night VMC came into being.....lots of people were doing it....so they put down a few sensible rules to facilitate the activity.

 

 

[Aldo]

Please point me to where it says you can't go below 250 feet if having permission to do so from the landholder. Such a dizzying height might be considered adventurous or even unobtainable in a real ultralight. I always thought it was normal to have to climb to clear fences when enjoying a little sky...larking.

Nong

 

You are correct it doesn't say anything about 250' for RA, I was wrong on that point and happy to admit it. But if you take a look at the link below it will outline what can be done. You do need to have a low level endorsement (or permission from RA-Aus) and you do need to comply with CAO 95.55 (aeroplanes) and CAO 95.32 (Powered chutes and Weight shift).

 

I don't necessarily agree with all the rules that are applied to flying but if we don't comply with those rules we will eventually we will not be able to fly or it will become so regulated that it won't be worth it, additionally the rules are there to enhance safety and that's not a bad thing.

 

http://old.raa.asn.au/opsmanual/2-01.pdf

 

From CAO 95.32

 

8 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less

 

than 500 feet above ground level, or 300 feet in the case of a powered

 

parachute, if:

 

(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of,

 

the pilot; or

 

© the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or

 

employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to

 

take place at such a height; or

 

(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane

 

is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under

 

subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.

 

 

[503]

B and C.looks like fun to me