Getting the shytes

[jetjr]

I dont think thats correct, controlled airspace is mainly to do with pilot training. Certainly no restriction on built up areas.

 

Was clarified when the controlled airspace endorsement was being proposed

 

Raa sees no difference between 19 reg and 24 etc other than being able to be used for training

 

The rules were written and placed into documents and the approval never went through, some have been pushing boundaries and attempting entry claiming regs in documents allow it, it seems, hence why they are being removed

 

A question for tech manager + id better read the article again

 

 

[jetjr]

Appears im wrong, only factory built or LSA can go into CTA, guess has to be some benefit to being restricted out of sensible upgrades and improveemts

 

 

[Aldo]

CAR262AP (5)

 

(5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

 

I applied for and received an exemption for flights over built up areas and received the certificate of exemption (granted this was 2009) but as I read 262AP (5) approval is still able to be granted.

 

Also there was an article in a sport pilot mag a while back that listed all the limitations, as far as I could determine if you held a class 2 medical (minimum) a full PPL (inc CTA) and carried the required equipment you could request a clearance into CTA (doesn't mean you will get it though). I don't have the mag any longer to double check.

 

Aldo

 

 

[frank marriott]

See CAO 95.55 Par 7.3

 

Requesting and receiving a clearance from ATC doesn't authorise the flight if aircraft or pilot is non complying.

 

 

[Oscar]

What CASA is doing, is protecting its liability under S8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Unlike the FAA (and all other National Airworthiness Authorities of which I am aware), CASA can be sued; S8.2 of the Act says so in words of one syllable. So CASA is seeking to reduce its vicarious liability for the design approvals made by Authorised Persons in the industry, by eliminating them. The first step was to close CAR 35 and replace it with CASR 21.M, which limits the scope of these people to minor modifications, and vastly increases the paperwork involved - and hence the cost. It also increased the liability exposure of the APs; so naturally the cost of an approval went up by almost an order of magnitude. It will get worse; within about three years, CASR 21.M individuals will have to become CASR 21.J Design Organisations (this is the EASA model).These changes are also a consequence of the policy of "following World's best practice" - which means, in effect, avoiding any necessity to think about what works best for Australia. The CAR 35 system was unique to Australia; but the "Cringe Australia" policy has prevailed yet again.

 

So, if you want to tinker with the thing, starting with an LSA aircraft is about the worst choice; and a certificated aircraft is getting to be the next worst choice - tho it was not always so. Starting with a certificated aircraft is by far the safest choice, however. If you start with a -19 aircraft, you are starting from something that has not been proven to comply with ANY safety standard whatsoever. Caveat Emptor.

Has anyone done the exercise of thinking through the implications of recent court cases where 'Recreational Aviation' has been ruled to be 'an inherently dangerous activity'? It seems to me that this is potentially a situation where the ace of complying with standards as a defence can simply be trumped by the legal precedent of 'entirely at your own risk' - and if this IS indeed the real situation then what is the point of complying with the standard? By simple extrapolation - what is the point of HAVING any standards? It seems to me that if recreational aviation is simply designated as 'an inherently dangerous activity', then even other non-aviation-centric legislation may be void: e.g. the consumer protection of goods and services being 'fit for purpose' may not apply, since 'purpose' would be deemed to be to engage in a dangerous recreational activity. Your wing fell off? - well, stiff, that was a risk you undertook...

 

While there appears to be an attraction for a relaxation of 'the rules' so we can just get on with flying around 'at our own risk', I am very much of the opinion that there is more to be feared than gained. If we are, as a group, effectively designated as 'outlaws' in a legalistic sense then I suggest that we may well find it difficult to argue for being included in airspace decisions, consideration of claims for reasonable access to landing sites, quite possibly we may find insurance either increasingly expensive or indeed impossible to obtain. I suspect it would also open up a broad avenue for people of a shonky nature to operate in our field of activity under the shield of responsibility being ultimately on the owner/operator/passenger.

 

19-reg and VH-exp provide a way for those who seek 'freedom' (well, a relative amount of 'freedom') from rules pertaining to their aircraft. I think that we all, (probably) recognise the desireability of having a 'class' of aircraft that can exists with those freedoms and complimentary restrictions on operational capability, but one size does not fit all. CASA appears to be, by protecting its liability, placing us all in a 'class' of their choosing, which is equally unsuitable.

 

The RAA submission to the 'Truss Review' was, I think, a significant opportunity lost to position 'Recreational Aviation' on a more realistic footing with decent consideration of the somewhat competing goals of 'freedom' and 'community acceptability'. Whether those competing goals can be reasonably reconciled, I am not sure, but I suspect that if we as a group do not start to think about this issue then we may well find ourselves backed into a corner by judicial rulings.

 

 

[jetjr]

Again regulations bind with little commonsense

 

A 19 regd aircraft - not safe enough to fly CTA

 

can be taken to VH experimental, maintained the same, by the same person and suddenly be safe to access CTA ???

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar, go back to the simplicity of Donoghue vs Stevenson case on which Duty of Care is based.

 

You can kick and dance, label yourself "a safe organization" attempt to separate yourself like CASA is doing, Put up a big sign "Enter at Own Risk" putr up a sign "Flying is dangerous", have someone sign a waiver.

 

but go back to that case and you'll find that even though the outcome was unintended by the reputable organisation, the fact that they COULD and SHOULD have ensured every bottle had been cleaned amounted to negligence.

 

Window Dressing goes out the window when a cyclone blows.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Again regulations bind with little commonsenseA 19 regd aircraft - not safe enough to fly CTA

can be taken to VH experimental, maintained the same, by the same person and suddenly be safe to access CTA ???

Are you sure of your facts? The operating limitations of VH experimental are stated on the experimental certificate, and they can vary according to what the aircraft is:

From CASA AC 21.10:

 

17. OPERATING CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

 

17.1 Conditions, limitations and directions for operation of an aircraft on special CoA are

 

entered in the Annex to the certificate. They should be designed to fit the specific purpose(s)

 

and situations that apply to the aircraft. The operating conditions, limitations and directions

 

that may be prescribed, in accordance with the applicability chart at Appendix B of this AC,

 

are listed at Appendix C of this AC. CASA or the authorised person may impose any

 

additional conditions, limitations or directions as deemed necessary in the interests of safety

 

of other airspace users, and persons on the ground or water. The CASA officer or the

 

authorised person should review each operating condition, limitation or direction imposed,

 

with the applicant, to ensure that they are fully understood by the applicant.

 

And from Appendix C of that AC:

 

(19) No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar

 

months, it has had a condition inspection performed in accordance with the CASRs/CARs,

 

or other approved programs, and found to be in a condition for safe operation.

 

(20) Only CASA licensed or certificated persons with appropriate ratings as authorised

 

by the Civil Aviation Regulations may perform inspections required by these operating

 

limitations.

 

(21) Inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records showing the

 

following or a similarly worded statement: “I certify that this aircraft has been inspected

 

on………….. (insert date) in accordance with the scope and details of

 

……………………………….., (insert identification of the approved maintenance program)

 

and found to be in a condition for safe operation”. The entry will include the aircraft total

 

time-in-service, the name, signature, and certificate type and number of the person

 

performing the inspection.

 

(24) Application must be made to CASA or an authorised person for any revision to

 

these operating limitations.

 

(25) The pilot-in-command of this aircraft should notify air traffic control of the

 

experimental nature of this aircraft when operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), and

 

shall request routing that will avoid built-up areas of cities and towns, and congested

 

airways, if possible. Air traffic control approval to fly over a built up area of a city or town

 

does not constitute approval under CAR 262AP (5).

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Oscar, go back to the simplicity of Donoghue vs Stevenson case on which Duty of Care is based.You can kick and dance, label yourself "a safe organization" attempt to separate yourself like CASA is doing, Put up a big sign "Enter at Own Risk" putr up a sign "Flying is dangerous", have someone sign a waiver.

but go back to that case and you'll find that even though the outcome was unintended by the reputable organisation, the fact that they COULD and SHOULD have ensured every bottle had been cleaned amounted to negligence.

 

Window Dressing goes out the window when a cyclone blows.

What of the precedents set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and Echin Vs STCGC ?

 

 

[jetjr]

Daffyd, Im not sure at all

 

So from the text above I read VH exp would need LAME annual inspection to be permitted into CTA? Do they normally need annual inspection?

 

What about L2 maintained LSA?

 

Point being if this is inspection requirement satisfy's why cant the same be done to 19 reg?

 

The issue in my mind is that CTA endorsement for RAA isnt going to bring much benefit at all if largely the aircraft aren't compliant anyway.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

What are the main reason that RAA pilots would require CTA entry?

 

 

[turboplanner]

What of the precedents set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and Echin Vs STCGC ?

I haven't looked closely at them, but they don't seem to be stirring up the PL community.

 

Any impact would apply in NSW only and relate to the cases only, so that's a very narrow escape alley.

 

Add to that the plaintiff saying a ticket was bought, or the pilot offering the throwaway line "We only put that sign on to get registration etc) and the alley narrows.

 

Then there are any appeals which may occur and any High Court action on a future case if it is important enough.

 

Of course, the byproducts of the crash - the occupants of any other aircraft, and any people or property on the ground close the escape alley even more.

 

Also, I think in the Campbell vs Hay case much was made of the pilot warning that flying was hazardous, but I didn't hear whether the case was actually won on the fact that the Defendant had not been negligent which would make a lot more sense than what was in the media.

 

 

[Ultralights]

What are the main reason that RAA pilots would require CTA entry?

my 19 rego aircraft is based at Bankstown, class D airport. though i am a PPL holder with CTA approval., and the 912ULS is an approved engine, and i have to perpetual approval from CASA.

 

 

[jetjr]

my 19 rego aircraft is based at Bankstown, class D airport. though i am a PPL holder with CTA approval., and the 912ULS is an approved engine, and i have to perpetual approval from CASA.

Interesting

 

What is the process to get an approval like this?

 

What are you required to do in terms of maintenence and inspections

 

 

[Oscar]

I haven't looked closely at them, but they don't seem to be stirring up the PL community.Any impact would apply in NSW only and relate to the cases only, so that's a very narrow escape alley.

Add to that the plaintiff saying a ticket was bought, or the pilot offering the throwaway line "We only put that sign on to get registration etc) and the alley narrows.

 

Then there are any appeals which may occur and any High Court action on a future case if it is important enough.

 

Of course, the byproducts of the crash - the occupants of any other aircraft, and any people or property on the ground close the escape alley even more.

 

Also, I think in the Campbell vs Hay case much was made of the pilot warning that flying was hazardous, but I didn't hear whether the case was actually won on the fact that the Defendant had not been negligent which would make a lot more sense than what was in the media.

Wake up and smell the ordure, before it consumes you. If we as recreational aviators are legally deemed to have placed ourselves voluntarily in a situation where the normal protection of legislation is null and void, there are consequences for our ability to secure redress. Think about that.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I live and work in qld. We do our stuff.

 

 

[rgmwa]

So from the text above I read VH exp would need LAME annual inspection to be permitted into CTA? Do they normally need annual inspection?

No. A VH Experimental annual can be signed off by the builder if he/she has passed the MPC (Maintenance Procedures) course. No problem entering CTA provided the engine is an `approved' type. Of course, the MPC has nothing to do with how to maintain the aircraft. It's all about CASA's rules and regulations.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

No. A VH Experimental annual can be signed off by the builder if he/she has passed the MPC (Maintenance Procedures) course. No problem entering CTA provided the engine is an `approved' type. Of course, the MPC has nothing to do with how to maintain the aircraft. It's all about CASA's rules and regulations.rgmwa

But... but... safety is achieved by Compliance With Regulations.... airworthiness is only relevant if there's a Regulation about it! For that matter, your engine would never suffer fuel exhaustion, except some idiot wrote a regulation about it...

 

 

[rgmwa]

But... but... safety is achieved by Compliance With Regulations.... airworthiness is only relevant if there's a Regulation about it! For that matter, your engine would never suffer fuel exhaustion, except some idiot wrote a regulation about it...

It's easy. If you just follow the regulations and make the right mark in the right place you will never have to worry about engine failure or fuel starvation again. CASA is there to look after us. Where would you like me to sign?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

It's easy. If you just follow the regulations and make the right mark in the right place you will never have to worry about engine failure or fuel starvation again. CASA is there to look after us. Where would you like me to sign?rgmwa

Here... here... and here... now a thumbprint... and the deeds to your house... thank you!

CASA "We are here to help you". And don't you forget it.

 

The number of times I've had this sort of dialogue:

 

me: "The Regulations say (thus and so), and here is how I've shown compliance..."

 

CASA bod: "That's good, but we also want to know (blah blah blah)..."

 

me: "How do you want me to show that?"

 

CASA bod: "That's up to you - put a package together, make a proposal, and then we'll consider it..."

 

They could not tell me why they wanted more than the regs required. They could not provide me with their interpretation of the regs. They could not tell me what they required; and they would not accept any justification that required judgement on their part without unjustifiable multiple submissions. This is because they are the experts. This has remained constant under three directors at least, and in multiple departments within CASA. Our tax dollars at work...

 

 

[turboplanner]

What of the precedents set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and Echin Vs STCGC ?

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, so the information here is based on my own experiences, and is not necessarily legally correct.

 

NOEL CAMPBELL V RODNEY VICTOR HAY

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2013/11.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Campbell%20and%20Hay%20)

 

Briefly the student (Campbell) was flying a Jabiru under control of the Instructor (Hay) when the engine ran rough. Hay took over, the engine stopped and he made a forced landing where the aircraft hit the side of a gully injuring Campbell.

 

Having read the transcript, I agree with the decision and in my opinion this is not a new precedent.

 

I agree the plaintiff was not injured by any negligence of the defendant.

 

If the instructor had been found negligent in relation to the injury, but the Court had let him off because of warning signs, briefing or waiver, then I agree that would have been the new precedent previously posted by someone on this site.

 

The judge’s conclusion reads: “ For completeness I find the harm suffered by the Plaintiff which is the subject of these proceedings resulted from the materialisation of an obvious risk of the dangerous recreational activity in which he was engaged.”

 

There are two streams here:

 

Perhaps like some other recent crashes, if the Instructor had failed to get the aircraft trimmed for glide and had speared straight down he might have been found to be negligent, and the case would have succeeded.

 

However he made a successful forced landing which they both survived, which he was trained for, and hitting the gully was a by-product of the activity, so he was not negligent in relation to the injury.

 

To simplify the separation, imagine a person answers an ad from a Rock Climbing business, and is given a Warning that he engages at his own risk etc.

 

Despite the warning/waiver the owner/employees of the Rock Climbing company have a Duty of Care to ensure all ropes have the correct strength and have not deteriorated. If he subsequently falls and it is found the rope capacity was less than his weight the owners, might be sued for negligence.

 

If a rock, unrelated to the climbing activity falls and hits the climber on the head, then the issue can be divided into:

 

Was he warned there was a hazard?

 

(a) If not the owner may have failed his duty of care to warning of a hazard and a claim may be successful

 

(b) If so, then the injury was related to the hazardous nature of rock climbing and that seems to be the decision of this case.

 

Conclusion: If you are negligent, even if you have provided a warning, plaque, waiver etc. this case doesn’t help you.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What of the precedents set by NSW DC 11 - Noel Campbell V Rodney Victor Hay and Echin Vs STCGC ?

Can you provide a more accurate version of the second case heading, it's not coming up in a search - maybe the full name of the second party?

 

 

[geoffreywh]

The thread has wandered a fair bit. Don't you think? .... The answer to the original post is fairly clear. The gentleman in question bought the wrong aircraft for what he wanted to do. A mistake that can be rectified with money! Either flog it and get the right one ( cheaper? ) . Or pay someone else to do what he wants. ( certainly not cheaper ) I understand and sympathise with his dilemma. But it is easily fixable and shouldn't cause too many problems in doing so. Life's too short

 

 

[Oscar]

Conclusion: If you are negligent, even if you have provided a warning, plaque, waiver etc. this case doesn’t help you.

Completely incorrect. This specific case caused the cessation of action against RAA and CASA for quite evident negligence to be dropped because of the potential for the plaintiff being unsuccessful and having to pay costs exceeding her entire assets, leaving her destitute and homeless. Not because of any lack of evidence or soundness of case, but because of the precedent set.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Can you provide a more accurate version of the second case heading, it's not coming up in a search - maybe the full name of the second party?

Try https://www.google.com.au/search?q=echin+V+STGC&oq=echin+V+STGC&aqs=chrome..69i57.11640j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8