Beatups and silly things...

[Guest J430]

Yes ..........and on it goes.....at Inglewood this year I enjoyed a lovely flight out in the morning and back in the evening, and a great day inbetween. BUT, there were a few very silly and dangerous ops conducted by RAA and GA registered a/c.

 

Sure it was on a couple, but we all know what is safe and legal and what is not, trouble is, if you try to chip the offenders you get told to F#&% Off, and dobbing them in is not much easier.

 

This is their ticket to freedom:black_eye:

 

J

 

 

[Guest browng]

and most other instructors did similar things (wing overs in a Gazelle).

A 'wingover', or more correctly a chandelle, is perfectly legal in a Gazelle, it is not an aerobatic maneuver, being at less than 60deg of bank. I am beginning to get a picture of 'just enough knowledge to be dangerous' here. The most dangerous words in aviation are "watch this", the rules we are subject to have been carefully honed since the Wright brothers, they have been written in blood. I do tend to get annoyed when people figure they know better, usually with a lot more attitude than experience.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Best to use those piloting skills to get out of a crappy situation.

 

I remember reading an article by a trike pilot who, when finding his trike inverted from turbulence, managed to pull off what he described as a "Split-S maneouver" to keep the G's positive and hence remain in control and return to normal level flight.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

If you analyse section 6.2 further you will realise that the following excert contains the key to my earlier comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, if you have permission, you can fly low and essentially 'do what you want.' (within reason) This is how RA registered aircraft and pilots get away with mustering on their own properties and not for profit / reward whilst remaining legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always been this way as far as I recall. So as I read it, with the exception of an alleged 300ft over a town, probably no laws have been broken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for this statement:

 

 

 

"(b) the aeroplane must be flying:" ?????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (b), the conditions, 1 of which must becomplied with for an aeroplane to be flown at less than 500 feet above ground level, are:

 

 

 

 

 



(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing; or

 

 

 

 

 



(b) the aeroplane must be flying:

 

 

 

 

 



(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and

 

 

 

 

 



(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road; or

 

 

 

 

 



© the pilot of the aeroplane must be engaged in flying training and the aeroplane must be flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of the Regulations, authorised low flying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[storchy neil]

please explain on the issurance forms

 

 

[planedriver]

If this is the place to which I think you are refering to, I have frequently seen flying there which is more in line with Monty Pythons Flying Circus than normal safe aircraft ops. As I understand it, the pilots of the Airvan don't even get paid for their services. The Company takes advantage of the fact that there are so many guys out there who are desperate to build their hours, and they fly pro-bono (unpaid) while the operators reap the financial rewards. I can't help wondering how long before their luck runs out, because Belfast Built Freighters were not intended to handle like Red Bull pylon racers. I sincerely hope luck remains on their side.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Brent,

 

you are assuming that these guys had permission. Secondly even if you have permission to fly low, I'm not sure that that permission extends to being stupid at low level. I think you might need further permission for that.

 

M

 

 

[Admin]

I can just see the headstone in the graveyard now:

 

"Here lies John Smith...who flew by the rules"

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Good point Neil,

 

The insurance company will be the first to refuse a claim if the PIC was being an idiot.

 

Sometimes the thought of injury or death or damage to the ground is irrelevant, but when you hit home with a refused insurance claim... different story.

 

I agree with Mike entirely in this thread. My only regret is there appears to be no video of the the incidents for RAA and CASA to peruse.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Plane driver, it is the same place you are talking about.

 

Brent:

 

As for this statement:"(b) the aeroplane must be flying:" ?????

Yes, that is saying that the aeroplane must be flying under the conditions set out below:

 

(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and

 

(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road

 

 

[Guest brentc]

(Sorry if I start a slanging match here)

 

oops Darren, sorry, that was quite logical and I missed it!

 

I'm not saying for a minute that these guys were doing the right thing in terms of airmanship. I'm saying that what they were doing sounds mostly legal under the regulations which we are meant to abide by.

 

If I saw such actions as an RA aviator and however felt that they were actually breaking the rules, I would maybe look to speak to the pilot concerned, advise him / her of my thoughts on the issue. If I was told to rack off, I'd perhaps speak to the appropriate RA persons about it. I don't think running off to CASA would do anyone any good. Your interpretation of how high an aircraft might be when flying over a town may be grossly incorrect and I for one would hardly feel confident in making the call of an aircraft flying 'at 300ft over a town.'

 

I know of a CFI who has been performing such actions for the last 20+ years. There have been many occasions where people (mainly non-flying people) have seen these actions and demanded that someone call the authorities straight away. There are also pilots that have seen this person doing these activities too and thought he was crazy. But over the many times I have seen this display of what looks on the face of it to be poor airmanship, I have realised that the CFI is much smarter than I first thought. I realised after some time that every time he took to the skies and executed his moves, they were always identical. He would take off, climb to a certain height, turn back, gain speed at 30 degrees to runway centreline, perform a 'beatup,' gain height, etc, etc and perform a number of other moves. I challenged him on this one day and he ran me through some engine failure scenarios. He proved to me convincingly of his ability to get himself out of trouble at any time. Needless to say I was most impressed.

 

Unfortunately when others try to copy these kind of actions, things sometimes go wrong.

 

In summary, what I am trying to say here, is that each instance must be taken in isolation and that careful evalation of the facts must be taken into consideration before action is taken. If every insurance claim caused by bad airmanship was declined, then 95% of insurance claims would never get paid out!

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

oops Darren, sorry, that was quite logical and I missed it!

So did I at first and I thought "The aeroplane must be flying", what a stupid statement, then I read down a little All this jargon/CASA print is hard to decipher at the best of times. I try and stick to the basics. I am sure all of us know the basics.

 

 

[Guest browng]

that is saying that the aeroplane must be flying under the conditions set out below: (i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and

 

(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road

I stand corrected on this, but that makes me quite uncomfortable. I can see why the exemption may make sense when we are talking about a pterodactyl with a speed of 48knots, giving a reasonable chance to 'see and avoid', but things have moved on since the early 80's and we could now be talking about an 'ultralight' like the Sting, doing 160knots below 500' agl. If the legislation does not keep up with this rapid advancement in technology and performance, we could easily be our own worst enemy in regard to making ourselves redundant. If we want aircraft with capabilities like a GA type, then we need to acknowledge the operational differences, update the regs accordingly, and train ourselves to a suitable level i.e. endorsements such as CSU, retract, low level, etc. If we don't, then we are setting ourselves up to be knocked down on the grounds that we are operating equipment beyond our training, with all the negative connotations thereof. The quickest way to lose freedoms is to abuse them, particularly when we have a strong lobby group baying for our blood at the slightest hint of an excuse.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I try and stick to the basics. I am sure all of us know the basics.

Me too Darren! 6 years ago I couldn't spell Pilot. And now I is one !

 

I agree with that Mr BrownG Agreed there is a big difference between a Thruster beat-up and fence hopping at 50-60 knots versus a CT / Sting / Pioneer rocketing along at 140+ showing off to his mates.

 

I'll be interested to hear if the new regs delete this 'hole.'

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Sorry I don't think there is a hole. This is the same whether it's RA or GA. You can only fly below 500 feet if you own the land or if the owner of the land or the Crown if Crown land gives you permission to do so AND you remain at least 100 metres horizontally from any person or public road.

 

So IF they had the permission of the landowner AND they were more than 100 metres horizontally from any people or public roads then they could fly lower than 500 feet.

 

I'm quite sure there will also be a catchall that controls for dangerous flying as well. Too lazy to search it out at the moment. But it seems to me that even if you can fly below 500 feet you probably can't act dangerously and you certainly can't endanger others.

 

M

 

 

[Guest browng]

Sorry I don't think there is a hole. This is the same whether it's RA or GA. You can only fly below 500 feet if you own the land or if the owner of the land or the Crown if Crown land gives you permission to do so AND you remain at least 100 metres horizontally from any person or public road.

I believe you are incorrect on numerous counts with regard to GA operations. Let's start with low level operations within an training area. Even here you are restricted by CAR 1998-141 to 500' agl except while taking off or landing, or conducting CASA approved low level training.

 

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 327

 

Amended CAR – 2nd Ed Legal Services Group

 

August 2003 Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

Low flying etc in flying training areas

 

 

 

(1) CASA may authorise low flying or acrobatic flying over a specified part of a flying training area for the purposes of flying training.

 

 

 

(2) A person must not engage in low flying or acrobatic flying in a flying training area for the purposes of flying training if the flying is not in accordance with an authorisation issued under subregulation (1).

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

Outside a training area CAR 1998- 157 applies

 

Low flying

 

 

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

 

 

 

(a) any city, town or populous area, at a height lower than 1000 feet; or

 

 

 

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

 

 

 

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter—600 metres; or

 

 

 

(b) in the case of a helicopter—300 metres; from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft .

 

 

 

(3A) Paragraph 1 (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.

 

 

 

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

 

 

 

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or

 

 

 

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or

 

 

 

© the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or

 

 

 

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

 

 

 

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or

 

 

 

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

 

 

 

(i) a search; or

 

 

 

(ii) a rescue; or

 

 

 

(iii) dropping supplies; in a search and rescue operation; or

 

 

 

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

 

 

 

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

 

 

 

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

 

 

 

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

 

Both these offenses are criminal, and as any more than 19 demerit points in a three year period will get you 150 day license suspension, you can see that with 50 points in one offense, permanent suspension is a real possibility, and repeat offenses could see you in jail. Low flying is a serious business, 'Roo Stalls' at low level are a major killer. A look at the Agricultural Endorsement (Low Level) syllabus will show you the many reasons why.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Where is the exemption for RAAus types from the VFR rules that allows flight below 500'agl?

In the case of trikes, CAO 95.32 grants exemption from (amongst others) CAR1988 regulation 157. I haven't checked but presumably 95.55 etc contain the same exemption.

 

John

 

 

[Guest browng]

In the case of trikes, CAO 95.32 grants exemption from (amongst others) CAR1988 regulation 157. I haven't checked but presumably 95.55 etc contain the same exemption.John

Indeed it does, which brings me full circle to my point, i.e. that these exemptions were granted to aircraft that were originally little more than powered kites, they have now evolved into fast sophisticated machines that operationally are very similar to GA types. The regulations have not evolved with the technology, but I would not be at all surprised if the coming changes were to rectify that situation.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I can only hope (though with little optimism) that if/when such regulation arrives, it doesn't remove the freedoms of those of us who don't always wish to fly aircraft with GA performance.

 

John

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

I can only hope (though with little optimism) that if/when such regulation arrives, it doesn't remove the freedoms of those of us who don't always wish to fly aircraft with GA performance.

Hear hear ;)

 

 

[Guest browng]

I can only hope (though with little optimism) that if/when such regulation arrives, it doesn't remove the freedoms of those of us who don't always wish to fly aircraft with GA performance.John

I am optimistic that regulations can be drawn up that recognize the different performance categories. CASA is not the bogeyman that many would have you believe, and is perfectly capable of recognizing reality, e.g. my 1946 Piper J3 Cub is exempt from the requirement to carry a transponder in airspace that would normally require one, on the basis that the design is more than 50 years old, from an era where many aircraft did not have any electrical system. Many of the "freedoms" available to RAAus members are also available to GA in the 'Experimental' category. I believe what what we have is a 'convergence' situation where the differences are becoming minimal, and CASA have already flagged that the new regs will allow a "parallel path" for essentially similar performance types, it will be the pilot/owners choice which way he chooses to go. I hope that this also rationalizes the dual ratings I am currently forced to have, and the double expenses (e.g. two biennials) that that entails. Well, at least I live in hope.

 

 

[blueshed]

BFR

 

browng

 

I believe that if you do your BFR, with a Dual rated instructor, both are covered. i.e. GA & RAA rating!

 

Safe Skies

 

Cheers Guy

 

 

[vk3auu]

If you read Brent's post, Para 6c says that you have to be in the process of either taking off or landing. If you are doing a beat up, neither applies, so you are only legal if you have the permission of the owner.

 

David

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I'm with David here.

 

M

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Not quite David, have a closer look:

 

"(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane must be flying:

 

(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and"

 

Note that it says OR after sub-section A, so indeed it is quite legal!

 

So next time you all jump in and vote for introduction of the new regulations, have a think as to what you might actually be losing if it goes through! Admittedly not everyone wants to fly low, however as I said, it's often a requirement for some and can also be a lot of fun in the right kind of aircraft in the right situation with the appropriate experience! Wreckless and dangerous flying is hard to prove if the pilot doesn't exceed 60 degrees agle of bank and his pitch angle isn't outside the required parameters, so you can indeed have some fun below 500 ft, legally, if you are up for some fun! (Pilot ownus applies here!)