Low flying penalty

[Keith Page]

How can there be such a thing as an unregistered RAA aircraft? Surely if it is unregistered then it is not affiliated with any body?

A very good point, if that is the case could even be an unregistered GA (VH) aircraft.

KP

 

 

[frank marriott]

Think (A) is it an aircraft - Yes

 

(B) Is is registered to a particular grouping - No

 

Then it is simply an unregistered aircraft - CASA

 

Don't forget also for "dangerous operation" an aircraft is included in the definition of a vehicle under the Criminal Code ( in Qld at least). There exists case law where an appeal was dismissed on similar actions which resulted in 2 years in the "go slow". Incidentally in this case an RAA registered (or possibly UFA) aircraft. (Contributing circumstances & charge not related to the offence of dangerous op included)

 

 

[Keith Page]

OK Frank ---- go along with that.

 

The other point does he have a PPl? If so -- then he can not be had for unliceneced flying --- "only thing", depending on which endorsements he holds on his PPL.

 

As I see it not a RAAus problem, only a case for civil aviation to sort out.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I wonder how he pleaded, it's too funny and sad how CASA operate.

My recollection was that NSW police were investigating. I expected there would consequently be a charge of reckless endangerment based on what had been reported.

 

The outcome suggests that CASA took over from them and were therefore limited to those offences contained in the Act. That said, dangerous operation was surely an option?

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

If he got caught doing what you suggest in a motor vehicle in Victoria his licence would be cancelled, his car would be seized and crushed, and he would be paying something more than you suggest. If he hurt someone, he would face a short term in the slammer. If he killed someone he'd probably do 10 years.

Kaz

Just for Geoffrey's sake, I should add that dangerous driving is proscribed by section 64 of the Road Safety Act in Victoria. The penalty is 240 PU ($35k or thereabouts) AND 2 years gaol.

 

Hoon driving and the possible consequences are adequately discussed in this info sheet http://youthlaw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/HoonDrivingFINAL20131.pdf

 

Kaz

 

 

[acro]

people do stupid stuff all the time, it only hurts them, just reading all of this stuff is sick...the guy flew unregistered/low/had fun then stacked it, woop de doo its his life and his business but out nannys

 

 

[rhysmcc]

people do stupid stuff all the time, it only hurts them, just reading all of this stuff is sick...the guy flew unregistered/low/had fun then stacked it, woop de doo its his life and his business but out nannys

Until he stacks it on someone. Then we'll all be grounded. The rules aren't just made up to make your life harder, it's about balancing risk and safety with your enjoyment. Play by the rules or don't play.

 

 

[acro]

"then we'll all be grounded"? are casa our parents? are we 5 years old? we live in a supposedly free democracy, the government cannot protect anyone and idiots will always exist. this guy didnt need any court bullshit he was probably pretty embarrassed about stacking it and it probably scared him half to death, he didnt hurt anyone nor was he trying to, he maybe reckless but thats his choice, the more people support government intervention the worse off we are. you want extra mtow? want to take more pax? etc you want all of these things but support state communist control...

 

 

[rhysmcc]

the same could be said about a drunk driver, it's all okay until he crashes into your wife or child.

 

CASA are not your parents, they are your regulator and we all operate under Australian Law. Like it or not this includes aviation.

 

A democracy doesn't mean you can go and do whatever you like with no regard to the rules and regulations.

 

 

[acro]

its got nothing to do with a "drunk driver"...but if someone decides to get drunk and then drive that is their choice, and they live with the consequences of what ever happens. they are two totally different things. you shouldnt be advocating for these bs laws that restrict everyone in the sky, if someone wants to fly like an idiot and crashes let them, if someone drives like an idiot and crashes let them, the nanny state is bad enough, the state of casa is already overbearing and supporting them is nuts.

 

the amount of shit i recently had to go through with casa bureaucrats just to register an aircraft is absolutely disgusting and i will never support them or giving them any powers, besides we had a referendum in 1937 asking if the federal government should control air navigation and safety and the government lost the referendum, hows that for democracy?

 

one day you might make a mistake in the air and get what you wish on others.

 

the fact that people here think a free person excersising their god given right to fly a plane, should go to jail with murderers and rapists for not having the right government "paperwork" and having paid his "fees" is atrocious.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

and what about the people around them? should they be forced to live with the consequences of your decisions? I'm not familiar with these "god given rights", where is written that you have a right to fly? Don't get so caught up with rights that you completely forgot about responsibilities.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Until he stacks it on someone. Then we'll all be grounded. The rules aren't just made up to make your life harder, it's about balancing risk and safety with your enjoyment. Play by the rules or don't play.

I don't think so, the gov relies on the income from penalties too much, you might as well be talking about banning tobacco.

 

 

[acro]

and what about the people around them? should they be forced to live with the consequences of your decisions? I'm not familiar with these "god given rights", where is written that you have a right to fly? Don't get so caught up with rights that you completely forgot about responsibilities.

thats life! shit happens

 

 

[farri]

Then we'll all be grounded.

This is the one that that really piss#es me off the most and I`ve been flying Ultralights since the late mid eighties!

 

Why should everyone be penalized because of the actions of an individual? To me, this nonsense and wrong! If anyone can give me a good reason why it should be so, I`d like to have it. I would not expect that everyone to be grounded for some stupid thing that I did.

 

Frank.

 

 

[poteroo]

Acro, you've clearly had a run in with the Regulator, and bear a grudge. None of us are really satisfied with their performance, and that's why we all contributed to the Forsyth Inquiry last year. Did you? We can only change behaviour by concerted effort.

 

I'm the first to oppose 'strict liability' on such petty misdemeanours as not carrying ones' licence. It has to be changed so that pilots have the same rights to presumption-of-innocence as any other Australian.

 

As for 'making mistakes'............... well, in 52 years of flying I've made many. In at least 4 instances it involved being asked to show cause why my licence,(CPL), should not be suspended. It involved a lengthy grilling by an FOI, or several in the same room. In not one of those cases was the action taken any further than a very robust discussion behind a closed door. I could see their interpretation, and they could see mine.

 

I'm not in any way saying that CASA don't get it wrong. They often do. But we either live within the regulations, or we fight for change.

 

In this low flying case, the pilot clearly offended against CAR 157 - because the evidence was overwhelming. He would have had no valid reason to fly low, (as provided in the exemptions to CAR 157), and my money is on his never having held any formal low flying qualification as well. All the other waffle about RAAus certificates and registrations is just peripheral to this case. He flew low - and he was nicked. End of story.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

This is the one that that really piss#es me off the most and I`ve been flying Ultralights since the late mid eighties!Why should everyone be penalized because of the actions of an individual? To me, this nonsense and wrong! If anyone can give me a good reason why it should be so, I`d like to have it. I would not expect that everyone to be grounded for some stupid thing that I did.

 

Frank.

We operate on exceptions to certain regulations, under strict conditions. Should the regulator believe we aren't adhering to these conditions or that it's no longer in the public's safety they can withdraw them at any time. A good example would be the Jabiru Engine, a few bad types of engines but it was easier to enforce on the whole lot.

 

I'm not supporting the case for it to happen so can't really give you a reason for it, but if CASA were to believe there was a major issue within RA-AUS (training, pilot airmanship, maintenance) you can bet they will act swiftly and ask questions later. (I'm not suggesting there is any such issue).

 

 

[kasper]

We operate on exceptions to certain regulations, under strict conditions. Should the regulator believe we aren't adhering to these conditions or that it's no longer in the public's safety they can withdraw them at any time. A good example would be the Jabiru Engine, a few bad types of engines but it was easier to enforce on the whole lot.I'm not supporting the case for it to happen so can't really give you a reason for it, but if CASA were to believe there was a major issue within RA-AUS (training, pilot airmanship, maintenance) you can bet they will act swiftly and ask questions later. (I'm not suggesting there is any such issue).

Exactly as CASA did when it became apparent a couple of years ago that RAA documentation management of aircraft registration was not up to scratch AND our RAA Tech allowance/management of the delegations and exemptions was poor ... we as an organisation felt the force of what was in fact CASA light ... they did not shut us down (CASA Heavy) but worked with an agreed process of validation, rectification and process substantiation to allow us to work back into full admin on own control.

CASA may be many things and cursed in as many breaths as I take in a day but to be fair to them they are rule bound themselves and when we do not play within the rules we say we will operate within (Ops manual and tech manual) we can't expect them to just ignore it.

 

The pissy bit to me is that when operations of pilots/aircraft that are not under our control but COULD be under our control if the person was operating within the rules get plastered back on RAA. Usually this is the media and in the case of this thread CASA are not blaming RAA for his actions (though they reflect badly on us as he was a member), RAA were trying to use the case as an example of what not to do and the fact that the miscreant was a Member is stated as fact.

 

What was not clear in the RAA notice was the status of his membership - he was a member, he clearly did not have a current pilots certificate, but was he a student pilot?

 

When I was instructing this was always a back of the mind issue ... I get a student from out west up to solo stage, I know they have their own aircraft back home and after solo they just stop coming for training ... I SUSPECT what they were doing, but as an instructor what can I do?

 

I am not their father and I am not clear they I have an obligation to report anything to RAA as I don't KNOW they were flying an unregistered aircraft with at best a student pilot certificate.

 

 

[acro]

Acro, you've clearly had a run in with the Regulator, and bear a grudge. None of us are really satisfied with their performance, and that's why we all contributed to the Forsyth Inquiry last year. Did you? We can only change behaviour by concerted effort.I'm the first to oppose 'strict liability' on such petty misdemeanours as not carrying ones' licence. It has to be changed so that pilots have the same rights to presumption-of-innocence as any other Australian.

 

As for 'making mistakes'............... well, in 52 years of flying I've made many. In at least 4 instances it involved being asked to show cause why my licence,(CPL), should not be suspended. It involved a lengthy grilling by an FOI, or several in the same room. In not one of those cases was the action taken any further than a very robust discussion behind a closed door. I could see their interpretation, and they could see mine.

 

I'm not in any way saying that CASA don't get it wrong. They often do. But we either live within the regulations, or we fight for change.

 

In this low flying case, the pilot clearly offended against CAR 157 - because the evidence was overwhelming. He would have had no valid reason to fly low, (as provided in the exemptions to CAR 157), and my money is on his never having held any formal low flying qualification as well. All the other waffle about RAAus certificates and registrations is just peripheral to this case. He flew low - and he was nicked. End of story.

and why cant he fly low? if he wants to fly low thats his choice, if he wants to fly high thats his choice, its this nanny state attitude thats wrong, he doesnt have a "valid reason?" why should he need a "valid reason?" having fun is a valid reason, its his life, it isnt owned by the communists that crave control.

 

as for casa read this http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Wilga-Tail-Tale.pdf

 

thats just the tip of the iceberg

 

 

[acro]

We operate on exceptions to certain regulations, under strict conditions. Should the regulator believe we aren't adhering to these conditions or that it's no longer in the public's safety they can withdraw them at any time. A good example would be the Jabiru Engine, a few bad types of engines but it was easier to enforce on the whole lot.I'm not supporting the case for it to happen so can't really give you a reason for it, but if CASA were to believe there was a major issue within RA-AUS (training, pilot airmanship, maintenance) you can bet they will act swiftly and ask questions later. (I'm not suggesting there is any such issue).

really? how many times do we need to hear this "public safety" bullshit?

 

its like the gun licensing system in this country, you must follow all of these overbearing bs rules that have nothing to do with safety, so the government can tell everyone they are keeping them safe, what about the 10,000 isis supporters the government imports into sydney and melbourne every week? can we legislate ourselves into safety?

 

jabirus suck and i would never fly with one, i was smart enough to work that one out without the government telling me so

 

 

[farri]

We operate on exceptions to certain regulations, under strict conditions.

Thanks for the reply,it helps me make my point.... Completely aware and understand about exemptions, I used to instruct.

 

Should the regulator believe we aren't adhering to these conditions.

Who is we? I`m talking about the individual! RA-Aus is an organization consisting of individuals.

 

A good example would be the Jabiru Engine, a few bad types of engines but it was easier to enforce on the whole lot.

Exactly! Penalize everyone so that it becomes easier for those who make and enforce the laws! Precisely what I`m on about. I believe this herd mentality has to change, I don`t want to be penalized for someone else`s actions, nor should anyone else be! I also believe that we all should be opposing it,whenever and wherever possible.

 

if CASA were to believe there was a major issue within RA-AUS (training, pilot airmanship, maintenance) you can bet they will act swiftly and ask questions later.

Back to the point! Is it the system or the individual ? If it is the system, correct it! If it is the individual, deal with that individual, not everyone.

 

Frank.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Frank I'm not saying it's right or wrong, simply trying to get across that flying is a privilege not a right as some seem to think. Its the same as driving a car or owning a gun, if you don't follow the rules the privilege will be revoked.

 

"We" referred to RA-AUS, the association of members. You'd be crazy to think the actions of one individual wouldn't bring the association (or recreational aviation in general) to the attention of CASA. I'm not saying that is the case here, but we shouldn't condone acting outside of the regulations or conditions of exemptions.

 

 

[acro]

Frank I'm not saying it's right or wrong, simply trying to get across that flying is a privilege not a right as some seem to think. Its the same as driving a car or owning a gun, if you don't follow the rules the privilege will be revoked."We" referred to RA-AUS, the association of members. You'd be crazy to think the actions of one individual wouldn't bring the association (or recreational aviation in general) to the attention of CASA. I'm not saying that is the case here, but we shouldn't condone acting outside of the regulations or conditions of exemptions.

flying is a privilege? no. its a human right. only someone with Stockholm syndrome would call it a privilege.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

living is a human right, flying an aircraft not so much.

 

 

[acro]

ah so you decide what others human rights are?

 

millions have died in wars so men could be free, we battled communism in the cold war because it is not something we want to be involved in, yet now it seems many are indoctrinated with this crazy left wing communist/socialist attitude of rules and regulations and a full on nanny state where you cant do anything and nothing is free.

 

As they say Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, that means you give up your rights to the government and they give a little back as a privilege and those who support them do this to themselves and deserve nothing.

 

you get what you deserve, better hope you dont get a sentence one day for breaking a nanny state rule.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I've had the odd speeding ticket, does that count?

 

I'm over debating this with you, you have your opinion and I have mine. With any luck our paths will never need to cross and that will be the end of it.