Light Aircraft down near Camden

[jetjr]

Camel is right, these are guidelines only

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf

 

Even more unlikely CASA woul restrict use based on it not meeting their satisfaction

 

 

[turboplanner]

Camel is right, these are guidelines onlyhttp://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf

Even more unlikely CASA woul restrict use based on it not meeting their satisfaction

I think you've got a few hundred pages of studying to do.

 

Camel has provided details for both:

 

The Prescriptive based ALA - AUTHORISED LANDING AREA where the government had the responsibility

 

The Performance based ALA - AIRCRAFT LANDING AREA where the pilot has the legal responsibility which replaced the prescriptive version.

 

So the Government (CASA) is now at arms length from a person building and operating an ALA and a pilot using it - any lawsuits would normally be between the participants. (Owner, Operator, CFI, Pilot, Aircraft Owner etc)

 

You've chosen to cherry pick the words "Guidelines", possibly as a result of "The information in this publication is advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication." from the linked publication.

 

You chose not to go on to tell people “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” and a whole lot more which throws all the responsibility on the pilot to do things like obtaining correct dimensions, or measuring the strip, obtaining, measuring, checking and calculating all those dimensions, percentages and angles.

 

 

 

CASA is sitting at arms length from those airstrip builders, owners, operators and pilots who have the legal duty of care responsibility for their actions, but as the Safety Authority it certainly can step in if an aircraft is non-compliant with the ALA, an operation is non-compliant, or the ALA itself is non-compliant in some aspect (such as splay angle).

 

 

 

Facthunter - Camel's post which included the change from Authorised Landing Area to Aircraft Landing Area is a good example to study the difference between a Prescriptive Regulation and a Non-Prescriptive regulation, where the regulation is pretty much the same, but the responsibilities shift away from the government.

 

 

[Camel]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf

 

IMPORTANT

 

The information in this publication is advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication. The Civil Aviation Regulations set out the legal requirements that must be complied with in relation to the subject matter of this publication. There may be a number of ways of ensuring that the requirements of the Civil Aviation Regulations are met. This publication sets out methods that may be used and which experience has shown should, in the majority of cases, ensure compliance with the Regulations. However, before using the information in this publication the user should always read the Civil Aviation Regulations listed in the reference section below to ensure that he or she complies with the legal obligations of the Regulations.

 

PURPOSE

 

Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.”

 

Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot

 

in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator.

 

These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command:

 

1. (a) has sound piloting skills; and
    
    
    
    
   
2. (b) displays sound airmanship.
    
    
    
   

 

 

CANCELLATION

 

This is the second issue of CAAP 92-1, and supersedes CAAP 92-1(0).

 

REFERENCES

 

This publication should be read in conjunction with: Civil Aviation Regulations 92 (1), 93, 233 and 235; Civil Aviation Orders; and the Aeronautical Information Publication.

 

 

[gandalph]

Yes, you are correct, this part doesn't fit the overview I gave.However .......

So a it's a Poo Bah explanation then: "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. " ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

No it's not in terms of the subject we were discussing which is a very small part of the much wider scope you are trying to squeeze in for your favourite sniping game.

 

If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored.

 

 

[gandalph]

I don't belive it was me that tried to " squeeze in the much wider scope" of the heavy haulage industry or motor vehicle regulation.

 

If by sniping you mean attempting to correct as much of the misinformation as I can Then guilty as charged. You stop misleading people here and I'll stop challenging your Pooh Bah-isms.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As I said: "If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

Bear in mind the CASA action and my comments are aimed at protecting lives.

 

 

[facthunter]

Do we just accept every CASA edict though...? I don't believe we have to, but as an individual the law is just that, and you obey it. Many things get changed but there is a correct way to go about it, when things are obviously not acceptable. There would be a list of Court actions by CASA somewhere. They can get pretty mean as they don't like losing and they have deep pockets ( Your money). It's not an even contest. You don't even get a chance to argue your case with Strict Liability Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Again Pooh, another attempt by you to divert and mislead the conversation. I Don't believe any here are saying the CASA action carries no weight and/or can be ignored. I am amazed that you would with any sincerity put that proposition forward.

 

I'm sure we all acknowledge your attempts here in these forums to save lives. If the sky continues to fall as much as you say, there will soon be no sky in which to ascend.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Never mind saying you "don't believe any here" etc., Never mind about the colouring and the insult, this is yet to be answered:

 

"If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

 

[jetjr]

Still interested how the CASA action helps safety, protecting against something which hasnt happened

 

Next your comments are helping safety..........what next

 

 

[gandalph]

Never mind trying to put words into my mouth Pooh.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I dont think anybody agrees with the heavy handiness of CASA's action, just like im sure everybody agrees there were(are) issues that needed some intervention.

 

The squabbling over the actions themselves serves nothing. The question is, what do we do from here? Complaining about the Govt is an aussie passtime, but at the end of the day, we are all 'bound' by decisions made by the powers that be.

 

Ive been away for a while, has there bee any developments?

 

 

[facthunter]

I will give them credit if and when it is due. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Never mind trying to put words into my mouth Pooh.

I certainly would not want to add to gems like "Pooh", "Pooh Bah", "Carp" etc.

 

You're welcome to use your own words in answer to my invitation: "If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

However there seems to be a lot of silence from you on that key issue.

 

As it stands people may have been given the understanding that they need not comply with CASA's action.

 

 

[gandalph]

I certainly would not want to add to gems like "Pooh", "Pooh Bah", Terms of endearment my dear Turbs"

Carp" etc. That's because you keep carping the same tired old line

 

You're welcome to use your own words in answer to my invitation: "If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored" Thank you but as that is not a proposition I support, I am not likely to take up your invitation. What do you not understand about that?

 

However there seems to be a lot of silence from you on that key issue.

 

Tautological. I'm silent on your twisted words because I don't agree with your proposition. What don't you understand about that?

 

As it stands people may have been given the understanding that they need not comply with CASA's action.

 

Most certainly NOT by me

[turboplanner]

As it stands people may have been given the understanding that they need not comply with CASA's action.Most certainly NOT by me

Thanks, don't worry about the Tautology

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks, don't worry about the Tautology

No. Just the tautologist:spot on:.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The intent of the T is always to save lives and injuries.