RAA Suspends pilot for 3 months

[FlyingVizsla]

From the Fraser Coast Chronicle:-

 

http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/pilot-who-flew-too-low-wont-fight-suspension/2686852/

 

--Snippets from the article --

 

A RECREATIONAL pilot, who has been banned from flying for three months after he was filmed flying his aircraft too low along the Hervey Bay foreshore, says he will not challenge the suspension.

 

 

 

The light plane, which was seen flying level to the Torquay pier, appeared to be well below the minimum height requirement of 150m from the ground in a regional area.

 

 

 

"Recreational Aviation Australia adopts an even-handed approach to our members and want to remind all members to ensure they operate within the boundaries of the rules of our organisation," Mr Linke said.

 

 

 

 

 

"We employ an open and fair reporting culture and encourage members to self-report where breaches occur.

 

 

 

 

 

"This way we can work with members on education and training to ensure the continued safe operation of our member and the aircraft they fly."

 

-------

 

Unfortunately the image attached to the article, in the summary of news items, shows a twin (?!!) I heard from another pilot that he was filmed by a commercial television station while doing work on the foreshore.

 

 

[slb]

"........said he was attempting to make a landing on the water, which required him to come in low, but he had changed his mind about landing and he pulled out of the manoeuvre because of the conditions".

 

What are the regulations concerning where a waterborne aircraft may, or may not, take off and land?

 

Sounds like he was in an amphibian and flying over water .... to land?

 

 

[dazza 38]

It looked like a amphibian on the news when it happened. The guy was interviewed on the news, he said he has 2500 hours or so. It seems like a knee jerk reaction to me.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Amphibians will become the safest class of planes RAA administer if they hand out three month suspensions for coming in to land. What happened to PIC obligation to go around if landing is not safe.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I seriously doubt this was a knee jerk and have every confidence that the matter was properly investigated by the Association's Ops Manager.

 

Seems to me that he may have been too close to the shore to have landed legally...speed limits apply close in shore...and/or there were swimmers or boats in the water.

 

It's time all pilots were held accountable If they fail to follow the rules of the air just as they are with the road rules.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dazza 38]

In QLD as soon as a amphib aircraft hits the water it becomes a speed boat. I'm sure he has a recreational marine licence . Maybe he should have landed sooner.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Not if he judged that that the water was too choppy where he was planning to land.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If this report is true then members should have been informed before the press. It is greatly reassuring to learn that the rules are being applied and it seems a suspension is appropriate. But much of the benefit is lost unless all members are properly informed of each disciplinary action.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Disciplinary actions do take place occasionally....one amphib pilot also lost his privelages for 12 months for a series of repeated offences recently.

 

The board receives notification of these actions ( often as they are in process) or as an ops report after the fact.

 

The Ops manager does have the privelage to take disciplinary action where it is proved warranted. All in our ops manual.

 

 

[facthunter]

Says he will not challenge the suspension..... There's one real lawyer here.. Kaz. It's not true that every waterway is a legal landing place for Seaplanes/ amphibs. Most can't handle rough water either.

 

I DO trust the RAAus, much more than having it dealt with by any other organisation. If you do things with people around you get noticed. Everyone has a camera.. Nev

 

 

[slb]

What are the regulations concerning where a waterborne aircraft may, or may not, take off and land?

Anyone know what the RA-Aus rule ares?

 

Looking through the media there was a GA amphibian operating in the area in previous years but he moved south for better (smoother) conditions. He had Council permission to operate a scenic flight business from just off the beach, so I am just curious to know what the difference is?

 

 

[dazza 38]

In QLD you can take off and land in coastal areas like the Gold Coast spit. Moreton Bay ect. You cannot however take off and/or land on government owned dams like Wivenhoe.

 

I was told this an Amphib pilot. So it is probably correct but I do not have it in writing.

 

 

[facthunter]

I thought once on the water you are effectively a boat and subject to state laws. Jet ski's are not allowed in certain areas and I would have thought likewise restrictions on speeds and access would apply.

 

 

[facthunter]

You should give that line a break Bull. You throw a broad based accusation around that assumes all GA do these things. It's no wonder you are being attacked (which I don't support, but can understand and anticipated) . I mentioned a while back, WE U/L people (not just YOU) will not be welcome at places, and you are back in full song, bagging a section of aviation, that you have some axe to grind with.. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I thought once on the water you are effectively a boat and subject to state laws. Jet ski's are not allowed in certain areas and I would have thought likewise restrictions on speeds and access would apply.

Yup that is exactly how it works up here. Amphibian pilots in QLD must also have an Marine recreational licence. All boating laws apply when the aircraft is on the water.

 

 

[Teckair]

The footage I saw looked more like a low pass than a landing attempt, I thought the correct action was taken.

 

 

[slb]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he need to make a low pass first, prior to thinking of landing on any strip of water?

 

 

[Teckair]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he need to make a low pass first, prior to thinking of landing on any strip of water?

Not that low it was about the same height as the jetty and fairly close to it as well. I thought it was a silly thing to do. Why anyone would want to land a plane there I can't imagine

 

 

[Yenn]

Wether it was legal or not I wouldn't assume that RAAus don't make mistakes and publish incorrect information to a pilots detriment. I put in a report of damage to the tailwheel attachment on my Corby. The report as issued by RAAus stated that I had not carried a required AD. It took a long while for me to spot this, and it is several weeks since I contacted RAAus to advise them of the correct situation, but the silence from them is deafening.

 

I am beginning to wonder who RAAus are working for.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I am beginning to wonder who RAAus are working for.

This is becoming a worrying trend, the members are coming second!

 

 

[bull]

Thank god others are taking up the cause ,thank you guys and dont let them beat you as they have me,as i,ve sold my aircraft and will no more have any dealings with RAA cheers Bull aka Scott Evans

 

 

[rankamateur]

Once I finish building mine I won't have a choice but deal with RAA. Until then it is still my choice. I can see the argument about not dividing the critical mass of members in a political sense. But I feel like the members get taken for granted all too often in this monopoly member owned organisation that we are required to deal with if we want to play the game. The trike guys at least can choose the best of the worst.

 

 

[poteroo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he need to make a low pass first, prior to thinking of landing on any strip of water?

The use of an 'inspection' run over an intended landing area should be made upwind, and in a low speed airframe configuration, so as to allow maximum time to evaluate the surface condition. The height above surface that is used will depend on the weather, and the obstacle heights in the area. Over smooth water, you'd think that 200 ft might be prudent, and where there are trees and powerlines present on land - not below the level of the highest of these - higher if windy.

 

Pilots can't carry out a high speed x downwind run and then claim, (rather disingenuously), that it was an 'inspection' run.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Yenn]

I reckon even if you want to impress everyone with the speed of your plane, you should still do the high speed pass into wind. That way you can see what is in the circuit, you can avoid a dangerous situation and also you can plead that you were going round.

 

Been there, done that. passed a C172 while he was still climbing into wind. Radio is a big help.

 

 

[slb]

Pilots can't carry out a high speed x downwind run and then claim, (rather disingenuously), that it was an 'inspection' run.

Hi Poteroo - I have not seen the video of the incident, but was he actually flying high speed and downwind? I ask because I heard that he was flying coastal, so I am not sure of the rules about landing on the 'sea' when flying along the coastline ... is there anyone on this forum who has a waterborne endorsement who can answer?