Changing planes

[Ada Elle]

I think you're incorrect, otherwise you could never land.

 

Also, when I was a wee lass, I studied a bit of logic, and I was taught that NOT (A AND B) was equivalent to (NOT A) OR (NOT B).

 

My now more considered take on this is that the CAR157 exceptions (stress of weather, takeoff/landing, low level flying rating, etc) do not apply to built-up areas unless you can glide free. So you must do engine-failure-safe circuits over built up areas.

 

 

[DrZoos]

You are allowed at any altitude in the act of taking off or landing... But should still be able to safely glide and avoid people.

 

 

[frank marriott]

In law there is a big difference between AND & OR. Nothing to do with maths.

 

 

[Dieselten]

I have always been of the opinion that at any stage of the circuit you should be able to get back to a runway (not necessarily the one you took off from) if the engine fails - built up area or not.

 

That's what I teach and if a student gets too far away in the circuit (not flying parallel to the runway on downwind, going too far on crosswind, etc) I'll just simulate an engine-failure and let them see what the consequences would have been as they run out of altitude and options. Once usually drives the lesson home.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I think you're incorrect, otherwise you could never land.Also, when I was a wee lass, I studied a bit of logic, and I was taught that NOT (A AND B) was equivalent to (NOT A) OR (NOT B).

 

My now more considered take on this is that the CAR157 exceptions (stress of weather, takeoff/landing, low level flying rating, etc) do not apply to built-up areas unless you can glide free. So you must do engine-failure-safe circuits over built up areas.

I think Zoos has this one right Ada.

There may be an exception for taking off and landing at an airport, I'm not sure about that.

 

But i was always taught that you had to be both, at least 1000 agl AND able to glide clear. So airspace aside if you were over the centre of a huge village and 1000agl wasn't enough to glide clear then you would have to go higher even though you were meeting part of the criteria cruising at 1000agl it wouldn't be enough. Common sense really.

 

I fly 19 registered so built up areas are a no go even at 10,000 amsl, although determining whether (or wether, I always get them mixed up!) you are over that village of ten houses from 7 or 8 thousand agl is a bit tricky

 

 

[DrZoos]

CAR 157 'Low flying' is offset by CAO 95.55 sections 7.1 (b) (h) (i), 8.1 and 8.2 plus RA-Aus operations manual section 2.01 para 10.

 

 

You might need to revisit those logic lessons , becuase the law is pretty clear about the difference between and or or

 

 

[Ada Elle]

CAR157 has an exemption for takeoff and landing. CAO 95.55 has no such exemption. Thus, by DrZoos' interpretation, you are never allowed to land at an airport in a built-up area.

 

On the other hand, the penalties for breaking the low-flying laws are different: if you fly under 1000' over a built up area in a GA aircraft, you are liable for a 5k fine; if you do it in an RA aircraft you're liable for 2 years in the clink.

 

On the gripping hand, if you can glide free (for example, if you're in a Pipistrel Sinus) the CAO seems to say that you can fly between 500 and 1000 agl with impunity, unlike if the same aircraft is registered VH.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

CAR157 has an exemption for takeoff and landing. CAO 95.55 has no such exemption. Thus, by DrZoos' interpretation, you are never allowed to land at an airport in a built-up area.On the other hand, the penalties for breaking the low-flying laws are different: if you fly under 1000' over a built up area in a GA aircraft, you are liable for a 5k fine; if you do it in an RA aircraft you're liable for 2 years in the clink.

 

On the gripping hand, if you can glide free (for example, if you're in a Pipistrel Sinus) the CAO seems to say that you can fly between 500 and 1000 agl with impunity, unlike if the same aircraft is registered VH.

I believe you are wrong. Dr Zoos is right in my opinion. CAO 95.55 does have the same exemption in paragraph 8.1 (below).

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less

 

than 500 feet above ground level if:

 

(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing;

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CAO95.55-24-Feb-2015.pdf

 

 

[DrZoos]

Try pages 132 to roughly 136

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Operations-Manual-Issue-7_Single-pages-with-new-CAO-95.55-Mar-15.pdf

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The section 8.1 exemption is for the general restriction on flying at under 500'. It is not an exemption to 7.1.

 

8.1 says that you're allowed to fly below 500ft for the purposes of takeoff and landing.

 

7.1 says that you're not allowed to fly below 1000' in closely settled areas, in LSAs etc, unless you can glide free.

 

Otherwise, by your interpretation, you are never allowed to fly in a closely settled area unless you are more than 1000'; so how do you land at say YWOL? There is no exemption to 7.1 for takeoff and landing, so how do do your crosswind and base legs?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Dr Zoos is quite correct about the significance of the "and". Forget logic and just look at the plain English interpretation which is exactly what a Court will do.

 

Some light reading here which discusses amongst other things strict liability and the supposed health and safety justification for it, and the defence of an honest and reasonable mistake.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/fsa/2007/oct/12-13.pdf

 

Note that the mistake must be both honest AND reasonable.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

How about this. 8.1 lets you fly below 500 ft when in the process of taking off and landing, in other words there is no height restriction when taking off and landing. This includes upwind, crosswind, downwind, base and final, although there is no need to go below 500 ft on crosswind, downwind or base of course, but they are all part of taking off and landing.

 

By definition, if you are able to go below 500 ft you must be able to go below 1000 ft. Therefore, 8.1 over rides the requirement to stay at or above 1000 ft over built up areas if these areas are overflown in the process of taking off and landing, ie in the circuit.

 

 

[DrZoos]

The section 8.1 exemption is for the general restriction on flying at under 500'. It is not an exemption to 7.1.8.1 says that you're allowed to fly below 500ft for the purposes of takeoff and landing.

 

7.1 says that you're not allowed to fly below 1000' in closely settled areas, in LSAs etc, unless you can glide free.

 

Otherwise, by your interpretation, you are never allowed to fly in a closely settled area unless you are more than 1000'; so how do you land at say YWOL? There is no exemption to 7.1 for takeoff and landing, so how do do your crosswind and base legs?

Yes, There is an exemption to height restrictions for take off and landing...however since it seems your not prepared to listen ..i will leave you to you and your own divices....however, under the new RAA guise of talking tough about saefty...I would say you should not be flying at all till you understand this concept. Re read info refered to in post #69

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have the feeling the Ada Elle may have gone to the Fly Tornado school of Trolls.

 

 

[kasper]

CAR 5.81 (which is obsolete) also says: 'unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case'

My email from CASA says that they're running about eight weeks behind on new Part 61 licenses. I don't know what the lag time on a Part 5 to Part 61 conversion is.

 

I have an aviation law question (about CAO 95.55): it says

 

the aeroplane must not be flown over a built-up area at a height:

 

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of all dwellings, buildings and

 

persons within the built-up area; and

 

(ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

 

Does this AND mean that you do not need to be able to glide clear if you are above 1000 feet? In other words, is this just the requirement from CAR 157?

Nope.

all the posts on the AND vs OR question are correct - BUT ...

 

The 1000ft/glide free in is CAO95.55 para 7.1(h)and that is the general requirement

 

BUT

 

then you have 8.1 which covers take off and landing.

 

You are OK under the CAOs to take off and land.

 

Different kettle of fish with the Ops manual where the drafting is so horrendous that you TECHNICALLY require a low level endorsement to take off and land ... they (the RAA Ops Manager one assumes) FORGOT to give the exemption within the Ops manual for takeoff and landing but the CAOs allow it.

 

Given the combination of CAO allowing take off and landing BUT requiring compliance withe the RAA ops manual if you are RAA certificated we have all been illegal taking off and landing since OPs 7 came out ... RAA ops know about this by the way - I told them when Ops 7 came out ... hope it gets fixed because the conflict in drafting and the requirements between CAO and RAA Ops is just silly.

 

Oh and just in case you are really just a troll (no knowledge if you are) I will put my interpretation based on being

 

1. An RAA senior instructor

 

2. PPL holder

 

3. a solicitor who worked in the government drafting regulations - admittedly many years ago

 

up against an argument that 8.1 on low flight does not modify and over rule 7.1 on general flight limitations ;-)

 

Cheers

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The CAR 157 exemption makes sense for 95.10 aircraft, but why not just satisfy CAR 157 for 95.55 types? Not too sure about 95.32?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

So.

 

You're all claiming that CAO 95.55 says (in effect) that:

 

you must remain clear of built up areas unless

 

you can glide clear AND

 

you remain above 1000' except when taking off and landing

 

It's as if casa actually meant to write

 

The pilot in command of a Jabiru-powered aircraft is only permitted to operate the aircraft over a populous area at a height:

(a) from which the aircraft can glide clear of all populous areas to a suitable forced-landing area;and

 

(b) that is at least 1 000 feet above ground level, except to the minimum extent necessary for the aircraft to safely climb after take-off or safely descend for a landing.

which is lifted from CASA 292/14.

 

However, in the same CASA document (the Jabiru instrument), it says that this bans such aircraft from Bankstown, Archerfield, and Moorabbin.

 

So, I ask again, what is the correct interpretation of 95.55? Can you fly over populous areas at greater than 1000' if you cannot glide clear?

 

 

[K-man]

I have the feeling the Ada Elle may have gone to the Fly Tornado school of Trolls.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

......So, I ask again, what is the correct interpretation of 95.55? Can you fly over populous areas at greater than 1000' if you cannot glide clear?

Exactly how many times would you like to be told?

 

YOU MUST BE ABOVE 1000ft - it used to be 1500ft. It's a fly neighbourly noise consideration ...

 

AND (that's AND, not OR, NOR or even NAND (I did logic too))

 

YOU MUST ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GLIDE CLEAR (from whatever height your flying)

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Then you can tell Ultralights that he has been illegally flying from Bankstown.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Above 1000 AND able to glide clear

 

UNLESS LANDING OR TAKING OFF OR other listed exemptions....eg training, search etc

 

note : Landing and takeoff also includes more than just base, final and upwind crosswind...

 

at the end of the day use good airmanship, be considerate and safe... If your approaching a lower airport over higher built up areas, then perhaps a descent from overhead or an alternative approach angle is best rather than flying 700 above houses just to arrive at circuit at 1000...

 

But be warned if you fly over towns below 1000 or non glideable to safety and something happens , its going to become extrremely dangerous for you and others very quickly and it will be very easy to prove if you survive and if you are criminally negligent in someone elses death injury or loss.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Then you can tell Ultralights that he has been illegally flying from Bankstown.

A lot more evidence about his altitude, approach path and glideable options on his approaches would be necesary to reach this conclusion.

However, if you feel someone is doing this then by all means YOU should have this conversation with that person and or bring it to the attention of a CFI for discussion

 

 

[Dieselten]

Lady, and Gentlemen,

 

What this thread clearly shows more than anything else is just how stupid it is to try and regulate an activity by setting out a series of regulations under different categories and then giving exemptions from those regulations.

 

It is the worst of all possible results with the best of all possible intentions - and it is exactly the preferred model of bureaucracies around the world because of the endless confusion and the need for interpretation (i.e. "bureaucratic empire-building") which is the inevitable result. Clarity and brevity are mutually-exclusive, and the current system proves precisely that.

 

Hundreds of public servants are gainfully employed in writing these regulations, writing the exemptions to these regulations, and hundreds more are gainfully employed in interpreting them, trying to explain what the real meanings of the regulations - and exemptions - are. It is classic "Yes, Minister"...unfortunately it is anything but a comedy, or a fiction. It is a self-perpetuating industry based on confusion, interpretation and layers of administration for its own sake and it is increasingly dysfunctional.

 

Now, let's get a bit pragmatic here. You have a set of regulations and exemptions under the regulations. As a pilot, you do your best to "stay within the intent, as much as the letter, of the law". You will be unlikely to come to the unwanted attention of the authorities if you conduct yourselves and operate your aeroplanes (no matter what category they fall into) sensibly and keeping the intent of the regulation - and the exemption - uppermost in mind.

 

There are always a few who are determined to push the boundaries, both literally and by a novel re-interpretation of an existing regulation and exemption. In the old days we called them "pioneers". Now we call them "statistics" because they sometimes become one.

 

Winston Churchill said "rules are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". A rule (regulation, etc) exists because a set of circumstances, or a situation, brought them into being. Wise men look at the rules, understand why they exist and draw their own conclusions as how to best stay within their confines under any given situation. Wise men also know that if a rule has to be "bent", then two conditions must be met.

 

First, never bend a rule beyond it's hysteresis-limit. That is, never bend a rule until it reaches the point at which it is likely to suffer a permanent deformation...because that's also what you may suffer, financially or physically, or possibly both.

 

Second, if you have to bend a rule, at least give yourself half a chance of getting away with it. In other words, don't bend a rule in a place, in a manner or at an altitude, where breaking it is likely to have immediate and unhappy consequences, or be witnessed, or photographed. A rule that is very gently "bent" on rare occasions is far better than one which is wilfully, repeatedly and brazenly broken. In "Lord Of The rings", Gandalf said "he who breaks a thing to see how it is made has left the path of reason". There is much wisdom in this saying, especially when it comes to rules relating to aviation. Remember, in extremis, regulations can and will be waived (such as a "Mayday" situation etc).

 

Another thing that helps is stay within the flight-envelope, and your own personal "skill-envelope", at all times. If you must stand on the "sticky gummed edge", it's your own damn fault if you come un-stuck.

 

This thread is in danger of degenerating into the age-old argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'd summarise it by saying "for every rule, there is an equal and opposite exemption" (to paraphrase Newton). Actually, the issue seems to be pretty much insoluble from one point of view, and firmly settled according to several others. Ada asked for clarification. The only clarification will be a new set of regulations specfically setting out what is permitted, without a raft of expemptions from existing regulations. They are coming. So is Christmas, and I know which will arrive first.

 

As for me, well, I'll try to use my prudent and considered judgement as a pilot to prevent me from ever getting into a situation where I have to fall back on my technical skills and/or luck to extricate myself from it. Not many of us fly with one hand on the controls and the other holding the regulations. Keep one hand on the controls; keep the intent of the rules and exemptions in your head as far as you can, and fly as safely as you can, as often as you can.

 

 

[facthunter]

Write the rules so they can be understood would be a good start. The ordinary pilot shouldn't need to refer to the basic" air nav" regulations or an act of parliament, as they are for the aviation lawyers, who may not even fly a plane, to interpret and argue about the meaning of.

 

Company Operations Manuals are approved documents, not just "policy". RAAus should be able to produce similar documents that are approved by the authority and can be understood by the average pilot, or else CASA should do it in the interests of safety . It's to hard to get a straight answer on many things, so change is needed.Nev

 

 

[K-man]

What this thread clearly shows more than anything else is just how stupid it is to try and regulate an activity by setting out a series of regulations under different categories and then giving exemptions from those regulations.

If people are confused over something as simple as we have been discussing then I suggest they shouldn't be flying over a built up area in the first place.

In the case at hand what is confusing? You fly over a built up area at a minimum 1000' AGL. That's pretty straight forward. You should also fly at a height that, in the event of an engine failure, you can glide to a clear area. If you are landing, circuit height for most aircraft likely to be flying over towns is 1000'. GA aircraft tend to drag themselves in with power on but most RA aircraft can start final at 1000' and still land easily, and yes we can fly below 1000' to land. What is so hard to follow?

 

I am constantly amazed at how some people can manage to make relatively simple things complex.

 

The advice given below is as good as it gets.

 

Keep one hand on the controls; keep the intent of the rules and exemptions in your head as far as you can, and fly as safely as you can, as often as you can.