Changing planes

[djpacro]

..... and yes we can fly below 1000' to land. What is so hard to follow?

How much built-up area may one fly over at 1,000 ft, unable to glide clear, before it is considered that one is "landing" as distinct from cruising towards an airport where one intends to land?I wonder how many pilots know what built-up area is?

 

 

[DrZoos]

This may not be the absolute latest definition, but it was in 2011

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it 1,000' above the highest obstacle also, so the confusion goes on. How many approaches to aerodromes can you glide to a safe landing anywhere near it or clear of buildings?. The take off situation is worse, and what if you are doing a 500' circuit as approved for your category of aircraft, and a very draggy aircraft? Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

How much built-up area may one fly over at 1,000 ft, unable to glide clear, before it is considered that one is "landing" as distinct from cruising towards an airport where one intends to land?I wonder how many pilots know what built-up area is?

So based on the definition in my previous post...I rightly or wrongly interpret that as if i can see a perfectly vacant paddock or two, a vacant race track, empty drag strip etc within glideable distance I am good to go...

So far all the areas I have flown are country / regional , except the gold coast and maitland areas, so so its generally not an issue other than in our circuit and we have a Horse race track and an abandoned grass runway reachable from 03 and paddocks galore and the grass runway reachable from 21... Every where else I have been so far in NSW and SE QLD there is no issue...

 

The section between Hinze Dam and Q1 on the gold coast could get you in trouble if you chose the wrong path as your under steps, over houses ..there are plenty pf options for an emergency landing, but I could see how a pilot could get themselves in trouble there and I would also imagine round Bankstown, west of Brisbane and perhaps a few other isolated areas it would be similar..

 

 

[K-man]

I think it 1,000' above the highest obstacle also, so the confusion goes on. How many approaches to aerodromes can you glide to a safe landing anywhere near it or clear of buildings?. The take off situation is worse, and what if you are doing a 500' circuit as approved for your category of aircraft, and a very draggy aircraft? Nev

There is nothing to say you have to glide to an area for a safe landing. You are gliding clear of buildings. I know I could put our aircraft down safely in a very limited area (less than 50m) even though it would be a considerable time before it flew again.

I have no idea of what aircraft have a 500' circuit apart from the fact that they are low speed variety. If they were flying into an airport like Moorabbin they would be directed in at 1000' anyway. I don't know of any uncontrolled airports in the middle of a town or city. So let's get real. How many times has it been a problem for you?

 

 

[kasper]

There is nothing to say you have to glide to an area for a safe landing. You are gliding clear of buildings. I know I could put our aircraft down safely in a very limited area (less than 50m) even though it would be a considerable time before it flew again.I have no idea of what aircraft have a 500' circuit apart from the fact that they are low speed variety. If they were flying into an airport like Moorabbin they would be directed in at 1000' anyway. I don't know of any uncontrolled airports in the middle of a town or city. So let's get real. How many times has it been a problem for you?

How often a problem?

Never, because I am a sad git who likes legislation and reads it - ALL of it

 

If I am flying 95.10 I am not allowed over closely settled areas - 95.10 para 6.1(g)

 

If I am flying 95.32 weightshift from commercial manufacture I fly over closely settle areas at a minimum of 1,000ft or glide free height whichever is higher (weightshift take very little landing room so lots of options to remain legal if not comfy) - 95.32 para 7.1 (h)

 

If I am flying 95.32 weightshift of homebuilt type I am not allowed over closely settle areas without CASA written approval - and I can't be arsed getting it so I leave that areas alone - 95.32 para 7.1 (i)

 

If I am flying 95.55 3axis I decide that it its homebuilt I leave closely settled areas alone because I can't be arsed working out if 95.55 para 7.5 applies and 95.55 para 7.1 (i) says no as a starting point BUT if its 101.55, type cert or factory LSA then I can go over closely settled at minimum of 1,000ft or safe glide whichever is higher - 95.55 para 7.1 (h)

 

Basic operating rule:

 

- if it rolled out of factory as a fully complete aircraft you can fly over closely settled areas at the greater of 1,000ft AGL or glide free height AND this is overruled if you are taking off or landing as there are seperate exemptions covering that flight regime

 

- it is was assembled from a kit, built from plans or a grandfathered factory 95.10 you stay away from closely settled areas

 

Simples.

 

And if you are a non-factory aircraft exemptions to the stay away from closely settled areas are available but they require CASA approvals if you want to do that.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's a few aerodromes I would not operate certain types from, because of the non availability of any place to go if you lose the motor. I did also mention clear of buildings. There are also plenty of aerodromes , I manoeuver to avoid flying over houses because of the noise nuisance. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Worth checking the definition of built-up area (or whatever term they specifically use) that CASA uses.

 

 

[kasper]

Worth checking the definition of built-up area (or whatever term they specifically use) that CASA uses.

DrZoos posted the answer to this above but its not hard - look in whatever CAO your aircraft falls under in the definition section. eg CAO95.55

"closely-settled area, in relation to an aeroplane, means an area in which, because of:

 

(a) man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles; and

 

(b) the characteristics of the aeroplane;

 

the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aeroplane or damaging property in the area."

 

 

[kaz3g]

Lady, and Gentlemen,Winston Churchill said "rules are made for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

I think Winston was "borrowing" for one of his speeches when he said that and credit should really be given to Solon the Lawmaker of Athens d.559. Oscar Wilde likewise.

 

It was also famously repeated by Flt Lt Harry Day to a very young Douglas Bader not long sfter he lost his legs doing the very thing he had been told not to do in a Glocester Gladiator as best as my memory serves me (although he also flew Gamecocks while performing aerobatics).

 

Kaz

 

 

[K-man]

How often a problem?Never, because I am a sad git who likes legislation and reads it - ALL of it

Exactly, and the other 99.9% of people don't have a problem either. There is a difference between a problem and a hypothetical problem. I really don't have time to worry about hypotheticals. That really cuts into flying time.

 

 

[kaz3g]

CAR 157 can be viewed here

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html

 

But don't forget CAR 156

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s156.html

 

The definition below is the only one I can find re "populous area".... It is also used in relation to balloons and Jabirus.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 101.025

 

Meaning of populous area

 

For this Part, an area is a populous area in relation to the operation of an unmanned aircraft or rocket if the area has a sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation, or some event that might happen during the operation (in particular, a fault in, or failure of, the aircraft or rocket) to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of somebody who is in the area but is not connected with the operation.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

This is not a hypothetical. It is very real, and pertains to many people here.

 

The FlySafe tutorials say:

 

Generally a factory-built aeroplane must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area and the minimum height is 1 000 feet above ground level. 'Suitable landing area' means an area in which an aeroplane can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

Even so, it is unlikely that, if it came to a judicial test, a recreational aircraft would be legally be able to operate from, or enter, most Class D CTRs as the 'lanes of entry' to such airfields usually involve overflight of closely-settled areas, and overlying Class C airspace may severely limit available altitude (and thus gliding distance) in such lanes.

CASA has this to say about Jabirus:

 

(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.

 

NoteParagraph (a), together with the definition of populous area, has the effect of prohibiting Jabiru-powered aircraft from departing from or landing at various places, including but not limited to Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin Airports.

The general consensus is also that Jabiru-powered aircraft cannot use the northbound Sydney GA lane because of the stretch over Parramatta from which aircraft cannot glide clear.

 

There are clearly RAAus aircraft using the lane of entry and Bankstown. CASA has said that it is impossible to glide clear of Bankstown.

 

Are these aircraft operating illegally, or does 95.55 not mean what people here think it means?

 

Who wants to call CASA, get a clarification, and possibly get RAAus aircraft banned from Sydney altogether?

 

 

[frank marriott]

I am always reminded of the statement of a CP/CFI many years ago:

 

There is two ways to look at the rules and regs.

 

1. Is how I can legally do something; or

 

2. Why I can't do something

 

Only those with the first attitude will get a job with me.

 

Pretty much sums up the debate to me.

 

 

[kasper]

CAR 157 can be viewed herehttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html

But don't forget CAR 156

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s156.html

 

The definition below is the only one I can find re "populous area".... It is also used in relation to balloons and Jabirus.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 101.025

 

Meaning of populous area

 

For this Part, an area is a populous area in relation to the operation of an unmanned aircraft or rocket if the area has a sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation, or some event that might happen during the operation (in particular, a fault in, or failure of, the aircraft or rocket) to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of somebody who is in the area but is not connected with the operation.

Here we go again ...

CAR 156 is flight over a public gathering - not really anything to do with flight over an area closely settled area

 

CAR 157 is one that does not EVER apply to any ultralight operating with the CAOs eg CAO95.55 para 3.1(d) exemption

 

So can we please focus on the CAOs we are under and check the exemptions first before dragging in CARs that are not applicable - for microlights look at the CAO for both the definition of closely settled areas and the conditions that allow us to operate.

 

To keep it to one post the one above from Ada - I am starting to despair - you clearly have a bee in your bonnet over the operation into/around Bankstown and around the Sydney basin - NOT all ultralights are ever going to be allowed into that area because the airspace requires a heap of items eg they need to have certified engines etc see CAO95.55 para 7.3 for all the details.

 

Now if you want to argue that there are no heights available above 1000ft AGL and below the step to airspace you are not allowed into from which there is a possibility to glide clear then that's one of fact and for every pilot you will find a different interpretation of that applying to them ... PRACTICALLY unless and until CASA say we must not be in lane X for this reason OR it comes before a court following a bad outcome pilots will continue to operate within the allowable airspaces provided under the CAOs.

 

Basic rule for Bankstown at the moment is that the Jabiru engines have been removed from operating under the requirements of CAO95.55 so they cannot go in there - nothing to do with glide free etc but entirely on relates to the removal of one of the requirements for the exemption int eh CAO to allow operation in that airspace.

 

Ada, if you do not want to operate there in an RAA registered aircraft feel free to not operate there. If others chose to operate there because they believe that their operations are within the requirements of the CAOs its a decision for them. For me I am pretty clear, the western lane of entry would not be available to me as I could not, as you point out, glide clear all the way through Parramatta. My decision. I would by preference fly the coastal route.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

kasper, I want to operate there (and out of there). I'm trying to convince myself that it's legal.

 

if you read CASA 292/14 it says that Jabiru-engined aircraft (all, not only 95.55) are banned from bankstown because they cannot glide free. That's the note at the bottom of my quote. It has nothing to do with 95.55

 

CASA have given a ruling about Jabiru-engined aircraft. (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing)

 

CAO 95.55 has a slightly differently worded rule - it says "must not be" rather than "is only permitted".

 

DrZoos, yourself, and others have given an interpretation of 95.55 that is the same as the Jabiru ruling: (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing).

 

My question is, if CASA have said glide free and over 1000' means no bankstown (see 292/14), how does this interpretation of 95.55 allow any 95.55 aircraft to go into bankstown?

 

or, could I ask anyone who has flown a RAAus aircraft into / out of Bankstown, how they interpret 95.55 7.1?

 

all I'm after is to convince myself that, armed with an RPL and controlled airspace endorsements, going to Bankstown/Moorabbin and renting a 24-rego Foxbat or Tecnam is legal. that would make the drive to go fly a lot shorter! (and once hired, going through the lane, and asking for clearance for Harbour Scenic One - again, flying over massive stretches of urban tiger country).

 

(I think it is, but your arguments are making me concerned that my interpretation which permits this, is incorrect.)

 

 

[DrZoos]

Ada this late i cant answer that in the detail i thnk it needs... Other than to say..if we did everything's ng to the letter of the some interpretations of law most things could not be done...

 

One brief concept is that one can possibly argue that the approach path is in the act of landing....and thus ok

 

 

[coljones]

kasper, I want to operate there (and out of there). I'm trying to convince myself that it's legal.if you read CASA 292/14 it says that Jabiru-engined aircraft (all, not only 95.55) are banned from bankstown because they cannot glide free. That's the note at the bottom of my quote. It has nothing to do with 95.55

 

CASA have given a ruling about Jabiru-engined aircraft. (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing)

 

CAO 95.55 has a slightly differently worded rule - it says "must not be" rather than "is only permitted".

 

DrZoos, yourself, and others have given an interpretation of 95.55 that is the same as the Jabiru ruling: (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing).

 

My question is, if CASA have said glide free and over 1000' means no bankstown (see 292/14), how does this interpretation of 95.55 allow any 95.55 aircraft to go into bankstown?

 

or, could I ask anyone who has flown a RAAus aircraft into / out of Bankstown, how they interpret 95.55 7.1?

 

all I'm after is to convince myself that, armed with an RPL and controlled airspace endorsements, going to Bankstown/Moorabbin and renting a 24-rego Foxbat or Tecnam is legal. that would make the drive to go fly a lot shorter! (and once hired, going through the lane, and asking for clearance for Harbour Scenic One - again, flying over massive stretches of urban tiger country).

 

(I think it is, but your arguments are making me concerned that my interpretation which permits this, is incorrect.)

Ada, there are Foxbats and Tecnams currently operating out of YSBK - apparently without issue (for the aircraft) - generally the PIC must have a licence - RPL or higher (and presumably a medical) and a CTA endo. I understand that there are other RAA planes there as well. The Jabs have gone to Camden or elsewhere.

 

The issue with the major city GA airports would appear that (for Jabirus) it is not possible to glide clear in all circumstances eg coming into YSBK Rwy 11 at 1000 feet. The situation with aircraft not covered by the Jabiru instrument is that, while they may also not glide clear in take off or landing in all instances, CASA doesn't have the same concerns (paranoia).

 

It would appear that the operators of the non-jab RAA planes at Bankstown continue to operate their planes in the knowledge that no-one has yet beat them up for their operations at YSBK. Ring the Anthony Coleiro at Sydney Jabiru on 0427 213 030 and talk to him about hiring their Tecnam at YSBK. I don't know who operates the Foxbat. Or checkout Schofields Flying Club for some very nice and cheap Cherokees.

 

 

[K-man]

Different combinations of words mean different things to different people. If that were not the case we wouldn't need 501,000 solicitors in Australia. They make a fortune playing their game, arguing all sorts or abstract positions. That then involves the umpires (judges) who adjudicate and set a precedent for future games.

 

Every piece of legislation follows that line as often there are unintentional meanings possible. To stop all the wheels grinding to a halt while legislation is amended or redrafted, both options that can again allow the same multiple interpretations, the law follow precedent, most often the intent of the legislation.

 

I would suggest that rather than jump up and down over legalities people should just keep doing what is being done and shut up and fly. If you think something is wrong and changing it will provide a better outcome for everyone then by all means go for it but I fail to see that this conversation is doing that.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

....There are clearly RAAus aircraft using the lane of entry and Bankstown. CASA has said that it is impossible to glide clear of Bankstown.

 

.....

 

.... kasper, I want to operate there (and out of there). I'm trying to convince myself that it's legal. ........ all I'm after is to convince myself that, armed with an RPL and controlled airspace endorsements, going to Bankstown/Moorabbin and renting a 24-rego Foxbat or Tecnam is legal. that would make the drive to go fly a lot shorter! (and once hired, going through the lane, and asking for clearance for Harbour Scenic One - again, flying over massive stretches of urban tiger country). .....

I think we're getting to the bottom of this now.

 

If my interpretation is right, you're not concerned about the safety aspects at all, you just want to be sure that when the engine stops with nowhere for you to go, and you splatter yourself among the trees or smash into someone's living room, that you did it quite legally. Is that it?

 

 

[kasper]

kasper, I want to operate there (and out of there). I'm trying to convince myself that it's legal.if you read CASA 292/14 it says that Jabiru-engined aircraft (all, not only 95.55) are banned from bankstown because they cannot glide free. That's the note at the bottom of my quote. It has nothing to do with 95.55

 

CASA have given a ruling about Jabiru-engined aircraft. (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing)

 

CAO 95.55 has a slightly differently worded rule - it says "must not be" rather than "is only permitted".

 

DrZoos, yourself, and others have given an interpretation of 95.55 that is the same as the Jabiru ruling: (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing).

 

My question is, if CASA have said glide free and over 1000' means no bankstown (see 292/14), how does this interpretation of 95.55 allow any 95.55 aircraft to go into bankstown?

 

or, could I ask anyone who has flown a RAAus aircraft into / out of Bankstown, how they interpret 95.55 7.1?

 

all I'm after is to convince myself that, armed with an RPL and controlled airspace endorsements, going to Bankstown/Moorabbin and renting a 24-rego Foxbat or Tecnam is legal. that would make the drive to go fly a lot shorter! (and once hired, going through the lane, and asking for clearance for Harbour Scenic One - again, flying over massive stretches of urban tiger country).

 

(I think it is, but your arguments are making me concerned that my interpretation which permits this, is incorrect.)

Ada,

You REALLY need to redo your RAA airlaw and READ CAO95.55

 

95.55 is the OPERATIONAL CAO for everything that it registered RAA and not weightshift, PPC or single seat 95.10 - and it matters not if it is designed to 101.55, 101.28, ATSM or the Djibuti CAA design spec #1 (so long as CASA have accepted that design spec) this CAO set out the exemptions from the CARs and sets out operational limits.

 

The issue with Jabiru engines per the CASA direction is singular in nature but two fold in operation:

 

1. if the aircraft has a JAB engine and it has VH- on the side then it has restrictions through its certificate

 

2. if the aircraft has a JAB engine and it has RAA numbers on the side then the restriction from CASA comes not from limits on the certificate (we do not operate them) BUT it comes through CASA removing/restricting the approval of the engine that CAO95.55 then kicks in and says - no flying in airspace A, B, C or D even if you have all the other boxes ticks.

 

Outcome is the same BUT the way it gets applied is THROUGH the operation of CAO95.55.

 

As I have said, and others too, "glide clear" is a pilot decision based on what they are flying at that point in time as they come along an airway and only applies UNTIL you start the landing phase of flight ...

 

TECHNICALLY I can argue that the lovely river that runs around Bankstown is in itself NOT a closely settled area - nor are playing fields golf courses and parks if I can see there are no people ... TECHNICALLY so long as I can glide to that that location from ANY part of the flight into Bankstown THAT IS NOT TAKE OFF AND LANDING (because closely settled areas limits and glide free do NOT apply once i am landing) I can get in and out.

 

Now would you like to place a bet on me arguing that EVERY point of flight from the initial reporting point into Bankstown is a landing phase ... and as such is NOT subject to glide clear restrictions?

 

Similarly every point of takeoff until I leave the Bankstown frequency IS a part of the take off phase ...

 

Now can you possibly see how people flying RAA aircraft without Jabiru engines can fly in and out of Bankstown?

 

 

[facthunter]

I have always taken the taking off and landing phases as just that. Some of the quasi legal arguments wouldn't go far in a court of law, and that's where you end up if the worst happens. You can't wish these problems away. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

I have always taken the taking off and landing phases as just that. Some of the quasi legal arguments wouldn't go far in a court of law, and that's where you end up if the worst happens. You can't wish these problems away. Nev

Yes and no. If you have reported to a control tower at a point of entry and are following directions to arrive and land at an airfield you are commencing the landing phase of flight.

That was why I have a different outcome on closely settled areas when looking at into/out of Bankstown compared to the western Sydney transit lane over Parramatta/Westmead where landing issues do not arise.

 

 

[Camel]

Ada,You REALLY need to redo your RAA airlaw and READ CAO95.55

 

95.55 is the OPERATIONAL CAO for everything that it registered RAA and not weightshift, PPC or single seat 95.10 - and it matters not if it is designed to 101.55, 101.28, ATSM or the Djibuti CAA design spec #1 (so long as CASA have accepted that design spec) this CAO set out the exemptions from the CARs and sets out operational limits.

 

The issue with Jabiru engines per the CASA direction is singular in nature but two fold in operation:

 

1. if the aircraft has a JAB engine and it has VH- on the side then it has restrictions through its certificate

 

2. if the aircraft has a JAB engine and it has RAA numbers on the side then the restriction from CASA comes not from limits on the certificate (we do not operate them) BUT it comes through CASA removing/restricting the approval of the engine that CAO95.55 then kicks in and says - no flying in airspace A, B, C or D even if you have all the other boxes ticks.

 

Outcome is the same BUT the way it gets applied is THROUGH the operation of CAO95.55.

 

As I have said, and others too, "glide clear" is a pilot decision based on what they are flying at that point in time as they come along an airway and only applies UNTIL you start the landing phase of flight ...

 

TECHNICALLY I can argue that the lovely river that runs around Bankstown is in itself NOT a closely settled area - nor are playing fields golf courses and parks if I can see there are no people ... TECHNICALLY so long as I can glide to that that location from ANY part of the flight into Bankstown THAT IS NOT TAKE OFF AND LANDING (because closely settled areas limits and glide free do NOT apply once i am landing) I can get in and out.

 

Now would you like to place a bet on me arguing that EVERY point of flight from the initial reporting point into Bankstown is a landing phase ... and as such is NOT subject to glide clear restrictions?

 

Similarly every point of takeoff until I leave the Bankstown frequency IS a part of the take off phase ...

 

Now can you possibly see how people flying RAA aircraft without Jabiru engines can fly in and out of Bankstown?

Kasper, you should read the Jabiru limitation again because it can go into CTA but no over populated areas such as Bankstown.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I have always taken the taking off and landing phases as just that. Some of the quasi legal arguments wouldn't go far in a court of law, and that's where you end up if the worst happens. You can't wish these problems away. Nev

Jabiru 4355 10nm semi straight in final for runway 11 Bankstown left turn in 5 nm, currently at 1300 over head Parramatta...that should work

or

 

Jabiru 4355 very extended left base for runway 11 Bankstown left turn Final in 5 nm, currently at 1300 over head Parramatta...that should work