RAA Altitude limitations

[facthunter]

You are demonstrating how real the problem is, and where could you get a guaranteed answer that you could rely on in court.?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Keep reading - there is a further exemption to this limit for crossing between the mainland & TasmaniaCheers

 

John

Thanks John

 

I never have got used to the ridiculous way in which they write these as a prohibition but with a later exception. Why they don't put it together in one reg like they used to I'm dashed if I know...

 

7.2 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in subparagraph 7.1 ©, an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction, by a longer route if taking advantage of safer weather conditions.

 

Now, without being a pedant, I wonder how they apply the new condition of "safer weather conditions"?

 

If the conditions are the same whether flying route A or route B, I guess you can't go.

 

Kaz

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I didn't think a transponder was mandatory above 5000.

 

 

[frank marriott]

RAA is very specific about minimum visibility, we don't fly if it is limited, do we?

Read as minimum VFR limits.

 

 

[facthunter]

Legally the same as anyone else operating under the VFRules. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

You are demonstrating how real the problem is, and where could you get a guaranteed answer that you could rely on in court.?

Nev, it is all in the operations, technical manual and 95.55 , 95.10 and 95.32 the rest is normal CAR's and CAO's apply if not exempted under the 95.10, 95.55 and 95.32.

 

Yes all very complicated I know. I'm sure you could take it to court. What people are not realising that 95.55 etc are exemptions to normal CASA regulations so if is not exempted normal rules apply that are in the CAO and CAR's.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Ok, I'll have one more go in an attempt to explain what I was referring to with reduced visibility. Not 8/8ths blue. Still legal to fly VFR, clear of cloud etc and 5/8 km flight vis. Could be rain showers around etc. so the over all visibility is reduced but still legal to fly VFR.

 

I hope that clears the intent, no hidden adgenda, just what occurs regularly.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks Camel for your reply, but why is it so hard to be sure ? I've been at this stuff for longer than I want to think about and If you enquire of 6 people from CASA you will get 6 different answers. About time what is presented to pilots can cover all possible operations and spell out the rules clearly, and designate which ones apply to you. No more no less. They are the ones who apply strict liability. It's their job to write things that are unambiguous as well as correct. Nev

 

 

[Pearo]

I think the summary format will be useful, but I am having trouble finding the exact reference for some of the requirements.- Like the restriction to factory build over built up areas?

- or I thought over 5000 and class E both required a transponder as well as radio?

 

I am trying to walk the line between being very brief and complete.

WRT to altitude and requirements, its all in the AIP document I provided earlier.

 

To the people argung vis, rules are nothing to do with RAAus, its all listed in AIP ENR 1.2. other details regarding VMC can be found in the relevant CAR's as well as the AIP. I doubt many people can remember this stuff ( I cant), so go buy yourself a VFRG, its got everything you need.

 

And, its possible for an aircraft to file and IFR flight in perfect VMC. This is why the rules exist about 5000ft. Hemispherical rules apply above 5000ft (refere AIP ENR 1.7)

 

 

[Camel]

Thanks Camel for your reply, but why is it so hard to be sure. I've been at this stuff for longer than I want to think about and If you enquire of 6 people from CASA you will get 6 different answers. About time what is presented to pilots can cover all possible operations and spell out the rules clearly, and designate which ones apply to you. No more no less. They are the ones who apply strict liability. It's their job to write things that are unambiguous. Nev

I totally agree with what you say, I have found without doubt that most CASA people are not interested in the answers to anything ! At most CASA seminars I've been to, people ask question and the CASA people don't know the answers !

 

 

[robinsm]

I recently started to tabulate a quick reference guide for these sorts of questions and wanted to reference it back to specific information sources;This how far I got with the draft - I would certainly appreciate some assistance (please) in expanding and checking it.

[GALLERY=media, 3664]Where-do-you-plan-to-fly-draft1 by BlurE posted Dec 21, 2015 at 9:48 AM[/GALLERY]

The flight over built up areas is also with written approval from Raa Aus for 19 reg aircraft, the flights above 5k and below 10k no transponder required in Raa Aus aircraft.

 

 

[Aldo]

I understood that Aldo. My comment was aimed at us the vfr pilots. Frank said we need to be aware of these things especially when visibility is limited. I agree but as rec pilots if visibility is limited then maybe we shouldn't be there. Stay home and go out when visibility is better.

Geoff

 

Sorry I didn't see the limited vis comment in Franks post.

 

 

[Garfly]

Given what's been said about the perils of our venturing up into IFR altitudes (albeit class G), let's say you're cruising along, hemispherically correct, > 5,000' and you hear on the relevant Centre frequency an IFR aircraft making a departure call or getting a clearance or making an inbound call etc such that you believe its PIC might benefit from knowing your whereabouts (assume you're nil Xponder). Is there a preferred format for announcing that you want to make a position/intentions report, just in case of conflict? And where should it go, to Centre only or 'Centre and all traffic in XXX area'?

 

One doesn't often hear calls like that on area frequencies, especially from aircraft with phone numbers for names.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Something like this on the Centre frequency would be fine I think. "Traffic in the XXXX area, Jabiru 1234 is 12 mile to the north of XXXX 6,500 tracking 320 for ZZZZ." If Centre or the other aircraft reply, respond as appropriate.

 

 

[Garfly]

Okay, thanks, HF, makes sense.

 

 

[Pearo]

Given what's been said about the perils of our venturing up into IFR altitudes (albeit class G), let's say you're cruising along, hemispherically correct, > 5,000' and you hear on the relevant Centre frequency an IFR aircraft making a departure call or getting a clearance or making an inbound call etc such that you believe its PIC might benefit from knowing your whereabouts (assume you're nil Xponder). Is there a preferred format for announcing that you want to make a position/intentions report, just in case of conflict? And where should it go, to Centre only or 'Centre and all traffic in XXX area'?One doesn't often hear calls like that on area frequencies, especially from aircraft with phone numbers for names.

IF you are departing/arriving into class G you still will need to make the appropriate calls regardless of the rules of your flight, and if you are concerned about a conflict you should make a call on the local frequency. On the odd occasion where I am not on a local frequency, its usually heading onto class C or D so I have centre on one com and tower/approach on the other com. In this case, I ALWAYS make a call on the CTAF/local broadcasting my current position and altitude stating that I am changing to the approach frequency.

 

On the centre frequency, The controllers know where you are, so no real need to give a call. You will hear it all the time from Centre, ie "unidentified VFR traffic n miles to the SE at 6500, intentions unknown", and the other aircraft will usually respond with "copy traffic" or something similar.

 

However, if you want to let centre know, just call them up and say "Brisbane Centre, tecnam 1234 is currently at dunwich 1500 tracking direct to jacobs well" . I personally would not bother unless conditions were marginal.

 

There is one massive bonus you get from monitoring centre frequency, is that they will often broadcast potential conflicts.

 

There is a bit of conjecture about what frequency you should monitor (ie local or centre), and casa just published some guidelines on this. I cant find them at the moment but I will try track it down the next couple of days. My personal opinion is that if you only have one com, monitor ctaf below 5000, and centre above 5000. I wouldn't make that a hard rule, but its basically outlines where my attention is focussed when flying with 2 coms.

 

 

[Camel]

Given what's been said about the perils of our venturing up into IFR altitudes (albeit class G), let's say you're cruising along, hemispherically correct, > 5,000' and you hear on the relevant Centre frequency an IFR aircraft making a departure call or getting a clearance or making an inbound call etc such that you believe its PIC might benefit from knowing your whereabouts (assume you're nil Xponder). Is there a preferred format for announcing that you want to make a position/intentions report, just in case of conflict? And where should it go, to Centre only or 'Centre and all traffic in XXX area'?One doesn't often hear calls like that on area frequencies, especially from aircraft with phone numbers for names.

Pre 2003 most pilots gave a broadcast of their position and intention where frequency changes were required, any other traffic that was a possible conflict would broadcast their position and intentions, this was a unique Australian practice because Australia did not have enough radar coverage like USA, ADSB was due to be introduced in 2008. So Dick Smith got the gig to run the National Airspace Reform ! WHAT A JOKE ! What has been proved is CASA and Airservices do not have a clue how to promote safety or organise airspace !

 

Air traffic controllers held seminars at the time and they explained what a Mess it was ! Their advice was to continue broadcasting to avoid conflicts !

 

I can not emphasise enough how Rediculious our airspace and safety authorities are !

 

It is 2015 and soon to be 2016 and ADSB is not in all aircraft ! There was supposed to be about 500 ground stations too !

 

A glimpse of the story , http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s971180.htm

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casa-media-release-safety-first-airspace-reforms

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casa-media-release-airspace-changes-will-be-safely-efficiently-and-professionally

 

http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2006-08-15.104.1

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/29/1064819871290.html

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/2007-05-08/0066;query=Id:chamber/hansards/2007-05-08/0000

 

Plenty more proof out there that shows CASA are out of step !

 

The first lot of maps were released without the frequency boundaries ! Everyone complained because the danger was obvious ! But not to CASA the professionals

 

 

[frank marriott]

There is a bit of conjecture about what frequency you should monitor (ie local or centre), and casa just published some guidelines on this. I cant find them at the moment but I will try track it down the next couple of days

CAAP 166

 

 

[BlurE]

Thanks for the comments all I've done a bit more reading of the AIP enroute and the VFR guide and it does appear my table contains at least two errors (I expect more to come)

 

So to be clear;

 

I do not believe there is a restriction on experimental in Class E (unless it's a built up area)

 

I do not believe a transponder is required above 5000 (unless you're in class E) - but radio certainly is required.

 

I expect part of my confusion - is the condition in brackets - which, in both those statements,can apply - depending in where you are.

 

Thanks again. Any more input appreciated.

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks JohnI never have got used to the ridiculous way in which they write these as a prohibition but with a later exception. Why they don't put it together in one reg like they used to I'm dashed if I know...

 

7.2 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in subparagraph 7.1 ©, an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction, by a longer route if taking advantage of safer weather conditions.

 

Now, without being a pedant, I wonder how they apply the new condition of "safer weather conditions"?

 

If the conditions are the same whether flying route A or route B, I guess you can't go.

 

Kaz

Why? ...Because it is an Order it is an EXEMPTION to the Regs so they write it that way because that's the way exemptions have always been drafted

... but I agree it would be much nicer if rather than being an Order that was an Exemption we could be part of the regs cleanly and openly with clear positive statements of allowable operations and areas of exclusion ... if for no other reason that because the legal structure of an exemption is that if you fail to comply with ALL of the requirements of the exemption you fall outside the exemption in its entirety and you are then in a shed load of breaches of the regs ... no licence, non-registered aircraft etc

 

Oh ... I just realized I wrote a whole paragraph about positive clear drafting in CASA regulations - clearly suffering heat stroke - I'm off for a lay down under a cool wet flannel for a bit.

 

 

[terryc]

Why? ...Because it is an Order it is an EXEMPTION to the Regs so they write it that way because that's the way exemptions have always been drafted... but I agree it would be much nicer if rather than being an Order that was an Exemption we could be part of the regs cleanly and openly with clear positive statements of allowable operations and areas of exclusion ... if for no other reason that because the legal structure of an exemption is that if you fail to comply with ALL of the requirements of the exemption you fall outside the exemption in its entirety and you are then in a shed load of breaches of the regs ... no licence, non-registered aircraft etc

 

Oh ... I just realized I wrote a whole paragraph about positive clear drafting in CASA regulations - clearly suffering heat stroke - I'm off for a lay down under a cool wet flannel for a bit.

This is interesting, it might explain why the pilot who went down in banks strait is up on so many charges when in fact I can't pick what he did wrong other than alchol less that eight hour rule. Maybe I just answered my own question.

 

 

[kasper]

This is interesting, it might explain why the pilot who went down in banks strait is up on so many charges when in fact I can't pick what he did wrong other than alchol less that eight hour rule. Maybe I just answered my own question.

Correct - failure to comply with the Ops manual IN ITS ENTIRETY (including 4.01 (14) on alcohol) leaves the entire flight and operation of the aircraft subject to CASA throwing several volumes of the book at you - your aircraft and your operation of it are entirely outside the requirements of the Act, Regs and Orders so you are potentially in the poo up to your neck.

not in accord with the Ops Manual at your peril because can do this big time

 

 

[facthunter]

Orders and Regulations are the base legal structures which we navigate in the air under. You also have some need to comply with ICAO internationally, although internally it wouldn't have to limit you with our type of stuff..

 

When you can't comply or don't wish to, you may apply an exemption against the requirements that would normally apply. For a one off thing like a specific airshow sequence or demo it might only apply to one person for a few days, but it's still needed to make the operation lawful.

 

There will always be exemptions. When they apply to an organisation like ours, every day of the week and to all potential operators covered by us (10,000 members OTA), surely an attempt to write simple rules for us with out saying every second para "Unless some CA.??/. Reg which overrides it, applies". Most of that stuff is more the territory of check captains trying to trap you with a quick question on some obscure reg change, or the stuff of air lawyers arguments when the $#!t hits the fan. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Don't assume ATC can always see you, depending on location and height you may not come up on radar with or without a transponder switched on. If you hear a position report/departure call and may be in conflict, it's YOUR job to speak up and either tell the other pilot or ATC of your position and intentions.

 

 

[Oscar]

Quite often, CASA personnel do not know their own regs.

 

When George Markey and Dafydd Llewellyn substantially re-wrote Section 21 of the CASRs ( a voluntary effort on their part, for those who don't know the story; there was mention on the obituary for George in Sport Pilot of Sept 2012, p.14), they became far more familiar with the rules than most of the CASA personnel with whom they dealt. George became somewhat of a holy terror to CASA; he would sit quietly in meetings ( yes, those who knew George will be duly incredulous that George would EVER sit quietly..) until someone made a mistake, and then he would pounce. One more than a few occasions, someone from CASA would make some statement about some regulation, and George would say: 'You're wrong. See Regulation XX, para XXX, part Q (ii). It's on Page X, 3rd para.' without even bothering to open his copy.

 

Further, all too often CASA try to use the regs. as they WISH them to say, rather than AS they say. A classic recent case of this was the extension of the restriction on Jabiru engines in Experimental aircraft, which is plainly incorrect.