RAA Pilot Certificate and 25nm

[Jaba-who]

Correct, but they were done DUI.

Quite correct Ben87r. In Qld if you are in a vehicle and the keys are also in the vehicle then you are "in control" of the vehicle. There have been many people booked for being intoxicated while in charge of a vehicle while sleeping in the car with keys somewhere in the car. The only way to possibly escape it is to not have the keys at all while you are in the car. ( was suggested by someone, can't vouch for that actually working though. )

In Victoria section 49 of the act says the person must be intending to drive and there is a case of a guy even getting off when he started the engine to run the heater while he slept it off in the back.

 

But in Qld section 79 of the act says "in control" of the vehicle with mention of driving only as a seperate subsection and no mention at all of " intending" to drive. The precedent case was a guy who was acquitted initially when he sat in the car waiting for a relative to come pick him up. The prosecution appealed the outcome and won on appeal because he was in control. Now there is no hope of getting out of it in Qld if you have the keys as well.

 

 

[ben87r]

Since you've attracted a like, can you give us the evidence so we can check it out?You are talking about at least two cases where innocent backpackers in converted vans, with no keys in the ignition were charged with Driving Under the Influence?

I'd be happy to ask a few questions from a qualified person.

DUI is more of a slang term these days, from memory the correct term is PCA? Prescribed concentration of alcohol? So not necessarily driving.

 

Also it went to court so although stupid, I assume they were guilty.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Not related to flying so I won't debate the matter but the charge is "in charge of a motor vehicle" - and the defence is "manifested an intentention not not to drive". Plenty of case law on the matter should one really want to find the real answer and equally plenty of hearsay opinions mostly wrong. Best stick to FACT but not IMO a matter for debate here so I will not comment further.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Well they are public places but how often does it happen.They have also removed the right to urinate in street nexr to a horse trough.

Beware the Sex Offender Registration and WWC Acts!

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Quite correct Ben87r. In Qld if you are in a vehicle and the keys are also in the vehicle then you are "in control" of the vehicle. There have been many people booked for being intoxicated while in charge of a vehicle while sleeping in the car with keys somewhere in the car. The only way to possibly escape it is to not have the keys at all while you are in the car. ( was suggested by someone, can't vouch for that actually working though. )In Victoria section 49 of the act says the person must be intending to drive and there is a case of a guy even getting off when he started the engine to run the heater while he slept it off in the back.

 

But in Qld section 79 of the act says "in control" of the vehicle with mention of driving only as a seperate subsection and no mention at all of " intending" to drive. The precedent case was a guy who was acquitted initially when he sat in the car waiting for a relative to come pick him up. The prosecution appealed the outcome and won on appeal because he was in control. Now there is no hope of getting out of it in Qld if you have the keys as well.

You need to read s3AA very carefully...the definition of "in charge" is not limited to...intent or reasonable suspicion of intent so the provision is very broad and probably only subject to ejusdem generis The reality is that very few will ever successfully defend a charge if they have the keys with them and especially if they have them in the ignition.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Beware the Sex Offender Registration and WWC Acts!Kaz

I'll be very careful not to ride a horse to town!

 

 

[M61A1]

They get booked if they are in control of the car, and the definition for that is keys in the ignition, so that is easily fixed.When someone is in difficulties with the aviation authorities and the road authorities, it' starts to send a clear message.

You may think that is acceptable but in reality, it's plain f*cked up. It has absolutely no effect on me as I don't drink, but the intent of the law is to keep drunks off the road, and you have perfectly illustrated what people mean when authorities ignore the intent and screw people over by using the letter of law as it was never intended.

Someone who sleeps it off in his car is greatly preferred over someone who decides to drive, why punish them? It doesn't do anything to improve the public's perception of the enforcers.

 

I'm not really certain what you are getting at when you say "someone is in difficulties", I have no difficulty in understanding the regs, I just happen the think that they are overly restrictive, and on the road that our authorities spend too much time policing things that make money with no improvement in safety.

 

The law has one job...that is to provide safety for the innocent, if it doesn't do that, it's just another impingement on everyone's liberty. Laws that are designed to make the regulator's job easier at the expense of freedom should never be acceptable

 

 

[Bernie]

Look at my avatar , I'm at zero alcohol when driving . But happy hour means I'm parked for the nite .

 

Cant just toss the keys away till morning .

 

Bernie .

 

 

[johnm]

great precedent Bernie .................. but alas 50 lashes probably awaits you when Mr Plod comes to visit ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

You may think that is acceptable but in reality, it's plain f*cked up. It has absolutely no effect on me as I don't drink, but the intent of the law is to keep drunks off the road, and you have perfectly illustrated what people mean when authorities ignore the intent and screw people over by using the letter of law as it was never intended.Someone who sleeps it off in his car is greatly preferred over someone who decides to drive, why punish them? It doesn't do anything to improve the public's perception of the enforcers.

I'm not really certain what you are getting at when you say "someone is in difficulties", I have no difficulty in understanding the regs, I just happen the think that they are overly restrictive, and on the road that our authorities spend too much time policing things that make money with no improvement in safety.

 

The law has one job...that is to provide safety for the innocent, if it doesn't do that, it's just another impingement on everyone's liberty. Laws that are designed to make the regulator's job easier at the expense of freedom should never be acceptable

Before breath testing, and high volume educational TV advertising, government research (coroner results) showed that in the case of fatal motor vehicle accidents, more than 50% of the drivers were found to have more that .05 blood alcohol readings.

When on-road alcohol testing came in, people had thousands of reasons why it was never going to happen to them;they cold hold their liquor, they knew when they had had enough etc, but the constant weeding out of offenders reduced the roll buy thousands of people per year, the biggest reduction in fatalities other than seat belts.

 

Among the remaining rump of offenders were those who (a) fell asleep at the wheel, ran off the road and stayed there until they regained consciousness, (b) those who decided to sleep it off (in their estimate of the time) in cars and ten drive, while still impaired.

 

Often those people, when coming before the Courts are found to have a regular history of convictions, and are an utter frustration to the rest of the community.

 

Your comments indicate you have no idea of what the law was intended for, and no idea of the lives that are saved.

 

 

[M61A1]

Before breath testing, and high volume educational TV advertising, government research (coroner results) showed that in the case of fatal motor vehicle accidents, more than 50% of the drivers were found to have more that .05 blood alcohol readings.When on-road alcohol testing came in, people had thousands of reasons why it was never going to happen to them;they cold hold their liquor, they knew when they had had enough etc, but the constant weeding out of offenders reduced the roll buy thousands of people per year, the biggest reduction in fatalities other than seat belts.

Among the remaining rump of offenders were those who (a) fell asleep at the wheel, ran off the road and stayed there until they regained consciousness, (b) those who decided to sleep it off (in their estimate of the time) in cars and ten drive, while still impaired.

 

Often those people, when coming before the Courts are found to have a regular history of convictions, and are an utter frustration to the rest of the community.

 

Your comments indicate you have no idea of what the law was intended for, and no idea of the lives that are saved.

So in order to catch people who had not yet offended, you move the goal posts to make offenders of those who try to avoid offending?

I am all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but making offenders of non-offenders should not be happening a in a free country.

 

People who think like you will be responsible for taking this country from first world to a third world dictatorship in a generation or two. We're halfway there now, and you seem to be proud of that.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... Note: Consecutive flights of 25 nautical miles do not comply with this requirement. ..As my buddy said... "If you land 20nm away, how long do you have to stay there for before it becomes the original point of departure?"

The answer to that question would seem to be found in the meaning of the word "consecutive" - shouldn't be too hard to get the official meaning of that word (with a reference).As for the rules from CASA on the RPL and their advice, as distinct from what is in an Ops Manual anywhere:

 

Under Part 61, the holder of an RPL is the person responsible for the safety of the flight and they don’t need an instructor to authorise them to fly. .... Unless you hold a navigation endorsement you are also limited to flying within 25 nautical miles of your departure aerodrome, your flight training area and the route between your departure aerodrome and the flight training area. ....The recreational navigation endorsement allows you to fly:

 

• beyond a 25 nm radius of the departure aerodrome
   
   
  
• beyond the flight training area for that aerodrome;
   
   
  
• along a route between the aerodrome and the flight training area
   
   
  
• cross country.
   
   
  

As for getting the nav endorsement on an RPL, CASA says nothing about now being entitled to land at another airfield and without the nav endorsement there is nothing about requiring a return to the departure airfield, nothing about limitations on consecutive flights. If one had an RPL and owned his/her own aeroplane then note that first bit of advice above and read what CASA says are the limitations of the licence - it is not that hard to read words and understand them.

As for the risk of getting into trouble on a 25 nm flight 25 nm have a look at what this flying school promotes as the privileges of an RPL: Top 10 Things to See with your RPL – Sydney

 

 

[turboplanner]

So in order to catch people who had not yet offended, you move the goal posts to make offenders of those who try to avoid offending?I am all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but making offenders of non-offenders should not be happening a in a free country.

People who think like you will be responsible for taking this country from first world to a third world dictatorship in a generation or two. We're halfway there now, and you seem to be proud of that.

Sounds exactly like an RPT segment; they always rationalise their actions but they always finish up having to pay the fines.

 

 

[M61A1]

Sounds exactly like an RPT segment; they always rationalise their actions but they always finish up having to pay the fines.

You just don't get it do you?.......I'm not making any excuses for those actually caught operating their vehicle while impaired (and not just alcohol), throw the book at them, but leave those who didn't actually do anything dangerous alone.

 

 

[Yenn]

As I see it you are permitted to fly to the flight training area of your aerodrome or 25 miles. Now if you have two flight training aerodromes you can do that from 2 places. But they must be your flight training aerodromes. If you train from A, you can go 24 miles for example to B, but to be able to go on 25 from B, then B has to be your training aerodorome. Maybe it is and most likely it isn't.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You just don't get it do you?.......I'm not making any excuses for those actually caught operating their vehicle while impaired (and not just alcohol), throw the book at them, but leave those who didn't actually do anything dangerous alone.

No I don't

 

 

[kaz3g]

The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary is a reasonable source of definitions for legal purposes in the absence of a statutory definition..."Ordinary, common meaning" rule.

 

"Consecutive" means "following continuously; proceeding in logical sequence..." ACOD 1987, p216. I would emphasise the second phrase and suggest that would rule out a proposed longer journey without a Nav endorsement.

 

More important, I suggest, are the intention evinced in DJP's reproduction from CASA and the meaning they attach to "departure aerodrome" which I would read as the first aerodrome in a sequence.

 

The real answer of course is do the study, do the test and get the bloody endorsement rather than trying to outsmart a Regulator who has pockets 25 miles long if he decides to prosecute you or, worse, deal with you administratively.

 

Kaz

 

 

[djpacro]

Having an RPC does away with the need for a flight training area if one does not want a nav endorsement.

 

The solution is to get an RPL where that note on consecutive flights does not exist. I know quite a few people without nav endorsements but enjoying aerobatics on an RPL, as I did for many years on the old restricted PPL.

 

 

[Geoff13]

There is nothing hard about doing the Nav Endo and it opens up so many opportunities. And lets face it, it can be fun learning.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I'll be very careful not to ride a horse to town!

Side saddle is a killer!

 

Kaz

 

 

[M61A1]

There is nothing hard about doing the Nav Endo and it opens up so many opportunities. And lets face it, it can be fun learning.

It's not at all difficult, just bloody expensive, because no matter how much prior effort you put in, you are still required to complete the hours, and over the years the required hours have been steadily increasing.

 

 

[Jonny_J]

Thanks for bringing this up - I find it quite interesting really.

 

As OP says, he's spoke to CASA, and landing at a different field within 25nm is fine, it's just the consecutive flights that's up for debate. Honestly I don't think there's enough info between the RAAus and CASA info for us to make the call - you'd have to ask CASA before you fly if you were actually gonna do this.

 

In the intent of the law stuff... hmm I'm actually split. At the end of the day the real intent of the law is to stop new pilots injuring/killing themselves or others by getting lost/disoriented or generally flying beyond their training & skills. They only have a handful of solo hours, all in the same airspace, probably in good conditions. The 25nm limit is I suspect to keep you in clear sight of your airfield should you get yourself into a bit of bother. On that side of things I'd say it is in the intent of the law - If the airfield is less than 25nm away and you're flying between the two, both are going to be pretty easy to see, regardless of whether you're flying from the original airport or the 8th in the chain.

 

The part where it might not be going along with the intent is that it's inherently more risky to fly to airfields you've never been to before, over terrain you don't know and of course the training to plan such things comes in the nav endorsement. If you're flying from... lilydale to coldstream for example (like 3nm) let's be real, you're not going to have a lot of problems. But if you start trying to daisy chain hops together to get somewhere things can easily go wrong - start trying to hop airfield to airfield around the yarra ranges with no nav endorsement for example.

 

Defo interested to hear what they say. Personally I would hope that you wouldn't be able to do this. The nav endorsement is there for a reason after all, and I actually scared myself a little bit by looking up how just how far you can actually get hopping field to field this way with no nav training and maybe less than 10 hours PIC.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's no intent to field hop; the 25 Nm is an RAA rule, and if RAA were really operating on safety from the top down, they should already have reacted by now, and removed any chance of untrained pilots aiming for loopholes.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I think that rule is flawed!

 

Why should a student in this age of electronic gadgetry have to be stuck at one particular school (area) if he gets the notion to go north and get better flight-ing weather.

 

a different school, instructor or aircraft.

 

Whats to stop a student using all the school Resource's anywhere in Australia.

 

Doesn't need to fly a particular aircraft, just school A plane to B as part of lesson, school B to C in plane from that school, ADinfoatum (spelling)

 

Just needs an instructor to return solo back to home field.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[M61A1]

Someone could easily make a mockery of the rules....for example, (on an RPC with no XC endo) I am not allowed to fly to a certain airfield about 31 NM away from my home strip, but I can legally trailer my aircraft to another strip that is 21 NM away from home and about 20 NM from the other and fly to both of them. Most people are quite familiar with their local area, and use exactly the same skills to fly around within 25 NM as you would for 50 NM or more.