CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.

[facthunter]

No one has mentioned Terrain.(the nature of what you are flying over). It's extremely relevant to flying a single engined plane together with the HEIGHT to be able to reach a better situation to  ensure a safe landing.

 .  Also people don't fly "under  the hood" on their own in uncontrolled airspace  There's an Instructor or suitably qualified pilot complying with the VFR  or whatever clearance the flight operates under, who IS PIC. In Controlled airspace with an IFR plan cleared you don't operate to visual references and should be able to be assured of no other plane infringing your allocated airspace. That's what controlled airspace means.. Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My problem is that while flying illegally ( that is, higher than the three thousand lousy feet ) the risk is NOT that I may have a midair with a stupid "flying under the hood" pilot. The probability of this is less than one in a hundred million. 

Here's what I am scared of... I come home to find a bunch of lawyers, protected by police with guns drawn,  to find that I am being sued and eventually evicted, so me and the missus will suffer from exposure.

That is why I would prefer to fly legally. It is more dangerous, but then being evicted is dangerous too.

If you need more details of the probability calculation, let me know.

If you'e talking about sneaking through the bottom layers around Adelaide Airport that's a broken record.

Edited December 3, 2021 by turboplanner

[RFguy]

new VFRG -

Unless you are flying around your farm in a Thruster , I'd be reading all 500 pages since a fairly large chunk of it is relevant to all pilots regardless of license or aircraft. 

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

Looks like I will end up in CASA ‘gaol’ as I am bound to miss something, somewhere 😞. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I am reassured that the 3000 ft is not some sort of limitation after all. Here's what I am afraid of... I am heavily fined for " safety infringements" until I am bankrupted after which the eviction would happen.

I can imagine that the lawyers would come with a radar trace of your flight . How could you deny this evidence?

 

It would be my luck to get a judge who was secretly afraid of flying and he sure would get me where it hurts.

 

And please tell turbs that I have never flown anywhere near the Adelaide control zone. But when they were re-examining this, I did put in a submission asking that the OUTER half of the 4500 to 8500 step be made a 6000 step. I have yet to receive a written answer, which put me in my place really good. The safety aspect was of course ignored.

[Garfly]

 

Oh, indeed, if we were all being told we can no longer operate between 3,000 and 9,500 in Class G then we'd all be jumping up and down (even if littler jumps than we're used to ;-). 

 

It's only that we are now required (unless unable) to fly hemispherically from 3,000 on up not 5,000' on up, as it was. It's neither a stupid nor a particularly onerous change.  (Unlike the ridiculous ASA Class E curtain drop idea proposed earlier this year.)

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Well I am reassured that the 3000 ft is not some sort of limitation after all. Here's what I am afraid of... I am heavily fined for " safety infringements" until I am bankrupted after which the eviction would happen.

I can imagine that the lawyers would come with a radar trace of your flight . How could you deny this evidence?

 

It would be my luck to get a judge who was secretly afraid of flying and he sure would get me where it hurts.

 

And please tell turbs that I have never flown anywhere near the Adelaide control zone. But when they were re-examining this, I did put in a submission asking that the OUTER half of the 4500 to 8500 step be made a 6000 step. I have yet to receive a written answer, which put me in my place really good. The safety aspect was of course ignored.

Your submission was published and is on the record. Usually no one gets a letter back, so they weren't picking on you. 

[turboplanner]

For those who haven't seen a VTC or maybe have and just glossed over it, I just came across this link which appears to be training material with some good information.   https://studyflying.com/vtc-of-yppf-adelaide/

[aro]

14 hours ago, Flightrite said:

Correct it is NOT mandatory! The goons couldn’t prove their bullshit rule/s anyway!

 

Not mandatory you say...

 

91.275 Specified VFR cruising levels
 (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a VFR flight contravenes this
subregulation if, during the flight on a track, the aircraft is flown at a cruising
level that is not a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

 

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply if the aircraft is in uncontrolled airspace and
any of the following apply:
(a) the aircraft is below 3,000 ft above mean sea level;
(b) the aircraft is at or above 3,000 ft above mean sea level but
below 1,500 ft AGL;
(c) it is not practicable for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft
at a specified VFR cruising level for the track;
(d) the aircraft is a glider in soaring flight.

 

(3) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft is in controlled airspace; and
(b) air traffic control has given the pilot in command an air traffic
control instruction, or an air traffic control clearance, to fly the
aircraft other than at a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

 

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person
contravenes subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in
subregulation (2) or (3)

 

There are interesting intersections with cloud clearances... if there is cloud below 5500 it is effectively illegal to cruise westbound above 3000 MSL/1500AGL.

[Garfly]

11 minutes ago, aro said:

There are interesting intersections with cloud clearances... if there is cloud below 5500 it is effectively illegal to cruise westbound above 3000 MSL/1500AGL.

 

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply if ....
(c) it is not practicable for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft
at a specified VFR cruising level for the track;
 

 

 

 

Yes, we'd hope 2 (c)  would apply - as long as we can prove the impracticability.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Garfly

[kgwilson]

2c is the get out of jail free card. How can they argue that it WAS practicable for you to be at the cruising altitude when you say it was not practicable due weather. Even if it is a clear blue sky you could argue that there was clear air turbulence or significant down draft say in the lee of a range etc. Cloud  is a simple explanation. Apart from that how are they going to even find out unless you are electronically lit up like the proverbial christmas tree.

Edited December 3, 2021 by kgwilson

[Garfly]

5 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Apart from that how are they going to even find out unless you are electronically lit up like the proverbial christmas tree.

That's the paradox; if electronic collision avoidance gear was universal the less would be the need for tighter regulation of airspace. 

[aro]

18 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

2c is the get out of jail free card. How can they argue that it WAS practicable for you to be at the cruising altitude when you say it was not practicable due weather.

Practicable: able to be done successfully, possible. So you need to prove that it was not possible to fly at the correct cruising level. Not that it was uncomfortable or unsafe - that it was not possible.

 

It would usually be possible to fly at 2500 (a specified cruising level) when 4500 was not possible, even if it is e.g. turbulent. The fact that it might be only 1500 AGL and not as safe as flying higher doesn't come into it.

 

Also, it appears that it is technically illegal to give a 1-200 feet buffer below the lower level of CTA. There are many places around Melbourne where the rule requires you to cruise exactly at the bottom of CTA (or below 3000MSL/1500 AGL).

[jackc]

It looks to me that it’s almost impossible to prove your innocence against an accusation of breaching the rules,  in some cases?

WHY has all this got to be so complicated.

[kgwilson]

As far as I am concerned unsafe and not possible are linked and I would argue that if I felt the turbulence compromised the integrity of the airframe and my ability to control the flight that constitutes being not possible. It would be a poor judge who opted for the rules over near certainty of you crashing by following them.

[turboplanner]

38 minutes ago, jackc said:

It looks to me that it’s almost impossible to prove your innocence against an accusation of breaching the rules,  in some cases?

WHY has all this got to be so complicated.

It hasn't got complicated. For years those of us trained by GA instructors were drilled to fly accurate altitude and turns and had no problem flying within the limitations. RA was exempted from that, subject to staying out of it, and haven't been trained for it so people who buy an aircraft at the top end of RA to go cruising suddenly find out it's more complicated than they thought.  You can't have it both ways if you're flying RA - the idea was that your stay out of busy aircraft where there are lots of GA aircraft with a higher level of instruments, some flying or practicing IFR within the boundaries designated for it.  In your case, with a strip right at the edge, it may pay you to quality to fly in Rockhampton airspace so you minimise the chance of an incursion, or maybe upgrade the aircraft equipment, then be able to access it unless someone is ahead of you in the queue.

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by turboplanner

[jackc]

I have downloaded the latest  digital version VFRG V7  ( hate e-books) but have also ordered the print copy from CASA when they have it available.

I rather print copies as I can easily book mark relevant pages so can easily refer to them as needed since the text makes reference to various sections on other pages.

In for some study time, I think 🙂 

[jackc]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

It hasn't got complicated. For years those of us trained by GA instructors were drilled to fly accurate altitude and turns and had no problem flying within the limitations. RA was exempted from that, subject to staying out of it, and haven't been trained for it so people who buy an aircraft at the top end of RA to go cruising suddenly find out it's more complicated than they thought.  You can't have it both ways if you're flying RA - the idea was that your stay out of busy aircraft where there are lots of GA aircraft with a higher level of instruments, some flying or practicing IFR within the boundaries designated for it.  In your case, with a strip right at the edge, it may pay you to quality to fly in Rockhampton airspace so you minimise the chance of an incursion, or maybe upgrade the aircraft equipment, then be able to access it unless someone is ahead of you in the queue.

 

Turbs, it’s complicated for newbies like me!  OK for you guys who have been in the Aviation field at all levels, since the Dinosaur age 🙂 I just have a lot of learning to do and am prepared to do what is needed, think I am getting there, should have enough time before I croak, given luck…….

[Student Pilot]

Complicated for us old farts who have been flying a while too Jack, it's nearly getting too hard.

[Yenn]

What is the problem with flying hemispherical. It only applies to cruising, so if you are heading West you can climb through 3500' with no problems and likewise when descending. In the old days we had four quadrants and had to share with IFR.

[walrus]

Its part of the same old story - the theory that there is a perfect set of rules that guarantee absolute safety if all people follow them exactly. The corollary of this theory is that if an accident occurs, barring acts of God, then someone, somewhere, has broken the law. The second corollary is that by definition, CASA and the Government are not liable for said accident because it was caused by commission of an offence of strict liability. The attraction of such theory to lawyers and government is obvious.

 

This thinking is embedded in our regulations and unfortunately it is fatally flawed because of the limitations of language and the absolute impossibility of specifying all combinations of circumstances but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying. I learned about this theory at the age of about 14 years from my headmaster who was famous for saying "A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules!" and punished people accordingly.

 

You can see this thinking at work in part 91. For example we are required to adhere exactly to published instructions in the Pilots operating handbook on pain of prosecution. Our aircraft must be maintained exactly as specified in approved data. Our flights must be planned likewise and executed exactly as per plan. We are allegedly trained on a competency basis as well, so if we fail to execute then either we or our instructor has committed an offence. We are even supposed to be medically fit according to aviation medical standards. There is the obvious and necessary deferral to acts of god - such as the hemispherical let out : "when it is not possible to do so" but it is minimal.

 

Not only is it fatally flawed, it is highly UNSAFE because it leads people into the fatal error of assuming that if what they are doing is legal, it is by definition safe. In other words, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers abrogate their responsibility to use their common sense in favor of doing what is legal. This thinking is lazy, pernicious and obviously wrong..

 

I will leave it to you to recount your own examples of legal but obviously dangerous behaviour. In one area - medical certification, the system is so bad that pilots now have to choose between obtaining medical treatment and keeping their job. This is killing pilots.

 

I'm sure there are better arguments in favor of a more holistic, less prescriptive and safer system than Australias.

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, walrus said:

I'm sure there are better arguments in favor of a more holistic, less prescriptive and safer system than Australias.

All activities have become much more complicated as our population has increased.

 

I got a car licence by answering 10 questions and getting at least 8 correct, no driving test. Today it's mandatory to do 120 hours of driving under supervision before being tested plus a driving test plus a test on a book full of regulations. The road toll is down to one third what it was in 1970, 51 years ago when the population was 12.5 million against today at 26 million, a 200% increase.

 

I'd let my boat licence lapse years ago and had to sit for a new one a few years ago. I had to memorise a book then do a long electronic test which was harder than the GA paper test.

 

In GA I can remember someone spitting the dummy when mandatory radios came in. He refused to put one in his Tiger Moth because he said it wasn't what flying was about, and he sold the Tiger.

 

In GA today, if you want to get a PPL, there's more to learn in the syllabus in some areas, but it's still not that hard and you certainly don't have to do 120 hours of supervised training. If you go from the licence to hiring, it's very straightforward, in some respects simpler than it used to be because you don't have to get a lot of endorsements which used to apply.

 

The backbone of PPL students and training in Australia today is training for CPL which has been so good and so affordable that students have flocked from other countries in their thousands and rejuvenated airports around Australia.

 

Mainstream GA flying is still managed under prescriptive legislation where the Federal Government has the liability, so they tell you what to do.

 

If you want to buy your own GA aircraft, you're still in the same management network, and you've just complicated your life by many percentage points. That's up to you to choose, but not a good choice for someone flying less than a couple of hundred hours per year.

 

If you want to do some simple flying or specialised types of flying away from the busy airports, you can do it at your own risk; CASA came up with Self Admininistering Organisations.

 

Under SAO, you and the SAO carry the liability when you are flying locally out in the country, so you have a lot more freedom and a lot less cost, however somehow the SAO has to manage its duty of care and your duty of care for the risk, so can make rules and issued sanctions if it wishes.

 

Workplaces are a good example of SAOs in Industry, so for example if a workplace requires you to use a chainsaw it will send you for training, you'll get an ATO (Authority to Operate) having been trained to operate it safely.

 

We've seen in recent times you can buy a recreational aircraft at a very low price and fly around your local field or do local trips to BBQs or breakfasts very cheaply.

 

The complications and problems and costs come when people start jumping the boundaries.

 

In your case, building an RA aircraft under SAAA instead of RAA, you inherited an organisation which is a hybrid, with part of it operating as an SAO, and part of it, with VH registration operating under Prescriptive regulations, so understandably, a lot more complications to get your head around, because under prescriptive you just follow the regulations, under self administration you have to be identifying your duty of care and ensuring you discharge it 100% and 100% of the time if you don't want to lose your house and other assets.

 

In an RA aircraft, Airservices Australia allows you to operate over a huge area of Australia without any hindrance. You can fly in short hops from the south of the country to the north of the country west of the Great dividing range without much hindrance at all and in usually mild weather.

 

However, once flying in RAA, people have started to enter the formal Airservices network for GA, and that will turn the complications up exponentially; not impossible, but usually not as safe and not worth it, and you're back to ensuring compliance with both Duty of Care and Prescriptive legislation.

 

In your case, you're getting a dose of all the complications so it's no surprise that you'd be looking for a simpler life. It's a matter of choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walrus]

With respect, I fail to follow the logic here. Furthermore, this isn't about me...

 

You start by running an argument that "road rules" are now considerably more complicated than they used to be but that  the result of this  more onerous situation is that the road toll is drastically smaller, at least two thirds smaller, than it used to be. By implication you are suggesting to me and every other reader that the aviation rules we have today are necessary to prevent a higher, drastically higher, aviation "road toll". I fail to follow your logic.

 

Not only do I fail to follow your logic, I would be astounded if road safety professionals would agree with you that the road toll has been reduced by plucky lawyers writing regulations instead of by massive technological improvements in vehicle primary and secondary safety as well as massive investment in better roads as well as much better driver training. Your argument that regulation, punitive regulation at that, is somehow responsible for this outcome and by implication for aviation is just fantasy. The one thing that lawyers can take credit for - lower road speed limits and their beneficial effects is irrelevant to aviation safety.

 

I would also observe that most offences under road safety Acts are misdemeanours and not felonies with strict liability like aviation offences.

 

There is no linkage whatsoever between the scope, complexity, enforcement of Australia's aviation regulations and anything to do with safety except,  I contend, that on the basis of regulatory theory they have a negative, not positive, effect on safety outcomes because people are worried about compliance, not safety.. Were I wrong about this, the FAA would not regulate with such a relatively light hand and road safety authorities would be falling over themselves in their haste to micromanage road transport and criminalise traffic offences the way CASA does.

 

Which brings me to my other point. Its not about me. Its about jobs, economic growth and investment in the aviation industry that has been suffocated by the dead hand of over regulation - a situation obvious to anyone who has visited New Zealand let alone the U.S. A few flight schools for Chinese and Indian students don't change the picture either. Indeed that raises the question of why CASA acquiesced in the activities of such shonky operators as SOAR while allegedly closing down Glen Buckleys APTA.

 

I also respectfully suggest that the relative success of RAA, experimental, etc. is "in spite of" the current regulations and that is why the SAAs etc. are pushing for change.

 

However, I don't expect change, I will comply but i cant help thinking about the opportunities lost and the needless pain and suffering of what little is left.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by walrus

[walrus]

But back on topic, I live at an altitude about 1000' MSL the hills around me are 2500' to 3500' or more but the valleys are down to 600' MSL. The forecast frequently contains stratus at some altitude band between say 3000/5000' so it is not unusual going West to find  4500' has a scattered whispy stratus 200' thick.  or maybe solid stratus at say 7000' . I am also required to fly 1000' above or below cloud by regulations (MOS 2.07).

 

Given that weather forecast, is it even possible to fly at all? I certainly cannot maintain hemispherical levels at all. Furthermore, my little brain is concerned with flying and navigating, not legalities.

 

I am stuck with say 4000' going east or west as that is what gives me about 1000 -1500' clearance on terrain.

 

What happens then if I am prosecuted for breaching hemispherical rules and I successfully argue weather conditions, only then I am prosecuted for departing with a weather forecast that doesnt indicate legal VFR conditions (including complying with hemispherical altitudes) for the whole flight?

 

I suppose I can hedge hop down at 500' AGL but is that safe?

[Thruster88]

Only have to be clear of cloud within 1500agl.