Closely settled areas?

[walrus]

Can anyone explain what the rules are regarding flight over built up/ populous/closely settled areas are?

 

I was of the impression that approval could be given by RAA for a fee, but I can't find  references.

[Thruster88]

The rules obviously don't apply to aircraft takeoff or landing. A low level endorsement can be obtained with RAAus pilot certificate.  

[kgwilson]

1000 feet is reasonable as it allows time to glide clear or to a park, golf course etc in the event of an engine failure and also to not make too much noise for the inhabitants below. There are still idiots who like to buzz a mates house etc & their antics spoil it for everyone.

[KRviator]

34 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

The rules obviously don't apply to aircraft takeoff or landing. A low level endorsement can be obtained with RAAus pilot certificate.  

Careful about using just the CASR low-flying rules though. 

CAO95.55, 95.10 and others have specific prohibitions about flying over populous areas. Even though the CASR imply a 1000' hard-deck, that does apply to RAAus but also requires you to be able to be able to glide clear of the populous area. That may mean you are required to fly above that 1,000AGL limit in order to comply with the CAO. Takeoff's and landings excluded, obviously...

Quote

subject to regulation 91.267 of CASR — the aeroplane must be flown at a height:

(A)    from which it can glide clear of a populous area or public gathering to a suitable landing area; and

(B)    that is no lower than 1 000 feet above the highest feature or obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 m of the point on the ground or water immediately below the aeroplane;

(CAO 95.55 9.7.a.iii.A)

 

[skippydiesel]

All very subjective - basically the PIC decide what constitutes "closely settled" how high to fly consistent with engine failure & gliding to a suitable forced landing site

[spacesailor]

Not many will stop the prop , on a hand cranked engine !, just to see how far their glide range is .

spacesailor

[walrus]

My reading:

 

CAo 95.55:

 

9.1:

i)    a relevant aeroplane must not be flown over a populous area or a public gathering unless:

             (i)   a certificate of airworthiness under regulation 21.176 of CASR is in force for the aeroplane; or

            (ii)   the requirements mentioned in paragraph 9.7 are complied with in relation to the aeroplane;

 

And 9.7 says:

(b)   in the case of any other aeroplane:

             (i)  an experimental certificate under regulation 21.195A of CASR, or an SAB flight permit, must be in force for the aeroplane; and

            (ii)  an approval authorising flight in the aeroplane over a populous area or public gathering must be in force under regulation 91.045 or 91.050 of CASR, which approval imposes no conditions or limitations that would prevent the flight.

 

..And the certificate says, among many other things:

18. Operation over a closely settled area shall be avoided at all times.

and separately,

20. The operation over a built up area of a town or city is subject to:

 -- at a height and speed being able to glide clear of persons or dwellings.

 

None of this makes sense, I'm missing something.

- You CAN operate over a closely settled area if its unavoidable?

- You CAN operate over a built up area?

Isn't a built up area a closely settled area? Who decides what is unavoidable, my wallet? My passenger? My need for a toilet stop?

 

The SAAA has a paper that applies to their aircraft which makes sense.

https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IPM-FO-002-002-Flight-over-populous-areas.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

24 minutes ago, walrus said:

My reading:

 

CAo 95.55:

 

9.1:

i)    a relevant aeroplane must not be flown over a populous area or a public gathering unless:

             (i)   a certificate of airworthiness under regulation 21.176 of CASR is in force for the aeroplane; or

            (ii)   the requirements mentioned in paragraph 9.7 are complied with in relation to the aeroplane;

 

And 9.7 says:

(b)   in the case of any other aeroplane:

             (i)  an experimental certificate under regulation 21.195A of CASR, or an SAB flight permit, must be in force for the aeroplane; and

            (ii)  an approval authorising flight in the aeroplane over a populous area or public gathering must be in force under regulation 91.045 or 91.050 of CASR, which approval imposes no conditions or limitations that would prevent the flight.

 

..And the certificate says, among many other things:

18. Operation over a closely settled area shall be avoided at all times.

and separately,

20. The operation over a built up area of a town or city is subject to:

 -- at a height and speed being able to glide clear of persons or dwellings.

 

None of this makes sense, I'm missing something.

- You CAN operate over a closely settled area if its unavoidable?

- You CAN operate over a built up area?

Isn't a built up area a closely settled area? Who decides what is unavoidable, my wallet? My passenger? My need for a toilet stop?

 

The SAAA has a paper that applies to their aircraft which makes sense.

https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IPM-FO-002-002-Flight-over-populous-areas.pdf

Sunny, Dorothy Dixers don't fool most people so:

(a) You could fly at a minimum 1,000 feet where you see an array of houses

(b) You can write to CASA and get a definitive answer 

(c) You can set a good example for recreational aviation with the locals and stay above 1000 or prefereably 1500 feet because noise dissipates according to distance.

[skippydiesel]

Common Guys/Girls, your making a mountain out of a mole hill  - just use common sense & courtesy. Minimum 1000f over populated area (landings & take-off excepted, I rarely fly this low) and as PIC of single engine VFR  aircraft , you should always know where you will land, should the noise stop.

[Old Koreelah]

On 14/3/2022 at 8:21 AM, turboplanner said:

 …set a good example for recreational aviation with the locals and stay above 1000 or prefereably 1500 feet because noise dissipates according to distance.

Even better: fit an effective muffler to your engine. Makes a big difference. Some little aeroplanes can be heard for miles.

I have flown my Jab engine 500’ over neighbours and they haven’t noticed. 
 

[FlyBoy1960]

6 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I have flown my Jab engine 500’ over neighbours and they haven’t noticed. 

Sorry i can't resist.

 

Because the engine has stopped ?  or    The only reason they saw you was from the trail of white smoke

[Neil_S]

I interpret "closely settled" as meaning the yellow bits on the charts, so I flight plan on AVPlan to avoid them where possible.

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 14/3/2022 at 6:52 AM, walrus said:

My reading:

 

CAo 95.55:

 

9.1:

i)    a relevant aeroplane must not be flown over a populous area or a public gathering unless:

             (i)   a certificate of airworthiness under regulation 21.176 of CASR is in force for the aeroplane; or

            (ii)   the requirements mentioned in paragraph 9.7 are complied with in relation to the aeroplane;

 

And 9.7 says:

(b)   in the case of any other aeroplane:

             (i)  an experimental certificate under regulation 21.195A of CASR, or an SAB flight permit, must be in force for the aeroplane; and

            (ii)  an approval authorising flight in the aeroplane over a populous area or public gathering must be in force under regulation 91.045 or 91.050 of CASR, which approval imposes no conditions or limitations that would prevent the flight.

 

..And the certificate says, among many other things:

18. Operation over a closely settled area shall be avoided at all times.

and separately,

20. The operation over a built up area of a town or city is subject to:

 -- at a height and speed being able to glide clear of persons or dwellings.

 

None of this makes sense, I'm missing something.

- You CAN operate over a closely settled area if its unavoidable?

- You CAN operate over a built up area?

Isn't a built up area a closely settled area? Who decides what is unavoidable, my wallet? My passenger? My need for a toilet stop?

 

The SAAA has a paper that applies to their aircraft which makes sense.

https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IPM-FO-002-002-Flight-over-populous-areas.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is fascinating. I wonder if technically it is therefore illegal to fly the Univat (? spelling) (University of Queensland to Mt Gravatt) VFR corridor. You have to fly at 1000 ft, and it's right beside the CBD. I don't think this matter passes skippy's common sense test, but. I have never read those regs and this is probs why. 

[skippydiesel]

15 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

That is fascinating. I wonder if technically it is therefore illegal to fly the Univat (? spelling) (University of Queensland to Mt Gravatt) VFR corridor. You have to fly at 1000 ft, and it's right beside the CBD. I don't think this matter passes skippy's common sense test, but. I have never read those regs and this is probs why. 

I would make the same observation about the Light Aircraft Corridors that give access for aircraft wishing to travel between Sydney SW to NE (Hunter Valley) crossing a large swath of Sydney at very low level (CTA above) - I have been a frequent user but always concerned about the limited options available to me in the event of a forced landing. Common sense would have me flying at a much higher altitude than that available or alternatively providing a more westerly light aircraft corridor (through military air space)

[spacesailor]

It Will get worse, when Badgery creek starts up.

Their flight is path over Prospect Reservoir area.

That's were we sit here & watch the light planes pass over. On their way to Bankstown airport .

Lots of houses being sold here since in was shown were the flight path would cover. 

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

On flying in to Caloundra, the left-hand circuit for your base leg was over a new subdivision, so in the spirit of the reg, I did a RH circuit over swamp and trees.

This caused a "please explain", caused by a formal complaint from  junior instructor who was doing crosswind stuff on the cross-strip! He saw me and I saw him, quite some distance clear, but I was doing a "non-standard" circuit.

Nothing more came from the event.

[skippydiesel]

18 hours ago, spacesailor said:

It Will get worse, when Badgery creek starts up.

Their flight is path over Prospect Reservoir area.

That's were we sit here & watch the light planes pass over. On their way to Bankstown airport .

Lots of houses being sold here since in was shown were the flight path would cover. 

spacesailor

Yes! Even now, due to CTA & Tiger Country, there is no really safe exit from the Sydney Basin, unless you are heading south. The commissioning of Badgerys Creek will, I am sure only exacerbate the dangers for light aircraft operations.

"Lots of houses being sold here since in was shown were the flight path would cover." 

The idea that aircraft operations will bring intolerable noise and danger is deeply entrenched in the population (thanks in large part to scaremongering politicians). The facts, diametrically opposite to the fearmongering,  around around large aircraft noise & safety standards are just not vote getters.

[spacesailor]

Not just safety  !

BUT the noise, the rain of fuel,  ( Sydney,s emergency fuel discharge goes over the sea ).

A Bigger hole will have to be filled, unlike the DC twin that tried to take ME out in Botany bay.. then said they had to miss my yacht. 

When any plane falls into water,  it naturally fills in the hole.

But

Who cares about Sydney,s ' westies ' , not this government. ( I hope Blackttown council will impose ' their ' noise laws  )

A rant in the wrong place ,!!!!

spacesailor

 

 

[Agamemnon]

On 23/03/2022 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

On flying in to Caloundra, the left-hand circuit for your base leg was over a new subdivision, so in the spirit of the reg, I did a RH circuit over swamp and trees.

This caused a "please explain", caused by a formal complaint from  junior instructor who was doing crosswind stuff on the cross-strip! He saw me and I saw him, quite some distance clear, but I was doing a "non-standard" circuit.

Nothing more came from the event.

So you just chose to do a right hand circuit not because it was published, but because you just felt like it made more sense??? Sounds horribly dangerous and not at all "in the spirit of the regs"

Edited March 24, 2022 by Agamemnon
extra context

[Bruce Tuncks]

"operation over closely settled areas should be avoided at all times" says the reg and base leg  is as low as you get.

Yes I reckon it was in the spirit of that regulation. Plus I had a local as co-pilot who agreed. Plus, at Gawler, we have a RH circuit onto 23 for the reason of avoiding low operation close to houses.  From time to time, people do a LH circuit onto 23 and nobody gets their knickers in a knot.

Where was the "horribly dangerous " part?  Visibility was good and every other aircraft in the vicinity was well under observation., I might add with two sets of eyes.

[turboplanner]

54 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

"operation over closely settled areas should be avoided at all times" says the reg and base leg  is as low as you get.

Yes I reckon it was in the spirit of that regulation. Plus I had a local as co-pilot who agreed. Plus, at Gawler, we have a RH circuit onto 23 for the reason of avoiding low operation close to houses.  From time to time, people do a LH circuit onto 23 and nobody gets their knickers in a knot.

Where was the "horribly dangerous " part?  Visibility was good and every other aircraft in the vicinity was well under observation., I might add with two sets of eyes.

The dangerous part is that someone flying a normal LH 1,000 ft circuit as he does several time an hour for his weekly lesson may slam head on into you when both aircraft are descending towards each other, and he's not going to expect someone who's just made an executive decision to be different.

 

Different story at Gawler because the RH Circuit runways are permanent and listed in the ERSA, so there's no head-on issue.

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 23/3/2022 at 2:22 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

On flying in to Caloundra, the left-hand circuit for your base leg was over a new subdivision, so in the spirit of the reg, I did a RH circuit over swamp and trees.

This caused a "please explain", caused by a formal complaint from  junior instructor who was doing crosswind stuff on the cross-strip! He saw me and I saw him, quite some distance clear, but I was doing a "non-standard" circuit.

Nothing more came from the event.

You decided to improve on the ERSA. If someone in an LSA was descending on the dead side you would have had a closing speed of 60 or 70 metres per second. If you were in a high wing and they were in a low wing, you might not have been able to see each other.   Nothing more probably came of it because they thought you knew you were wrong.

 

Then I’m on downwind I spend zero time looking up to see if someone is about to spiral into me from above. Is that where you were keeping your lookout?   

Edited March 26, 2022 by APenNameAndThatA