Landing Fees

[skippydiesel]

  On 03/04/2025 at 11:19 PM, onetrack said:

But there ARE restrictions on certain areas of airspace you are NOT allowed to transit, are there not? Military airspace, tall buildings airspace, certain areas deemed by councils to be "no-fly areas"? Skippy, I think you're simplifying a principle that is nuanced, depending on who has obtained, and where they have applied, controls over certain areas of airspace.

Expand  

Already covered those in earlier post.

 

Just making the point,  no private owner can own/control the airspace above their property😈

[turboplanner]

Before talking about these things and going off the rails, better to get the legislation for your State and see what it says. There are plenty of Tribunal cases for precedents in Planning and building etc.

[spacesailor]

I have often been advised , " to fly 10-1103 on private land " .

Most agree ' it should be land owned by me . ( on paper  ) to be legal .

Three ' property owners ' have offered land, for flying the Hummel-Bird .

spacesailor

 

[skippydiesel]

  On 04/04/2025 at 4:45 AM, turboplanner said:

Before talking about these things and going off the rails, better to get the legislation for your State and see what it says. There are plenty of Tribunal cases for precedents in Planning and building etc.

Expand  

Aviation is a Federal matter. 

 

I doubt that State law, has  jurisdiction at an "level"  when it comes to air navigation & the authority of the PIC .

 

Australian Air law (CASA) is a combination of Federal and International air  law, with a strong trend towards International, for the simple very common sense aim, of standardisation, to facilitate flights between countries.😈

[turboplanner]

Your problem Skippy is that you still haven't produced ANY  laws.

That would be a start.

 

Then there is the matter of what is being discussed which is payment for using the property, which hasn't been addressed.

 

Then there is the morality where the low lifes that cheat their way out of paying spoil it for the genuine users, and when costs aren't covered, it's an easy decision for an owner/council to find something that returns a profit like building houses or factories on the site.

[skippydiesel]

My problem??? You jest.

 

Your problem, friend, is introducing, 1. the unlikly jurisdiction of a State and  2. the following that up with a vague statement to do with use of property, when this thread is about the air above😈

[turboplanner]

  On 04/04/2025 at 10:23 PM, skippydiesel said:

My problem??? You jest.

 

Your problem, friend, is introducing, 1. the unlikly jurisdiction of a State and  2. the following that up with a vague statement to do with use of property, when this thread is about the air above😈

Expand  

The air above is regularly decided by our State Tribunals so there are precedents under the relevant Acts, and they are searchable here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

From that link go to the relevant Tribunal and you'll find the case decisions which set the precedents. 

[skippydiesel]

  On 04/04/2025 at 10:38 PM, turboplanner said:

The air above is regularly decided by our State Tribunals so there are precedents under the relevant Acts, and they are searchable here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

From that link go to the relevant Tribunal and you'll find the case decisions which set the precedents. 

Expand  

Turbs me old mate - You send me a link with  possibly thousands of references within  (all Sates, Islands, even NZ) - There is no way I will plough through it,  to help you make your mythical point - Narrow the reference😈

[BrendAn]

  On 04/04/2025 at 10:38 PM, turboplanner said:

The air above is regularly decided by our State Tribunals so there are precedents under the relevant Acts, and they are searchable here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

From that link go to the relevant Tribunal and you'll find the case decisions which set the precedents. 

Expand  

so you would be happy to pay a fee for flying over an airfield at 9500 ft. 

[turboplanner]

  On 06/04/2025 at 11:50 AM, BrendAn said:

so you would be happy to pay a fee for flying over an airfield at 9500 ft. 

Expand  

I already said I flight plan around restrictions like that; it's usually only a degree or so for a while and then back to track - usually zero difference in flight time. There are plenty of places you can't go at all. No point crying about it, just navigate to avoid them.

[BurnieM]

We are now going off at tangents.

 

The law is not clear on whether you 'own' the airspace above your property. 

It allows for you to use it but in many cases also allows shared use by non-owners.

 

Is it reasonable to try to charge for airspace at a significant height above the owners actual use ?

Probably not, unless your objective is simply to repel others.

 

Can we leave it here ?

 

Edited April 6 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

  On 06/04/2025 at 5:13 PM, turboplanner said:

I already said I flight plan around restrictions like that; it's usually only a degree or so for a while and then back to track - usually zero difference in flight time. There are plenty of places you can't go at all. No point crying about it, just navigate to avoid them.

Expand  

As far as I am concerned ERSA is the Bible on this - IF ERSA makes no mention, then any "air" charges are not valid.

 

"....I flight plan around restrictions..."  As we all do however if said levy does not appear in ERSA (example: Goulburn) then you may find yourself insuring an unforeseen charge 😈

 

 

[skippydiesel]

  On 06/04/2025 at 10:00 PM, BurnieM said:

We are now going off at tangents.

 

The law is not clear on whether you 'own' the airspace above your property. 

It allows for you to use it but in many cases also allows shared use by non-owners.

 

Is it reasonable to try to charge for airspace at a significant height above the owners actual use ?

Probably not, unless your objective is simply to repel others.

 

Can we leave it here ?

 

Expand  

It seems to me that Turbs has "muddied the waters" by introducing the concept of tall buildings and their impact on the freedom to navigate through the air.  

 

As an intellectual  concept/theory ,this is valid however as a practical application - where the owner of the land has rights to the airspace above therefore can charge/toll passing aircraft its just BS😈

[facthunter]

Passing over a non controlled aerodrome at any height above 2500" AGL will not interfere with the circuit traffic. A designated training area can be a different matter. Overflying should take account of  aircraft descending on track to enter the circuit, but you must also consider  traffic in and out on other tracks.  Nev

[turboplanner]

  On 06/04/2025 at 10:21 PM, skippydiesel said:

It seems to me that Turbs has "muddied the waters" by introducing the concept of tall buildings and their impact on the freedom to navigate through the air.  

 

As an intellectual  concept/theory ,this is valid however as a practical application - where the owner of the land has rights to the airspace above therefore can charge/toll passing aircraft its just BS😈

Expand  

No you can't say that; you need to research the principle before jumping to conclusions. I only used buildings as an example of where you might own the property, but other laws apply. Out in hilly country you might own a farm but find that you can't build your house on top of a hill; it has to be below the sightlines.

[turboplanner]

  On 06/04/2025 at 10:16 PM, skippydiesel said:

As far as I am concerned ERSA is the Bible on this - IF ERSA makes no mention, then any "air" charges are not valid.

 

"....I flight plan around restrictions..."  As we all do however if said levy does not appear in ERSA (example: Goulburn) then you may find yourself insuring an unforeseen charge 😈

 

 

Expand  

That would be the ideal.

[skippydiesel]

  On 07/04/2025 at 1:49 AM, turboplanner said:

No you can't say that; you need to research the principle before jumping to conclusions. I only used buildings as an example of where you might own the property, but other laws apply. Out in hilly country you might own a farm but find that you can't build your house on top of a hill; it has to be below the sightlines.

Expand  

 

A sight line issue is usually something to do with a visual amenity/historic vista or some such - very long bow, in try in linking that to the right of  air navigation😈

[turboplanner]

  On 07/04/2025 at 3:48 AM, skippydiesel said:

 

A sight line issue is usually something to do with a visual amenity/historic vista or some such - very long bow, in try in linking that to the right of  air navigation😈

Expand  

The sight line relates to the Planning Scheme requirement of the relevant Council

where the Council determines the nature of the precinct. No it's not an aeroplane flying over an airstrip; it shows that although you may have bought even a farm out in the country, you don't own what the local Council specifies above it.

 

Similarly in an airfield precint the Planning Scheme requirements may be to suit aircraft operations, with, for example a permit to collect fees, just as the Commercial Zone owners can sell industrial products but farmers can't and so on. 

[turboplanner]

Skippy we're talking about routine Planning; you still haven't posted anything but opinions I've given you the links to find out for yourself but if a caution's all you can come up with, best leave the subject alone so we at least have official sites to work with.

[skippydiesel]

Turbs me old mate,

 

Much though I love a good debate, when the opponent just wriggles & wriggles, going off on ever more irrelevant tangents, I grow weary, not of the original topic,  but of trying to answer on topic (the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law)😈

[facthunter]

Seems more like MASS debating to me. Nev

[turboplanner]

  On 08/04/2025 at 11:04 PM, skippydiesel said:

Turbs me old mate,

 

Much though I love a good debate, when the opponent just wriggles & wriggles, going off on ever more irrelevant tangents, I grow weary, not of the original topic,  but of trying to answer on topic (the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law)😈

Expand  

Surely you understand there are parts of Australia you can navigate and there are parts you can't?

[skippydiesel]

  On 09/04/2025 at 12:26 AM, turboplanner said:

Surely you understand there are parts of Australia you can navigate and there are parts you can't?

Expand  

There you go again with your selective responses.

 

"the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law"

 

Which bit of my comment did you not read/comprehend?

 

No more. 😈

[turboplanner]

  On 09/04/2025 at 8:32 AM, skippydiesel said:

There you go again with your selective responses.

 

"the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law"

 

Which bit of my comment did you not read/comprehend?

 

No more. 😈

Expand  

No selective responses; the links I gave you earlier contain your within the law

parameters in any State. Nesting within that are the flying regulations. Most Ersa entries will do that for you, but ultimately it's your responsibility check whether the local Ersa entry is up to date.

[Garfly]

This video sets out the somewhat similar situation in the US, but all based on ADSB data collection. It claims that this is contrary to  assurances from government that the data would never be used for non-safety-related purposes, nor for regulation enforcement.

 

(The key points are made between mins 05:00 and 10:00)