Controlled Airspace

[HEON]

Today I went to the Kempsey fly in from Qld via the coast.

 

While flying around Coffs Harbour was contacted that my corrent track if continued would see me enter the controlled zones (Transponder was on). This I knew and let them know my intention to track further west then decend prior to moving back to the coast under the height limits.

 

Was repeated asked if I wanted a airways clearance to enter the restricted area(s) to continue closer to the coast. Said no it was not required as I was happy to continue as I was.

 

Question: Was flying 24 rego aircraft and do not have PPL; was never asked if I had one. My understanding is that even if asked if I wanted to get a clearence, it would be a breach of controlled airspace if I accepted. Is this correct?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes it would be

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I'd be interested in the response from ATC if you responded with

 

"..... transiting CTA would improve the safety of this flight however I do not hold a current general aviation pilots licence".

 

I suspect that they would issue a clearance anyway. In that situation I believe that ATC would be responsible for the incursion. If they are aware of your status and give a clearance anyway you are operating under their control.

 

What do you lot think?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I have been offered, and did accept, clearance through Class C recently. It was a straight line shortcut, and I complied to the letter with height, and all radio requests. My Aus PPL has not been kept current, but my US. one is probabily technically ok. I was transponder equipped. I have been told that they cannot ask you, if you have a PPL or not. This was sometime back, when it looked like we would get the CTR endorsement. If it happens again I would mention that I do not have a current PPL, and see what happens.

 

Strangly enough, myself as lead plane, and several other rec ULs were recently given a 'special CASA exemption' to fly into, and out of Townsville Class C, to attend an airshow static display at Townsville Airbase. The 'special exemption' which impressed me no end, exempted us all from all normal requirements for that day only...............................................................

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd be interested in the response from ATC if you responded with "..... transiting CTA would improve the safety of this flight however I do not hold a current general aviation pilots licence".

 

I suspect that they would issue a clearance anyway. In that situation I believe that ATC would be responsible for the incursion. If they are aware of your status and give a clearance anyway you are operating under their control.

 

What do you lot think?

PIC means PIC, no amount of fractured logic or clever phrasing is goinjg to alter your obligations under the Act.

 

 

[HEON]

After the call from ATC must admit I was a bit distracted with map to ground checking of position as initial thought was along the lines of "S... I must have stuffed up the navigation" when it sank in they were talking to me...I had not.

 

Did not think of stating no PPL to see results, although as pointed out PIC responsibility not to do if not qualified.

 

This was the first time for me around Coffs Harbour and now I have done it I can say that the current situation where we cannot get an endorcement to miss the tiger country such as this is an accident just waiting for a time to happen.

 

I had gone up to 4500 and was keeping as far east as possible around the zones. A J160 I was flying with (no transponder) was lower and flew around the hills commented that he was quite wind effected by the NW_W winds.

 

When the hell will the powers to be get off their arses and get it so we can fly safer! It is not a problem with ATC if my weekend expearance is an example of how they just want to help.

 

The body responsible for air safty in Australia should attend to this air safty problem NOW...or do a few of us need to get killed first! (look how fast pilot tubes were changed by Air France AFTER the Brazil crash)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I took an instructor trainee up victor 1 and into harbour scenic 1 the other day. She was a little hesitant on the radio with sydney terminal, and the controller couldnt find our plan, he got very short with her, which made her more nervous. When we were in the hold over long reef a pitts came into the hold 500 ft above us, and the controller gave us to him as traffic, the pitts pilot reported he had us visual, and get this, the controller told the pitts guy to "be carefull of the ultralight". how damm rude is that, she was orbiting perfectly level, and giving all the calls as required. I jumped on the radio and said " terminal, do you have some traffic for US?", because he didnt give us a headsup on where the VH rego'd plane was. I got a little cranky, and i prolly shouldnt have, but i said "perhaps if the controller could stick to giving traffic and less valued judgments, we could ALL be alot safer".lol, 30 seconds later we were givin clearance, number 1 for harbour scenic 1, pitts you are number 2, keep jabiru in sight.

 

Must have worked hey??

 

 

[frank marriott]

Breaches of CTA when it is clearly unlawful will not help us get the CTA approval that is being sort. Fly within the rules and help create a law abiding and resporsible reputation.

 

I recently heard a RAA registration flying at 9500ft for no lawful reason and regret not reporting the matter to RA Aus. Again I wish the above 5000ft rule was changed but until then obey the law.

 

Making lame excuses about suitable forced landing areas etc only adds to the cowboy image that unfortunately exists and is applied to all.

 

 

[Thx1137]

I don't think so. I think point 2 was probably telling you he was going to keep his value judgement... It is not usually good when someone is told "don't let the other guy out of your sight".

 

 

[motzartmerv]

What breaches are you talking about my friend??

 

We didn't breach any airspace, we had clearance. And the flight was quite legal.

 

And its standard practise to tell the following aircraft to keep the proceeding one in sight, especially when there's only 500 ft separation.

 

 

[Yenn]

I can't see a problem if ATC offers you a clearance. They knew it was an RAAus aircraft because of the registration. they obviously were happy to help you and keep you out of tiger country. I would have accepted the clearance with thanks.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I've checked. Turbo is correct, ATC will issue a clearance but they are not in a position and it is not their job to sort out who is legal and who isn't. CTA should only be entered if you are legally entitled to do so.

 

 

[HEON]

Thats what I thought.

 

Comes back to what I said when you can see much safer area to fly over but cannot enter...them rules that we cannot be trained and enter suck!

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

It can be done. PPL, Transponder, Radio, all certified and up to date and through you go.

 

I don't know why the RAAus endorsement fell through, it made sense to me.

 

 

[HEON]

My point is why should we have to get a PPL to do so...I will never own or fly a VH aircraft.

 

Current aircraft has all required equipment currently in test time frame...just want RAA endorsement!

 

 

[40years]

I'd be interested in the response from ATC if you responded with "..... transiting CTA would improve the safety of this flight however I do not hold a current general aviation pilots licence".

 

I suspect that they would issue a clearance anyway. In that situation I believe that ATC would be responsible for the incursion. If they are aware of your status and give a clearance anyway you are operating under their control.

 

What do you lot think?

I suspect that they would have explored your "safety" reasons a little more, and, if convinced, would have cleared you in. However, they would then have been obliged to submit an ESIR, which would go automatically to CASA, ATSB, and I think RAA.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Yep, see my post No. 13.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Its not the aircraft, its the pilot. With a PPl, you can go into CTA in an RaAus acft, provided it fits the criteria others have mentioned. Its not that difficult.;)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Heon

 

If the Aircraft you were flying is the same as the one in your profile then I would have thought out to sea would be a better option than going west of Coffs(That said all airport circuits at coffs are seaward for the main runway).

 

Could you land that on the open sea or because of size does it require a more gentle river/ tributory etc?

 

I live at Coffs but other than RPT have never flown my own aircraft here. As I've said in other posts, I just dont understand why Coffs is class D yet regional airports to the north and South that have the same types and frequency of RPT operations are just CTAF®'s. With the pace of change I suspect it has something to do with WWII or somemthing similar.

 

Andy

 

 

[Ultralights]

I recently heard a RAA registration flying at 9500ft for no lawful reason

its not uncommon to hear of Raaus aircraft up to 9500 ft, i fly at those altitudes in RAAus aircraft, but i am CPL licensed. just as the pilot of the aircraft you heard at 9500 ft might also have been.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Or a PPL holder...:thumb_up:

 

 

[HEON]

Currently fly Lightwing. New aircraft is a Super Petrel amphibian thus water route won't hold as many concerns IF new laws happen regarding distance from land. Regardless, easier to walk from emergency landing than swim!

 

As for 5000ft in RAA...PIC has option to go above now. Whole 5000ft thing set to go UNLESS that to is changed as well by the power to be. As an aside, try flying on the New England area of NSW under 5000, and above 500!

 

 

[frank marriott]

I also hold a current CPL and certified aircraft with calibrated instruments - Please point me to where the authorisation is to fly RA Aus registered aircraft above 5000ft and I will be happy.

 

I use CTA regularly (including today) but I am missing something in the regs that allow me to use above 5000ft legally in a RA Aus registered aircraft.

 

I am more than happy and would be grateful to have my lack of knowledge pointed out to me as I have done a lot of flyimg <5000ft only for legal reasons and at the time not being in a VH registred aircraft.

 

I am doing a 5hr flight on Wensday and would like to be at about 8 to 9 thousand ft which I would be if I was doing a charter but I am of the opinion that it is illegal in an RA Aus registered aircraft.

 

I accept that it sounds unreasonable to be able to fly in CTA but not above 5000ft

 

but that is the law as I read it.

 

Without trying to be unreasonalbe I would like someone to point out the regs that I am missing but as a sticker for law I would like the legislation permitting it as oposed to a personal opinion - I have them myself - and obviously contrary to others. - Please point me to where I am wrong and I will be grateful..

 

Frank

 

 

[motzartmerv]

RA-Aus aircraft operations should be confined to airspace below 5000 feet amsl. CAO 95.55 paragraph 5.1 (a) states that "the aeroplane may be flown 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher:

 

"(i) only if it is flying over an area of land, or water, the condition, and location, of which is such that, during the flight, the aeroplane would be unable to land with a reasonable expectation of avoiding injury to persons on board the aeroplane; and (ii) only if it is equipped with a radiocommunication system"

 

CAO 95.10 and CAO 95.32 contain the same wording.

 

 

[frank marriott]

motzartmerv

 

I agree and have read those regs and as such I cannot see the authorisation to fly >5000ft witout meeting the particular conditions???????????

 

This does not mention any level of licence.

 

Frank