Controlled Airspace

[motzartmerv]

Yea Frank, thats interesting. I have always assumed that with a PPL/CPL and compliant acft, we are right to go up. But I can't find anything either, other then the CAO posted above.

 

Mabye a phone call to RaAus tomozza.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

AFAIK the height restriction (rather than prohibition) is on the aircraft so it doesn't make any difference what licence you hold - you can only go >5000ft if you comply with the condition MM quoted in post #25

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

When is the 5000' restriction being lifted, does anyone know? Maybe if there is a call to RAAus that Qn could be put too?

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

AFAIK the height restriction (rather than prohibition) is on the aircraft so it doesn't make any difference what licence you hold - you can only go >5000ft if you comply with the condition MM quoted in post #25Cheers

 

John

I agree, that is my understanding too John. I think that poeple confuse the issue with PPL and CTA / CTR.

 

 

[Matt]

The term "reasonable expectation" is a decision for the PIC of the aircraft at the time, if as PIC you feel that flying at 9500' will meet your "reasonable expectation..." (along with meeting other requirements) then it's "technically" legal.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

The term "reasonable expectation" is a decision for the PIC of the aircraft at the time, if as PIC you feel that flying at 9500' will meet your "reasonable expectation..." (along with meeting other requirements) then it's "technically" legal.

Exactly so - but if you have a near miss with an RPT up there you might end up having to justify that decision to CASA or in court. If the terrain you were flying over could have been avoided by flying a different route I'm not convinced you'd get much sympathy.

 

 

[Matt]

The choice of route is again up to the PIC and if his/her preferred route (time / cost / convenience / safety etc.) means flying at greater than 5000' to provide them with a greater level of comfort in the event of an emergency then, in my humble opinion, that would be "reasonable". Other than the requirement to have a radio and using as per the relevant airspace requirements (i.e. Class E broadcasts), there is not a significant difference to operating at 9500' than there is at 1500'....except that you'll get another 5-10 minutes of "air time" in the event of an engine failure...and time, in the event of an emergency, is something you can never have too much of.

 

 

[Yenn]

Wherever you fly in Australia you will not need to fly at 9500' to be clear of terrain. Australia doesn't go that high. You will need to have a transponder as you will most likely be in class E airspace and of course you will need the mandatory radio.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Except over the Snowy Mountains. The terrain goes as high as 7000 and it's a designated remote area, so I like to get at least 8500 over there. There aren't many options in many parts. You're also outside class E at the parts where you really need the height, so 9500 is OK without a transponder.

 

 

[Matt]

Having operated out of Canberra for 3 years we would regularly go up to 8500/9500 when going out to the coast or across the great divide to the west. Also on trips across to Tassie, 9500 was the usual height for that trip.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

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.

Could one assume from the above, that the words '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 aircraft' would also mean that if you were flying cross-country, and you observed an obvious increase in high winds on the ground, with visable blowing dust, together with an increasing severe turbulance at your altitude, that you would be exercising good judgement as PIC, in climbing to a higher altitude to avoid the severe turbulance, and therefore as much as possible avoiding the possibility of a forced landing in high winds on the ground ??.......................................

 

 

[frank marriott]

I have no more comments on this matter - I will be interested in the reply from RA Aus but the other comments I will be interested in a court result should you be charged because the situations referred to are so fanciful that I do not want to comment further and I have my own opinion as to the result of any legal proceedings.

 

My only comments in relation to this matter was to clear up where the authority to fly above 5000ft was in case I was missing something - that has been done.

 

It is not me you will have to convince but a magistrate should you be charged - best of luck - I will continue to fly RA Aus regitered aircraft legallly as I read the law

 

Frank

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Frank. I smell where you are coming from. I am all for compliance. But there are times when common sence and airmenship dictates that we need to go up. We have a provision in the law that allows it, so if the tigers are under you, why not go up?

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

When is the 5000' restriction being lifted, does anyone know? Maybe if there is a call to RAAus that Qn could be put too?

Motzart, did you call RAAus??

 

 

[hyundai]

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?

One thing you must remember it is not up to the controllers to determan weather you are legal to fly in to CTA it is up to you. They will give you clearance in most case but if CASA is on the ground they will Nab you.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Anyone had a look at what really matters ?.......the RAA ops manual.....