Above 5000ft

[Tomo]

Then again, Gliders are flown by pilots who have a PPL, and are more closely controlled by CASA.

I've flown gliders, and haven't a PPL, also we go way past 5000ft, no transponder or nothing, we don't even tell anyone (ie ATC).

 

My mate fly's hang gliders, and I'm pretty sure they're unrestricted to pretty much any height, (oxygen permitted). Not real sure about that though, any hang glider junkies around here?

 

If there has been an aircraft questioned about being to high by ATC (ie over 5000ft) I reckon I'd eat my hat. Would make a pretty humorous law suit I reckon!

 

CASA has said themselves somewhere that they aren't actually even sure why the 5000ft limit was even put in place. (can't remember where I saw it now though)

 

 

[jetjr]

Dont IFR levels start @ 5 or 6000? Might be why they wanted us unskilled drivers lower.

 

 

[Tomo]

Dont IFR levels start @ 5 or 6000? Might be why they wanted us unskilled drivers lower.

VFR flight levels are odd/even numbers + 500 - eg. 5500ft 6500ft, IFR levels are odd/even numbers only.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

CASA has said themselves somewhere that they aren't actually even sure why the 5000ft limit was even put in place.

Folks,An interesting example of lack of corporate memory in CASA.

Prior the AMATS changes in 1991(?or was that 1992?) all cross country flights (more than 50nm) required a flight plan with full position reporting, and Australia used non-ICAO standard cruising levels, with IFR and VFR using the same cruising levels.

 

And the cruising levels started at 5000'. So radio comms was mandatory above 5000', how else could you make the mandatory position reports?

 

When ICAO cruising levels were instituted with AMATS, and the requirement for mandatory VFR flight plans and full position reporting was dropped, the consequential amendments omitted to rescind the requirement for mandatory radio for VFR above 5000'.

 

You can thanks Dick Smith, as Chairman of CAA, for these very positive changes, that started to drag Australia into the real aviation world --- despite the kicking and screaming of the nay-sayers, who knew it was the end of civilization as we know it.

 

Another unfortunate consequence of this incomplete change was the idea that, although there was a requirement for "mandatory radio" above 5000', there was no "mandatory" requirement for VFR to use it.

 

If you look at the totality of regulations for the use of radio, this idea never held water, but the idea that radio usage was "optional unless it was mandatory" found fertile ground amongst all the bush lawyers.

 

Without going into too much detail, the idea developed that, even if you had a radio in a CTAF you didn't need to use it, only in an MBZ. This was exacerbated by the changes to CTAFs a procedure, rather than a geographical area, they became a procedure, with some CTAF requiring mandatory radio, which became CTAF® ---- Which was NOT a new name for an MBZ, although to talk to many pilots, you would never have known.

 

For reasons unknown, the penalties for having a radio in a CTAF, and not using it, were inadvertently dropped from that version of CAR 166. In the days of CTAF/MBZ, the penalties for having a radio and not using it in a CTAF were exactly the same as being in an MBZ without a serviceable radio. From memory, 25 penalty points.

 

Via a circuitous route (almost all airfields in the ERSA) this has been rectified in the "new" CAR 166s ----- but CTAF and CTAF® have ceased to have much meaning, as discussed elsewhere.

 

Regards,

 

PS: Approval for hang gliders to operate to 10,000' was years ago, maybe 10 or more (I don't remember) which make the restriction of RAOz aircraft even more illogical ---- but all too typical of Australia's complex, convoluted and contradictory aviation law.

 

 

[Tomo]

Thanks very much Bill, very informative indeed. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Tomo]

Do you know why Bill Knows so much?

Yep :thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

David et al,

 

The problem is, I don't know enough, because I don't know the solution to the regulatory (reform) problems we have, with the Australian political setup.

 

Again, just one example, Government policy in 1996 was that we had to stop doing business by exemptions (by whatever name) from a set of "rules" that all too often had only a passing acquaintance with the real world. Update, so we had relevant rules.

 

The biggest problem is for airlines, at least we got new certification rules in 1998, that has saved airlines a small fortune in no longer having to comply with Australian unique and generally unjustified restrictions on the operation of VH- aircraft, putting Australian operators at a serious competitive disadvantage. And, of course, we got the various Experimental plus Primary, Intermediate and Limited categories.

 

But, despite the changes, far too many things have not changed, compared with, for example, NZ/Canada/SA or even US. I doubt there are any less exemptions now, than in 1996.

 

Have you considered why so few aircraft on trans Tasman flights are VH-, including Australian airlines.

 

Look at RAOz, it exists on exemptions. Work started on Part 103 in late 1996, was complete in draft by 1999 ----- 11 years later, and it is years away. Part 149, rules for self administrative bodies, was also started in late 1996, and largely complete in draft by 1999 (as were Parts 43,61,66,91,141/142) ----- 11 years later, most are still years away.

 

Regards,

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thank you Bill from me also, i have been reading your posts with great interest.I learn something new every day from guys like yourself, on this site. Cheers