guerrilla1

@Jaba-who i agree completely, with the exception of the acceptance of helicopters which meet the MTOW of current RAAus limits. Having a cheaper way to get into rotors such as the Mosquito, Mini 500 and Rotorway would be online with recreational flying. In saying that, I’m well aware that that is my opinion, and not necessarily shared by the majority. Just looking for a gauged response. I have at least now got a clear answer to my original question as to an update on the situation

I agree with that. I see GA has this RPL for (correct me if I’m wrong) 1300kg MTOW. I think some features of aircraft in that class are too much to handle for a lot of “recreational” pilots given the level of instruction required to fly under RAAus. But it would be nice to see C140/150’s and some small heli’s under RAA, with IFR or at least N-VFR and retracts.

@Jaba & M61A1, If I start to motivate the process through RAAus, would either be interested in helping gathering names for a petition. I can draft documents for RAAus based on American and European standards/SOPs, and will happily be the driving force. But would much appreciate any support in spreading word and getting contact lists of those interested etc. or if you know anyone who can/will?

M61A1, I think you’re right. Challenge accepted. I wonder how many RAAus pilots would consider rotor conversion if happened. I’m curious because I like the Mosquito XET, and upcoming Afalina. @Tornado... Hell no. Would never leave the ground in one, nor chute, nor hang glider. I understand how they all work... but can’t bring myself to do it. Can’t skydive either. Fkn weird I know.

wasn't a deliberate thread dredge. came up in a google search on the topic. (edited...mod) Helicopters aren't simple, at all. But my question wasn't as to their technicality, but whether anyone was aware of any updates on the subject of light helicopters coming under RAAus. (edit...Mod)

any update on this?

Such as Lindsay Fox...

Sarcasm noted. Well done on the intellect to put that marvellous retort together by yourself. I stayed I Six Sovereign States? Do these states answer to a higher authority? If yes (that’s rhetorical) than they can’t be Sovereign by definition. Or by virtue of the PIP Act 1875 s7, etc etc. I’m well aware of how good little boys and girls are more than happy to abide by whatever is told to them by a person waving something with the Regina Crest on it. You are entitled to your opinion, and if you lack the testicular fortitude to do it, don’t. For those that do, and want to land their foxbat or similar at their acreage, they are allowed by law until such times as Commonwealth Statute forbids it, or CASA changes the rules. I had a friend who got charged with driving unlicensed because he didn’t have his wallet on him. Local court upheld it. Didn’t mean he had to go get his learners again or apply for a new license. District court found in his favour on appeal. I was charged with not having a Government Gazette relating to 26m B-Double routes in my truck because it was on my iPad and not hard copy, and attempted to ground my truck. The senior officer overturned the decision and allowed me to go. The problem with law is that strict interpretation has given way to liberal interpretation, to appease the morons coming out of law schools, and poorly educated and over zealous public servants. As I said, I’ll be putting my word where my mouth is, and will update on the progress. My presumption is that you will still argue even if/when I prove my point in “real and in the public domain”.

No, it’s not. The referendum of 1988 confirmed that. Therefore, the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and similar which are state Acts are inconsistent with Commonwealth Law, rendering them void where inconsistent. The High Court must not look beyond the Constitution as it has no jurisdiction to do so. So it upholding any Local Government claim to authority is an issue in itself. Mind you, the so-called ‘Honorable Justices’ of that bench are trying to uphold Sue v Hill against Sen. Roberts currently, which only causes a monumental problem for the whole Commonwealth. If s44(1) stands as in Sue v Hill by this current case against Sen. Roberts, when considering s7 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 and it’s preceeding Acts, means not one Act by Parliament since Federation is worth the paper it’s written on. Assuming you’re right and Local Law is Law, Local Governments claimed ownership over the water in rivers and estuaries (up until privatisation started in 2014), making them liable for damage by flood, especially where Local Government has allowed or approved Dams or Flood Levy walls etc. A Court such as the High Court making a decision can have the affect of creating Common Law by upholding a councils decision (this is called a precedent), but that does not make Council ‘Regulations’ or ‘By-Laws’ Law. I’m not debating with you as to whether or not it’s worthwhile just doing things thoroughly...however, the claim that local government has the authority to create law is not backed by any legitimate Statute. In England, yes. New Zealand, I have no idea. Australia, most definately not. I had the same argument (with respect to local government authority to make law, not airstrips in particular) when I had a business designing and building container homes. And not one council was successful. An airstrip, if for private coming and going, and as long as it’s not ‘sealed’ is not a fixture to the property. If worried about the hanger/machinery shed issue, put 2 x 40ft container parallel with a roof between. Not a fixture, doesn’t require approval either. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving advice, but as a Law student (currently writing a thesis on Constitutional Law) I will stand by my opinion. So much so that I’m in the process of finding approx 150+ acres of which I will be putting in an airstrip, and a hanger. Just to put my money where my mouth is. I’ll be sure to keep you posted. Note: Apologies if the tone of my writing comes across abrupt and arrogant. Though not my intention it’s something I’m often accused of. So please take no offense.

Local 'law' as you put it is not Law. They are regulations put in place by Councils, and are not Statutes. Hence why Moonee Ponds have no luck with Essendon. Commonwealth Law will always override local Regulations. Your example further validated my point that council opinion is mute. Although the State Government may make mention to Local Council Planning Schemes, there is no legislative requirement to seek approval for private use, landing and take-off. As a matter of fact, if it is an area zoned rural, rural/residential, agricultural etc (basically you aren't residential and in town) and there aren't built up areas within the ALA required approach areas, there is no leg for Council to stand on at all. A private strip can be used for personal use, with the exception of training, and even allows for agricultural use, if it is considered by the property owner to be an "Ancillary" use of the property. Common sense and common courtesy, combined with good airmanship, should keep you out of trouble. Councils are long spears with blunt tips. But piss off thy neighbor, and the headache won't be worth it.

The debate on this topic can go back and forth, but the facts are simple. 1. Local Governments (Councils) are not Constitutionally recognized, and they have no right or authority to implement or enforce Law. They can try and make life hell, but any good Lawyer (even i laughed typing that) can run circles around them. 2. CASA (and where delegated, RAAus) is a Federally governed body (as opposed to State/Local), and therefore would have more information and ability to implement and/or enforce Law regarding airfields/airports/airstrips, than any other department claiming to have an opinion or interest. 3. Common sense should be imbedded in any pilot. Use it. If you can't, you shouldn't be flying regardless. Follow ALA guidelines, use common sense, and for the sake of being human a bit of common courtesy re: your neighbors.