flying dog Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Ok, over "bush" or ocean/water the lowest is 500 feet AGL (or AWL) - unless you are landing. But over towns...... 1,000 or 1,500? I remember 1,000 but someone said it is 1,500. Hey, don't shoot me. I want to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_S Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Hi FD, It's 1000 ft above populated areas - for a radius of 600m from the highest point. Cheers Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 a job well done CBL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 High praise indeed!. Run with the inspiration. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Ok, over "bush" or ocean/water the lowest is 500 feet AGL (or AWL) - unless you are landing.But over towns...... 1,000 or 1,500? I remember 1,000 but someone said it is 1,500. Hey, don't shoot me. I want to be sure. It used to be 1500' FD, one of the byproducts of how CASA just keeps quietly changing things without master indexing the data. People who fly weekly have no problem adjusting but the people who fly intermittently for recreation or come back to it after five years or so will always have a problem finding these needles in the haystacks..............and caSa is a SAFETY organization! As an example, what radio terminology do you use around airfields "All stations XXXX?", "XXXX Traffic?" or "All stations XXX?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I vote for "XXXX Traffic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Why would you want to fly at 1000' over a populated area. If you suffer an engine failure you need extra height to clear houses, plus flying low will alienate people who want to complain about the noise. Keep well clear and do us all a favour. We should all be up to date with the CASA requirements to be legal. I am not sure that the quoted requirements have been passed into law yet. I thought they had not long ago been in the comment stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 There was a lot of discussion about some of our aircraft flying over a town at all. I would as far as possible operate so as to be able to glide clear in the event of an engine failure, anyhow. This would hardly be possible into places like Bankstown. Taking off and landing is exempted. The height was above any obstacle, (not AGL) once. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Read carefully ... ..... the aeroplane must not be flownover a closely-settled area at a height: (i) from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area; and (ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level; The minimum height is 1,000' but you must be at a height to be able to glide clear of the closely settled area to a suitable landing area. You may need to be considerably higher than 1,000' to comply. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8vfr Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Unless there is a CTA step directly over you (1500' for example).... or weather.... or you saw Elvis....(is it that time????) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Aahh yes the damn CTA steps watch out for them and then the obvious becomes apparrent ... are we still legal at 1500' and nowhere to glide clear ...??? Oh dear did I have to ask that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8vfr Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1000' AGL over built up areas is legal for GA regardless... why do they have VFR routes at legal minimums if the risk is high? No one ends up pointing the plane at population when the fan stops so not an issue really (unless they saw Elvis). The altitude creates a buffer to give the PIC time to manage the best outcome... If you want to belt along at treetop level and whack a canary in the prop that needs an immediate landing, you probably have about 3 secs to get your sh!t in order and carry it out. But I digress... I thought I saw Elvis... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1000' AGL over built up areas is legal for GA regardless... why do they have VFR routes at legal minimums if the risk is high? No one ends up pointing the plane at population when the fan stops so not an issue really (unless they saw Elvis).... Interesting isn't it, there is no glide clear height in CARs to my knowledge for GA and how could there be operating in CTA over 'built up' areas, but RAA are not permitted in CTA and so perhaps that is why CAO 95-55 (compliments of Camster) states : see blue underlined ... 7 Flight conditions ....... (h) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), ©, (f) or (g) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height: (i) from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area; and (ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level; 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 .... If you want to belt along at treetop level and whack a canary in the prop that needs an immediate landing, you probably have about 3 secs to get your sh!t in order and carry it out. But I digress... I thought I saw Elvis... I have it on good authority that Elvis has left the building... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I have it on good authority that Elvis has left the building... EXACTLY, he is now airborn.... Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Interesting isn't it, there is no glide clear height in CARs to my knowledge for GA and how could there be operating in CTA over 'built up' areas, but RAA are not permitted in CTA and so perhaps that is why CAO 95-55 (compliments of Camster) states : see blue underlined ... The new proposed CASR's part 91.295 fix that. They make it an offence to fly at other than the higher of theminimum heights listed in the schedule (eg 1000' above a populous area) and the minimum safe height which is itself defined as the minimum height from which an emergency landing can be conducted without endangering persons or property on the ground or water. http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/091/download/casr91_consultdraft.pdf Another fantastic no-brainer from CASA legals who obviously do not fly GA. If I fly from Coldstream to Albert Park, for example, below the CTA step at 2500' and have an engine failure somewhere along the way. I am going to come down in a populous area and someone (especially me) or something (especially my aeroplane) is going to get seriously hurt. If I survive, I cop a fine of 50 penalty units. Great!!! The CASR effectively means, for example, you can't fly VFR into Essendon from any direction other than north using the reporting points scattered around the outside of the CTA, for example, without risking prosecution. And how about city orbits at 1500"? Where do you go if the engine stops over the MCG or Eastern Freeway (don't even suggest it!)? kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The new CASR's don't change these rules - its been 1000 ft with the glide requirement for many years. The usual consideration when flying anywhere - where will you go if the engine stops. Based on recent info, kaz, drop the Auster gently onto the verandah of a house and tumble onto the back lawn then walk away from it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The new CASR's don't change these rules - its been 1000 ft with the glide requirement for many years.The usual consideration when flying anywhere - where will you go if the engine stops. Based on recent info, kaz, drop the Auster gently onto the verandah of a house and tumble onto the back lawn then walk away from it. So long as you have the owners permission. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 And how about city orbits at 1500"? Where do you go if the engine stops over the MCG or Eastern Freeway (don't even suggest it!)? Melborne is an easy one, there are a plethora of parks and golf courses around Melbourne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The new CASR's don't change these rules - its been 1000 ft with the glide requirement for many years.The usual consideration when flying anywhere - where will you go if the engine stops. Based on recent info, kaz, drop the Auster gently onto the verandah of a house and tumble onto the back lawn then walk away from it. Your solution DJP would have the streets around MMB look extremely untidy. I'll just keep on flying fom one piece of green to the next. But have a look at para 3.11 in the AOPA submission and you will see the sneaky difference... http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 You are right, of course, kaz - they say the rules were generally supposed to be the same but there are lots of nasty twists like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I'm still an AOPA (Aust,) member. reading that, I wish all pilots were. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I'm still an AOPA (Aust,) member. reading that, I wish all pilots were. Nev Wouldn't it be nice if legislators such as CASA could employ people to write their legislation with the same foresight and common sense as those responsible for that AOPA document. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 It's fairly "gutsy" response. It is very unfortunate that such a thing would be required from a pilot representative body, but it is. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 But have a look at para 3.11 in the AOPA submission and you will see the sneaky difference...http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/118/AOPA_Response_Part_91_Consultation_Draft_13MAY11.pdf kaz I have not seen this before, excellent submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now