Built up areas

[damiens]

I came across the following on the RA Aus website - LSA synopses 

 

Operating Limitations for Experimental LSA

 

The operating limitations for experimental LSA are the same as other experimental aircraft such as amateur built aircraft. Experimental LSA cannot be used for flying training (unless training the owner). These aircraft are limited to day flying under the visual flight rules and cannot be operated over built-up areas unless authorised by CASA or an authorised person

 

I can’t find any other references in the operations manual or the technical manual.

 

What does built up area mean? Does the rule still apply? Does that mean that I couldn’t fly the VFR lane North of Bankstown (by any definition a built up area)? 

 

Before the thread goes sideways, I do understand the perils of built up areas, and the required 1,000 feet agl, I just don’t understand  the imposed limitation for a particular aircraft.

 

Thanks

 

Damien

 

 

[old man emu]

Use of the VFR lane would be taken to be CASA approved. As would approach/departure routes associated with an ALA.  

 

The term "built-up area" is not defined specifically in any Australian legislation, other than the Australian Road Rules. Therefore, since they didn't define it, the legislators must have considered that the term was one of common knowledge. It is like the word "safely" which is not defined in any WH&S legislation, or road rules, but it is expected that everyone understands the concept.

 

So you can legally fly across a city using VFR lanes, and you can overfly built-up areas at a minimum of 1000' going to or from an ALA, but you can't fly off the beaten track in an LSA to see your house from the air.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Bummer.

 

I really wanted to do , the house sight-seeing thing. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[djpacro]

Use of the VFR lane would be taken to be CASA approved. ..... The term "built-up area" is not defined specifically ...

Taken to be approved, eh? CASA approvals are very specific. Many years ago I tracked through and found a definition of “built-up area” wrt aviation and it was, from memory, places which had street lights. Who knows what it is these days.

 

 

[old man emu]

Taken to be approved because those VFR lanes have been set out by CASA.

 

The Australian Road Rules provides the following definition for 'Built-Up Area':

 

Built-up area, in relation to a length of road, means an area in which either of the following is present for a distance of at least 500 metres or, if the length of road is shorter than 500 metres, for the whole road:

 

• buildings, not over 100 metres apart, on land next to the road;
   
   
  
• street lights not over 100 metres apart.
   
   
  

 

 

 

[Garfly]

But whilst the existence of the lane implies CASA 'approval' for its use by VFR flights according to the regs, the question is: does that logically extend to "experimental" (RAAus?) VFR aircraft?

 

 

[Downunder]

I think at one of the RAA forums DB spoke about the requirement to fill out some form if you want to fly over built up areas in a non factory experimental aircraft.

 

My take on it was that it was probably a liability thing, with the owner taking full responsibility of any incident. ....

 

 

[damiens]

Thanks all for the replies.  I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves.

 

cheers

 

Damien

 

 

[jetjr]

There is/was an exemption to fly in cta with expeimental aircraft but few remain in use i think

 

WAC charts have yellow areas around towns which I assumed were the built up areas, at least they are a pretty good guide.

 

 

[Neil_S]

I also take "built-up areas" to be the areas marked in yellow on the charts (VTC, VNC, WAC).

 

Easy to plan to navigate round them, and then easy to confirm that you are not over them whilst flying using AVPlan/Ozrunways etc

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

 

 

[kgwilson]

I am not sure where it came from but there was some sort of rule or statement that said you should not fly over built up areas unless you had sufficient height to glide clear. I fly over Grafton & South Grafton all the time mainly because the aerodrome is right on the edge of town. Takeoff on 08 takes me across houses. There are sports fields etc to put down into in the event of an EFATO. Going to or from YSGR means you fly over just about any part of the city depending on where you are heading or coming from.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I knew a girl whose built up areas were quite hard to identify without close examination.

 

 

[damiens]

There is/was an exemption to fly in cta with expeimental aircraft but few remain in use i think

WAC charts have yellow areas around towns which I assumed were the built up areas, at least they are a pretty good guide.

Are you saying that I need an formal excemption to fly an experimental LSA in CTA? I have a transponder, a PPL etc,  is there some special limitation of what aircraft rego type I can fly in CTA. I always thought it was all about the pilot plus a transponder and radio. Do I have this wrong?

 

 

[djpacro]

I am not sure where it came from but there was some sort of rule or statement that said you should not fly over built up areas unless ....

The rule has changed, for one thing it refers to populous areas now.

 

 

[440032]

Ah, no, it's built-up area. Same animal though, closely settled, populous are mentioned in some RAAus used CAOs though.

 

CAR 262AP Experimental aircraft operating limitations. For aircraft operating on an Experimental Certificate (aka Special CofA) issued under CASR 21.195A, such as E-LSA whether RAAus or VH, or VH amateur-built.

 

CAR 262AP(4) and CAR 262AP(5).

 

 

[M61A1]

Cut and paste from the most recent CAO 95.55

 

7.1

 

(h)   for a relevant aeroplane that is an aeroplane mentioned in 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;

 

(i)    for a relevant aeroplane that is an aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (h) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely-settled area other than in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3;

 

 But you need these other bits:

 

closely-settled area, in relation to an aeroplane, means an area in which, because of:

 

(a)   man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles; and

 

(b)   the characteristics of the aeroplane;

 

the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aeroplane or damaging property in the area.And

 

AND

 

1.2     For subparagraph 1.1 (d), the aeroplane must be one of the following:

 

(a)   an aeroplane to which Schedule 1 to Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R92) 2004 (also known as section 101.28 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force from time to time, applies, and that complies with the design standards stated in that Schedule and has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

             (i)   if the aeroplane is not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

            (ii)   if the aeroplane is equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(b)   an aeroplane mentioned in paragraph 1.1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016;

 

©   an aeroplane mentioned in paragraph 1.2 of, and that meets the design standards in, Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016;

 

(d)   an old section 95.25 aeroplane that has not been modified, other than with the approval of:

 

             (i)  CASA or an authorised person, under subregulation 35 (1) of CAR, as the provision was in force from time to time before its repeal; or

 

            (ii)  CASA, under regulation 21.435 of CASR; or

 

           (iii)  an authorised person or approved design organisation, under regulation 21.437 of CASR; or

 

           (iv)  RAA, in accordance with a process for the approval of modifications stated in the RAA Technical Manual;

 

(e)   an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation, which has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

             (i)   if the aeroplane is not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

            (ii)   if the aeroplane is equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(f)       an aeroplane:

 

             (i)   of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, a foreign country’s NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

            (ii)   that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA, a foreign country’s NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

           (iii)  that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(A)  if the aeroplane is not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(B)   if the aeroplane is equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and

 

           (iv)   that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3;

 

(g)   a light sport aircraft:

 

             (i)   manufactured by a qualified manufacturer, as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR; and

 

            (ii)   for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness;

 

(h)   a light sport aircraft:

 

             (i)   to which paragraph 21.191 (j) or (k) of CASR applies; and

 

            (ii)   for which there is a current experimental certificate.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Yes Minister in full voice. It could have been said in one paragraph.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes Minister in full voice. It could have been said in one paragraph.

Agreed.

 

Typical though.....Take a look at the documents required to be carried (gives you a comprehensive list) .....then in the last paragraph it exempts you from almost the whole list if you're only flying in Australia.

 

 

[derekliston]

I avoid flying over populous or built-up areas to the extent possible, but flying from Warwick to Toowoomba for some work at Range Avionics is quite scary, just kilometres of black roofs beneath as you head for a midfield crosswind join.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Use of the VFR lane would be taken to be CASA approved. As would approach/departure routes associated with an ALA.  

The term "built-up area" is not defined specifically in any Australian legislation, other than the Australian Road Rules. Therefore, since they didn't define it, the legislators must have considered that the term was one of common knowledge. It is like the word "safely" which is not defined in any WH&S legislation, or road rules, but it is expected that everyone understands the concept.

 

So you can legally fly across a city using VFR lanes, and you can overfly built-up areas at a minimum of 1000' going to or from an ALA, but you can't fly off the beaten track in an LSA to see your house from the air.

No that's not correct. 

 

A VFR lane carries no cross meaning with non-populous or non-populated area. 

 

They can be over both populous, non-populous or a combination of the two areas. 

 

A VFR lane is a route designed to keep traffic in or on a specific path either to aid in navigation, traffic flow and conflict avoidance or to avoid areas of non-aviation significance such as noise sensitivity. 

 

If your aircraft is not approved to fly over a populous area then that's it. You can't whether there's a VFR lane there or not. 

 

My my personal experience was:

 

I have an experimental GA Jabiru and when I got my initial C of A and did the phase 1 trials I had that limitation on the aircraft. As my home base was Cairns international airport ( in Class C with several VFR lanes over built up areas which were required paths into the airport) I had to find out  etc how I was going to do 25 hours of phase 1 trials and get in and out. I got advice from both my AP and CASA and required that information to organise with ATC at Cairns to be able to come and go NOT using the VFR paths because they crossed built up areas. 

 

Once I hit the magic 25 hours and hit the phase 2 approvals it was fine - then followed VFR lanes or go wherever I wanted ( with ATC approval. ) 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Thanks all for the replies.  I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves.

cheers

 

Damien

Just to point out that because ATC vectors you over a built up area doesn't get you off the hook. 

 

If ATC vectors you to do or go somewhere you are not legally allowed to go then you are supposed to tell them you cannot comply and you may need to offer short explanatory statement. They are then required to vector you by a direction that you can legally or safely fly. They don't have any list of aircraft or pilots and what their restrictions and flight status is. They require you to advise them if there directions they give that can't be complied with. 

 

Again relating to my earlier post.

 

Despite having organised with Cairns ATC that I could not track over built up areas during my phase 1 trials, I did get several directions to track via various built up areas. My response was that I "could not comply due to aircraft limitations  and REQUIRED track via ...xxxxx...".  It wasn't a real problem and As I recall I sometimes got a short delay but usually no issue.