Approved engines and built-up areas

[facthunter]

Your response could generate quite a bit of discussion.. I doubt many Aviation entities could actually carry the liability.  We've had this discussion before relating to cars but I contend  it's not  that simple.  Nev

[RFguy]

I have a face to face meeting at RAaus tomorrow. anyone want any questions asked ? PM me directly.

[skippydiesel]

You might want to reread KGwilsons early comment

 

AND 

 

• When dealing with a bureaucracy (great or small) know the answer BEFORE asking the question.

 

AND

 

• If you don't ask the question/permission and get caught, you can always plead ignorance & seek forgiveness.  Not so, if the authority has a record of providing the info ,then they "throw the key away"☹️

 

You need to assess the risks to you,  that are inherent to any of  the above  comments.

[LoonyBob]

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Self Administering Bodies administer and automatically assume the legal responsibility. If an Entity tells them how to administer or what to administer, the liability shifts to that Entity.

"9  CASA’s functions

             (1)  CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

                     (a)  civil air operations in Australian territory;"

 

CASA are responsible under the Act, full stop.

[LoonyBob]

"8  Establishment of CASA

             (1)  An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

             (2)  CASA:

                     (a)  is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

                     (b)  shall have a seal; and

                     (c)  may sue and be sued in its corporate name."

The part I have bolded is the reason CASA is grossly reluctant to expose itself to any risk. This clause is unique to Australia, and was introduced under Keating as part of NeoLiberalism (2.0) disguised as economic rationalism. It is questionable whether Australia should retain its authority as an ICAO signatory, when its Aviation Authority is nobbled...

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, LoonyBob said:

"9  CASA’s functions

             (1)  CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

                     (a)  civil air operations in Australian territory;"

 

CASA are responsible under the Act, full stop.

I'm not going to get involved in legal processes,  but have a look at the regulations CASA used to set up and authorise Self Administering Organizations, and then look at the Incorporated Associations and Limited Companies managing their affairs, and what happens when they haven't got their regulations right or haven't covered forseeable risks. In some cases an SAO will be conducting and managing it's operation and its people, in others when the aircraft enters a location or activity where it has to comply with CASA regulations, both CASA and the SAO are involved. What I'm saying is some caution needs to be applied.

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, sfGnome said:

Well, I’ve been given two answers For RAAus rego; your one that said that approval was required, and Skippy’s that says there is no letter of authority (ie approval). What I don’t want to do is drop significant dollars on an engine and then find that it is restricted, and so given that there’s not a clear agreement, I’ll go to the source (which is somewhat slower). As I said, thanks to all who commented, including your comments which were very helpful. 

no worries. what i mean't was once you have approval for your engine mods from raa your aircraft is registered with raa then it is legal to fly over built up areas. what breed of plane are you working on.

[RFguy]

Yes SKippy, that is right- must go with some solutions, otherwise I will just be a whiner.

ahh well they've blown me off for tomorrow. disappointing.

I wrote to them detailing my concerns about the number of Jabiru fires a month ago, got NO reply, zero.....

So I wrote to them again, they set a meeting date, which I arranged to be in town for, and they've blown me off and 'will listen to my concerns by telephone'.

Not good enough.

 

Time to go to talk to CASA and bust their arses.

 

[RFguy]

The RAAUS staff and board just does not take safety seriously, it's all a big front.

[skippydiesel]

31 minutes ago, RFguy said:

The RAAUS staff and board just does not take safety seriously, it's all a big front.

Ooooh! that's a bit harsh - Of course they take their safety seriously 😁

[RFguy]

Just was on the phone to a litigator friend of mine.

next steps

1)  thoroughly understand what the relationship is between RAAus  and CASA, and how it works, understand the legislation first.

and then choose a small number of items that , where  in my opinion RAAUS are not fulling their obligations under the act. 

and / or 

2) and consider making it a civil complaint against the aviation  company I am complaining about (that , IMO, RAAus are turning a blind eye to, or are simply not sufficiently competent to do meet the requirements under the act.) 

.  Incompetence leads to negligence, however whether they knew it was substandard or did not know, that's the messy bit. 

 

A bit can be drawn from the previous action. I'll take a look at exactly how and why CASA got involved. It's generally accepted that CASA's previous involvement was rather clumsy .

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Just was on the phone to a litigator friend of mine.

next steps

1)  thoroughly understand what the relationship is between RAAus  and CASA, and how it works, understand the legislation first.

and then choose a small number of items that , where  in my opinion RAAUS are not fulling their obligations under the act. 

and / or 

2) and consider making it a civil complaint against the aviation  company I am complaining about (that , IMO, RAAus are turning a blind eye to, or are simply not sufficiently competent to do meet the requirements under the act.) 

.  Incompetence leads to negligence, however whether they knew it was substandard or did not know, that's the messy bit. 

 

A bit can be drawn from the previous action. I'll take a look at exactly how and why CASA got involved. It's generally accepted that CASA's previous involvement was rather clumsy .

1 ) I accept that you're talking guardedly; (a) there are Acts and there are other Instruments - a lot of reading to be sure of the one.

2) Depends on the action but in one case CASA had taken action early and very few people knew. 

[sfGnome]

Ok. I’ve had a chat with tech at RAAus, and here’s my understanding of the situation (no guarantees that I’ve got it 100% correct 🫣). 
 

Approval to fly over closely settled areas is a CASA issue. RAAus has no jurisdiction in this area. There is an RAAus employee who, putting his private hat on, is a CASA Approved Person (AP) and can issue the required document. In fact, any AP can issue it, though many charge significant amounts to do so (because, as I think Nev & Turbo noted, they take the legal liability for doing so). 
 

Many classes of RAAus aircraft are automatically covered; LSA, legacy, etc. However, amateur built after the introduction of XYZ piece of legislation (I think 10 and 19 rego) are not, and require the aforementioned approval. As you can imagine, no one is hovering over Sydney’s northern VFR lane, inspecting approval documents as you fly past, but if you do have to do an unintended glide approach to some park, road (or roof!) and you don’t have CASA approval, then your insurers may have something to say about it… 😳

[skippydiesel]

"...........Sydney’s northern VFR lane, inspecting approval documents as you fly past, but if you do have to do an unintended glide approach to some park, road (or roof!) and you don’t have CASA approval, then your insurers may have something to say about it… "

 

This may be the least of your worries should the noise go quiet.

 

With Reference to Entry/Exit The Sydney Basin (west & north):

 

I find it interesting that we (pilots of small, generally VFR, aircraft) are of such low status/import, that our safety is so readily compromised by being forced to remain within boundaries' (vertical & horizontal) that increase the chances of a non survivable emergency landing.

 

I do not know why we are so constrained, only that is the air law we work under.

 

I am sure there will be arguments for keeping us out of the way of commercial (IFR) aircraft but as they can be many thousands of feet above our limits, I suggest this is a spurious suggestion.

 

I would not be surprised by others having the same concerns in other geographic locations.

[facthunter]

IF they have an emergency on take off they might not be 1000's of feet above you. There should be times where  you could do a below 1000 along the beach tho like we used to do.. Transit rights with a good radio and maybe an extra hand held as a  backup. Nev

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

"...........Sydney’s northern VFR lane, inspecting approval documents as you fly past, but if you do have to do an unintended glide approach to some park, road (or roof!) and you don’t have CASA approval, then your insurers may have something to say about it… "

 

This may be the least of your worries should the noise go quiet.

 

With Reference to Entry/Exit The Sydney Basin (west & north):

 

I find it interesting that we (pilots of small, generally VFR, aircraft) are of such low status/import, that our safety is so readily compromised by being forced to remain within boundaries' (vertical & horizontal) that increase the chances of a non survivable emergency landing.

 

I do not know why we are so constrained, only that is the air law we work under.

 

I am sure there will be arguments for keeping us out of the way of commercial (IFR) aircraft but as they can be many thousands of feet above our limits, I suggest this is a spurious suggestion.

 

I would not be surprised by others having the same concerns in other geographic locations.

I've studied this quite a few times and dug for the maps, regs and protocols, and flown in the lanes.

 

1.   The government position is probably, you're flying for kicks, not business so go fly somewhere else; we gave you lanes.

 

When you look closely at the maps you'll see they area covered in DZ (Danger Zones) lanes, holding and reporting circles, holding circuits etc down to the heights they allow for you. If you researched that further and printed it out in 3D, you wouldn't go near the area, (a) because of the closeness and (b) because RPT pilots don't always follow the rules. One in Tasmania was prosecuted for flying a load of passengers towards Wynyard Airport near Burnie below cliff top level due cloud down to the ground, hoping the airfield might have some visibility.

(c) there will always be unexpected arrivals and departures.

[skippydiesel]

32 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF they have an emergency on take off they might not be 1000's of feet above you. There should be times where  you could do a below 1000 along the beach tho like we used to do.. Transit rights with a good radio and maybe an extra hand held as a  backup. Nev

Emergencies are always an - all bets are off - situation. I would expect ATC, if time,  to clear all aircraft from the area.

 

From memory the Sydney  Northern Suburbs lane of entry requires the aircraft to be no more than 2000 ft ASL on one leg and 2500 ft on the next leg (both N & S bound) at times this means that the aircraft is about 1000 ft AGL, over either densely populated/treed areas ie bugger all options,  if the fan stops.

 

V1  goes under at Sydney Airport western  approach, so the 500 ft ASL makes sense (at least for part of it) and in the event of an engine failure will not have any impact on the public, with the exception of an unlucky boaty. Still for much of its length a water landing is the likely outcome.

 

The Richmond Air Space lane, I know little about - it seems to have a 4500 ft ceiling which might be promising but its northern exit/entry is over some major Tiger Country and  I suspect its accessibility may limited by military activity.

 

E/W - Tiger Country all the way - only option is to fly as high as air space will allow (7500 ft) and stay within gliding distance of the Great Western Highway (Penrith - Lithgow)

[facthunter]

Single engine (Unless it's something like a PT 6) over tiger Country OR Night VFR is a game of Russian Roulette. Landing on the Western Highway between Penrith and Lithgow  wouldn't appeal to me much either, actually. OR Vic - Tas. Done properly that is  almost acceptable but I've never done it in a single engined Plane. Nev

[skippydiesel]

The Great Western Highway is not, for the most part, a landing option but it does have, in close proximity,  the occasional sports field and I think a golf course or two.

[facthunter]

The whole area is a pretty rough bit of  terrain.   Nev

[LoonyBob]

Mittagong - Crookwell - Rylstone, then wherever. Landable all the way, if you don't go north of Wedderburn or The Oaks... I don't much like the hop over Brooklyn Bridge to Warnervale, even if you make it over the golf clubs of Greater Sydney...

[skippydiesel]

41 minutes ago, LoonyBob said:

Mittagong - Crookwell - Rylstone, then wherever. Landable all the way, if you don't go north of Wedderburn or The Oaks... I don't much like the hop over Brooklyn Bridge to Warnervale, even if you make it over the golf clubs of Greater Sydney...

True however thats a big "dog leg" from The Oaks/Camden/Bankstown ie you have to go a fair way south, to minimise the Tiger Country, into a glidable narrow strip.

 

I made a point of not mentioning the lack of issues with going south from the Sydney Basin - the scary stuff is all north & west - FYI (overseas readers) east is heading out over the Pacific - not a great option for small single engined aircraft.

Edited December 6, 2023 by skippydiesel

[RFguy]

Had a useful and constructive meeting with RAaus today.

[kgwilson]

And?

[facthunter]

Approval of an engine usually has the installation as part of it. Certainly the case with VH  (and LSA?)  Not including the installation Makes no sense.   Nev