facthunter Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Class G. E McP. The definition is in relation to cities, towns, and populous areas except in the course of landing or taking off. I wouldn't see the airspace category as being relevant Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teenie2 Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 When does the act of taking off and landing actually start and begin?????? 30 Miles out?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen McPhee Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 E McP. The definition is in relation to cities, towns, and populous areas except in the course of landing or taking off. I wouldn't see the airspace category as being relevant Nev.. It is for Recreational aircraft isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Size of town. Couldn't you have quite a large city with no controlled airspace, and conversely couldn't you have almost no inhabitants but a very active controlled airspace facility. What I am saying is that being in class G doesn't have a lot to do with being able to glide clear of a populous area. For some aircraft it is a pretty severe restriction., (the glide requirement) Regarding take-offs and landings, where do they start and finish? I don't think being at 500 feet 5 miles from the aerodrome would wash. 300 feet per mile is as flat as you ought to get. That equates to a three degree slope roughly. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen McPhee Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Thanks for the feedback, you are quite correct of course. When you think about it it must be quite arbitrary up to a point. A texan has a purported glide ratio of 13 to 1, one of the little colvaer seaplanes is 20 to 1. I am sure some might have much lower glide ratios too. With my low time flying I spend a bit of the time looking for places to land, and the local race course looks promising if I am over the town (Hope the races aren't on at the time though). I am sure that 1000ft doesn't get you out of trouble every time, I believe air speed has something to offer too as my instructor keeps telling me 100kts is better than 80 in the circuit. The approach to Runway 15 is right over the town so the 1000ft rule is violated there anyway. How does one get assessed as to violations anyway. Is there a little Casa guy with a Tape measure hiding somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 over the town on approach. That is OK. The 300'/ mile would be OK there. (rule of thumb). Regarding how you get dobbed in would depend on the aeronautical qualifications /familiarity of the person reporting. Ordinary untrained people are notoriously inept at estimating height without some method of substantiating it, and that's not easy, from a technical viewpoint. On departure, rather than fly over the town directly at below 1500' AGL(if there is one in the direct path) you would fly the normal circuit till you can exit it at sufficient height to comply , or track clear of it. How do you get caught?Well ,I had a friend who was working with CASA as an FOI, and If he reported an aircraft for low-flying it STUCK, so that answers your question. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBye Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 1000' is ok but it's not AGL. It's 1000' above the highest point of the terrain or the gliding thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulN Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 1000' is ok but it's not AGL. It's 1000' above the highest point of the terrain or the gliding thing. That should read "1000' above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of 600m" as measured from a point vertically below the aircraft. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rage83 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I havent looked at any regs yet but I was under the impression RA aircraft could go below 500ft in unpopulated areas right down to the ground on the RA pilot cert with landholders permission. Whereas with GA aircraft you needed a low level endorsement to go down that low. Can someon with a bit more knowlege of the regs jump in on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 CAO 95.55 and 95.32 does allow aircraft to fly below 500ft with the landowners permission (but not within 100m of people or roads). The new RAAus ops manual requires the pilot to have a low level endorsement for such flight. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 That's right John, we discussed this some time ago when I raised that whilst agreeing to Part 103 you would in fact be losing some of the current privelages, which therefore rules out aerial mustering without an endorsement and the covert *beat-ups* that many a pilot enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The RAA low level 'endorsement' isn't any great cause for excitement - you are constrained by the limitations of CAR 157....so is GA. The GA Low Level syllabus is contained in CAO 29.10. Note that it's not an 'endorsement' in the sense of others such as Tailwheel, CSU etc. It is only a 'Course' of training, which then allows you to do the Mustering Endorsement' with an approved pilot. Now everyone is calling the RAA 'low level'....an endorsement. Thats all very well, but this doesn't confer the right to employ it....wherever. It's not an open sesame to low flying wherever you feel like....CAR 157 applies regardless of your skills. Is there likely to be any difference in the training between RAA and GA? Maybe,....maybe not. It's probably going to depend on the interpretation of competency by the endorsing instructor, and that's going to depend on whether he/she has a mustering or ag background, or has done GA LL before. You might also find that the extent of the low level training is limited by the capabilities of the aircraft too. Supercub v's a Jab160?.....know which one I'd prefer at low level. happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferris Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I haven't had a look at the Regs, but "populated area" and "built up area" are two different things....although we maybe splitting hairs. For populated area we have to rely on a dictionary definition, and that is an area inhabited by people. Built up area on the other hand has been enshrined in legislation for many years (at least in Victoria). A built up area is any area with 2 or more houses and street lighting. I'm not sure if that adds to the debate, but it is a bit of useless information for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest High Plains Drifter Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 "populated area" and "built up area" are two different things You never know what will catch you out. Some years back I had the man from CASA ground me because my 55 rego was not alowed to fly over any city or town limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevorp Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Ok, no one has mentioned over water. does the same refer to flying over water, 500ft min and would that also require you to fly 1000ft over a boat or a ship. Ive seen a trike land on a beach, is this legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 A built up area is any area with 2 or more houses and street lighting. I'm not sure if that adds to the debate, but it is a bit of useless information for you. There is never any useless information Mate - thanks for that clarification! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen McPhee Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Low level training This last Monday Morning I was doing low level work with an instructor. Emerald is surrounded by Farmland. We were down at 300ft to 500ft AGL for a about an hour. I couldnt imagine the difficulties in obtaining permission from all the farmers whose paddocks we flew over; it is simply not practical. Obviously it is a problem only if they complain to CASA, shame about the use of common sense seems that has gone out the door these days.. Flying back to the AP we flew in between houses, avoided cars, trucks and farm equipment as well as Paddocks full of trees. Certainly was a good exercise in learning to use power to maintain height in a turn and not pull back further on the stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rage83 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 most of my training has been low level in and out of tracks in paddocks. plenty of trees and equipment around which make it a bit more interesting and make me think a bit more about options. I have to admit i prefer this to just busting circuits because its a bit more of a challenge because there is no windsock to start so judging the wind is a bit harder and you have to think about emergency options alot more than you do in the circuit well i reckon i do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 The RAA low level 'endorsement' isn't any great cause for excitement - you are constrained by the limitations of CAR 157....so is GA. There is an exemption for 157 in the CAOs for those aircraft under 95.55 and so on. When flying these aircraft you are bound by the Ops Manual so the low flying ticket does mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 HPD what you said about being grounded by CASA reminded my of a forum i listened to at Airventure. The speaker was Charles Lindenburgs grandson. among several subjects he spoke on, one was disiplinery actions when one such as yourself commits a no no. It has been found that most common and simple breaches such as what you did are committed more than likely out of ignorance. so instead of grounding and issueing heavy fines or tossed in the slamer, it is being considered that the response to incidents such as these is going back to school and revising the regs ect concerning the rule breach. this along with the appropriate lecture from the schools CFI and paperwork lodged with the dept would be considered appropriate. if the rules were breached again then grounding fine and resitting the appropriate exam before privilages were to be restored. if futher breaches occur then well you asked for it license revoked. seems a more responsible approach to this sort of thing. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBye Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I have been flying for 25 years and I know that flying low feels fantastic but there are some rules that we should all follow. First of al you should be checked out by a competent instructor. Flying low over a property without permission is asking for trouble (illegal). Horses, Cattle, sheep and other stock will shift fences. I have been involved in mustering so have seen this. The other very important aspect of low flying is that there is lots of very solid things that you can hit and this will take all the fun out of low flying. Who cares if it is legal or not lets stay alive and enjoy a fantastic recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Interesting post Ewen! So you were dodging houses, seriously? I think the only way you could get away with that if someone was around would be if the instructor had permission from the land owner. Otherwise he's placing himself up against a lot of risk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen McPhee Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Interesting post Ewen! So you were dodging houses, seriously? I think the only way you could get away with that if someone was around would be if the instructor had permission from the land owner. Otherwise he's placing himself up against a lot of risk! No sorry to mislead you. We were not dodging houses, we were maintaining appropritae separation Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 the trick to LOW is real SLOW. ozzie 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