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

They have their specialised uses. The original AUF/ RAAus theme was simple affordable and safe flying. I don't mind multi engines either but they are out, so are jets, IFR, Night VMC, high stall speed & more than 2 occupants. What you gain in exchange is reduced cost/complexity which I hope will be given due attention in the "NEW GA" we seem to be heading towards. Nev

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.

Thread dredge... 9 years ago.. Helicopters.. They're simple enough. NOT.. Nev

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?

And to your point Jaba, having a constitutional right means little comfort if the path to prove that right involves an expensive legal proces of appeal. Who can afford that these days. The only way our friend in 'The Castle' managed that class act was that he found a generous legal benefactor that took his case on 'Pro Bono'.I wasn't so lucky many years ago when I took a very large quasy government corporation to the Federal court on a Trade practices Act matter. Even though I technically won the case, it still cost me 600k in cash not including the consequential costs and the outcome was a no win situation for all of us.

 

Consequently you must take a 'commercial' position on these matters and determine; is it worth it. Fighting legal matters on 'principle' is for wealthy naive people. Usually the two aren't mutually inclusive. Smart money doesn't do that.

 

I think flying below the radar with good neighbourly relations is the key.

 

Once you enter the legal arena, justice is only available to those who can afford it.

Such as Lindsay Fox...

I'm sure your great extensive knowledge and your position as a law student will be of great comfort to the multiple people whose experience ( which is real and in the public domain) money and outcomes have been the exact opposite of your stated brilliance on the topic.

I stayed I

Ah yes, that one.A friend of mine wrote to the Queen over an issue caught up in that thought process. I thought that was a little over the top, but was surprised when he phoned to say he'd received a letter from the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, assuring him that the Queen had read his letter, and had asked him to write to the Governor-General in response. Unfortunately it wasn't such a positive outcome once it got back to Australia.

Effectively the Commonwealth is an association of six sovereign states (countries), and Commonwealth laws are based on what the States agreed to allow it control in the 50 odd years of debate leading up to 1901.

 

The key is that each legal Jurisdiction makes its own laws and doesn't cross over into another Jurisdiction; however, to ensure we have some commonality across the Country, the Federal, State and Territory Ministers for the various departments meet from time to time and make agreements on standards. One of the more recent, and unusal, agreements was an agreement to ensure common transport regulations for trucks. In this agreement a national regulator was set up to come up with new commonwealth regulations, and the States and Territories made an agreement that when a new regulation was agreed upon, it would go into law in the State of Queensland (with the normal checks and balances in the Queensland Parliament, and the other States and Territories would mirror the Queensland Act, and in that way, a truck legal in Queensland would be legal as it drove through every State and Territory.

 

So the Commonwealth was not over-riding individual States rights; they were voluntarily agreeing to a National Standard.

 

In the exercise we are talking about - building an airstrip on a rural property, the Commonwealth has no interest at all and would not be a party to the discussion on whether an airstrip was appropriate or not.

 

Once an aircraft landed there, the operations of the aircraft need to comply with CASA regulations, but that's not related to the planning issue.

 

Depends on the Zone.

 

My local Council can order removal of containers in the Green Wedge Zone, based on a law to prevent the proliferation of containers used as sheds turning a zone into a mess.

 

A container can also be rejected on this basis in its Green Wedge Zone

 

VICTORIAN PLANNING PROVISIONS

 

Section 70- definitions

 

 

 

Clause 74

 

Store – land used to store goods, machinery or vehicles

 

Store is included in Warehouse

 

Warehouse is a Prohibited Use in the Green Wedge Zone

 

 

Apart from this two containers with a roof between them would be classified as a shed, where the maximum size for a Section 1 Use is 10 square metres, bumping it up to a Section 2 Use, which does require a permit. One of these was recently approved by our local council.

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.

I have to say (sorry guys) but the answers given on this thread regarding the legal position of councils has been a mish mash of of misinformation.I have looked at buying a property and setting up my own airfield several times in three shires and have friends who have been through the mill and can report the following:

 

As far as the legal situation about councils (rural or otherwise) at least in Queensland goes.

 

IF a council ALREADY has in place a By Law that restricts the setting up of a place where you land an aircraft (the name ALA, airstrip airport or whatever will not get you around the rule) then you can not set one up. This is currently the law in the Tablelands Shire in North Queensland . Other shires may or may not have similar by laws. If you think you can get around it by claiming my plane is like my car you can't, that ONLY applies where no by law ALREADY exists.

 

If no by law already exists then you CAN claim the right to enter and leave your property by whatever means is safe. This is certain and was proved in court by Bob Norman in Cairns about 20 years ago when he installed a helipad on an acreage property on the northern beaches area of Cairns.

 

If you are told by a council you can't have one and no by law exists they can still stop you with a court injunction and YOU have to take the council to court. Even if you do win the council may impose heavy restrictions on your usage. Pat English built a strip at Koah in North Queensland (In the Tablelands Shire prior to the no airstrips rule) and although he won, at great cost, he was left with significant restrictions such as daily weekly and monthly take offs and landings, no circuits except for returning or departing from the strip, no usage by other aircraft except in emergencies, provision of records of take offs and landings to the council at regular intervals. It was his "victory" over the council which inspired them to introduce the by law which couldn't stop him but does stop anyone else from having a private airstrip.

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.