farri Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I fully believe the RAA should be involved with this, if it is PROVEN the AC is unregistered, or the pilot out of certificate. That means the RAA should have every right to pursue this issue through the courts. Ben,I`m simply trying to better understand the issue and your input is appreciated. I`m having some difficulty in seeing why the RAA should be involved in the legal process. To my mind! If an aircraft is not registered with the RAA,then it is not an RAA aircraft,regardless of previous registration! If the pilot does not hold a current RAA membership and/or pilot certificate, then the pilot is not under the controll of the RAA, rgardles of the fact that they previously met the requirements. Frank. Ps, Anyone , please correct me if this is not legally correct, so that we all know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Well, Alan, just how low do you fly that cow in your avatar? I'm sure most members of the public would not want a pat on the head - not only is it condescending, but also very messy to clean up....... I always fly my cow above 500ft over land and only over paddocks as they are familiar to me and that's where I can safely leave my droppings, however over lakes I fly above 5,000ft as Guernseys don't like to get their feet wet. (Silly old Moos). Alan. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You certainly dish up a tasty English-Australian breakfast there Guernsey! All Guernsey expressions Turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I always fly my cow above 500ft over land and only over paddocks as they are familiar to me and that's where I can safely leave my droppings, however over lakes I fly above 5,000ft as Guernseys don't like to get their feet wet. (Silly old Moos). Alan. I suppose you'd need to hang onto the horns when she turned the afterburner on; not so good for the villagers if she did a dump and burn! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 If you want to use your light aircraft to travel to an area where you have permittion to shot and you have the correct shooters licence and a member of the correct shooter feberation , how do you transport a firearm. You apply for a permit to carry firearms in your aircraft for the purpose of transporting them to your hunting area. CASA will check your arrangements to ensure they will allow you to do this safely, take your money, and grant a permit. If the firemarm is dismantled is it still a fireman or dose it then become a piece of wood and a pipe , and what about ammo? A firearm includes any part thereof. How can you ban someone for life if he doesn't have the right to fly in the first place... Same as you disqualify someone from driving who has been caught driving without a licence. The penalty for driving while disqualified is much more severe than for the initial offence of driving without having a licence (was mandatory gaol in Victoria until recently). kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campslive Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 RAA is not investigating Ben (see earlier news reports), just us kangaroos commenting. We can't investigate or convict him either, so he's safe from us.He's not a member of RAA and his aircraft is not RAA registered. yes i agree totally let the proper people raa/casa do there investigation and proceed with what ever they recommend, i was a little angry as some of my mates where the one s buzzed at low level and took photo s, had my 2 cents worth,, time will tell and judgement passed upon him fines or other wise,, sorry if i up set anyone, cheers graham, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 You have every right to be angry because there's a good chance genuine law abiding aviators in the Riverina and NE Vic will get some close scrutiny in coming months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendonguy Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 it said in another story on the net , the council took these steps due to others in the area worried about saftey and noise , maybe more of the Hume dam example will cause more councils to try the same action . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 it said in another story on the net , the council took these steps due to others in the area worried about saftey and noise , maybe more of the Hume dam example will cause more councils to try the same action . Have you posted in the right thread? What Council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendonguy Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2011/10/31/airstrip-owner-answers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendonguy Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 sorry missed the paste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 That one's a planning issue hendonguy. This one's all about unacceptable behaviour, pretty much the same as someone driving an unregistered car and speeding on the highway, and Councils don't usually get involved with that because there are authorities and processes to deal with it as there are here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryc Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You have every right to be angry because there's a good chance genuine law abiding aviators in the Riverina and NE Vic will get some close scrutiny in coming months. Why do they have every right to be angry. Why would law abiding aviators have the slightest problem with scrutiny. This paranonia is breeding contempt. It's time it stopped. I once asked my cfi why this type of thinking is more prominent in rec aviation and his thoughts were that because flying was so much of an individual sport that our main focus was on ourselves. Come on guys give it a rest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 He's a law abiding aviator, and has no problem with normal scrutiny, but he has a right to be angry if people descend on the area checking licences and aircraft, just because another aviator did the wrong thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 OK i can understand the paronioa about having a bunch of CASA nutters running around with full on intent to catch out anyone and everyone for any offence no matter how trivial it may be. How many times thru these forums have people stated how hard and confusing it is to work out the true meaning of the wording, that is if you can find the revelant reg to start off with. These CASA dudes have been fully trained up in air ledge and it is their quest to catch you out and your shortfalls mean diddly squat to them. If they do catch you out they will not accept your piddley excuse of ignorance and say oh well better do some learning before we come back they will charge you and they don't give a rats about how the outcome will affect you or your family while you are in the slammer. These guys will hit you up for anything from having a beer stored in the hanger fridge to leaving the hanger door open while you run over to have a wizz at the airfield ammenities. Don't blame people who do attempt to do the right thing to be worried about having undue attention brought on them because there is a good chance through no fault of their own that they just aren't up to speed on how CASA writes those BS rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Have to agree with that ozzie. with some pilots they just behave mean and nasty. You even get wrong information being given out by some of them. If they checked first, it wouldn't happen. When the ASIC was first being introduced they put out a statement saying NO-ONE could even get in the air without one. They had to back peddle on that. as on many others. If you have a win in court against them they just hit you with another charge (or two) as you walk out the door. You get sent broke ( Their pockets are deeper than yours) . As far as being able to understand the regulations, even lawyers argue over the meaning. If it's a safety issue,( as it can be) then they should be required to provide working documents (rules) that can be reasonably understood by the people who have to use them .( the Pilots, who by and large are not stupid) at a reasonable cost. Queries as to the meaning and applicability should be able to be responded to swiftly, and the response be relied upon. Aviation is not a pursuit where confusion fits well. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 It would probrably be a good idea to have all your t's crossed and i's dotted at Temora this year too. Rego in order, throttles locked? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-man Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ONE LAST POINT THE PILOT STATED HIS ALT INDICATED 500 FT,,I AM JUST WONDERING HOW HE COULD MISTAKE 3FT ABOVE THE WATER TO 500 FT IS THERE REALLY THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE THAT ONE CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE?????? I WOULD HATE TO SEE THIS GUY DOING CIRCUITS,, AND WHAT HEIGHT DOES HE DO THEM AT? As the elevation of Lake Hume is 541' it is possible that his altimeter was reading around 500'. He didn't say he was 500' AGL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 That will go against him in the interviews. The phone photos indicate he had an excellent height reference flying along the shore line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 poor guy, must have been his medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 FH back in the early 90's when they were the CAA, the guy i was working for had his hanger, office and home raided and just about every bit of paper of his and his employees was taken away. They ended up thumping him with 14 charges. I avoided them for a while but ended up getting dragged into court to give evidence against my ex boss ( we had all lost our jobs by then) It was all trumped up and i ended up getting him off 11 of the 14. Peckerheads could not get their story straight and the Beak was no dummy. Time came to get all my paper work back, strange how all my files had been lost and never found and also recieved quiet advice to 'just move on'. No one wins against them. My advice photocopy all your licences, ratings, log books etc and have them certified before handing them over or storing them elswhere where they can be taken when you are not there. ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcK Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi All, I don't know how this thread ever got onto firearms but since it has I have a story for you. Many years ago I was at Boonah with my Drifter when another Drifter flew in for pod repairs. There was a dinner plate sized hole in the front right of the pod. On asking about the damage I got this story. This aircraft was used in mustering, and the pilot had a rifle holster mounted beside his leg inside the pod. He kept a "shortened" shotgun with small buckshot or saltpetre as the charge to move on reluctant scrub bulls which ignored the low flying drifter or the extremely loud siren mounted underneath. On this occasion the pilot forgot the rifle was cocked and when he went to extract it from its holster to move on a very large and intransigent bull, the gun discharged making the hole in the pod and doing some serious damage to his pedal foot. As I understand it the old bull was not intimidated in the slightest by the aerial action happening above him. (Perhaps his mind was on those three cows nearby) Cheers John McK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I hope you reported him to CASA. He sounds like an accident waiting to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Longden Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 RAA is not investigating Ben (see earlier news reports), just us kangaroos commenting. We can't investigate or convict him either, so he's safe from us.He's not a member of RAA and his aircraft is not RAA registered. WOW.... is that confirmed? that is, he is unlicenced, and also the AC unregistered? As in Confirmed, for a fact... not just a wild rumour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Official RAA statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts