Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Crezzi

In this case there is no "conflict" - the HGFA Operations Manual is imposing an additional restriction not a contradictory one. As it is a requirement to operate IAW with the Ops Manual, this further restriction must also be adhered to. It would only be a conflict if complying with one rule violated another.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have clarified an ambiguity. IF the associations ruling is more restrictive then it applies. I only considered the situation where the rule of an organisation permitted( or appeared to) something more than the CAO or CAR did. Thanks. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davidh10
:blink:Umm could you dumb that down a bit for me 072_teacher.gif.7912536ad0b89695f6408008328df571.gif

I haven't observed HGFA registered trikes avoiding flying over the town here.

Local trikes frequently fly over the town, but they are all RAA registered. In fact we fly over the town (at a suitable altitude, as required by the regs.) and the lake, as part of the area in which formation training is performed. We get a lot of favourable comments from townspeople who like to watch; Some from their back yards, some from the lake foreshore and some drive out to the aerodrome and park at the end of the runway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
064_contract.gif.1ea95a0dc120e40d40f07339d6933f90.gifHGFA Operations manual 6.5.9 "A weightshift microlight must not be flown over a city or town. CAR157.(1)

Regards Bill

Interesting, here's CAR 157 (1), which the HGFA Op's manual refers to. CAR 157 (1) does not apear to prohibit flight over built-up or closely settled areas but instead just confirms the understanding of the altitude restriction for RAAus registered trikes under CAO-95.32.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157

 

Low flying

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

 

(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or

 

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
CAO 95.32 also mandates that "the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate Operations Manual".Hence an HGFA trike is not allowed to fly over built-up areas as their Ops manual specifically prohibits this (despite it being permitted in 95.32).

IIRC their ops manual also contains a total prohibition on flight in controlled airspace despite it being allowed in 95.32 (for PPL holders etc etc)

 

Cheers

 

John

Thank God I fly when the Raaf base is deactive or does that now mean I can't fly even if it is eactive as I am inside the 20nm radius of the control zone as our airport a licenced aerodrome is 9nm from East Sale.

 

Sheeks look likes instead of getting fines from the HGFA I might get them from the police driving my trike round on the roads from now on. and or Maybe change over my trike to RAA reg

 

Better continue on flying on the dark side, anyone wanna buy a cheap trike??, i'll get it road registered for you.

 

Alf

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Fantastic discussion; thanks to all who contributed. Clearly there are some 'anomalies' between what an RAAUS trike is permitted to do versus an HGFA registered one, and it looks like I picked the more 'restrictive' of the two bodies to learn under...

 

Happy flying,

 

Matt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157

Low flying

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

 

(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or

 

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

What are these penalty units? Greek Drachmas, Euros or Yen?? Whatever happened to Australian Dollars???

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are these penalty units? Greek Drachmas, Euros or Yen?? Whatever happened to Australian Dollars???

Penalty Units were originally set at $100 but are adjusted annually for inflation. Currently about $110 from memory.

 

Kaz

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Penalty Units were originally set at $100 but are adjusted annually for inflation. Currently about $110 from memory.Kaz

I think it's GST rather than inflation, though I could never understand about GST being charged for fines.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's GST rather than inflation, though I could never understand about GST being charged for fines.

GST is logical....from a political perspective its unbudgeted income hence good(s) and the service bit, think barrel (you over it) and pineapple, you get a free pineapple with every fine, Vaseline costs extra

Andy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it really gets at the lower socio-economic groups, who spend every cent of their income without option, so it's very equitable. Once it goes up even further.( Mooted LNP idea.) we'll really be in the $hit. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
And it really gets at the lower socio-economic groups, who spend every cent of their income without option, so it's very equitable. Once it goes up even further.( Mooted LNP idea.) we'll really be in the $hit. Nev

It's pretty hard to do because GST may only rise if all State governments and the Federal government agree ...no exceptions allowed.

 

However, don't let them change it because it shifts the burden of tax away from the very wealthy. Last year, the NZ government put GST up to 15%. If they do that in Australia the government will sell the idea (as they did in NZ) by saying, "we are only adjusting the GST by a few percent", or similar wording. If it went from 10% to 15% in Australia that is -in effect- a 50% increase, not 5% as many politicians will tell you.

 

BeWaRe of a polly armed with statistics: always assume they're a distortion of facts and then do some independent checking oneself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davidh10
...However, don't let them change it because it shifts the burden of tax away from the very wealthy....

How does that work... the more you spend, the more tax you pay. Surely the very wealthy don't spend less than the poor!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that work... the more you spend, the more tax you pay. Surely the very wealthy don't spend less than the poor!

It's like this: a very wealthy person eats pretty much the same quantity, wears clothing, needs accommodation and spends money on transport etc. Undoubtedly, these may be more expensive but they are likely to save more of their income. Saved money does not attract GST.

 

On the other hand, a low income earner probably spends almost everything he or she earns out of necessity. This means that, after paying income tax, the money left is available for spending. Ten per cent of the after-tax money then goes to GST. The relative impact is greater on a lower income earner compared with higher income earner ...i.e., not absolute dollar figures.

 

I think it's time to get 099_off_topic.gif.20188a5321221476a2fad1197804b380.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All,

 

Be aware that there have been recent changes to CAO95.32, including as stated above, permission to operate over built up areas (min 1000' above highest object and glide clear distance). These changes apply to both RAAus and HGFA and are in effect immediately. HGFA are currently working on updating their manuals.

 

Other changes include, criteria for penetrating controlled airspace, over water flying limitations, new height limit of 1000' and flying in proximity to personnel when taking off & landing.

 

Safe flying

 

Kev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...