Jump to content

Low Level Flying


Guest DWB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Firstly I acknowledge that I could get the answer from Operations at RAAus, however, I am curious what everyone else's take on this is as Rec Pilots.

 

I have heard that an RAAus Pilot had his Certificate suspended for breaches in relation to low level flight, which was video'd by said pilot & put out in the public domain. Some would say silly to do that, but.....

 

Said pilot had a Low Level Endorsement & permission from the property owner for the particular flight. I am led to believe the punishment was metered out due to "no valid excuse for undertaking the flight".

 

Does this requirement exist? I was certainly not aware of it & obviously our pilot in question wasn't either. If it is the case it sort of negates any desire to get that endorsement I think.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In GA you can get a low level endorsment but you can't fly low level unless on AG work or Survey, a low level endo doesn't give you the right to fly LL. CASA has no low level syllabus or recognised course and is a very grey area.

 

Back in the olden days you could only fly an ultralight below 500 AGL or over roads, what is the letter of the law now concerning RAA aircraft and low level flight?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest avi8tr

Remember that we follow GA rules, but with some exemptions for RA-Aus so if there's nothing mentioned in the RA-Aus exemptions, it reverts back to the GA CAO's.

 

- Mustering

 

- Ag Work

 

- Training

 

There aren't many other valid reasons, except perhaps for one-off's.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ops manual says:

 

The CAO 95.55 says:

 

The CAR 1988 says:

 

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00378/Html/Volume_3

141 Low flying etc in flying training areas

 

(1) CASA may authorise low flying or acrobatic flying over a specified part of a flying training area for the purposes of flying training.

 

(2) A person must not engage in low flying or acrobatic flying in a flying training area for the purposes of flying training if the flying is not in accordance with an authorisation issued under subregulation (1).

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

 

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or

 

(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;

 

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.

 

(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.

 

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

 

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or

 

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or

 

© the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or

 

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

 

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking‑off or landing at an aerodrome; or

 

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

 

(i) a search; or

 

(ii) a rescue; or

 

(iii) dropping supplies;

 

in a search and rescue operation; or

 

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

 

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

 

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

 

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie

Ba

 

In GA you can get a low level endorsment but you can't fly low level unless on AG work or Survey, a low level endo doesn't give you the right to fly LL. CASA has no low level syllabus or recognised course and is a very grey area.Back in the olden days you could only fly an ultralight below 500 AGL or over roads, what is the letter of the law now concerning RAA aircraft and low level flight?

Back in the old days of ANO95:10. First issue. (either 1974 or 75) It was,

400lb all up weight and 4lbs per square ft wing loading

 

Single seat.

 

Not above 300ft

 

Not allowed to cross SEALED roads

 

Only within the hours of sunrise and sunset

 

No registration or pilot license required.

 

Not within 5 nautical miles of a registered airport

 

VFR only.

 

plus a couple of other simple things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually had a similar discussion with an instructor last night, we'd been watching some footage of cubs landing on sandbars and touching down on the water before the land started, I asked if there was any regs about it in Oz , he said maybe its the PIC's desicion as to whether the area is suitable to land an aircraft, I'm keen to hear opinions on it but if the PIC thinks the area is suitable for a takeoff and / or landing would that be within the rules. Now the next question would be where to get some instruction in water skiing in aero planes ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest aviatrix27
Now the next question would be where to get some instruction in water skiing in aero planes ?

When I was in America a couple of years ago I stayed with a friend who is an instructor, engineer and lots of other things. He was telling us about being in Canada and watching students doing C&L practice - IN WATER CHANNELS. He then told us that they were actively taught ditching and landing in flood-affected areas, the secret is to land with your feet hard on the brakes. The theory is that if the wheels can't move they act more like water skis, so if you need to ditch the plane won't flip. He says he has since told all of his students this and the one who subsequently needed to ditch in the ocean applied his new-found knowledge and was rescued by boat. Some hours later, his plane was towed ashore too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... he said maybe its the PIC's desicion as to whether the area is suitable to land an aircraft, I'm keen to hear opinions on it but if the PIC thinks the area is suitable for a takeoff and / or landing would that be within the rules...

Some guidelines in the CAAP here with reference to the relevant reg. CAO 20.7.4 is also relevant. Opinion of the insurance company is even more relevant. One of my friends knows that he has NIL insurance for some places he takes his aeroplane - he chose not to pay the very large premium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some guidelines in the CAAP here with reference to the relevant reg. CAO 20.7.4 is also relevant. Opionion of the insurance company is even more relevant. One of my friends knows that he has NIL insurance for some places he takes his aeroplane - he chose not to pay the very large premium.

That would be the deciding factor on doing a water assisted landing ( yes it even has a cool name) ,the mighty insurance co, can we do something isn't always the right question, should we or perhaps is it wise to do ,,,,,? Might be a smarter question,,,,,,still I would like to try one, maybe head for Alaska and do it in someone else's plane

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a read through the CAAP, I liked the suggestion of a fully laden land rover station wagon as test for the surface of the runway, problem is they're getting hard to find, along with having to fix it half down the runway, and possibly having to get a tow truck to move it, by the time I'd finish with the landriver I reckon I'd be out of daylight and enthusiasm for flying!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...