Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes ! yes ! I know this is a well hashed over topic but I saw this add in "Aviation Classified" for a RAA registered aircraft, with a statement that I believe to be misleading at best: 

 

"can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration." 

 

I am fairly sure that this can only be the case IF the pilot hold a current PPL or higher (has CTA endorsement/privileges). In other words the suggestion here, that the aircraft somehow determines the privilege of entering controlled airspace, is complexly misleading/false.

 

True there are exceptions that allow some  RAA flight school aircraft to operate from within CTA  but again this is not attached to the aircraft itself (how could that work?)

 

Yes there are, not very clear restrictions on certain aircraft, that may preclude their entry to air space over built up areas but again this does not mean the rest can be flown in controlled airspace.

 

At the very least an endorsement/training  of the pilot must be the determining factor for entry to Controlled Air Space.

 

DISCUSS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@skippydiesel - are you not secretly a law lecturer and hoping to tease out legal knowledge? Although the subject of the question involves an aircraft, your question is actually of general legal princ

I'm pretty sure the responsibility is 100% on the car driver to make sure they have the appropriate license for what they are driving. But I don't see any claim like that in the ad anyway.  

Skippy that adv. is not by it's self wrong because it is a statement of fact and is therefore not misleading .

Forget any approval of RAAus operations in CTA. The decision to go down a very long pathway leading to nowhere means approval for non PPL holders will not happen. Should RAAus have demanded equal privileges to those extended to the gliding and balloon federations approval would be in place now. 
As far as suitable aircraft go, the regulations are quite clear. (refer CAO 95.55, para 7.3)

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Forget any approval of RAAus operations in CTA. The decision to go down a very long pathway leading to nowhere means approval for non PPL holders will not happen. Should RAAus have demanded equal privileges to those extended to the gliding and balloon federations approval would be in place now. 
As far as suitable aircraft go, the regulations are quite clear. (refer CAO 95.55, para 7.3)

  • I am not advocating RAA into CTA, although I dont see why not, subject to the appropriate training/endorsements and suitably equipped  aircraft
  • No comment on the Aviation Classifieds advertisement itself ????
Link to post
Share on other sites

Skippy that adv. is not by it's self wrong because it is a statement of fact and is therefore not misleading .

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CT9000 said:

Skippy that adv. is not by it's self wrong because it is a statement of fact and is therefore not misleading .

Surely you jest - This is a clear statement, that an RAA registered aircraft has the capacity to enter CTA, rather than the pilot in command.

 

To my mind this is a deliberate mistruth, as the privilege to enter CTA is primarily linked to the qualifications of the pilot, not the aircraft. 

 

True! any RAA aircraft can, as a fact, be be flown in CTA  - however for the overwhelming majority, this is an illegal act, as the pilots do not have the requisite endorsements to do so.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind the advertisement could be correct with reference to the suitably equipped aircraft. Maybe it should also have made mention of the pilot being suitably qualified.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The seller is trying to make it mare acceptable to more people. He is doing no more than our politicians do all the time. Bending the truth.

We have to bear in mind the old saying Caveat emptor.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

To my mind this is a deliberate mistruth, as the privilege to enter CTA is primarily linked to the qualifications of the pilot, not the aircraft.

There are multiple conditions that apply to the aircraft. See CAO 95.55:

 

7.3     A person must not operate a relevant aeroplane in Class A, C or D airspace, or an active restricted area, unless all of the following conditions are complied with:

(a)   the aeroplane:

             (i)  is certificated to the design standards mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016; or

            (ii)  meets the criteria stated in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a), or regulation 21.186, of CASR; or

           (iii)  is approved under regulation 262AP of CAR in relation to flights over closely-settled areas;

(b)   the aeroplane is fitted with an engine:

             (i)  of a type mentioned in paragraph 6.1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016, or of a type that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in a relevant aeroplane; and

            (ii)  that is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

(c)   the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

(d)   the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

             (i)  issued under Part 61 of CASR; and

            (ii)  that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

(e)   the aeroplane’s pilot has a valid flight review for the aeroplane’s class rating, under Part 61 of CASR;

(f)    if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted to the aeroplane — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Surely you jest - This is a clear statement, that an RAA registered aircraft has the capacity to enter CTA, rather than the pilot in command.

 

To my mind this is a deliberate mistruth, as the privilege to enter CTA is primarily linked to the qualifications of the pilot, not the aircraft. 

 

True! any RAA aircraft can, as a fact, be be flown in CTA  - however for the overwhelming majority, this is an illegal act, as the pilots do not have the requisite endorsements to do so.

 

My understanding is not ALL RAA aircraft can enter CTA.  I believe you need a transponder, and to be NON home built.  Only then it can enter CTA.  That's my understanding, but happy to be corrected.

 

If that is the case, then the add is not misleading.  Sure the Aircraft has what it takes to enter CTA, but I also get your argument that the pilot will also need quals.

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

I asked what type of aircraft I.e. make  and model.  Thanks 

You may look it up for yourself - the web site "Aviation Classified" https://aviationclassifieds.com.au/ is open to the public & if I am not mistaken is connected with RAA Sport Pilot magazine

 

However the type of aircraft is irrelevant - RAA aircraft can not legally enter CTA, unless under the command of a suitably qualified GA pilot. 

 

Aro pointed out that there are a host of other requirements regarding the aircraft & its components, fit out etc BUT even an RAA aircraft that is potentially permitted entry to CTA, can not do so unless commanded by the aforementioned pilot.

 

No mater on what level (as listed by Aro) this aircraft might be claimed to be, it can not legally "be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" unless the pilot in command is appropriately qualified.

 

So no matter what you may feel about RAA pilots being denied the opportunity to qualify for entry to CTA , this advertiser is basically telling one big porky pie, that might lead a purchaser to pay for something that does not exist and cause him/her to run fowl of the law & bring RAA into disrepute .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft.

 

I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

it can not legally "be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" unless the pilot in command is appropriately qualified

It can't legally be flown at all unless the pilot is appropriately qualified i.e. pilot certificate. Does that need to be pointed out?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The adv. is for the aeroplane not the pilot. I therefor stand by my statement that the adv. is in fact a statement of fact.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming for a moment that the pilot, of the RAA aircraft,  holds the requisite GA license to operate in CTA - the  RAA aircraft owner/operator must have applied, to RAA, for & been granted (letter of authority) the approval(s) refeed to by Aro.

 

The owner/agent/manufacturer of this aircraft, is not the authorising body - the authority is issued, on application, for the individual aircraft.

 

My reading of the advertisement is, that it is at best misleading and at worst a complete fabrication (I lean toward the latter)

11 hours ago, aro said:

It can't legally be flown at all unless the pilot is appropriately qualified i.e. pilot certificate. Does that need to be pointed out?

True, in this scenario, the pilot must be both Certified (RAA) & Licenced (GA)

 

11 hours ago, KRviator said:

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft.

 

I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

The answear is - not unless the aircraft has been granted an authority to do so, having applied for & met the list of requirements (see Aro above). In the unlikely event of this aircraft having been granted the privilege of entry to CTA, there is then the question of transferring the "letter" from old to new owner - is this automatic???

 

Not sure of my information on this - the suggestion that one of the criteria for RAA aircraft to be granted an authority to enter CTA is predicated on being factory built is not correct. Factory built aircraft have (in the past) been denied the authority, as kit builds have been granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Assuming for a moment that the pilot, of the RAA aircraft,  holds the requisite GA license to operate in CTA - the  RAA aircraft owner/operator must have applied, to RAA, for & been granted (letter of authority) the approval(s) refeed to by Aro.

Most of these conditions apply to an aircraft or engine type, they are not issued to a specific aircraft.

 

The exception is 262AP which is an authorization to operate over built up areas, which is issued to a specific aircraft. I would expect that authorization to go with the aircraft if it was sold, I think it is effectively forms part of the certificate of airworthiness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of this letter of authority from RAAus. A factory built properly equipped a/c can be flown in CTA. The limitation is on the pilot to be licensed and current. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KRviator said:

Where is the requirement to "apply" for CTA access referred to, @skippydiesel?

 

 

You have me there ! I have always understood that CTA access for RAA aircraft is predicated on the aircraft itself meeting certain criteria AND the pilot holding current Certification & License.

 

How the aircrafts criteria is recognised (other than by the pilot proposing entry) I assumed (wrong?)was by RAA authorisation.

 

If my memory serves, were not Jab aircraft specifically excluded at one time.

35 minutes ago, aro said:

Most of these conditions apply to an aircraft or engine type, they are not issued to a specific aircraft.

 

The exception is 262AP which is an authorization to operate over built up areas, which is issued to a specific aircraft. I would expect that authorization to go with the aircraft if it was sold, I think it is effectively forms part of the certificate of airworthiness.

Perhapse for GA aircraft but for  RAA  ?? - unlikely!  as minimum "fit out" does not meet CASA standards. Instillation of transceiver/transponder is still at the purchasers discretion and some aircraft purchasers have the choice of several engine types .

 

The authorisation to operate over built up areas was time limited (required renewal) dont know if this is still the case . Certificate of airworthiness ?? hardly. The letter of permit was issued on the basis of engine type, aircraft type history (nil airframe induced accidents) and did not in any way infer the particular aircrafts condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Control areas include class D and as far as I know there is no requirement for a transponder in class D..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good topic Skippy and see the point your making. As we are all educated in the rules and regulations of air law and Everyone is responsible for the air they fly in. The prospective buyer is aware of what he and she can do. I feel not misleading. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually everything advertised for sale, that is used, contains "errors of omission". That is, the seller is carefully avoiding mentioning anything that may detract from the sale.

 

As Yenn says, "Caveat Emptor" is the ruling principle, anytime you want to purchase a used item - and the term is actually enshrined in the law of commercial transactions.

 

Try buying something from an auction - they will tell you virtually nothing about it, apart from what they have seen on a cursory inspection - and for good reason. Most auction sale items come with major faults.

 

Auction houses make it clear in all their T's & C's, that they expect the buyer to be fully conversant with the item, and the buyer accepts the item "as seen", with all faults and misdescriptions.

 

Edited by onetrack
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...