Landing without permission

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I don't think CASA wold prosecute. It is reallynothing to do with them unless you engage in dangerous flying. Airservices control what goes on the charts regarding prior permission.

The prosecution would come from the landowner and the fact that he has an airstrip shows that he has some interest in flying

For him to prosecute would be costly and no doubt the landowner would end up out of pocket, so I reckon it would only happen if he was badly upset by your landing.

My experience is that if you do drop in you will be helped if you need it and otherwise treated cordially.

It is a requirement of CAAP 92-1 (1) which I explained to Spacesailor above.

[KRviator]

CAAP's are not legislation, they are advisory publications only. That is an important point that must be recognised. And while it is good practice to generally follow what's in them, you can happily operate outside them, so long as you can still maintain compliance with the CAR/CASR's et al.

 

I still don't get where you're coming from with regards to CAsA prosecuting anyone for landing on an airfield designated as PPR without getting the "PP" part...The closest I could make out would be a violation of CAR92(1.D) or perhaps CAR93 - perhaps you can be more specific in your claims by providing some data or supporting regulations as opposed to just saying "CAsA will get you too..." without a reference as to why/how?

Quote

 

CAR92 Use of aerodromes
(1)  A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:

                     (b)  the place is a certified aerodrome;

                     (c)  the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;

                     (d)  the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (b) or (c)) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft;

and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.

CAR93 Protection of certain rights
Nothing in these Regulations shall be construed as conferring on any aircraft, as against the owner of any land or any person interested therein, the right to alight on that land, or as prejudicing the rights or remedies of any person in respect of any injury to persons or property caused by the aircraft.

 

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, KRviator said:

CAAP's are not legislation, they are advisory publications only. That is an important point that must be recognised. And while it is good practice to generally follow what's in them, you can happily operate outside them, so long as you can still maintain compliance with the CAR/CASR's et al.

 

I still don't get where you're coming from with regards to CAsA prosecuting anyone for landing on an airfield designated as PPR without getting the "PP" part...The closest I could make out would be a violation of CAR92(1.D) or perhaps CAR93 - perhaps you can be more specific in your claims by providing some data or supporting regulations as opposed to just saying "CAsA will get you too..." without a reference as to why/how?

 

Hint: when linked to safety.

[Flightrite]

Like they say it's better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission:-) But it is Australia I guess where it's shoot first ask questions latter and there are plenty of angry land owners airstrip or no airstrip!

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 02/09/2021 at 1:42 PM, SSCBD said:

 

 

 

 

What problems can you get in these days being sooo PC  with  landing a RAA or single engine VH on an airstrip where permission is required.

 

For example -  your honour - flying along happily for about 2 hours and my passenger had the urge.  We had about another 45 mins to fly but underneath was a lovely looking grass strip and when I  looked it up it was permission required.

 

It was an uncertified airfield called Ashford Cawdor YASF - it's 1000 metres long but we were not in a position to call the owner.

 

Don't get me wrong I have landed many many times on strips in the back blocks without asking permission for natures calls without any problems.

 

What can they really do about it if you had a reasonable excuse to land.

 

anyone's thoughts

 

If the strip is unserviceable, you might have  undercarriage-violently-removed trouble. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by APenNameAndThatA

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

If the strip is unserviceable, you might have  undercarriage-violently-removed trouble. 

.....and your passenger might have just had his back broken in the process and told you he was going to sue you for $12 million.

You could have replied: "Sorry old son, but I adhered to the advice of CAAP 92-1-(1) and contacted the owner who failed to advise be of a reasonable forseeable risk - a set of his harrows - covered by grass in the middle of the strip, so you're on a winner if you sue him."

 

But you didn't do that, so you have to say "..............................."

[walrus]

By definition, PPR can only apply to marked strips contained in ERSA or suchlike. If it’s an unmarked, undocumented strip or just a paddock then there can be no argument that you didn’t land without permission, unless the law says “you can’t be anywhere without permission” which it doesn’t. It’s a bizarre situation.

 

Furthermore the i closed lands act looks to me as a device to keep drovers out of other peoples properties(an issue during drought) and also out of events and public facilities like hospitals.

 

‘’The fact that something is inclosed begs the question of whether it is legally inclosed as well. There are fences everywhere in the bush for all sorts of reasons, some legal, some not.

 

To put it another way, you would have to be unlucky in the bush to find someone who objected to a request or even a landing after an attempt was made to contact the owner. Most people understand the concept. of “a fair go”.

[spacesailor]

When l was training the emphasis was " allways look for a place to land in Any emergency ",

Has this now changed to ' don't land anywhere without permision ' ?.

spacesailor

 

[skippydiesel]

9 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

When l was training the emphasis was " allways look for a place to land in Any emergency ",

Has this now changed to ' don't land anywhere without permision ' ?.

spacesailor

 

Emergencies always take prescience over land holders  "wants" just as they take presidency over ATC rules, other aircraft, etc.

[Bruce Tuncks]

If you have an emergency and need to land Spacey, the ownership of the land should not enter your head. Surface, slope and obstructions are what you should be looking for.

A great many paddocks will turn out to be great for landing. Preferably into the wind and with an uphill slope and a good surface free from obstructions like SWER lines.

Glider pilots are still taught these things.

 

[spacesailor]

Except

Sydney airport,

please land out of sight in the sea !.

I think thats the official direction

spacesailor

[KRviator]

58 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

When l was training the emphasis was " allways look for a place to land in Any emergency ",

Has this now changed to ' don't land anywhere without permision ' ?.

spacesailor

 

Well, the question by the OP was "The Coey need's to take a piss. There's an airport right below me, but it's PPR. What can they do if I land anyway?". Taking a piddle is not an emergency, no matter how it may feel at the time! But you're still right. SE pilots are always looking for the next suitable field in which to put down, but for a non-emergency situation, I'd want to know I had permission to be wherever I land, rather than doing it and saying "Sorry about that" once I'm down...

[rgmwa]

Even if you get permission to land does that give you permission to pee on the property? 

[aro]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

When l was training the emphasis was " allways look for a place to land in Any emergency ",

Has this now changed to ' don't land anywhere without permision ' ?.

If it's an emergency you can land wherever you need to, including Sydney Airport.

 

If it's the type of emergency where you wouldn't land at Sydney if that was the closest airport, maybe it's not really an emergency?

[Garfly]

4 hours ago, aro said:

If it's an emergency you can land wherever you need to, including Sydney Airport.

 

If it's the type of emergency where you wouldn't land at Sydney if that was the closest airport, maybe it's not really an emergency?

They've heaps of toilets there, though.

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, rgmwa said:

Even if you get permission to land does that give you permission to pee on the property? 

Look, if the cows are allowed to...

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, rgmwa said:

Even if you get permission to land does that give you permission to pee on the property? 

Adding to soil fertility

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Adding to soil fertility

Actually no; Breach of Biosecurity which could be very costly since the property owner can be disqualified from selling his stock, so you want to be careful being flippant around stock owners, they have to work hard for their Compliance.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, don't tell them anything. It cannot help you. I like the idea that " your engine seemed to be running rough."

But once you landed, it seems to have improved...

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Actually no; Breach of Biosecurity which could be very costly since the property owner can be disqualified from selling his stock, so you want to be careful being flippant around stock owners, they have to work hard for their Compliance.

Not usually an issue of broad acre, low intensity farming.

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Not usually an issue of broad acre, low intensity farming.

Really, the cattle become different in your designation? And you can tell that from the air?

Edited September 5, 2021 by turboplanner

[skippydiesel]

5 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Really, the cattle become different in your designation? And you can tell that from the air?

Turbs; You are "drawing a very long bow". I have worked in both intensive and extensive agriculture all my life - pissing in/on a paddock/grass strip, is unlikely to be a breach of biosecurity.

 

Most biosecurity relates to intensive agriculture - you are unlikely to try & land in a piggery, chook shed or animal feed lot. There are some cropping activities that are a bit sensitive but again the chances of you choosing to land on an irrigated paddock (bogging/obstructions) are pretty slim.

[turboplanner]

Just now, skippydiesel said:

Turbs; You are "drawing a very long bow". I have worked in both intensive and extensive agriculture all my life - pissing in/on a paddock/grass strip, is unlikely to be a breach of biosecurity.

 

Most biosecurity relates to intensive agriculture - you are unlikely to try & land in a piggery, chook shed or animal feed lot. There are some cropping activities that are a bit sensitive but again the chances of you choosing to land on an irrigated paddock (bogging/obstructions) are pretty slim.

Of course we are not talking about intensive animal husbandry.

 

[aro]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I like the idea that " your engine seemed to be running rough."

But once you landed, it seems to have improved...

Why do pilots get so upset over the concept that you can't land on private property without permission?

 

Is this an attitude that appears when you get your license, or is it the type of people who are drawn to flying?

[walrus]

Aro, if pilots were dropping out of the sky scaring the horses, wrecking your cornfield or rose garden every day you would have a point.. For most of rural Australia a landing is a red letter day.

 

I have four undocumented strips in my “paddock” and would not hesitate to use any of them if I. thought it advisable.