MONETORY FINES IMPOSED BY CAA

[Bundy]

To Dobbs and my fellow members,

Feedback on this issue will be given to you as soon as possible, discussions are currently on going. We are giving this subject our full attention and will fill you all in as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

We are working on it guys!

[nicow]

To Dobbs and my fellow members,

Feedback on this issue will be given to you as soon as possible, discussions are currently on going. We are giving this subject our full attention and will fill you all in as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

We are working on it guys!

[John Boucher]

I just want to say that this issue and it's outcome is going to affect and have a bearing on all forms of flight (sub sections of AeroclubSA), from PPG right through to SAPFA!

Some very disturbing opinions & stances have been aired by a legal person within CAA and it clearly does not bode well for any transgressor or recreational aviation for that matter.

All I can say is that one must stick to the 500ft rule rather than tempt the process....

[Big-D]

All I can say is that one must stick to the 500ft rule rather tempt the process....

Noted

Will have to adjust our flying a bit, but rather that than being fined and going through unpleasant process. I have found myself flying higher anyhow after some nasty accidents these last 2 years - 500feet is still nice and low enough to enjoy a releative low level flight

Thanks John

D

[Bugwar]

On this topic

Saw an Aquilla flying below 500ft over the houses on the corner of Hans Strydom and Von Backstorm Blvd in the Silverlakes area in Pretoria at 17:25 on 7/11/2011. It is actions like this that gives the CAA all the ammunition they need....

[Thatchman]

Saw an Aquilla flying below 500ft over the houses on the corner of Hans Strydom and Von Backstorm Blvd in the Silverlakes area in Pretoria at 17:25 on 7/11/2011. It is actions like this that gives the CAA all the ammunition they need....

Actually it is not. This is clearly a rule infringement and subject to fine or some form of action. No problem - I do not dispute that it puts us in bad light.

The problem is when you are low (below 500 ft) and not breaking the rules and you get fined because of "selective interpretation"

[John Boucher]

That is one of the serious problems.... INTERPRETATION and then the inevitable EXECUTION thereof!

[Bundy]

Saw an Aquilla flying below 500ft over the houses on the corner of Hans Strydom and Von Backstorm Blvd in the Silverlakes area in Pretoria at 17:25 on 7/11/2011. It is actions like this that gives the CAA all the ammunition they need....

Actually it is not. This is clearly a rule infringement and subject to fine or some form of action. No problem - I do not dispute that it puts us in bad light.

The problem is when you are low (below 500 ft) and not breaking the rules and you get fined because of "selective interpretation"

Its not a rule infringement for the purposes of landing or taking off. There is apparently an airstrip in the Silverlakes area, but please dont ask me where it is...I can find no sign of it on Google either. I am not saying that this is what the PIC was doing but it is possible?

Getting back to the topic... the big problem with flying under 500ft is that the law states "no flight shall be flown under 500 ft agl unless for taking off or landing or unless such a flight can be done without nuisance to persons on the ground" (something like that)

How can any PIC percieve from the air if they are being a nuisance or not? This is where the "interpretation problems" come into the equation....
Secondly... try this yourself if you dont believe me. Get some mates to fly around in the circuit, with you on the ground, and try and guess what height above the ground they are, even better get some members of the public to do the same. You will find there is a lot of inaccurate eye witness reports of "low flying"... the difference between 300ft and 500ft is not a lot. One is legal and the other not, but very few people can tell the difference?

[John Boucher]

the difference between 300ft and 500ft is not a lot. One is legal and the other not, but very few people can tell the difference?

It's like asking someone how far the buck was that he shot..... eish... you get various answers until you have actually physically measured it! In this case usually always further than closer..... the opposite holds true for bodies in flight... usually always observed "lower" than the actual height!

[Big-D]

try and guess what height above the ground they are, even better get some members of the public to do the same. You will find there is a lot of inaccurate eye witness reports of "low flying"... the difference between 300ft and 500ft is not a lot.

Solution:

Most GPS record your track and changes in altitude very couple of seconds and can easily download on computer - Should be easy to prove what your height was if ever questioned - Google earth shows ground elevation and you should be able to prove your height if GPS was on and recording



D

[John Boucher]

David .... that's how I fly. The breadcrumb or track function is set ON on my GPS. I don't fly without it for that reason.

I download all my flights and keep the tracks for any possible finger that may point my way!

[Bugwar]

Solution:

Most GPS record your track and changes in altitude very couple of seconds and can easily download on computer - Should be easy to prove what your height was if ever questioned - Google earth shows ground elevation and you should be able to prove your height if GPS was on and recording
D

I do exactly that for this exact reason. Came in handy when my buddy had a scrap with an atc many moons ago....

As far as guessing someone's altitude goes: I can not see that the plaintive will have a case in court if the altitude could not be measured in some or other physical way by the observer i.e. photograph, laser or radar.

The pic in my previous post was doing steep low-level turns over a complex. Not taking off or landing. The point I was trying to make is that the CAA get many complaints and they will make an example of someone if the low flying continues.

[John Boucher]

The laser will only work if directly under the person flying over....

Radar.... PRIMARY only not so?

Photos.... contentious unless specific reference can be made to angle & objects such as the Wintervogel photos next to the road and this too can be misconstrued. Photos can only in this case prove the aircraft was in the sky but not as to who was flying at the time.

Now whatever happened to "reasonable doubt?"

We can toss this around ad nausea um and most of us may arrive at a different deduction I'm sure.

[Dobbs]

Well, as they say in aviation - if there is any doubt then there is no doubt

[Jean Crous]

John, i lost a good friend many years ago due to low flying If poeple (purposefully spelt wrong) want to be that low at speed...........then sell the bloody aeroplane and buy one of those "Big-foot" jobbies from the states.
Just my 2c worth.
Jean.