Dispute with Gov't Department

Ask a question. Post an answer. Learn something!
way-out-west
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 2011

Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby way-out-west » Wed Feb 12 2014, 00:49

G'day not here often but here for the industry.

Your input is requested.

A fairly open basic question.

Scenario: A commercial scenic flight from a private airstrip (single engine A/C) flying over (not landing on) a mostly unpopulated island (national park). Flight is across 1nm of water , Class G airspace to 10000'.

Under current air law in your opinion is this flight permitted?

Please PM with your answer. I may use it in my petition to Govt if you permit.


Height crossing water is easily within auto distance from land.
After take off over land and height has been gained to cross water all other flight paths are over land above heights of 500' unpopulated and 1000' populated areas. Planned to be above 1500'.
No floats are fitted but life jackets are available if required.
No fly neighbourly policy is in place.

To open up the can of worms. The location is in QLD the dispute is with QPWS, they claim they own the airspace over any protected area and a permit to conduct or advertise commercial scenic flights over any of these areas is required and a fee for each passenger is also required to be paid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_ ... Queensland



Cheers
Last edited by way-out-west on Wed Feb 12 2014, 06:18, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hand in pants » Wed Feb 12 2014, 04:19

Any more info???
Are you wearing life jackets, is the a/c equipped with floats/pop out floats.
What height are you when over water/national park??
Tell us exactly what how you do/intend to do it.
Who is trying to stop you from doing it?
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
iPilot
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 176
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby iPilot » Wed Feb 12 2014, 08:16

You are more in your right to fly over, as long as you're 1000ft AGL above a populated area or 500ft over non populated.

They are "Parks & Wildlife" not "The air over Parks and Wildlife." These state govt departments s#!t me to tears! It's the same over here in the west.

Show me in the Federal Regulations where it states that I can't fly over a National Park.

Tell 'em to pull their heads in.

Oh and I'd love to see them try and and dispute a claim like this in the courts.

Crap like this fires me up, no end!!

With regard to the over water flight, you can do it as long as you have lifejackets and floats on the machine, unless you are, at all times, within autorotative distance from land.
arrrj
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 373
Joined: Jul 2012

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby arrrj » Wed Feb 12 2014, 08:23

iPilot,

Could not agree more.

We went flying around Tassie last year, and the Parks Dept have issued a whole bunch of "no fly" bulletins. Who / what gave them the right to say where we can fly ? Sure, I understand that buzzing "the tower" at 100 feet is not on, but a leisurely cruise at the LEGAL height ?!

Left wing lunacy at its best. One government department contradicting the next.

Just like north of Sydney, you can get in your macho 4WD and rip up and down the beach, with no safety concerns or ANY concern for the environment, yet if you want to land a heli and have a swim - it's a bloody Royal Commission.

Lunacy.

All the best,
Arrrj
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hand in pants » Wed Feb 12 2014, 20:30

I'd speak to my FOI. Make sure from his end the CASA rules/regulations are being adhered to and then off you go.
As far as QPWS goes, no they don't own or control airspace in ANY area/location.
Might be worth a quiet word in a lawyer's ear for your own peace of mind.
Also ask QPWS what legislation gives them the right to control/restrict airspace use or how you advertise your business.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
chocolate
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 85
Joined: Jul 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby chocolate » Wed Feb 12 2014, 21:33

Land below high tide mark. Park estate is usually above high tide mark. Council controlled between tide marks usually.
User avatar
froginasock
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 202
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby froginasock » Thu Feb 13 2014, 00:19

Unless QPWS has published and approved Prohibited or Restricted Area (via CASA) then as long as you are satisfying low flying (500' or 1000') rules/regs they have no comeback with respect to airspace - otherwise all flights over Nat Parks would be banned taking out large portions of QLD that would need to be flown 'around' … fly within the rules and don't 'buzz' the beach!
Ben Surawski
New Member
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 2010

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby Ben Surawski » Thu Feb 13 2014, 03:47

When I was flying over Fraser Island the QPWS tried this on years ago. I remember we went to Casa and Air Services and had their full support.

Another issue is advertising to sell a scenic flight over a National Park. You may be required to pay a fee to the owner being QPWS. If you sell scenic flights over the Great Barrier Reef you need to pay A fee to the Marine Park Authority.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hand in pants » Thu Feb 13 2014, 04:53

All good advice, but I stress the need to ensure that QPWS has no "legal" way to stop you doing things. Even if it means you word your advertising slightly.
Whatever you do don't let these morons get on top of you. Especially when they have their own aviation arm. If it's so critical that you can't fly over it why can they.....
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
way-out-west
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby way-out-west » Fri Feb 14 2014, 06:32

G'day some news on this subject.

Local MP is onside and in disbelief.

After searching QWPS regulations they are being clarified, only 4 areas agreed to which require permission for ops below 1500'agl (they are listed in ERSA as Fly Neighbourly Advice).
Source QPWS operational policy, QLD Nature Conservation (Protected Area Management) Regulations 2006


Next hurdle is the opposing of a QPWS request to pay for a commercial operators permit.
More to follow 'over'
User avatar
Thunderbird_1
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 73
Joined: Sep 2012

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby Thunderbird_1 » Fri Feb 14 2014, 23:29

Might be worth getting the AHIA involved? It seems like the regs/legislation governing these situations needs some clarity (and across-the-board consistency).

Looking at AHIA's website, this situation falls right in line with the the third bullet point under 'Objectives':

http://www.austhia.com/index.php?main_page=about_us

QPWS (and other similar fiefdoms) really need a good whack over their collective snouts to put them in their place.
ozloadie
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 194
Joined: Oct 2010

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby ozloadie » Sat Feb 15 2014, 09:52

Your due diligence is very important to the weight of your argument if you end up taking this as far as any court to settle it in your favour. Check the boundaries of both the Parks service and any of it's [u]partners/sponsors[u] who use the island. You're looking for upper limits for technical, scientific or wildlife purposes. Projects operating in such locations are not always public knowledge. The lack of PRD or NOTAM'd advice sounds like an off the cuff arrangement. There can't be any islands off the Qld coast that hasn't had a defense force aircraft flying around it to survey it, were they restricted in the same manner/ Try contacting a local ADF aviation unit close and ask them, it would be unusual for them not to assist your inquiry in some fashion, even if it's just local knowledge.
This sounds like a scam. (If you are not landing. who is policing the POB fee at each end and how?).
Luck to you.
Steve
Keep it flying, don't quit!
way-out-west
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby way-out-west » Sun Apr 20 2014, 11:36

Here is the latest. From the office of the QLD Premier. In this letter it reads 'I can appreciate your frustration'.

Like hell they can. It has now been 5 months since the operation was halted and the politicians just send letters.

Extract from correspondence. 'In an effort to better understand the situation, the department is consulting with CASA and I will write again as soon as possible'.

More updates as they come to light.

Meanwhile I will just mark time while the premier collects his extra $70k pay rise.
User avatar
hoverthrust
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 152
Joined: Aug 2010

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hoverthrust » Sun Apr 20 2014, 17:47

If it's "fly neighbourly" then it's not legally enforceable. It's not a restricted or danger area? Marked on an aviation chart? The fly neighbourly is just that like it says a suggested height or path to keep neighbourly and not to "annoy". Parkes are a state government entity, luckily we come under federal jurisdiction not state, so no matter what any state politician says it comes under the commonwealth, and has to be in that legislation for air laws to be deliberated. I would put going to a state politician last, FOI first, CASA, Federal politician and senator .
User avatar
hoverthrust
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 152
Joined: Aug 2010

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hoverthrust » Sun Apr 20 2014, 17:56

As for paying a fee to Parkes to fly over it. Don't encourage this.. Unless your landing there or Parkes are escorting your visitors. Otherwise every QANTAS flight passing overhead should be paying a fee too. Silly eh.

Up in the bungle bungles there is one operator paying a hefty fee but that is the privilege of living and operating inside the park, where as another operator outside the park still does flights and pays nothing to Parkes. They fly over and land outside all fly neighbourly too
way-out-west
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby way-out-west » Sun Apr 20 2014, 21:19

hoverthrust wrote:As for paying a fee to Parkes to fly over it. Don't encourage this.. Unless your landing there or Parkes are escorting your visitors. Otherwise every QANTAS flight passing overhead should be paying a fee too. Silly eh.

Up in the bungle bungles there is one operator paying a hefty fee but that is the privilege of living and operating inside the park, where as another operator outside the park still does flights and pays nothing to Parkes. They fly over and land outside all fly neighbourly too


I can understand why some people have paid, it can be a large financial loss not to pay. So far for me it has been 5 months.

I agree with what you are saying, take off and landing outside a park. I stood my ground and suffer financially and refuse to fold and pay. On principle I have gone through all the appropriate channels CASA (first answer was it is between me and QPWS). Rephrased the question (who has jurisdiction over Airspace), Answer was CASA, so I will let CASA tell these thugs to pull their heads in and then other operators who have folded and paid may say thank you when they no longer have money extorted from them.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hand in pants » Sun Apr 20 2014, 21:40

Mate, are you still operating or have you been stopped??
If you've stopped, who stopped you??
We only really answer to CASA, not a local park owner, if we comply with all of the required CASA (Federal) rules, regulations and procedures we can operate unhindered. Yes we have to comply with Police directions and local government restrictions as to where we can land and stuff like that, (but that's all to do with what we do on the ground) but a park operator has no say in where we fly.

Good luck with your fight, in a sense, you are fighting for ALL of us.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1825
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby CYHeli » Sun Apr 20 2014, 22:52

What does the Qld National Parks Act say?
Does it list your venue there?
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
way-out-west
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby way-out-west » Mon Apr 21 2014, 01:02

CYHeli wrote:What does the Qld National Parks Act say?
Does it list your venue there?

Definitions

Definitions of key terms used in this policy are as follows:

‘commercial activity’ - as defined in schedule 7 of the Nature Conservation (Administration) Regulation 2006, s27 of the Forestry Regulation 1998, and the schedule ‘Dictionary’ of the Recreation Areas Management Act 2006 –

(1) A “commercial activity” is an activity conducted for gain. Examples of activities conducted for gain — • the hire or sale of goods or services

• commercial photography

• a guided tour, safari, scenic flight, cruise or excursion

• advertising or promoting the use of a protected area (national park) / State forest / recreation area as part of a tour, safari, scenic flight, cruise or excursion

• advertising or promoting the use of a protected area (national park) / State forest / recreation area as a feature associated with a resort or tourist facility on land adjoining the protected area / State forest / recreation area.

Also the definition of a scenic flight as listed in the act dictionary is a flight in, on or over. With all that has taken place on this issue. What I am contesting is the Act and what QPWS are claiming (fees, Airspace control, ETC)and the right as a pilot to be able to operate in accordance with an AOC and the conditions outlined in the AOC which by rights is a permit to fly in any CASA controlled airspace within rules, without interference or extortion for money. Although I believe they have no jurisdiction or right to charge a fee (yearly and per pax) I seek to have this issue put to rest and finalised in writing (without the expense of lawyers via the politicians ) so the industry can plan and operate commercially without interference.

I hope this answers a lot of questions that have arisen. If anyone out there can correctly word or set up an online petition also that would be of help and appreciated.
User avatar
hoverthrust
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 152
Joined: Aug 2010

Re: Dispute with Gov't Department

Postby hoverthrust » Mon Apr 21 2014, 02:32

Yes the definitions are for operating "in" the park. As if you want to conduct a land tour. Let's say for argument sake you pay set up outside the park. Tomorrow a competitor sets up next to you outside the park he doesn't pay Parkes but you do he will be making more profit than you. The scenic flight part would be a commercial operation taking off or landing in the park. I know of operations in other parts of Australia that take off from a class D airport fly over a national park then return to the class D airport, Parks wouldn't even know the flights took place, and none of their business.

At the end of the day your not trying to get CASA to be your legal over the state. All you need from CASA. Is they are in charge of airspace full stop. It then is up to you if you want Parks to sell or recommend flights that's when you may have to pay a fee to them for selling a flight. No problems there but there is no way they can shut you down if you operate over the park and land outside the park on a legal landing spot.

It's all sad when agencies and the likes of local governments stick their head up and "demand" a piece of the action when they don't bear the operating costs, I'm all for paying when you want to use a service, but not paying when it's none of their business. Is gone too far one way, the argument could be made the other way that your promoting their patch of turf, therefore it gets recognition, therefore the state government says we need to give them a few more dollars.

Return to “Helicopter Q&A”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests