Rules here:-
Chapter 5 of MOS Part 139 details aerodrome information for the AIP for certified aerodromes. Para 5.1.2.9 does include a provision for aerodrome operators to publish special procedures ‘where the flying procedure is generated by the aerodrome’. Banning balloons, gliders or aerobatics in the vicinity of an aerodrome is not a flying procedure."
The (good) question – here:-
The incident did bring into focus the legal standing of ERSA and whether or not compliance is mandatory?
The answer - here - sorta:-
"Where there is a regulatory requirement behind the procedures or instructions then CASA considers it mandatory," the spokesperson said. "However, for any information published in ERSA, CASA expects pilots and aircraft operators to comply with the information published."
Seems to me there is a perfect case to tell the developers and Mildura council to bugger off.
Chapter 5 of MOS Part 139 details aerodrome information for the AIP for certified aerodromes. Para 5.1.2.9 does include a provision for aerodrome operators to publish special procedures ‘where the flying procedure is generated by the aerodrome’. Banning balloons, gliders or aerobatics in the vicinity of an aerodrome is not a flying procedure."
The (good) question – here:-
The incident did bring into focus the legal standing of ERSA and whether or not compliance is mandatory?
The answer - here - sorta:-
"Where there is a regulatory requirement behind the procedures or instructions then CASA considers it mandatory," the spokesperson said. "However, for any information published in ERSA, CASA expects pilots and aircraft operators to comply with the information published."
Seems to me there is a perfect case to tell the developers and Mildura council to bugger off.