whoops...seemed to have ruffled a few feathers here...nothing to see, move on, move on...

Nah - seriously...i was trying to get this whole topic removed, as those who it doesn't directly affect see us as idiots for kiting where we do, and those who it does affect feel that it is probably better left alone, rather than create a stink about this and possibly be banned from their favourite spots.

But for those who are genuinely interested (and for others who like a good online argument)the nuts and bolts of the original post was that kiting is banned for 4000m from any airport (and we could assume seaplane landing zone) and i just wanted to see how many of you are affected by this and what arrangements might have been made/could be made to allow us to kite within that exclusion zone.

I'm sorry blow fish, I've got no simpathy for you mate... Kiting near an airport is bloody stupid... Should be common sence !

regards browneee

thanks for posting that blowfish. I'd heard about not being able to kite too close to an airport but wasn't sure what the figure was.

I kite quite regularly near the Tullamarine airport. Not within 500m though (this probably was a little too close), but you get nice winds, and that's what i'm after.

Moruya river mouth??

Me again. Just on this airport subject. i think there are alot of factors that determine the 4km rule. It obviously depends if you are inline with the runway or off to the side. Off to the side isn't exactly dangerous. To give you guys an idea on the current situation in NZ Wellington kitesots are severely restricted by the airport. Lyall Bay is practicially on the doorstep on the Airport and kiting is not allowed on the eastern end of the beach. It's allowed on the western side but You have to get permission first from the control tower. I hear there are issues with certain spots in Nelson, one of NZ's best summer kite locations.

In Auckland however it's a bit more relaxed although once again it's insanely stupid to kite near a runway and no-one here in AK does so. However some of the best kitespots in Auckland are found 3km to the north of the airport (runway goes East/west) and we kite these spots in W-SW winds so even if our kite did fly away (the crew i kite with ALLWAYS use saftey leashes) the runway wouldn't be in danger. Then again you can't fish close to the runway due to seabirds and jet engines not mixing too well so the rules are still strict.

Commonsense prevails if anyone is THAT stupid to kite by a runway they need to be shot on site... if they do it without a leash they need to have their head slowly cut off with a blunt knife. When kitesurfing as a sport is in danger of being banned (causing a jumbo to crash would get kiting banned in an entire country... maybe even worldwide) the offending kiter/idiot is worthy of the most heinous punishment as kiting is our livelihood and anyone who messes with kiting messes with our livelyhood.

Anyway here's hoping that the real stupid kiters amoungst us get picked off in the next squall/thunderstorm so the guys with brains can enjoy the sport even more.

I think if botany bay can get it down to 2km just through communicating, surely Moruya can do something similar? There are no big planes at this airport at all. Surely you guys can work out something with the control towers in certain winds have access to certain parts. Good Luck.

Even though I still think the idea of kiting near an aerodrome is absolutly stupid on a monumental scale, I did find you some info out of the "Civil Aviation Regulations" for your cause...

CAR 260 Fixed balloons and kites

(1) Not withstanding anything contained in regulation 157, a fixed balloon or kite may be flown at a height not exceeding 300 feet, but a fixed balloon or kite shall not be flown within 4,000 metres of an aerodrome or at a height in excess of 300 feet except with the expressed permission of CASA and in accordance with the terms of that permission.

(2) a FIXED BALLOON OR KITE MUST ONLY BE FLOWN IN V.M.C.

(Visual Mean Conditions)




CAR 157 Low flying


(1) An aircraft must not fly over:
(a) any city, town or populous area, at a height lower than 1000 feet;
or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest
point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter—600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter—300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft .
(3A) Paragraph 1 (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a
designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been
published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or
departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is
essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work
operations, being operations that require low flying, and the
owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a
general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular
flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such
operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over
a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is
authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach
procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the —^
supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-offor landing
at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal
Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires
the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in
accordance with directions issued by CASA.

regards browneee

yep too true chop chop...

how did the original post for this get changed??

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffor123

i think stating the size of the scale after saying the stupidity is absolute is stupid.
also i think the hellfish is sh1t, why would i believe tat it even exists after all the other lies best have told us
greg

---

What has the hellfish got to do with this thread greg ? NOTHING !

My opinion of wishing to go kiting within a airport control zone is stupid on a monumental scale is justified in my mind as it's my opinion and I've seen the damage aircraft jet/prop/rotor wash, wake turbulence can do...

However if you bothered to read my "long" post above, it was offering some info for the guys who wish to continue this practice some ammo against the authorities showing that they can actually get away with it...

regards browneee

Now, how about seaplanes?
I know they land and take-off on the Southport Broadwater, Gold Coast

That's Kite-Kountry!

There is talk of allowing seaplanes to land at Rockingham beach.

This could make much of our winter spots off limits.

Anyone know more about that?

Regards,
Bertus