Source: http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/part-101-consultation/
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 14:43:10
Document Index: 55793689

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 1', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 73', 'art 1', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 47', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 101', 'art 73', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 11', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 73', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 8']

Part 101 Consultation | Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Part 101 - Consultation
Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 101. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.
To provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on the proposed new rules, the Authority issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 95-3 under Docket Number 1025 on 16 August 1995. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 101 to provide a regulatory safety boundary for Unmanned Aircraft, Gyrogliders and Parasails.
Summary of Comments on Docket Number 1025 NPRM
1.1 From the 15 submissions received, 9 commented on model aircraft, 3 on moored balloons and kites, 3 on rockets, 2 on free balloons, and 1 on gyrogliders and parasails.
CAA response: The CAA response to specific comments is given in the following paragraphs.
Specific comments received from the 15 submissions are discussed as follows:
2.1 101.1(3)
One commenter recommended that Model Rockets, Large Model Rockets, and High Power Rockets be included.
CAA response: This rule does not apply to model rockets. Model rockets are covered by the Explosives Regulations 1959 and have been excluded from this Part through the definition of rocket.
The rule applies to large model rockets and larger. At this time separate requirements for rockets larger than large model rockets are identified by reference to all rockets except large model rockets.
2.2 101.3
One commenter stated that the gross mass limitation for free flight aircraft is unreasonable and would effect the vintage class. It was suggested that the gross mass limitation be deleted and a maximum wing loading of 62 g/dm2 (20 oz/ft2) be substituted.
CAA response: This limitation has been changed as requested.
One commenter stated that the existing uncontrolled aerodrome definition is too restrictive.
CAA response: There is no definition of an uncontrolled aerodrome in Part 101. A controlled aerodrome has been defined and this should clarify matters. There is no need to define both, an uncontrolled aerodrome is quite simply one at which there is no air traffic control service provided to aerodrome traffic. Aerodrome has been defined as meaning an aerodrome that is promulgated in the current Visual Flight Guide of the NZAIP.
One commenter stated that uncontrolled aerodromes should be defined.
CAA response: A controlled aerodrome has been defined and this should clarify matters. There is no need to define an uncontrolled aerodrome as well, it is quite simply one at which there is no air traffic control service provided to aerodrome traffic.
One commenter stated that Active Movement Area should be defined.
CAA response: Movement area is defined in Civil Aviation Rules Part 1 as meaning that part of an aerodrome intended to be used for the take-off and landing of aircraft and for the surface movement of aircraft, and includes the manoeuvring area, maintenance areas, and aprons. The word ‘active’ can be taken to be that given in the New Oxford dictionary in the context that if the runway etc is in use it is deemed to be active. It is therefore not considered necessary to define ‘active movement area’ in Part 101.
One commenter stated that the Model Flying Zone definition should be expanded on to make it clearer as to what this area is.
CAA response: After further consultation within the CAA it was decided to remove the term Model Flying Zone from Part 101. Reference is, however, made in the rule to danger areas designated under Part 73 within which certain activities may take place.
One commenter suggested that the definition of night and day hours as defined in the 1953 regulations be included in this rule.
CAA response: Night is defined in Civil Aviation Rules Part 1 as meaning the hours between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. There is no need to include the definition of night in this Rule.
One commenter suggested that the definition of Model Aircraft should be expanded to include the definition of each type of model.
CAA response: The various types of models are defined in alphabetical order and will therefore not be defined as subparts in the definition of Model Aircraft. The definitions of Small Model Aircraft and Large Model Aircraft have been removed as there is no reference to them in the rule.
One commenter stated that all balloons used by them are free balloons and they are not heavy or medium balloons.
CAA response: The CAA has noted this.
One commenter stated that the Large Model Rocket definition needs further expansion.
CAA response: The points recommended have been included in the definition.
One commenter stated that the definition of the Model Rocketry Safety Code should include the statement "and, if that code is amended or replaced, means any amended or replacement code.".
CAA response: The commenter’s submission is covered by the provisions of section 36 of the Civil Aviation Act. Where material is incorporated by reference amendments to the material are included where the Director notifies in the Gazette that the amendment is approved.
One commenter suggested that the rule include a definition of a High Powered Rocket in accordance with their submission.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree that this definition is necessary. While Part 101 is applicable to all rockets other than model rockets, there is no reference to high powered rockets in the rule and there is, therefore, no need for the definition.
One commenter suggested that a large model rocket be redefined in accordance with their submission.
CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended the definition as suggested.
One commenter suggested that a model rocket be defined in accordance with their submission.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree that this definition is necessary. Part 101 is only applicable to large model rockets and larger. There is no reference to model rockets in the rule and there is, therefore, no need for the definition.
2.3 101.5
Two commenters stated that this section was cumbersome and confusing and needed to be reviewed.
CAA response: The CAA agrees and has replaced the wording in the NPRM with the following—
The requirements in Part 47 shall not apply to moored balloons, free balloons, rockets, kites, model aircraft, parasails, and gyrogliders.
One commenter suggested that this rule be amended to show the different rocket model types.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. A rocket has been defined. Amending this rule to show the different types is therefore not considered necessary.
2.4 101.7
One commenter stated that unless an exemption is granted in accordance with 101.17, these provisions would cause them considerable difficulty.
CAA response: Exemptions will have to be applied for as per 101.17.
One commenter stated that this rule should be amended to show the different rocket model types.
2.5 101.9, 101.11, 101.13, and 101.15
One commenter stated that these rules should be amended to show the different rocket model types.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. A rocket has been defined. Amending these rules to show the different types is therefore not considered necessary.
2.6 101.17
One commenter requested that the wording of this rule be expanded to include instruction as well as scientific research.
CAA response: This commenter is referring to the reference to 101.17 in the introductory part of the NPRM where examples were given of organisations that could apply for exemptions under part 11. Any person wishing to be exempt from any part of this rule should make application to the Director for exemption in terms of Part 11.
One commenter requested that their upper air soundings should be exempt from this rule.
CAA response: Any person wishing to be exempt from any part of this rule should make application to the Director for exemption in terms of Part 11.
2.7 101.51
One commenter stated that 101.51(1) appears to be a typographical error, or else there is no consistency with the remainder of Subpart B.
CAA response: The CAA agrees that it was a typographical error, however, 101.51 has been reworded to state that this Part prescribes rules governing the operation of moored balloons and kites. The other detail is covered in the subsequent paragraphs.
One commenter stated that they would like to have kite flying zones established in the same manner as model flying zones.
CAA response: After further consultation within the CAA it was decided to remove the term Model Flying Zone from Part 101. Kite flying zones are also not mentioned in the rule. Reference is, however, made in the rule to danger areas designated under Part 73 within which certain activities may take place. Kite flying is one of these activities.
2.8 101.55
One commenter stated that the Subpart numbers in the NPRM preamble are different to the proposed rule.
CAA response: The CAA has noted this and taken the necessary corrective action. Also, due to the simplification of the applicability in 101.51, it was necessary to include a new 101.55(1) that reads as follows—
(1) the balloon or kite does not exceed 400 feet AGL; and
2.9 101.57
One commenter stated that there is no requirement to NOTAM such events when they are not more than 400 ft AGL and within 4 km of an aerodrome boundary. See also 101.205.
CAA response: The CAA agrees, there is no requirement to NOTAM such events.
2.10 101.67
One commenter stated that they once more take issue with the general imposition of a kite weight limit. They submit that it would still provide effective control to remove the weight limit from kites flown within the 400 foot limit.
CAA response: The CAA agrees. Part 101.67 has been deleted and the 15 kg weight limit has been put in as a new 101.57(b)(3). The effect of this is to now only limit the weight of kites to 15 kg when being flown above 400 feet.
2.11 101.103
One commenter stated that once again the responsibility rests with the appropriate ATS unit to authorise such operations. This commenter asked whether ATS responsibility only relates to the passing of NOTAM information (as per 101.117) to aircraft under its own control/area of responsibility, or is ATC supposed to separate the balloon from aircraft under its control?
CAA response: If the balloon is transponder equipped, ATS would be bound to separate the balloon from aircraft under it’s control, 107(1)(ii) refers, otherwise NOTAM information would suffice.
It was also decided to add paragraph (3) to 101.103 as follows
(3) unauthorised entry into airspace of another State’s territory is imminent.
This is an ICAO recommendation and has obvious implications in the European situation, however, a heavy free balloon can stay airborne for a number of days and it is not beyond the bounds of reason that it could end up in Australian airspace.
2.12 101.151, 101.153
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. A rocket has been defined. Amending these rules to show the different types is therefore not considered necessary. See comment under 101.1.
One commenter suggested that model rockets be operated in accordance with the Model Rocket Safety Code.
CAA response: Model rockets are excluded from this rule by the definition of a rocket. There is therefore no need to state this in the rule.
One commenter suggested that high power model rockets should be operated to the High Power Rocketry Safety Code.
CAA response: At present New Zealand does not have a High Power Rocketry Safety Code. A code for High Powered Rockets is presently being developed in consultation with the Department of Labour.
One commenter suggested that the Model Rocketry Safety Code be included in the Rule as information to all concerned.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. This code has been incorporated by reference. It is not appropriate to republish foreign codes in Civil Aviation Rules.
2.13 101.155
One commenter suggested that model rockets be allowed to operate within 4 kms of an aerodrome.
CAA response: Model rockets are excluded from this rule by the definition of a rocket. Part 101 does not concern itself with model rockets as they are covered by the Explosives Regulations 1959 and have to be operated according to the Model Rocketry Safety Code. Model rockets are, therefore, allowed to be operated within 4 kms of an aerodrome as long as they are operated in accordance with the Model Rocketry Safety Code.
One commenter suggested that large model rockets and high powered rockets be allowed to operate within 8 km of an aerodrome boundary subject to certain conditions.
CAA response: Large model rockets, and larger, are now allowed to be operated within 4 km of an aerodrome boundary subject to certain conditions. Between 4 and 8 kms from an aerodrome they are allowed to be operated up to 400 feet AGL without having to comply with the restrictions mentioned in 101.155(b)(2) - (5).
One commenter suggested that the 8 km restriction be reduced to 4 km for all rockets to make the restriction the same as for model aircraft etc.
One commenter stated that, apart from satisfying the meteorological minima and the pre-launch requirements, a person can operate a rocket more than 8 km from an aerodrome boundary and up to any altitude outside controlled airspace.
CAA response: This statement would be correct provided that paragraphs 101.7 and 101.9 are also complied with.
One commenter queried the fact that a person wishing to operate a large model rocket does not have to comply with the pre-launch notice requirements of 101.163.
CAA response: A person wishing to operate a large model rocket does not have to file a pre-launch notice.
2.14 101.157
One commenter suggested the introduction of a new paragraph (a): A person shall not operate a model rocket into any cloud.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. Part 101 only applies to rockets larger than a model rocket. Part 101 does not concern itself with model rockets as they are covered by the Explosives Regulations 1959.
One commenter suggested that reference be made to large model rockets and high power rockets.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. The wording in 101.157 is such that it applies to all rockets larger than a model rocket.
2.15 101.159
One commenter suggested that a new concept of ‘night darkness’ be introduced which would allow operation of rockets within lighted stadiums at night.
CAA response: The CAA is of the opinion that it is acceptable for Large Model Rockets to be operated at night in accordance with the Model Rocketry Safety Code and other relevant rules contained in Part 101. Rockets larger than Large Model Rockets shall not be operated at night.
2.16 101.161
One commenter suggested the following—
Allow Model rockets and Large Model Rockets to be operated over a congested area of a city, town, or settlement in accordance with the model rocketry safety code; and
A person shall not operate a high power rocket over the congested area of a city, town, or settlement; and
A person may operate a high power rocket at an open air assembly of persons only in accordance with the High Power Rocketry Safety Code.
CAA response: The CAA has removed the rule relating to the operation of rockets over the congested area of a city, town, or settlement, and over open air assemblies of persons, from Part 101 and concentrated on minimising the effect that rockets can have on navigable airspace.
This decision was made following consultation with Department of Labour. That Department issues conditions for the launch of rockets which includes site restrictions for the safety of neighbours and passers by. As CAA is primarily responsible for safety of persons carried in navigable airspace CAA considered it sufficient to leave safety requirements for persons on the ground to the Department of Labour.
The operation of rockets shall however, in addition to other requirements, be in accordance with paragraph 101.13.
One commenter suggested that a waiver or authorisation might be needed prior to launching a high power rocket.
CAA response: The CAA does not regard the inclusion of this statement as necessary. Should a person wish to conduct operations that require a deviation from this Part, that person shall apply to the Director for an exemption. The Director may exempt a person from any requirement in this Part in accordance with Part 11.
One commenter stated that placing limits on the operation of rockets over open air assemblies of persons would affect their public displays of high powered rocketry.
CAA response: The CAA has removed the rule relating to the operation of rockets over the congested area of a city, town, or settlement, and over open air assemblies of persons, from Part 101 and concentrated on minimising the effect that rockets can have on navigable airspace. The launching of rockets shall, in addition to other requirements, be in accordance with paragraph 101.13. See comment above.
2.17 101.163 [Final rule 101.161]
One commenter recommended that the first part of this rule be amended to read as follows—
A person shall not launch a large model rocket or a high power rocket unless they provide the following information to the New Zealand NOTAM office at least 24 hours prior to the operation:
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to require a person wishing to operate a large model rocket to file a pre-launch notice.
2.18 101.201
One commenter recommended that this be reworded as follows—
This Subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of model aircraft either within 4 km of an aerodrome boundary, or at heights above 400 feet AGL.
CAA response: The CAA has reworded and simplified this part considerably. There is, after all, no need to say any more than that this Subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of model aircraft—and leave it at that. The subsequent paragraphs say what may and may not be done.
One commenter stated that the 4 km distance seems rather excessive for uncontrolled aerodromes. If an ATZ is established, models should remain clear of it.
CAA response: The CAA does not regard the 4 kms as excessive. All that is required for operations within 4 kms of an uncontrolled aerodrome is that the operation be undertaken in accordance with an agreement with the aerodrome operator. However, as stated above, 101.201 will no longer contain this detail. The subsequent paragraphs in the rule say what may and may not be done.
2.19 101.203 [Final rule 101.205]
One commenter stated that the rule is unnecessarily restrictive and should be amended to allow model flying at uncontrolled aerodromes as per their submission.
CAA response: 101.203 (now 101.205) has been amended in accordance with this submission except for the fact that the 4 km radius is still applicable and it is no longer necessary to operate in accordance with an agreement with the users of the aerodrome.
One commenter suggested that this be amended to allow model aircraft, other than control line model aircraft, to be operated on or within 4 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome in accordance with an agreement with the operator and users of that field.
CAA response: This has been amended as requested except that it is no longer necessary to operate in accordance with an agreement with the users of the aerodrome.
Three commenters stated that they would like to operate model aircraft above 400 feet AGL (500 to 600 feet AGL) within 4 km of an aerodrome.
CAA response: The reason for the 400 feet AGL requirement is that it ensures a 100 feet buffer between the models and aircraft doing low level circuits at 500 feet. It is also consistent with the 400 feet required elsewhere in the rule. Model aircraft will therefore be restricted to a maximum of 400 feet AGL within 4 km of an aerodrome.
One commenter requested that the wording be changed to protect all licensed aerodromes with commercial operations. This commenter also stated that the definition of an aerodrome is too encompassing.
CAA response: Aerodrome has, for the purposes of this rule, been defined as meaning an aerodrome that is promulgated in the current Visual Flight Guide of the NZAIP. Aerodromes that fall outside this definition will therefore not be affected by this rule.
One commenter asked that the term uncontrolled airfield be defined.
CAA response: A controlled aerodrome has been defined as meaning an aerodrome at which air traffic control service is provided to aerodrome traffic. An uncontrolled aerodrome is therefore an aerodrome at which air traffic control service is not provided to aerodrome traffic. The CAA does not consider it necessary to define both terms.
One commenter asked why the CAA was restricting model flying to outside 4 km from an uncontrolled airfield and below 400 feet.
CAA response: The CAA believes this to be a misunderstanding. A person may operate a model aircraft within a 4 km radius of an uncontrolled airfield, subject to certain conditions.
Two commenters expressed concern about the fact that they would have to obtain permission from every user of the field prior to operating model aircraft within 4 km of an uncontrolled airfield.
CAA response: The term ‘users of that aerodrome’ has been deleted.
One commenter stated, with regard to paragraph 101.203(a)(2), that no altitude ceiling was specified.
CAA response: ATC will specify the maximum ceiling.
One commenter asked whether ATC would have to assume that the person requesting permission to operate a radio controlled model aircraft holds the necessary qualification as per 101.215?
CAA response: ATC will have to assume that the person requesting permission to operate holds the necessary qualification. It is not an ATC function to police pilot qualifications. However, the new 101.205 now specifies the qualification requirement.
2.20 101.205 [Final rule 101.207]
One commenter suggested that the maximum ceiling be raised to 600 feet AGL.
One commenter suggested that the MFZ (Model flying zone) of an aerodrome be depicted on the appropriate aerodrome chart.
CAA response: After further consultation within the CAA it was decided to remove the term Model Flying Zone from Part 101. Reference is, however, made in the rule to danger areas designated under Part 73 within which certain activities may take place. Danger areas do appear on aeronautical charts as the norm. However, consideration may be given to providing a special chart symbol depicting the activity that takes place therein.
One commenter suggested that a new paragraph (3) be added to 101.205 allowing the operation of model aircraft up to 900 feet AGL within the boundary of any city etc outside an air traffic zone without having to give 24 hour NOTAM notification.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. The CAA believes that NOTAM information is required, in the interests of keeping third party risk as low as possible, when it is intended to operate model aircraft above 400 feet AGL over congested areas. The third party risk referred to here is that which third parties would be exposed to in the event of a collision between the model and an aircraft flying at 1000 feet AGL.
2.21 101.207 [Final rule 101.209]
Three commenters suggested that the 500 foot clearance from cloud be deleted and replaced with a requirement to operate safely beneath the cloud base.
CAA response: The CAA agrees and has amended 101.207 (now 101.209) as requested.
One commenter suggested that the last word, separating (1) and (2), should be or.
CAA response: The CAA agrees and has made the change.
2.22 101.209 [Final rule 101.211]
One commenter suggested that this should exclude control line model aircraft.
2.23 101.213 [Final rule 101.205(a)(1)(ii)]
One commenter suggested that this should be deleted and that their recommended change to 101.203 will cover this aspect.
CAA response: The CAA agrees and has deleted 101.213. The amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205] now covers the launching of free flight model aircraft within 4 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome.
One commenter recommended that the height could be restricted to 1500 feet AGL more than 3 km from an uncontrolled aerodrome.
CAA response: This commenter is referring to radio controlled gliders, which are restricted to 400 feet AGL within 4 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome. Refer the amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205]. Outside of the 4 km radius of an aerodrome, subject to other relevant rules, radio controlled gliders may fly higher than 400 feet AGL.
One commenter recommended that glider operations be permitted within 3 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome.
CAA response: 101.213 has been deleted. The amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205] allows the operation of model aircraft, with the exception of control line model aircraft, within 4 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome subject to certain conditions.
One commenter recommended that this activity be allowed in accordance with an agreement with the aerodrome operator and the users of that aerodrome.
CAA response: 101.213 has been deleted. The amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205] does allow this subject to an agreement with the aerodrome operator.
One commenter recommended that gliders should be able to operate at a height not exceeding 1000 feet AGL.
CAA response: This commenter is referring to radio controlled gliders, which are restricted to 400 feet AGL within 4 km of an uncontrolled aerodrome. Refer the amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205].
One commenter stated that this is too restrictive, and that they should be able to operate within 4 km if due permission and precautions are taken.
CAA response: 101.213 has been deleted. The amended 101.203 [Final rule 101.205] does allow this subject to certain conditions.
2.24 101.215 [See final rule 101.205(a)(3) for qualification requirements]
One commenter recommended that this be amended according to their submission.
CAA response: The CAA has amended the qualification requirement as requested and this can now be found in the requirements contained in the new 101.205. The abbreviation NZMAA has been replaced with the term "model aircraft association approved by the Director".
2.25 101.253
One commenter stated, with regard to paragraph 101.253(a)(1)(i), the users of the aerodrome may not be based on the aerodrome; or is it the intention that it only applies to the aerodrome based users?
CAA response: The CAA has amended this to the effect that this activity be allowed in accordance with an agreement with the aerodrome operator. It is no longer necessary to have an agreement with the users of the field.
One commenter stated, with regard to paragraph 101.253(a)(2), that no altitude ceiling was specified.
The following regulations will be replaced by Part 101—
Regulations 19B, 23, and 87 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1953.
The following Civil Aviation Safety Orders are replaced by Part 101—
CASO 9, Part 8.
The Authority concludes from this consultation that the aviation industry participants favour the direction of the new rules. Specific issues that were identified in the comments received from the consultative group have been addressed. The rules also meet New Zealand’s international obligations under the applicable ICAO Annex. The comments and all background material used in developing the rules are held on the docket file and are available for public scrutiny. Persons wishing to view the docket file should call at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140, and ask for docket file 1025.