Why......

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Over the last few years this exact question has rissen a number of times, I can recall my locality, Coffs Harbour and RAAF Williamtown being discussed. In each case, as with this one, it was made very clear that it cant be done.

 

What surprises me is that it appears to be such a recuring problem, perhaps as Russ has aluded, it may be illegal, but its also illogical, or is it simply that it is a real impediment and one that people know of and ignore.

 

The correct solution to my thinking, ignoring the potential to end up with access to controlled area through rule changes is to ask for VFR Transit lanes. These dont require the ability to access CTA and are basically relatively narrow and shallow class G airspace that exists to allow VFR traffic to do their thing in a SAFE and predictable way and to get from one side of CTA to the other legally.

 

In my area around Coffs, there is no SAFE way of transiting Coffs to the north or the south. To go eastward takes you out to sea about 11.5nm which in our Aircraft cant be safe, or 6.5nm if you are happy to stay under 1000ft. To the west is the great dividing range and all sorts of disgusting tiger country. As a result I regularly see trikes and drifters transiting knowing that almost certainly what is occuring is illegal.

 

The claim that ASA cant be expected to know if someone has authorisation or not to me is just BS to cover up what they know is rules putting people at risk and their actions are in my opinion are just trying to keep people alive(which as a tactical approach is fine...superb even, but its not a strategic approach to the problem at all) . While I accept that there will be trike drivers that may have the necessary qualifications (not withstanding whether 95.32 allows CTA access or not...I cant remeber) the vast majority wont have that and as such a check is in order.

 

It is my belief that ASA doing what they are doing is actually hindering progress as we end up being considered cowboys and the drive to point out the stupidity that exists is lessened by an accomodating controller, why fight for right if a nudge nudge wink wink say no more...unless it all turns to sh%t alternate exists.

 

Andy

 

 

[Ryanm]

It is not the responsibility of the controller to make sure you are licenced, I remember reading somewhere that they are not allowed to ask? Its not as simple as refusing all RA-Aus aircraft through. If the aircaft and pilot are qualified, the aircraft is allowed through the CTA.

 

 

[Thx1137]

Right on Ryan. They do not have enforcement powers. A set of traffic lights do not know if you have a car licence...

 

If someone thinks they are allowed in CTA without an appropriate licence and/or aircraft then next time they request clearance they should make sure to mention that they mention you only have and RA licence when requesting clearance. It would be interesting what the results would be.

 

As for the question I have seen sometimes, "how do they know?". Who cares, maybe they read forums. After all, we know... Personally, the excuse for *knowingly* breaking the law that appears sometimes that "others do it" or "they wont know" is selfish idiocy. Unfortunately if we pilots choose to be idiots then it definately wont help the rules change for the better but sure can make them worse (for us).

 

 

[flying dog]

OK, I'll join in.

 

Hyperthetically - ofcourse - You are flying up the coast. Although the weather said SOME clouds, etc it wasn't implying/read that it woudl be THIS bad. The weather is not good.

 

Ok, first choice is land and wait it out.

 

That can't be done as there are no runways handy. No this is not bad planning it is just the situation.

 

Choices then are: Get clearence to transit C airspace or "Scud run" the clouds.

 

Option 2 you Scud run. Get into clouds and all over red rover.

 

Option 1 would be better, but reading the thread this is NOT allowed. With certain exceptions.

 

So, if you are an RAA person and you are in C airspace WITH permission of the controller - and belive me I do NOT want to put them in any trouble - and something happens, declair an emergency.

 

Let the red tape happen, it will anyway. But not declaring an emergency then you crash, it would be worse than if you do.

 

Sure there will be questions why you were there BEFORE declaring the emergency, but that's life.

 

Now, before I dig myself into too much of a hole, I'll stop there.

 

However, I do hope this is of some help.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I think what is happening is that those who make the rules (ASA,CASA RAAF etc), have realised that they do have a duty of care to the aviators they serve.

 

They are there basically in a position of regulating, and serving the flying public.

 

Some of the required routes around their large control zones just aren't the best way to go, and just not real safe on certain days.

 

The back route inland around the Williamtown control zone is a good example, and can be positivly dangerous at the altitude that you have to fly on certain days.

 

The VFR route around the back of Townsville Class C is not too bad, but on the wrong day with low cloud and rough conditions could be dangerous, especially as you need to descend below 1000ft for cloud, and there is a small 700' hill in center of track. Loosing power in there would almost certainly result in loss of machine and possible injury.

 

The army by the way actually wanted to include this pass in their military airspace, but through the efforts of the late Bill Starke and others it remains the only viable VFR route, north or south behind Townsville.

 

They are responsible for providing safe routes of passage, for the flying public (us). If they have not done that to the best of their ability, they are liable in a court of law just like any other entity. CASA can now be sued, and so can Air Services Australia for breaching their duty of care, and I feel that we will see some changes in the not-too-distant future in respect to our use of control zones............................................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

When an emergency situation applies you will get always the access you need, if it is necessary, regardless of your qualifications. Post incident you will have to EXPLAIN how you got into that situation. There is nothing surprising about all that. Years ago pilots from Newcastle who regularly travelled to Mascot got in with a "special VFR" clearance which is pretty similar to Victor 1. We could come down the coast pretty low and get thru Botany heads and use the northern runway under conditions that would be marginal regarding minimums for an instrument approach on the same runway. We always made sure that we didn't muck this up and send "big stuff" scattering in all directions. IF we did that ONCE even, I reckon the privilege would have been withdrawn. Nev

 

 

[flying dog]

Facthunter,

 

I've heard similar versions of that story.

 

I don't know if it was the same story re-hashed or it was another exciting story.

 

As it was told to me I don't want to repeat it as I would not be able to repeat it was was told.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dog, I understand about saying things here. That's fair enough. Regarding the situation(s) I described, It is not a story I heard, it's what I and others did. It's not a big deal and you are at ALL times VISUAL. You are not operating in IMC. You are also talking to the tower which provides separation from all the other traffic, and you have to have a clearance, and the tower knew what the cloud base was at all times, but the minimums you could operate to were below what the minimum for an ILS back beam approach would have been and no real hassles with the whole thing. So much easier than the secondary airport (Bankstown). Nev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It sounds to me as though this is at least one reason for having an RAA CTA Endorsement. While there are those who fly RAA aircraft, but in addition to a Pilot Certificate, hold other license(s) that qualify them for accessing CTA (in qualifying aircraft), there would be many Pilot Certificate holders who don't, like me, and have had no CTA training. If per chance there was a dire need to transit CTA, all the procedures would be unfamiliar in a situation that is likely to be a source of stress in itself.

 

It is anomalous that CASA grant exemptions for flying schools /clubs that existed at ADs prior to the overlay of a CTA and yet feel that it is somehow unsafe generally even for trained pilots in RAA aircraft that meet the qualification requirements.

 

I asked one of the CASA staff about RAA CTA endorsement at one of their safety seminars. The response was that John McCormick would never grant it because there was no Class 2 medical for RAA. Like every other answer or justification I have heard, this makes no sense at all. If that were the only barrier, it could just be included as a requirement of the endorsement!

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The response was that John McCormick would never grant it because there was no Class 2 medical for RAA. Like every other answer or justification I have heard, this makes no sense at all. If that were the only barrier, it could just be included as a requirement of the endorsement!

And that is exactly the requirement included in the exemptions granted to GA schools training RA at class-D airports.