CTA ?

[Ben Longden]

An open question to Techman and any RAA exec member.

 

Ive just renewed my membership, and I noted on the accompanying letter that there IS a Controlled Airspace endorsement written on it.

 

 

Does this mean that we can now train for operations in CTA, and receive endorsement from RAA?

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I noticed this on mine and figured it was in readiness for the new Ops Manual. You will notice their is also high performance, low performance, advanced, etc. which are all new too (I think, someone may like to correct me on this if I am wrong).

 

 

[Yenn]

I queried this type of thing years ago when I saw the nosewheel endorsement and it is for future use.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

The CTA endorsement is reliant on Part 103 and 149 getting approved. This could be some time away yet. CASA have other priorities at present. However if you have a PPL and an approved engine you can fly an RA-Aus registered aircraft in CTA. With approval if you don't have a transponder. See for more info . http://ragandtubeaviator.blogspot.com/2007/09/low-flying.html

 

Regards,

 

John McKeown

 

 

[hihosland]

John did say

 

Hi All,........

However if you have a PPL and an approved engine you can fly an RA-Aus registered aircraft in CTA.

 

............

 

Regards,

 

John McKeown

In order to exercise your PPL CTA endorsement your PPL must be current with current medical and current CTA authority.

 

Davidh

 

PS is there a definition of an "approved" engine cf "certified"

 

engine?

 

 

[Guest J430]

Approved engines......somewhere but basically a GA engine or a Jabiru/Rotax is OK

 

A conversion of say a Mazda rotary may not be!

 

J:wave:

 

 

[TechMan]

Hi Ben,

 

Basically, the answer is as John McK said.

 

With regard to the engines, I have requested the list of approved engines from the CASA and will be keeping on their heels to either provide me with a list or approve the list I prepare for them.

 

It has been understood that the current 'approved engines' were Rotax, Jabiru and of course any certificated engine.

 

As per CAO95.55, the requirements lie in section 6.1 of CAO101.55.

 

If an engine has undergone any sort of certification requirements, or has been approved in some way, eg CS-VLA, LSA, then the engine can be assessed against that standard.

 

Once I have further info from CASA I will make it known in the magazine, and also come up with an approved engine list and put it on the website.

 

Chris

 

 

[Ben Longden]

:thumb_up:

 

Thanks Chris.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest J430]

Personally I think that CTA and Formation Flying etc should be kept out of RAA.

 

The whole purpose of RAA was to be not GA in so many ways. The lower demands of training and simpler syllabus are what make it less complicated and affordable for those that enjoy the privellege.

 

If you want CTA or something else, you should hold a PPL or higher and with endorsements on it for CTA, Formation etc etc. I think the CSU/Retract should be required on the PPL so that you can fly a RAA machine accordingly. At present we have quite a number of C/S and retract a/c in the RAA fleet and many are operated by pilots with no more training that a basic RAA ticket (no x-country in one case).

 

What is next a PIFR?

 

Keep the great things about RAA exactly that.

 

J:wave:

 

 

[antzx6r]

Keeping RAAus training to just the basics is what gives "ultralighting" it's image as a half baked pilots licence. The fact is that lighter aircraft are getting faster, more complex and yet, safer construction. Training for this is a good thing. Rag and tube is and will always be integral in the sport. But you can't say it has to be simple construction-slow flight or else go to GA. Same for endorsments (ie CTA). It's a just an extra (that you don't need to spend the money or time on if you don't want it by the way) that will give a lot more people access to the sport and others access to some other areas of flying.

 

I think it's great. Those that are into the basics still have it. No extra cost or training. You're not loosing anything.

 

Those that want faster complex flying but don't want the jumping through hoops from casa can do the extra training, pay the bucks and follow they're dreams too.

 

Everybody wins.

 

Nothing personal J, but I feel that the people who say it should stay basic are usually the ones that have done the hard yards(and big bucks-thanks casa) and gone all the way to commercial just to find out they're driving big buses in the sky, and come back to their roots so to speak. Nothing wrong with that but they expect others that want more(not A380s, just faster and further) to go through what they did. Hard yards, big bucks. A bit of the "In my day..." syndrome.

 

Flying takes many forms. My 2 cents. (maybe 3):big_grin:

 

Ant

 

 

[Admin]

Just curious but what are the differences between the training in 25hrs RAA (cert and x-country) and 25hrs PPL (GFPT + 5hrs x-country training).

 

I know that there is weight and balance but I believe most RA-Aus schools are training RA-Aus to GA standards so this is included.

 

Can anyone let me know - thanks!

 

 

[eastmeg2]

"Personally I think that CTA and Formation Flying etc should be kept out of RAA."

 

I disagree with this point of view. My belief is that if a subset of the Recreational flying community has a desire to carry these types of operations then there should be an avenue for training to be able to do it safely and legally. I'm not saying this should be the case for every type of Operations, I also have difficulty trying to comprehend how most U/L's could safely operate in IFR conditions. However, within reason an RAAus pilot should be able to safely transit CTA given the training and subsequent endorsement for it (+approved motor etc). Formation flying endorsement also should not be so quickly dismissed if with proper training it can help promote Recreational Flying.

 

Rgds,

 

Glen

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Just curious but what are the differences between the training in 25hrs RAA (cert and x-country) and 25hrs PPL (GFPT + 5hrs x-country training).I know that there is weight and balance but I believe most RA-Aus schools are training RA-Aus to GA standards so this is included.

 

Can anyone let me know - thanks!

I can't quote specifics as I haven't done the RAA stuff but PPL is more than 25 hours for a start. You need 40 hours minimum which includes 5 hours of X-Country as PIC. You also have to do some basic instrument time, even for the GFPT phase you require the instrument time. From what some have told me the PPL theory is more stringent than the RA-Aus equivalent but this is not first hand and may also be a bit subjective.

 

As for the other stuff mentioned in this thread I am all for endorsements. If the plane is capable and the pilot is also capable (and suitably trained/qualified) then why shouldn't they be able to do the things they want to do? Sure, I did it the hard way by going the PPL route but that doesn't mean everyone else should be as silly as me!

 

 

[Admin]

If we take Step 1 in simplistic terms - the first 20hrs - RA-Aus Certificate vs GFPT - isn't all you need on the theory side of both is to know the BAK and on the flying side 15hrs dual and 5hrs solo?

 

The result is:

 

RA-Aus - fly 25m from home strip, no passengers

 

GFPT - fly 15m from home strip, allowed to take passengers

 

So isn't at this stage the training the same yet in GA you are allowed to take passengers but you're not allowed in RA-Aus but you can fly 10miles further away from your strip?

 

Step 2 next...

 

 

[antzx6r]

I actaully heard it the other way around. My instructor is currently doing the theory for ATPL and he recons the RAA BAK and certificate are harder than the ppl equivelent. I'm sure the commertial stuff gets quite complex tho.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Again, I can't speak from first hand experience but I have spoken to RA-Aus pilots that haven't done met stuff, wouldn't understand density height or pressure heights and so forth. Is this covered in the syllabus?

 

Similarly a lot of guys I have spoken to do not understand the CASA regs (CAOs, CARs, CASRs, AIPs, etc.) as they believe they don't have to. Their belief is that the Ops Manual is all that applies to them. During my PPL stuff they drilled into me the regs and it was covered in my theory exams in some detail. Again, is this sort of stuff covered?

 

And back to Ians question. You pretty much have it covered. The only real difference in terms of experience is the IF stuff. Other than that I think you are spot on -assuming you have the RA-Aus stuff right of course. :)

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

It may depend on the school. The one I know about trains you as if you are doing a PPL - theory wise. You do the same exams and cover the same material - including density altitude and loading charts.

 

Should you later wish to proceed to a PPL then the process is simple and you are equipped to do so.

 

With respect to CTA I think that the existence of an endorsement is important. There is, as I understand it, a trend towards VCAs - that trend is likely to see a curtailing of our privileges if it is allowed to continue. I think training and understanding are the way to combat these issues. The other path is the same way that the US seems to want to deal with adolescent sex: Just Say No. The outcome in that case is high pregnancy rates and high rates of STDs, because of course they do it anyway, it's just that they are not equipped to do it safely.

 

I don't think that we should simply subscribe to the Just Say No approach to managing RAAus pilot privileges around CTA or Formation and Low flying for that matter.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[antzx6r]

The CASA regs hav been changed for RAA I believe. Maybe one of the other more Tech minded members can comment here. But I think RAA have been set up in the past like exceptions to the rules. (I heard it put that way once. a bit of a laymens way of putting it I know)

 

As for MET, this is covered in more depth with cloud types and their effects, pressure systems, wind and turbulence types etc in the x-country endorcement. I think most see this as the logical next step and really just part two of the basic certificate. Pressure height and dencity height etc. is covered in the BAK tho.

 

Some things are definatly not covered tho. Like loading, mainly because you can't really load most RAA aircraft. It's left to the pilot to make sure they are familiar with the POH including Loading.

 

Ant

 

 

[Admin]

My Instructors Davey Wickham and Nathan Mueller (had to look up my log book for Davey's last name - my first lesson with Nathan I couldn't remember his first name so I put Mr. Mueller in - don't think he has ever been called Mr. before ), anyway they made me learn every word in the BAK, all chapters as they said I didn't know what questions the test would contain. They also quizzed me as we were flying to and from the training area - temp, pressure, alt and on the return, what if there was a white cross on the runway, what is that cloud called, which side of that hill could the wind be turbulent etc etc.

 

Without getting into the old discussion of standardised training, I personally think there may be some inconsistencies in the level of training that may be given between different schools and perhaps if the school also has GA whether that has an impact.

 

Nevertheless, the tests for RA-Aus have been upgraded in recent times and this may play a big part in the advancement of training levels for RA-Aus Certificate but will only be evident in the most recently qualified RA-Aus pilots

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I think inconsistencies is the answer to my questions. In some sense I wonder if I have met many knowledgable RA pilots but they don't stick out in my mind as much as the cowboy ones. It is not a problem unique to RA though, GA has the exactly the same issues.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Using the standard figures of 25+5 etc are probably not realistic for a new-comer. From what I've seen it can take 30-35 + 10'ish for certificate and NAV rating. Likewise for the GFPT, you'd be lucky to go solo in less than 15 hours at most GA schools, particularly those in CTA.

 

PPL is indeed 40 hours of which there is a nav component and 2 hours of instrument.

 

If your RA school taught you to a 'high' standard you'd still need to cover off -

 

- The more complex theory

 

- Weight and balance

 

- Last light calculations (incl UTC calcs)

 

- More complicated weather and forecast decoding

 

- Some human factors

 

- Instrument flight

 

- Air-law (such as refueling etc)

 

... to name a few

 

That being said, it's not overly complicated and many of the answers you able to take with you into the exam in the form of the Visual Flight Guide and ERSA.

 

Until such time that part 103 and 149 are approved there is only one CTA endorsement which is the PPL. I must stress though, IT'S NOT THAT HARD! so if you want to fly into CTA, it's well worth the effort and can open many possibilities for the future.

 

 

[Yenn]

From what I have seen I believe the GA training is more comprehensive than RAAus, I came to this conclusion after talking to RAAus pilots and noticing that there appeared to be gaps in their knowledge.

 

I do not think they are poorer pilots as far as handling the airplane goes.

 

CTA endorsement must be an advantage to us all, even if we don't use it ourselves. It will make those who do use it better pilots in that they have to use the radio and also plan their flights.

 

As far as the statement that GA pilots had to do instrument training, it is not 100% true.

 

I got my unrestricted licence without any instrument flying. That was in 1967 and nowadays you have to do instrument training to get the licence. I have since done enough instrument flying to know that I could not fly on instruments now. My last IFR flight was Nov 1971

 

 

[Flyer]

To obtain GFPT = 20 to 25 hours. BAK same as RAA. Training similar. (been a while since my PPL training)

 

The similarity stops here.

 

5 hours for a X country endorsement in RAA. i_dunno over reliance on GPS perhaps ???

 

Minimum 20 hours for PPL of which 2 cross country flights are solo.

 

You will do all the stuff that BrentC has mentioned and I will add that more attention is paid to meterology.

 

To get a PPL with 40 hours minimum would be a huge achievement from a standing start.

 

The only guys that I've known to achieve this have been glider pilots.

 

I think recreational aircraft are a good stepping stone and I would encourage any newbie to start here, get some basic aircraft handling skills and then step up to PPL, CPL and/or continue onto ATPL.

 

While talking about cross country stuff, the one thing you WILL learn with doing a PPL is dead reckoning. No GPS's, ADF's, VOR's etc etc. Just time and heading.

 

These days there seems to be a requirement to have the latest and greatest in GPS's moving maps et al. Sometimes this stuff breaks down....hopefully you can remember the DR techniques.:thumb_up:

 

still haven't learnt to switch the GPS on in the Jabas yet...maybe you could give me a heads up Brent???

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I do not think they are poorer pilots as far as handling the airplane goes.

Couldn't agree more. In some instances I think the RA pilots are better. Some of the aircraft I have flown in are quite twitchy and susceptible to the bumps, you really have to stay on top of them. Not so in a C172 or similar.

 

Having said that this isn't a blanket statement, I have flown with some brilliant GA guys that would put some RA guys to shame too. You can get crap pilots in both groups! :)

 

 

[Guest J430]

ANT

 

No I am not one who went all the way to ATPL and drive a 744 and think everyone else should do the same. I am a mere bugsmasher with a PPL(A) NIL Airspace restrictions, CSU and Retract, about to do an instrument rating, plus RAA with Radio X-C and PAX, so my comments are based on what I received along the way and how I see a great number of my flying friends conduct their operations.

 

PPL theory is a heavier workload than RAA, some RAA schools I know of teach the PPL syllabus for a good reason.

 

Ian

 

up to 25 hours I would suggest there is not a lot of difference, sure there is a/c performance and mor Met but at that point not a great deal more. Mind you a Gazelle is not a C172. X-C with an NDB or VOr to track on is a bit more to learn. After that is bigger nav's other nav aids and the biggie operating in and out of CTA and not just buzzing coastal through a Class D space like Albury of Maroochydore. Flying through, and in and out of a Class C, D or GAAP is a bit more work for a 40-50 hour licensed pilot.

 

Pelorus32

 

The problem with VCA's is not about having training and endorsement in CTA, its about training and avoiding which is meant to be part of RAA training already. You can have VCA's quite easily with a PPL, CPL or ATPL too. And there are those.

 

Airsick

 

I think inconsistencies is the answer to my questions. In some sense I wonder if I have met many knowledgable RA pilots but they don't stick out in my mind as much as the cowboy ones. It is not a problem unique to RA though, GA has the exactly the same issues.

This is quite likely the case, plenty in both camps!

 

Flyer

 

I learnt dead reckoning in RAA and PPL. As for GPS.....without at least 3 of them how do you get by???

 

In summing up, RAA serves a sector of the market. Just like a CPL with a CIR does not walk up to a B744 and become a Captain, there is flying and there is Flying, and oils aint oils Sol, so do we get an RPT twin CIR Turbine endo in RAA then? No thats silly J what are you thinking boy.........if you get my drift?

 

J