Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
Australian Adventure

[19 Oct 2017] AirVenture Australia (Narromine)

Recommended Posts

It's more than just planes. It's a celebration of flight!

 

19-21 October 2017

 

RAAus are pleased to bring you AirVenture Australia (AVA) 2017. Building on the success of 2016, this year’s event is certainly designed to offer something for everyone. An assortment of seminars for young, old, experienced and novice aviators. A comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it, you’ll find it. Top all this off with an airshow that will blow your sock off and you will start to see why AVA 2017 can’t be missed. Tickets now on sale

 

https://www.airventureaustralia.com.au

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more than just planes. It's a celebration of flight!

19-21 October 2017

 

RAAus are pleased to bring you AirVenture Australia (AVA) 2017. Building on the success of 2016, this year’s event is certainly designed to offer something for everyone. An assortment of seminars for young, old, experienced and novice aviators. A comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it, you’ll find it. Top all this off with an airshow that will blow your sock off and you will start to see why AVA 2017 can’t be missed. Tickets now on sale

 

AirVenture Australia

Only one sock?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"a comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it you'll find it"

 

Hmmm, the program doesn't read that way. It looks like the highlight of Saturday is the paper plane competition!

 

The RAAus Weight increase and CTA presentations are bound to be interesting, particularly given CASA have put them on the back burner.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look at the lectures and I see an old name cropped up there a couple of times.

 

Be very careful about electric flight, have a good think about what it is worth spending your money on, then think again. Likewise with the other lecture by same person.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only one sock?

apparently, one sock is all they are offering!

 

"a comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it you'll find it"

Hmmm, the program doesn't read that way. It looks like the highlight of Saturday is the paper plane competition!

 

The RAAus Weight increase and CTA presentations are bound to be interesting, particularly given CASA have put them on the back burner.

Each year they promise bigger and better... I think there is still plenty of room for improvement... Happy to see a few new features on this years program on the past few years... but would love if there was more on offer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"a comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it you'll find it"

Hmmm, the program doesn't read that way. It looks like the highlight of Saturday is the paper plane competition!

 

The RAAus Weight increase and CTA presentations are bound to be interesting, particularly given CASA have put them on the back burner.

Where is the info about CASA putting CTA on the back burner?

 

I haven't read anything about this.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the info about CASA putting CTA on the back burner?I haven't read anything about this.

It's was stated at the QandA session following the AGM 23/9. You can watch the recording online via Facebook on their FB page.

 

I don't know why RAAus don't simply insist on the same privileges as the Gliding federation and Ballooning Assn - they have access without a CASA licence or medical And minimal training. I understand that CASA are in breach of the Civil Aviation Act by discriminating against RAAus without any safety justification.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's was stated at the QandA session following the AGM 23/9. You can watch the recording online via Facebook on their FB page.I don't know why RAAus don't simply insist on the same privileges as the Gliding federation and Ballooning Assn - they have access without a CASA licence or medical And minimal training. I understand that CASA are in breach of the Civil Aviation Act by discriminating against RAAus without any safety justification.

The BS just goes around and around!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which particular piece of BS are you referring to?

The part where unqualified pilots, people who have publicly admitted overtly, or by their public actions that they don't understand P&O, Met, Nav and Radio should not only be entitled to enter CTA, but that CASA, who seems to be well aware of what it's dealing with, could even be DISCRIMINATING against them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The part where unqualified pilots, people who have publicly admitted overtly, or by their public actions that they don't understand P&O, Met, Nav and Radio should not only be entitled to enter CTA, but that CASA, who seems to be well aware of what it's dealing with, could even be DISCRIMINATING against them.

At no point was I suggesting access to controlled airspace for incompetent pilots. There is simply no justification for the blanket airspace restrictions imposed upon RAAus pilots, access should be competency based. The present system allows RAAus pilots under training to operate from controlled aerodromes, the minute they obtain a pilot certificate they're banned. As a grade 1 GA instructor, former ATO and RAAus CFI I find the system to be inconsistent and discriminatory. I can train a pilot to the same standard in either RAA or GA, one is permitted to operate in CTA/CTR and the other is not. The RAAus pilot can do a medical, some paperwork and a GA Flight review to convert their RPC to an RPL, they too can then access CTA/CTR in their RAAus registered aircraft. The only difference being a couple of pieces of paper costing upwards of $5K - zero difference in competency or safety. Meanwhile, at Camden (Class D) you've got glider pilots flying over populous areas, on a self certified medical, with only a certificate issued by Gliding Australia. These pilots are trained by instructors not requiring any powered aeroplane experience or comprehensive airspace training as required by GA. The same glider pilots can complete a self launching glider qualification and operate in all controlled airspace and aerodromes. I'm in no way suggesting the glider pilots to be incompetent, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in regulations. The regs as applied to glider pilots would seem to be the standard, I don't see a whole lot of incident reports in the ATSB weekly summaries for airspace issues. The limitations on RAAus ops would most likely stem from the days of the single seat "flying clothesline" style aircraft and the associated self training system.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At no point was I suggesting access to controlled airspace for incompetent pilots.

I understand where you are coming from, but that is exactly what you are suggesting.

 

There is simply no justification for the blanket airspace restrictions imposed upon RAAus pilots, access should be competency based.

Yes it should but RAA still has not set up a compliance and enforcement operation to cover its fields of operation (unlike many other sporting operations who provide an army of volunteers).

 

In the absence of that, and the clear evidence I outlined above that some or many RAA pilots don't know what they don't know, the restrictions must be based on the lowest common denominator.

 

The present system allows RAAus pilots under training to operate from controlled aerodromes, the minute they obtain a pilot certificate they're banned.

I'm aware some RA training has crept into CTA, mainly from Foxbats pulling loops and screwing up at the entry points, but it's the trainers that create this situation. I could justify from my trining and experience that I could operate safely at up to double the road speed limits, but I'm not permitted to do so outside a race track

 

As a grade 1 GA instructor, former ATO and RAAus CFI I find the system to be inconsistent and discriminatory. I can train a pilot to the same standard in either RAA or GA, one is permitted to operate in CTA/CTR and the other is not.

I don't question your competency, and that you can train to the same level, but that pilot will be head and shoulders above people whose understanding starts with "What's the weather like there mate", or decide on a runway based on the last time they visited the field. For duty of care CASA has to cover the lowest common denominator.

 

You could also do that training outside CTA to the same standards of excellence, and have no issue to gripe about.

 

The RAAus pilot can do a medical, some paperwork and a GA Flight review to convert their RPC to an RPL, they too can then access CTA/CTR in their RAAus registered aircraft. The only difference being a couple of pieces of paper costing upwards of $5K - zero difference in competency or safety.

There may be zero difference if the competency included training on the subjects I mentioned earlier.

 

Meanwhile, at Camden (Class D) you've got glider pilots flying over populous areas, on a self certified medical, with only a certificate issued by Gliding Australia. These pilots are trained by instructors not requiring any powered aeroplane experience or comprehensive airspace training as required by GA. The same glider pilots can complete a self launching glider qualification and operate in all controlled airspace and aerodromes. I'm in no way suggesting the glider pilots to be incompetent, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in regulations. The regs as applied to glider pilots would seem to be the standard, I don't see a whole lot of incident reports in the ATSB weekly summaries for airspace issues.

That's nowhere near enough information to decide what the standard of gliding training is in those areas, or the type of operations permitted.

 

The limitations on RAAus ops would most likely stem from the days of the single seat "flying clothesline" style aircraft and the associated self training system.

That's quite possible; many of those still exist, and regularly post on here, which was the basis of my comments.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand where you are coming from, but that is exactly what you are suggesting.

 

Yes it should but RAA still has not set up a compliance and enforcement operation to cover its fields of operation (unlike many other sporting operations who provide an army of volunteers).

 

In the absence of that, and the clear evidence I outlined above that some or many RAA pilots don't know what they don't know, the restrictions must be based on the lowest common denominator.

 

I'm aware some RA training has crept into CTA, mainly from Foxbats pulling loops and screwing up at the entry points, but it's the trainers that create this situation. I could justify from my trining and experience that I could operate safely at up to double the road speed limits, but I'm not permitted to do so outside a race track

 

I don't question your competency, and that you can train to the same level, but that pilot will be head and shoulders above people whose understanding starts with "What's the weather like there mate", or decide on a runway based on the last time they visited the field. For duty of care CASA has to cover the lowest common denominator.

 

You could also do that training outside CTA to the same standards of excellence, and have no issue to gripe about.

 

There may be zero difference if the competency included training on the subjects I mentioned earlier.

 

That's nowhere near enough information to decide what the standard of gliding training is in those areas, or the type of operations permitted.

 

That's quite possible; many of those still exist, and regularly post on here, which was the basis of my comments.

You make many uniformed or incorrect statements in your response, so I won't bother addressing them. Maybe you could take the time to review the relevant rule sets, as indicated I operate within both systems and have a working knowledge of them. You will find the Gliding Australia exemption under CAO 95.4 and the Gliding Aust operations manual is freely available from their website.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beginning to look like this is a push by failing GA operators to prop up their income with cheaper RA aircraft, finding that is a blind alley within CTA then trying to get the rules changed.

 

The problem is thousands of innocent RA flyers would be affected.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beginning to look like this is a push by failing GA operators to prop up their income with cheaper RA aircraft, finding that is a blind alley within CTA then trying to get the rules changed.

The problem is thousands of innocent RA flyers would be affected.

If you're suggesting I failed as a GA operator you're wrong, I sold my business at profit and moved up the food chain. My interest is simply seeing a fair and sustainable aviation industry. If you allow the only growing sector of the small end of aviation to access controlled aerodromes, it can only help sustain a rapidly declining industry. With the ever reducing utilisation of airports, the cost per movement will continue to increase. I recently conducted approximately 20 hours of flying training with a retired airline Captain in his newly acquired GA aircraft. This training was primarily conducted at a Class D airport, there is no way the movement fees would go anywhere near meeting the cost of the airport or air traffic services whilst we operated. At times we operated in the circuit area for an hour and was the only aircraft flying.

 

Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

Quite possibly, but you've painted the picture for us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

Quite possibly, but you've painted the picture for us.

So correct me if I am misunderstanding..

 

The Priority push for CTA for RAA DID NOT come from Pilots BUT from CFIs and their ilk for "Business reasons"

 

Rather that Prioritising the weight increase, so to end up with a safer aircraft/operation ..

 

Which from my understanding Most PILOTS want the most

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite possibly, but you've painted the picture for us.

I'm glad you

 

So correct me if I am misunderstanding..The Priority push for CTA for RAA DID NOT come from Pilots BUT from CFIs and their ilk for "Business reasons"

 

Rather that Prioritising the weight increase, so to end up with a safer aircraft/operation ..

 

Which from my understanding Most PILOTS want the most

How did you come up with the conclusion that RAAus had prioritised CTA over weight from my ramblings?

 

My business sustainability comment is about aviation in Australia in general. The majority of airports I use are under utilised and given the approach of user pays it's only a matter of time before these are assets are repurposed. (Read developed for residential or industrial purposes.) My local Council wanted to close the tip because it wasn't profitable - I can only imagine what they'd want to do to an airport.

 

I see RAAus waisting an enormous amount of time and effort in pursuing the airspace issue from the wrong angle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does look as if something popped out, doesn't it.

So you're both deluded enough to think RAAus management would respond to input from a lone member?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're both deluded enough to think RAAus management would respond to input from a lone member?

No

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you come up with the conclusion that RAAus had prioritised CTA over weight from my ramblings?

Not from 'your' ramblings, but from how events that transpired

 

and the total bewilderment about why CTA was prioritised ahead of safety...

 

All your ramblings did was assisted in clearing up the 'understanding' of the process.

 

As I also understand, there is ALREADY a path for RAA-CTA ..RPL-CTA

 

and I would assume any school inside CTA would also be GA

 

so why have they not value added with offering a combined a certificate/RPL course for those who 'need' CTA in their RAA aircraft

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...