Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Kyle Communications

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation

Recommended Posts

There are several inspections recommended for Experimental aircraft.

Firstly stage inspections by a TC or technical councillor of SAAA. These are done during construction, just to check that you are going OK and to help iron out any problems with the construction.

Secondly there is the AP inspection. That is Approved Person. Approved by CASA to issue  the C of A. The AP is not there to check the structural integrity of the build, although he is going to do that. His job is to check that all the legal requirements have been met. Are the required placards all in place, is the registration lettering in place and correct, is there an exemption for noise and a load of other things.

When the AP is satisfied that all is in order, he will issue the C of A with the appropriate details. Than a maintenance release can be raised and the plane will be OK to fly.

For RAAus to approve a plane it has much the same, but no AP is required. I would assume RAAus becomes the stand in for the AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Jabiru kit predates the RAAus system. It was bought in 1998 as a flat-pack. It was built under SAAA rules and had a major inspection by the only approved person for miles around. I remember being angry beforehand at the cost of the inspection, but in the event I thought it was good value. 

I didn't know that he was really there to check on the legal things and not the structure, but on thinking about it, there is no way a single inspection could, for example, check the surface prep for even one of the many glass jobs.

I was a member of SAAA at that time. These days, I am a member of GFA and the RAAus and would like to be in the SAAA too but the cost of being in 3 lots is over $1000 a year and this is hard to justify.  Maybe  I would be better off with just the SAAA and fly an "experimental"Jabiru. Could I do this?

Edited by Bruce Tuncks
punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAAA is there to help people build, maintain and fly amateur built aircraft. I have been a member for many years, but you do not have to be a member to fly an experimental aircraft.

 

Once an aircraft is registered and has the Experimental COA, it is a VH aircraft. You do not need to be a member of any association to keep it registered or fly it. That was one of the attractions of Experimental to me. If RAA screw things up badly all the members and aircraft could be grounded (see the registration debacle). If SAAA cease to exist, all the aircraft can continue flying regardless.

 

People building an aircraft to fly in the RAA system would also benefit from SAAA membership. Building is the same regardless of the eventual registration, and SAAA can provide support and advice.

 

(There have been numerous changes since 1998. I have a feeling that was about the time the current Experimental certificate came in so I don't know whether you would have built under Experimental rules or the old ABAA system, which was much more restrictive.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick glance through the submissions so may have missed  a similar opinion to myself - apologies if so.

 

I dont have a problem with the weight increase idea it just doesnt isn't relevant to my flying.

 

However an endorsement to fly into CTA space and airfields would be very helpful to me - it is such a pain (& sometimes very much more dangerous) having to fly around CTA.

 

I get that RAA (for membership increase & possibly political leverage) and those with larger (or building the same)  aircraft , will benefit from the higher weights but surely they must be in the minority .

 

If gliders and the like can operate in CTA "why oh why can't I" RAA should be obtaining permission for entry into CTA before any other changes.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24 September 2019 at 8:21 PM, skippydiesel said:

Had a quick glance through the submissions so may have missed  a similar opinion to myself - apologies if so.

 

I dont have a problem with the weight increase idea it just doesnt isn't relevant to my flying.

 

However an endorsement to fly into CTA space and airfields would be very helpful to me - it is such a pain (& sometimes very much more dangerous) having to fly around CTA.

 

I get that RAA (for membership increase & possibly political leverage) and those with larger (or building the same)  aircraft , will benefit from the higher weights but surely they must be in the minority .

 

If gliders and the like can operate in CTA "why oh why can't I" RAA should be obtaining permission for entry into CTA before any other changes.

 

 

This move to the higher weight limit also puzzled me.  That is until I looked at it through the administration's eyes.

Consider the decision between the two objectives, which to pursue first.

Higher weight limit: A higher weight limit will capture some of the smaller GA planes thus increasing the membership count and consequently an increase in revenue for RAAUS. The benefit to members is limited to the new ex-GA owners and those with deeper pockets who want to buy heavier, more expensive aircraft.

CTA access: Benefits all existing and potential members, but after all the effort to be expended, only increases RAAUS regulatory obligations without any increase in revenue or membership numbers.

 

It's pretty obvious to me why the RAAUS administration pursued the heavier weight limit first and has put the CTA access in the "too hard" basket, the administration is looking after the interests of the administration first, members second.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how access to CTA would be done without charging some or all of us for our share of the cost of the entire system. But I completely agree how staying out of CTA forces us into unnecessary dangerous situations.

What I would like to see is corridors enabling VFR to safely come and go from their home bases without using CTA at all. We only fly in clear weather during daylight so see and be seen plus our standard radio procedures  would work just fine.

And we could fly with enough height to have the time and glide distance to cope safely with an engine failure.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I can't see how access to CTA would be done without charging some or all of us for our share of the cost of the entire system. But I completely agree how staying out of CTA forces us into unnecessary dangerous situations.

What I would like to see is corridors enabling VFR to safely come and go from their home bases without using CTA at all. We only fly in clear weather during daylight so see and be seen plus our standard radio procedures  would work just fine.

And we could fly with enough height to have the time and glide distance to cope safely with an engine failure.

If you are still talking about flying into the let down flight path for 23 at Adelaide Airport, forget it.  The Airport is now an International Airport with foreign pilots flying in from other parts of the world.

Thousands of light aircraft manage to find safe routes around it every year, and the diversion time is still probably better than in the east coast cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we all have fairly specific problems - one of mine is a  convenient passage north through Richmond military air space and I have friends in Canberra that I would like to fly  visit rather than drive.

 

I did one flight  The Oaks - Rainbow Beach Qld a few years back. Threading the needle  between military & civilian CTA  combined with nasty low level turbulence (i was smooth at 7500) was no fun at all, in a 300 kg aircraft.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbs, you were right about one thing but wrong on the main point.

Yes there are worse airspace safety issues than the one I complained about. Flying from abeam Warwick to Watts Bridge , much of the flight was done at uncomfortably low levels and, looking up, there was nobody using the airspace which would have made me safe.

As far as seeking to interfere with airliners approaching 23 at Adelaide, you are so wrong that I suspect malicious aforethought. 

If you reread my submission and posts of the time, it is transparently obvious that there would be absolutely no effect on airlines if they implemented my suggestion. The only difference would be that VFR planes would have sufficient time and glide distance to find a safe place to do an emergency landing.

Why is this so studiously ignored?  We get the safety word used when they find it convenient but not otherwise?  At least turbs you came out with an easily refuted objection, the powers that be simply have not replied.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Turbs, you were right about one thing but wrong on the main point.

Yes there are worse airspace safety issues than the one I complained about. Flying from abeam Warwick to Watts Bridge , much of the flight was done at uncomfortably low levels and, looking up, there was nobody using the airspace which would have made me safe.

As far as seeking to interfere with airliners approaching 23 at Adelaide, you are so wrong that I suspect malicious aforethought. 

If you reread my submission and posts of the time, it is transparently obvious that there would be absolutely no effect on airlines if they implemented my suggestion. The only difference would be that VFR planes would have sufficient time and glide distance to find a safe place to do an emergency landing.

Why is this so studiously ignored?  We get the safety word used when they find it convenient but not otherwise?  At least turbs you came out with an easily refuted objection, the powers that be simply have not replied.

 

 

No malice aforethought; I don't make the decision anyway. Just pointing out the futility of what you want to achieve. It's a little like saying "I want to be authorised to exceed the speed limit so I can get home earlier."

 

Re your assertion of no effect on airlines:

I was referring to your proposal for 5500' at 30 Nm DME which is still on the public record.

VOR approach for Adelaide Airport Runway 23 is <3800 feet at 15 DME

It's difficult enough for say a student in a Baron coming in  at a steady let down not below 4500', let alone having an Adelaide-only 5500 minimum to deal with at 6 Nm from the 8500' step, both with their heads down focusing on instruments.

You make a point about wanting to glide to a landing in a non-CTA approved aircraft, but already there's a log of incidents for the existing CTA (See Adelaide Airport Infringement Hotspots, and there are at most CTA airports; not all people follow the rules, not all people are mistake-free.

I was amazed a few years ago at the number of Airprox incidents involving just Dash 8 aircraft around Australia, primarily at regional airports where you'd think it would be hard to get into trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Turbs, lets do this a step at a time... Take out your Adelaide VNC map and find the 4,500 step and a nearby town, like Mt Pleasant or Callington. Mt Pleasant is a bit further out from this step but more in line with Adelaide 23.

Are you aware that VFR traffic is legally able to fly at 4,500 ft beyond ( further from Adelaide ) this step?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Ok Turbs, lets do this a step at a time... Take out your Adelaide VNC map and find the 4,500 step and a nearby town, like Mt Pleasant or Callington. Mt Pleasant is a bit further out from this step but more in line with Adelaide 23.

Are you aware that VFR traffic is legally able to fly at 4,500 ft beyond ( further from Adelaide ) this step?

 

 

Every CTA is slightly different and every CTA is designed for its location.

You're looking at it from the point of view of a person who wants do do something extra OUTSIDE the CTA.

 

The CTA is designed for people who are trained differently, have different aviation equipment, which they are trained to use, who may be flying IFR, even though there's a blue sky, who may be navigating off NBDs rather than visual markers like dams, large factories/large building etc. in aircraft which may have a different performance envelope.

 

The LLs are designed to protect the aircraft operating INSIDE the CTA.

 

Also built in is a tolerance for those outside the CTA who accidentally make incursions into it, and those who accidentally make incursions out of it.

 

When fiddling with CTA, the consequences need to be taking into account. I've flown into Adelaide as a passenger many times where the aircraft scrapes over the hills and makes a sharp left turn for 23 so low you can almost see the animals havig their breakfast in the zoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/09/2019 at 11:21 AM, skippydiesel said:

However an endorsement to fly into CTA space and airfields would be very helpful to me - it is such a pain (& sometimes very much more dangerous) having to fly around CTA.

Doesn't the RPL provide a simple process for CTA access already? The RAA pilot certificate is accepted as qualification for a RPL, so the process seems to be

  • Apply for a RPL
  • Do a RPL flight review
  • Get the RPL CTA endorsement - which could quite realistically be done as part of the flight review.

Then you can fly your RAA aircraft in CTA.

 

What advantages would a specific RAA CTA endorsement give you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh turbs, I don't want to do anything except fly my Jabiru sedately and legally staying well away from controlled airspace.  What do you mean by "extra"?

My main fear of controlled airspace is getting a bill called "user pays " from Airservices for thousands of dollars.

On the south side of the 2,500 step (just into the 4,500 ft step) there is an active airfield called Aldinga.

There are 2 or 3 other airfields in the 4,500 zone.  This zone extends from Gumeracha to Mannum, or Mount Barker to Murray Bridge. Yes, the Murray Bridge airfield is in the 4,500 step too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Gosh turbs, I don't want to do anything except fly my Jabiru sedately and legally staying well away from controlled airspace.  What do you mean by "extra"?

As I understand it you want the CTA LL pushed up where you like to fly, so you can glide further, which would mean less safety for all those who legally fly in CTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My main fear of controlled airspace is getting a bill called "user pays " from Airservices for thousands of dollars.

People will certainly pay a big penalty cost for a CTA incursion.

 

Another thing to think about for anyone who flies near CTA with RPT aircraft is the liability cost.

From comments on this site is seems that most pilots are covering themselves for $20 to $40 million.

However, if you happen to take out even a Dash 8 with 50 people on it you could be up for $125 million, so your really don't want to be anywhere near pushing at the boundaries of CTA if you are just flying for fun.

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

On the south side of the 2,500 step (just into the 4,500 ft step) there is an active airfield called Aldinga.

There are 2 or 3 other airfields in the 4,500 zone.  This zone extends from Gumeracha to Mannum, or Mount Barker to Murray Bridge. Yes, the Murray Bridge airfield is in the 4,500 step too.

Very similar to the other capital cities. training areas can have some odd shapes and elevated aerobatic areas which are outside CTA

Sometimes I think people who come from a gliding background, and I'm not aiming this at you, can have more difficulty understanding the limitations we work with in powered flight; If an engine stops, you are going down at a much faster rate than a glider, no thermal is going to pull you up and make a difference, and one piece of smooth flat ground is as good as the next; you don't usually get the luxury you want, and if you haven't come from gliding, you're not expecting it, it's just stick forward, where's a golf course or even an oval; you're probably going to smack into the end fence but by then most energy should be dissipated.

I'm qualified to fly in CTA, but I do pretty much the same as you do; fly in below the steps. If the engine quites its a forced landing, not a glide all the way in to the airport.

 

You could also check out what Aro said and go thr route of RPL for pilot qualification, and see what you would need to qualify the Jab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes turbs, I want the outer half of the 4,500 step raised. This would have  no effect whatever on aircraft going into Adelaide.  The upside-down wedding cake would have 2 thinner layers instead of  one fat one between Mount Barker and Murray Bridge. Otherwise, the very same wedding cake.

A  fertile imagination could think of a plane which did a near vertical dive at Mannum and then powered up to fly level to Mount Barker. This is what they can do now all in CTA.

Is this the plane you are thinking would fly with less safety? Then at Mount Barker, it would repeat the vertical dive I guess.

In 50 years flying from Gawler, I have never heard of a plane doing  this. Mostly, they are over 10,000 ft near Mannum and let down evenly.

But seriously, thanks for arguing the official line. Its much better than being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

A  fertile imagination could think of a plane which did a near vertical dive at Mannum and then powered up to fly level to Mount Barker. This is what they can do now all in CTA.

Is this the plane you are thinking would fly with less safety? Then at Mount Barker, it would repeat the vertical dive I guess.

I couldn't think of one deciding to do a vertical dive at the step either.

However, if I'm on approach and instructed to hold at a certain location and expect clearance in 15 minutes, I could well be cruising around the radius down near the LL, with my low wing aircraft, and you with your high wing aircraft may well not see me.   Lots of aircraft use the internal extremities of CTA.

Edited by turboplanner
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance /height situations set up for sector, lowest safe CTA boundaries doesn't result in planes doing steep dives etc but you could be asked to hold as Turbs suggests, in a racetrack pattern between two limiting distances . The operating aircraft may go close to clipping the steps but must remain within CTA as you must remain out of it. The terrain restrictions for S E of Adelaide mainly affect departures in that direction where you must make 3800 ft by 8 miles  if my memory serves me correctly. Not always an easy restriction to comply with especially on hot days with a full load.  The concept of lowest safe (LSALT) gives an additional buffer over all terrain and other spot heights as well causing what might appear to be very conservative lowest levels. Operations within CTA are under international rules and standards, and that's NOT likely to change as the liabilities would be immense.

Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melbourne has CTA LL of 8500 outside of 30 miles (mostly). I don't know why Adelaide has 4500 to 36 miles.

 

I doubt it's an international thing because if you look at e.g. Dallas in the USA (quite busy), it looks like its airspace only extends to 30 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of anybody who seriously needed to use the CTA airspace between Callington and Murray Bridge between 4,500 and 6,500 ft.

Gosh the Murray Bridge CTAF goes up to 4,000 ft just there.  I'm sure those guys would notice a loitering CTA plane at 4,500.

And I can't think of any international standards reason why a 6,500 step beginning at Callington ( this place is halfway between the 4,500 and the 8,500 steps)  and ending at the 8,500 ft step would be a problem. There are whole countries which are smaller than the typical Australian city airspace, and these countries have international flights in and out.

If this is wrong, I would welcome more information, it would help me come to terms with being endangered... at least I would know that "international standards " were to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I've never heard of anybody who seriously needed to use the CTA airspace between Callington and Murray Bridge between 4,500 and 6,500 ft.

Gosh the Murray Bridge CTAF goes up to 4,000 ft just there.  I'm sure those guys would notice a loitering CTA plane at 4,500.

And I can't think of any international standards reason why a 6,500 step beginning at Callington ( this place is halfway between the 4,500 and the 8,500 steps)  and ending at the 8,500 ft step would be a problem. There are whole countries which are smaller than the typical Australian city airspace, and these countries have international flights in and out.

If this is wrong, I would welcome more information, it would help me come to terms with being endangered... at least I would know that "international standards " were to blame.

I'm not going through the "home made CTA"design again. I've given some basic reaspons why CTAs are individually designed and don't necessarily compare city to city. The only thing non-qualified pilots have to do is ensure they stay out of them.

 

The Adelaide Hills probably complicate the Adelaide CTA somewhat.

 

Even with the lower levels of the existing CTA, Airservices Australia have a current Warning out for seven hotspots around the CTA which are causing problems:  

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/VCA_hotspots_Adelaide.pdf

 

As far as being endangered is concerned, you've mentioned this several times. As Pilot in Command you get to flight plan your route, and you have the total liability for that, so no point in hanging that out in front of officials; that might well be why you're not hearing from them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Turbs, I can imagine you saying all this stuff  against the RAAus when they negotiated to be able to fly to Tasmania over the 5,000 ft "safety" limitation.

Let's not start making stuff up.

A CTA Lower Level is a CTA Lower Level, and is for the protection primarily for Commercial Aircraft with passengers.

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...