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

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

You would be billed for the ATC services YOU use. Why would it be free?  IF you do something wrong and send a jet around, (or worse) you might have to sell your house. Nev

Not really sure that diverting a jet would cause that to happen. It’s already happened with GA private pilots and they never got a bill. But  there are airways costs.
But there is now a scheme to remove billing in certain circumstances - if you have less than $500 worth of costs in a calendar year you can have the costs for the following year removed. ( but as I learned - if you don’t have any entries in the year, and then you go into CTA you get billed for the new year of the newer entries and only then, having established ( and paid for) that you generate less than $500 worth of fees do you get another chance to have no fees. As long as you keep generating entries and the value ( even though you don’t actually get billed) is less then $500 per year you can keep getting zero actual charges. 
 

of course if there is a requirement for increased medical you’ll add the cost of that and also for an AD Rad 43/47 on the altimeter and transponder every two years. Plus whatever else they throw in for maintenance requirements. 

Edited by Jaba-who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, facthunter said:

You would be billed for the ATC services YOU use. Why would it be free?  IF you do something wrong and send a jet around, (or worse) you might have to sell your house. Nev

This sounds like rank speculation to me -   in my GA days, I was never charged for entry to Canberra or Richmond CTA and all that BS about sending a jet around - "pull the other one" Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are hurdling non existent fences - sounds to me that you are all fantasising. If/when RAA pilots have the opportunity to get a CTA endorsement , they will be appropriately trained. their aircraft will carry the necessary communication/transponders and be approved for entry to CTA-  Few will want to  actually enter the inner rings of the major city airports but transitioning past at a safe altitude is the most likely scenario.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

You guys are hurdling non existent fences - sounds to me that you are all fantasising. If/when RAA pilots have the opportunity to get a CTA endorsement , they will be appropriately trained. their aircraft will carry the necessary communication/transponders and be approved for entry to CTA-  Few will want to  actually enter the inner rings of the major city airports but transitioning past at a safe altitude is the most likely scenario.

You are completely correct. 

 

CTA entry doesn’t just mean landing and taking off at a major airport. 

It may be applicable - if the airport has entry lanes not over built up areas etc.  

but in some places there will be no approaches that don’t take you over built up areas - and there are a whole bunch of other rules relating to who/what can do that. 

 

But  there are a number of places where entry into CTA just as an alternative route while transiting near the airport is dramatically safer than flying around and avoiding the CTA.

Eg Townsville is all CTA except for a thin arc to the west right up against the ranges. Trouble us that’s where the clouds and rain often bank up and wind gets pretty turbulent in there.   Tracking north or south can be pretty dangerous while trying to stay out of CTA but cutting through closer to the city is often much smoother and safer.  There is plenty of room to track there and still be a long way from the airport. 

 

Similar situation  applies to Cairns (though the CTA goes right into the mountains and despite a safe clear VFR corridor on the western edge of town non-CTA traffic have to go way west of the ranges. ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

This sounds like rank speculation to me -   in my GA days, I was never charged for entry to Canberra or Richmond CTA and all that BS about sending a jet around - "pull the other one" Nev

Don’t know when your GA days were but nowadays if you fly anywhere ( since about 2000 - prior to that it was paid for by that previously mentioned fuel excise) where you have to have a radio conversation with an “Area Centre” or an airport approach, tower or ground you get a bill about 6 weeks later. I got one not long back for my travel past Townsville and back to Cairns. 

 

I agree that I’ve never heard of anyone being billed for causing a jet to be diverted etc but they sure as hell got hauled over the coals by CASA etc. got letters and please explain and come into to the office with all your logbooks and your maintenance logs and the latest signing off of your AD Rad 43/47 to show your transponder and altimeters were all calibrated recently. Probably would have been more pleasant to just get a fine in the mail. 

 

Edited by Jaba-who
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2019 at 6:41 PM, aro said:

That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want?

Have a look at the nosewheel in the pic. Nosewheel leg failure on the RV series is well known and poor engineering should not be used to justify maintenance of the 45knot stall speed requirement. Many other 800 kg series production aircraft have long term service records that demonstrate the safety of the FAR23/CAR3 61kt stall standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what we should be arguing...  unnecessary CTA which the airlines don't use. Surely they only need a few 50km wide lanes into and out of major airports. Yet they have far more than this, and all the extra achieves is increased cost and increased danger for those of us who don't want anything to do with CTA. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

Don’t know when your GA days were but nowadays if you fly anywhere ( since about 2000 - prior to that it was paid for by that previously mentioned fuel excise) where you have to have a radio conversation with an “Area Centre” or an airport approach, tower or ground you get a bill about 6 weeks later. I got one not long back for my travel past Townsville and back to Cairns. 

 

I agree that I’ve never heard of anyone being billed for causing a jet to be diverted etc but they sure as hell got hauled over the coals by CASA etc. got letters and please explain and come into to the office with all your logbooks and your maintenance logs and the latest signing off of your AD Rad 43/47 to show your transponder and altimeters were all calibrated recently. Probably would have been more pleasant to just get a fine in the mail. 

 

There is something not right here - I often ask for an Area QNH, sometimes ? Centre will call me about my heading, I have asked for Sydney coastal visibility at 500 ft (V1),  I have been contacted about an aircraft at my level not responding to radio calls, warned of aircraft in my proximity and to relay a message to a presumed landed commuter aircraft that had failed to cancel SAR and yes it probably was during the 1990's when I regularly transitioned Richmond military air space and had occasions to fly into Canberra - I have never received a bill from ATC.

 

Anyhow, if its user pays - is that not up to the user? Not a reason for those who dont want to use the service to prevent others from doing so.

Share this post


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

Here's what we should be arguing...  unnecessary CTA which the airlines don't use. Surely they only need a few 50km wide lanes into and out of major airports. Yet they have far more than this, and all the extra achieves is increased cost and increased danger for those of us who don't want anything to do with CTA. 

1.  CTA is a long way from being just for the airlines.

2.  In the case you're flogging, it doesn't take an Einstein to know all of that CTA is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just plain wrong Turbs. I can nominate vast areas of CTA which have not been used during daylight VFR conditions in  50 years. I doubt that they have been used at all.  But I am only interested in daytime VFR.

If I were to delineate an area, could you list the times and events where the CTA was actually used? Or was that just an empty assertion?

Share this post


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

You are just plain wrong Turbs. I can nominate vast areas of CTA which have not been used during daylight VFR conditions in  50 years. I doubt that they have been used at all.  But I am only interested in daytime VFR.

If I were to delineate an area, could you list the times and events where the CTA was actually used? Or was that just an empty assertion?

You already made you assertions known to the government and received an appropriate reaction, so I'm not going to get into it other than to say, that a daytime VFR exception would be irrelevant because IFR training  can be taking place at any time

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


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

1.  CTA is a long way from being just for the airlines.

2.  In the case you're flogging, it doesn't take an Einstein to know all of that CTA is required.

 

1. Agreed

2. A statement like this should be followed by some sort of evidence - unless you, like so many, somehow feel the authorities are always acting in our best interests and should not be challenged  (totalitarianism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTA was never just for the airlines and IF their pilots muck up a departure or any aspect of a clearance they can lose their job and the particular Airline may have it's AOC questioned/cancelled if the training/checking proves inadequate. It's a pretty big deal to "bust" a clearance.

    Anyone with the right plane, licence and checked out and who has the required recency can operate in CTA (with a clearance, always). I don't know why you would want to spend anything but minimum time there as you are often over quite unsuitable terrain and you are restricted to heights and tracks and sometimes diverted or put in a holding pattern depending on other traffic.

      I'm no worshipper of the way CASA operate and have always advocated for transit rights /situations to exist in VFR conditions to reduce the occurrence of flying in corridors over poor country. The "services" lock up a lot of airspace.

       By the way Skippy.. I don't EVER make things up. so let's cut the "insults" shall we?  I've personally had to go around   at   Adelaide and Mascot in quite dangerous circumstances on late final so there's "NO pull the other one " I can provide the  days and dates and my aircraft's rego and flight number. so if you want to procede, be my guest. I've also many times been an accused Pilot's advocate in a CASA enquiry so I KNOW what can happen and how deeply the Company gets involved, always but don't enjoy it let me assure you.  Airlines have sued other pilots/ airlines /ATC bodies as well for incidents/accidents in Controlled airspace where fault can be assigned so why would YOU be immune if your error  costs them significant money and involves their Airline in headlines. ?  Nev

Edited by facthunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

2. A statement like this should be followed by some sort of evidence - unless you, like so many, somehow feel the authorities are always acting in our best interests and should not be challenged  (totalitarianism).

He has already raised his issues with the appropriate authorities and got nowhere, which was not unexpected.

He's also posted a lot of detail in previous posts, so we've covered it pretty much in the past.

Just re-posting the same old same old isn't going to help anyone, and could put RAA in a bad light. The reason RAA gained the freedoms it has was a condition of staying out of these complex areas.

He currently flies underneath CTA, skimming the northern section of the Adelaide Hills and wants more height so he could glide to a landing area in the case of an engine failure; in most parts of CTA we don't have that option in GA either, we go or a forced landing on a golf course etc.

The Adelaide CTA is already cramped by its border with the Edinburgh Restricted area, and services both 23 on approach and 05 on departure, and any aircraft could be in a holding pattern anywhere around its boundary at any time, with heads down in the cockpit and twice the speed of an RA aircraft.

As Facthunter has pointed out, CTA compliance requires ICAO performance and establishing one isn't just a case of sticking a few pins in a map.

 

I don't feel the authorities are always acting in our best interests and neither do I feel they should not be challenged.  However, if you want to challenge them, you need to pull out the documentation and find the reason for the CTA in the first place, rather than basing it on an individual want to shorten a trip, or in some cases make a trip.

 

What is intriguing me is that in some of these cases the pilot could use his trip computer to calculate a heading giving optimum True Airspeed, fly clear of the CTA, and then turn back to the local airport.  Sure your track is indirect when you plot it on the ground, and several Nautical Miles longer, but your trip DURATION could actually be less and burn less fuel. I'm not saying that applies on every trip, but where there is a stable prevailing wind it will apply on most days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/10/2019 at 9:38 AM, turboplanner said:

He has already raised his issues with the appropriate authorities and got nowhere, which was not unexpected. - tiring tho this may be, it should never be a reason not to try, try , etc again.

He's also posted a lot of detail in previous posts, so we've covered it pretty much in the past. - my apologies must have missed that conversation.

Just re-posting the same old same old isn't going to help anyone, and could put RAA in a bad light. The reason RAA gained the freedoms it has was a condition of staying out of these complex areas. - again just because an agreement has been reached on a given set of conditions should not preclude the agreement being revisited, especially when the original parameters would seem to be obsolete,  and amended where appropriate

He currently flies underneath CTA, skimming the northern section of the Adelaide Hills and wants more height so he could glide to a landing area in the case of an engine failure; in most parts of CTA we don't have that option in GA either, we go or a forced landing on a golf course etc.

The Adelaide CTA is already cramped by its border with the Edinburgh Restricted area, and services both 23 on approach and 05 on departure, and any aircraft could be in a holding pattern anywhere around its boundary at any time, with heads down in the cockpit and twice the speed of an RA aircraft. - not familiar with Adelaide, so can not comment however the restrictions on small aircraft departing the Sydney Basin N & W certainly seem to impose significantly higher risk than appears necessary.

As Facthunter has pointed out, CTA compliance requires ICAO performance and establishing one isn't just a case of sticking a few pins in a map. - please explain.

 

I don't feel the authorities are always acting in our best interests and neither do I feel they should not be challenged.  However, if you want to challenge them, you need to pull out the documentation and find the reason for the CTA in the first place, rather than basing it on an individual want to shorten a trip, or in some cases make a trip. - RAA is made up of individuals, why should the example of one pilots concerns, not be a valid argument for change? Is his/her life not worth protecting, if feasible to do so?

 

What is intriguing me is that in some of these cases the pilot could use his trip computer to calculate a heading giving optimum True Airspeed, fly clear of the CTA, and then turn back to the local airport.  Sure your track is indirect when you plot it on the ground, and several Nautical Miles longer, but your trip DURATION could actually be less and burn less fuel. I'm not saying that applies on every trip, but where there is a stable prevailing wind it will apply on most days. - agreed.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

He has already raised his issues with the appropriate authorities and got nowhere, which was not unexpected. - tiring tho this may be, it should never be a reason not to try, try , etc again.

If Material Mistake was found in the Adelaide CTA, if a flight corridor were to be excavated through the Adelaide Hills, if a new power unit was found for aircraft that increased the selected percentile climb out performance, or similar, there would be a logical reason to try again, but if you just parrot off your pet wish list over and over again you risk being regarded as a serial pest.

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

He's also posted a lot of detail in previous posts, so we've covered it pretty much in the past. - my apologies must have missed that conversation.

You really need to read the public statements and answers; nothing new has come up.

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Just re-posting the same old same old isn't going to help anyone, and could put RAA in a bad light. The reason RAA gained the freedoms it has was a condition of staying out of these complex areas. - again just because an agreement has been reached on a given set of conditions should not preclude the agreement being revisited, especially when the original parameters would seem to be obsolete,  and amended where appropriate

If original parameters become obsolete, of course you could look at changes. Adelaide CTA has not become obsolete.

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

- not familiar with Adelaide, so can not comment however the restrictions on small aircraft departing the Sydney Basin N & W certainly seem to impose significantly higher risk than appears necessary.

This is about Adelaide CTA; each CTA has different design parameters.

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

As Facthunter has pointed out, CTA compliance requires ICAO performance and establishing one isn't just a case of sticking a few pins in a map. - please explain.

I would expect the design factors of a CTA to go over 500 pages, but if you're interested in all the intricate factors like runways, runway headings, beacons, topography, entry points, purpose of dedicated areas etc. this link and Airport Architecture would be a good point to start.

 

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

- RAA is made up of individuals, why should the example of one pilots concerns, not be a valid argument for change? Is his/her life not worth protecting, if feasible to do so?

One pilot can change entire policies if the facts stand up. On the other hand, just because one pilot wants to get home earlier doesn't mean that it's OK to drag 13,000 others through the mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

 

If Material Mistake was found in the Adelaide CTA, if a flight corridor were to be excavated through the Adelaide Hills, if a new power unit was found for aircraft that increased the selected percentile climb out performance, or similar, there would be a logical reason to try again, but if you just parrot off your pet wish list over and over again you risk being regarded as a serial pest. - sometimes it's the squeaky wheel that get the oil, ie if that is what it takes

 

You really need to read the public statements and answers; nothing new has come up.- I know nothing of this (Adelaide) topic , I just have difficulty with the premise of your argument - fail once and that is it?

 

If original parameters become obsolete, of course you could look at changes. Adelaide CTA has not become obsolete - who said anything about Adelaide CTA - changes in aircraft performance, communication and carriage of certifiable instruments, is more what I was thinking of. RAA now boasts a fleet of aircraft with comparable performance to many GA aircraft (we have moved on from the heroic aircraft of the past) - why are they prevented from entry to CTA (assuming appropriate pilot training and carriage of required equipment)

 

This is about Adelaide CTA; each CTA has different design parameters.- I thought this conversation was about increasing the RAA weight limit, this morphed into a conversation about the relative merits of an increase in weight over having a RAA CTA endorsement - which now seems to be about the difficulties many of us have in transitioning out of our area SAFELY due to surrounding CTA - if I am correct my experience (& others) who have similar problems, not associated with Adelaide CTA, have just as much right to contribute  as the Adelaide crowd.

 

I would expect the design factors of a CTA to go over 500 pages, but if you're interested in all the intricate factors like runways, runway headings, beacons, topography, entry points, purpose of dedicated areas etc. this link and Airport Architecture would be a good point to start. - still got no idea what the reference to "compliance requires ICAO" "case of sticking a few pins in a map" might mean. On the other hand if you are trying to say the design of CTA is related to runway alignments, aircraft performance and compliance with international standards - I do understand even if I am not quite "up" with all the nuances.

 

One pilot can change entire policies if the facts stand up. On the other hand, just because one pilot wants to get home earlier doesn't mean that it's OK to drag 13,000 others through the mess - me thinks the main thrust of this debate is SAFETY and why should small aircraft be put at additional risk when some creative/flexible thinking (uncommon in Gov bureaucracy) may facilitate both the "big boys" and the "tiddlers".

 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anybody know what happens post consultation period?

 

How long will  CASA deliberations take and what are the next steps?

Presumably these consultation  processes  are fairly regular and so there must be some precedent for how the process goes forward.

 

The last one I commented on was radio frequencies at uncontrolled airstrips -You'll all recall some desk pilot at CASA proposed we all use Area frequency.

 

"Honey I'm home!  Threes miles inbound,  so send Mr Dog across to clear the strip..." 

 

I just don't remember how long that process took to work through to a sensible outcome.

 

So what happens next with MTOW?   

 

Edited by NT5224

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It took about 6 months I think between the consulation and "decree" from CASA for the ADSB stuff

 

MTOW though I think will be longer. Hope for much shorter but its a hot topic so they will drag it out for sure

 

Edited by Kyle Communications
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kyle Communications said:

It took about 6 months I think between the consulation and "decree" from CASA

And Part 149/103 etc took over two decades - so the answer may lay between 6mo and 20 years!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA made a quick decision with the radio frequencies and I think they made the wrong decision. Our strip at Rodds Bay is now called Iveragh, even though there is Rodds Bay written on the charts closer than the YIVG.

Problem is Airservices bureoucrats couldn't resist changing something.Now we have to say Rodds Bay, Iveragh and who knows how to pronounce Iveragh?

I doubt that any decision on weights will be made while I am still flying.

  • Agree 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.


×
×
  • Create New...