kasper

snip snipAnd yes I spend a lot of time at various heights over Prospect wondering about See and Avoid and listening in hard on YBSK CTAF and Area. On paper, it seems to be the busiest spot in the universe (for little planes).

dsam - "negotiate a CTA endorsement with CASA for suitably equipped 24- registered “high-performance” aircraft."

A point - this is an example of the narrow focus of member/RAA. In the beginning (back in the late 80's) the AUF used to work out areas of interest and ask for EVERYTHING and wait for CAA (as then) to say no or offer alternate.

Why should the RAA just start with a thin slice and how do you categorise the suitability of the equipment ?

This is the way of difficulty in my opinion - ask for the lot IF its something that the RAA believe in then get CASA to justify backwards why it must be less than the whole.

I am not sure if this is where the RAA want or need to go but if it is then I for one want them to take the lot of us not just the few. We need to simplify the way we operate and manage to reduce the overall cost to teh RAA and reduce the risk of inadvertant non-compliace. One rule for all is a much simpler one to follow ... and in line with the origins and purpose of ultralights it should be to the highest level of freedom and lowest level of restriction.

Example - in the UK a few years ago there was this lovely volcano that grounded all those pesky 737's around London and gave the airspace back to the rightful users - light and microlight aircraft. You have never seen SO many ultralights/microlights flying the collector set of major airports (Standstead, Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton) with literally dozens of CTA transits at any time at all airfields - it gave the controllers something to do at least ;-).

I did some of them them in a 25yr old weightshift flying at 45mph with a rubber band reduction on an ancient two stroke robin engine ... not certified, not high performance but with a radio completely safe and legal because the BMAA (RAA equiv) got the CTA transit permission requested for ALL (not just the high performance/pseudo GA) and the CAA allowed it with only the limit of radio reqd.

Note - these were transits and not landings ... we did ask Stanstead whilst overhead what was stopping us landing - they said nothing except the landing fee was just slightly less than I paid for the whole aircraft ;-)

Kasper (and others)If concerned about operating illegally then I would write to RAAus (either paper or email) and ask for a written response......Surely having achieved that, and the assurance that if you could do it under old version you can do it under new version, your well covered from an Insurance Company.

 

My Thoughts..........I cant imagine an insurance company expecting an owner of an airworthy aircraft and who has the necessary skills, licenses, recency and reviews to actually fly, to never use it to fly because we haven't discovered the technology yet that allows us to do so without transiting 0 to 500ft......

 

Andy

on a light note I agree entirely its a fun idea how to operate as PIC under 500ft ... though if I close my eyes and let the plane do the first and last 500 on its own I suppose I'm not acting as PIC and remain legal ... and to be fair a few of my takeoffs and landings over the years could be charaterised as only partly under control so reassurance can be had of my legality ... legal yes but safe? ;-)

That's still going to cost us money to fight it in court. Just give them the data.

Actually, if you fail to pay in a car park and get issued with a ticket, the company can indeed access your details from your number plate to try and collect the money.

 

I wouldn't think they would sue for the member's details, but sue for the X amount of money they are owned from RA-AUS registered aircraft. Just going through the process would cost us more money then it's worth, even if we did win. Make a deal with the 2 largest Aviation Charges company, that way the details aren't shared to the public. Or charge a fee for every forward to bill to pay for the postage and cost of staff time ($5 or something?).

 

If you leave it up to the members and they don't pay, we will all get screwed. RA-AUS aircraft will not be welcome at aerodromes that have trouble locating payment.

Policy wise I personally think non-disclosure is a better starting position for the association.

I am in now way saying we sould not pay landing fees - I have always done so and will continue to - its just that in the areas I have worked and the overseas experience on this particular area there are real issues that need to be considered. A few bad apples in the RAA flying fleet should not mean we would as an entire fleet be subject to disclosure that may have unpleaseant and unintended outcomes.

And also see my other post today - the issue 7 of the Ops manual, signed off by CASA - has completely removed the need to display regn numbers on the aircraft ... fly naked ultralights today becasue this will be corrected with an amendment to the Tech manual ... but due to timing issues today is a naked ultralight day, no regn display required ;-)

The problem the board raised with this way is it's costing RAA to forward that letter on, I guessing in staff wages and postal costs. RAA will no longer process landing fee requests, you should contact the aerodrome operator to arrange payment.I've got a feeling there is going to be alot of uncollected landing fees sent to HQ, it may reach a point where Avdata or a large airport will take RAA to court for the money.

There is a two step issue here - the person the RAA may need to disclose as a member may be discoverable under the ACT lasw attaching to the RAA membership (not sure but I could look into it if pushed) but the data they want is related to an aircraft registered owner not directly a member and that detail is highly unlikely to be discoverable under the ACT legislation governing the RAA so it would fall back to other discovery eg the cwth aviation lsgislation requires the GA register to be published but the RAA register is not.

Basically the RAA have been providing a courtesy to airfield operators by passing on demands but as the board noted when they cahnged their policy on this it costs. And it is not just the $1.50 ish it costs for direct cost to print, envelope and send the letter its the time and thats the killer here. The RAA as it has been operating is not financially viable and the board are addressing that.

If your aircraft is VH registered the owners (and the operator as this may be different) name and registered address is available on line to anyone. This should be the same for all Ra-Aus registered aircraft. In NZ all recreational aircraft are on the same ZK register as GA aircraft so details are available on line. The only difference is that RA aircraft have to be registered annually whereas GA aircraft are registered once but with registrations soon to be on line and regos to be extended to 2 years there should be no issue keeping it up to date.Why do we have to be secretive about it? Having the register available to anyone including aerodrome operators will help keep our facilities maintained as pilots will know that if they do not pay they can be pursued for the fee.

 

There are plenty of pilots who almost go out of their way NOT to pay landing fees. We have an honesty box and plenty are not honest. When I see an aircraft arrive and speak to the pilot I remind them of the landing fee box & the fact that the aerodrome is maintained by users and not a cent is put in by ratepayers. Even then some see it as their god given right to use the facilities and not pay the measly $5.00 RA or $10.00 GA fee.

Even if they don't want to go after your plane they have your address and due to a very specific error entered by CAA in the UK for one of my addresses on the public register I KNOW that people are harvesting the data for address lists - you get more junk mail that is addressed and that was able to be proved in my case but the act reqs it.

In an information age the right to remain private is a hard one and there are real and valid reasons not to publicly provide your home address publicly especially when puclication is directly attributed and linked to the ownership of high value items.

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

As I am in the middle of registering an new 95.10 the ops man update hits me squarely in an odd way ... 4.09 from issue 6 is missing from issue 7.

4.09 was the ONLY requirement to ever display registration markings on the aircraft .. technically today we are not required to display them as there is nothing in the CAO or the Ops/Tech manuals requiring display of regn - naked flying allowed today. ;-)

But as I am just up to putting the allocated regn on the plane for its photos ahead of weighing I contacted tech ... the tech manual is in for an update so naked flying will soon be removed though for today feel free ;-)

But there are other inconsistencies int eh manual - look at the low level endorsment - it requires for PIC to operate an aircraft below 500ft you have to hold a LLE. No exception to this rule for take off and landing. Ops manager says not intended to operate that way and not intended to change this areas between issue 6 and 7 BUT the technical language of using AND between the compliance with CAOs and the LLE means we are all techinically breaching the Ops Manual when we take off

If you doubt this one take a look at one of the CAO eg 95.10 - they have to specifically provide the low level exception for take off landing to avoid this error - see 95.10 6.1 and 7.1 where 500ft rule is created and excepted for take off and landing.

Australia has been a land settled by european criminals - now all AUF pilots are on a technicality.

Wonder what the insurance company will think of this when the first claim comes in? Ever known an insurance company to not rely on the technical language to avoid paying up?

Shame the ops manual issue 7 was never released for comment - silly errors like this could have been avoided and not have to exist for 6mths till the first update to issue 7 is due.

I think you have the kestral from Tenterfield ... in which case chat to the tech office as there was only 1 twin ignition 503 kestrel in the register and they can guide you on the stepts to get an aircraft condition report raised and the creation of the new log to then get it back on the register with the original regn. Its not terrible to do - I didi it for my 95.10 sapphire years ago. as for the practicals of inspection the rest of the comments stand - you have the advantage of brand new skins - lucky you - shame I just couldn;t justify the money for another plane or i'd have taken it myself.