Al B

I just want to add that although I don't know cloudsuck from a bar of soap, I will miss his commentry here.

 

 

A 4 or 5 fold increase in TOW does make some differences ! Thats why PPL holders can't automatically fly RA-Aus aircraft without difference training.

If you're going to transition from a 172 to a rag and tube microlight, I agree extra training is vital. Remember it IS possible to do a PPL in a GA registered Tecnam, or Cessna Skycatcher, and as time goes on this may become more and more common - there are obviously no handling differences between a GA LSA and an RAA LSA.

 

If RA-Aus were allowed to introduce a "heavy" endorsement for this genre of aircraft, how would it be any cheaper than the current conversion of RA-Aus PC to PPL ?

I'm guessing it'd take an experienced RAA pilot several hours to get the hang of a 172. On the other hand I think a PPL conversion will take 10+ hours, a long flight test, extra textbooks, an exam fee, and a medical. I think the RAA would have to work pretty hard to make it as expensive.

 

I agree the CTA endorsement is pretty in-depth. However it could be done for maybe $70 an hour less then GA training.

 

 

But it's not an ICAO compliant licence so it doesn't confer any rights to fly in another countries airspace. Same applies to the FAA sport pilot licence.

After doing some more research I see you are correct. I was basing my theory on the PPL(glider) that the FAA issues and Australia doesn't - I've heard glider pilots complain about how hard it can be to fly overseas, and how a PPL(glider) would help. But as you say, glider is ICAO recognized, ultralight is not.

 

I guess flying LSAs easily overseas is wishful thinking at present :)

 

Was the old CASA restricted PPL (with 'no cross country' as a restriction) recognized overseas? If so, in a perfect world a PPL with MTOW + passenger restrictions would be recognized as well. I'm just trying to find a loophole...

 

As an aside Al - which country(s) do you think have a better arrangement overall than here ?

You'd know far more about the UK side then me, but the NPPL + Permit to Fly system doesn't look too bad. My personal perspective is of someone who would like 'GA lite', but without making things more expensive and complicated for the ultralight gents.

 

I stole the following from the net:

 

As well as the microlight rating, the NPPL will also provide for a Single Engine Piston (SEP) aeroplane rating. If you have the SEP rating you will be able to fly aircraft of up to 2,000kg (Piper PA-28s, Cessna 172s etc.) as long as they are so-called simple aircraft types. That essentially means no retractable undercarriages, variable-pitch props, forced induction engines, pressurised cabins, or aircraft which cruise in excess of 140knots.

 

All of these limitations can be removed by doing extra "Differences" training. The same will apply to the difference between tailwheel and nosewheel aircraft - you will have to be specifically trained on whichever one (or both) you want to fly.

Who'd ever want to fly something more then 2 tons for fun? You could take a friend, a decent amount of fuel and enough gear to go camping. So what's the downside?

 

I like the FAAs sport pilot license too. Although it's more restrictive then ours (cruise speeds, retracts, fixed pitch props etc) there are controlled airspace endorsements AND no silly splitting the rental fleet in 1 of 2 groups.

 

The lack of a controlled airspace endorsement really bugs me. If recreational pilots in a heap of other countries can have it, why can't we?

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

Hi John,

 

The FAA issues a PPL(glider) - I think in most countries you can fly on a PPL after some checks, but you must abide by any restrictions on your home license. Why couldn't CASA optionally issue a PPL(ultralight), with our usual restrictions as conditions?

 

 

I agree that from a practical perspective there may be bugger-all difference. However CASA obviously believes the paperwork is safer, or else they'd let GA stop using it.

 

I guess my point is our safety regulator is happy to let an RAA pilot fly a Jabiru that they consider 'less safe', but prohibit him or her for paying extra to rent a 'safer' (again, from their perspective) Jabiru of the same make and model. And if the 'less safe' Jabiru is good enough for us, why is it too dangerous for a PPL?

 

There may be no self-administration in the US, but does it make a difference? I'd swap our system for theirs if I had the choice - very, very few rules for true ultralights, and Sport Pilots can enter CTA with proper training.

 

Even if our sporting bodies got together we still won't have a license that is recognized widely overseas - only CASA can issue that.

 

 

OK, I was holding off for a bit, but here goes. Massive Rant incoming

 

We keep hearing about how good we have it in Australia. After doing some research, I think that's a load of crap.

 

We have a regulator who doesn't want to bother with managing the recreational side of things, so they've palmed it off onto lots of groups, each with their own rules. Even though most groups basically want the same thing (and the RAA do a bloody good job given the circumstances) there is a massive duplication of work. Each group manages their own licenses, membership databases, billing etc.

 

If you just want to fly one kind of aircraft it isn't too bad. However if you want to expand your experience it gets ugly quickly. Want to fly gyros AND ultralights? That's 2 lots of annual fees and 2 different licenses.

 

Is your usual RAA registered trike is being repaired, but your mate has offered his HGFA registered Trike? Sorry, bad luck - you have the wrong license. Does that motorglider look fun to take on a trip? An RAA pilot might take a few hours to get the hang of treating it like a glorified Jabiru. However you need to join the GFA , have at least 20 flights in a glider, including 2 solos of an hours duration, before you can take it for a spin.

 

Good luck flying overseas. Many places will only recognize a CASA-issued license. If we could optionally apply for a PPL(Ultralights), then it'd be so easy to go for a fly on your next overseas holiday.

 

My pet hate is having multiple aircraft registers. A Jabiru doesn't know if it has letters or numbers on the side. It doesn't handle any differently at the same weight. The only difference is, in theory it is safer if it is maintained to GA standards. So why restrict Jabiru 24-1234 to RAA pilots and Jabiru VH-ABC to GA pilots? Why not let the pilot decide if he or she wants to spend the extra $50 an hour renting a LAME-maintaned aircraft?

 

If we were using either the US's or the UK's system most of these problems would go away.

 

I think Australia is missing a license type. In my fantasy world there should be something like

 

Ultralight Certificate ---> Recreational PPL ---> PPL

 

The idea being, someone who flies a microlight with 50 knots VNE doesn't have much in common with someone who wants to burn through CTA @ 120knots, so why have the one group (the RAA) representing both? If you enjoy flying 'low and slow' in a powered parachute, any 'low flying' rules relevant for RV-6's are just going to tick you off. And if you fly a Flightdesign CT, you'd resent being told that ultralights are 'too slow' to be allowed to land at Archerfield.

 

Cessna 172s are hardly big scary monsters that require skygods to master. Any Tecnam/Jabiru/Foxbat driver can easily get the hang of one in a few hours tops. If we had a recreational PPL it could still have the 'only 1 passenger max' limitation to reduce liability, and a limit on stall speed for safety. There could also be optional CTA training which would have zero cost impact on ultralight enthusiasts (who hold a different certificate). There would be far more aircraft to choose from.

 

Finally there should be several standards for all light aircraft maintenance - call them owner-maintained / experimental, commerical, and charter. The aircraft owner should be free to choose which standard they want to maintain too. Owner-maintained/Experimental is just that. It's the cheapest option but no use is permitted aside from private flight and training for the owner. The commercial standard would permit some pilot maintenance but would have LAME oversight - it would allow any use, including training, but excluding fare-paying passengers. The charter standard is most strict but permits any use, including charter flights.

 

Note that for private flying, the pilot would be free to rent ANY aircraft that they are licensed to fly. At the moment we have the ridiculous situation where RAA pilots must fly aircraft with the least maintenance requirements only - we can't fly the better mantained (but more expensive) option. PPLs can't choose to save money and fly aircraft maintained to a lower standard. Under the proposed system, everyones aircraft rentral choices open up immensely.

 

OK, I feel much better now.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

[...] many Apple computers had the same series of Motorola microprocessor chips as a number of Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS) in aircraft. If you were sitting in the area of a B747 which was near or directly above the main electronic compartment, unintended consequences could and do eventuate.

I'll believe that certain computers may cause problems, but I'm puzzled how a common processor with the avionics could be the cause. What kind of glitches were you seeing?Darky: When it comes to the trunnion, you don't want to muck around. As well as possible compressor stalls each failure increases the possibility of carburettor blockage in the APU - not what you want on a hot day!

 

 

11 people so far have said they'd introduce some minor changes - please let us know what you'd change!

 

I have my personal opinions on the matter but I'd rather wait till I hear more viewpoints :)

 

Crezzi personally I think by the time CASA gets the CASRs finished, we'll all be in flying cars.

 

My favourite part (which I can't link to because CASA's website is playing up) is a project entitled something like "Early implementation of certain parts of Part 103 via CAO". Part of the story goes that the Ballooning mob asked for some changes to the CAOs, but they were told "wait, it'll be fixed in the relevant CASR" - this was back in 1991. The CASRs then got delayed again and again, so this project aimed to amend the CAOs as asked for in the first place. The only catch is, the project status was last updated 2 years ago!

 

Imagine if CASA were run like a business - many people would have been fired by now.

 

 

Cameras, and most electronics, don't intentionally transmit anything. Unfortunately it is possible for electronics to unintentionally emit noise on a variety of frequencies. Certain design methods are used to minimise this noise, and most countries have limits on the maximum permitted amount.

 

I guess one concern is that it _may_ be possible for some really badly designed device to unintentionally radiate enough noise to mess up the aircrafts navigation systems (which should be very noise immune anyway). Since aircrew cannot possibly check every single device, it's safer to err on the side of paranonia during the critical parts of the flight.

 

Disclaimer: IAAEE (I Am An Electronics Engineer)

 

 

Hi All,

 

Let's pretend that CASA have decided to totally rewrite the rules for recreational aviation in Australia, and have appointed you their chief recreational flying consultant. You have full control to decide what system should be in place for the 'weekend warriors' - ALL pilots who want to fly for fun (ultralights, LSA, gliders, experimental, hang gliders, Cessna 172s etc)

 

As part of your research, you look at several countries. Most of them have the traditional GA path, with a PPL as the basic first license that lets you fly almost anything under 5700kg with the right endorsements. Many have additional recreational options.

 

Australia has non-government bodies such as the RAA, HGFA, GFA, SAA etc. Some aircraft are on the RAA register, some GA. Most bodies issue their own license, and you need that license to fly aircraft being looked after by that body. Most recreational aircraft have a weight limit, lowish stall speeds and 2 seats max to reduce liability.

The USA has two recreational options.

 

First, there are true 'ultralights' - slow single seaters that weigh less then 115kg empty and carry only 20L of fuel. These are classed as vehicles, not aircraft, and do not legally require ANY training. You can't fly over built-up areas or in controlled airspace.

 

Next there are 'Light Sport Aircraft', which consists of things like Jabirus, Tecnams etc. These can be flown with a 'Sport Pilot' license issues by the government. This requires a minimum of 20 hours of training and lets you fly day VFR in LSAs. You can carry only one passenger, and cannot fly in controlled airspace without additional training. No medical is required.

 

Canada has several levels of ultralight certificate, as well as a 'Recreational' pilot's license. This license allows Day VFR in up to 4 seat aircraft however only a single passenger may be carried. It takes a minimum of 25 hours and required a medical from a family doctor. Controlled airspace is allowed.

 

The UK has a 'National Private Pilot License'. There is a 30 hour minimum and permits up to 3 passengers. A medical statement from a family doctor is required.

There is information on additional countries at wikipediaSo. Keeping in mind the skies must be kept safe for fare-paying passengers and innocent people on the ground, what rules would you draw up? Keep the system as is or something totally new?

 

 

Hi Owen,

 

There's a good chance I could join you for part of the trip from Caboolture to Bundy. I could fit the GoPro to get some shots of your aircraft if you want (from a safe distance naturally - I'm not formation endorsed )

 

 

Now before you all jump up and down I am also a Rifle shooter and in doing so represent my state in rifle shooting, But I don,t show it on this site ??

I'm not sure what this has to do with RAA and airspace, but... so what if his avatar is him firing a rifle? I have an aviation photo on several non-aviation related forums as my avatar and no-one cares.

 

I don't think being a licensed, law-abiding shooter is anything to be ashamed of.

 

 

Not your fault, but we don't want people reading this and thinking it's OK. It can only harm any chance of getting our own CTA endorsement one day.

I don't endorse anyone flying illegally (and I would never enter CTA unless there was an emergency) - but I thought that the only reason night VFR was permitted was because many pilots kept on doing it illegally, and the regulator reasoned it was safer for them to have _some_ form of training, rather then nothing?One viewpoint (and I'm not saying it's correct) is that if the RAA has x thousand pilots, and they are all legal and never use CTA, then clearly we have no use for it. If every year a moderate number got busted (by, say, calling for clearance and sounding like they don't know what they're doing) then some training could make these pilots safe and legal.

 

Of course the other viewpoint is that if X RAA pilots bust airspace, then we're a bunch of cowboys who should be kept at least 50NM from the class C/D steps.

 

 

The wide-angle GoPros do have the advantage of capturing a good chunk of the aircraft when mounted on a wing. A normal lens would mean you would focus on a small part of the plane and not see much else - and after the first few shots, the plane is the most boring part of the picture.

 

As a bonus, if you put it on your car near the road, you look like you're doing 150 clicks when you're doing 80.

 

For batteries I'd buy cheapish lithium AAAs from somewhere like Soanar (website is https://www.soanarplus.com/default.jsp?xcid=1)

 

I wouldn't be too worried about the suction cup falling off. If you attach it to a clean surface you feel like you're going to break the cup before it'll pull off.

 

A little bit of camerawork done at my airfield with a GoPro:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7UMQ2rCzuY"

 

 

Ugh, this _really_ is a terrible idea.

 

The GoPro is a great toy, and I really can't see it coming off. However, depending on where you put it, you can significantly alter the handling of the aircraft. I've had a Tecnam become unstable in yaw and feel very 'wrong' to fly - I couldn't wait to abort my flight and land.

 

I'd had a hundred or so hours in that plane at the time, and was very relieved to be on the ground. I'd hate to have had that experience on my first solo - the plane will handle differently enough as it without the weight of the instructor!

 

Please do yourself a favour, and do not do this. If you HAVE to use a camera then mount it inside the aircraft. Better yet get someone to film your landing from the ground.

 

Before attaching the gopro, I'd either get more solo experience, or have an instructor or other pilot beside you. And even then attach it on a wing, not on the tail.

 

Congrats on approaching solo - be sure to let us know how it goes!

 

 

Then again, Gliders are flown by pilots who have a PPL, and are more closely controlled by CASA.

Not at all. Glider pilots operate on a certificate system. From the GFA's website:

 

There are various proficiency certificates and badges which a glider pilot can claim.

 

"A" Certificate: Five solo flights, and a brief theory exam.

 

"B" Certificate: Fifteen solo flights, including one of at least thirty minutes soaring above the launch release height.

 

"C" Certificate: Twenty solo flights, including two soaring flights each of one hour duration, plus a landing away from the airfield of departure. A check for entry into and recovery from a fully developed spin.

 

Other proficiency certificates include the "Silver", the "Gold", "Diamond", and distance diplomas. Details are available from club certificates officers, or the FAI Certificates Officer.

 

Certain operational requirements have been made dependent on the issue of the "C" certificate.

 

These state that gliders may not be flown by a person not possessing a "C" certificate unless under the supervision of a GFA approved instructor. Gliders may not be flown cross-country by a pilot not possessing a "C" certificate, unless on a task for an initial "C" certificate.

If you want to see the exams that must be passed, please take a look here: http://2009.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/abc_certificates.pdf

 

Glider pilots can go above 5000 feet and enter controlled airspace! It's entirely possible to train for controlled airspace, jump in a motorglider and transit class C. The same pilot could not jump into a Jabiru and make the same trip.

 

 

Shags: Maybe we could find a few other people in the same boat (RAA->GA), buy an aircraft together, find someone to train us, then sell the dang thing :)

 

 

There seems to be quite a split between those that love flying ultralights, and those that love flying but don't want to pay GA prices. Farmer Bob flying his Quicksilver from a paddock doesn't really need _that_ much oversight, just as long he doesn't fly very high and cross any public roads. If the RAA gets too annoying he might just stop renewing but continue to fly illegally.

 

One could almost say there needs to be a group to manage the tiny little planes that don't have much in common with your avarage Tecnam/Jabiru. Some sort of 'Ultralight Federation', if you will

 

 

Speaking from experience (engine on, naturally): Yes :)

 

I went from gliding to RAA for the exact reasons you mentioned. Another positive for RAA: Once you have your license (20 hours, more with the endorsements), you're responsible for your own operations. Make a mistake and it's your fault - but you have control over your own destiny.

 

With the GFA, your club is responsible for, and controls you, until you earn a level 2 Independant Operator endorsement (200 gliding hours!).

 

 

Actually, this might be an unpopular suggestion. But the solution might be to have all new RAA pilot licenses for low-performance aircraft, and requre a minimum number of hours flying before you can get the high performance rating. Much like motorcycles with the 250cc restriction.

Oh, please no. I fly RAA to try and get AWAY from arbitrary and unneeded rules.

 

The RAA operates on behalf of CASA, and CASA is only supposed to make rules on Safety grounds. Unless you have research to show that learning on drifters etc results in a marked safety increase, how can you justify the rule? Remember GA pilots learn in Cessnas etc and are (statistically speaking) safer on an hourly basis.

 

 

Sorry Steph, that 'water down the drain' thing is a myth - it could go either way. Please see snopes.com: Coriolis Force Effect on Drains

 

 

People keep saying this. I don't think it is true.

 

Safety

 

General Aviation Safety

 

Driving or Flying? Plane vs. Car Accident Statistics | all crash of the world

 

From what I've read, flying light aircraft is about as dangerous as riding a motorbike. Note that when things go wrong it's generally the pilot's fault. The positive side of this is that you have the power to make things much safer, if you are careful.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

Hi all,

 

As suggested by some members of this forum, I've just been to a 'Pilot Information Night' run by Airservices Australia - see Airservices Australia - Projects & Services - Industry Forums - Pilot information nights

 

If you get a chance to go to one of these nights, I highly recommend it. There are some presentations (they try to tailor these to the audience) and tours of the various offices and air traffic control centres.

 

The most useful part though is just meeting the people behind the microphones and getting a chance to ask all kinds of silly questions about airspace, radio work and ATC. For instance, virtually everyone wanted to ask for a 'plain language' version of NOTAMs and weather. This is supposedly in the works but may be some time away.

 

I got the impression that ATC are happy for qualified pilots to entry CTA if it'll make the trip a bit safer - one example I asked about was doing the trip from Bribie island to Moreton island. class C begins at 3500 feet but if the engine failed smack bang in the middle, life would be a little interesting. I asked about the possibility of getting a clearance to transit overwater at say 5000 feet and was told no problem, just ask.

 

I then asked, if we were properly trained, and ATC is happy to help us out with a little extra height over tiger country, why on earth would CASA knock back the controlled airspace endorsement? No-one knew.

 

If you get a chance to attend it's well worth it. If you're a little nervous talking on the area frequency it's really great to see some of the faces on the other end.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

I'm sure Cralis would have been interested in that, 2 years ago :)

 

 

Hi All,

 

Take a look at AWARE - POWERED BY AIRBOX IN ASSOCIATION WITH NATS !

 

"Freedom for GA to fly in the crowded UK airspace relies upon pilots exercising navigational skills and understanding the rules of the air to successfully execute flights around complex controlled airspace. In 2008 NATS recorded over 600 airspace infringements.""The Aware was conceived by NATS and Airbox to help pilots avoid unknowingly flying into controlled airspace. Airspace busts are an increasing problem worldwide and normally result either from the pilot not knowing where the aircraft is or from a lack of knowledge about changes to airspace restrictions. For more information about airspace busts and the consequences, click here

 

The Aware aims to solve both of these problems by offering a very low cost moving map with a definitive, but free, airspace warning database updated in accordance with the AIRAC cycle.

 

The Aware is very simple to use and needs just a single page of instructions."

 

"Apart from the intial cost of buying the unit, there is very little cost involved in keeping it up to date. All airspace warning updates are provided free of charge and are available every month in accordance with the AIRAC cycle. You can also choose to update the underlying charts if you wish, at a cost of £25 per chart or £60 per pack of three. If you choose not to upgrade the charts it will not affect the airspace warning, which is seperate."

It's $265 AUD!!!

 

I guess it'd make too much sense for CASA/Airservices to sponsor something like this.