rhysmcc

Col, and others promoting CTA endorsement in RAAus, give me one good reason why you can't simply change your aircraft to VH reg and have your RPL or PPL and go and fly CTA to your hearts content. Recreational aviation in RAAus is not for that and was never intended to be. If you want to fly CTA then do what has always been available to you. What's next? Night VFR, just in case you get caught out with end of daylight, I bet you will all claim that for safety reasons etc etc etc...one day soon CASA will just say HEY, you are now GA and we need to manage you under world standards so thanks, we will take you now.Keep pure recreational aviation just that, flying around the country for fun, and for the others go and fly GA and leave us alone...

Why shouldn't you be restricted to 500ft over your own land? Wasn't that what AUF was all about?

It's about giving people choices, no one is making you get a CTA or modifying your aircraft to meet CTA standards. Why is your right as a member to have RA-AUS advocate on your behalf greater than mine?

I didn't think rego number was reused. I.e. 1234 only exists once not once for each category?

Think you'd find secondary airports are also in CTA (controlled), no one is suggesting flying your LSA into Sydney Kingsford Smith, there is a lot more to CTA then landing at capital city airports (restrictions are already in place to prevent such access).

All due respect Nev, if you a trained for CTA and operating a correctly equipped aircraft I can't see any reason why it would be any less safe then that same person flying in G or E airspace.

Why would a 10 hr c172 pilot be more safe then a RA-AuS pilot at not over shooting centreline?

I can't see the logic that CTA is less safe?

This has been _really_ useful for me to think about. Thank you so much for that. Just a couple of follow ups:You mentioned "procedural flight plan". Presumably this is what is filed in NAIPS. Are there other types of flight plans?

 

The word procedural comes up a lot. Like "procedural service" for Class D airspace. I've tried tracking down a definition of what is meant in procedural in this context, but I've been unable to locate it.

 

On the charts, it particularly says the contact BN CN for clearance into the Brisbane area CTA. So I guess what you say about contacting approach directly could apply, but goes against what the published procedure is for that area.

 

I would _really_ love to, but cannot make the December one for Brisbane. Presumably your statement about security goes further than merely having an ASIC (which I have).

Procedural airspace basically refers to no radar, so the controllers use different standards to separate aircraft (rather then 5 or 3 miles). All class D is procedural, although they may have some radar coverage they don't use it for separation.

"BN Approach" also includes a sector that looks after class G airspace under approaches airspace, they use Brisbane Centre as their call sign (used to be Brisbane Radar), these are the guys you call to request clearance.

So is that AEST (Qld) or AEDT (NSW/Vic daylight savings time). Could catch a few people out (being held in SA which is currently ACDT 30mins after AEST but 30mins before AEDT)...Zulu is a good suggestion

Thanks for the info Rick, so what does this $55 get you. Are aircraft registered under current VH regulations or are you expecting some kind of change/approval to operate outside of the current regs (same with licensing)?

Surely any change to the regulations to make ELAAA legit will follow CASAs normal NPRM so can't see it by November this year.

How can they register aircraft VH? That's done by CASA and not something under the regulations they can pass out to another company to manage. Something doesn't smell right here, some factual information released by the company would be good or CASA?

Can't see it myself, would require a huge rewrite of the regulations to make it legal.

So if these are VH aircraft, thus registered with CASA and you need a RPL...issued by CASA, what is it exactly this company is offering to oversee?

So you emailed your resolutions in but are unable to receive electronic notices from RA-AUS?

Off topic but I see EIS into Western Sydney recommends head to head operations at night, ie landing one direction taking off the other - talk about compromising wind conditions let alone ATC problems. How would you schedule that?

If ATC doesn't mention the runway then I wouldn't be querying it unless you think some confusion has taken place. ATC are only required to use the runway number when more then one runway is in use on a single frequency.

If they say it, then you must. If they don't then you aren't required too (but can if you like)

No, as pic it's your decision to go flying in those conditions.

Not really. Then again I don't generally do that in the day job either though I will happily return a greeting if I get one!This whole thing with ever-increasing readbacks and the arguments used to support them is interesting. They've only ever had one purpose in life, and a very important one: to confirm to ATC that the aircraft has correctly understood the clearance or instruction it was issued.

 

Readbacks have never been for other purposes. That might be called a "broadcast" or something similar. Of course there's nothing to stop you from gaining SA from a clearance issued by ATC to someone else. We do that all time (when the brainspace and capacity is available) and it's good airmanship when you can.

 

The other interesting thing is the Airservices conflation and confusion of their own principles recently. Going back to the "lineup and wait", for example, it has been said (in the process of admonishing an aircraft as personally relayed to me) that the "....and wait" is a conditional clearance and therefore needs to be read back. That's just bollocks someone plucked out of their backside. Sure conditional clearances do have to be read back but in this case, what exactly is the condition? What else can you do? It has the same effect as the other commonly used "XYZ lineup". It has no additional conditions and means exactly what it says, and has precisely the same effect as the previous one. You can't actually do anything else after being cleared to lineup until you receive another clearance or instruction.

 

It's like saying "XYZ descend to 5000 and then stop descent". Really? No I figured I'd just keep on going!

 

Now if they say "Behind the Chieftain on final, lineup behind" yes now they've put a condition on the lineup of only doing it behind the Chieftain, so that bit has to be read back. And no you don't have to repeat "behind" at the end - you've already said it at the beginning so the compliance is quite clear.

 

That's not strictly true, but sure, I'll read-back whatever they want. If they give me an updated ATIS on approach to Melbourne and want me to readback the entire ATIS to them I'll do that. If they want me to read back "when ready" even though it's not a conditional clearance for descent, I'll do that too, but there's no requirement.

 

AIP GEN 4.4.1 "For other than item a), only key elements of the following clearances, instructions , or information must be read-back ensuring sufficient detail is included to indicate compliance." then it goes on to list those clearances/instructions for which only key elements need to be read back.

 

Which goes back to what I said above, about the entire reason for having readbacks. But someone in ASA is going beserk at the moment. If they want every single word to be read back verbatim then they need to change GEN 4.4.1 because it quite clearly states otherwise and it's their own publication. Sure the key elements are usually somewhere in the readback, but they're becoming too often interspersed with garbage, and now garbage on demand!

the important part being if ATC say it, read it back else they will chase you for the read back (because they have too).

It's pretty easy, if ATC use the runway in the clearance, read it back. Remember your not the only airplane in the sky (or on the ground).

ATC will use the runway if more than one is in use. If you don't read it back we must chase it the correct read back otherwise we get in trouble.

Think about what you would do if you were on short final and just heard a take off clearance given, not knowing what runway they are using...

Who are you removing? Only 2 of the original board will remain past the AGM unless they are reelected.

Ego.. But hey I'm sure there won't be anyone here like that

Nonsense posting to increase ones count

Next you'll be telling me the "other" site isn't just professional pilots...

Because it doesn't really fit in with recreational aviation but whatever floats your boat

Why we having RAAF ranks.