Jump to content

rhysmcc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    924

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rhysmcc

  1. rhysmcc
    Yes, it includes all aircraft fitted with a jabiru engine, regardless of the type of registration.
  2. rhysmcc
    While it does seem very much heavy handed and over the top, we don't know if CASA have been trying to work with Jabiru for a while now to address these issues and got no where. A bit like the issues CASA and RAA was having a couple years ago where the fleet was grounded until improvements started to head in the right direction. As a Jab flyer, I hope this can be sorted out quickly and in favour of the pilots and owners.
  3. rhysmcc
    Sadly they could indeed be at risk, as I'm sure no sales will be going ahead after this. No income generally causes a business to go under very quickly.
  4. rhysmcc
    I'm not full bottle on all those part 21 regulations, but it does mention experimental certificates.
  5. rhysmcc
    That does seem overkill limiting all jabs to single seat (or dual pilot), I wonder if this was in response to less then forthcoming assistance from the factory or just CASA knee jerk reaction.
  6. rhysmcc
    Class D VFR still require a clearance and IFR are provided positive traffic information, both aircraft are under control of ATC who resolves their being a conflict. Class E, the controller has no idea of the VFR and it intention, traffic is provided when it can be. However as you get closer to an aerodrome aircraft become more in conflict, that's the nature of arrivial and departure paths. Flying at 8500feet doesn't stop a conflict for a Jer who is descending into the aerodrome, that could be up to 20-30 miles out, which is why in Australia controlled aerodromes (those set by CASA due to the number of movements and pax) are protected by Class C or D airspace. That protection is required for both the aerodrome (7-12nm radius) and the flight paths into and out of the aerodrome. The US system seems to use Class E airspace where in Australia we would use Class G. But not in place of using D or C around controlled aerodromes.
  7. rhysmcc
    My comment in regards to Coff's was with transit routes, not class E airspace. I don't have plates for Coffs at hand, but if its similar to Cairns, 5000ft above the aerodrome does conflict with instrument approaches which do fly overhead (VOR/NDB). Class E airspace does not protect the IFR aircraft coming into and out of aerodromes, as you have pointed out VFR do not require a clearance and could be in clear conflict without the IFR aircraft or Controller knowing anything about where they are, who they are and what they plan on doing. How many mid air's have happened in the US between RPT jets and light VFR traffic in Class E airspace? I can think of at least 2 without doing research. If a pilot is deemed safe to fly a route such as along the Coffs coast line and remain clear of arriving and departing aircraft, then why not just give them a CTA endorsement and loop the other parties in on his flight (i.e. the IFR and ATC). At the end of the day, CASA's focus is the safety of the traveling public. Class E doesn't support it.
  8. rhysmcc
    That's why we need to have the discussion and investigate. If CTA comes at the cost of all RAA requiring a medical, then no I wouldn't be for it. If to use the CTA it requires a medical, I don't see how you are worse off? I don't see how getting a PPL is easier or cheaper then getting a RPL. I think generally it will take more flight training with a GA School then the flight review required for the RPL.
  9. rhysmcc
    Lots of sugar cane and mills around NQ have also been bought up over the years.
  10. rhysmcc
    And does the 20 join include temporary members. How many members keep flying (and renew membership) after their initial training for the pilot certificate.
  11. rhysmcc
    Yes so it would work in their favor aswell to signup new aerodromes
  12. rhysmcc
    It's Class G atm, could change over the next few years depending on usage and complexities with the near by airspace. It doesn't appear to need prior permission to land, however the fees might make you change your mind.
  13. rhysmcc
    That's a very good idea indeed, maybe the CEO could talk with AvData about such an arrangement (provide up to date billing info for members to receive 50% of all landing charges).
  14. rhysmcc
    The biller doesn't have a choice on when someone lands at their airport, unless they take on a NO RAA AIRCRAFT policy, i'm sure that's not something you'd want to see. I'm not suggesting RA-AUS get involved in the billing, but how hard would it be to provide a quarterly registration list to AvData and Airservices. You need consent to give out the privacy information, people with VH regos have to do the exact same thing, why should be avoid it? Or you charge airports/avdata etc a "membership fee" to access the information. And upsetting aerodrome operators who have a legal right to prohibit our access. Damned if we do, damned if we don't
  15. rhysmcc
    Seems okay to me, least he is reaching out, hopefully a few who left do contact him to let him know why.
  16. rhysmcc
    It's not very IFR/RPT friendly.
  17. rhysmcc
    I see kit built aeroplanes which were made and maintained by "amateurs" everyday flying in and landing at controlled aerodromes. Yes they have a Class 2 Medical. No one is suggesting anyone be forced to get a CTA at the cost of losing something else.
  18. rhysmcc
    I have a pretty good understanding with how Class E airspace works here in Australia and have seen it from both sides. Victor One is not in Class C airspace, the airspace has been designed around the route yes. Sadly this isn't possible at most aerodromes, using Coffs as an example, because the runway is close to the beach and flight paths cross without suitable altitude differences. Controlled Airspace must protect the arrival and departure paths, including the instrument approaches (and tolerances) at controlled aerodromes.
  19. rhysmcc
    There's no point collecting registration details if you don't have a way to match it with a name and billing address. That's actually the easy part, should the decision be made to supply the details, then it's just a matter of requiring the consent as part of the annual re-registration. It doesn't need agreement from every member, only those who own registered aircraft. There are so many options to go with, it's just a matter of time to see whether the one that's been chosen will work.
  20. rhysmcc
    Indeed I did Don, thanks. I'm hoping something comes out of the board resolution, but it could be years away before we see the results.
  21. rhysmcc
    For the Sting, according to their website it's 700KG MTOW. I think some model jabs design limit is also 700KG MTOW, but they may also be limited by the stall speed requirements, rather then just structural.
  22. rhysmcc
    I'm not sure no weight limit would be the way to go though either, although the recent board resolution suggests we aim for 1500KG, which i guess would be close to no limit with the stall requirements? The Jabs are another good example, some models can have a MTOW 700KG under VH Rego, but limited to 600 or 540 RAA rego.
  23. rhysmcc
    Because it can't be defined. a CTA endorsement is all about transiting controlled airspace, if you want to land at a controlled aerodrome then that's a different endorsement all together. You can't have a rule set that says you don't need a CTA endorsement to fly 10-20 different routes around the country. If your safe and component to fly a particular procedure or route in controlled airspace, then why not get the whole lot (i.e. CTA Endorsement). Class E airspace is the worst, and I for one would not want to see any more of it. The Victor 1 route in Sydney is outside controlled airspace so is not a transit lane. What's the point of controlled airspace if you just want to let uncontrolled flights operate within it.
  24. rhysmcc
    Yes they can, but you require a CTA endorsement. The procedure (or clearance) isn't to provide you transit access if you're not endorsed to fly in controlled airspace, it's designed to keep you separated or segregated from other airspace users. There is no way around it, if you need to transit controlled airspace due to tiger country or whatever, then you need a CTA endorsement. There is no way to change the rules to allow controlled airspace access on certain routes
  25. rhysmcc
    there is one parked in Cairns atm, think it's due to leave on the 26th.
×
×
  • Create New...