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
    There is no such thing as transit airspace access. You either have CTA or you don't.
  2. rhysmcc
    was just going off the sling site, any idea what their useful weight is (@Gofly)?
  3. rhysmcc
    Who values it?
  4. rhysmcc
    That happens all the time in terms of Car Parks, they don't "sue" the RTA but they apply through the court for the details. If Avdata can email the invoices, then why not setup [email protected] that forwards to the members inbox (i.e. [email protected]). Costs RAA nothing to process and means the airport gets their money and RAA isn't looked down on further as trying to avoid the system.
  5. rhysmcc
    That's still going to cost us money to fight it in court. Just give them the data.
  6. rhysmcc
    The Ops Manual used to say you needed a private or higher pilots license, however that subject has been removed, might be where you're getting the confusion. Also the CEO is already on this case, the board passed a resolution last month for him to investigate bringing the RPC inline with the RPL, but as with anything involving CASA it will take time. I do agree with you that RA-AUS needs to be more political and take an advocacy role too, however it's hard to smack the hand that feeds you (CASA).
  7. rhysmcc
    What's to clarify? If you have a licence issued under Part 61 (which the RPL is), and you have the CTA endorsement and you've done your flight review, then your good to go.
  8. rhysmcc
    240kg is a little tight with 2 "real" pax and some fuel. This aircraft would do well from a RA-AUS weight increase to 700MTOW
  9. rhysmcc
    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.
  10. rhysmcc
    I don't quite understand your question? Is it safer to go to Albury with a CTA endo rather then without one, YES. Is it safer to go to Albury then not to go? NO. But then it could be said it's safer for none of us to fly at all then to fly. CAO 95.55 was amended when Part 61 came out. You need a license (such as RPL), other then a student license.
  11. rhysmcc
    the ads i've read seem to show the Jabs are valued highly, 90K for a second hand jab, not far off the price of new.
  12. rhysmcc
    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.
  13. rhysmcc
    Another option could be to setup a members email like [email protected], airports can send their electronic bill which is forwarded automatically to the members email. Another option could be the list is given only to AvData and Airservices (not public). Or another option is keep it how it is and members should contact airport owners to make the payment if they have used their aerodrome.
  14. rhysmcc
    The previous list didn't include owners details, just the rego and aircraft type.
  15. rhysmcc
    I think the confusion is around 61.500 and the fact the form required for endorsement doesn't support 61.500. Getting the RPL was the easy part (convert from RAA), it's the endorsement that is confusing.
  16. rhysmcc
    I don't think "RAA" would ever be able to issue RPL's, however they could operate like a Part 141 organisation and have examiners who are able to issue licensing under CASA. It would mean RAA CFI's would need CASA instructor privileges of some kind. While I doubt this would come about quickly, in my opinion it would be a logical step for RAA to pursue. Focus more on aircraft registration and less on the licensing. 2 Main hurdles: Getting CASA onboard to reduce the medical requirement of the RPL inline with what is required now for RAA - Ie Medical declaration, with similar restrictions (1 pax, VFR 10,000 ft or below, no CTA). These restrictions could be lifted for Class 2 Medical Holders. Insuring current Instructors (RAA) can continue to operate under the CASA system without undue costs (Having to gain CPL, Class 1 Medical, Registered as Part 141 flight school etc) Aircraft would still be operated under CAO (minus the RPC requirement), pilots would need need to be RAA members and operate according to the Ops Manual (in RAA registered aircraft).
  17. rhysmcc
    Totally agree. In an ideal world we would all have a RPL and operate with the same privileges and exclusions as we do today (medical), without the duplicated licensing system. Maybe you could raise it at the next board meeting for something the Ops manager/CEO could investigate with CASA.
  18. rhysmcc
    the FAQ, while doesn't state anything about the Two stroke endorsement, implies if you can fly it now, you can fly it under these new Ops. It's a bit confusing that it comes into effect today, but you have 60 days to operate under either Ops Manuals depending on what Ops decide, not generally how regulation and procedure change is done.
  19. rhysmcc
    I wouldn't class myself as one of those bent, but after researching whether the RPL could be conducted in a RA-AUS aircraft, I found it quite clear in the regs. I don't have the actual regulation with me now but happy to go find it again if you don't trust my motives. If you have the 2hours instrument time and the RA-AUS Nav endorsement, then I very much agree you should be issued it on the RPL, however that doesn't appear to be the practice, as for these endorsements (such at Nav and Flight Radio) a separate form is required which must have an instructors approval. I doubt any instructor will provide their signature without at least seeing you fly a Nav.
  20. rhysmcc
    Sounds like a great plan, not sure GA and CASA will agree though. I think the plan to move from CAO to Part XXX would include doing away with the RPC and everyone be on a RPL. Seems like a sensible approach and will save RAA money from duplication. But like you said, the medical will be the main issue.
  21. rhysmcc
    But as has been established in another thread, RAA aircraft are not considered registered aircraft for licensing purposes, thus can't be used to establish recency (ie flight reviews) for part 61 licensees.
  22. rhysmcc
    love to see a 747 loaded out with live cattle
  23. rhysmcc
    the flight review requirement is to establish recency in my view. A student who first gains a RPL is considered recent since they just completed the flight test, they now have 2 years before the next review is due. For a RAA holder converting, that recency has not been established, thus a flight review is required. Converting the Nav Endorsement is impossible, as no RAA holder will have 2 hours dual instrument time without doing the GA training, in which case it's just the same as everyone who applies for a RPL, you need the time and get signed off.
  24. rhysmcc
    The problem seems evident from some of the posts here. Owners are too afraid for the value of their aircraft or being completely grounded that they don't want to report deficit or problems, but rather pay jabiru for new parts and hope the company will come good. There has been some good suggestions regarding allowing LSA owners to apply mods, maybe this is an area the association could focus on and collecting all possible information regarding issues members are having with these engines and encourage everyone to come forward. No one wants Jabiru bust or the aircraft grounded, but if there is an issue we need it addressed before someone dies and it's all over for RA-AUS.
  25. rhysmcc
    Just had a read of the regs, I didn't recall the instrument time required. It's there so it's clear it's not able to transfer over from RA-AUS as you can't have conducted 2 hours dual instrument time.
×
×
  • Create New...