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
    Anything more about what was discussed at the AGM and informal meeting? Sadly wasn't able to make it down, but keen to hear about what came up and any future directions?
  2. rhysmcc
    Can anyone give a bit of a summary of the AGM and the following "general discussion"?
  3. rhysmcc
    That would be fantastic, but I won't get my hopes up.
  4. rhysmcc
    GoFly I believe now have 2 Sling aircraft, not sure if that's the one you saw or not.
  5. rhysmcc
    The point I'm trying to makes is you can't make access okay in only a vfr route. If you are safe and trained enough to be allowed that close to a controlled airport then why not just give full CTA access.
  6. rhysmcc
    Because coastal at coff passes straight through final/upwind. Duty of care still exists and atc couldn't just fire an IFR jet into an ultralight traveling up the coast. Victor 1 is outside controlled airspace, roughly you'll need a route 7nm from the end of the threshold, depending on the approaches that may need to extend to allow for circling areas.
  7. rhysmcc
    If you are trained and endorsed to enter controlled airspace, I think you find most ATC will be able to offer the same service. Class E doesn't work, look at Avalon and the near misses when that first started. It's not even a busy airport. It's controlled airspace for a reason, to protect the APP/DEP paths of RPT aircraft. The best way forward is to get the regs changed to allow RA-AUS into controlled airspace (start with just Class D as a trial maybe), and train the members who want it.
  8. rhysmcc
    Maybe it was closed for lunch :D
  9. rhysmcc
    the problem with the VFR route idea (like victor one) it would need the airspace along the route to be changed to class g, you can't do that overhead an aerodrome or where it would conflict with app/dep paths or circling area of an aerodrome. You can't be allowed to fly a "VFR Route" in controlled airspace because the ATC need to separate you from the IFR guys, you need to be under their "control" with a clearance, therefore you'd be operating in controlled airspace which would be the same as just being allowed without the VFR Route, basically it's an all or nothing.
  10. rhysmcc
    Why would Jabiru ever approve a different engine for their aircraft and thus lose money and sales on their engine? Wishful thinking. The board couldn't come out and slander another company without some kind of proof or investigation. It doesn't have the protection like CASA and can be sued just like any other company. They can however take the concerns of members to Jabiru and investigate the issue (which i'm sure they are doing)
  11. rhysmcc
    It's disappointing they are choosing not to investigate the latest fatality and leaving it up to RA-AUS.
  12. rhysmcc
    I'm sure the board is all over this issue but maybe can't make the details public, maybe someone at the AGM could raise it as a question?
  13. rhysmcc
    Yeah and that's a valid point. The problem is there is no consistency, for example take an RAA factory aircraft, maintained by L2 (not a LAME) and a RPC can't fly it in CTA, yet the pilot with RPL can. The maintenance of the aircraft hasn't changed.
  14. rhysmcc
    Isn't quite level though, when people can build the same kit under VH and do their own maintenance
  15. rhysmcc
    I more meant without the extra restrictions. The fact an aircraft can be registered VH and the pilot RPL and it's okay, the same aircraft registered 19- and the pilot RPC is a no go, i'm not saying all aircraft should be allowed, but a level playing field would be nice.
  16. rhysmcc
    As discussed before, Victor 1 is outside controlled airspace, you'd need to completely redesign each airports airspace to come up with a route that can be clear of the tolerances required for the approach and departures of IFR traffic from those aerodromes, in most cases (like Coffs) it would be impossible. Having some botched rule giving access to CTA only in VFR corridors makes no sense, it should be all or nothing (all in my opinion, with the right training). What's the big deal with RAA being in CTA anyway, if they are equipped and trained?
  17. rhysmcc
    A quick look of CAO 95.55 will give you the requirements the aircraft must meet to be used in CTA.
  18. rhysmcc
    If you were going to hand back any oversight, surely licensing would be the way to go, with raa keeping oversight of LSA/UL registrations with some new limits. It would be interesting to know how much RAA spends on licensing and how much on aircraft rego vs the income. Some of your ideas do appear to be on the agenda at the upcoming board meeting (The Mag, Modernisation).
  19. rhysmcc
    It's interesting to see a motion to the board was made about RAA not supporting the RPL, good to see it didn't get up but it makes me wonder if the Ops Manual will change in regards to needing a PPL or higher to fly RAA aircraft in controlled airspace.
  20. rhysmcc
    Id say do your calls on area freq, let airservices push casa into changing the policy to free up the freq.
  21. rhysmcc
    There is no wake turn standard between 2 medium aircraft (i.e. b737 a320), a medium following a heavy (a330 b767) then 2 minutes is required OR 5 NM (from airborne), same with a light behind the medium. This is assuming they are both departing from the same taxiway, otherwise 3 minutes is required. 49 seconds seems too close, I find they take longer then that just to roll down the runway and get airborne, if big jets means heavy, you need at least 4 NM, which is about 1.5 minutes pushing traffic.
  22. rhysmcc
    RA-AUS aircraft do not have an exemption from being registered, as they must registered with the RA-AUS, they are exempt from having to comply with some regulations.
  23. rhysmcc
    I'm no lawyer, but if CASA interprets in it's manual that ultralight aircraft are considered Australian aircraft, and the act say "Australian aircraft" are "registered in Australia", then surely one could say aircraft registered with RA-AUS are deemed to be a "registered aircraft". Basically the Act doesn't define registered aircraft to being on the CASA Civil register (i.e. VH) therefore any aircraft registered to a body with authority in Australia (i.e. RA-AUS, HGFA) must also be considered a registered aircraft, based on CASA's own interpretation.
  24. rhysmcc
    Thanks for your effort Andy, it looks promising having you on the board to continue to push the communication issue, together with the development of a 5 year plan things may truly be looking up for RA-AUS. I'm sure most members will be watching for these developments at the AGM and weeks after. On a side note, maybe you could remind the board/exec the minutes actually need to include how each board member voted (as per our constitution). Keep up the good work and communication.
  25. rhysmcc
    It's owned by Qantas which is good enough for me, even has a red tail with a white kangaroo. Why does it matter, it's a regional airport and Qantaslink is Qantas's regional arm, same same.
×
×
  • Create New...