rhysmcc
-
Posts
924 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by rhysmcc
-
There was a pic of the Qantas tent in the paper with a dash8-400 on show
-
You raise a good point about members providing feedback but not actually knowing what policies are being discussed to give feedback on. Maybe a good start would be releasing the agenda for the upcoming board meeting so we can indeed share our opinions with the board members. There is no need for secret squirrel business, no commercial disadvantage.
-
I more meant voting for changes once they are developed, but your right in that we need more to get involved in voting the board members too, unfortunately they all stand for "fixing raa" and don't stand for much in regards to policy. So unless you know someone personally there isn't much more to go on, which is no doubt the reason most don't bother.
-
Makes sense that recreational aviation should continue to develop then. The aircraft would still operate under the exemption, the licensing would be regulated. What freedoms are you referring to that are at risk? Restricted to flying only over your property or under 300 AGL? I can't think of any activities from 30 years ago that would still be operating today without any extra regulations?
-
I don't see why having a members forum could be so bad, you can still moderate and have all the same rules as here. I'm not suggesting to move away from here Ian, I more meant for example limit the RAA forum to members only so those who aren't members can't get involved in discussions on what the association should do. Nothing wrong with compelling board members to respond either, they are after all meant to represent our interests.
-
and here I thought it was intended for Recreational Pilots, those who have no interest in flying for money, on instruments or heavier complicated aircraft...
-
That's a great idea Ian, maybe one of the new board members can bring this up at the board meeting, a review of the website and hosting costs and research some alternatives. I don't know who has designed the current RAA website but it's a shambles, so hard to find information with "news items" not posted under subject matter, without a direct link you generally can't find what you need. Be great to have a members only forum as well to debate and discuss RAA policy as they come up for board consideration, another form of board/member communication.
-
Flight schools shouldn't be worse off either since AOC aren't required anymore for training.
-
Thinking about it today, I don't know why they just don't add a ultralight endorsement which permits flight of raa registered aircraft. Move all pilot training and licensing back to part 61 and leaving raa to regulate ultralight aircraft registration/building/maintenance. Would need to reduce the medical standard to self assessed like it under raa so no pilots are worse off. I can't seem to find any regulations on which aircraft can be used for training, it quoted on the other thread regarding raa aircraft being considered Australian registered, you're using all your licenses and rating every time you fly, regardless of what aircraft your in. They are all on the line if something goes wrong.
-
The market is generally the only part of the website that gets any updates, no wonder it gets most of the bandwidth. It does seem a bit rich to charge members additionally to use an online service. I would like to hear more about what reviews have been done in regards to the cost of the magazine and moving it online with maybe an option to subscribe to the hard copy (at a price). What savings could be made here and how much could be past on to lower membership fees as a trade off. Could additional "supplier advertising" be added to the marketplace to pay for the extra bandwidth?
-
I would argue by flying a raa aircraft in controlled airspace because you have a PPL and CTA endorsement then you in fact are exercising the privileges of that license. In the same way if you were "naughty" you could have that license suspended even if you were in a RAA aircraft.
-
Yeah I seem to remember in the early days a "guide" which suggested we only had to fill out a form and we would get the RPL. However we still had to conduct a flight review prior to using it. The whole thing is a mess. Need to find an instructor who's willing to conduct the flight review in a RA-AUS aircraft, do the paperwork and see what happens.
-
It's 6.1 (b) of the CAO that states it must be flown in accordance to the Ops Manual, as far as i can see that's not changed in 25.10. However that shouldn't stop you from doing a RPL flight review/training in a RA-AUS aircraft as you're using the instructors license anyhow which does comply. Just no flying solo in CTA until the Ops Manual is updated. Was told it's a while off, being released to CFIs at the conference in Nov, not sure what happens after that.
-
I'm referring to Section 2.01 of the RA-AUS Operations Manual 6. Controlled Airspace a) holds a current and valid private or higher category pilot licence with CTA endorsement
-
I think most here have agreed this to be the case, just waiting on the New Ops Manual to remove the wording of private licence or higher in it's requirements.
-
The Ops manual allows you to operate a RAAus aircraft with a Part 61 Licence, provided you also have a pilot certificate. The fact it states you can fly in controlled airspace provided you also hold a PPL to me clearly shows the privileges of CASA issued licence can be used in a RA-AUS aircraft.
-
Lets be honest, anything is an improvement. Lets just hope more and more information is given each issue.
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
I have spoken to Michael recently and he is well aware of the communication issues and is trying to overcome them. I was told there is alot on the table at the upcoming board meeting and more information for members at the AGM. All we can do as members is keep up the pressure on getting the information we need and the change we want. Discussions on this forum are a good start, but we need members to keep voicing their concerns, either email direct, on the forum, at the AGM and when it comes time to voting.
-
a RA-AUS aircraft IS considered an Australian registered aircraft, the fact it doesn't have to comply with certain CAR/CASR (under certain requirements) is because it's legislated so. One of those requirements is a pilot certificate issued by RA-AUS. You can't fly a chieftain with a RA-AUS pilot certificate because the regulations say you require a pilot license and appropriate ratings.
-
I've had a quick read of CASR Part 61 which talks about the privileges of flight instructor ratings (starts at 61.1165) and I can't find anything that suggests they can't conduct flight training or review in a RA-AUS registered aircraft, assuming they are qualified to fly said aircraft. If you know this to be different, why not just provide the text that made you reach that conclusion.
-
I can't seem to locate the post you refer to. I'm not a GA instructor so not really sure where to find where the "privileges of the instructor" is listed that would indicate that their rating is only valid in a VH registered aircraft.
-
Where would one find these privileges defined? Is there a CASR/CAR that states he/she can only instruct in a VH registered aircraft or something? I'm not doubting you but trying to find the reference to back it up. Thanks
-
That's great Andy that you have been given information on what is being done to fix rego's and that policy is being developed. But why should it stop there? Why not loop all of the members into this information rather then a select few. To me it just seems the same "things are being done" that we've been hearing for the past few years without actually seeing the results. This report is a joke and includes no information at all. If this is indeed intended to be the report given at the AGM I do hope the members not accept it and as a new representative Andy I would hope you wouldn't accept it either.
-
Low level flight article in Sport Pilot
rhysmcc replied to rdarby's topic in Student Pilot & Further Learning
It doesn't really give much detail. "The pilot had been operating just above the 500ft AGL minimum and didn't believe a Low Level endorsement was required (it was)" "recovery from an unusual attitude, or from a turn with crossed controls at low speed, actually requires specific training in order to be safely undertaken at these minimum heights." No reference was given to any actual regulation, something which may be useful in future articles if they wish to educate pilots on the requirements, rather then just "(it was)" -
I agree with FT here, due to the lack of communication it would appear that nothing has been done by the board for the past year, talking to some board members it seems the majority is spent with putting out fires rather then planning. The fact that no board resolutions (other then appointing a CEO?) have been made since the NATFLY. The fact that very little in the way of resolutions at the upcoming AGM have been presented seems to suggest nothing has progressed from the previous presentations on constitutional reform, policy development. So what exactly has our board and executive done over the past 12 months?
