rhysmcc

No sign of the big boys, QANTAS, Virgin, Jet Star, Tiger or AirNZ on the day but they will come.

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.

As I understand it you just did express your opinion by voting didn't you ?............

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.

You may well find that the Ops manaual 2.01 6 d) and the revised 25.10 6.4 (d) and (e) covers that in that the written approval is 25.10. But you do have a point.Maj and Andy, can you impress on the board the necessity to have the draft ops manual out for review so that this forum can fix it up?

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.

The PPL or higher relates to the medical standard required to instruct in RAA. See Ops manual 2.10 b 2. see#8 above http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-to-rpl-conversion.124449/#post-449595The Ops manual provides the basis for flying PIC in a RAA plane. CTA access is controlled by 25.10 (as amended) rather than the RAA Ops manual and has recently been revised to account for Part 61 licences.

6. Controlled Airspace a) holds a current and valid private or higher category pilot licence with CTA endorsement

Is this what you you are talking about?25.10 has been amended by

 

"Civil Aviation Order (Flight Crew Licensing) Repeal and Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 1)

 

- F2014L01177"

 

by

 

John F. McCormick

 

Director of Aviation Safety

 

27 August 2014

 

New Subparagraphs 6.4 (d) and (e), among many others

 

Substitute

 

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

 

(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

 

(e) the pilot has a valid flight review for the class rating in accordance with Part 61 of CASR 1998;=====================================================================

 

RAA pilots with an RPL (or higher) and controlled airspace and drome endos can fly suitably equipped RAA planes through controlled spaces - they will probably need both an RAA and a RPL radio endo as well.

CASR 200.025 and CAOs 95.10 and 95.55, para's 5, 6.1(b) and 6.1© state that you must operate an RAAus registered aircraft in accordance with the ops and tech manuals. To operate an RAAus registered aircraft on a CASR Part 61 Licence or Rating is a breach of Section 20AB of the Civil Aviation Act.

Lets be honest, anything is an improvement. Lets just hope more and more information is given each issue.

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.

Dr Zoos, I did quote the regulations backing up my argument in earlier posts, maybe you should sit down and review them and the regulations quoted. Failing that call 131757 and ask to speak to a Flying Operations Inspector or an Aviation Safety Advisor (Teraya Miller would be best as she is both RAA and GA qualified).

King_daniels, the key to the answer is, as I have mentioned previously - in the privileges of the instructor rating. A GA instructor cannot exercise the privileges of their rating in an RAA registered aircraft, nor can an RAA instructor in a GA registered aircraft. Even if the individual instructor holds both ratings, they cannot certify both flight reviews in a single flight. At best, a GA flight review can be accepted by RAA as a high performance flight review as the RAA Operations Manual allows it. There are no provisions in the CAR, CASR or CAO rules to allow an RAA flight review to be accepted as a GA flight review. As I have said, it relies on which "hat" the instructor is wearing, that comes down to under which set of rules the aircraft is operating, which is in turn determined by the aircraft registration. This has always been the case, any instructor signing off both in past years has been doing so incorrectly. (This interpretation was confirmed by a phone call to my local CASA FOI)

PeopleIts my understanding that the board are trying very hard to move away from "doing" and get back to "setting policy" and ensuring that the "doing is being done" by the paid employees. It is true that on the basis of communications released sofar it would seem that not much has been achieved this year, however the new CEO and his team have actually done a fair bit and I'm personally aware of a number of what I believe are significant steps forward that Im very much hoping will be communicated at the AGM, or even earlier perhaps at the next email out......

 

If one was to go back and look at the last registration related thread on here I believe that the last few posts clearly identify that the problems that have plagued for some time are gone.....just not communicated gone..... That said I understand the reticence in "cockadoodle doing" because the board want to be sure that the problem is actually fixed and stays fixed....... I know what was done to fix it and I believe in the absence of a wholesale move to remove the paper records, that the issue is indeed under control (within the constraints of the 1900's paper based system) ....but that's just my personal feeling not the board position (of which I'mt yet a part until the AGM)

 

Michael is correct in saying that a significant amount of the last year, like most recent years before it, were spent dealing with staff turnover......Its my belief that not much in terms of improvement will occur until we can choose the right staff and get them to stay! I believe that much to improve moral within RAAus HQ has occurred and that may very well be the foundations for significant moves forward...or at least that's my hope!

 

Andy

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.

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?