rhysmcc

As long the GA instructor is also a RA-AUS instructor I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing in the rules seem to say it must be registered with CASA to qualify. It would be great for the dual GA/RA-AUS schools, could offer the RPL/RPC combined course in a RA-AUS registered aircraft keeping costs lower.

Who knows what's in the new Ops Manual... I'm starting to doubt whether one actually exists. With a lack of any policy given by the board we don't even know if it's something "they" want.

Yes PPLs can but RPL can't. They are not the same thing. It's all in the detail. CAO requires a CAR5 license (RPL is a Part 61) and the Ops Manual states private license is required. Until the paper work is tidied up from a legal (and insurance) stand point you can't fly RA-AUS aircraft in controlled airspace without a PPL or higher (ie not a RPL)

Another "watch this space" report. When will we start seeing details or better yet some results.

RPL still can't fly a RA-AUS registered aircraft in controlled airspace, the CAO doesn't permit it and neither does the Ops Manual. Once those 2 items are fixed I can see holding dual RPL/RPC to be beneficial.

the airport is doomed... if only they had the carpet done!

Last I heard (bit over a week ago) it was with the Board for approval. To hear it's now at CASA suggests the Board has either made some changes or "passed" it and it's back with CASA for final approval. In any case there is nothing stopping it's release to the members and it's become a bit of a joke that they have kept it secret for so long. What is the board trying to hide? I don't care how long the board or the managers have been in place for. Enough is enough, either start being OPEN and HONEST with the members or find another board to sit on. Maybe a member in Canberra can go into the office and ask to see the current draft document, take some snap shots and upload them to the rest of us, might be the only way to get information from this mob. The Board and Executive have failed in it's duty under the constitution and should be removed. How many years are we meant to give them before expecting some results?

When was the last time you caught a taxi from ANY CBD to the airport and it cost under $50? There is no public transport to Cairns or Melbourne Airport, they seem to both turn a profit. Long term carpark is generally further from the airport. Because Wellcamp is the first ever airport in Australia to be built inland from the sea? I think you have made your point. You know more then everyone else and Wellcamp is going to fail. Can we move on to some real discussion without you hating on everything now?

What is this based on? How are you measuring (on your two flights) the capacity at the airport?

I think it needs to be a CASA approved Examiner, not just someone with an instructor rating. Most schools CFI generally has that endorsement

I would like to see at least fortnightly newsletter with the basic run down on what projects are being worked out. It doesn't need reports from all people each fortnight, but something from the CEO and something from the board. Maybe an "interest" item could be shared in turn from other staff and board members. At the very least i would expect to here about what issues the board is currently discussing/handling so that members have a chance to let their board member know what they think. This whole idea that board members are elected every 2 years to act on our behalf but never actually find out what our behalf is on issues is NOT representation. I would also like to see more information regarding the current sitution and what's being done to fix issues. We keep hearing that the rego issue will be fixed shortly with some new systems being put in place, but no information on what these will in tail. Things like the Ops Manual update. I don't think it's too much work to ask the CEO right a little report on the fortnight just being and what's on the upcoming agenda, same with a member of the executive. The CEO already does such a report for the board, so why not have that put out to all the members.

You must have a different VTC to mine, it shows the green area that you speak of outside of controlled airspace, just south of the zone. This area is very busy with helicopter operations, multiple helipads on the water and rooftops. The LL in the area is 1500, which is roughly 500ft above the bolt bridge.

That seems quite plausible, personally I'd still be on the CTAF to catch any inbound/outbound calls from other other aircraft whom might be at low level aswell. Outside of 10NM then Area Freq seems to be the go. If i was overflying an aerodrome with a CTAF at 7500ft (more then 5000AGL) I would also be on Area Freq, as thats where I'd expect to hear from other conflicting traffic, either also overhead or coming into or climbing out of the aerodrome passing through my level.

The onus is on the pilot to make broadcasts on the most suitable frequency to avoid a collision, CASA in their wisdom has provided some advice as to which frequency, however there is no set parameters so to allow pilots to exercise judgement and good airmanship based on the local conditions. If you're overflying an aerodrome at 2000AGL, while you may be above the circuit traffic, you will conflict with aircraft arriving and departing the circuit area. At 5000ft, you should conflict further out from the aerodrome at which time the departing or arriving aircraft should have made their intentions known on the Area Frequency. However again, this all depends on the local conditions such as aerodrome elevation, controlled airspace boundaries etc. The system isn't perfect, but none would be.

5000ft makes sense, 2000AGL just doesn't cut it. It's not just about conflicting with the circuit traffic but also with arrivals and departures who may fly through your level to higher climb within 10NM of the aerodrome.

A slot into the circuit? I wonder if maybe you were talking with a controller in the tower, in which case he might have dialed up the emergency handheld radio that most towers have.

Wasn't this at YBTL? That's military controllers and a complete different system to ASA, so maybe they have access to monitor and transmit on 126.7. Or maybe they were just using a handheld radio.

As you are 7nm from an aerodrome that is on a chart, I would be operating on the published CTAF or 126.7 if there is none. 7nm is well within vicinity of non controlled aerodrome.

Seems that makes it quite clear then, VH only registered aircraft for AFR. I wonder why the same isn't on the application for initial license. Mind you, these forms are still only in draft form until the 1st of Sept.

I'm not sure about Coffs Harbour tower getting axed, wouldn't make sense since the numbers just warranted the building of an Aviation Fire Station. Is the "Port" you refer to Port Hedland or somewhere else? The Port Hedland tower idea has been cancelled due to decreasing traffic numbers, although I believe AFIS is going to stay.

It's a good way to get those busy strips depicted on maps, I'm sure the controllers will get tired of listening to circuit calls all day.

Thanks, that's what I've been trying to find.

This is exactly what I'm after, so where is it written down?

Hoping someone might know the answer to this or can point me in the right location. I'm trying to work out whether a pilot holding a certificate with RA-AUS can conduct the flight review required for the issue of a RPL (Come 1st of Sept) in a RA-AUS registered aircraft. Lets assume both the pilot and the examiner are qualified on the aircraft, and the examiner also holds CFI ratings both with CASA and RA-AUS. The aircraft is also suitable for training and meets the requirements for controlled airspace. The current (draft) application form for a RPL has a box to tick that says: "Aircraft used was suitable for a RPL(A) flight test - CASR 61.245 and Part 61 MOS". CASR 61.245 mentions: "(1) The flight test for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement must be conducted in: (a) an aircraft or an approved flight simulator for the purpose; and (b) if the flight test is for a rating or endorsement that is limited to a particular category, class or type of aircraft: (i) an aircraft of that category, class or type; or (ii) an approved flight simulator for that category, class or type of aircraft." Aircraft isn't defined in the CASR 61, however aeroplane is in 61.025 " Aeroplane means an aeroplane that has flight controls providing control of the aeroplane in 3 axes." I can't find anything in the MOS 61, so what am I missing. Can you conduct the review in a RA-AUS aircraft, and if not where does it say it?

It's not the license or certificate that would dictate the design weight but the regulation it's registered under, (ie RA-Aus or VH-)