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.

[ATTACH=full]32121[/ATTACH]Im pretty sure your wrong here a PPL has long been able to fly a 24 rego into CTA

The PPLs in our club go through coffs all the time as do many others i know of...

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?

I just realised most[all] of you blokes have never looked at the site map for the airporthttp://www.wellcamp.com.au/media/3836/WGN13010-SIte-Map-mK2.pdf

 

Have a look at how small the carpark/terminal area is. The airport is 20kms to my house because its so far and the road gets congested I reckon $40-50 for a cab is about right. Google maps has it as a 20 minute drive. There is no public transport in Toowoomba to speak off, so its car or car. Don't know how its going to go with FIFO workers the long term carpark is a long way from the airport, doesn't look very secure.

 

Geoff, grow up and stop lecturing people

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.

I've got a question for the "brains trust" which you should be able to answerWhat is it going to cost to get a B double full of jet fuel delivered from the Port of Brisbane into Wellcamp, its about 180kms drive through Brisbane.

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?

I flew in and out of Brisbane twice this week on Virgin....that airport is so under capacity...cant see how it can be economic to truck people or freight that far...

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.

Hi Kaz,Yes - it does seem a bit odd. I doubt I will ever be flying there, but perhaps somebody who flies in that area could enlighten us?

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

As I se it there is no problem as far as height goes with CTAF. Use it up to the base of E or other dontrolled airspace, which seems sensible.What I was pointing out was that flying at 9nm from a CTAF strip, which has a frequency, even if it is 126.7, my interpretation is that flying at 500' you are not in the vicinity as it is worded, ie you are not within 10nm "and" at a height hich could cause conflict. You are below any other traffic using the CTAF strip.

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.

Thanks, Kaz - I see it now. Am I right that there are no Broadcast Areas in the Melbourne VNC? The VNC legend has BA boundaries as dashed green lines, and I cannot see any there.

 

I understand what you are saying, rhysmcc, but if that should apply in all cases (ie non-Broadcast Areas as well) then Yenn's original point stands - i.e. they should state it explicitly in CAAP 166-1, which they don't.

 

I am happy to do whatever we are supposed to do, but unfortunately that still seems to be open to interpretation and debate (hence this thread....)

 

Cheers

 

Neil

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.

Had a radio lock onto a non recognised channel enroute to Alice. One of the accompioning planes contacted the controller,he said that he could tune into ANY frequency, which he did and diverted me to slot into the circuit.Getting out is another story.

Phil

Shags,I was sure I heard it, but if it is not usual to have access, then maybe as I monitor both freqs it was on approach freq and I misread it as coming from 126.7? I certainly wouldn't argue, it is quite possible two receive lights were on and I only observed one of them.

Regarding section 7, Radio BroadcastsToday I tried to digest the wisdom of this change, but must be a bit confused.

I have occasionally flown in to Stirling North (the home of the Port Augusta Flying Club) for their regular Saturday sausage sizzle. This is a private airfield, owned by the club and 7 nm from Port Augusta aerodrome. YPAG is security controlled, has RPT, charter ops, a flying school and a busy RFDS base. 126.7 has up to now been a perfectly workable common frequency for ops at both sites.

 

As Stirling North does not appear on charts or in ERSA, I read Part 7.3.1 of the CAAP to require Stirling North traffic to be on area frequency 123.9

 

Note 1 of this section makes this explicitly required for the benefit of transiting aircraft who may not be aware of Stirling North as an active airfield.

 

Can anyone please explain to me why being on a different frequency to YPAG makes it easier and safer for me when visiting Stirling North?

 

Or conversely, please explain the error of my interpretation of the CAAP.

Part 61 AFR notification form just has VH-___

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.

Attended CASA Safety Meeting yesterday and CAAP 166-1(3) was mentioned. They seem determined to have people on area rather than 126.7 so it's going to be interesting! Rationale' seems to be that there are no busy strips which are not 'depicted' on maps - which I'm sure they are about to learn is untrue! So much for consultation with industry!happy days,

Civil Aviation Act: Part 1

Australian aircraft means:

 

(a) aircraft registered in Australia;

 

(it USED to say "on the Civil Aircraft Register" - which is VH only)

 

==========================================

 

CASA Aircraft Register Procedures Manual

 

2. Registration of Australian Civil Aircraft

 

2.3.2 Registration of Ultralight Aircraft

 

Ultralight aircraft are identified by a series of unique numbers constituted by the prefixes “10-“, “19-“, “24-“, “25-“, “28-“, “32-“, “55-“, followed by 4 digits. Theses prefixes are assigned according to the classification defined in the CAOs, 95.10, 95.55, 95.32, 101.28 and 101.55.

 

Whilst ultralights do not use the ICAO issued Australian prefix “VH” and they are not

 

registered in accordance with the provisions of the CASRs, CARs or this Manual, ultralight aircraft are considered to be Australian aircraft.

 

===========================

 

Can you use it (RA-Aus machine) for AFR as the question relates?

 

Is it an aircraft? YES.

 

The RPL is about skills demonstration, competency based they call it. You can equally demonstrate those skills in a VH or RA-Aus aircraft. Your level of competency will not change.

an RAA plane is not an aeroplane as silly as that sounds

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?

Why would it be registered with RAAS when you have a RPL????The only reason for going to a RPL is to be able to go to that extra design weight that some are made for