Roundsounds

I have just read this great article on AVWEB, pretty sums up my thoughts on spin training. I'm not a fan of the Muller (hands off) recovery technique, certainly no harm in going through the training, but cannot see any practical application for non-aerobatic pilots as most stall/spin accidents happen too low for it to be used. Here's the article: Spin Training? Yes - AVweb Features Article

So you're both deluded enough to think RAAus management would respond to input from a lone member?

I'm glad you How did you come up with the conclusion that RAAus had prioritised CTA over weight from my ramblings? My business sustainability comment is about aviation in Australia in general. The majority of airports I use are under utilised and given the approach of user pays it's only a matter of time before these are assets are repurposed. (Read developed for residential or industrial purposes.) My local Council wanted to close the tip because it wasn't profitable - I can only imagine what they'd want to do to an airport. I see RAAus waisting an enormous amount of time and effort in pursuing the airspace issue from the wrong angle.

If you're suggesting I failed as a GA operator you're wrong, I sold my business at profit and moved up the food chain. My interest is simply seeing a fair and sustainable aviation industry. If you allow the only growing sector of the small end of aviation to access controlled aerodromes, it can only help sustain a rapidly declining industry. With the ever reducing utilisation of airports, the cost per movement will continue to increase. I recently conducted approximately 20 hours of flying training with a retired airline Captain in his newly acquired GA aircraft. This training was primarily conducted at a Class D airport, there is no way the movement fees would go anywhere near meeting the cost of the airport or air traffic services whilst we operated. At times we operated in the circuit area for an hour and was the only aircraft flying. Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

You make many uniformed or incorrect statements in your response, so I won't bother addressing them. Maybe you could take the time to review the relevant rule sets, as indicated I operate within both systems and have a working knowledge of them. You will find the Gliding Australia exemption under CAO 95.4 and the Gliding Aust operations manual is freely available from their website.

At no point was I suggesting access to controlled airspace for incompetent pilots. There is simply no justification for the blanket airspace restrictions imposed upon RAAus pilots, access should be competency based. The present system allows RAAus pilots under training to operate from controlled aerodromes, the minute they obtain a pilot certificate they're banned. As a grade 1 GA instructor, former ATO and RAAus CFI I find the system to be inconsistent and discriminatory. I can train a pilot to the same standard in either RAA or GA, one is permitted to operate in CTA/CTR and the other is not. The RAAus pilot can do a medical, some paperwork and a GA Flight review to convert their RPC to an RPL, they too can then access CTA/CTR in their RAAus registered aircraft. The only difference being a couple of pieces of paper costing upwards of $5K - zero difference in competency or safety. Meanwhile, at Camden (Class D) you've got glider pilots flying over populous areas, on a self certified medical, with only a certificate issued by Gliding Australia. These pilots are trained by instructors not requiring any powered aeroplane experience or comprehensive airspace training as required by GA. The same glider pilots can complete a self launching glider qualification and operate in all controlled airspace and aerodromes. I'm in no way suggesting the glider pilots to be incompetent, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in regulations. The regs as applied to glider pilots would seem to be the standard, I don't see a whole lot of incident reports in the ATSB weekly summaries for airspace issues. The limitations on RAAus ops would most likely stem from the days of the single seat "flying clothesline" style aircraft and the associated self training system.

Which particular piece of BS are you referring to?

It's was stated at the QandA session following the AGM 23/9. You can watch the recording online via Facebook on their FB page. I don't know why RAAus don't simply insist on the same privileges as the Gliding federation and Ballooning Assn - they have access without a CASA licence or medical And minimal training. I understand that CASA are in breach of the Civil Aviation Act by discriminating against RAAus without any safety justification.

"a comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it you'll find it" Hmmm, the program doesn't read that way. It looks like the highlight of Saturday is the paper plane competition! The RAAus Weight increase and CTA presentations are bound to be interesting, particularly given CASA have put them on the back burner.

That'd be a Howard 500. I sat under the shade of it at Airventure 2017. Howard 500 - Wikipedia

Not so, the recommendations in CAAP 166 have been developed over many years of experience and research into incidents. Making more than the recommended calls creates a situation whereby busy airports (or airports in close proximity using a common frequency) leads to over-transmissions and a lack of "airtime" to make necessary calls. It also makes flight training difficult - I stop talking to students when radio transmissions are made by other aircraft so both me and student can hear and react to them. More and more I'm hearing routine multiple unessessary calls being made by pilots. Unfortunately this is being taught by both GA and RAA.

Ask this CFI to educate you by showing you this regulation. It simply doesn't exist!! There's way too much quoting of regulations that don't exist by people who are supposed to know their stuff.

We need to get the various representative organisations to work together to sort out this ridiculous situation!

Why add 3 additional calls to those recommended in the CAAP in a publication intended to be educational to RAAus members? The table in the CAAP lists 6 calls, the author lists 8, having added "about to initiate takeoff" and "clear of runways" to the table and "mandatory base call" in the body of the article. Additional broadcasts are only required if there is a potential of conflict, but to routinely make additional calls is poor airmanship. It displays a lack of knowledge and/or disregard for safe practice recommendations.

The problem with asking, rather than referring to the official documents (CAAP 166 and AIP) being that you'll pick up people's personal preferences and lack of knowledge, resulting in the proliferation of incorrect practices. The latest radio guidance in the RAAus magazine is a classic case, the table of "radio procedures" is not as per CAAP 166 and mentions the "mandatory base call" (no such thing)

Absolutely nothing wrong with this operation, assuming there were no other aircraft in the circuit. Anyone else departing / arriving would make the appropriate calls which would alert the aircraft in the circuit and likely prompt further broadcasts from them. The growing trend for continuous radio babble is in fact reducing safety, not improving it. The regs and guidance regarding RT at non-towered airports is written the way it is deliberately. If there was a case / evidence for multiple calls / circuit or "as recommended" by the various "experts" teaching this poor behaviour CASA would mandate it.

Although I tend to agree and I have spent my entire working life working within / teaching these rules. They are a complete horses bum when you stand back and look at them objectively. As an exercise, try explaining the purpose of the various references, Act, CAR, CASR, CAO, CAAP, AC, AIP, ERSA etc to a non-aviator who is interested in learning to fly. Then explain where to find the airspace rules relating to a local flight for the holder of an RPL with Nav endorsement from a class D metro airport.

They'll tell you you'll a need transponder, GA licence, flight review and medical. Ask them why glider pilots don't need these (aside from the xpdr), yet RAA do.

You've been given all sorts of conflicting info', bottom line is Restricted Airspace is treated the same was as Class C. Your best way forward would be to contact your local CASA safety advisor and seek their guidance. Here's a link to the list of advisors: Aviation Safety Advisors (ASA) | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

The L1 training originally had 3 components, the first was to establish a level of knowledge regarding rights / responsibilities. That's in place. The second was to be education on the practical / hands on aspects of maintenance. The third was to assess the L1s ability to perform maintenance by way of inspecting completed work - at the time of a flight review would've made sense. Parts 2 and 3 were never put in place. Airspace - simply insist that all SAOs have the same privileges - including airspace. Gliders and private hot air balloon pilots do not require a GA licence or medical to access controlled airspace. Simply cut and paste the GFA controlled airspace syllabus - job done. No need to waste time and effort on jumping through CASA hoops. The airspace limitations go back to the 95.10 types like Skycraft Scouts etc and when there were no medical requirements at all.

This situation is particularly annoying when pilots of motor gliders don't require a GA licence and operate on a self certified medical in controlled airspace now!

It's in the AIP, it's about time RAAus pilots started learning how to read these documents - it's not that difficult! Try AIP ENR 5.3 and CAO 95.55, para 7.3 and some background info: Project OS 12/43 - Amendment to CAO 95.55 to clarify CASA's policy in regard to operations by RA-Aus pilots and RA-Aus aircraft in active military restricted areas | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Restricted airspace is treated as Class C. The PRD section of the ERSA lists all P, R and D airspace, you can also gain info as to whether you can plan to transit it or not. There's still no guarantee that you'll get a clearance. If you're operating an RAAus registered aircraft you need to satisfy the requirements contained in the appropriate CAO (95.55 most likely) regarding the aircraft and pilot qual's. If you need any further info I suggest you seek guidance from a suitably qualified flight instructor, RAAus Ops manager of CASA safety advisor.

If only it was that simple Keith! As mentioned earlier, the standardisation finishes with a common numbering system and some guidelines. I can tell you CASA have made some really interesting rules in light of the ICAO guidelines under the FCL set. NONE of the RAAus registration or licencing will be recognised overseas, which is why CASA have created a Glider Pilot Licence as the GFA certificates are not recognised overseas. We will end up with a cross between a Camel and a Wombat using CASAs Racehorse design criteria.

Just need to keep in mind the same people who brought you Parts 61/141/142 will also deliver 103/149. They will cause problems for the industry, significant ones at that.