K-man

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what last light means to you and what the legal requirements are.

Camel, I have my RPL. The reason I have gone on to get my PPL is that I own my own aircraft and it is exactly the aircraft I want to fly. It just happens to be registered RA. My arguement is that RA pilots should be able to get CTA endorsement on their RA licence as was originally going to happen before McCormack pulled the plug about four or five years back. I'm not sure what Airservices are going to charge for if I fly into CTA. Why would me flying into a controlled airport on an RPC cost more than flying in on an RPL or a PPL for that matter? Ada Elle has been belittling the RPC in many threads so this is nothing new. Harsh? Perhaps, but can you explain the rationale for me to be required to hold two licences to fly the same plane under certain conditions. Remember, I have an RPL so it's not that I am against getting one. It is just that I believe RA should have the same endorsement if it satisfies the same requirements as the RPL. And the sky might fall in tomorrow. Really, if you are concerned that that may happen, surely it will be the RA aircraft in question that would be subjected to the more rigorous requirements. You've lost me totally. What are the costs of GA that I'm not paying now? The RA budget is the reduced cost of servicing the aircraft and if I wasn't an owner I would be paying about the same as a GA pilot. I can't disagree with that. I also now have to do two BFRs, one of which will be in an aircraft I fly once every 2 years. Perhaps you can explain the logic of that. And, FWIW, I stay with my aircraft as it is serviced too.

Ada Elle, I can see that you are emotionally attached to your dream of getting your PPL because only then will you have a 'real' licence to fly. Don't worry, you are not alone with that attitude. You also don't own an aircraft. I do. It just so happens that an RA aircraft was the one I chose, so I have no need for a PPL. My wife and I have flown that aircraft around Australia four or five times since we retired, into and out of many major airports. It fits our needs perfectly. In the past my wife took on all the responsibility of flying in CTA. She happens to have a 'real' licence as opposed to the RPC I got by sending in the box tops off six cereal packets with the prescribed fee. Our situation has changed slightly so now I need to do the CTA flying and as a result I had to obtain the endorsement. So you infer that I have an ideological objection to using the RPL. That is patently ludicrous. I have no such objection. That is what I had to do. Of course you know for all the reasons you have stated in the past that an RA pilot has nowhere near the standard of flying or knowledge required to fly into a controlled airport, even those who had an exemption to fly in controlled airspace and controlled airports when they were students. You know that an RA pilot would never have the skill to fly a circuit under the direction of an air traffic controller or safely transit some busy traffic lane because RA pilots just don't do that sort of thing and if they want to they should get a PPL because then everyone will know that they can fly. Have I got is right? So let's look at the facts. Why do I need to hold two licences? Where is the logic of that? I fly an aircraft that could be registered RA or GA, and I hold the required certification to fly in CTA. Until McCormack arrived RA was almost at the stage of being given CTA privilege. You must have been relieved to see that that didn't happen. That was the reason I didn't go on to get my PPL. I had no need. I had my plane, I had my certificate to fly and I was about to be given CTA privileges. Let's look at the other nonsense you has stated ... Why would a pilot, flying an LSA or similar aircraft, not want to use an RPL to enter CTA? - fear of CTA No, no fear of CTA. Precisely the opposite. - ideological hatred of CASA No, where on earth does that idea come from? RA is licensed under CASA. - expense of training No, the money has already been spent and it would be spent regardless of which organisation issues the authority. - expense / inability to obtain a medical No, I have the medical and would have required a class 2 medical under the original proposal anyway. - inability to pass training No, I have successfully undertaken the training. Five Nos! Of course the simple answer to your rhetorical question is ... "Because I feel I should be able to use my RPC." This demonstrates conclusively that you have no grasp of what we are discussing. Either that or you are just having another go at stirring the pot, as has been suggested in the past by others. Wow! That is cool! I can see that, once again, logic is not your strong suite. Let's see if I have what you are saying right. If I pay an insignificant amount of money, say $3K to $4K, and get my medical and have my RPL, I can now safely fly my RA aircraft into CTA. If I spend the same insignificant amount of money (for the same training) and get my medical and the endorsement was added to my RPC I am not safe to fly my RA aircraft into CTA. Hmm!Then there's the sting in the tail, regardless of my training I'm unwisely frugal if I haven't undertaken unusual attitude training! Where did that gem come from?

Hooray! Close! We were probably over that area. Yes it is lake Eildon. The main arm. First photo shows Eildon township and the pondage below the spillway. The second photo is a bit further North looking towards the dam wall. No, a bit further North than Baw Baw. The photo is from the North looking South and it is a mountain that most would see from the East. No, not Rocky Valley. It is Eildon Weir.So, two down, two to go.

OK, you are closer but it isn't Sugarloaf. The snow is on one of Victoria's top skifields, not that there is much left. The reservoir is one of Australia's biggest and the craggy range creates an almost religious experience. Give it one more shot!

Um, not quite. Warragamamba would be about 3 hours flying or more from YLIL.

Three of us flew up to Millawa for lunch today. Beautiful weather and the most scenic flight. I'll see if you guys can recognise where these are taken.

No, RA does not have access to CTA. A pilot with an RPL and endorsement, or a PPL for that matter, may fly an approved RA aircraft into CTA as long as they have the RPC to fly the RA aircraft. Those are GA qualifications. That is where the anomaly lies. The medical has nothing to do with it. That is another matter entirely. In past posts it sounds like RA pilots are RA because they can't get a GA medical. Most of us are RA because we want to be RA.

Even then it can be managed. We blew a tire landing at Broome and stopped dead in the middle of the active runway. I actually had the aircraft off the runway before the local guys arrived to offer assistance. Apart from being busy, controlled airports are no big deal. Controlled airspace is no big deal. As long as you do what you are trained to do it normally works like clockwork. To think that trained RA pilots are going to cause mayhem in controlled airspace is a red herring. RA should have access to CTA and in the very near future I'm sure they will be given that privilege for those who are prepared to undertake a small amount of additional training.

Sharing airspace with faster aircraft is always going to happen. I have better airspeed than Warriors and Cessna 172's. No one is questioning whether they should be in CTA. In uncontrolled airspace RPT aircraft generally give 20 mile calls with ETA if there is other traffic and most of us will ensure that we are out of their way. I'm sure people will be able to quote when an RPT aircraft had to change an approach because of some RA aircraft enforcing his right of way in a circuit but that is not what normally happens. Airmanship is what we are talking about here and good airmanship is not the sole domain of GA.

Guys, this is getting heated over absolutely nothing. I can't complain out anything I can do in my RA aircraft. Heck, I can even fly into Tullamarine if I could afford it. I have nothing to complain about but it could have been better if I could have got my CTA endorsement through RA. For the guys who just want to fly basic aircraft, great. For those who want to go further and faster, fantastic. We are ALL able to do what we want, so why the aggro? I think there are things that CASA could have done better and there are things that RAA could have done better but in the total scheme of things, we have it pretty good. Now if you want my opinion, and even if you don't .... in thirty years time when RA pilots are flying their cars on fly-by-wire technology, with their driver medical, some people will still be complaining that things were better sixty years ago before things got all complicated.

Current classes go to 600. So in the case of an aircraft like mine, a 'fat LSA' (560kg), you are saying that if it is factory built, ie 24-, it needs to be maintained by one type of engineer but if it is 19- , you can do it yourself. So I have to change my nose wheel to a lower spec which reduces my MTW to 540. Now I have a less safe aircraft but I can service it myself but it is no longer a 'fat LSA'. To be honest, that is a dumb idea.

I managed to download the first electronic version but the latest copies don't give me the option to download.

Mr Darwin has a big fan in me and I love his awards.

By performance calculations I'm assuming that you are talking about taking things like into account like wet /long grass, slope etc. and not heavy duty calculations such as these ... https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3oc9llQai5YC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=performance+calculations+in+general+aviation.&source=bl&ots=-wYN0U7A5i&sig=taOq9E9RS9aF7szbnGZQ1l2zzNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCGoVChMIj-SqhoCOyAIVjBmUCh2tUQ24#v=onepage&q=performance%20calculations%20in%20general%20aviation.&f=falseAs to weight and balance. It's not an issue in most RA aircraft. As long as I don't overload any particular compartment I can't be out of balance, and as long as I don't have too heavy a passenger with full fuel I won't be overweight. You seem to have an extraordinary requirement for theory. Do you still use your whiz wheel to do your flight plan? For less than $10 there are heaps of electronic flight calculators if that lights your fire. I think back to my Uni days and the amount of theoretical nonsense we were examined on to satisfy the requirements of the course even though they would play no part in a future career. Flipping through the training manuals just now I can see pages of trigonometry and other things that I'll bet your average PPL would have absolutely no idea how to calculate. That doesn't mean they're not perfectly competent pilots. In most cases having the basic understanding of why you do things or what to avoid or how to react is all you need. The secret of most education these days is knowing where to source information, not to necessarily have to remember it. OK, the NPPL is similar to the RPL but interestingly, even though in some ways it is less restrictive, I wouldn't actually be allowed to fly the aircraft that I can fly here under RA with my RPC.I think that our major point of difference is, as you point out, you are approaching this question from the point of view of someone who is going to hire an aircraft (the much cheaper option) where I am looking at it from an aircraft owner's perspective. I think that rather than dividing the field by weights and speeds etc. we could be dividing by intent and I think that is the idea behind the RPL, to separate recreational flying from commercial flying. Personally, I think that all recreational flying should be under RA as the name suggests. That leaves CASA to look after the big issues. The problem is the age of the lower end GA fleet and how RAA could manage the maintainence issues. To some extent, this could be managed by requiring all aircraft used for hire to be still registered as VH and privately owned and operated aircraft under RAA. The immediate problem there is that RA training aircraft would have to be registered GA thus increasing the costs of getting the licence. Unfortunately it is a very complicated question and we are unlikely to solve it here to the satisfaction of all on this forum.

What do you think is in PPL theory that is not in RPC theory that would make a difference to the safety of RA flying. Maybe I could phrase it another way and ask what from the PPL theory you would like to see taught in RA that is relevant to RA and might improve safety?

Ouch! There are lots of guys out there who would love to see the return of the good old days without the 'plastic fantastics'. For many, flying a microlight beats everything else. No, we have a range of aircraft in RA and I think that is a good mix. There was talk of allowing heavier GA aircraft to transfer to and be registered as RA. Old aircraft age and maintainence issues put an end to that. Setting up a separate category along the lines you suggest would be expensive to administer for little if any additional benefit IMHO.

Ada Elle, people have different reasons for having whatever licence they have. I could have a CPL if I wanted. I always wanted to fly and I won't bore people with the reasons I didn't start flying fifty years back. Suffice to say, I didn't but now I am proud to owner of a beautiful RA aircraft that has taken my wife and me all around this magnificent country. Until recently I had no need for more than my RPC. More recently I have got my RPL to give me CTA. However, I am still the same pilot with the same training and the same ability. I have had several people over the years tell me that my RPC is not in the same league as their PPLs. Well I have news for anyone that thinks that. We share the same airspace so you had better hope that I am as competent as any other pilot flying in to Essendon, Broome, Alice or Bankstown. I don't believe there is anything watered down with my training and I don't believe any RA pilot who takes his/her flying seriously is a lessor pilot than pilots with a PPL. Sure there are cowboys in RA who do nothing to help our cause but there are cowboys in GA as well, but in the total picture they are very much the minority in either class. In my experience the pilots I know are serious aviators regardless of the bit of paper they carry. It makes no difference to me if they fly a Bonanza or a Jabiru. We are all living the dream. Now this thread is about safety. It is up to each and every one of us to take responsibility for our own safety and the safety of those around us. If we can demonstrate that we will be granted more privileges. If we don't, we will be saddled with more regulation.

Not really. I don't even have one tattoo and I've never been tempted with steroids. My furry friends would try to lick most people to death and the little kids just love them. If you get lost, they're pretty good at tracking and our baby will be in her second ever obedience trial at the Royal Melbourne Show on Friday. In another life I am an instructor at the local dog club so I get my dog fix every Sunday hanging out with all sorts of dogs including a Chihuahua.

Hmm! I have two German Shepherds. Just what are you saying?

I have to agree with dazza above. If you could improve safety by changing a few rules and regulations it would have been done before now. I don't believe it needs changing despite the increasing number of incidents. If people did what they have been properly trained to do, the number of incidents would reduce substantially. If you look at car crashes and fatalities you will find the highest proportion involve low hour drivers, usually young. In Victoria, not sure of other states, they have introduced a log book system and a requirement for more supervised hours of driving before awarding a licence, then there are three years as a probationary driver. What they have recognised is drivers need experience to become safer drivers and I would argue, pilots need experience to be safer pilots. Just as drivers need experience in different conditions, so do pilots. Most training is conducted in good conditions. I lost count of the number of times an instructor said "you wouldn't want to fly today, would you?" My answer was nearly always, "why not?" Followed by, "I wouldn't normally fly in these conditions but if I find myself in these conditions I would like to know that I have at least experienced them before, with an experienced person beside me." You can tinker around the edges with aircraft weight, which won't affect most existing RA aircraft, or allow limited CTA, which in an emergency you could use anyway, but the truth is it won't do a lot in terms of saving lives. As to requiring a higher level of theoretical training for RAA instructors, most are already PPL and many are CPL. That will do absolutely nothing unless their training is passed on to the student, and there is a syllabus in place. If the syllabus is not being taught, it's not being taught. Giving the instructor a higher level of training won't change that. How many hours does an airline first officer fly before being given command? The answer to recreational flying safety is quite simple, but I'm not sure that any of us would want to embrace it. The answer is to fly more supervised hours under every type of condition imaginable. If it can't legally or safely be done in an RA aircraft it could be done in a sim. If you genuinely want to increase safety, go to the CPL requirement for 150 hours, including 70 hours PIC, 20 hours cross country (PIC) and 10 hours on instruments. Nothing takes the place of experience. The question is, are we prepared to pay for it?

OK, you win. I give in, there's no need to twist my arm. Saturday actually suits me better than Sunday so I will see if I can rally the troops.

A number of our Lilydale Flying Club members flew to Echuca for lunch today. Wow, had to check weight and balance after a wonderful meal like that. ;-) Isn't it always the way? We had 20+ kt headwind on the way up and only 8 kt tailwind on the way home.

Add to that also that you don't have to change the oil every 25 hours if you use MoGas.

I couldn't believe that price as I don't think I've ever paid less that $2.00 for AvGas, at least in recent times.What you missed was ... Note: For all domestic flights within Australia, please note that (as per Government Legislation, effective 01 July 2014) Excise of 35.56AUD/1000L for both Jet fuels and Avgas, as well as 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST), must be added to the listed price. That adds another 20c per litre to your calculation. Flying in the major city areas may give you cheaper AvGas but once you fly into remote areas the price of AvGas can go through the roof whereas MoGas is much cheaper. Birdsville is a great example of that.