DrZoos

Yeh bloody great if you get a job out of it, terrible if your under the flight path...its not a simple issue and just cause the owners have the cash to develop it.... well i will leave the rest for debate of totally 100% impartial participant... thank god it aint over me , annoyed its not within driving distance, glad its good for our nation... as i said far from simple

Im going to wait this out while some other sucker fights with or beats CASA

The biggest problem i see is not the Regulations is the form for the flight review only has space for a VH- ____ rego to be entered ont he form.... ..CASA has not been able to say why it cant be done in an RAA despite several phone calls.. They continually state it cannot be done but when pressed they have absolutely no idea why??? As far as i can see...its a recognized type class aircraft...under part 61

Frank Iv never seen a fixed gear aircraft land with its wheels up...sure some have done a modification as they landed.. But i just couldnt justify the risk of failure by pilot or hardware, for the sake of 10 knots ... Especially given 99 % of our flying is local or short range The hassle of extra maint, extra checks , extra risk just cant be justified in my opinion a recreational aircraft, unless you where regularly commuting or covering long distances..

There are those who have retractables that forgot to lower the gear and those that will... I paid extra for fixed gear for a reason... 10 knots never equals $30000

Well im at a busy airstrip and never seen a CASA inspector ever...so your chances are about the same as tripping over your foreskin going to the bathroom..perhaps the consequences might cost you a little more.. id suggest they dont even know who you are or where you are

95 seems safer if suitable on anecdotal evidence... which is all we have to go by it could be worth contacting your fuel supplier to ask them specifically the differnce between octane degradation in 95 But for at least 10 years in competitive motor sport i have heard the same story over and over.... no problems with 95, lots of problems with 98 Mind you i have no knowledge of turbo applications... In my experience running 450cc moto bikes i have had plenty of dramas with 98 and none with 95.... ever lots of popping and pinging with 98...and never missed a beat on 95 Similar for my friends

The bizarre thing is CASA repeatedly says we need to do a flight review in the aircraft to be flown under the RPL So if i am to fly my aircraft why the hell does it make sense to do my flight review in Cessna 152 which i will never fly or hire. It makes sense to force us to do a heavy aircraft review ....eg a 172 or 182...but to require a flight review in a 152 is ridiculous at best and corrupt or insane at worst

I think Flight schools see RA-Aus conversion as a short term cash cow....hence the only way to cash in is to convince CASA they either need more training or need to fly CASA aircraft. If it can be done in an hour or two in an RA-Aus aircraft then chi ching is not going to happen see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/casadata/flt_sim/flying-traing-panel-minutes-august20-21-2014v1.pdf Trying to convince CASA of the difference between RA-Aus deficiencies and GFPT

Clearly you have more experience with this then I.. however i do have a good interpretation of the law and how it applies. Im well educated and particularly with this sort of issue and how to resolve it... But my point is and remains..ok you say it has to be done "this way" show me where or why. And after a solid week on this CASA is yet to show me legislation that supports much of what it is saying about the Transition Process.. They are absolutely making shit up... The laws that have gone thru do not state what CASA is saying.. Granted there may be clauses hidden in areas i am not aware of... but if they are CASA has no idea where they are either...

Yeh rounds i take your point its not u v me or others... but its just everyone including CASA who say you cant do XYZ has no idea why ?? they claim its in the legislation but i have spent a week reading the various legislation's, calling CASA and asking people why and absolutely no one can quote why??? If it is infact banned or allowed then there absolutely must be some legislation stating why.... I hope you can see my point re PPL use of CTA implies a CASA privledge is excercised while flying an RA-Aus aircraft

Rounds about... rhysmcc has a huge point.. You absolutely must be exercising a CASA licence priveledge to fly in CTA previously ...sorry but your argument is floored I really think you have made a huge assumption that is wrong.. and i dont say that lightly as i dont like using this language In fact i rang CASA today and two people said the RAA aircraft cannot be used for the flight review...but when challenged as to why, they where absolutely stumped. I asked them to check with their supervisor...again they came back saying no, but could in no way state why.. when challenged as to which rule said no , they went back to the supervisor who again could not state why..... so they forced us to write to them... When i asked i i should consult Taraya the answer was a reasonably stern "No" "I need to consult my supervisor" ...Is she nearby "Yes"....could i talk with her? "No she has no more idea on this then us " " our supervisor is the person to consult".... When you have called them 20 times like i have the last week , you will realise that even CASA has no idea how the transition works...they are absolutely clutching at straws and I would go so far as to say they have pre-concieved ideas how it works and are possibly even making things up and telling people ringing them , that is not in the legislation. When or if i get a response i will let you know.

Hows this for a contradiction of other clauses ??? 61.480 Grant of recreational pilot licences in recognition of pilot certificates granted by certain organisations (1) This regulation applies to an applicant for a recreational pilot licence if: (a) the applicant holds a pilot certificate, granted by a recreational aviation administration organisation that administers activities involving aircraft of a particular category; and (b) the certificate permits the holder to act as the pilot in command of an aircraft of that category. (2) For subregulation 61.475 (2), the applicant is taken to have passed: (a) the aeronautical knowledge examination; and (b) the flight test; for the licence and the associated aircraft category rating. Subregulation: 61.475 Requirements for grant of recreational pilot licences (2) Subject to regulation 61.480, the applicant must also have: (a) passed the aeronautical knowledge examination for a recreational pilot licence and the associated aircraft category rating; and (b) completed flight training for a recreational pilot licence and the associated aircraft category rating; and This in my opinion possibly indicates we dont even need a flight review ??? Although other clauses say we do??

This is well debated...many will say that 98 degrades to a lower octane then 95 over a period of weeks in unsuitable storage. I know plenty of high performance bikes racing on 95 because 98 cant be trusted even straight from the servo....where as if they tune for 95 its usually pretty close

If it where in nsw we wouldnt even be dicussing it, because there could be a tree frog 100 miles to the west, a flying fox that drops by and the aircraft landing might fracture rocks hundreds of meters below the non existent ground water...plus we would have to get some gst back from some other state to pay for it.. And even then we would have to study it for forty years, pay at least five times its cost to consultants to decide it needs investigating, have five cost benefit analysis done that take so long they become useless , get an epa done then redo the cost benefit becuase the epa took so long, and insulate every home in the area, .then we might get some back hand deals done by some labour mates who could all retire on govt pensions because they did some dodgy deal with family and sold it to a mining company that they own shares in.....ah ya got to love QLD at least they get shit done...

95.10 (b) the aeroplane must not be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level unless 1 of the conditions set out in paragraph 6.2 is complied with; 6 Provisions relating to flight height limitations 6.2 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (b), the conditions 1 of which must be complied with for an aeroplane to be flown at less than 500 feet above ground level are: (a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing; or (b) the aeroplane must be flying: (i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and (ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road; or © the pilot of the aeroplane must be engaged in flying training and the aeroplane must be flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of the Regulations, authorised low flying. So whats wrong with 501 foot? Technically Maybe there was a termite mound ten foot tall so he was 490 above terrain

Also the legislation to allow part 61 to fly ra aus in 95.10 is currently with the senate ..its been tabled on sept 12 th and should be signed off very soon. Additionally i contacted RAAus and CASA have already made a public statement to say in the transition period rights of CAR 5 licences etc will be inferred as approved under part 61... So technically if you where extremely unlucky you might come out with an insurance issue, but its crystal clear CASa wont be policing this issue. "The outgoing Director of CASA, John McCormick, in his speech to CFIs regarding the impending Part 61 rules stated” anything you could do under the CARs will still be permitted under the CASRs”, meaning while Part 61 will result in changes, there will be no loss of privileges in the transition."

I did notice some minutes of an august meeting where they are aware of some of this confusion and they have a nov 4 th deadline to have some flyers or info on making the transition process clearer, in particular the flight review process

I have called casa a lot and they are lets just say .....not across this very well...they seem to know all about how a new pilot goes from nil to rpl...but no idea when it comes to transitioning...call 3 times, get 3 different answers

Please find and quote where it says that they can only exercise a priveledge of one licence at any given point in time

The way you are interpreting the law would also imply that a Pilot certificate holder who also holds a ppl cannot fly in controlled airspace. Because to do so they would be operating using their ppl priveleges and thus not under the ops manual allowed to do so...

Round sounds i disagree. The new regs entirely change the rules. an RAA aircraft is fit for both type and class An instructor with both RAa and GA instructor rating is not breaching any rule. And under the MOS and 61.245 an instructor neer only use an aircraft fit for type and class... Nothing precludes that. There is no actual cluase in MOS part 61 or 95.10 or 95.55 that says or implies a dual qualified instructor can only exercise one priveledge under RAA or GA.. Your assuming that your interpretation is correct...and i think your completely wrong. There is nothing that says a GA priveledge, endorsement or RPL flight test can not be conducted in an RAAus aircraft. It simply infers that a ga instructor without raa licence cannot fly the aircraft.... Please supply a quote of what actually states that one must wear one hat or the other while flyng.....

Your dead set right. Para 6.4 d 1 and e needs changing to include part 61 Unless there is something in the part 61 legislation that says it effectively replaces parts of the old legislation

If this is correct we need RAAus to change this asap or our aircraft fleet will be at a massive disadvantage for resale...and not able to be used for what it should be able to be used for...is anyone across whether they are doing so

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...