ian00798

I say again, show me the statistics that confirm that a trained RAA Pilot is more of a risk than a GA Pilot operating in Controlled Airspace.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5474110/ar2014084_final.pdf

 

As per the report, RA AUS shows a significantly higher rate of incidents/accidents than their GA equivalents.

 

Including GA pilots. Having a CASA licensed is no proof that one doesn't behave badly. Your comments about local airstrips to controlled airspace is a little laughable and doesn't reflect reality or practicality.

Seems fairly practical to me. Near the Sunshine Coast you have caloundra and Noosa. Near Coffs Harbour you have Nambucca heads, Grafton and several others. Fly to destinations within the priveleges of your licence or go get the licence that lets you go where you need.

 

 

Well that doesn't work, there are lots of very busy class D aerodromes where you do mix it with RPT, like Sunshine Coast, Brooke ETC. ultimately if you are being issued a CTA endorsement it is been given to you assuming you could go and fly into Sydney straight after the test. If you can't meet that standard then you don't get the endorsement.

 

As for Ballina, yes if the one particular savannah that loves flying through the circuit area without making any radio calls at all keeps doing that then he will eventually become a hood ornament on an A320. That's not because of any complexity at the aerodrome, that's because people do dumb things.

 

 

You are denying these Pilots access to holiday destinations such as Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, and Coffs Harbour because of the perceived risk of collision with an Airliner?

All of those destinations have other aerodromes close by that don't require CTA access. That would be like me arguing that I don't have access to pine gap because there is a massive restricted area over it.

 

As for medical incapacitation in controlled airspace, it's not the case resulting in sudden death I'm worried about. It's the case resulting in partial incapacitation that is the bigger problem. Just look at the case of Stanley Keys where a heart problem lead to a more subtle type of incapacitation. That's the sort of thing that is more likely to lead to someone doing something stupid like entering a runway in front of an airliner or something. I think if your mixing it with passenger jets in a high density environment the medical standard needs to be higher than "I pinky swear there is nothing wrong with me".

 

 

It might be a medical standard but is it appropriate or reasonable?

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, are you?

 

 

Frankly I'm not a huge fan of glider ops in controlled airspace, I think it should be done OCTA and I strongly doubt most gliders would get a clearance into busy controlled airspace.

 

I don't know enough about the Camden traffic volume to comment on that.

 

 

I don't have a problem with training and endorsements (I have done that with my PPL). I do have a problem with requiring RAA pilots needing a PPL. I don't understand why there is the need for an extreme medical for recreational PPLs. What I am looking for is the same rights without the stupidity (nor the snide comments from the GA fraternity about RAA ill-discipline when a lot of GA have neither discipline nor manners)

I would hardly call a class 2 medical extreme, it just covers the fitness requirements to let someone operate an aircraft in the environment that a PPL is entitled to operate, ie night, IMC.... CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....

 

If you want to operate in the controlled airspace then you should meet an appropriate medical standard, simple as that. You are now potentially in a high density environment mixing it with passenger aircraft carrying hundreds of people, the travelling public have an expectation that something has been done to reduce the risk of pilot incapacitation.

 

I will support RA Aus CTA access when people in the organisation stop looking at it as a way to bypass the rules and instead look at how they can comply with the rules. Until then, the status quo should remain.

 

 

Of course you do. Nobody else could possibly have any idea of what they are talking about.

 

 

That may be, but it is nevertheless something required for class d that isn't required for class G. And then in class C you will also require a transponder, which is not always required in G

 

 

Well for number one the altimeter needs to be calibrated by an authorised LAME, not required for class G but mandated for class D

 

 

The equipment requirements for Class D / G areodromes are the same

No they're not. You may wish to pull out those books again and check your material on that one.

 

 

The airspace restrictions make no sense anyway, an aircraft / pilot who cannot operate from a controlled aerodrome can operate at the same aerodrome the minute the tower closes. Does this mean Class G airspace is safer than C or D?

Really?? I suspect it's got something to do with the fact that once the tower closes it becomes class G airspace and therefore the controlled airspace procedures, equipment requirements etc no longer apply.

 

Either do controlled airspace properly or stay out of it. It isn't a quickie endorsement that can be done in an hour or so by a mate, and frankly the standard of radio calls by some RA operators is nothing short of dismal. Until the required standard is reached you should not be in a high density environment.

 

 

True, but the increase affects both the Cessna and the Jabiru equally. The ABS also put the increase at about 4kg over the last 20 years which means a lot of people are lying on the census:

My intended point was that when the C172 was initially released, it quite possibly was genuinely a practical 4 person aircraft. These days it isn't unless you are very light on fuel. Also if you look at that graph with the average weights for the person coveraging flying age the difference is more like 6-8kg, and that's just in the last 20 years. The C172 was released 60 years ago. Even at a conservative 6kg per person weight increase, this is 24kg of extra weight, or 33L of fuel that can't be carried. That's basically an hour less range.

 

 

The useful load is listed on your link is 895 lbs. Over time the Cessnas have got heavier, both empty weight and gross and with bigger engines. The M model and earlier were only 150 HP and had an emplty weight of about ~1400lbs but the MTOW was only 2300 so similar useful load.

Of course the other thing that has statistically become substantially heavier from when the C172 was first designed and built is the self loading freight. I suspect that the useful load used to be much more useful back when your average adult weighed 75kg, not 90-100

 

 

I would probably use whatever technique the POH for that aircraft recommends for a short field landing. It's always going to be a compromise, for example a Cessna with 40 degrees of flap will give great aerodynamic braking which probably outweighs the penalty of less mechanical breaking. Something with less flap extension would produce a different effect. Ultimately this scenario doesn't sound like a fun time to become a test pilot, use the technique mentioned in the book.

 

 

The human factors training is not a gimmick. The material contained is very realistic and relevant, and I have seen a great deal of it in my time flying so far. You can pay it off as all been common sense and unimportant, but given you are a human being you are equally liable to encounter the human failings covered in the training course. It's very easy to sit there and say that guy is an idiot and I would never make that mistake, but a wiser person learns from it and realises that it could just as easily be them that made the error.

 

 

Exactly right facthunter. So many issues with mandating an untrained unplanned two person crew, be that person a PPL or CPL. Who is the PIC? What authority does the non PIC have? How are they going to manage and resolve conflicts? What duties does the second pilot fulfill? Way more issues raised than issues fixed.

 

 

Really why it worked for many years in RPT before even AUF or RAA existed in GA.

That's the problem, it didn't work so fantastically well in RPT. That's why training like crew resource management training was invented, as well as standard operating procedures designed around a 2 person crew. While it may reduce the possibility of task fixation by the PIC, and even that is a big may, it creates many other more problematic issues. Like I said, there is a very good reason casa made multi crew operations require a training course.

 

 

I think running an impromptu multi crew operation is a terribly dangerous idea. A lot of accidents are caused by breakdown in crew coordination, and that's even with the professionals. Multi crew needs training, clearly defined duties and also as per part 61, a multi crew cooperation certificate.

 

 

Controllers won't question it. If you call up requesting a clearance we will assume you are allowed in CTA. We are air traffic controllers, not the police. Of course if you mess up and we submit an incident report and you weren't supposed to be there you will have some explaining to do to casa

 

 

Do you know what is coming? Do you mean there "will soon be an RA-Aus IFR rating available at a town near you"?

I doubt it, but there are other organisations you can fly with that will also improve your RA flying and decision making as well

 

 

The great thing about training for IFR is it makes you realise how much you have to have going for you to safely fly in poor conditions, ie flight planning, aircraft equipment, pilot recency etc, so you are far less likely to push into it when you shouldn't because you understand IMC better.

 

 

While not knowing the exact details on what happened, if you end up in inadvertent IMC for goodness sake call ATC, you would be surprised how much we can help and sometimes it can just be because you have the calm voice talking to you which prevents poor decisions. We also have some very qualified pilots working as ATC who can help out. On the same day this unfortunate accident happened another pilot got caught in IMC just near Evans head, and he called ATC for assistance. He is now home alive with his family, that's how big a difference it can make.

 

I really don't quite understand the aversion to asking for help, yes you may get some paperwork but that is a much more pleasant outcome. And no matter how busy the controller seems, call up, the controllers will make you the new priority one.

 

 

Satphone, HF, relay through someone else....

 

 

Plenty of people flying into unmarked strips, I guess they are all on 126.7 or not making calls.

No, it means they are likely below the VHF radio horizon and as such ATC can't hear the broadcasts, as is the case at many aerodromes across Australia. I'm going to suggest something pretty wild here in that I'm going to suggest looking at an aeronautical chart, but pull out the PCA and have a look at the VHF coverage on the chart. There are large chunks of Australia where you won't get centre on VHF until you are at 10000 feet or higher.

 

 

There are decent chunks of Australia where you won't get VHF below 5000ft