Jump to content

ian00798

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    420

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ian00798

  1. ian00798
    I was more referring to the potential issue of an incapacitated pilot hitting buildings on the ground. A 1500kg C182 at 140+ knots has a lot more energy than a 600kg jabiru at 90 knots. Not to mention the 182 has 3 times the fuel, twice the passengers, and possibly may be doing IFR. I may not agree with the casa risk assessment, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. And ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere.
  2. ian00798
    I think ultralights got away with it because of the weight, a 500kg ultralight has a lot less potential to cause damage than a 1500kg C182
  3. ian00798
    And that would probably be the ideal, let private and recreational GA self administer like RA with more reasonable medical requirements that keep in mind they aren't taking the paying public up flying. As soon as you start wanting night, IFR, multi ETC your entering the professional domain and as such different rules start to apply. The reality of course is that casa will never let that happen.
  4. ian00798
    I understand that the GA route has different and tedious medical requirements, and I wouldn't doubt for a second you are probably as fit as most of the pilots to fly in CTA. However if we want to get into a discussion about the effectiveness or lack thereof for avmed then I think we will need another thread. However the reality is even if casa was to grant RAA access to CTA it won't be on a drivers licence medical as exists now, it would require something more along the lines of what is needed for the RAMPC for the RPL. So the reality is it won't really open up CTA to anyone that doesn't already have the access. Frankly I disagree with the medical standards changing between CTA and OCTA, however the reality is casa won't budge on that one.
  5. ian00798
    Actually radar is quite often relied on at Coffs, and coverage is quite good. However we still need 5 miles separation on radar or 1000ft. Pull out a map of the Coffs control zone and see how much of it 5 miles takes up. If this lane you propose goes around the harbour at 500ft agl how is the aircraft launching straight off runway 03 on upwind going to go? For the lane to be accessible to RA AUS it would have to be OCTA, and they aren't going to put an uncontrolled transit lane OCTA on the upwind threshold of a runway with 737s firing off it, that would be truly dangerous. If you truly want to transit Coffs, go get a RPL with CTA approval and it won't be a problem. Like everyone else has to do.
  6. ian00798
    I don't really think Coffs could do a transit lane as easily as you think, it is already a very very tight piece of airspace and the room just isn't there. With a jet or two going in and one trying to come out, which isn't at all unusual, throw in a transit or two and you just run out of space, especially since with the mountain range to the west we lose half the places we like to send our traffic. If runway 03 is in use a coastal transit lane just won't work either, and that's why there is a control zone there, it gets very busy and complex very quickly. There are very few places I have scared myself controlling, but Coffs has had my heart skip a few beats every now and then.
  7. ian00798
    I don't think anyone has a "snotty" attitude towards RAA in CTA. What people have an issue with is people thinking it will become a shortcut to access CTA with little to no training. The standards will need to be as high as they are for GA pilots and the equipment and medical requirements will have to be the same. So basically the avenue already exists through the RPL route. Why should the rest of RAA that don't want to use it have to pay when there is already a system to allow that? Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? RA pilots with the appropriate training will be every bit as competent as a GA pilot, so go and get the training if you want the access.
  8. ian00798
    I strongly disagree with only a transit approval. Either you can do CTA properly, or you can't go in there. No part endorsements. And as a previous poster mentioned, there is a system for getting a proper endorsement, and that is get the RPL. If you want to argue that on occasion the weather makes having to stay OCTA difficult then do the proper training and get the appropriate endorsement. I don't buy into the whole argument that somebody is going to get themselves in trouble with weather because they can't enter CTA. As a pilot you comply with the conditions of your licence. I'm not type rated on a 747, so I don't fly one. If your not endorsed in CTA, stay out of it. If the weather catches you out badly one day, declare a pan and ATC will give you what you need. Be a pilot in command, not a passenger with a control column in your hand.
  9. ian00798
    Agreed. We are trying to create something that already exists for those who really want it.
  10. ian00798
    They answer to a minister who ultimately answers to public opinion. Ultimately they will make the facts match what they want, just look at the whole jabiru engines debacle
  11. ian00798
    Doesn't need evidence. There just needs to be a perception and casa will act on that and deem it to be in the best interest of the public that they take action.
  12. ian00798
    Hard to get less regulation though when people are abusing the system as it is. How are you going to convince casa RA needs more priveleges with less regulation when we have some people blatantly ignoring/abusing existing rules, including some of the more reasonable ones and then having accidents?
  13. ian00798
    Agreed, although it's not just RA guys that need to improve the standards. It's time for calls like "down and clear" to disappear and the correct call of vacated the runway/s to be used in the correct CTAF format. As for the medical, I would be more a fan of the RA medical becoming the standard for up to PPL day VFR, as soon as you want to do more then class 2. My experience from most RAA guys converting to RPL is that CTA/CTR takes at least 10 hours, so it's not something that can be done in a short time period. And we owe it to the air traffic controllers and other users of the airspace to do the endorsement properly. More than anything I'm sick of RAA people who think RA is a way to avoid the rules of the sky. I have seen people doing interstate navs with no notams and no forecasts because "that rule doesn't apply to RA" amongst other things. And we can't really blame the pilot, its what happens when you have a system where mates give endorsements to their mates and it's nothing more than a paper endorsement, bad habits become entrenched. Every pilot should constantly trying to improve every time they fly. I would really like to see RA flourish because it's a great way to fly, but if we constantly end up with a higher accident rate then casa will shit it down.
  14. ian00798
    Plenty of big boys in the airspace we play in already. Places like Ballina, Armidale, emerald etc all have plenty of heavy metal flying in there. CTA just means there is sufficient volume that it's considered necessary to have someone stopping them hitting each other.
  15. ian00798
    Agreed. You would think any regulation issued by the safety regulator would by definition be a safety regulation, so the two different types is rather unnecessary. Ultimately it all descends from the civil aviation act, which is basically what gives casa its authority, the regulations are basically how casa meets its responsibility laid out in the act, and things like AIP etc are the day to day how we do things etc
  16. ian00798
    Not quite. You can also fly a foreign registered aircraft in Australian airspace. If you then wanted to fly the foreign registered aircraft overseas you would need the appropriate countries licence
  17. ian00798
    This start getting very contentious. That is correct as per the position of the RA AUS board. However, when you look at the privileges of a PPL (A), it allows you to fly any aircraft in the airplane category provided you hold the appropriate design feature endorsements and meet the general competency rule. On a PPL, you can fly an American registered aircraft, and the aircraft of another countries register while in Australian airspace. Frankly if you can fly an aircraft from a totally different country register, then it's not too much of a stretch to suggest you can fly an RA aircraft which is ultimately operating under a casa exemption anyway. Having said that, I have no intention of being the one to test this theory as I can't afford lawyers that good, and you would be operating without insurance doing it as well.
  18. ian00798
    $1400 is a lot, however even if we get CTA approval your still going to need to do a training program to get CTA access, which I believe will take at least 5 hours, probably more for those who don't learn as quickly. That gets pretty close to $1400 fairly quickly anyway, and in all fairness if you want CTA access, then it should be you that bears the cost, not the rest of the organisation who have no interest.
  19. ian00798
    No. Casa issues airworthiness directives for all aircraft operating in Australia. They apply whether RA, GA, glider, whatever. RA has to operate under casa regulations with the only difference being those listed under the exemption instrument. For example, RA AUS aircraft still have to comply with the control cable replacement AD.
  20. ian00798
    An airworthiness directive issued by casa in Australia is exactly that, a DIRECTIVE. You comply or you don't fly.
  21. ian00798
    I don't really know, however as the whole jabiru incident showed, casa issued restrictions/directives most certainly do apply to RA AUS aircraft
  22. ian00798
    Whether the SIDS program is reasonable or not would be a totally new and protracted thread. In Australia they are subject to an AD, and as such mandatory whether RA or casa registered
  23. ian00798
    100% correct, basically my understanding of the process with sids is Cessna recommended the inspections for the aircraft, and casa issued an airworthiness directive making them mandatory. With the exception of the extensions applied for private ops, no SIDS means you are no longer in compliance with the aircraft certificate of airworthiness, and hence no longer airworthy. This would still apply if the aircraft was on the RAA register.
  24. ian00798
    I doubt that the existing RAA medical is going to cut it for guys that want CTA access anyway, so I really don't think the RPL is that much more of an imposition
  25. ian00798
    I can't help but feel there is already a process in place to get access to CTA for RA AUS pilots, and that is by getting the RPL with appropriate endorsements. That way the cost is spread to only the members that actually want the privileges and those who don't want/need to access CTA don't have to pay the cost for it.
×
×
  • Create New...