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.

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

It seems to me that there is a mismatch here. The reasons for these problems, and it's obvious to 90% of participants and 0% of the regulators, is the way CASA operates. The CAO which exempts "recreational" planes from the CAR (is it CAO 95.55?) is a big part of the enabling of RAAus to operate a much better operation than CASA could. GA operators see this and want a piece of the pie, hence the whole weight/CTA thing.Really, what is required is another set of exemptions for GA operators to break free of the CASA dungeon without troding on the exemptions won by the ultralight community. So some "other" set of exceptions for 600-2000kg, 3 - 4 pax, VFR private operators? The problem will be that, even if CASA agreed to something like that, is that it'd be far too much work for all 5 people left in GA to deal with. None of this would be required if CASA didn't bloody mindedly drop the ball for GA. But given that they have ruled out changing direction (as everything is perfect), I don't see any other way.

 

It's funny (or rather devastating) how the head honchos of CASA point to the number of members of RAAus and the quantity of operations in the same breath as saying that GA is alive and well in Australia.

Ian00798The RPL route is a no go for quite a lot people..the reason is the stupid medical requirements that that then gives NO access to any CTA. Example..how many pilots have had heart bypasses that your know.....BOOM sorry total exclusion....how many diabetics do you know on insulin (who mind you are probably a better bet than anyone who hasnt been checked and is waiting for the big day to come crashing down...most insulin diabetics have so much control over their bodies that most others dont even have a clue) ?...BOOM sorry total exclusion and many many more conditions..where you can seem to be able to drive a car down Pitt St in sydney yet not manage to run over people on the footpath or crash into cars or buildings.

 

Everyone agrees here that even for transiting areas of CTA you will need the appropriately equipped aircraft AND have done and passed a training regime to allow this to happen. So its not that easy to say just go and get a RPL or a GA licence..its far more complex than that

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.

I have no problem with your ideas Ian except as far as transit, it would allow a safer route especially Coffs , at no point do I think anybody should access CTA without training. Bear in mind Port Macquarie seems just as busy as Coffs and just a CTAF, the argument for Coffs being CTA is not really totally warranted most of the time I believe ! I realize what you do and you would be aware of the amount of traffic that transits Coffs, and it's my belief more traffic transits than inbound ! I truely believe Coffs requires a transit lane that is available to RAA, if pilots took nessecary training.

Coffs should not be controlled airspace !!!

As far as I can see GA pilots don't have to maintain currencyin CTA. Currently RA planes only need a radio to enter to enter Delta Space and only need a transponder in Class Charlie. If you can stuff a transponder into a Cri-Cri you could get a homebuilt into C with a radio. CASA is currently reviewing medicals and may relax a lot of rules depending on traffic density, built-up areas, length of flights, and aircraft type. There is a degree of snottiness from GA and sections of RAA towards the performance of RAA pilots which is unfair. I have a PPL (and RPC) but there are lots of RPC holders out there much better than me and with vast amounts of experience.

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.

Hi SD, you have what everybody else can have if they want. So why don't they go and get it rather than try to change things at great cost and to achieve the very same thing they can have now. Plus the additional rules and regs that will be added will affect all raa.

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

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.

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?

Actually FrankNo I haven been speaking to those people at all

They are my observations on things I have seen from pilots in our organisation whom I'd hate to see in a CTA going by the standards that they fly in a non controlled environment

 

As for the GA medical my thought on it is if they have to have it we should also as we will be sharing the same airspace

 

I'm with you on the training for CTA, it should be of a high standard and not some willy nilly endorsement

 

I try to be as professional as I can in my flying , ie thorough pre flights, latest weather, w&b, proper flight planning, flying correct hemispheres and so on for each flight I conduct

 

I've seen many a time in my flying career in both RAA and GA pilots basically kick the tyres and light the fires attitude taking a passenger with them

 

It dumbfoundes me how some can be so reckless in an environment that can be very unforgiving

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.

I think if we get CTA endorsement we should abide by the aviation medical standards as we will be up there playing with the big boys carrying fare paying passengersUnless of course CASA allows the commercial boys to fly under a drivers medical

If we want to play with the big boys we should abide by there medical standards

 

Quite frankly not a lot of us in our organisation are professional enough or disciplined enough to mix it with the big boys in my opinion

 

Ok bring all the bashing on about my comment, I'm big enough and mature enough to wear it

 

I've seen way too many cowboys flying in the RAA not that there is not cowboys in GA

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

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

You cannot excercise any ppl privileges in an RAAUs registered aircraft ( factory made or otherwise). You must have an RAAus pilot certificate as well.

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.

$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.

As far as I know AD's are applicable to GA aircraft only. Service bulletins are issued for RAA's fleet. CASA does not issue Aircraft Directives for RAAus registered aircraft.

An airworthiness directive issued by casa in Australia is exactly that, a DIRECTIVE. You comply or you don't fly.

I don't really know, however as the whole jabiru incident showed, casa issued restrictions/directives most certainly do apply to RA AUS aircraft

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

Isn't SIDS a manufacturers requirement, if so then there should be no way around it without manufacturers approval surely.

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

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.