Ada Elle

Base call helps with self-sequencing because it is about the same length around as the 3nm straight in final call. although, if someone calls 3mile final just as you're about to turn base, do you call base and cut in (with the circuits I fly, base+final is less than 3nm) as per your right of way, or do you extend downwind to follow the straightin?

If non-suspicious, why would it not be accidental?

1. ELP4+ is an ICAO requirement for all ICAO licenses. It's pretty reasonable to require it of all subICAO licenses too. All PPLs/CPLs/ATPLs getting Part61 licenses will need to do it. 2. The amount charged isn't CASA-dictated; Nobody and I have both paid a lot less than $200 (a nice round number) to get an ELP6. Getting an ELP4 is a lot more expensive. The amount I was quoted from another testing centre was less than $100. 3. Overseas student pilot English is meant to be at a certain standard (IELTS 5.5, or similar), and pass an interview with the CFI - so you should be having words with the CFI of the school with all the overseas students (or saying something to CASA). 4. The ELP6 assessment is essentially a radio practical listening test, which we in RAA land don't have (we have the flight radio theory test). So a CFI who has listened to you talk on the radio a few times would be well placed to sign you off, whereas a newcomer to a school might need the formal testing. CASA aren't picking on you.

Prudence would suggest more reserve, especially if other factors (cloud, local hills/escarpments - I'm looking at you, YWOL, etc come into play) but I was asking about the understanding of the law, not what was taught to students. (A personal mistake made with this involved an overwater crossing at 4000ft for glide safety, followed by a misjudged descent and spending 5 minutes circling to descend, during which time it got very dark indeed. My ETA at the destination was 20 minutes before last light, and I was within the vicinity of the circuit by that time, but actually getting on the ground took more than I budgeted for. I'm not making that mistake again.)

For the FE/CFI to get the training to sign the form, CASA charges $240. CFIs may or may not want to recoup some money for this.

I take that back; it's just confusing (because surface winds are different to winds aloft).

It's not even planning to be on the ground, though - unless you add circuit time to your nav planning (I don't). Not just confusing, but utterly and completely wrong in some instances. (the coriolis force question)

I weigh 70kg, and I am by no means underweight.

I don't know that I am, if it is not safety-related. You're not obliged to report every misconception that someone else has. Roundsounds is right about the AIPs. The usual answer I got was on the ground 10 minutes before last light, which is safe and conservative.

I learned in an LSA55, I know all about rudder pedals! I learned to fly RA, and I learned to fly in a difficult-ish plane with very good stick and rudder instructors. I'm very grateful to them for the skills they taught me at a very low price (I paid $150/hr dual - try finding a GA school that cheap!). but CTA is all about air law rather than actual flying skills, and this is where RA instruction especially falls down. I took an impromptu poll at the airfield one weekend about the rules about last light, and not one of the instructors (none PPL or CPL qualified) or RAA pilots knew what the actual rules about flying near last light were. they all had answers that were safe, conservative, and would not break the rules, but they didn't actually know what the CASRs and CARs specified.

For those in Sydney and looking for the cheapest way to convert (I didn't choose any of these options) Medical: $225 was the cheapest I could find ($75 to CASA, $150 to DAME) There is a school at Bankstown with Foxbats at $230/hr dual; may be useful if you have Foxbat experience so you don't need conversion 1 hr of instrument sim time: $120 CTA/CTX: out of bankstown/camden, probably a trip to Canberra at about 1.5 hrs each way ELP6 assessment: $90 I combined my GA conversion with tailwheel and unusual attitude recovery in a Citabria instead; I haven't done my AFR yet (will see if I can use the tailwheel endo when I get it as the AFR, as the rules stipulate, and finish the tailwheel when I do aerobatics training).

I agree, but we should be doing things without watering down standards - which is why I think the compromise way through is to allow independent instructors (GA CPL FIRs) to do the training and AFRs, in appropriate aircraft. As for inefficiencies, what proportion of RAA members are aircraft owners? Given that a large amount of RAA's costs and imposts relate to aircraft and schools, why charge pilot members such a large proportion of the organisation's income? (The RAA website says 10000 members and 3500 aircraft. The vast majority of the organisation's income is from membership - $1.4M out of $2.4M. If we increased aircraft registration costs and reduced membership costs, we would get more members from GA etc, and I doubt we would lose aircraft to the GA register.)

If CTA access was as important to your safety as you claim, I would think that you would have already paid for it. As it stands, it seems that what you want is not actually improved safety, but saving money on not paying for the training for an RPL with CTA access.

229kg payload, 2x70kg adults and 110L of fuel. or are you admitting to being on the portly side?

It's not a lot of money compared to how much everything else in aviation costs.

How many RA planes have a TSO AH? Also, I take issue with your 'most'. Of the 4 FTFs I've been to within 3 hours drive of the Sydney area, I've flown with 2 (out of 6) instructors with a PPL, and none with a CPL (although I've met two with CPLs but not flown with them). The better way, IMHO, would be to permit CPL Gr2s and above to conduct training independent of a school, solely for conversion training and AFRs, and to permit 24-registered LSAs to be used for RPL AFRs.

In other words, your objection is ideological. You don't have to do two BFRs; an AFR in an aircraft of 1500kgs or less for an RPL or higher counts as an RAA BFR. You don't have to pay anything to renew your RPL. The imposition upon you to maintain your RPL-based privileges into CTA are: - keeping your medical current - doing your BFR in a GA aircraft with a GA school rather than an RA school Assuming the medical isn't watered down, what you are really after is the ability to do a single BFR, in your aircraft, right? I am not denigrating the RPC. I have made comments about (A) the remarkably lax medical standard (B) the underwhelming theory requirements for junior RAA instructors © RAA's hands off approach to safety regulation in the past, without evidence that it has changed

All you need to do is arrest/fine anybody who brings a bag with them on evacuation (of more than a certain size)

What does 'want to be RA' mean? I don't have any tribal identity with RA. I just want to fly an aircraft that I like to places I want to go. I don't have any ideological objections to using an RPL or RPC to do so. Why would a pilot, flying an LSA or similar aircraft, not want to use an RPL to enter CTA? - fear of CTA - ideological hatred of CASA - expense of training - expense / inability to obtain a medical - inability to pass training If you claim it is for a safety benefit, and you're unwilling to pay an insignificant amount of money (compared to the cost of aviation in general) for the training/medical, then you're being unwisely frugal. (this goes for anyone who hasn't done unusual attitude training!)

Unlicensed, too many POB, and at night?

That's what Warragambah looks like. Yours looks like Lake Hume (which is, if you fly over the top, about an hour from YLIL I think)

http://www.austroads.com.au/drivers-vehicles/assessing-fitness-to-drive/for-health-professionals The UK standard for microlights and NPPL (which always must be signed off by a GP) is: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457961/aagv1.pdf

RA has access to CTA for a small amount of additional training. The issue is the medical for the RPL.

between UK commercial and Australian private? I've only briefly compared UK private to UK commercial, and Aus private to Aus commercial. the standards are lower - less time off after a major acute event, lower functional requirements, etc. for example, a month off after a stroke, vs a year off. (and no requirement for a GP statement after a stroke).

Canberra's a fair bit less than that (I think about $50 was what I budgeted for on my aborted navex there).