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?

Without wishing to pre-empt anything here, it is common practice not to release details if a non-suspicious fatality is not thought to be accidental

But the bit that still erks me the most is us being told to travel to an examiner and pay $200 for the level 6 english (to ensure we can understand poor english)

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).

Having said that I find it hard to believe all instructors would not know the rule about planning to be on the ground at least 10 minutes before last light because it is in the air law exam given out by RAAus and I'm sure every instructor has marked that exam many times.

I meant to give you the link. Enjoy. http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/avquiz/

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

The more of your descriptions I read about these disgraceful RA instructors that you seem to have found, all apparently congregated within your stamping ground, the more I am convinced that you are absolutely law-bound to take positive action.

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.

Since RAA has had the plastic fantastic fpeople want more gadgets, faster and heavier machines. Safety is about sharing experience and knowledge and not taking risks.I will also tell you without any doubt the hardest student is an ex GA person trying to convert to RAA ! The hardest part is to get them to use the rudder pedals for what they were designed for not footrests !

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).

Ada your point is valid (in the grand scheme) but that doesnt mean we should accept gross inefficiencies or expenses where expenses dont need to be...this is not out of self interest.....I can easily afford to pay...but having money does not make you immune to not wanting to waste money or more importantly see others who cannot afford it have to waste money, or have to miss out because they cannot afford it ....and saved dollars... for the thousands of pilots that come thru behind us we should be insisting these gross inefficiency or inequalities do not exist...

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.

At an empty weight of 371 Kg ans MTOW of 600Kg, Does it really need two seats?

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.

RAAUS ought to consider fighting to get the conversion process back under its wing and fight to make the RPC more equivalent especially for non low hour pilots... perhaps over 100 or 150 hours or similar. After all we already have most FTS's with GA / RA experienced instructors that hold PPL and many had significant CPL or Airline experience... surely within RAAUs we have the skillsets to achieve such a simple conversion

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.

Ada Elle has been belittling the RPC in many threads so this is nothing new. Harsh? Perhaps, but can you explain the rationale for me to be required to hold two licences to fly the same plane under certain conditions. Remember, I have an RPL so it's not that I am against getting one. It is just that I believe RA should have the same endorsement if it satisfies the same requirements as the RPL.

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

Up until now, evacuations have always been "passengers only", and no carry on baggage.I suppose somehow, the passengers thought it important enough to get their priorities right

No, RA does not have access to CTA. A pilot with an RPL and endorsement, or a PPL for that matter, may fly an approved RA aircraft into CTA as long as they have the RPC to fly the RA aircraft. Those are GA qualifications. That is where the anomaly lies. The medical has nothing to do with it. That is another matter entirely. In past posts it sounds like RA pilots are RA because they can't get a GA medical. Most of us are RA because we want to be RA.

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)

If it is correct that we only need a month off after a stroke and no requirement of a medical sign off, I would be astounded. If so this needs to change but that can still be done in the current system of drivers licence medical. That would be a glaring ommision also in the drivers system not just flying.

A person should not drive for at least four weeks following a stroke.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457961/aagv1.pdf

Licence refused or revoked for 1 year following a stroke or TIA, Can be considered for licensing after this period provided that there is no debarring residual impairment likely to affect safe driving and there are no other significant risk factors. Licensing may be subject to satisfactory medical report including exercise ECG testing

RA should have access to CTA and in the very near future I'm sure they will be given that privilege for those who are prepared to undertake a small amount of additional training.

And these are the functional differences between DVLA Commercial and Australian standard driving licence.

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).

Nev not sure on Sydney but Brisbane is $300 or thereabouts depending on the time so not to bad considering what actually stops you going there is the holding that you inevitably get.