Ada Elle

Does that mean that some people were flying into controlled airspace illegally on their RPLs with CTA endorsement?

Don't have all or any of the answers, but the constitution is a contract between the Association and its members, and the Association appears to be in breach here.

Most RA instructors I've met are excellent stick and rudder pilots, but some can just a little bit behind on the latest details of air law especially - and it's understandable; if you teach CPL air law to CPL students, you're more likely to be up on the content of all the AIPs than someone who teaches to the RAAus exam. My eyes glaze over at the contents of the PPL/CPL air law book that I have. (I had an RAA CFI tell me incorrect information about the ten minutes before last light rule, for example - erring on the safe side. I still don't understand the full details of the ten minutes before last light rule.) As for Soar - they had two foxbats when I drove past last week; one VH, one 24. Same in Bankstown. They bought the foxbats to replace the jabs.

There's a flying school at YMMB that has Foxbat LSAs. I can think of a good reason - RA instructors don't go into CTA that frequently, and don't necessarily have a solid knowledge of air law. Requiring the training to be done by CPL instructors (not necessarily part of a Part 141 operation) would be reasonable, I think.

So there should be no problem with getting some CTA training in your own aircraft, then doing a final endorsement training hour in a VH registered aircraft. As for double standards... has GFA ever failed a CASA safety audit?

There's a GA/RA school at Bankstown that has Foxbats - one VH, one 24. I don't know which aircraft students take ab initio, but the charges on the website are the same for both aircraft. You would presume that students would get CTX training with every flight. Does that mean that a student who had the 24 aircraft every time would need to re-do all the training in the VH aircraft? Doing the last part of the endorsement in a VH aircraft might be compulsory, but I don't think there's a requirement that every trip to controlled airspace has to be in a VH aircraft.

Well, my question was regarding PFLs over a property which has granted permission. Does the local government have any say in that if the wheels never touch the ground?

Thanks Don, it seems we are loudly agreeing. You say that you expect to see the minutes and resolutions register as part of your induction; shouldn't you be expecting to see the minutes and resolutions register simply as a member, irregardless of whether you have been inducted as a board member? Anything that you are seeing that I can't see is information which is illegally being withheld from members. The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the boss's job at last!

That looks like it covers YMND. What does that do to the parachuting operation out of there?

Does the council have the right to regulate what happens in the air above it? To what altitude?

That's not my point. My point is that these resolutions, according to the constitution, are available to all members, and that it's the secretary's role to make them available. Why should he silently be complicit with this abrogation of the constitution of RAAus and enjoy his position without working for the members by making them available?

Does that mean that these electronic board meetings you speak of have not occurred, or that they have not been appropriately minuted? Perhaps, instead of spending money on surveys etc, some office assistance to the Secretary for him to perform his role adequately would be in order. Or perhaps the Secretary should ask for this assistance. If you are able to see the Board Resolutions Register, why shouldn't the rest of us be able to?

Actually, I might be getting confused. Does anyone know who owned 24-7852?

Google says: 0410 275 048 IF you call them, could you followup here? They have very good prices for Jab hire, and not too far from Sydney.

Actually, no it doesn't. If, for example, you've ever had a kidney stone, you can't self-declare with GFA, or pass a RAMPC. You can, however, self-declare with RA-Aus. (Not that I think kidney stones should be disqualifying conditions, mind you.)

It's a flight review, not a flight test. You had hours for both flight test and flight review. Ok, I don't know what the costs of a RAMPC are compared to a Class 2. I can do RAMPCs, but I can't do a class 2. To do a class 2 I would have to take two weeks off work, do a $4000 course, and then be approved by CASA.

http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/EOF

What's the open sea takeoff panic button?

Is this from the school that put a J170 into Lake Burragorang last year? How do you find their aircraft? (I was tempted to go to them for an RPL on the cheap, but got so many recommendations for going to Camden...

In your 120kt RA-Aus aircraft? To be honest, I don't know what the training for a CPL involves, other than navexs to a higher standard, and general flying to a higher standard. Also, the CPL requires 140 hours flight time, including 70 PIC, in a VH registered aircraft. So I guess you could get a PPL, get those hours, get the training in your high speed RAAus machine, then do your flight test in the same aircraft registered VH. Seems pretty complex.

If you self-certify, you must declare that you don't have any of the disqualifying conditions (like the RAMPC).

Not leading to - but to give you a 'leg up' on the training. There isn't a minimum length of training for the controlled airspace endorsements; just that there has been training. So if you were competent before the training (due to informal training) the actual formal training should be short.

I can't find anything in the ops manual that says you can't be trained in controlled airspace by an RAAus instructor in an RAAus aircraft; and then when you go to the same person wearing their CASA hat, in a VH aircraft, you're suddenly astoundingly competent in controlled airspace procedures and based on the Part 61 competency standards, are eligible to receive the endorsement after a minimum of training! For example, if you did your RPC at a combined school at Camden, say, and then did a Part 61 conversion, what's to stop you from getting the CTX endorsement immediately?

It's likely to be historical accident, perpetuated by conflicts between RAAus and CASA (together with the cowboy perception). Secondly, the GFA medical requirements are stricter than the RAAus ones. Thirdly, I understand that glider pilots don't get the same class of controlled airspace clearance as GA pilots (block clearance vs route clearance). I don't know how this applies to motorgliders. Is flying a right in the same way that driving is a right - a right that can be taken away not for safety violations, but for not paying your train fares and fines? The LSA medical in the USA is more restrictive than the RAAus standard. In fact, of 4 medical standards for sport aviation (GFA, CAA NPPL, FAA LSA, and RAAus) that I have briefly looked at, the RAAus standard is by far the laxest. I agree that the RAMPC is essentially useless.

Are these particular meetings and votes minuted? I note that minutes of the in-person board meetings are posted on the website; but there is no record of board meetings in between the in-person meetings. However, there's nothing to stop a friendly board member from re-broadcasting notice of board meetings on a site like this. How does that work with Board meetings? I applaud you for that, but the next step - if you would be so inclined - would be for a board member (perhaps the person who proposed the clause) to pursue it actually happening, or to censure the Secretary if they have been lax in their duties? Obviously I should ground myself on the basis of visual field defect until I can see these resolutions - they must be in my blind spot! Maybe everybody else should too.