Jump to content

Replacement poll on RAA weight and CTA


Weight increase poll for RAA and CTA and Stall speed  

656 members have voted

  1. 1. Weight increase poll for RAA and CTA and Stall speed

    • Increase to 750kg only and 2 POB
      154
    • Increase to 1500kg and only 2 POB
      41
    • No change in current rules on weight
      39
    • Dont care on weight issues at all
      4
    • Yes to CTA access
      113
    • No to CTA access
      52
    • Dont care about CTA access at all
      41
    • Stall speed to remain at 45 knot max
      133
    • Stall speed to increase
      47
    • Dont care about stall speed at all
      32


Recommended Posts

Can the results from this poll be taken seriously? - what's to stop someone with an agenda from casting multiple votes?.

I believe once a member has hit the button to vote they can't submit again.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 passengers

Sounds like you have been speaking to Monk & Banfield. I had a similar discussion with Monk re instruments - interestingly very similar words - flying in CTA (including with fare paying passengers) is what I have done for for the last 35 years - the emphasis SHOULD be on on training to a standard NOT silly by-products.

 

Incidentally I (and many others) have been operating our LSAs into class C seamlessly since I purchased it over 8 years ago - currently only require a RPL (or higher) with relevant endorsements.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from terryc ................ "We do have two distinct groups 1. Raa 2. Ga. Why for the love of god do we want ti fiddle with it."

 

I agree, you agree, so why are so many people ( see poll) wanting to change R.A.A. into Pseudo GA, with Cessna's Pipers, 760kgs? CTA , access to controlled airspace, Transponders, ADSB (probably) Aviation Medicals ect., ad nauseum?

 

Please go somewhere else and play ( in a nice way, of course)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you have been speaking to Monk & Banfield. I had a similar discussion with Monk re instruments - interestingly very similar words - flying in CTA (including with fare paying passengers) is what I have done for for the last 35 years - the emphasis SHOULD be on on training to a standard NOT silly by-products.Incidentally I (and many others) have been operating our LSAs into class C seamlessly since I purchased it over 8 years ago - currently only require a RPL (or higher) with relevant endorsements.

Actually Frank

No 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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, you agree, so why are so many people ( see poll) wanting to change R.A.A. into Pseudo GA,

From my point of view constructing now, I can build a safer and cheaper craft somewhere between 650 to 700 kgs for 2 big guys, fuel and baggage to go anywhere without taking shortcuts and expensive materials/engineering.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk on the weight issue, even an aircraft that complies with its weight in it's category, still can't fly because it's wing load is out, so what is the wing load for each aircraft wanting to get heavier.

 

I wrongly thought a good 6+G/6-G wing loading would be a lot more safer, than making said wing so much lighter to conform to some mathematical formula, ending up with a 1G+ / 0G- ! with cloths-line wire to hold wing in place (wire-braced). AND the survival rate diminished to almost zero.

 

And what of the flyers that only want to do their flying at their home field & not going inter-state,

 

or big boy airport hopping.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The medical reasons (read insurance and ageing) is what the push from RAA to GA operations and weights is all about, the real problem is were trapped in this over regulated australian system, the kiwis system leaves it for dead i,m told but I still want less regulation not more so thats the bottom line for me.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
so what is the wing load for each aircraft wanting to get heavier.

More, but what's the specific problem you were alluding to?

 

And what of the flyers that only want to do their flying at their home field & not going inter-state,

or big boy airport hopping.

How does an increase in weight interfere in anyway with those people doing that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote from terryc ................ "We do have two distinct groups 1. Raa 2. Ga. Why for the love of god do we want ti fiddle with it." I agree, you agree, so why are so many people ( see poll) wanting to change R.A.A. into Pseudo GA, with Cessna's Pipers, 760kgs? CTA , access to controlled airspace, Transponders, ADSB (probably) Aviation Medicals ect., ad nauseum?

 

Please go somewhere else and play ( in a nice way, of course)

I can only guess the anwser, maybe they don't know that if they get cta through they will be required to meet all ga standards plus some more to fly raa rego'd planes in to cta. I think it would be easier to get your ga ticket and buy an raa rego'd plane that mets requirements and away you go. This of course you can do now and away you go. How could it be better or cheaper to change. Please explain to me the possible gain by changing. I'm prepared to be convinced.

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

evidence please. [not I saw one day]

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Gee I hope this is not the case, surly even CASA require some level of fact before they act.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to me the possible gain by changing. I'm prepared to be convinced.

 

Hi TerryC - For me it is the irrational inconsistency, as much as the convenience of being able to go through CTA.

 

I am fortunate I hold both a PPL & an RAA Cert - I can, if a choose, avail myself of the privilege to enter CTA. Any change in the rules will have little impact on me.

 

How is it that gliders, parachutist and trainee RAA pilots can operate in CTA ??? and a fully qualified RAA Pilot can not! This is just the BS exercise of power without any rational argument, much like the imposition of ASIC requirements on recreational pilots using RPT airfields (some of which are no longer so served).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

A bit off the thread but I see your point ,however as a 912 powered pilot (just a tad biased) surrounded by Jab powered aircraft and some very competent maintainers of same - I see Jabs as engines requiring comparatively extreme levels of maintenance and care to stay in the air.

These maintainers manage to obtain high levels of reliability (still well below 912's in my opinion) but at high cost in $$ & time (non operational).

 

Yous buys cheap Yous pays the price - somewhere!

 

It seems to me that without such dedicated and high levels of maintenance, the old Jab is indeed unreliable engine.

 

The dedicated and high levels of maintenance I see at my local airfield is unlikely to be found in every Jabs local - ergo Jabs by dint of their maintenance requirements are less reliable than comparable aircraft engines

 

So in my humble & totally biased opinion there is some reason/rational behind the CAA restrictions on Jab powered aircraft

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am fortunate I hold both a PPL & an RAA Cert - I can, if a choose, avail myself of the privilege to enter CTA. Any change in the rules will have little impact on me.

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Agreed. We are trying to create something that already exists for those who really want it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally Ian.

 

Just my opinion but if we increase weight limits, LAMEs are going to claim that they must maintain them. Also if we get CTA, CASA will most likely require aircraft using CTA to be maintained by LAMEs.

 

It would be very surprising to me if this would not eventually lead to ALL RAAus aircraft being required to be maintained by LAMEs.

 

The other benefit we (RA) have is a much more relaxed driver license medical than even the RPL driver license medical.

 

I can't see CASA allowing access to CTA/CTR without a class 2 medical.

 

For those who want those things, get an RPL and you have them.

 

Cheers. Bill

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see CASA allowing access to CTA/CTR without a class 2 medical.

For those who want those things, get an RPL and you have them.

 

Cheers. Bill

They do already with the RPL. You only need a class 2 medical to carry more than 1 passenger.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true Ian and Bill, I believe CTA should be able to transit with a transponder and nessecary training, as far as full access get a RPL or PPL as you guys say ! ( I have a PPL) . There a numerous safety cases for transit and two of these is Coffs Harbour and Williamtown, the alternatives can present some surprises. Transit is very easy and should not cause any problem for Airservices or RPT. Especially where transit lanes exist, Adding traffic to congested airports such as Bankstown could cause unnessecary grief for all RAA for the privilege.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also if we get CTA, CASA will most likely require aircraft using CTA to be maintained by LAMEs.

Don't just worry about CASA look at the new Tech Manual for instruments for CTA - our wonderful organisation Solely responsible. NOT CASA. I tried to have it changed but without success before submitting to CASA - and got the same comment as above re "mixing with the big boys etc"

 

People need to look at a couple of private agenda items of a couple of our representatives - too late once this rubbish is put in place.

 

I realise some are still supporters of the new push, but everyone should look behind the expensive advertising BS at what has been done and what is being planned.

 

I hope my view ultimately is disproved but I honestly fear for the long term effects of a couple of individuals on what used to be "our" organisation.

 

Ultimately it is the members choise and I only HOPE everyone seriously considers what they do next vote and more then <one tenth bother to vote.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...