5 to 10000 feet?

[frank marriott]

I know RAA is in the process of trying to get 5 to 10000 ft approval for RAA registered aircraft.

 

I believe this would be a good thing.

 

They are also trying to get CTA approval [with relevant endorcement.]

 

I also read members and hear members flying between 5 and 10000 ft as if it is a right (I do know the exemptions before someone jumpts on them as an excuse).

 

Surely to convince CASA that we are a responsible group then compying with the rules as they stand would be a good start - even if you don't agree with them.

 

I have a current CPL and certified instruments in my aircraft and as such use CTA regularly.

 

If I fly a VH registered aircraft I fly to 10000ft but if I fly my own RAA registered aircraft I stick to the CURRENT rules.

 

The regular breaches to these rules can only support the alleged "cowboy" attitude attributed to all RAA pilots of which I am one.

 

Complying with the CURRENT rules is the only way I can see us moving forward [no political pun intended]

 

Stretching the exemptions to the limit is like stretching a rubber band - it is only so far you can stretch it before it breaks and comes back to sting you.

 

I will be interested to to read fellow RAA pilot comments>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Frank

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Frank

 

Just a scenario for consideration. When flying away from the coast, perhaps in areas where melb/bne center coverage is poor below 5000 would you consider it prudent, under RAA rules, to fly at an altitude >5kft where area Rx/Tx is sufficient that a listening watch and or an emergency/advisory broadcast could be made? I know the rules dont allow it, but having been in those locations its surely a consideration. Of course in the majority of those areas the likelyhood of even seeing another aircraft is akin to winning lotto ket alone there being one on freq to relay for you both ways.... I know that the rules based approach would be to say use the PCA to identify those areas and then dont go there, however in practise radio reception is rarely as universal as the PCA chart would have us believe. Also fuel+reserves may not allow anything but a direct route.

 

As with most scenarios there is the rules answer and the practical answer...as is often the case they dont necessarily conincide.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

For inland regions where the terrain could average 2500-3000 feet, and where RA training takes place, it is prudent/safer to fly over 5000 feet AMSL (e.g. practising stalls where you need to recover above 3000' AGL). In this context, it could not be argued that any pilot was deliberately flouting the rules.

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

When flying inland in summer with lots of "bumps" it can be better to fly higher than 5000ft. I for one admit to doing that when this practice will result in a smoother flight. When doing it though keep in mind flying at correct altitudes and broadcasting your trak on the relevant area frequency.

 

Most of the time though I keep well below tha 5000ft limit as I believe most/all of us do as flying high is not as much fun anyway.

 

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hey guys with the attitude of 'professional prosecutors' i'd be wary of admitting anything online. might attract yourself some problems.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Frank. There is provision in the rules. As you have mentioned. I put it to you that not using the exemptions and buzzing around at tree top height when you could quite legally go up is much more of a "cowboy" act. There is a big difference between using an exemption and flouting the rules.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Individual situations can be argued forever with little outcome - the answer is obvious - the sooner the rule change can be achieved the better for all and it will no longer be a contentious issue.

 

Frank

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

RE: rule changes. This and all the others changes have been going on FOR WAY TO LONG. it is criminal by both parties. it is time to start upping both the RAAus and CASA and get them to get on with it. If RAAus can't flex our 10,000 plus membership then maybe it is time for us to do it ourselves. And don't give me that might 'lose our privileges' crap.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Right on ozz.

 

 

[Thx1137]

I have read a few claims where people went over 5000 because of bumps and thought that was ok. Last time I looked I only saw an exemption for "unfavorable terrain clearance". It seems to me the interpretation of this is pretty flexible sometimes!

 

 

[Thx1137]

Easier to stick it up em if the playing field is level. It isn't, casa can make us go away, we can't make them do the same...

 

I do agree that we, the membership, should try though, it is beyond a joke given it's approval state.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

been a bit of talk that if the liberals swing in that Bob Katter will become Minister for transport and that will be a very good thing. This guy will sort CASA out real quick. have your letters ready to post to him if it goes this way.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

been a bit of talk that if the liberals swing in that Bob Katter will become Minister for transport and that will be a very good thing. This guy will sort CASA out real quick. have your letters ready to post to him if it goes this way.

Year... and gun ownership will become compulsory:laugh:

 

Sorry, but this just cracked me up But then you are just stirring, aren't you Ozzie!

 

I really cannot see Bob signing a "coalition" contract that effectively has him joining the organisation he left to become an independent. Supporting, by guaranteeing to pass supply and no-confidence motions and maybe a few other things deemed critical; Much more probable.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Wasn't there a hint in the magazine some months ago that good progress was being made and 10,000' may materialise by the end of this year? After all, even CASA thought 5,000' made no sense.

 

The reason it got dropped, as I understand it, was because the draft regulations included CTA access and John McCormick pulled the plug# on CTA access after commencing as CEO of CASA in 2009. 10,000' was just caught up in that because the regs would have to be re-drafted.

 

As a new pilot, I wondered why the RA_Aus Ops manual mentioned a CTA endorsement, when no legal ability to use it existed. The explanation I received was that it was added in preparation for the, at the time, impending rule change.

 

One of CASA's published reasons for supporting the change from 5,000' to 10,000' as a ceiling for recreational aircraft was

 

• The rule was "obsolete and generally ignored"*.
   
   
  

 

 

* Excerpt from CASR Part 103 proposed changes in the RA-Aus Notices (find "5000" occurrences in the page)

 

# Published letter from John McCormick to RA-Aus

 

 

[Thx1137]

Flying above severe or even moderate turbulence is good for Human Factors and the safety of the aircraft. It would be a brave official pinging somebody for being between 5,000 and 10,000 ft where there was any reasonable reason to do so.

Not really. If conditions aren't suitable we have the option of turning around, diverting or landing until conditions become better. So, we do have legal options even if they are aren't options we want!

 

 

[Gibbo]

The way I read it..

 

I can break the 5000' exemption if I can not glide clear of terrian in case of engine failure. Just because you have the ground level at 450' it does not mean that it is safe to land.. The nearest 'safe' landing spot could be 20 miles away. Height equals time and effective communications.

 

I admit I tend to do it a lot when travelling over central australia where there is no infrastructure or land devolopment. The ground may look ok but if you have ever walked it you would think differantly. A paddock is not always as smooth as a golf course or a plowed crop. I have a habit of flying from paddock to paddock no matter where I am after a couple of close calls with the ever reliable jab motors.

 

Would love to hear other views on my habits and belief's.

 

Personally I have taken a jab to 9500' west of alice over the McDonald ranges as the nearest clearing (no rocks etc) was almost 30k away. The cabin heat went on on a 30 degree day. lol I also tend to follow the ERC-low recommended lowest safe altitudes.

 

Gibbo

 

 

[Thx1137]

The way I read it..I can break the 5000' exemption if I can not glide clear of terrian in case of engine failure.

 

Gibbo

Thats the way I read it too. Being a stickler for the rules (even crappy ones) I think to myself. "Hmmm, if I go over here I will need to be at 7000 for inhospitible terrain clearance but if I modify my flight plan to the SE and increase travelling time I can stay at 5000..."

 

This to me is where I don't like the wording. There is probably never a _need_ to go over terrain in Oz that requires reaking 5,000. But, there is that provision so when should we use it? If going around the terrain means an extra 5 hours? 1 hour?, 5 minutes?

 

If it is completely up to PIC then there is no point having the rule at all :-)

 

 

[Yenn]

What I have noticed is that some of those pilots who say they go above 5000' have no idea of the current rules. Around this part of the country they are well into E airspace and they don't have transponders, nor do they seem to stick to the correct quadrantal levels. Just bloody cowboys, giving us all abad name.

 

 

[eightyknots]

When flying inland in summer with lots of "bumps" it can be better to fly higher than 5000ft. I for one admit to doing that when this practice will result in a smoother flight. When doing it though keep in mind flying at correct altitudes and broadcasting your track on the relevant area frequency. Most of the time though I keep well below tha 5000ft limit as I believe most/all of us do as flying high is not as much fun anyway.

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

Hey guys with the attitude of 'professional prosecutors' i'd be wary of admitting anything online. might attract yourself some problems.

My presumption is that Walter has only admitted going to around 5,001 feet. Nowhere do I see him explicitly admitting to any more than that!

 

 

[ahlocks]

Reckon esteemed regulator would be more impressed with us having a radio if we venture above 5000 ft...i_dunno

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

Quite correct 80 knots,

 

I was flying at 4999ft and hit a thermal - took me over 5000 ft for a split second before I could react!

 

Instantly though I slammed the stick forward to avoid smashing into one of the millions of GA planes

 

that where filling the sky at 5001 ft. - pew! that was close!

 

Fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[JG3]

A had an experience that makes never fly right at 5000 ft again. I was riding in the right seat of an Aero Commander courier flight from Horsham to Melbourne. The pilot requested IFR at 5000 and was granted permission, with the usual, ".....no IFR traffic..." I watched him very closely, and for the entire flight I never saw him do a scan out the windscreen! It took quite awhile for him to adjust and synch those twin engines, then he was busy filling out paper work. The only time he did look outside was to check on a thunderstorm that was just off our track, but he never scanned the rest of the horizon. I think that procedure is fairly common for aircraft flying IFR, and not expecting VFR aircraft to be at that altitude.

 

5000 ft is the lowest commonly used IFR flight level, and is used quite often for such short flights. When it says that we must be under 5000 I think that really means that our max altitude should be 4500.

 

JG

 

 

[Tomo]

Absolutely JG!

 

If I can say it, you should never fly at 5000ft - IFR traffic don't necessarily have to look out the window (they should, but they think it's all under control!) - Trafic control tells them of other aircraft in the area - but only if that other aircraft has a transponder and squawking do they know they're there.

 

I've been with a pilot doing IFR in IMC at a lower level. (when I say lower level it wasn't under 5k ft) But you don't want to come out of a cloud and into an aircraft flying in the clear. If they have a transponder, and squawking, they can be spotted and pointed out to aircraft.

 

If you don't have a transponder (and even if you do - even if it isn't Alt encoded - at least they still know you're there) ensure you stick to the VFR cruising levels. So it is 4500ft or 5500ft. I know they aren't necessarily necessary under 5000ft, but I wouldn't cruise at 5000ft S/L on a fixed heading.

 

 

[robinsm]

If you fly to Armidale in the states north, the elevation of the airport is 3550'. The 1500' overfly will put you above 5000'. I regularly fly over 5000' above highland tiger country to be able to glide to safety. I do have a radio so I don't, in these circumstances, see it as an issue.

 

Just my 0.05c

 

Maynard

 

 

[Gibbo]

I've got a great photo that proves that IFR is just plain dangerous to any other pilot...

 

I won't post it as it will identify the pilot but basically he's sitting back reading a newspaper at 7000' feet almost asleep, while the autopilot did the work for him. GA-8 on the mail / worker replacement / milk and bread run between a couple of stations in Queensland.

 

By the way he has over 10k hours.. ATPL etc. Flying outwest can get pretty boring at times!

 

STICK TO THE CORRECT LEVELS and use the radio. He might be coming the other way (and he does get around a bit!).