600kg.........To be or not to be

[airangel]

I continue to wonder if the much discussed 600kg auw, [where permitted by the manufacturers specs], is a myth,

 

 

[Admin]

Should be released within the next 8 weeks...600kg, straight over water and 10,000ft

 

 

[Guernsey]

Wowee!!! Some good news!!!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It will be great if it actually materialises this time.

 

I think I'll start a thread to discuss uses and perils of 10,000 feet. I'll return and link it here.

 

 

[Ultralights]

as with everything else to do with CASA, dont believe it till its done.

 

 

[Yenn]

Amazing. I have just gone through the "Democracy" thread and I wonder if I am on the same forum. Don't you people who want 600kg realise that you are the cause of the high cost of recreational flying. Ouch, I just bit my tongue instead of getting it out of my cheek.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Amazing. I have just gone through the "Democracy" thread and I wonder if I am on the same forum. Don't you people who want 600kg realise that you are the cause of the high cost of recreational flying. Ouch, I just bit my tongue instead of getting it out of my cheek.

So you can tell us the actual cost incurred by RAA to peruse this privilege, authoritatively, as a percentage of all expenditure over the period it has been perused? That would put your assertion in perspective.

 

 

[facthunter]

The weight debate has to have elements/assertions to it that rate as the biggest furphy ever. 10.000 feet, controlled airspace, higher stall speed C/S props. retract gear, ADSB mandated radio, flight over built-up areas, etc.. Just about anything I can think of is more contentious and potentially costly than a simple weight increase which CAN easily be justified on safety grounds alone as well as the potential to BUILD our own simple planes out of common materials, and cut costs, Instead, It's the ONE thing that it seems we are NOT getting. Can't see the LOGIC in some of this. Just an arbitrary decision from above, it seems. Nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

In the Feb '11 issue, Mick also speaks about the new rules also including "operations in restricted airspace relaxed".

 

What's to be more relaxed? I went through the operations manual and I can't find any specific rules for restricted airspace, other than needing to check NOTAMs. (duh!)

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

There was mention made of possibly being able to transit restricted military airspace (presumably with prior approval) as an alternative to inland routes over tiger country.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

bass id interpret it as possibly new VFR transit lanes through the restricted airspace?

That would be the suggested VFR lanes through controlled airspace.

Restricted airspace is a different matter altogether and I would be very surprised if Mick confused the two!

 

In some ACTIVE restricted airspace, PPL+ can get a clearance to go through it, something we can not do now, at at least I suppose we can't, I can't actually find anywhere we can't. Maybe if you were to get a clearance, it implicitly becomes controlled airspace, which we can't use?

 

We'll wait and see what gets released in "less than 8 weeks", if it's still not clear, we'll have to ask Mick. (Or Zane!)

 

 

[winsor68]

if it's still not clear, we'll have to ask Mick. (Or Zane!)

Good luck with that...

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

There was mention made of possibly being able to transit restricted military airspace (presumably with prior approval) as an alternative to inland routes over tiger country.

That would make sense. Not an issue here in SA, we have very few romeos that get in your way, and most are in tiger country! (or over water)

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

In some ACTIVE restricted airspace, PPL+ can get a clearance to go through it, something we can not do now, at at least I suppose we can't, I can't actually find anywhere we can't.

It's in whichever is the relevant CAO for your aircraft "the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area that has been designated in the AIP as a prohibited or restricted area at such times as any such prohibited or restricted area is active"

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[tvaner]

From memory, there was also mention somewhere in the mag of an updated operations manual being released later in the year.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

It's in whichever is the relevant CAO for your aircraft "the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area that has been designated in the AIP as a prohibited or restricted area at such times as any such prohibited or restricted area is active"

True enough; I did find that but of course did stop to think that actually implies no clearance can be obtained. If it doesn't say it can, then you can't. Also doesn't allow a PPL in a 95.55 aircraft to obtain such a clearance.

CASA moves in mysterious ways...

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It's in whichever is the relevant CAO for your aircraft "the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area that has been designated in the AIP as a prohibited or restricted area at such times as any such prohibited or restricted area is active"Cheers

 

John

But since that was enacted, CASA has introduced the latest changes, from "Airspace reform", in November 18 releases, by classifying Restricted airspace into categories to indicate the liklihood of being able to get a clearance to traverse while Active:-

 

• RA1 - You can plan on getting a clearance through it when Active. NOTAM will indicate if this is not the case.
   
   
  
• RA2 - Don't plan on getting a clearance if Acive, but tracking may be offered by ATC on a tactical basis.
   
   
  
• RA3 - Clearance is never available when Active except in an emergency.
   
   
  

 

 

One might ponder that if you have a clearance it is not Active for you? Some of this stuff is as clear as mud, when you have to search all regulations to see if anything contradicts!

 

Fortunately, I have no current or anticipated need to traverse any restricted areas, so in CASA's own words, "if in doubt treat a restricted area as being RA3." (directly from a CASA Safety Advisor at a recent seminar.)

 

* Category definitions paraphrased from December issue of Flight Safety Australia

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

But since that was enacted, CASA has introduced the latest changes, from "Airspace reform", in November 18 releases, by classifying Restricted airspace into categories to indicate the liklihood of being able to get a clearance to traverse while Active:

That's only a new way to indicate likelihood of getting a clearance; clearance was always given if available, but our CAOs don't allow us to ask for it.

Unless that changes, even with the new RA1/2/3 categories we won't be allowed in active romeos.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Also doesn't allow a PPL in a 95.55 aircraft to obtain such a clearance.

That is quite correct but it may not have been intentional !