10,000 Feet for RAA - Uses and Threats

[Guest davidh10]

Thats correct - the difference in USA is because they have some much taller granite which VFR may need to cross. I think Canada & NZ have similar rules to FAA for the same reason.

I thought granite gave off Radon, not oxygen.

 

 

[frank marriott]

cant see a problem...plan to use hemisperical levels for cruise (Odds and Evens plus 500')...keep a sharp lookout...about time sanity prevailed.

I agree cfiare,

 

I do recommend that "some" RAA pilots should make themselves aware of area channels and the like. I know some with licences who are mates of mine that did their licence a long time ago that are not up to scratch with air leg.

 

It is not rocket science but a briefing [even informal] I would suggest would not hurt. I would suggest that aircraft [and I have heard them - RAA registered] operating at 9 and 10 thousand feet for no legal reason giving CTAF overflying reports. Some guidance would at least help to minimise the cowboy type statements that I continually see and hear.

 

A current ERC [low] I would suggest is a must.

 

I fly my aircraft on my RAA licence but from time to time get embarrassed by some calls that are totally wrong by people who are

 

intelligent people but flying outside their "comfort zone" or training.

 

It is pleasing to see the comments on "learning to fly" on this forum reflect the current schools are teaching a standard which reflect a similar standard to which I recall when I did my PPL 30 odd years ago.

 

Frank

 

 

[Ferris]

I've read many aviation articles as we all have, and done the human factors exams, both RA and GA. Here is the first mention that i can recall about hypoxia below 10,000, with the exception of night flying, and heavy smokers. These must be extreme cases for people to be suffering from hypoxia at below 10,000. Magazine articles would suggest that in the US they don't use oxygen much below 12,000 and the human factors syllabus mentions lenghts of useful consciousness at 15000. I must concede that I don't know the legal height for oxygen in the US, but they don't seem overly fussed below 12000.

 

A 10000' ceiling is absolutely fantastic for getting over mountains, a few clouds and just getting about comfortably on hot days, and I find the radio easier than below 5000 as you don't have to change frequency as regularly as when travelling through CTAFs. IFR traffic is on their level and VFR on ours, so if everybody is doing the right thing, there is adequate separation. The higher altitudes are great for going places in a hurry (if the wind's right).

 

Perhaps one area where more training will be required if the limit is lifted to 10000 is the IAS vs TAS and pressure heights. At lower altitudes IAS and TAS are very similar, at 10,000 there is a significant difference, and is a concern if an aircraft is being flown close to VNE. The RPTs can be a concern, however they are just as scared of us as we are of them. They hate going below 5000 because traffic can be coming at them from all directions. The RPTs seem to make their calls early, and a little bit of communication goes a long way.

 

The other big factor is the cold. It can be bloody cold at 10000 and you need a good cabin heater, oh and the scenery changes very slowly at that height.

 

Cheers Ferris

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Some comments re the use of radio point to a lack in understanding of the reg changes last year. I suggest we al have a look at CAR 166 and get up to speed on CTAF calls.

 

What is the vertical limit of "the vicinity of an aerodrome"?...anyone??

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Anyone at all.......

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Well, firstly I understand that there's no longer such a thing as CTAF - airfields are designated CERT or UNCR. Now the vertical limit - it is good airmanship to make a call whether you are inbound or transiting. For example, for aircraft operating at Camden, while it is Class D to (I think) 2000' AGL, it is recommended aircraft broadcast a transit call even though they are passing over the top of D airspace. I'd argue that in the vicinity of an aerodrome, there is always a risk of conflicting traffic, and one should always make a transiting call to minimise that risk.

 

 

[Dieselten]

No vertical limit as far as I am aware. I have wondered about the wisdom of that, actually.

 

 

[Thruster87]

Vertical Limits: ground level to any height above the designated aerodrome at which an aircraft may conflict with another aircraft that is arriving, departing, or carrying out local operations at the aoerodrome.

 

 

[Alpi]

3000Ft if my memory serves me correctly.

 

Greg

 

 

[motzartmerv]

GSA, nope, thats a common missunderstanding. Thruster got it right. ANY height that may conflict with acft arriving or departing, or any operations at the aerodrome. So if for instance skydive ops are taking place from flight levels, this would mean any height below that. Also with regards to RPT acft descending into the airfield from flight levels, not only does this put you in conflict with them in the 10 mile zone but much further out.

 

Smashing around on the fringes of the zone and not monitoring the ctaf AND giving calls as required is a big no no these days.

 

We all need to be very aware of the new regs and how they effect how we operate.

 

Casa has very cleverly removed from the regs many of the mandatory calls, and basically put all the responsibility onto the pilot to maintain a good listening watch and keep up situational awareness. And they have done this with one very clever line in the regs. " A pilot must give any broadcast to avoid the possibility of collision". So the only 'mandatory' calls are, entering a runway, entering a cct and inbound at BY 10 miles. The rest is up to us.

 

BTW, the vertical limit went out years ago...;)

 

 

[Alpi]

You're quit correct Motz, 3000ft and 5 nm is the height mentioned in Caap 166-1 as "the most hazardous area of an aerodrome" but is not a mandated limit.

 

The only reference is under the heading of hazards which states a minimum overfly height should be no lower than 2000ft. This is directed at general aviation pilots operating at aerodromes with runways of 1400m or more in length that may have turboprop or jet operations.

 

So effectively there is a minimum vertical limit.

 

Greg

 

 

[motzartmerv]

GSA, that is for overflying the aerodrome. Not a vertical limit for "the vicinity of an aerodrome"

 

cheers

 

 

[Alpi]

Thats correct thats what I said, overfly height. No other reference to a vertical height other than the 3000ft 5nm as "most hazardous area ".

 

Its a circuit overfly minimum vertical limit in that reference.

 

Greg