10,000ft actually available now?

[rdarby]

A lot of people on the forum are talking about having gone above 5000ft on the way to or from Temora.

 

I haven't seen any announcement about it actually being fact yet.

 

Is it? I would have expected something on the front of the RA-Aus website about it.

 

Thanks

 

Ryan

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

http://www.raa.asn.au/ Right hand side below the heading "CAO's released"

 

And 10,000ft won't ever be available t available - 9500ft is the maximum

 

 

[Ultralights]

just a disclaimer, i am a PPL holder.. as for RAAus certificate holders, im not sure yet, same boat as you, havnt seen anything official yet, but i havnt been looking either

 

 

[rdarby]

I've read the second CAO there which seems to be the three axis one, and I can only find the 5000ft limit.

 

 

[farri]

I`ve always expected that any official changes made to the Regulations governing RAA registered aircraft, be made known to us by RAA, as part of our operations manual.

 

If we havn`t been notified, I would expect the current ops manual to apply!

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

The answer is yes for CAO-95.32 (I didn't check the others, but assume they will be similar), but you should obtain information like that from an authoritative source, not heresay from a forum. Read the RAA Ops manual and the newly released CAO relevant to your aircraft registration.

 

Hint... You will have to compare the previous CAO to the new one, as it is a clause that has been removed, not one that has been added which releases the restriction.

 

You should also read the thread "10,000 Feet for RAA - Uses and Threats", as there are a list of other considerations for flying above 5,000', which many of us did not concern ourselves with while it was verboten.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I`ve always expected that any official changes made to the Regulations governing RAA registered aircraft, be made known to us by RAA, as part of our operations manual.If we havn`t been notified, I would expect the current ops manual to apply!

 

Frank.

Well unfortunately, the law has changed, even if RAA hasn't notified us (actually they have in a way, by publishing remarks in the magazine that "it should be declared by now."), and as we all know, many offences against aviation regulations are "strict liability", which means you are guilty whether you knew about it or not.

The Ops manual did not create the restriction, so a change to the CAOs was the only thing needed to remove it.

 

Actually, I'll go a step further and say that RAA has done nothing to prepare its certificate holders for flight above 5,000' except to say "it's coming" and "it should be here by the time you read the magazine." I think that is a failure of the "safety management system" that they are supposed to be developing.

 

I started a thread ( 10,000 Feet for RAA - Uses and Threats ) some months back and a number of other members chimed in with their thoughts as well, but that is currently the only guidance AFAIK, and of course it is unofficial, but such things should provide pointers for people to make their own inquiries.

 

 

[Owi]

http://www.raa.asn.au/ Right hand side below the heading "CAO's released"

Jeepers, mate. Although I did download and look through them, the way the links are presented on the website is hardly going to get people curious enough to WANT to look and see. A quick summary to explain what information to expect from the link would've attracted more attention. Also, having to compare CAOs to extract a bit of vague info is not going to make the new rules clear. We're aviators, not lawyers or politicians (most of us, anyway!).

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Year, Owi, It isn't easy, but that's just the structure of the legislation, as it stands. We all have to work with it.

 

It will be better when CASR Part 103 is enacted, as that is supposed to have all the rules in one place for sports and recreational aviation, but at present we have to deal with the CAOs.

 

Believe me, I have no legal training, and it took me a couple of hours to go through the 12 pages of CAO 95.32 comparing the old against new, word and phrase by word and phrase for each provision to analyse what had changed. I still need to follow a few references back into other parts of the legislation to determine the nature of a couple of the changes that have occurred.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Jeepers, mate. Although I did download and look through them, the way the links are presented on the website is hardly going to get people curious enough to WANT to look and see. A quick summary to explain what information to expect from the link would've attracted more attention. Also, having to compare CAOs to extract a bit of vague info is not going to make the new rules clear. We're aviators, not lawyers or politicians (most of us, anyway!).

I agree - but don't shoot the messenger

 

David - its CASR Part 103 that is supposed to have all the sports aviation rules

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...David - its CASR Part 103 that is supposed to have all the sports aviation rules

Thanks John. I've corrected my post.

Funnily enough I wrote 103, then thought I'd double check and looked at the current NPRM..oops looked at the wrong one. I have both 91 and 103 that I've been reading in my spare time

 

One thing that may help people navigate the new CASR legislative structure is what CASA have titled, the "Map of all CASR Parts". It is a diagrammatic representation of all the Parts and how they link, along with a table of their titles. I decided some weeks back to print it on an A3 sheet and pin it on the wall at work to glance at or use as a reference from time to time.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

No problem David - its great that you are making such an effort to review the NPRM & I hope you will be responding to Part 91. Although it theoretically shouldn't have much to do with recreational flying once Part 103 is implemented, it does set the tone for what we might expect if theres another draft of Part 103.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Owi]

I agree - but don't shoot the messenger John

Heh-heh, John.

Sorry, I do have little tendency to shoot first and apologize later. Not aimed at you but more a general comment about how user-unfriendly that is. It looks as if it was published without any thought to presentation. I don't know if the site is professionally managed or kept by volunteers but it could be better presented.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[youngster]

Having read the new regs, I am surprised that anyone can make head or tail of any of it. There are so many references to other regulations and legislation that you would need to have 15 windows open on your desktop in order to understand any of it. I work for an MP and deal with this sort of stuff all the time, and these regs take the cake for complexity. I thought rec aviation was about reducing red tape and complexity?

 

One query some of you experts may be able to answer: As a non-flyer (this situation is soon to be rectified), I do wonder why the stall speeds in the regulations are specified at MTOW, when it would be impossible to actually put the aircraft in a stall at MTOW as you would burn at least some fuel getting off the ground and thus be below MTOW by the time you are in the air. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Having read the new regs, I am surprised that anyone can make head or tail of any of it. There are so many references to other regulations and legislation that you would need to have 15 windows open on your desktop in order to understand any of it. I work for an MP and deal with this sort of stuff all the time, and these regs take the cake for complexity. I thought rec aviation was about reducing red tape and complexity?

True, but these are drafted by CASA and then written by the Attorney General's Dept.

 

One query some of you experts may be able to answer: As a non-flyer (this situation is soon to be rectified), I do wonder why the stall speeds in the regulations are specified at MTOW, when it would be impossible to actually put the aircraft in a stall at MTOW as you would burn at least some fuel getting off the ground and thus be below MTOW by the time you are in the air. I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

While true in theory, the amount of fuel you burn to get off the ground compared to MTOW is insignificant.

 

The reason stall speed is specified at MTOW is because the speed increases with increased wing loading, thus the quoted figure is a worst case in straight and level flight. Of course as soon as you bank, the "G Force" increases the wing loading and thus also increases the stall speed. At a 60 degree bank, the stall speed will be 1.414 times what it was in straight and level flight. Calculating that is part of the BAK that you will be studying for your licence / certificate.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

No problem David - its great that you are making such an effort to review the NPRM & I hope you will be responding to Part 91.

I lack both the industry experience, and time to embark on a full review in the available response period. My review is for my self education and awareness at this point.

 

Although it theoretically shouldn't have much to do with recreational flying once Part 103 is implemented, it does set the tone for what we might expect if theres another draft of Part 103.

My thoughts exactly.