Controlled Airspace

[docjell]

Apologise for mauling the quote DJ but done for ease of reply.Testing your requirements to see if RA-Aus pilot with CTA endorsement could achieve without doing full PPL

1 An RA-Aus pilot could do that and demonstrate to an examiner. PPL not required.

 

2 No medical will give a guarantee of no infarct or stroke not even the CASA medical.

 

(There is probably less chance of an infarct where a person has either had bypass surgery or stents

 

but a medical assessment above the Drivers Licence may well be warranted.)

 

3 Not a big deal to achieve for those that want it - just expense - No PPL required

 

4 Radio not an issue and acting appropriately comes from training & testing - No PPL required.

 

As far as I can see it just needs a properly set up CTA endorsement and an aircraft approved for the purpose. Of course, VFR only.

 

PPL not required on basis of above analysis?

No problem with quote mauling Don - adds to lively discourse!

 

We'll have to agree to differ on this one - I know of several RAAus pilots whose presence in CTA would worry me more than somewhat, but perhaps those who wish to use control zones are a self selecting motivated group anyway and would thrive on the extra training. Perhaps also I've only had limited RAAus exposure so may be biased.

 

Two points you make I must take issue with however

 

• Of course no medical is a guarantee of anything - except that at the time of the medical the examinee is not suffering from previously undiagnosed problems such as diabetes or hypertension, both of which are very significant risk factors for coronary artery, cerebrovascular and renal disease. If I arrest and deposit my Sportstar in a field out of town, I'm not having a good day but hopefully I'll be the only casualty. If it happens over the Townsville CBD and my Sportstar takes out a Greyhound bus full of young backpackers their grieving relatives have every right to demand why on earth I wasn't required to have a class ll medical like others in the airspace. Medicals don't provide guarantees - they just load the dice favourably.
   
   
  
• You state radio is 'not an issue' - it most certainly is a major issue in CTA. By this did you mean that the training and testing in the correct, fluent use of VHF was not an issue rather than the use of radio itself? My PPL training was in the UK which is one big CTZ effectively so the use of radio was second nature and a useful survival aid!
   
   
  

 

 

Cheers

 

Chris Jelliffe

 

 

[youngster]

Andy that is very true. There is a tower establishment and disestablishment criteria but it doesn't always seem to be applied. Sometimes I wonder if the towers are established where air traffic controllers might want to live and work!

There can be political interference as well, ie, a local council lobbying to keep a tower to boost the "prestige" of their airport, etc, or a strong lobby group in a particular area playing the "safety" card. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency.

 

 

[Ozbeowulf]

I have an RAA license and have also reactivated my old commercial licenses, primarily for access to the Townsville CTA. But the difference in hire costs between RAA and GA aircraft is astonishing. I can drive 50 minutes south to Ayr and rent a nearly new Jabiru for $143 an hour. I can drive for 5 minutes to YBTL and pay $230 an hour for a 30+ year-old C-172. For me, it depends on the mission. To take my infant grandsons for a fly, I need to take another adult along, too. Otherwise, I use the Jab.... even though I don't really trust Jabiru 2200 engines over much. While flying first one, then the other aircraft, I have noticed that Jabs and C-172s are very much alike. Similar cruise speeds, climb performance, shoulder space, etc, plus they are both annoyingly nose-heavy with only two adult males aboard. With similar performance and such a price disparity, the Raa bird comes out on top most of the time.

 

 

[coljones]

• Of course no medical is a guarantee of anything - except that at the time of the medical the examinee is not suffering from previously undiagnosed problems such as diabetes or hypertension, both of which are very significant risk factors for coronary artery, cerebrovascular and renal disease. If I arrest and deposit my Sportstar in a field out of town, I'm not having a good day but hopefully I'll be the only casualty. If it happens over the Townsville CBD and my Sportstar takes out a Greyhound bus full of young backpackers their grieving relatives have every right to demand why on earth I wasn't required to have a class ll medical like others in the airspace. Medicals don't provide guarantees - they just load the dice favourably.
   
   
  

 

 

Cheers

 

Chris Jelliffe

The CTA is designed to protect airspace and aerodromes, not CBDs. I can't fly over the Sydney CBD because of the overlying airspace associated with Sydney Airport but I can fly over most of the other major CBDs in the Sydney basin. Included in my overfly areas are the major motor ways in the Sydney basin. Under my RAA ticket I can legally clean up any number of Greyhound buses and a few highrise at Parramatta, all without a medical. In a lot of ways, crashing at Sydney airport will have a low impact (sic)

 

In a lot of CTAs the traffic is peaky and it may well be that there won't be any traffic density for longish periods during the day/week. In that event what is the issue with giving clearance subject to traffic density considerations?

 

In a lot of other cases all that is being sought are transit rights, where under a request and grant system might be achievable with no impediment to aerobusiness or lack of safety if vectored at times and over locations with low impact (sic).Victor 1 in Sydney is a good example of what can be achieved with a bit of smart thinking.

 

The big problem, of course, is that PPL without CTA endos are hard to identfy, and the same would apply to RA tickets. So the answer would be to clear both the plane and the pilot (with CTA endo) into the CTA, not just VH and trusting that legit GA pilots are flying the R planes.

 

Perhaps the new board should, as a first pass, work on seeking transit routes and lanes of entry through troublesome CTAs in conjunction with the department of infrastructure, schools, clubs and members.

 

Airport access I will leave for another diatribe. (but I do wonder about the D space density there)

 

Cheers,

 

Col

 

 

[Tomo]

The big problem, of course, is that PPL without CTA endos are hard to identify

And you bring up another good point, just because you have a PPL might not mean you are certified to fly in CTA/CTR

 

 

[Willborne]

Shags, a new Tecnam Sierra, well set up, would cost what $150k? A 30+ year old C150 is worth ?$25k?What they save on operating costs they might lose on finance and capital costs.

Zane is currently Asst Ops Manager and not an elected Board Member. He may well be our new Ops Mgr but, far be it for me to speculate on that.

 

Still not a Board Member though.

To my knowledge Mr Tully is still only the Ass Ops Mgr and should not automatically be appointed to Ops Mgr. This position should be advertised openly as there are plenty of potential candidates that could give the current Ass Ops Mgr a run for his money.

 

 

[Mazda]

Shags, there are much higher costs in GA. For a GA flying school to operate they need an AOC, which could cost $10,000 or more. They need an Ops manual which must be approved by CASA, and CASA charges an hourly fee. They need CASA to approve a Drug and Alcohol Management Plan. To operate as a flying school they need a CFI, and the qualifications required for a GA CFI are very high. CASA must approve a particular person to be a CFI. If the CFI leaves, the school cannot fly, they must shut down until CASA approves the new one. Because GA CFIs are highly qualified, they are usually quite well paid. The amount the school can do depends on these qualifications, so a CFI might only be approved for the school to teach to PPL for example.

 

The aircraft are not in private category, they must be in the minimum of airwork category and may be in charter. They are maintained by qualified LAMEs, who charge a high hourly rate for their expertise. All the aircraft are on a particular maintenance schedule and it isn't cheap. Add required instrument checks and ADs, routine maintenance for aircraft flying at night or in IMC. The instruments in that case are required to be certified to a particular standard, and they are expensive. IFR GPS units have databases which need to be updated monthly and the subscriptions are expensive.

 

The purchase price is higher. If you are talking about new, a 172 would be about $300,000. Most schools these days have a mix of old and new, some all new, but those aircraft really were built to last.

 

The fuel costs are higher, bigger, heavier aircraft with bigger engines use more fuel, and they use aviation fuel.

 

Even the most basic of the GA instructors does 50 hours of flying for the instructor rating (more than double the RA requirement), and they do this on top of a CPL and NVFR or CIR. So each instructor has outlaid many tens of thousands of dollars to train you. And all of them pay for Class 1 medicals every year.

 

It is because of all this money spent on training, aircraft certification and maintenance, that you are able to do night training, instrument ratings, aerobatics, multi-engine and so on. Also remember the instructors need additional approvals to be able to teach some of these, so that again means more money.

 

Operators flying from the bigger controlled airports have higher costs for hangarage, parking and landing fees, or if flying IFR, for enroute fees. Landing fees are based on weight, so even if RA operators are at the same field, the landing fees are lower. It even comes down to hangarage. Simply due to size, it may be possible to fit more RA-Aus aircraft in the same hangar space.

 

Then in the training, due to the syllabus, you need to fly more hours for your training, again adding to the cost.

 

In a nutshell, it is not a level playing field.

 

 

[Mazda]

It might go a bit deeper than that Black Rod Who is going to teach it, if RA-Aus pilots are not able to do it in the first place? Does this mean the RA-Aus instructors will need PPLs, or CPLs? Some will be able to do it of course, but perhaps some won't. Wouldn't this ultimately add to the cost? Remember, if an RA-Aus instructor currently only needs a total of 95 hours, and a GA instructor needs 150/200 hr CPL, min NVFR plus 50 hour rating, let's say realistically a minimum of 250-300 hours, is it any wonder the costs are higher?

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

As you say, Mazda, some RAA CFIs would be able to provide CTA training. They don't all hold all of the RAA endorsements either.

 

 

[shags_j]

Makes sense Mazda. Thanks.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mazda, since when is the requirement for an raaus instructor only 95 hours??...did you forget somethings?..or purposefully leave them out to make a point?

 

I see where your coming from, and agree with you, but keep it real..;)

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's interesting, I wonder what the legals would be if there was a collision.

Regarding this post it seems the situation is a lot more serious than I thought, with people saying they do it, and apparent non compliance by Tower Controllers.

 

You realise that when you do something which you know to be wrong you face prosecution under the Crimes Act, so Manslaughter etc. if an accident occurred.

 

This would also apply to a Tower Controller who also knew that what he was doing was wrong, and particularly to any CASA supervisor who told the Tower Controller to assume any RA was qualified.

 

The only exception to this would be if an emergency had been declared.

 

So while there's nothing wrong with having a discussion on a practical proposal to put to CASA, there's been no official wink or nod from CASA that it's just around the corner so you can do it now, or that it will ever be allowed.

 

Just be careful when your life and freedom are on the plate.

 

 

[robinsm]

If you want to fly CTA, get a ppl and a certified aircraft. Recreational flying is designed to be precisely that. We have victor 1, the sydney basin vfr lane, and other lanes around the country for access through some areas. I get the impression that some, and I dont mean you guys of course, are just trying to get around the medical requirements and expense of getting fully cta equiped.

 

Just because your aircraft cost more that a 172, a warrior, or the mortgage on the space shuttle, and goes faster, doesnt give you the right to ignore, or try to circumvent the established rules. I think some people are getting away from the aims of the Ultralight, sorry - Recreational Flying - movement, which is to enjoy flight in a less regulated environment, in smaller aircraft that rely on your own expertise to maintain and service, than GA.

 

Remember people, the idea of our sport is to enjoy flying, without big brother regulating the crap out of us, not to compete with the big end of the sky.

 

Why would I want to compete with a 747 or other faster aircraft for airspace, when I have the whole of Australia, minus a little bit around a few cities, to play with.

 

If you want CTA etc, thewn maybe its time for Raa-Aus to think of splitting and letting us enjoyment types get away from the pissing contests that some are attempting to start.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It would be interesting to see a real risk assessment done on RAA CTA access. Much of what I'm seeing as argument against, is short on facts and big on subjective statements.

 

While I'm not pushing for it myself, I can understand the reasons put forward by some who have indicated a desire. None of those reasons included a need to carry more passengers or to engage in air-work, so I don't see any desire for competition with "the big end of the sky".

 

Nobody advocating for CTA access is suggesting it be compulsory for all RAA pilots. Indeed, that would be rather pointless if their aircraft were non-compliant or they had an aversion to the idea.

 

We've been around the loop before about general increases in costs... Costs associated with a CTA Endorsement, including a periodic medical and aircraft compliance can easily be applied only to those applying for the Endorsement. Indeed, as Motz pointed out, there are likely to be only a few FTFs able to offer the endorsement, so anyone wishing to gain it would likely also have the added cost of travel to a qualified FTF. I don't see any evidence of a big rush for the majority of RAA Pilots to apply for a CTA endorsement, should it eventually become available.

 

While most endorsements are permanent awards, CTA could be set up as having a two year expiry with a requirement for a satisfactory skill review as part of the BFR. As an example of special conditions for a specific endorsement, I'm currently training toward a Formation Endorsement. That is only being offered on the basis of an annual formation flying review plus a specified annual minimum number of flights in at least four-ship formations. An unsatisfactory review or failure to demonstrate the minimum annual participation will result in the endorsement being withdrawn. I think that is quite reasonable, given the inherent risks specific to formation flying. (These are not the only conditions, but provide an example of endorsement conditions that are specific to that endorsement... it is possible).

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So Don

 

Dick Smith may be able to provide pointers on how to achieve those minor things......oh hang on, he didnt achieve them when head of CASA ......still RAA may be able to achieve what the head of CASA wasn't :big_grin:

 

Andy

 

P.S all tounge in cheek.. some of those things might be achievable, some like reduced CTA areas...well...good luck with that, and times? well given we are daytime VFR I dont see any reduction in times being of great benefit to us.

 

 

[turboplanner]

To exercise its duty of care CASA has to be sure that aircraft transiting CTA are qualified. To do that the tower controller currently has, or should have the VH registration to decide if he has an incursion on his hands. I'm aware that already that's in some doubt, so before this progesses some form of immediate and unmistakeable definition is required, so maybe it could be registering qualified pilots in qualified aircraft VH. Right now they're sitting out there on a razor blade.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Point to think about - PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY

 

Getting a clearance from a tower does not give you the right to use CTA if both you and your aircraft are not qualified.

 

When obtaining a clearance it is understood that the pilot and aircraft qualify - PILOT's responsibility not tower.

 

Same with CASA BFR/AFRs - the pilot must have the indorsement in his logbook - a copy is not sent to CASA as is the case with RAA.

 

If a CASA inspector finds someone operating in CTA without the relevant qualifications and a current medical and CASA BFR then they are in for a lot of hurt.

 

Frank M

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

If you want CTA, go GA.

 

I don't see why people are so determined that RA should have the privileges (in this case, the word is correct) of GA without the extra requirements of GA. You choose RA because you want cheap fun recreational flying, which is fantastic, but you also choose it knowing that along with that benefit comes some restrictions. If you don't like those restrictions, then clearly RA, as it's designed, isn't for you.

 

You can't have the best of both worlds. It's either cheap and fun or more expensive but with more options.

 

 

[old man emu]

How is this for stupidity:

 

Camden Airport is in Class D airspace from 0700 to 1600 daily. The airspace extends from the surface to 2000'. Above that is uncontrolled airspace to 4500' where the Class C Airspace begins. The Class D Airspace at Camden is a circular area with a 2 NM radius. There are river flats just outside this circle of airspace where there is sufficient length to get any RAA type, and many GA types of airplane airborne.

 

Isn't it stupid, that I can legally take off in an RAA heavier-than-air craft, from a strip that is just a bit more that 2 NM from a control tower; announce my activities using the same radio frequency as that used by the tower, but be prohibited on pain of Eternal Damnation, to do the same thing 2 NM away.

 

I'm quite happy to stay under the airspace steps on my way out of the Sydney Basin, and maybe even stay under 5000' for the rest of my journey, but I resent being barred from using safe facilities because of a 2 NM ring of exclusion.

 

OME

 

 

[poteroo]

I'm voting with Black Rod on this.

 

RAAus needs to be careful that asking for more and more is perhaps going to raise the minimums bar. Let's not tempt fate!

 

I believe that RAAus should be seeking more VFR lanes through current CTA/CTZ. This eliminates the need for half-baked 'endorsements'.

 

These could be routed in such a way that aircraft need not fly above 501' AGL, and need not make any voice contact with ASA on VHF,(but monitor the frequency), provided that they carry a TXP with C and have it operating on ALT. In other words - a passive operation through the airspace where both parties,(you and ATC), know what the other is doing. This TXP requirement might not be necessary where altitudes can be higher and lanes wider.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Mazda]

Apologies Motz! You are quite right. I was thinking of 75 hours RA, not 75 hours in command, but isn't the other option 100 hours aeronautical experience, and the RA instructor rating is 20 hours? So unless I'm missing anything else that would make it 120 hours total time to instruct in RA, with theory passes to PPL level. Let me know if I've left anything else out.

 

The GA numbers still stand though, which is a minimum of 150 hours or 200 hours for CPL (depending on which option is chosen), plus either a NVFR or Command instrument rating (40 hours IFR), plus the 50 hour instructor course, so the minimum is over 200 hours to 300 hours, depending on the path chosen, with a theory pass to at least CPL level, and if they do have the instrument rating, an IREX pass.

 

While considering costs, remember each hour must be paid for, and the RA hours also cost less than the GA hours!

 

 

[Mazda]

Poteroo there is no transponder requirement for Class D. There is for Class C though.

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

.

 

 

[docjell]

OK Col - you're being very picky - and fair enough - its so hard having an 'animated ' interactive discussion in a forum! Up here in 'paradise' our local CTA (YBTL) is busy, full of military traffic, and circuits are over the CBD - hence my comments about backpacker buses etc - its very relevant. Flying in the London Heathrow CTA was a little different! I absolutely reject any thoughts that our board should be seeking CTA endorsements - we 'sell 'ourselves as Recreational fliers. So should it be. If you want those extra privileges - get a PPL. I've been 'number three' at YBBN advised to' hold short of the 737 to allow wake turbulence clearance'.

 

I recently started a thread regarding the fact that our A/C reg details were 'secret' - they are - and was shot down in flames by hoardes of respondants in the RAAus carping on about privacy etc. ATC can't identify us - our board is not prepared to allow our aircraft to be matched to an owner- yet we are demanding rights to fly through CTA's. We need a reality check here - big time. I don't believe this sort of behaviour/demands gives us any sort of credibility at all- and we are short of that at the moment.

 

Col - diatribe away - I've got many - I think RAAus credibility needs a major kick up the arse. Have you actually seen the photo of our Tasmanian president in his faux epaulettes trying to look like a professional pilot? He looks ridiculous - and I think sells us seriously short.

 

I'll stop - look forward to the thread unwinding!

 

 

[docjell]

Awesome - I didn't realize the site had an auto censor! A kick up the ****. Cool technology -because of course I didn't use ***'s!! Still doesn't solve our big problem - having a President who appears to be a butt and a laughing stock!