Part 103 - Flying in controlled airspace

[Lamiunto]

Hi, I was just having a look through the proposed part 103 and came across this section:

 

103.245 Operation in controlled airspace

 

(1) If an aircraft is operated in controlled airspace (other than in VMC in

 

Class E airspace), its pilot in command must, subject to subregulation (3):

 

(a) obtain any necessary air traffic control clearance; and

 

(b) operate the aircraft in accordance with the clearance and with any air

 

traffic control instructions.

 

Penalty: ^insert units^ penalty units.

 

(2) For subregulation (1), controlled airspace includes airspace classes A, B, C,

 

D and GAAP airspace, and class E airspace when VMC does not exist.

 

(3) If the pilot in command cannot comply with an air traffic control clearance

 

or instruction, he or she must tell ATC as soon as possible and ask for other

 

instructions.

 

Penalty: ^insert units^ penalty units.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note: for strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal code

 

Now, as far as I know, under current regulation a recreational pilot is supposed to keep out of controlled airspace, unless he/she is the holder of a valid PPL. Though, according to this, under part 103, a recreational pilot (who doesn't have a PPL) may operate in controlled airspace provided that pilot has clearance from ATC.

 

Am I correct in assuming this, or have I lost the plot altogether?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As I understand it you are correct in that the curent situation is keep out, unless youve been appropriately trained (which is evidenced by the holding of a PPL).

 

In the future, assuming 103 gets up, I think the intent is that there will be another endorsement available to RAA Pilots to cover operation in controlled Airspace. WHen that occurs you will need the endorsement(s), obviously a radio operators endorsement will also be needed, and the equipment in the Aircraft to be able to meet the minimum equipment lists.

 

Personally Im quite looking forward to this aspect, I know some others are quite put off by it... Ultimately though its change and people cope with change differently some rapidly accept it and some never accept it.

 

 

[Nev25]

and the equipment in the Aircraft to be able to meet the minimum equipment lists.

I assume this means a Transponder would need to be fitted and operational

 

 

[Lamiunto]

That is a pretty good change, since I am still a student pilot operating out of Mackay, it would be good to be able to climb into the Gazelle and do my first solo during my normal flying times, which are usually at 30AM, but Mackay is a controlled airport at that time, so my solo will have to be before 7:30AM or something really bright and early, which is difficult for me ;)

 

So I would certainly welcome a change like this.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I assume this means a Transponder would need to be fitted and operational

A transponder would form part of the minimum equipment list, but not be the only part.

 

The details of what the requirements are can be found in the VFR Flight Guide that CASApublishes here (Page 201 covers the transponder vs type of airspace) http://www.casa.gov.au/pilots/flitgde.htm

 

This is a document that we all should read anyway.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

That is a pretty good change, since I am still a student pilot operating out of Mackay, it would be good to be able to climb into the Gazelle and do my first solo during my normal flying times, which are usually at 30AM, but Mackay is a controlled airport at that time, so my solo will have to be before 7:30AM or something really bright and early, which is difficult for me ;)So I would certainly welcome a change like this.

Ok so if this would be a good thing for you, and you understand the rest of part 103 and its implications then tell CASA that it will be good.

 

So far, as I understand it there hasnt been that much feedback to CASA and if we are too apathetic to tell them its good or bad then we'll all just have to live with whatever the outcome is.

 

If you want to feedback to CASA your thoughts on the Part 103 you can do it at this website. http://nprm.casa.gov.au/default.asp?nprm=0603OS

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Ok so if this would be a good thing for you, and you understand the rest of part 103 and its implications then tell CASA that it will be good. So far, as I understand it there hasnt been that much feedback to CASA and if we are too apathetic to tell them its good or bad then we'll all just have to live with whatever the outcome is.

 

If you want to feedback to CASA your thoughts on the Part 103 you can do it at this website. http://nprm.casa.gov.au/default.asp?nprm=0603OS

 

Regards

 

Andy

I understand almost all of it, the one thing I also like is (at least it looks like it to me) a type of blanket on recreational aircraft, anything less than 600kg, and they seem to have allowed a lot of flexibility on this rule too. The one thing I don't quite get at the moment, is the 45kt CAS stall speed limit, now my CFI told me that CAS is always a bit less than IAS, which is why the Gazelle has an IAS VS0 of 55kt, but I haven't looked over the current regs, so is the 45kt CAS VS0 a problem, or isn't it that much of a change from the current rules.

 

I will read the proposed regs through a few more times to make sure I understand them fully, and can actually give meaningful feedback on it. When is the closing date for the responses?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

The 45knot stall is contained in the current CAOs also.

 

The closing date is 2 July. RAAus at their website are suggesting that you can just answer the NPRM comment form with a "Yes - unchanged" kind of response. For myself I read it thoroughly and then did basically as they asked, with a couple of comments.

 

Please be aware that CASA are also saying the Part 149 will close on 2 July. I hope that is so because it goes hand in hand with Part 103. Part 149 is about administration of sport aviation. It is not yet released however....

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Great stuff! :big_grin:

 

Here are just a few things I would like to clear up before I go on, some may seem trivial, but I just want to make sure, it is also a bit off topic, but anyway.

 

103.005 Applicability of this Part  aircraft

 

(3) An aeroplane meets the criteria for this subregulation if:

 

(a) it has 1 or 2 seats; and

 

(b) its stalling speed is no more than 45 knots; and

 

© its MTOW is no more than:

 

(i) 600 kilogram; or

 

(ii) if it is equipped to land on water  650 kilogram.

 

It makes no mention of an engine number restriction, so does that mean if a multi-engine a/c which would otherwise conform to the above reg, would be allowed?

 

103.010 Flight activities – pilots authorised by RAAO

 

(2) For paragraph (1) (b) a flight is an air experience flight if:

 

(a) the purpose of the flight is for each passenger to experience a flight in

 

the aircraft;

 

(b) the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO contains procedures for

 

the authorisation of operators and pilots to conduct air experience

 

flights;

 

© the flight is conducted in accordance with the procedures for air

 

experience flights contained in the procedures manual of the relevant

 

RAAO;

 

(d) each passenger is a member of the RAAO.

 

Note: The purpose of membership for an air experience passenger is to ensure that the

 

passenger has acknowledged that the flight does not meet the safety requirements that

 

would apply to an airline flight and to provide a measure of compulsory insurance

 

protection to the passenger and the RAAO.

 

So if I wanted to take a friend up on a flight, they would need to be a member of RA-Aust? I find that a bit restrictive, since they are most likely only going to go up once to get the feel for it, why would they need to be a member of RA-Aust?

 

103.335 Formation flying

 

(1) The pilots in command of two or more aircraft must not fly in formation

 

unless:

 

(a) each pilot in command:

 

(i) is trained and appropriately endorsed (in accordance with the

 

procedures manual of an RAAO) to fly in formation in that kind

 

of aircraft; or

 

(ii) is being trained for such an endorsement; and

 

CASR Part 103 – Unsettled Consultation Draft – 8 December 2006 27

 

(b) the pilots-in-command have agreed to fly in formation.

 

Does this open the door for a formation flying endorsement from RA-Aust?

 

Finally, a lot of the regulations state "with approval by CASA or the relevant RAAO", now what happens if the decisions made by CASA and the relevant RAAO are in conflict with each other? Does the decision made by CASA or the RAAO take precedence?

 

Thanks :big_grin:

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I cant claim to be able to accurately answer all of the questions with 100% fact, however can advise that the CASA contact, Mike Cleaver, is an approachable guy and would be happy to talk through any of the questions you have.

 

The last page of the draft 103 has MIke Contact details, which I have reproduced below:-

 

Additional information is available from:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Cleaver, CASR Part 103 Project Manager

 

 

 

 

 



Post (no stamp required) Reply Paid 2005

 

 

 

 

 



Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

 

 

 



Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

 

 

 

 

 

 

E-mail [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Telephone: 02 6217 1752 or 131 757 (for the cost of a local call)

 

 

 

 

 



International +61 2 6217 1752

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fax: 02 6217 1757

 

 

 

 

 



International +61 2 6217 1757

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Thanks for that.

 

I will get in contact with him if I get a very pressing question, but the questions I did ask are more for confirming what I interpret from the proposal.

 

I have in the meantime already given my response to the proposal at the link you gave me, I had no real objections to what is proposed so I just said "Yes" to all the questions.

 

Thanks for all your help, it's really appreciated.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

....which is why the Gazelle has an IAS VS0 of 55kt, but I haven't looked over the current regs, so is the 45kt CAS VS0 a problem....

I thought 55 sounds too high for a landing config stall speed so went looking for that info and found a website for a training school on the sunshine coast that had all the gazelle V speeds identified. On their webpage they specify that Vso is 43kts. Vy is 55kts so perhaps that was the mix up

 

Check it out here http://www.skyfox.net.au/flighttraining-aircraft.html

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Re Formation Endorsement, yes there already is a formation endo available through RA-Aus.

 

I note that it says pilots must agree on the formation. Should stop some guy hanging off your wing un-invited!

 

 

[Lamiunto]

I thought 55 sounds too high for a landing config stall speed so went looking for that info and found a website for a training school on the sunshine coast that had all the gazelle V speeds identified. On their webpage they specify that Vso is 43kts. Vy is 55kts so perhaps that was the mix upCheck it out here http://www.skyfox.net.au/flighttraining-aircraft.html

Ahh well, my instructor said that if you want to do anything in the gazelle, apart from cruise, do it at 55kt

 

I did in fact hear the stall buzzer go off when I rotated at 55kt and then continued to climb out at 55kt, it irritated me some more without the plane actually stalling, so I decided to climb out at something like 58kt.

 

brentc, I wasn't aware that there is already a formation endorsement, so that is something good to know, and at the moment, I doubt anyone would want to hang around my wing for no reason, it's a dangerous place.

 

I hope that they choose to implement part 103, it would be brilliant, it seems though, that they are bringing part 103 heavily in line with their proposed RPL, which would also (as far as I know) allow you to fly in controlled airspace with the required endorsement. But it seems, according to part 103, that a pilot with a recreational certificate doesn't need a controlled airspace endorsement, it makes no mention of it.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Ahh well, my instructor said that if you want to do anything in the gazelle, apart from cruise, do it at 55kt I did in fact hear the stall buzzer go off when I rotated at 55kt and then continued to climb out at 55kt, it irritated me some more without the plane actually stalling, so I decided to climb out at something like 58kt.

brentc, I wasn't aware that there is already a formation endorsement, so that is something good to know, and at the moment, I doubt anyone would want to hang around my wing for no reason, it's a dangerous place.

 

I hope that they choose to implement part 103, it would be brilliant, it seems though, that they are bringing part 103 heavily in line with their proposed RPL, which would also (as far as I know) allow you to fly in controlled airspace with the required endorsement. But it seems, according to part 103, that a pilot with a recreational certificate doesn't need a controlled airspace endorsement, it makes no mention of it.

Hi Lamiunto,

 

there are a number of things that affect stall speed. The principal of these is that there is no such thing as a stall speed! You stall at a critical angle of attack. You can reach that angle of attack a number of ways and not all of them are speed related.

 

However we tend to assume that Vs is at 1g and therefore signifies the speed at which the aircraft stalls when flying at 1g load. Stall speed tends to vary as a function of the square root of the g force. An aircraft loaded to 2g will stall about 41% faster than when loaded to 1g.

 

The next thing is that one of the factors that predicts stall speed is the weight of the aircraft at the time (see previous para). If you and/or your passengers/instructors are on the heavier end of the spectrum and perhaps are flying close to or over MTOW then your stall speed at any given g loading will be higher than the manufacturer predicts.

 

The buzzer goes at an AOA not a speed. So maybe you reef back hard on the stick to get airborne, you are at high weight and lowish speed. The AOA indicator goes off and is reluctant to stop going off. Sounds like you might be near to critical AOA!

 

As for Part 103 you will still be governed by the Ops Manual of the RAO and one imagines that it will require an endorsement for CTA. And CASA has to approve the ops manual.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Thanks for that. It was my first lesson in the Gazelle, before I was training in the C172 and I finished up everything up to slow flight and stalls, then I decided to move over to the Gazelle, so I think I was more used to the Cessna and I might have lifted the nose too much.

 

So RA-Aust has to write an ops manual, and then CASA has to approve it? Is CASA trying to take a more active role in sport and rec flying or something, since I read at numerous places in the proposed part that CASA spent a lot of money funding an RAAO to develop the regs etc... and so it considers the regs part owned by them. So is CASA trying to to pry their nose in, or is it like this already?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think I'm correct in saying that RAAus doesnt get all its operating budget from the members, rather CASA (or the government in general) provides an annual allocation for RAA to regulate the segment of the market we are in.

 

I believe the review of the Ops manual is part of ensuring that RAA is doing what it needs to do to be elligable for the allocation of funds. I also presume that the upcoming release of the 149 NPRM will effectively cover these aspects of the CASA - RAAus relationship and obligations.

 

Can anyone confirm that my understanding is correct?

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi

 

Andy,

 

just based on something I got this morning I think that RAAus don't get anything from CASA - perhaps Carol or Nick could confirm that.

 

I think that the ops manual is part of the apparatus of management that is a requirement of self administration.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[drifterdriver]

RAAus gets a small amount from CASA that doesn't cover even one of the managers salaries, although it is still greatly appreciated and saves us from doing lamington drives.

 

 

[Admin]

RAAus doing lamington drives.

Now that would be a sight to see......Middo, Lee and Chris out there in front of the office harassing passer bys, standing at the lights coming up to your car window wearing an apron, lamingtons in one hand and their other hand stretched out for payment...hey, they may even wash your windscreen for you while their at it.

Only joking and is posted just as a laugh

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Well better than hearing them sing for their supper.

 

 

[Admin]

Well better than hearing them sing for their supper.

NO, NO, NO, let's not go there.I forgot to mention my ole mate Mick...not to leave him out, he would probably be inside the office soaking the sponge cake in chocolate, rolling them around in the coconut and then taking a bite out of each one to make sure they were done to perfection...

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Getting back to the topic of flying in controlled airspace, as a trike pilot it's pretty difficult to think that I could enter CTA to the letter of the law and trikes, being the flying pendulums that they are don't take too kindly to being flown low over mountainous terrain when any wind is blowing.

 

So, my point is, what can be done to ensure that we can all enjoy a nice flight all the way up the east coast of our beautiful country without having to make dangerous excursions inland or out to sea.

 

I cannot justify the expense of a transponder in a trike and have not ever seen any hint of transponders for hire for that once in 10 blue moons when one might be useful in a trike. (Apart from endorsement requirements)

 

Sydney's Victa-1 VFR coastal route is a good example for the other major airports up the coast to follow where there is class-G airspace that as far as I know Ultralight & Trike pilots can fly through with ATC radio clearance and with no transponder, but what about places like Coffs Harbour, Gold Coast and Maroochydore.

 

There could be some local arrangements for "No Transponder" ATC clearances but they would not stand up under legal scrutiny under the current rules.

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Getting back to the topic of flying in controlled airspace, as a trike pilot it's pretty difficult to think that I could enter CTA to the letter of the law and trikes, being the flying pendulums that they are don't take too kindly to being flown low over mountainous terrain when any wind is blowing.So, my point is, what can be done to ensure that we can all enjoy a nice flight all the way up the east coast of our beautiful country without having to make dangerous excursions inland or out to sea.

I cannot justify the expense of a transponder in a trike and have not ever seen any hint of transponders for hire for that once in 10 blue moons when one might be useful in a trike. (Apart from endorsement requirements)

 

Sydney's Victa-1 VFR coastal route is a good example for the other major airports up the coast to follow where there is class-G airspace that as far as I know Ultralight & Trike pilots can fly through with ATC radio clearance and with no transponder, but what about places like Coffs Harbour, Gold Coast and Maroochydore.

 

There could be some local arrangements for "No Transponder" ATC clearances but they would not stand up under legal scrutiny under the current rules.

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

Well, just because you would be allowed to fly as a pilot (with the correct aircraft and equipment) through controlled airspace, doesn't mean you are compelled to do so. Class G airspace will still exist, and hopefully the class G corridors will still be around, and maybe some more airports will start creating them.

 

Like it has been said before, I think, you will most likely need to get an endorsement, which would include a radio operators license, and then only, will you really legally be allowed to fly in controlled airspace.

 

I think this regulation is more for the growing "go fast" ultra-lights that want to land at controlled airports like here in Mackay at normal hours of the day, and not some insanely early hour of the morning when the tower is closed. Also, I think it is in recognition of the diminishing amount of non-controlled airports, I heard from my CFI that not long ago, an airport was dug up in Sydney to build a golf course, and this airport was one of the very few non-controlled ones.

 

Like I said, just because it is there, doesn't mean you have to use it. ;)

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Got the radio endorsement, but that's not legally sufficient in itself to fly in CTA.

 

I've got no intention or desire to land at any controlled airport, just to transit the area safely & legally. Those two words just don't coincide at the moment.

 

Something like airspace up to 500ft over water (within glide of the beach) being changed from C-Class to a G-Class Restricted zone requiring ATC radio clearance during tower hours, but without the transponder and GA PPL requirement.