Part 103 - Flying in controlled airspace

[Lamiunto]

I agree, it would help a lot of RAA pilots. But given the option, I would rather just get a transponder and the endorsement and not have a worry. But lets take a look at your proposition.

 

Most RAA aircraft are capable of a glide ratio of 10:1, so if you are at 500ft, you will need to be within 5000ft of the beach, which equates to 1.5km, now think of all those people who live on the coast just 100m from the beach, I don't think they will be too happy hearing light a/c with high rpm's just 1.5km from where they are staying almost each and every day.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I have heard recently the CTA endorsement will not be made available to trike pilots, that being the case I'll likely let my RAA trike license expire at the end of the year and stay with HGFA. Currently have both, it would have been worth paying both annual license fees to be able to get the RAA CTA endorsement and fly our HGFA regoed trikes (582 & 912), but if trike pilots are to be excluded there's no point.

 

I know there are some noisy aircraft around but most trikes cannot be heard from 1km away when on cruise power, probably due to the lower revs required to keep a trike in the air compared to a faster 3 axis UL.

 

We are talking about CTA zones here. Are people who hear RPT's every day going to complain about noise from smaller (quieter ???) private aircraft?

 

 

[Lamiunto]

I haven't been here too long, so I wouldn't know about who the endorsement would be available for, so I can't really comment there. If that is the case, then I would tend to agree with you, the problem, or so I've been told, is that you must have an approved engine to fly in CTA, which is probably why a trike can't fly in CTA, not a "good enough" engine.

 

When it comes to RPT, a jet noise doesn't last long, the aircraft is going about 140kts on final, or about 190kts in the circuit, so you don't hear it for long, give it about 30 seconds and you don't know about it anymore. But then you have the UL's, crawling along at anything between 10 to 100kts, with the UL's that can fly 100kts having very high RPM's, but then again, the Gazelle only goes 70kts when at about 4000rpm, so still it is extremely noisy for an even longer period of time. It is almost like your neighbor mowing the lawn, it isn't very noisy, but it irritates you enough to go mad.

 

Ahh well, I guess only time will tell to see where the lines get drawn, if any are drawn at all.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I believe the trusty 912 is an approved engine . . .

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I think we need to be realistic about noise. As far as the 912 series Rotax engines are concerned - these are quiet engines by any yardstick. Compare them at T/O power with a C172 for instance - the close range noise from the Rotax is about 50% of that from the C172. The difference is much greater with aircraft with high prop noise like a C206.

 

I think that we need to be very careful not to condemn ourselves by our own voices. The Rotax (912 series) is a very neighbourly aircraft engine. For evidence dig up some of the ICAO noise certificates on common types.

 

As Nev would say - let's deal with the facts.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I have to agree with Mike.

 

All of the Rotax engines I have heard are low in noise, compared to the Lycomings et al fitted in the Cessna and Pipers.

 

A Cherokee 140 going overhead at my place makes twice the noise of a Jab... but 1/10th of a Yak 52...

 

And when the Yaks go overhead (the Echuca Aero club has a brilliant formation flight team of two Yaks and a Winjeel) its a signal to run outside and watch.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I have heard recently the CTA endorsement will not be made available to trike pilots

I've not heard that & hope it is inaccurate. The current rules don't discriminate against weightshift aircraft - why should any possible change ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Ok, so Rotax engines aren't nearly as noisy as I once thought, so if a trike were using a Rotax engine and the pilot was appropriately qualified then I don't see any reason why a trike pilot can't get a CTA endorsement. But like Crezzi mentioned, I haven't seen this discrimination in the NPRM.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you are talking about noise then look no further than the helicopter, they fly lower than fixed wing and slower, plus they are far noisier. I find them very annoying especially when they do power line inspections or maintenance.

 

It would be good no doubt to be able to fly into controlled airspace for transit purposes, but we can still get about without entering them.

 

I would like to have ADSB rather than transponder and radar. I believe it has taken off really well in Alaska.

 

 

[Lamiunto]

It would be good no doubt to be able to fly into controlled airspace for transit purposes, but we can still get about without entering them.I would like to have ADSB rather than transponder and radar. I believe it has taken off really well in Alaska.

For people who live close to a non-controlled airport, it is easy to say that we don't need a CTA endorsement. But for those of us, like me, who only have one airport for hundreds of kilometers and then that airport has a control tower, this CTA endorsement is a life saver. Consider the fact that here at Mackay, all we have is Mackay airport, unless you want to go out to a farm with a private airstrip, that is all you have. Also, people in Sydney, who might have to travel by road for close to 2 hours to get to a non-controlled airport just to have a lesson or an hours solo flight.

 

Like I said before, CASA is giving the recreational community an option here, flying in CTA airspace is a general positive for the entire recreation community, whether you are going to ever fly in CTA or not. Again, if RAA does a good job of the new operations manual, this will hardly have an effect on those who don't want it. Plus, those who are training and don't see the need for it won't have an increase in cost either, it will be an optional endorsement. For those of us who train out of controlled airports, maybe this endorsement will automatically be given to you once you have achieved your pilots certificate, much like the radio operators endorsement now, it just comes with all the training and you have 2 extra tests to pass and you have a CTA and RO endorsement.

 

The option now exists for us not to plan our trips around controlled airspace, finely tuned navigation just skimming past CTA boundries. You now have the option to enter that CTA and fly just as you normally would, all you have to do is have a transponder and ask ATC for clearance. Again, if you don't want to use it, you can go on as you do right now, without this endorsement ever having an impact on your flying. The important thing is, that if you ever want it, it is available. For example, say the airfield you are operating out of gets dug up, either for new construction, or the new owner of the land doesn't want an airstrip, it can happen. Then, if you are over 2 hours away from another non-controlled airport, you will be wishing for this endorsement.

 

Again, it will hopefully be presented as optional to all the pilots, thus not affecting you in any way, or compelling you to get a transponder. It is there to use if you ever need it.