5000FT Ceiling

[DrDexter1975]

Hope this is the right forum for this query...

 

I am aware of the maximum operating altitude of 5000ft for RAAUS a/c. Operation manual states that (as well as a couple of other requirements) this altitude may be exceeded if neccessary for safe flight (words to that effect)

 

I can understand situations where it would be absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt neccesary to exceed 5000 ft (eg - terrain at 4000ft!), but what about a siuation like the following:

 

Tracking 090 therefore crusing altitude of odd +500 ft - allows for crusing altitude of 1500 and 3500 ft. If I am flying over terrain that, while not tiger country, is a bit hilly and not 100% forced landing friendly. Spot heights around 1500 ft.

 

In this situation I would feel much more comfortable flying at say 5500 or 7500 - although I guess it could be argued that it might not fit within the requirements of "the rules"

 

Is there a right answer here? What would you do?

 

I have heard at least one person say that the 5000ft height restriction was the "old" rules and not relevant any more...

 

Thanks in advance...

 

PS - Go easy on me - Still on double digit flying hours here!

 

 

[Matt]

CAO 95.10 states:

 

5. Flight Conditions

 

5.1 (a) the aeroplane may be flown 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher:

 

 

 

 

 



(i) only if it is flying over an area of land, or water, the condition, and

 

 

 

 

 



location, of which is such that, during the flight, the aeroplane would

 

 

 

 

 



be unable to land with a reasonable expectation of avoiding injury to

 

 

 

 

 



persons on board the aeroplane; and

 

 

 

 

 



(ii) only if it is equipped with a radiocommunication system;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note When flying at, or above, 5 000 feet, pilots are expected to make radio broadcasts as set out in AIP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Had a recent chat about this with a few people as we used to reguarly operate at altitudes up to 9500' AMSL in the Sportstar (a requirement depending on which direction you head from Canberra!). The consensus of the group was that most of us were operating aircraft fitted with relevant comms & transponder equipment cruising at similar if not higher TAS's (100kts +) than many VH registered light aircraft...so there probably an element of 'old rules'...or maybe not 'old rules', just not necessarily appropriate considering the capabilities of many of the newer aircraft available in the category these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ultimately the responsibility for safe operation of the aircraft is up to the pilot in command (you) and as per para (i) in the regulations - if you as pilot in command believe it to be "reasonable" to be at an altitude above 5000' AGL for reasons of safety and comply with (ii) then I doubt anyone is going to question it. For me (as taught to me by my instructors) "height = time" which in any emergency you can't have too much of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



My 2.2c worth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Cheers,

 

 

 

 

 



Matt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DrDexter1975]

Thanks Matt. Thats what I wanted to hear. ;)

 

 

[Captain]

Would any of our RAA Board Members or Officers care to comment on whether there are moves afoot by the RAA to try to have this 5000 ft stipulation relaxed or raised to 10,000 ft?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[cazza]

Hi Geoff,

 

I can only ask the question and will bring it up at the board meeting.

 

Cazza

 

 

[Captain]

G'day Cazza.

 

Thanks for that.

 

As per post #2 below by Matt, the 5000 stipulation is "manageable" now, but it is probably an unnecessary restriction these days for many or most RAA aircraft.

 

But "manageable" is better than a firm ceiling so the last thing I want to do is be seen to be rocking the boat unnecessarily.

 

Regards & thanks again

 

Geoff

 

 

[Guest J430]

I have had some thoughts about this for some time and I raise the following not in an attempt to create trouble but food for thought.

 

The ruling is very clear, and 5000' is the limit. If say crossing the great divide there is no way but to have say 1500 AGL above high ground below 5000', so be it, however I do believe there are not many places where you couldn't plan safe routes (not straight line GPS) that 1500AGL will get you there below 5000. I am speaking literally as per the rules not what I would consider ideal for me. Dont get all steamed up. Think about what I have said and how a nasty rule enforcer may argue your point!

 

Is this rule historically in place for some good reason that is not really so valid today? Quite possibly. However, could it be that in the old days it was decided that due to far more relaxed (20 hr training) or whatever standards, no CTA training or whatever its is, that they wanted to keep the potential non pressurised IFR traffic well clear from AUF traffic. Yes it sounds eletist but again dont get all steamed up. Think about how this rule may have come to being. Maybe they did not trust the AUF (now RAA) guys to keep to levels, make radio calls (if they had one) or some other such reason which I can not think of. Once upon a time I think there was a limit of 300 or 500' or some such stupid rule.

 

Regardless of what we all think, I know and fly with many RAA only pilots and in my opinion they break these rules all the time without valid reasons. I also see some good airmanship but often see lack of awareness of what may be happening when they are above 5000'. Not being on correct frequencies, levels etc. Am I perfect....NO I AM NOT, but I am saying I see and hear these things. I do my best amongst friends to politely advise better practices.

 

So maybe there will be some new allowances come in from RAA/CASA in future, but I do believe there will be some extra training and or study courses required for license renewal to go with it. In my opinion I am all in favour of that. I hold both RAA and CASA licenses so I would have to do it too, and thats still a good thing.

 

At the moment we have people breaking the law quite a lot, and I would prefer even if it requires a module of training, that the law gets revised, and people are tought safer flying. I know I would not protest if that was required, all education is good education.

 

I would be interested to hear what Paul Middleton would say on the topic.

 

Same goes for RAA entry into CTA, I fully understand why there is a limitation, and before you get all steamed up, even a PPL holder does not have automatic privillege to CTA. Its an extra. Probably a few PPL's who are not licensed for CTA. So for RAA in CTA there will be a training requirement, plus a transponder. Some folk think CTA is easy, and often it is, however it can also be 3 times the workload in the cockpit.

 

Please if you read this and got all fired up about that snobby J430, take a breather and re read it. I am not starting a fight, just asking a few questions and raising some ideas as to why we have what we have and what we mght expect in the future. I am also not an authority on all things airspace and air laws.

 

In my opinion, and I have posted this before, if you want to fly with all the GA CASA PPL privileges, do the training and you are away. Its not that hard or expensive really. If however you want to have recreatonal flying and enjoy it the best, simplest and cost effective, stick with the RAA as it is. The beauty of RAA is exactly that its not GA, so why try to transform it on those who really do not need it.

 

Enjoy the flying & be safe!

 

J;)

 

 

[vk3auu]

5000 foot ceiling

 

J430 makes some very valid comments. Middo also had something to say along the same lines a couple of months ago in the magazine. I might also point out that a lot of the country which is above 4000 feet is also tiger country, so you shouldn't be flying over it anyway. From my own observations flying cross country to Narromine, most of the ultralight pilots who are flying above 5000 feet have not made the appropriate radio calls when they have entered these levels and some still do not seem to be aware of the heights at which they should be flying according to the hemisphere. Better to stay below 5000 and keep out of trouble.

 

David

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I was taught to fly hemispheric levels no matter what alt you plan to fly... especially when under 5000, which would have to be the most congested airspace for VFR traffic.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Hemispheric altitudes are only recommended below 5,000ft but mandatory above. It would be wise however to stick to them below.

 

 

[Captain]

You are spot-on BC, and I reckon it would certainly add margin if we all followed that rule below 5000 when conditions allow.

 

Except that 1500 and 3500 don't offer too much as you head most directions in the eastern 180 from here.

 

It would be "nice" to have 5500 & 7500 available without being required to prove the essential need after an event.

 

Best regards Geoff

 

 

[Captain]

Greg

 

How about you start another thread re the use of Flight Following as I'd like to discuss it with you and learn more on the detail of how it works.

 

1st Q for that other thread is how do you know when it is terminated as you approach Bundaberg?

 

Related Q is I assume that your SP is RAA registered. Is it?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[DrDexter1975]

OK - so lets say on a particular flight I am cruising above 5000ft - are there any special radio procedures I have to follow at this height?

 

 

[Matt]

Assuming you're in Class G airspace, there are no additional radio procedures / calls than for flight below 5000'...hence my point above about the relevance of the rule and the 5000' limitation. Additional procedures apply in airspace other than G i.e. C, D, E and these have the additional requirement of appropriate certifications / qualifications, equipment etc.

 

 

[vk3auu]

I believe that you are required to make a radio call to announce that you have entered the airspace above 5000 feet on whatever the area frequency is. You also need to be aware that in some areas, particularly between capital cities, there is also Class E airspace down to 8500 feet, which has additional requirements. You certainly don't just blast off into the wide blue yonder unannounced, even if you get the hemispherical altitude right.

 

David

 

 

[Ultralights]

i think lifting the 5000 ft ceiling would be good as an addition to the CTA endorsement.

 

 

[Matt]

The only requirement for flights above 5000' AMSL is that the carriage of a radio is mandatory for VFR operations, there are no broadcast or other radio call requirements in Class G airspace.

 

Other than the requirements for prescribed calls at aerodromes with CTAFs, in Class G airspace you can indeed go "blasting off into the blue yonder unannounced"...as no doubt many of our non-radio equipped peers do on a regular basis.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt.

 

 

[poteroo]

Perhaps when the CTA endorsement, or course-of-training, is established, it might be possible to seek inclusion of flight-above-5000-in-G as part of that training. This wouldn't require much extra, and would then allow those who have higher performance equipment to get up and enjoy the smooth air and the occasional tailwind.

 

The other part of the regs that, perhaps, we should be looking at is - the VMC requirements changing at 3000 amsl. It seems to me a more useful thing to have them also lifted to 5000ft so there's some commonality in the 'dividing' lines in vertical airspace.

 

I don't think there's any real GA or RPT opposition to RAA flying over 5000 provided that we stick to the hemispherical cruising levels, and use our radios intelligently. It might well prove to be one of our own rules which needs reconsideration?

 

happy days,

 

 

[vk3auu]

I would suggest that those of you who wish to have all the goodies that go with flying according to GA rules should get themselves and their aircraft suitably endorsed and leave the flying of ultralights to those who are not so inclined. You will not then be restricted to 544 kg MTOW or 5000 feet, day VFR, etc.

 

David

 

 

[DrDexter1975]

With respect to my seniors - grumpy old man alert for the last post!!!!

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I don't believe that post is a grumpy one at all. You can't always have your cake and eat it! As it is right now, if you want Controlled Airspace, Higher Weights, Large Airports, Night VFR and IFR, you go to GA, you'll need to do some extra training / test and away you go. That's exactly what I did. Seems that many RA-Aus pilots want the world at their fingertips (in terms of flying) and keep asking for the rules to be changed to allow more freedoms. Whilst this is good, if you want to do it quickly, you'll need a PPL and a PPL is NOT that hard and it's not as political as you think!

 

I undersand David's comment above, as those who like to fly minimum types outside CTA etc want to maintain those freedoms, however if we keep pushing for CTA and other goodies, we will end up with medicals, LAME maintenance, ASICS and increased costs! I don't want that as much as you don't, however I feel sometimes things must be kept simple and not over complicated.

 

 

[DrDexter1975]

Struth...was only talkin' about flight above 5000ft which actually IS allowed under the current RA-Aus regime anyway...noone said anything about "Controlled Airspace, Higher Weights, Large Airports, Night VFR and IFR"

 

Agreed - if you want those things NOW - you can get them all (and more!) in GA. All we're talking about here is an extra little bit of height for an extra bit of safety - again, this is allowed in RA-Aus - this thread is about what situations can justify the flight above 5000.

 

 

[Sky Gazer]

I would suggest that those of you who wish to have all the goodies that go with flying according to GA rules should get themselves and their aircraft suitably endorsed and leave the flying of ultralights to those who are not so inclined. You will not then be restricted to 544 kg MTOW or 5000 feet, day VFR, etc.David

Dave,

 

Some of us are here because we no longer make the grade with respect for the medical requirements so it is not always a choice we are able to make.

 

Peter.

 

 

[vk3auu]

One of the other problems with having all these extras, is that we then need to have more office girls to administer it all and instructors with more ratings and that means more expenses for them and that gets passed on down the line anytime we need the services of an instructor, so the whole deal gets more expensive and that is not what the concept of Ultralighting was all about.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Well 'office persons' maybe.....