RA-Aus aircraft in controlled Airspace

[manna]

Hi All

 

I have a question for the collective,

 

I hold a PPL and a RA-AUS Pilot Certificate. RA-AUS Aircraft with transponder fitted and Reg 43 and Reg 47 certificates have been complete.

 

Wanting to fly into control airspace and over built up areas in RA-Aus aircraft.

 

Can anybody point me to the CAO, CAR, CASR sections which allow RA-Aus aircraft to fly into Controlled airspace. Need definitive answers.

 

Looking for ward to responses.

 

Phil

 

 

[Camel]

Hi AllI have a question for the collective,

I hold a PPL and a RA-AUS Pilot Certificate. RA-AUS Aircraft with transponder fitted and Reg 43 and Reg 47 certificates have been complete.

 

Wanting to fly into control airspace and over built up areas in RA-Aus aircraft.

 

Can anybody point me to the CAO, CAR, CASR sections which allow RA-Aus aircraft to fly into Controlled airspace. Need definitive answers.

 

Looking for ward to responses.

 

Phil

Need factory built aircraft as well and calibrated altimeter.

 

 

[Mriya]

The following link sets out a summary of what you are asking including references to various CAO's, CAR's and CASR's

 

http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/regulations.html#cao

 

 

[Herm]

I think this document may assist. http://www.flyingonline.biz/RAAusCTAendorsement.pdf

 

Aircraft does not need to be factory built, but must conform to certain requirements. One being a certified motor and a LAME fittest and calibrated Transponder. Anyway you should be able to find what you are ol

 

Looking for in this document or on the RAaus Website

 

 

[Mriya]

I think this document may assist. http://www.flyingonline.biz/RAAusCTAendorsement.pdfAircraft does not need to be factory built, but must conform to certain requirements. One being a certified motor and a LAME fittest and calibrated Transponder. Anyway you should be able to find what you are ol

 

Looking for in this document or on the RAaus Website

I'd check these claims. The 912ULS is not a certified engine, but is still permitted in Controlled Airspace. However the factory built aircraft vs homebuilt '19' registered does raise some issues. The following link sets out some severe limitations on flight over built-up areas, which has implications for ops in controlled airspace.

 

http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/regulations.html#built-up

 

 

[dlegg]

Well those regs are pretty light reading:cheezy grin:

 

Gotta love this:

 

Just to make your day, here is an extract from the CASA guide "How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998"— perhaps demonstrating the formulation of the new 'clear, concise and unambigous' CASRs.

 

' ... note that 'the Regulations' contains many 'regulations' within it. In other words, Regulations means the whole statutory document; a regulation is a particular kind of part of it. The Regulations are divided into Parts, each Part dealing with a particular topic. A Part may be divided into Subparts, and a Subpart into Divisions. Divisions are divided into regulations, but a Part or Subpart can also be divided directly into regulations (that is, a Part need not have Subparts, and a Subpart need not have Divisions). An individual regulation may be divided into subregulations, a subregulation into paragraphs and a paragraph into subparagraphs. A regulation that is not divided into subregulations can be directly divided into paragraphs.'

 

That quite clear?

 

 

[Mriya]

Well those regs are pretty light reading:cheezy grin:Gotta love this:

Just to make your day, here is an extract from the CASA guide "How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998"— perhaps demonstrating the formulation of the new 'clear, concise and unambigous' CASRs.

 

' ... note that 'the Regulations' contains many 'regulations' within it. In other words, Regulations means the whole statutory document; a regulation is a particular kind of part of it. The Regulations are divided into Parts, each Part dealing with a particular topic. A Part may be divided into Subparts, and a Subpart into Divisions. Divisions are divided into regulations, but a Part or Subpart can also be divided directly into regulations (that is, a Part need not have Subparts, and a Subpart need not have Divisions). An individual regulation may be divided into subregulations, a subregulation into paragraphs and a paragraph into subparagraphs. A regulation that is not divided into subregulations can be directly divided into paragraphs.'

 

That quite clear?

There's some typical CASA speak if ever I saw it. When you read it, it makes perfect sense, but I can't help but imagine the delight of the author of this extract when they finished describing a fairly simple concept in such a precise and verbose way.

 

 

[Herm]

Yep I guess my wording was not the best .. This is more what I was attempting to suggest:

 

Various requirements are applied to the flight of recreational aeroplanes in controlled airspace. One such requirement relates to the engine which must have either a Type Certificate, a Type Approval Certificate or is of a type that has been approved by the CASA as being appropriate for use in controlled airspace. The latter is usually applied to non-Type Certificated engines that display a proven history of reliability; it is the most common Australian means of meeting the engine approval requirement for non-certified engines. CAO 101.55 section 6.1 is referred to in the CAO 95-series exemption orders.

 

Also some aircraft that are not factory built can have exceptions I believe under certain situations to still operate in controlled airspace. Lets face it we seem to all fly under exceptions to the normal rules within our class anyway..

 

CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations.

 

and I guess we could all find a bucket load of variations to these statments as we often do on many of the subjects covered on this forum.

 

All interesting stuff

 

Just dipping my toe

 

 

[Spriteah]

I would have said, Factory Built 24 reg, Approved Engine, Holder of PPL with CTA endorsement and Rad47/Instrument 8 within last two years or Casa Exemption.

 

Jim.

 

Added: Current medical and CASA BFR + Current RAAus Pilot Certificate. Good Point.

 

 

[Mriya]

I would have said, Factory Built 24 reg, Approved Engine, Holder of PPL with CTA endorsement and Rad47/Instrument 8 within last two years or Casa Exemption.Jim.

That list sounds pretty close to the mark, maybe to eliminate any misinterpretation you should add - Current medical and CASA BFR + Current RAAus Pilot Certificate.

 

 

[Mriya]

Yep I guess my wording was not the best .. This is more what I was attempting to suggest:Various requirements are applied to the flight of recreational aeroplanes in controlled airspace. One such requirement relates to the engine which must have either a Type Certificate, a Type Approval Certificate or is of a type that has been approved by the CASA as being appropriate for use in controlled airspace. The latter is usually applied to non-Type Certificated engines that display a proven history of reliability; it is the most common Australian means of meeting the engine approval requirement for non-certified engines. CAO 101.55 section 6.1 is referred to in the CAO 95-series exemption orders.

 

Also some aircraft that are not factory built can have exceptions I believe under certain situations to still operate in controlled airspace. Lets face it we seem to all fly under exceptions to the normal rules within our class anyway..

 

CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations.

 

and I guess we could all find a bucket load of variations to these statments as we often do on many of the subjects covered on this forum.

 

All interesting stuff

 

Just dipping my toe

That engine wording is much better. As for the factory vs home-built question, the bottom line as I read it is unless you have a written approval from CASA or an authorised person (ie: RAAus Technical Manager), and you comply with all limitations in that approval your '19' or '28' registered homebuilt must stay out of controlled airspace. My observations are that this rule is often 'ignored' or misunderstood. I'm happy for someone to correct me if I am wrong here, however I haven't seen any other regs or guidance material that allows ops of RAAus homebuilts in controlled airspace without specific written approval.

 

 

[Herm]

This subject has been covered well before on this forum. It seems the rules are not always as clear as one might expect. How many times have you spoken to one CASA rep about something only to bbe told different by another? Then interpretation steps in. I think thier was a change to the CAO on this matter in 2011 due to interpretation problems that seem to have achieved little. Here is a past post that is somewhat interesting and gives another's interpretation on the subject...

 

The requirements for entry into controlled airspace are clearly defined in CAO 95.55. A copy of which is enclosed in your RA-Aus technical manual that you should have received when you paid your membership.

 

- You don't need a "certified" engine. Only probably 5%? (if that -near impossible to easily find out)of RA-Aus aircraft have certified engines. You need an "approved" engine, meaning a 4 stroke and twin ignition model. Most new RA-Aus aircraft don't have certified engines these days.

 

- A Certified airframe is not a requirement. Once the aircraft has flown off it's initial 25 hours, it meets the requirements for entry into controlled airspace. 95.55 does not differentiate between homebuilt and certified aircraft. The same goes for home-built GA experimental aircraft, such as a Jabiru for example. Don't get 95.55 confused with your aircraft's registration as it applies to 24 rego's as well. The Skyfox Gazelle is also a certified factory built aircraft with a rego starting with 24-. This is because the Gazelle is / was in a higher weight category than the LSA55 Jabiru's as it was 520 kg's. The Skyfox taildragger has a 55- rego because it is some 70kg's lighter than the Gazelle sistership and is in the same weight category as the LSA55 Jabiru.

 

- Any registration or RA-Aus (less obvious exceptions such as 32- weight shift) qualifies as long as the other requirements are met, such as radio, transponder, PPL and approved engine. Remember 55 series are not the only "certified" aircraft, as 24 are too for example.

 

- Transponders are only required for operation in Class "C" airspace. GAAP airports do not require a transponder to be in use so you could fly your Jabiru from Point Cook into Moorabbin without a transponder. For the purposes of this discussion, GAAP is controlled airspace, however a transponder is not a requirement.

 

Don't upset the CT, Sportstar and Tecnam owners out there who fly into CTA in their 24 registered machines!

 

Oh and one almost last thing! If you fly GA and you do your review in a Jab it doesn't necessarily count for an AFR! A GA AFR (aeroplane flight review) must go for a minimum of one hour and include controlled airspace if the reviewee' has an unrestricted PPL(A). You can do your AFR in the aircraft (either rego) in which you have done the most flying in, in the previous 90 day period. (I'm not 100% sure on the 90 days, but that's close enough). If you have an unrestricted PPL(A), you'll need to transit and possibly land in class C to successfully complete your AFR in your RA-Aus registered aircraft.

 

Finally, for the record for anyone that asks, Jabiru / RA-Aus time DOES count towards an ATPL (Air Transport Pilot's Licence) however only to a maximum of 750 hours. The remaining hours must be flown in a recognised "registered" aircraft, such as a GA one or even a glider!

 

I hope this clarifies things. Clarification on this is important as this topic always seems to come up in forums of this type. Take this post back to Kris next time you see him and see what he says!

 

Clem.

 

ClemBrown

 

 

[biggles5128]

Well those regs are pretty light reading:cheezy grin:Gotta love this:

Just to make your day, here is an extract from the CASA guide "How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998"— perhaps demonstrating the formulation of the new 'clear, concise and unambigous' CASRs.

 

' ... note that 'the Regulations' contains many 'regulations' within it. In other words, Regulations means the whole statutory document; a regulation is a particular kind of part of it. The Regulations are divided into Parts, each Part dealing with a particular topic. A Part may be divided into Subparts, and a Subpart into Divisions. Divisions are divided into regulations, but a Part or Subpart can also be divided directly into regulations (that is, a Part need not have Subparts, and a Subpart need not have Divisions). An individual regulation may be divided into subregulations, a subregulation into paragraphs and a paragraph into subparagraphs. A regulation that is not divided into subregulations can be directly divided into paragraphs.'

 

That quite clear?

"Its the vibe...."

 

 

[facthunter]

When you find you can understand some section, you are requested to inform the CASA and that matter will be corrected.

 

On a serious note, flying in controlled airspace ( most of which is not over the most suitable terrain ) and flying over a populous area with a single engine aircraft is the subject of much concern. I wouldn't expect much advancement? in this area.

 

TRANSITTING controlled airspace for safety reasons (otherwise forced over unsafe terrain) is the area to push.

 

Some want access to secondary airports for aircraft servicing. This was a major reason for some of the restrictions with the RPL. Why it is not simply a "Car driver medical related document". Nev

 

 

[damkia]

MASH

 

Radar O'Reiley: "Please sign here to indicate that you signed where you should have initialled...."

 

 

[ayavner]

CASA Mission Statement: "We're Not Happy Til You're Not Happy"

 

 

[facthunter]

Amend last para in sect 5 subsection ixx dated (..) from "til to till".... until further notice. Nev

 

 

[damkia]

E&OE

 

"Errors and Omissions Expected" (CASA/RAA version)

 

Correct version "Errors and Omissions Excepted"

 

What a wonderful thing a bit of dyslexia and/or anagrams can be...

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't like those analgrams. nev

 

 

[aerocentre]

This subject has been covered well before on this forum. It seems the rules are not always as clear as one might expect. How many times have you spoken to one CASA rep about something only to bbe told different by another? Then interpretation steps in. I think thier was a change to the CAO on this matter in 2011 due to interpretation problems that seem to have achieved little. Here is a past post that is somewhat interesting and gives another's interpretation on the subject...

 

 

The requirements for entry into controlled airspace are clearly defined in CAO 95.55. A copy of which is enclosed in your RA-Aus technical manual that you should have received when you paid your membership.

 

- You don't need a "certified" engine. Only probably 5%? (if that -near impossible to easily find out)of RA-Aus aircraft have certified engines. You need an "approved" engine, meaning a 4 stroke and twin ignition model. Most new RA-Aus aircraft don't have certified engines these days.

 

- A Certified airframe is not a requirement. Once the aircraft has flown off it's initial 25 hours, it meets the requirements for entry into controlled airspace. 95.55 does not differentiate between homebuilt and certified aircraft. The same goes for home-built GA experimental aircraft, such as a Jabiru for example. Don't get 95.55 confused with your aircraft's registration as it applies to 24 rego's as well. The Skyfox Gazelle is also a certified factory built aircraft with a rego starting with 24-. This is because the Gazelle is / was in a higher weight category than the LSA55 Jabiru's as it was 520 kg's. The Skyfox taildragger has a 55- rego because it is some 70kg's lighter than the Gazelle sistership and is in the same weight category as the LSA55 Jabiru.

 

- Any registration or RA-Aus (less obvious exceptions such as 32- weight shift) qualifies as long as the other requirements are met, such as radio, transponder, PPL and approved engine. Remember 55 series are not the only "certified" aircraft, as 24 are too for example.

 

- Transponders are only required for operation in Class "C" airspace. GAAP airports do not require a transponder to be in use so you could fly your Jabiru from Point Cook into Moorabbin without a transponder. For the purposes of this discussion, GAAP is controlled airspace, however a transponder is not a requirement.

 

Don't upset the CT, Sportstar and Tecnam owners out there who fly into CTA in their 24 registered machines!

 

Oh and one almost last thing! If you fly GA and you do your review in a Jab it doesn't necessarily count for an AFR! A GA AFR (aeroplane flight review) must go for a minimum of one hour and include controlled airspace if the reviewee' has an unrestricted PPL(A). You can do your AFR in the aircraft (either rego) in which you have done the most flying in, in the previous 90 day period. (I'm not 100% sure on the 90 days, but that's close enough). If you have an unrestricted PPL(A), you'll need to transit and possibly land in class C to successfully complete your AFR in your RA-Aus registered aircraft.

 

Finally, for the record for anyone that asks, Jabiru / RA-Aus time DOES count towards an ATPL (Air Transport Pilot's Licence) however only to a maximum of 750 hours. The remaining hours must be flown in a recognised "registered" aircraft, such as a GA one or even a glider!

 

I hope this clarifies things. Clarification on this is important as this topic always seems to come up in forums of this type. Take this post back to Kris next time you see him and see what he says!

 

Clem.

 

ClemBrown

Interesting information Clem, on doing an AFR in an RA-Aus registered aircraft. Do you have information on required qualifications of the testing officer? I ask the question because I've been informed by a CASA ATO that he cannot act as PIC in my RA-Aus registered aircraft, which he must be able to do to perform the job. I stress that the only difference my aircraft has over a similar GA registered one is that it has registration numbers rather than letters.

 

I have posed this dilema to CASA ops & 6 months has gone by with no formal response, even though I have informed them that my principle reason for wanting the option is to be able to transit Controlled Airspace when operationally desirable due Wx; ie improved safety.

 

Also, I've not done a AFR for several years, when did it become prescriptive as to length of flight etc; content used to be at the discretion of the instructor.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy Girault

 

 

[frank marriott]

The ATO requires a RAA pilot certificate but not an instructor rating.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

You need an "approved" engine, meaning a 4 stroke and twin ignition model.

I believe Rotax 582 are also "approved" so it doesn't have to be a 4-stroke

 

Any registration or RA-Aus (less obvious exceptions such as 32- weight shift) qualifies ...

95.32 aren't excluded from controlled airspace per-se

 

as long as the other requirements are met, such as radio, transponder, PPL and approved engine.

Transponders are not required for Class D controlled airspace

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[djpacro]

Pretty simple for CASA to answer I would've thought. Questions as to who can do an AFR, who is PIC during the AFR and then eligibility for PIC don't have any mysteries that I am aware of.

 

CASA CAAP on flight reviews gives guidelines which are hard to ignore.

 

 

[metalman]

Good answer herm,,,,,,except GAAPS are no longer ,I think they all became D class airspace and yes "non radar" hence no TXP required ,