RPL from Sep 14 CASA fact sheet

[rhysmcc]

Good point. I don't know the area well (from the air) as I've had to avoid it. But if 500' is not a good idea how about 2,500' or 3,500' wouldn't that be well out of the way of incoming/outgoing RPT? At Williamtown they opened up a GA lane that goes right over (across) the runway at a safe altitude. Why not let suitably trained and equipped RA-Aus pilots through as well?

 

It's not so much CTA Access as CTA transit - all we need is a VFR route that is a similar principle as Victor 1, i.e. day VFR at a height that is not going to interfere with GA/RPT traffic or put us into the trees (or the drink).

Victor 1 isn't a CTA transit though, it's a VFR route that is outside of controlled airspace. Having people at 2,500 or 3,500 isn't going it any better, the jets want to get to higher levels and the controllers won't want to be restricted their climb until they are clear of OCTA lane.

 

 

[poteroo]

Hopefully the CTA transit approval be happen at some stage, speaking as an airline pilot it's no big deal flying in controlled airspace once you've recieved the appropriate training, I think the GA training schools pushing to prevent this from going through as it would be another nail in their coffin, as I have said before who what's to fly a 30 year old dinosaur when you can fly a wide variety of modern RAA a/c at an affordable price.

Correct. I fully support RAAus having CTA transit access for the many safety reasons that pilots can enumerate. Not difficult to learn the Class D procedures because access is generally good. Class C however, is so much more difficult to access for training purposes. Perth CTA is really frustrating, and you can waste hours trying for transit, only to be diverted along the fringes and then tossed out. This doesn't make for a sound training exercise, although it serves as a message to the student to never rely on acceptance into CTA.

 

 

 

Most new RAAus aircraft already have TXP plus mode C, in fact a lot now have mode S. Most also have a reliable GPS with which the more accurate navigation required within CTA , is better achieved. All that's needed is for pilots to be trained to a higher standard in the use of the avionics.

 

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Victor 1 isn't a CTA transit though, it's a VFR route that is outside of controlled airspace. Having people at 2,500 or 3,500 isn't going it any better, the jets want to get to higher levels and the controllers won't want to be restricted their climb until they are clear of OCTA lane.

Victor 1 has Class C immediately above it at 500 ft and immediately West it is Class C from the surface up. The only reason it is not CTA is that it has been carved out. The same sort of thing could be done for the run up Stockton Beach past Williamtown. And something similar for Coffs. If there was a will there would be a way - surely?

 

 

[Camel]

At lunch time Coffs becomes a CTAF and before and after day hours, the fact that when the controller is not there you are allowed to transit as a CTAF, the reasoning is a little bizarre, you would think it would be safer with a controller. There is no heavy traffic through Coffs and no reason why all aircraft could transit. I owned a hangar at Coffs for many years and transit a bit these days (with PPL in LSA plane ), and they like you not above 1000' and over water, it is a very easy procedure at Coffs as all landmarks are well defined and radio is minimal, it would be very easy to be trained to use coffs airspace to transit. The controller mostly keeps RPT over land and light aircraft over water also gives inbound light aircraft runway 10 to keep them off the big runway. I can not see any reason to let all aircraft transit Coffs and with increased safety as the West side of Coffs is not good terrain and usually cloud covered.

 

Port Macquarie is just as busy as Coffs and I believe it is busier, it is not control and has easy access around, I would like Airservices to explain that and Casa might try explain the safety issues in forcing people west of Coffs through Less than ideal conditions.

 

There is no will by Airservices or Casa and no way they want to listen, they want everyone to do what they say and blame safety issues on those not doing as told. Anyone who transit Coffs Coastal is taking the safer option. SURELY safety is important.

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

As just said by Camel,

 

"Anyone who transit Coffs Coastal is taking the safer option. SURELY safety is important."

 

The buzz word in the airlines for the last few years has been Threat Error Management i.e. TEM in my company we always brief the potential threats posed by the airport & arrival/dep followed by ways of mitigating them, safety is always paramount, one only has to look at the VTC chart for Coffs & see that RAA a/c transiting are legally forced to fly over tiger country to remain 1nm visually clear of the CTA, definitely not the safest option, come on CASA approve CTA transits for RAA.

 

 

[01rmb]

So how is this going to be fixed? Is the RAAus board or operational manager lobbying CASA to address this situation? There surely is enough evidence to argue that the existing CTA restrictions are jeopardising safety rather than making it safer.

 

I flew past Ballina on the weekend - Jetstar on the runway ready to take off and using proper radio practices I advised location and allowed him to take off safely and exit the area before I passed through - surely transiting a CTA with a traffic controller would be safer. I can land and transit Ballina with jet traffic but a few miles down the coast at Coffs I have to go the low way around. Trying to make sense of it makes your head explode.

 

Why should pilots with the necessary training be restricted because they are certified through RAAus but instead have to do a PPL or RPL through a GA school? What is the difference in knowledge/competency that should restrict one over the other from transiting or using a controlled airfield or airspace? I would even accept the BS (with some scepticism and annoyance) that you would need a class 2 medical or doctor medical to ensure safety.

 

 

[Camel]

I think the simple way at Coffs is to tell Airservices to send the controller to lunch permanently or push to allow RAA to have access. Tell Casa that they are endangering lives sending RAA west of Coffs and is causing safety issues. Otherwise wait for RPL get medical and CTA training and your set. Can't understand why you need a medical when Airservices can send the controller to lunch when you want to go through !!!

 

 

[frank marriott]

The RPL might be a bit more involved then it seems. I am told that the first step is for the FTOs to be approved as a part 141 training organisation. I don't know exactly what is involved but it could take 1 to 2 years to get all the FTOs approved.....?

 

 

[Chocolate]

you have to wonder why there is a controller at coffs at all. port mac and certainly ballina are just as busy with rpt, raa, heli training and active aero club flyins.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Victor 1 has Class C immediately above it at 500 ft and immediately West it is Class C from the surface up. The only reason it is not CTA is that it has been carved out. The same sort of thing could be done for the run up Stockton Beach past Williamtown. And something similar for Coffs. If there was a will there would be a way - surely?

I'm not an airways design specialist, nor familiar with the operations of Coffs RPT, but by just looking at the VTC there is no way a coastal octa route (like victor 1) could be designed, it's too close to the departure/arrival paths of the aerodrome. Maybe to the west from Urunga to Bonville along the power lines then up to Moonee Beach would keep it clear of the runways, but not sure how that may effect their RPT traffic from the west (or if that avoids 'tiger country').

 

Your best way forward would be for the local club/raa group to get together with the local Tower manager and discuss what options could be considered in terms of airspace management for OCTA transit routes. He (or she) would then be able to push the project further up the food chain for safety cases and design teams.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This is exactly the sort of thing RAA should be doing for us as our advocate - working with the locals and ASA to get us a better, read safer way past Coffs.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Pilots looking at getting a RPL next month and flying RAA registered aircraft into controlled airspace may want to consider reviewing the CAO's and Operations Manual.

 

6 CONTROLLED AIRSPACENo person shall enter controlled airspace in a recreational aircraft unless the pilot in command holds a current RA-Aus pilot certificate, has been issued with an ATC clearance and:

a. holds a current and

 

valid private or higher category pilot licence

 

with CTA endorsement, or;

 

b holds either;

 

(i) an RA-Aus pilot certificate with a current CTA endorsement or:

 

(ii) an RA-Aus student certificate with authorisation for the flight in controlled airspace or:

 

c. the pilot in command has written approval from CASA to fly a recreational aeroplane in controlled airspace.

 

...

(d) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual;

 

...

As it stands now I don't think it is permissible under the Operations Manual?

 

 

[gandalph]

Pilots looking at getting a RPL next month and flying RAA registered aircraft into controlled airspace may want to consider reviewing the CAO's and Operations Manual.As it stands now I don't think it is permissible under the Operations Manual?

We should hope/expect that the revision of the the Ops Manual currently being undertaken will take into consideration the changes coming into effect with the introduction of the RPL and eliminate any conflicts or ambiguities.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The section on flight into CTA was inserted into the Ops Manual in anticipation that CASA was about to give that to RAA. But, then along came McCormack who stopped everything that remotely looked like progress.

 

I doubt it will be in the new Ops Manual until CASA is on side and agreed to RAA in CTA.

 

That should come about in due course because of the equivalence of the RPL - as should MTOW up to 1500 kg.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Yes i hope that's the case also, but that doesn't change the fact that as it's currently written, pilots with both a RPL and RPC won't be able to fly RAA aircraft into CTA until the Operations Manual is updated.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I guess the question is " is the RPL a current private pilots licence"

 

To my way of reading it is?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There's the CASA travelling circus on the subject and I've booked through CASA AvWorx to attend the AvSafety Seminar at YMND on 9th September.

 

Must be embarrassing for CASA people to come back and deliver much the same lecture nearly a year later. Still, we can ask any question we like and they are usually pretty good at giving a definitive answer.

 

 

[ave8rr]

[quote="DonRamsay, post: 443844, member: 9162"

 

Must be embarrassing for CASA people to come back and deliver much the same lecture nearly a year later. Still, we can ask any question we like and they are usually pretty good at giving a definitive answer.

 

And I have found that if the CASA Team are not 100% sure of something they have got back with an answer by email.

 

Can't ask for more than that.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

And very good presenters of their info sessions as well.

 

Pity some others at CASA were not as good at their jobs.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I guess the question is " is the RPL a current private pilots licence"To my way of reading it is?

I took private in "valid private or higher category pilot licence" to mean a Private Pilots Licence, which the RPL is not.