Airspace in Australia

[rhysmcc]

You can't get a Nav endorsement (from CASA) in a RA-AUS aircraft either, unless you already hold the endorsement with RA-AUS and are having it crossed over (i.e. an instructor isn't issuing it). I covered it in another thread when the RPL first came out, it's all about the definition of registered aircraft. RA-AUS are not part of that definition, but often confused to be because they are considered "Australian Aircraft".

 

 

[Ada Elle]

What about homebuilt experimentals under RAA being prevented from CTA, yet same homebuilt aircraft under VH is OKDAME has next to nil impact on medical now, its a series of online questions, requirements are above and beyond normal acceptable limits for many things

Theres a many thousands training required, $17K maybe? To qualify. Most medicals require multiple requests for info and records

 

Two DAME I know really arent interested, too much time and problems and their advice is ignored anyway

I think our discussion in the Spitfire thread gives good reason for homebuilt experimentals not getting into CTA.

 

I agree - the centralisation of AvMed is a serious problem. However, that's the thing that should be fixed, as opposed to completely watering down the medical standards.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . as opposed to completely watering down the medical standards.

Ada, Medical standards/regulations should be the result of a risk analysis not some absolute. There is ample evidence available from the USA experience of LSA medicals not causing aircraft to fall out of the sky over many thousands of hours and more than ten years experience.

As a principle, we should always start from zero restriction and apply only risk justified restraints. Flying is not a privilege it is a right. That right, like for example, free speech, should be constrained only to the extent necessary to protect the public good.

 

Your right to free speech is constrained in that you are not allowed to falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

CASA should not be allowed to restrict aviation privileges on a whim. Any restriction needs to be evidence based and properly risk justified.

 

There is no risk justification for the RAMPC offered or shown. In my view it was just a spiteful bit of bureaucracy from people who despise recreational aviation.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

61.195 and 61.495 don't say this.Said person would have to be both an RA/GA instructor, of course, but:

 

- what stops you from receiving instruction for an RPL Nav Endorsement in an RAA aircraft?

 

- what is different between the Nav endorsement and controlled airspace?

The Post is here, was originally about PPL flying RA-AUS aircraft but also would apply to a CASA flight instructor who can only exercise the privileges of his license in a registered aircraft. RA-Aus are not considered registered aircraft, therefore any training they provide must be in a VH aircraft.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I hold a CPLA, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating and CFI / ATO privileges. To set up a Part 141 flight training organisation I would spend 18 months and around $15K, whereas an RAAus FTF - 4 weeks and less than $500 would see me up and running. I could train RAAus pilots and issue their RPC at a Class D aerodrome, subject to obtaining a CASA exemption. Having gained their RPC they can no longer operate from the Class D aerodrome. However, if the same pilot obtains an ASIC, RAMPC or Class 2 medical, applies for and obtains an RPL from CASA I can do a flight review with the very same pilot I just trained and tested for an RPC, endorse them for Class D operations and off they go in the same RAAus registered aircraft they gained their RPC in! Across the paddock at Camden there are glider pilots, with cross country and passenger carrying privileges operating motorised gliders without holding any CASA issued medical or licence and no Class D airspace endorsement. Where is the safety related case for applying different standards to two similar RAAOs? Maybe Part 149 will address this?

It's likely to be historical accident, perpetuated by conflicts between RAAus and CASA (together with the cowboy perception).

 

Secondly, the GFA medical requirements are stricter than the RAAus ones.

 

Thirdly, I understand that glider pilots don't get the same class of controlled airspace clearance as GA pilots (block clearance vs route clearance). I don't know how this applies to motorgliders.

 

Ada, Medical standards/regulations should be the result of a risk analysis not some absolute. There is ample evidence available from the USA experience of LSA medicals not causing aircraft to fall out of the sky over many thousands of hours and more than ten years experience. As a principle, we should always start from zero restriction and apply only risk justified restraints. Flying is not a privilege it is a right. That right, like for example, free speech, should be constrained only to the extent necessary to protect the public good. Your right to free speech is constrained in that you are not allowed to falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. CASA should not be allowed to restrict aviation privileges on a whim. Any restriction needs to be evidence based and properly risk justified. There is no risk justification for the RAMPC offered or shown. In my view it was just a spiteful bit of bureaucracy from people who despise recreational aviation.

Is flying a right in the same way that driving is a right - a right that can be taken away not for safety violations, but for not paying your train fares and fines?

 

The LSA medical in the USA is more restrictive than the RAAus standard.

 

In fact, of 4 medical standards for sport aviation (GFA, CAA NPPL, FAA LSA, and RAAus) that I have briefly looked at, the RAAus standard is by far the laxest.

 

I agree that the RAMPC is essentially useless.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

a block clearance is just a clearance to operate between 2 levels, this could be defined in an area of operation or along a route. Much the same really (i.e. cleared coastal not above 1500, is a block clearance along a route).

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The Post is here, was originally about PPL flying RA-AUS aircraft but also would apply to a CASA flight instructor who can only exercise the privileges of his license in a registered aircraft. RA-Aus are not considered registered aircraft, therefore any training they provide must be in a VH aircraft.

I can't find anything in the ops manual that says you can't be trained in controlled airspace by an RAAus instructor in an RAAus aircraft; and then when you go to the same person wearing their CASA hat, in a VH aircraft, you're suddenly astoundingly competent in controlled airspace procedures and based on the Part 61 competency standards, are eligible to receive the endorsement after a minimum of training!

 

For example, if you did your RPC at a combined school at Camden, say, and then did a Part 61 conversion, what's to stop you from getting the CTX endorsement immediately?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It's not in the Ops Manual, it's in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. To receive training for controlled airspace endorsement it must be undertaken by CASA Part 61 Licence Flight Instructor. The Instructor can only use the privileges of his licence (i.e. give you instruction) in a registered aircraft. RA-AUS aircraft are not considered registered aircraft under the CASR (not to be confused with Australian Aircraft).

 

Now that's not to say you can't fly in controlled airspace as a RPC in a RA-AUS with a RA-AUS Instructor who also holds a Part 61 Licence with CTA. The CAO makes an exemption to allow that to take place. However it does not allow you to receive instruction/training leading to the issue of a Part 61 Licence or Endorsement.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Now that's not to say you can't fly in controlled airspace as a RPC in a RA-AUS with a RA-AUS Instructor who also holds a Part 61 Licence with CTA. The CAO makes an exemption to allow that to take place. However it does not allow you to receive instruction/training leading to the issue of a Part 61 Licence or Endorsement.

Not leading to - but to give you a 'leg up' on the training. There isn't a minimum length of training for the controlled airspace endorsements; just that there has been training. So if you were competent before the training (due to informal training) the actual formal training should be short.

 

 

[Camel]

Woah Settle Petal.I am ATC but nothing I have said here (other than Coffs not closing for lunch anymore) has anything to do with my job. Like Ian said, I don't care if I am clearing something with numbers or a VH reg.

 

I also as I said support RAAus having CTA Privilege. But how long can I wait for that. I wish I were in a position to assist in getting these endorsements through but I have neither the knowledge or skills to assist the board in this and I really do wish them well in their quest for these privileges.

 

I am speaking from my own requirements on what I want to practice. My choice: get an RPL and fly from an aerodrome 15 mins from my house, or, maintain my RAAus, travel over an hour to Caboolture and if I want to go somewhere, plan around all CTA. Yes for me I am definitely better off changing to an RPL. Maybe I will maintain my RPC so I can fly tecnams etc. but for the moment I don't think that's for me.

 

My role as a controller doesn't put me in a position to negotiate with anyone on RPC access to CTA. I put in a good word for RAAus pilots any chance I get and always keep a positive attitude towards RAAus. So I'm not sure what else I can do to help RAAus get CTA access.

I apologise if I was too harsh but my view remains in regard to transit not full entry only for the reason not to cause more problems as an approved aircraft with suitably endorsed pilot can already do it. So if you want full CTA It seems to me it is best to get a RPL or PPL and understand the correct way to do things as far as transit it's a safety issue, as a controller you would understand better than anyone the issues about transiting Coffs.

 

As far as doing something I'm sure if you offered your assistance to board members as regard to how to implement and train they would be more than interested, Don would be a classic example as he is only RAA and is not over familiar with procedures as most RAA members.

 

I think you would have a wealth of knowledge to share and if full access was an option maybe you more than anyone would be aware of the best training methods and limits if any.

 

One of my horror stories was heading north Willy VFR lane Stockton Beach and heard Canberra Bomber getting South Bound Clearance, I was scared I would have to go to sea at 500ft to get clear of wake, he was directed to go over the top up high. So how would a very light deal with wake turbulence

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Not sure of the legalities of an Instructor providing "informal" training. Would the same instructor be happy to train you up to CPL standard in your RA-AUS aircraft and just put you in the C182 for the flight test?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Secondly, the GFA medical requirements are stricter than the RAAus on

When I last looked at the medical requirements on the GFA website they seemed to have the requirements as RAAus (minus the HF training / exam). That is, you self certify, if you're an instructor I recall there was a class 2 required?

The motor gliders at Camden can come / go via either the glider or powered runways.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

When I last looked at the medical requirements on the GFA website they seemed to have the requirements as RAAus (minus the HF training / exam). That is, you self certify, if you're an instructor I recall there was a class 2 required?The motor gliders at Camden can come / go via either the glider or powered runways.

If you self-certify, you must declare that you don't have any of the disqualifying conditions (like the RAMPC).

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Not sure of the legalities of an Instructor providing "informal" training. Would the same instructor be happy to train you up to CPL standard in your RA-AUS aircraft and just put you in the C182 for the flight test?

In your 120kt RA-Aus aircraft?

 

To be honest, I don't know what the training for a CPL involves, other than navexs to a higher standard, and general flying to a higher standard.

 

Also, the CPL requires 140 hours flight time, including 70 PIC, in a VH registered aircraft. So I guess you could get a PPL, get those hours, get the training in your high speed RAAus machine, then do your flight test in the same aircraft registered VH. Seems pretty complex.

 

 

[K-man]

Is there a problem, in a dual RA/GA school, with doing the training portions of the RPL in your own aircraft? (other than the actual instrument flight portions)

That's up to the school. I did the instrument flying in my aircraft and two of the flights into Moorabin and Essendon in it as well. However, not all RA pilots own their own aircraft and, even if they do, if it is powered by a Jab motor it isn't going to happen.

 

Secondly, there shouldn't be a flight test for the RPL.

Converting from RA to RPL there is no flight test to get the actual bit of paper. Just the piece of paper is useless until you do the flight test.

 

Thirdly, you don't necessarily need to go into controlled airspace on the flight review. The flight review may test navigation etc, but nothing stops you from getting your controlled airspace endorsement after flight review. An instructor needs to sign that you have received training on form 61-1RE.

I think you are missing the point. Going into a controlled airport on your flight review can give you the endorsements. In reality there is very little advantage in getting an RPL after your RPC unless you need CTA. My arguement is that it should be available through RA, even if you have to jump through hoops.

 

Fourthly, most schools charge a lot more for training in your own aircraft than for training in one of theirs. At the GA school I've been training at (which has a PiperSport) I wouldn't be able to hire an aircraft and ask to be trained in it cheaper than training in the PiperSport.

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind. If you owned the PiperSport it would be cheaper to fly it than the cost of using the flying school aircraft.

 

So, without taking any shortcuts, you could (in Sydney):- have 1 hour in a sim

- fly for 1.5 hours in a VH registered Jabiru, Foxbat, or PiperSport (available at YSBK/YSCN)

 

- fly for 1.5 hours in an AFR

 

- then go to a combined RA/GA school and ask to do CTA/CTX in your own aircraft (say at YMND).

Um! Not what CASA told me. The endorsement is a GA endorsement and had to be completed in a VH aircraft.

 

Not RPL medical. The drivers license standard for RAAus/GFA/etc.Under the drivers license standard, you're allowed to drive two weeks after a heart attack. The CASA standard is six months.

 

A long time ago I looked after a flight instructor with a broken toe. He asked me how long to be grounded for. At this stage I had very little experience with aviation, so I said for him to ask his DAME; the DAME called me, and we agreed upon 'until it was healed', which is usually 4 weeks. That's twice as long, for a broken toe, as someone who has had a heart attack in the RAA system.

Seems to work OK overseas."The Sport Pilot certificate was created in September 2004 after years of work by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). The intent of the new rule was to lower the barriers of entry into aviation and make flying more affordable and accessible.

 

 

 

The new rule also created the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category of aircraft, which are smaller, lower-powered aircraft. The sport pilot certificate offers limited privileges mainly for recreational use. It is the only powered aircraft certificate that does not require a medical certificate; a valid vehicle driver's license can be used as proof of medical competence provided the prospective pilot was not rejected for their last Airman Medical Certificate." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States

 

The endorsements for controlled airspace etc are extra, but still no medical.

 

I think it might have been the UK guys questioning the need for a formal medical for recreational flying.

 

Why is the cost of a DAME medical exorbitant? You're asking a highly trained professional to use their professional judgment.

The same GP does virtually the same medical taking the same time whether it is RPL or Class 2. Are you really saying that he is exercising professional judgement in one but not the other to justify the extra $150?

[Roundsounds]

If you self-certify, you must declare that you don't have any of the disqualifying conditions (like the RAMPC).

As does the RAAus self certification.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

If you do the math, you will find that a midair between two aircraft, in the absence of a concentrating factor, ( like an airfield) is about as remote a chance as being abducted by aliens. I calculated about once in 20,000 years if nobody even looked where they were going.

 

But alas we come from arboreal animals and as a result our DNA carries an inbuilt fear of falling. Thus we have a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy devoted to air "safety" even though there are many more dangerous things we do.

 

All we can do about airspace is to argue the case for scientific logic and fairness and our right to some safety in the event of an engine failure. For example, I reckon the airspace system could easily be refined to allow rec. aircraft a glide path to a landing field , in most cases at little or no cost or inconvenience to other operators.

 

So far, I have tried putting this point, with a specific example , but have never received a reply, except from the Member for Mallee, who said he agreed.

 

But I haven't made proper submissions to the proper committees and this needs to be done. I personally am a bit too old and grumpy about the issue to do a good job of this.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Converting from RA to RPL there is no flight test to get the actual bit of paper. Just the piece of paper is useless until you do the flight test.

It's a flight review, not a flight test. You had hours for both flight test and flight review.

 

Seems to work OK overseas.

"The Sport Pilot certificate was created in September 2004 after years of work by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). The intent of the new rule was to lower the barriers of entry into aviation and make flying more affordable and accessible.

 

The new rule also created the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category of aircraft, which are smaller, lower-powered aircraft. The sport pilot certificate offers limited privileges mainly for recreational use. It is the only powered aircraft certificate that does not require a medical certificate; a valid vehicle driver's license can be used as proof of medical competence provided the prospective pilot was not rejected for their last Airman Medical Certificate." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States

 

 

That's not the same medical standard. You can self-declare, but you must self-declare to a higher standard (that you have no conditions that would interfere with safe piloting).

 

In Australia, you only have to self-declare that you meet the standard for a drivers license (even if it is a conditional one). So a left leg amputee is permitted to self-declare that their health is good enough to fly an RA-Aus aeroplane.

 

The same GP does virtually the same medical taking the same time whether it is RPL or Class 2. Are you really saying that he is exercising professional judgement in one but not the other to justify the extra $150?

Ok, I don't know what the costs of a RAMPC are compared to a Class 2. I can do RAMPCs, but I can't do a class 2. To do a class 2 I would have to take two weeks off work, do a $4000 course, and then be approved by CASA.

 

[Ada Elle]

As does the RAAus self certification.

Actually, no it doesn't.

 

If, for example, you've ever had a kidney stone, you can't self-declare with GFA, or pass a RAMPC. You can, however, self-declare with RA-Aus.

 

(Not that I think kidney stones should be disqualifying conditions, mind you.)

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Actually, no it doesn't.If, for example, you've ever had a kidney stone, you can't self-declare with GFA, or pass a RAMPC. You can, however, self-declare with RA-Aus.

 

(Not that I think kidney stones should be disqualifying conditions, mind you.)

My apologies, I had missed that detail.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Um! Not what CASA told me. The endorsement is a GA endorsement and had to be completed in a VH aircraft.

There's a GA/RA school at Bankstown that has Foxbats - one VH, one 24. I don't know which aircraft students take ab initio, but the charges on the website are the same for both aircraft. You would presume that students would get CTX training with every flight. Does that mean that a student who had the 24 aircraft every time would need to re-do all the training in the VH aircraft?

 

Doing the last part of the endorsement in a VH aircraft might be compulsory, but I don't think there's a requirement that every trip to controlled airspace has to be in a VH aircraft.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

There's a GA/RA school at Bankstown that has Foxbats - one VH, one 24. I don't know which aircraft students take ab initio, but the charges on the website are the same for both aircraft. You would presume that students would get CTX training with every flight. Does that mean that a student who had the 24 aircraft every time would need to re-do all the training in the VH aircraft?Doing the last part of the endorsement in a VH aircraft might be compulsory, but I don't think there's a requirement that every trip to controlled airspace has to be in a VH aircraft.

The CASRs (61.485, 490, 495) do not stipulate any minimum instructional flight time for CTA or CTR endorsements. MOS 2 lists the competencies for CTA and CTR endorsements and there is no flight test involved. The instructor issuing the endorsement must hold a Grade 1 or 2 training endorsement.

 

Bottom line, provided the instructor is satisfied the pilot meets the competency standards they are able to issue the endorsement. To be exercising the instructor's grade 1 or 2 training endorsement they must be making the assessment in a VH registered aeroplane. So, in the case of the 24- and VH rego Foxbats, provided the assessment is completed in the VH rego machine, the instructor would be meeting the requirements of the reg's.

 

As a side issue, 61.500 says if the RAAO issuing the RPC has issued a CTA / CTR endorsement it is recognised on the RPL. Maybe the CASA legislation authors were thinking ahead.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Bottom line, provided the instructor is satisfied the pilot meets the competency standards they are able to issue the endorsement. To be exercising the instructor's grade 1 or 2 training endorsement they must be making the assessment in a VH registered aeroplane. So, in the case of the 24- and VH rego Foxbats, provided the assessment is completed in the VH rego machine, the instructor would be meeting the requirements of the reg's.As a side issue, 61.500 says if the RAAO issuing the RPC has issued a CTA / CTR endorsement it is recognised on the RPL. Maybe the CASA legislation authors were thinking ahead.

So there should be no problem with getting some CTA training in your own aircraft, then doing a final endorsement training hour in a VH registered aircraft.

 

As for double standards... has GFA ever failed a CASA safety audit?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

As far as using your own aircraft, that could be a different story. The school would need to be dual RAAus and GA with appropriately qualified instructors. If you already hold an RPC you might find doing the training under the RAAus system difficult to justify, as they don't have a CTA/CTR endorsement. However if you are training towards gaining an RPC from a Class D airport it becomes part of the RPC. The entire process is very messy and would need a bunch of lawyers to sort it out.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

As for double standards... has GFA ever failed a CASA safety audit?

I'm not sure, but I hope CASA did audit their SOPs.

 

To quote the Corner's comments regarding a recent gliding accident:

 

"Nevertheless, perhaps they had become over-confident, complacent and reluctant to face the technological changes in the world which mock an old sport based on the winds and silence.

 

The entire procedure depended on fairly amateur rules and traditions which were subject to human error at any time."