Airspace in Australia

[K-man]

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.

What you are saying is correct. However, regardless of the aircraft registration, it still costs a lot to get the licence and the endorsements. There will be exceptions like you are describing but I checked out six flying schools around Melbourne and none had an LSA registered GA. it was either a Warrior or a Cessna so I had to learn to fly another aircraft for no good reason and part with about $3000. If RA had the authority to issue CTA/CTX endorsements it would have cost less than $1000 and at the end of the exercise the plane I will be flying into CTA is my RA aircraft.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

What you are saying is correct. However, regardless of the aircraft registration, it still costs a lot to get the licence and the endorsements. There will be exceptions like you are describing but I checked out six flying schools around Melbourne and none had an LSA registered GA. it was either a Warrior or a Cessna so I had to learn to fly another aircraft for no good reason and part with about $3000. If RA had the authority to issue CTA/CTX endorsements it would have cost less than $1000 and at the end of the exercise the plane I will be flying into CTA is my RA aircraft.

There's a flying school at YMMB that has Foxbat LSAs.

 

I can think of a good reason - RA instructors don't go into CTA that frequently, and don't necessarily have a solid knowledge of air law. Requiring the training to be done by CPL instructors (not necessarily part of a Part 141 operation) would be reasonable, I think.

 

 

[K-man]

There's a flying school at YMMB that has Foxbat LSAs.I can think of a good reason - RA instructors don't go into CTA that frequently, and don't necessarily have a solid knowledge of air law. Requiring the training to be done by CPL instructors (not necessarily part of a Part 141 operation) would be reasonable, I think.

Well, when I rang Soar they certainly didn't offer a foxbat. They had a Warrior or a Cessna. I think at the time they had been using Jabs but couldn't continue to use them for training for obvious reasons. So, if they have a VH registered Foxbat, cool. I just can't find it on their list of aircraft.

As to the comment about RA instructors and controlled airspace ... sorry I have to take exception to your comment. Most RA instructors I have come across are highly trained, many CPLs and one in particular who actually does the ratings for airline pilots in another life. I am of the belief that if a person is piloting a plane anywhere in Australia, he/she must be as competent as the next person whether they hold a RPC, RPL, PPL or CPL. I have had people dump or RA pilots for years as having a lessor degree of knowledge or skill and I don't believe that to be true. There are different levels of experience but everyone needs the same basic knowledge and understanding to fly safely whether that be in controlled airspace or other.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

As to the comment about RA instructors and controlled airspace ... sorry I have to take exception to your comment. Most RA instructors I have come across are highly trained, many CPLs and one in particular who actually does the ratings for airline pilots in another life. I am of the belief that if a person is piloting a plane anywhere in Australia, he/she must be as competent as the next person whether they hold a RPC, RPL, PPL or CPL. I have had people dump or RA pilots for years as having a lessor degree of knowledge or skill and I don't believe that to be true. There are different levels of experience but everyone needs the same basic knowledge and understanding to fly safely whether that be in controlled airspace or other.

Most RA instructors I've met are excellent stick and rudder pilots, but some can just a little bit behind on the latest details of air law especially - and it's understandable; if you teach CPL air law to CPL students, you're more likely to be up on the content of all the AIPs than someone who teaches to the RAAus exam. My eyes glaze over at the contents of the PPL/CPL air law book that I have.

 

(I had an RAA CFI tell me incorrect information about the ten minutes before last light rule, for example - erring on the safe side. I still don't understand the full details of the ten minutes before last light rule.)

 

As for Soar - they had two foxbats when I drove past last week; one VH, one 24. Same in Bankstown. They bought the foxbats to replace the jabs.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Were you flying illegally before 13 August? given that you had a Part 61 license, not a Part 5 license, and the CAOs allowing you to fly into CTA on a 95.55 aircraft required a Part 5 license?

 

This is the sort of ridiculous air law stuff that I'm talking about.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

There was an instrument out re the Part 61 vice Part 5 for the CAOs, i can't be bothered finding it for you but it was on the comlaw website and has been quoted on this forum before (try searching RPL)

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I found it; it's the Civil Aviation Order (Flight Crew Licensing) Repeal and Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 1).

 

What's confusing is that Issue 7 of the Ops manual has different editions of 95.10, 95.32, and 95.55; also the date on the 95.55 in the index is wrong compared the date in Appendix 3.

 

What's the legal status of the Appendices to the Ops manual?

 

 

[K-man]

Were you flying illegally before 13 August? given that you had a Part 61 license, not a Part 5 license, and the CAOs allowing you to fly into CTA on a 95.55 aircraft required a Part 5 license?This is the sort of ridiculous air law stuff that I'm talking about.

I'm not sure who you are asking with this post but seeing it follows our conversation I will assume it is me. Why would I have been flying illegally before August 13 (assuming 2014)? I had never flown in CTA or into a controlled airport prior to my RPL training.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I'm not sure who you are asking with this post but seeing it follows our conversation I will assume it is me. Why would I have been flying illegally before August 13 (assuming 2014)? I had never flown in CTA or into a controlled airport prior to my RPL training.

No, there were variously amended versions of the CAOs which referred to Part 5 licenses (which a RPL is not) vs Part 61 licenses.

 

The air law is all very confusing.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The Ops Manual has no legal status. The CAO's are included for reference, just like everything on the CASA website. The real laws are on the comlaw website.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The Ops Manual has no legal status. The CAO's are included for reference, just like everything on the CASA website. The real laws are on the comlaw website.

The Ops Manual has the status given to it by the CAOs. See

 

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

Which raises the question, if the Ops Manual has as an appendix a CAO which is outdated and conflicts with a current CAO, does that mean that you can't do the thing which conflicts?

 

I think the Ops manual needs a statement saying that the Appendixes do not form part of the manual.

 

 

[K-man]

No, there were variously amended versions of the CAOs which referred to Part 5 licenses (which a RPL is not) vs Part 61 licenses.The air law is all very confusing.

You are talking in riddles. Exactly what was illegal?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The Ops Manual has the status given to it by the CAOs. See

Which raises the question, if the Ops Manual has as an appendix a CAO which is outdated and conflicts with a current CAO, does that mean that you can't do the thing which conflicts?

 

I think the Ops manual needs a statement saying that the Appendixes do not form part of the manual.

Appending CAOs to any manual is not a good practice, it's much better to make reference to them. You also need a proper tracking / reference system allowing the owner of the manual to address any changes to the references.

 

The tech manual is an absolute dog's breakfast. I cannot see how any amateur built aeroplane can possible be maintained in accordance with the tech manual. Then any aircraft with a manufacturers maintenance schedule must be maintained IAW it. Instead it seems there's a mixture of CAO, CASR and manufacturers stuff

 

 

[Ada Elle]

You are talking in riddles. Exactly what was illegal?

CAO 95.55 says that you must operate within the requirements of the Ops Manual. The Ops manual had a copy of an old CAO 95.55 which said that you needed a license under Part 5 of CAR 1988 to go into controlled airspace. An RPL is not a Part 5 license, so if you were following the ops manual at the time, you wouldn't have been allowed to fly a 95.55 aircraft into controlled airspace. In fact, under a strict reading of the current ops manual, you can't fly a 95.10 aircraft into controlled airspace with an RPL because of this issue (the ops manual containing an outdated CAO).

 

 

[rhysmcc]

the Ops Manual has no legal standing. It's not a LAW or INSTRUMENT passed by parliament or regulation signed off by the Minister. The fact that the CAO refers to the Ops Manual does not mean what is in the Ops Manual becomes law, it also doesn't mean something in the Ops Manual can over rule what the CAR/CASR say.

 

Your right that it's untidy but the intent is pretty clear, factor in the instrument that changes references to CAR 5 to now mean Part 61 and I think you'll find the sky isn't falling at all.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

the Ops Manual has no legal standing. It's not a LAW or INSTRUMENT passed by parliament or regulation signed off by the Minister. The fact that the CAO refers to the Ops Manual does not mean what is in the Ops Manual becomes law, it also doesn't mean something in the Ops Manual can over rule what the CAR/CASR say. Your right that it's untidy but the intent is pretty clear, factor in the instrument that changes references to CAR 5 to now mean Part 61 and I think you'll find the sky isn't falling at all.

The CAO is an exemption from the requirements for flying an aircraft. If you don't abide by the ops manual, you aren't allowed to use the exemption. See 95.55 4.1b. If you don't follow the ops manual, you're operating an unregistered airplane illegally.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

again, the CAO is the law, the fact the ops manual has an outdated copy does not change the law. I don't regard the outdated copy to be part of the Ops Manual and happy to take the chance.

 

 

[DrZoos]

RAAus needs to make CTA overhaul its highest priority...almost every time i fly north south or west from Port Macquarie CTA seriously jeopardises my safety....cloud on the ranges in this area is a serious regular concern and always forces me to compromise safety when CTa could easily allow extremely safe passage.

 

I know some will jump on this and say you can and should request clearance...but the reality is we dont, we take risks we shouldnt need to...for me as an RAAus pilot CTA is the biggest obvious risk i encounter on a regular basis. And yet it is one imposed on me by the safety administrator...

 

 

[K-man]

RAAus needs to make CTA overhaul its highest priority...almost every time i fly north south or west from Port Macquarie CTA seriously jeopardises my safety....cloud on the ranges in this area is a serious regular concern and always forces me to compromise safety when CTa could easily allow extremely safe passage.I know some will jump on this and say you can and should request clearance...but the reality is we dont, we take risks we shouldnt need to...for me as an RAAus pilot CTA is the biggest obvious risk i encounter on a regular basis. And yet it is one imposed on me by the safety administrator...

I agree with the sentiment but the reality is a little different. Certainly you can ask for and be given CTA clearance. However that does not make it legal. You may be able to argue the case once in terms of your safety in an emergency, but the fact remains, we are VFR pilots and if the conditions are bad, we shouldn't be flying. We do now at least have the option of getting an RPL and flying legally in CTA but I agree totally that RAA should be pushing for its own CTA endorsement.

It is a sad fact that several years ago, when it looked as if we would have a CTA endorsement for RA, we had a small vocal group within RA fighting against us. I reckon it was their lobbying that turned McCormack against the proposal, but that is just my gut feel from comments passed at time. If we want an RA endorsement for CTA we must produce a united front to put pressure on CASA.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

You may be able to argue the case once in terms of your safety in an emergency, but the fact remains, we are VFR pilots and if the conditions are bad, we shouldn't be flying.

VFR doesn't mean fair-weather only.

 

Perhaps the problem is lumping together 95.10 and 95.55.

 

 

[K-man]

VFR doesn't mean fair-weather only.Perhaps the problem is lumping together 95.10 and 95.55.

Quite right, but if you read the post I was replying to you will see VFR in this case was referring to cloud.

RAAus needs to make CTA overhaul its highest priority...almost every time i fly north south or west from Port Macquarie CTA seriously jeopardises my safety....cloud on the ranges in this area is a serious regular concern and always forces me to compromise safety when CTa could easily allow extremely safe passage.

Ada Elle, your knowledge of the CAOs and air law is truly impressive, but they come with a sting in the tail. For example, you can apply for an exemption from the flight rules and under that provision, technically, DrZoos could apply to CASA to transit CTA on a particular flight. You must apply 28 days before the flight and 'show them the money'. Only time we did that was several years back and the fee was $180, from memory, non-refundable if permission was not granted.

However, perhaps instead of VFR, I should have written VMC.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

The real problem is the general structure of sport aviation regulation in Australia. What a shambles! Multiple bodies, compulsory joining and myriad confusing different airworthiness certification, maintenance and pilot certification requirements, none of which have much logic or reasoned justification behind them. Now with even more CASA embuggerance in the offing if the report in Australian Flying magazine's website of threatened increased activity by the CASA Sport Aviation Office is true.

 

Back in 2002-2003 CASA actually floated a discussion paper proposing a CASA Recreational Pilot Licence which would be available for ALL forms of sport aviation. This included a real "Driver's Licence Medical" like the current RAAus one with the specific statement that while some people might be unhappy about this there was NO evidence to suggest that this was in any way a safety problem (in fact I know of 3 major studies going back around 45 years in the USA which came to the same conclusion - there was some evidence that NOT having a formal aviation medical actually had slightly better outcomes - you can find these the way I did, by doing a web search).

 

The proposed licence would have had various endorsements for different classes of aircraft (GA types, ultralights, gliders etc) including cross country and transiting controlled airspace.

 

So what happened? Hall and Meertens from GFA and Middleton from RAAus got a meeting with the Minister and demanded that this be not proceeded with for gliding and ultralight aviation. This, despite the fact that the proposal was to let those happy with the current arrangements for these activities to continue to operate under them. Probably the greatest single act of stupidity and bastardry in the history of Australian sport aviation. The Minister, the insipid John Anderson, went along with them. I know the GFA at least never asked their members what they thought.

 

What to do? Bring this back so people can operate reasonably within the LAW, not exemptions from the law. Institute the Canadian owner maintenance system for your own aircraft - canot ever be used in commercial or training ops. Training aircraft can require a qualified maintainer. Airworthiness certification standards ? Any of the Part 21 amateur built, VLA CS22, CS23, FAR 23 etc but certified by the designer and manufacturer that the aircraft was designed to one of these and a statement of what test flying was done. Anyone in his or her right mind will use one of these to at least determine a reasonable flight loads/speeds envelope.

 

The GFA, RAAus etc can then go back to being voluntary promotion and education organisations instead of spending valuable time and money being a regulator. Also political lobby organisations to prevent CASA from doing anything too stupid.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Some of it is the fact that motor gliding, the bottom end of GA, and the expensive end of RA, are all coinciding now.

 

I agree with you for 95.55 machines (other than the medical!) - there's no reason why 450-750kg machines should be able to be registered with three different bodies, and have three different sets of rules, in this country. (Something like the Pipistrel Sinus Flex - which has removable wingtips, and so can be motor glider VH, 24 or GA VH).

 

Keeping 95.10 as an exemption I think is important in light of the ozzies of the world.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I didn't think there was anything stopping someone from registering an aircraft under GA (i.e. VH). Just a different set of paperwork to get through

 

 

[Yenn]

I can understand why Middo didn't want CASA to bring in a recreational licence. That would have immediately killed RAAus. Who would want to pay RAAUs membership fees, for no gain.