Airspace in Australia

[Ada Elle]

Perhaps then RAAus would have changed its revenue mix to be more from airplane rego and FTFs than from members. This may help keep people in - people probably aren't going to de-register their aircraft and re-register them, but they may balk at paying $200 annually if they're not flying. I know I didn't pay dues for three years because I was too busy with work to fly.

 

(you could tax student training hours at $5 per hour, or something like that, to account for the fact that school airplanes get a lot more time put through them than privately owned ones, and thus on a per hour basis school aircraft are cheaper to register.)

 

Also, it's not clear with the insurance whether it applies to RA-Aus members flying non RA-Aus aircraft:

 

1.1 The Legal Liability of the Member whilst flying or otherwise operating Aircraft

(there is no restriction in the document to solely aircraft registered with RA-AUs).

 

Can someone tell me what the 'member liability insurance' in the revenue section of the accounts is? Who pays this 282k in liability insurance?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, if you want a hand to put forward a submission I'd be happy to assist.

Jill Bailey, at AUSFLY, advised those in attendance that there is an acceptance by CASA in principle for CTA. However, there is an enormous amount of work that has to be done for RAAus to be in a position to train and examine Pilots for a CTA endorsement. Training the trainers, writing a syllabus and examinations and the not trivial matter of changing aviation law.

There was a push by RAAus 10 years or more ago to get RAAus max MTOWs in line with the Euro 750kg standard. That was stymied, inter alia, by DAS McCormick. But now there is a very simple logical argument that a person with an RPC should have the same MTOW limit as a person with an "equivalent" RPL, viz, 1,500 kg. Again, while the argument is decided, engineering CASRs etc. is still in front of us. Let's hope we can get it done before Albanese comes back as the Minister and does what was done for six years - absolutely nothing.

 

 

[djpacro]

..... But now there is a very simple logical argument that a person with an RPC should have the same MTOW limit as a person with an "equivalent" RPL, viz, 1,500 kg. ....

yep, and the same medical

[jetjr]

And thats the clincher to these new privaledges

 

Its not going to be for everyone, in fact very few, as it will take effort, money and most likely a medical, transponder and your still ruled out in 19 reg aircraft

 

Higher MTOW is largely wasted unless 45kt stall is increased

 

It isnt one thing that needs sorting out! Im guessing plenty of barbs to avoid getting this all through.

 

Have to balance cost of effort with number of members going to be able -realistically- to take advantage.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Jill Bailey, at AUSFLY, advised those in attendance that there is an acceptance by CASA in principle for CTA. However, there is an enormous amount of work that has to be done for RAAus to be in a position to train and examine Pilots for a CTA endorsement. Training the trainers, writing a syllabus and examinations and the not trivial matter of changing aviation law.

The precedent of the GFA having CTA / CTR privileges should be used to amend CAO 95.55 and highlight the discriminatory application of restrictions. Citing the regulations of other ICAO compliant NAAs would also support the case. I don't see why the RPL MOS CTA/CTR competencies couldn't be used and I don't see any examination requirement under Part 61. (In fact, I don't see why RAAus doesn't adopt the RPL competencies for the three axis syllabus). As far as qualifying instructors, granting those holding / having held a GA FIR the ability to train and assess pilots and instructors would be the answer. I reckon I could put together a proposal within a week, it just needs the support of the appropriate people within RAAus.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

And thats the clincher to these new privaledgesIts not going to be for everyone, in fact very few, as it will take effort, money and most likely a medical, transponder and your still ruled out in 19 reg aircraft

Higher MTOW is largely wasted unless 45kt stall is increased

 

It isnt one thing that needs sorting out! Im guessing plenty of barbs to avoid getting this all through.

 

Have to balance cost of effort with number of members going to be able -realistically- to take advantage.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the GFA operate on the basis of a self certified medical for private flights. An amateur built glider or VH registered aircraft (hmm must look up balloons too!) don't have limitations on the airspace they operate in. RAAus pilots are suffering discrimination, it would be interesting to see the CASA response to this being pointed out to them.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

A Balloon pilot holding a Private Pilot Certificate issued by the ABF can operate in controlled airspace subject to holding an endorsement on their Pilot Certificate (again no valid GA licence required).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

yep, and the same medical

Please, don't get me started on that ridiculous RAMPC. I don't have a big problem with something more credible than the "be your own brain surgeon" self certification but the RAMPC is a thinly-disguised attempt to not have a drivers licence medical. As has been pointed out by many, unless you are young and very healthy and could breeze through a Class 2 , the RAMPC is of no use. Whereas in the USA there is a bill before the house to expand the LSA medical, in Australia, under the influence of the now ex DAS McCormick and the ex head of Av Med, we got the Claytons DL medical.

Personally, I'm very happy every year to sit in with my GP and have him go through his checklist and then issue a certificate of my medical fitness. It is a comfort to me in that my passengers can reasonably expect not to have to take over the controls due to my incapacitation from a condition that my GP could have identified and remedied in advance. At worst that costs me a long consultation and at best Medicare picks up the tab.

 

I'm not advocating that RAAus change its current practice on medicals but I would be comfortable with a GP certification IF you wanted to have CTA.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The matter of gaining airspace privileges for RAAus pilots should be at the top of the organisation's priorities. The number of pilots I speak to who are obtaining , or planning to obtain their RPL is growing rapidly. This means there's a risk of losing these members to GA, additionally CTR would allow FTFs to be established at Class D airports. The class D airports are located in areas of high population, this would provide a lower cost training option for prospective pilots and grow the RAAus membership.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes plenty talk about it then realise they cant get medical, no easier than Class 2 Im told, so CTA isnt the real driver for this move.

 

The path already exists anyway, get a PPL and fly LSA RAA aircraft. Still going to need RAA Cert and C2 medical anyway.

 

Many just want to fly GA aircraft they are used to, without medical and thats not the case.

 

Training in D space is a good point

 

I agree the disparity between RPL and GFA priveldges and RAA should be addressed. BUT as for the RPL, some reality of how many in RAA will see the advantages of CTA needs to be evaluated.

 

Allow 19 reg aircraft into CTA same as LSA and another large group are likely to be sorted too.

 

Increased MTOW and small lift in stall speed opens a huge increase in available aircraft to ALL current RAA pilots. Theres a solid safety argument in this too.

 

 

[dsam]

I've been extremely keen for RA-Aus to obtain CTA as an endorsement to their RPC.

 

As the owner of a suitably equipped aircraft, it seems ridiculous to me to have to get checked & trained on some random VH aircraft, and negotiate the blizzard of CASA paperwork for an RPL. It is a needless expense when ultimately, I'm only going to fly my own 24 rego aircraft into Albury or transit CTA to avoid tiger country, thus improving my safety.

 

I agree CTA isn't for everyone, but for a few of us, the current restrictions are unfair discrimination.

 

Don Ramsay, thank you for your efforts so far, and please continue to push our CTA endorsement along as best you can.

 

Happy & safe flying....

 

Dave

 

 

[DonRamsay]

? . . Its not going to be for everyone, in fact very few, as it will take effort, money and most likely a medical, transponder and your still ruled out in 19 reg aircraft

True. It is not for everyone and we manage OK without it. Personally, it would be worth the bother to me. Having now experienced ATC flying into YSTW, I want CTA even more. It would improve safety and convenience getting up and down the Coast.

The blanket rule-out of amateur built aircraft is not good policy and should be looked at. There needs to be an inspection and airworthiness certification available. There is no doubt that some amateur built aircraft are much better built than factory builts. The issue should be the quality of the build not the name of the builder.

 

A transponder was of no use getting in to Tamworth but would be at many airports and in transit. I find it comforting when the controllers at Bris or Melb identify my aircraft to IFR traffic and knowing that up and down the coast the RPT can "see" me. A set of wig wag landing lights is the best thing you can have for being seen in the vicinity of airports.

 

Higher MTOW is largely wasted unless 45kt stall is increased

Not wasted in my case. My Sling in, LSA guise, in the landing config, stalls at MTOW 600 kg at 39 KCAS.

 

Exactly the same aircraft with VH reg stalls in the landing config @ 700kg at 40 KCAS. As you can imagine, I'm very keen to see the 700 kg available to me. Even a 182 @ MTOW of 1,400 kgs stalls at 49 knots. Sensing the difference between 49 and 45 kts at touchdown is not going to worry a reasonably capable sport pilot. And perhaps a set of cleverly designed winglets could bring even the C182 under 45KCAS.

 

It isnt one thing that needs sorting out! Im guessing plenty of barbs to avoid getting this all through.Have to balance cost of effort with number of members going to be able -realistically- to take advantage.

True, it will take a lot of urging to happen. But, it has been on the RAAus agenda for the last 10 years at least. It's time has come.

[rhysmcc]

I'm in favour for a push for the MTOW for LSA to be increased to 750kg, and work towards lifting the amateur built limit to 1500kg. Maybe a new aircraft type (VLA) for factory built aircraft.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The CTA stuff could be introduced within a month or so, if approached correctly. The matter of weight increases however is a different story. The tech area needs some serious tidying up (which I'm sure is well underway behind the scenes). The tech manual has no resemblance of what is actually taking place in the field. There needs to be a set of competencies developed for L1 and L2 qualifications (these are already available under the National Qualifications Framework - so would take little modification, if any, to adapt to the RAAus world). This would allow a objective assessment of applicants based on prior experience and for the right people to establish training courses for L1 / 2 applicants and keep CASA off our backs. In my opinion RAAus isn't in the business of training pilots or maintainers.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

True. It is not for everyone and we manage OK without it. Personally, it would be worth the bother to me. Having now experienced ATC flying into YSTW, I want CTA even more. It would improve safety and convenience getting up and down the Coast.The blanket rule-out of amateur built aircraft is not good policy and should be looked at. There needs to be an inspection and airworthiness certification available. There is no doubt that some amateur built aircraft are much better built than factory builts. The issue should be the quality of the build not the name of the builder.

There's no blanket rule-out of VH-exp amateur built aircraft, is there? So the real question is, what is the difference between 19- and VH-ABAA? Could it be the inspection and airworthiness requirements?

 

The medical standard should be the UK one. It gives a good compromise between "yeah, I had a heart attack two weeks ago, nothing stopping me from flying" and "go to a DAME and send every piece of medical information about you to CASA". even the GFA medical is slightly watered down.

 

 

[jetjr]

No VH experimental are Ok in CTA but RAA experimental are not

 

Only difference in aircraft is the potential for self maintenance of second owner 19 reg.......but can self maintain LSA too if you like and they ARE allowed in CTA currently. Doesnt make sense.

 

Id have no issue having L2 issue annual airworthy inspection on self maintained aircraft if required.

 

OR perhaps a training route to achieve builder/maintainer status.

 

Yes theres a few new aircraft able to display lower stall speeds, but not many. Increase to 50kts and 750kg and you open the door to lots of good value aircraft carrying more safety equipment and fuel.

 

All large body Jabirus for example and id say a heap of older GA models.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

No VH experimental are Ok in CTA but RAA experimental are notOnly difference in aircraft is the potential for self maintenance of second owner 19 reg.......but can self maintain LSA too if you like and they ARE allowed in CTA currently. Doesnt make sense. Id have no issue having L2 issue annual airworthy inspection on self maintained aircraft if required.

OR perhaps a training route to achieve builder/maintainer status.

Perhaps the difference is that 19 rego aircraft don't have to be airworthy - see the Barry Uscinski crash.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Yes theres a few new aircraft able to display lower stall speeds, but not many. Increase to 50kts and 750kg and you open the door to lots of good value aircraft . . .

I recall that one of the potential drawbacks for RAAus going to 750kg is that we could see a lot of 50+ year old aircraft with age/corrosion issues flood in. With our limited Tech Dept numbers that could create quite a management issue. Not saying don't do it, quite the reverse but 750kg or 1,500 kg are not without challenges.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yeah, wasnt going to mention that probelm. Last time it was discussed many said this was no issue and maintaining old C150 is no harder than std RAA types.

 

They are getting older too

 

This was before SIDS got into full swing too

 

 

[dsam]

Just my 2 cents worth (for personal preference, admittedly), I would prioritise CTA access ahead of MTOW changes, but both are needed.

 

Happy & safe flying :)

 

Dave

 

 

[frank marriott]

Just my 2 cents worth (for personal preference, admittedly), I would prioritise CTA access ahead of MTOW changes, but both are needed.Happy & safe flying :)

 

Dave

Hard to suit everyone but a personal preference will always be there. For me I would prefer an extra 100kg MTOW given that CTA is available already (admittedly at a cost) via the RPL, PPL etc.

 

I admit self interest also, as an extra 100kgs in a J230 would be useful and I already have CTA access. (Also recertification of a J230 to 700kg I believe would fairly straight forward)

 

But I don't see why it should be only one or the other - I don't think anyone is suggesting that either.

 

 

[Camel]

Hard to suit everyone but a personal preference will always be there. For me I would prefer an extra 100kg MTOW given that CTA is available already (admittedly at a cost) via the RPL, PPL etc.I admit self interest also, as an extra 100kgs in a J230 would be useful and I already have CTA access. (Also recertification of a J230 to 700kg I believe would fairly straight forward)

 

But I don't see why it should be only one or the other - I don't think anyone is suggesting that either.

I also am in the same position, but the J230 being LSA can still be only go to 600kg, it would need to be full experimental to go to its weight limit. Or am I missing something ?

 

 

[frank marriott]

I also am in the same position, but the J230 being LSA can still be only go to 600kg, it would need to be full experimental to go to its weight limit. Or am I missing something ?

I may have missed something but I thought the lifting of the 600 limit would also apply to LSA and just require being re certified by the manufacturer? Given the airframe is certified to 700 if VH registered.

 

 

[Camel]

I may have missed something but I thought the lifting of the 600 limit would also apply to LSA and just require being re certified by the manufacturer? Given the airframe is certified to 700 if VH registered.

LSA is 600 MTOW and that's it, but the Terrafuggia flying car got approval for a special weight increase. I think getting the weight increase and getting a LSA increase are two issues. Remember that Europe mostly build 450 kg stuff.

 

 

[frank marriott]

If, as you suggest, LSA is unchangeable then it won't concern me either way. Just fuel limited with 2 up.