How & why RA-Aus ought to expedite our own CTA endorsement

[dsam]

Having watched numerous recent forum threads on the unnecessarily confusing RA-Aus to RPL conversion & the considerable angst around RA-Aus endorsement recognitions, costly and unnecessary English language exams, VH rego flight tests, etc., I am convinced RA-Aus should make it a priority to negotiate a CTA endorsement with CASA for suitably equipped 24- registered “high-performance” aircraft.

 

My personal situation would seem to be a good example. With my own 24 registered Eurofox under RA-Aus I have 80% of what I desire, but the occasional transit of Class C airspace (often to avoid tiger country on my cross country trips) or the odd visit to family in Albury (Class D aerodrome) would suit all my needs and make me an extremely happy guy.

 

At present, my Eurofox with a PPL in command CAN transit Class C airspace and land at D and C aerodromes. Sadly however, CTA is not available to my Eurofox even with a “CTA endorsed” RPL in command (so why should I even bother to negotiate all the hassles & expense of this conversion in some random VH aircraft). So unless CAO 95.55 is amended to allow either RPL or RA-Aus RPC (with a new CTA endorsement) I’m out of luck with my own completely capable aircraft – short of me getting a full PPL.

 

My recommended solution? Our brand-new RA-Aus Ops Manual will need amendment to reflect the possibility of CTA endorsement. Sensibly, it could be restricted to 24 registered & suitably equipped aircraft, and I would expect specific RA-Aus training standards to be required for such CTA operation, along with flight tests in the RA-Aus aircraft in question. I might even be convinced of the need for a higher standard of medical (luckily no problem for me).

 

I trust all this meets the common sense test, but am aware that negotiating anything sensible with CASA can be all but impossible.

 

This leads me to my next suggestion for our new (and seemingly more effective) RA-Aus board. Get Political! Motoring organisations, Medical Associations, even sporting clubs represent their members by lobbying politicians. Politicians are the weakest link (not CASA bureaucrats). That is how recreational aviation (and GA in general) can exercise the most effective pressure for the least amount of effort. Only politicians can change the act of parliament that covers CASA, so that instead of safety “at all costs” as the act now implies, legislation can be refined to allow “affordable & practical safety” commensurate with the degree of risk to the wider public - particularly appropriate when applied to recreational aviation. Leave the expensive rigidity for large RPT operators and their paying passengers. We can all hope the new CEO of CASA is open to cultural change & improvement of the regulator, but a politically astute minister with votes on his mind can maintain this pressure on CASA to make reasonable & common sense change, guided by lobbyists from the recreational aviation community.

 

Sorry this is such a long-winded rant from me, but I would be interested to see measured and thoughtful forum debate & refinement of my suggestions – idealistic though they may seem… I believe REAL change is possible. It just needs the will to do so, from collective action by key aviation organisations, not just passionate individuals fruitlessly fighting the existing systems.

 

 

[robinsm]

Not a priority for me, I fly a recreational aircraft, not a pseudo GA aircraft. Why the hell would I go head to head with a twin engine thingy or a 747 because I could. You want CTA, go GA.

 

 

[dsam]

Not a priority for me, I fly a recreational aircraft, not a pseudo GA aircraft. Why the hell would I go head to head with a twin engine thingy or a 747 because I could. You want CTA, go GA.

My flying is strictly recreational too. Not many 747's at Albury, by the way :-) There is a lot of scenic coastline up the east coast - low level routes not available without CTA. I'm not alone in wanting this access. Check out the numerous forum threads of those seeking RPL conversions from existing RA-Aus Pilot Certificates holders despite the grief they get from CASA. RA-Aus would be wise not to ignore this potential exodus of members.

 

On a wider front, CASA needs to change for the better, thus my suggestions for political lobbying by numerous aviation organisations - for the good of all aviators in this country. The minister already has a report with some 37 recommended changes to CASA. He just needs our "encouragement".

 

 

[frank marriott]

At present, my Eurofox with a PPL in command CAN transit Class C airspace and land at D and C aerodromes. Sadly however, CTA is not available to my Eurofox even with a “CTA endorsed” RPL incommand

 

------------------------

 

How do you come up with this opinion?

 

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence):

 

1. (i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and
    
    
    
    
   
2. (ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;
    
    
    
   

 

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If you look at the motions for the last board meeting you will see that the board tasked the CEO to discuss exactly this with CASA.

 

We will see what the new casa head thinks

 

Andy

 

 

[robinsm]

My flying is strictly recreational too. Not many 747's at Albury, by the way :-) There is a lot of scenic coastline up the east coast - low level routes not available without CTA. I'm not alone in wanting this access. Check out the numerous forum threads of those seeking RPL conversions from existing RA-Aus Pilot Certificates holders despite the grief they get from CASA. RA-Aus would be wise not to ignore this potential exodus of members.On a wider front, CASA needs to change for the better, thus my suggestions for political lobbying by numerous aviation organisations - for the good of all aviators in this country. The minister already has a report with some 37 recommended changes to CASA. He just needs our "encouragement".

You might try getting the Albury rules changed, might be easier than getting CASA to agree with all CTA. after all, I fly in and out of all sorts of Airports where passenger aircraft fly. Bathurst, Broken hill, Inverell, Armidale but to name a few. Just because someone sits in a tower shouldn't make it harder than doing it yourself.

 

 

[dsam]

The RAA tried this b4 and it did not get aproved by CASAthey knocked it back

 

You can't just put it in ops manual as that has to be aproved by CASA

Quite right Deborah. Thus my suggestion that RA-Aus and other aviation bodies engage in political lobbying to "force" CASA to become more compliant overall. Politicians are always the weakest link (especially these days ;-) The very act of parliament that set CASA up and gives them a role is in the hands of Federal politicians of every persuasion. The new CASA CEO would be very brave to ignore the wishes of his "boss" the federal minister, particularly if that minister had votes on his mind from aviation organisations with many thousands of voters wanting cultural change within CASA (and aviators certainly do want change).

 

In short, if CASA is an immovable bureaucratic object at present, don't limit ourselves to dealing with them directly... go over the top of them via federal lobbying. Look at the BIG picture, I would suggest, to get CASA to be more compliant.

 

 

[dsam]

Dsam other than making youhappy why should they do it what is the benefit etc ?

Just asking really

 

Safety was the reason las t time they tried

 

is it safer for you to go to Albury with CTA endo?

From my remarks at the top of this thread, it IS safer to avoid "tiger country" and use some coastal routes via CTA transit rather than inland mountain wilderness at low level out of CTA.

 

If I started this recent bit of flying all over again I might have gone for VH rego and PPL, but now I am involved this way with RA-Aus, I am motivated to continue whilst there is still hope for change.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Dsam other than making youhappy why should they do it what is the benefit etc ?

Just asking really

 

Safety was the reason las t time they tried

 

is it safer for you to go to Albury with CTA endo?

I don't quite understand your question? Is it safer to go to Albury with a CTA endo rather then without one, YES. Is it safer to go to Albury then not to go? NO. But then it could be said it's safer for none of us to fly at all then to fly.

 

At present, my Eurofox with a PPL in command CAN transit Class C airspace and land at D and C aerodromes. Sadly however, CTA is not available to my Eurofox even with a “CTA endorsed” RPL in command (so why should I even bother to negotiate all the hassles & expense of this conversion in some random VH aircraft). So unless CAO 95.55 is amended to allow either RPL or RA-Aus RPC (with a new CTA endorsement) I’m out of luck with my own completely capable aircraft – short of me getting a full PPL.

CAO 95.55 was amended when Part 61 came out. You need a license (such as RPL), other then a student license.

 

 

[dsam]

If you look at the motions for the last board meeting you will see that the board tasked the CEO to discuss exactly this with CASA.We will see what the new casa head thinks

 

Andy

rhysmcc, I believe Part 61 doesn't clarify this RPL vs PPL situation well enough, so that is why the RA-Aus board and CEO's need to "discuss" this on behalf of RA-Aus intrests.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

What's to clarify?

 

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

 

(e) the pilot has a valid flight review for the class rating in accordance with Part 61 of CASR 1998;

If you have a licence issued under Part 61 (which the RPL is), and you have the CTA endorsement and you've done your flight review, then your good to go.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The Ops Manual used to say you needed a private or higher pilots license, however that subject has been removed, might be where you're getting the confusion.

 

Also the CEO is already on this case, the board passed a resolution last month for him to investigate bringing the RPC inline with the RPL, but as with anything involving CASA it will take time.

 

I do agree with you that RA-AUS needs to be more political and take an advocacy role too, however it's hard to smack the hand that feeds you (CASA).

 

 

[facthunter]

Bringing the RAAus Cert inline with the RPL would be a very retrograde step. Appreciate what you have and look after it.

 

If a large% of members wanted to go into CTA maybe you would look at it. I very much doubt that is the situation

 

I want transit permissions to avoid the tiger country. This involves a minimum of training and if you don't have a radio which works you don't get through. ( I don't see why a mobile phone wouldn't work as I had a friend who had a radio failure and rang up the tower to cover the occasion.) You only need to abide by published procedures and receive the clearance, comply and let them know when you are clear.

 

Most RAAus people won't want the complication and cost of full Controlled airspace compliance. Most of my flying has been in controlled airspace and my considered view is that except for a very small number who might use it regularly, most members won't want the risk to our reputation and people and property and extra training costs and skills involved to be added to general costs. Controlled airspace is for aircraft that operate 95% of the time under IF Rules. A lot of the airspace is over terrain that is not optimum for aircraft like ours. It's also far more demanding and disciplined. If you muck it up you will indeed get some paperwork. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Bringing the RAAus Cert inline with the RPL would be a very retrograde step. Appreciate what you have and look after it.If a large% of members wanted to go into CTA maybe you would look at it. I very much doubt that is the situation

I want transit permissions to avoid the tiger country. This involves a minimum of training and if you don't have a radio which works you don't get through. ( I don't see why a mobile phone wouldn't work as I had a friend who had a radio failure and rang up the tower to cover the occasion.) You only need to abide by published procedures and receive the clearance, comply and let them know when you are clear.

 

Most RAAus people won't want the complication and cost of full Controlled airspace compliance. Most of my flying has been in controlled airspace and my considered view is that except for a very small number who might use it regularly, most members won't want the risk to our reputation and people and property and extra training costs and skills involved to be added to general costs. Controlled airspace is for aircraft that operate 95% of the time under IF Rules. A lot of the airspace is over terrain that is not optimum for aircraft like ours. It's also far more demanding and disciplined. If you muck it up you will indeed get some paperwork. Nev

Perhaps we could model up the scene for places like Coffs, Albury and Bankstown. There is no reason that RAA Pilots should be lesser heroes than RPL Pilots.

There is still the essential requirement that the plane entering controlled airspace (Jabirus with a radio are able to enter D Space but need a transponder for C Space) and there is no reason that pilots with more than a few neurons should not be able to get a controlled airspace endo. I'm not sure why it would be such a big deal handling this under RAA as opposed to say RPL.

 

In any case there is an approaching need to ensure lanes through the soon to be much more prescriptive airspace around Sydney which will eventuate with the Lawrence Hargraves Airport proposed for Badgeries Creek. This may well block access between Northern Sydney and the South West and out to the Blue Mountains. Coffs Harbour is already highly compromise and effectively closed out to transitting RAA planes.

 

 

[facthunter]

Col, Some of the most dangerous situations occur where lanes converge and the traffic becomes a bit "thick". Vertical separation where it can be done is a good idea. Sydney was always a challenge, and getting worse. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

There is no such thing as transit airspace access. You either have CTA or you don't.

 

 

[facthunter]

Whatever name you call it by, a pilot can be cleared through controlled airspace as a procedure, provided one exists. I don't quite understand your post. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Whatever name you call it by, a pilot can be cleared through controlled airspace as a procedure, provided one exists. I don't quite understand your post. Nev

Yes they can, but you require a CTA endorsement. The procedure (or clearance) isn't to provide you transit access if you're not endorsed to fly in controlled airspace, it's designed to keep you separated or segregated from other airspace users.

 

There is no way around it, if you need to transit controlled airspace due to tiger country or whatever, then you need a CTA endorsement. There is no way to change the rules to allow controlled airspace access on certain routes

 

 

[facthunter]

What I'm proposing is not an all or nothing approach. It used to be available. It can be again. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

dsam - "negotiate a CTA endorsement with CASA for suitably equipped 24- registered “high-performance” aircraft."

 

A point - this is an example of the narrow focus of member/RAA. In the beginning (back in the late 80's) the AUF used to work out areas of interest and ask for EVERYTHING and wait for CAA (as then) to say no or offer alternate.

 

Why should the RAA just start with a thin slice and how do you categorise the suitability of the equipment ?

 

This is the way of difficulty in my opinion - ask for the lot IF its something that the RAA believe in then get CASA to justify backwards why it must be less than the whole.

 

I am not sure if this is where the RAA want or need to go but if it is then I for one want them to take the lot of us not just the few. We need to simplify the way we operate and manage to reduce the overall cost to teh RAA and reduce the risk of inadvertant non-compliace. One rule for all is a much simpler one to follow ... and in line with the origins and purpose of ultralights it should be to the highest level of freedom and lowest level of restriction.

 

Example - in the UK a few years ago there was this lovely volcano that grounded all those pesky 737's around London and gave the airspace back to the rightful users - light and microlight aircraft. You have never seen SO many ultralights/microlights flying the collector set of major airports (Standstead, Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton) with literally dozens of CTA transits at any time at all airfields - it gave the controllers something to do at least ;-).

 

I did some of them them in a 25yr old weightshift flying at 45mph with a rubber band reduction on an ancient two stroke robin engine ... not certified, not high performance but with a radio completely safe and legal because the BMAA (RAA equiv) got the CTA transit permission requested for ALL (not just the high performance/pseudo GA) and the CAA allowed it with only the limit of radio reqd.

 

Note - these were transits and not landings ... we did ask Stanstead whilst overhead what was stopping us landing - they said nothing except the landing fee was just slightly less than I paid for the whole aircraft ;-)

 

 

[Ignition]

Or the alternative, instead of having more regulation (ie. RAAus getting a CTA endorsement, needing to spend time and money to qualify for the endorsement when all you want to do is transit), why not make it easy like the USA and simply reclassify a block of Class C airspace (say 5000ft to FL180) to Class E instead, or if that is too much of an ask, chuck a few more Victor lanes in around Coffs/Williamtown etc.

 

There are plenty of ways that transit over safer terrain could be done that don't involve more regulation. Unfortunately we like to reinvent the wheel though so less regulation would be unlikely with any change.

 

 

[coljones]

snip snip snipThere is no way around it, if you need to transit controlled airspace due to tiger country or whatever, then you need a CTA endorsement. There is no way to change the rules to allow controlled airspace access on certain routes

Why can't the rules be changed? Why should the rules remain as they are?

Nev, as a half arsed PPL am I any better than I am as a half arsed RAC without a CTA endo? And yes I spend a lot of time at various heights over Prospect wondering about See and Avoid and listening in hard on YBSK CTAF and Area. On paper, it seems to be the busiest spot in the universe (for little planes).

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Because it can't be defined. a CTA endorsement is all about transiting controlled airspace, if you want to land at a controlled aerodrome then that's a different endorsement all together. You can't have a rule set that says you don't need a CTA endorsement to fly 10-20 different routes around the country. If your safe and component to fly a particular procedure or route in controlled airspace, then why not get the whole lot (i.e. CTA Endorsement).

 

Class E airspace is the worst, and I for one would not want to see any more of it. The Victor 1 route in Sydney is outside controlled airspace so is not a transit lane. What's the point of controlled airspace if you just want to let uncontrolled flights operate within it.

 

 

[kasper]

snip snipAnd yes I spend a lot of time at various heights over Prospect wondering about See and Avoid and listening in hard on YBSK CTAF and Area. On paper, it seems to be the busiest spot in the universe (for little planes).

Lol. I used to fly around over Prospect and think good grief is THIS was ultralights was about ... then I moved to the UK and flew from a field inside the M25 motorway in London ... I'll take Prospect anyday over getting from south of London to Cambridge on the eastern side of the city.

 

 

[SDQDI]

dsam - "negotiate a CTA endorsement with CASA for suitably equipped 24- registered “high-performance” aircraft."Why should the RAA just start with a thin slice and how do you categorise the suitability of the equipment ?

 

This is the way of difficulty in my opinion - ask for the lot IF its something that the RAA believe in then get CASA to justify backwards why it must be less than the whole.

 

;-)

Well said.

 

I fly a 19 reg, which in my understanding can't be flown through CTA without a specific exemption from CASA even if I had a PPL, and CTA isn't on my big to do list but if asking for it why not ask for the lot eg 19reg, no extra medical etc.

 

I did all my RAA nav training out of Tamworth and at that stage was a little overwhelmed by the tower and also was a bit scared of the centres/area frequencies but I am now greatful for having to fly out of there as it has (IMHO) really helped my airmanship and left me with the confidence to actually talk to Brisbane or Melbourne centre without thinking of them as ogres.

 

I think that a properly set up CTA endorsement would be a great boost for safety maybe even encouraging us to talk to those other great resources BEFORE we find ourselves in really deep trouble. How many of us in RAA actually log on or off our sartimes over area frequency?? I know I'm slack in that respect and put it onto family and I'm sure I'm not the only one. How many more of us would do it if we had the proper training and gained confidence to use our radio more?

 

I can understand not wanting more conditions put on all of us but why not aim for more privileges even if it turns out to access those specific privileges we need to meet further requirements (radio, transponder). If the requirements for grass roots stays the same why hold back or burden each other? If you don't want CTA that's fine keep doing as you are doing and if you do want CTA make sure you aren't "forcing" everyone to the same level. Seems like common sense to me and I can't see a reason why RAA can't have it both ways