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

[Ignition]

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.

I'm guessing you have never flown in North America then or you would understand the purpose of Class E and how it works (over there at least).

 

Victor One is technically *in* Sydney's Class C airspace, it is just a carving off the internal side of the 8.5 DME arc (aka where it is for the most part SFC to 2500 Class C) and reclassed as G airspace. There is no reason it can't be done anywhere else, or at different altitudes for that matter (in the case of Coffs being right on the beach)

 

 

[facthunter]

CTA and having a simple design and car medical and owner maint. etc just don't fit together

 

. The reason the RPL went to hell with the medical is because it involved airspace with other planes with good radios and towers and extra liability etc. The majority of members won't be behind this because if it was fully explored and the pros and cons discussed, of any issue I can think of, at the moment, the consequences would destroy our freedoms to be personally involved with our aircraft more than any other issue.. It's under threat now with things getting more onerous. You will just make it more so.

 

The privileges we forego are the reason we can do things cheaper and simpler. IF you want everything GA has, go GA. and you will incur GA costs, unavoidably Why reinvent the wheel?. IF we are allowed to do these things cheaper than GA , GA will want the same but it can't as it operates to international standards ICAO. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I'm guessing you have never flown in North America then or you would understand the purpose of Class E and how it works (over there at least).Victor One is technically *in* Sydney's Class C airspace, it is just a carving off the internal side of the 8.5 DME arc (aka where it is for the most part SFC to 2500 Class C) and reclassed as G airspace. There is no reason it can't be done anywhere else, or at different altitudes for that matter (in the case of Coffs being right on the beach)

I have a pretty good understanding with how Class E airspace works here in Australia and have seen it from both sides.

 

Victor One is not in Class C airspace, the airspace has been designed around the route yes. Sadly this isn't possible at most aerodromes, using Coffs as an example, because the runway is close to the beach and flight paths cross without suitable altitude differences. Controlled Airspace must protect the arrival and departure paths, including the instrument approaches (and tolerances) at controlled aerodromes.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

CTA and having a simple design and car medical and owner maint. etc just don't fit together. The reason the RPL went to hell with the medical is because it involved airspace with other planes with good radios and towers and extra liability etc. The majority of members won't be behind this because if it was fully explored and the pros and cons discussed, of any issue I can think of, at the moment, the consequences would destroy our freedoms to be personally involved with our aircraft more than any other issue.. It's under threat now with things getting more onerous. You will just make it more so.

The privileges we forego are the reason we can do things cheaper and simpler. IF you want everything GA has, go GA. and you will incur GA costs, unavoidably Why reinvent the wheel?. IF we are allowed to do these things cheaper than GA , GA will want the same but it can't as it operates to international standards ICAO. Nev

I see kit built aeroplanes which were made and maintained by "amateurs" everyday flying in and landing at controlled aerodromes. Yes they have a Class 2 Medical. No one is suggesting anyone be forced to get a CTA at the cost of losing something else.

 

 

[Nobody]

Class E airspace is the worst, and I for one would not want to see any more it.

Why do you say this? Where I have flown in the USA there was a lot of class E and it was very GA/recreational friendly. Ie no different to class g in most respects except for vis and cloud rules.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Why do you say this? Where I have flown in the USA there was a lot of class E and it was very GA/recreational friendly. Ie no different to class g in most respects except for vis and cloud rules.

It's not very IFR/RPT friendly.

 

 

[robinsm]

It would be cheaper andeasier for every one to just get a ppl and less heart acheit is not that hard you know

would have got it except for the medical rules, wanting me to jump through very expensive hoops for a minor issue 6 years before I applied. Dont know about easier, and definitely not cheaper.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you have a heart ache, it's impossible to get he RPL and if you get your ache checked it gets pretty hard to get the PPL but not impossible.

 

There is too much military and CTA airspace allocated. That is where the problem originated. If you are going to talk to controllers, you won't get that for free. You will have more rules to comply with.

 

"It is not that hard you know" Compared with what? Nev

 

 

[red750]

There should be flexibility. If all you want is to fly around the pea patch in a wing and a prayer, that's fine. But if you have need to fly into a CTA, then that option should also be available, albeit with appropriate training and endorsement. Coming from a GA background many years ago, endorsements were available for aerobatics, night VMC, etc. I didn't get these endorsements because I didn't need them, but at least they were there for those who did.

 

As for how hard it is, when I learned to fly, I did it at Moorabbin, so in addition to learning to fly the aircraft, I also dealt with CTA, radio, fast and slow aircraft, etc. I also flew into and out of Essendon in the days when 727s, DC9s, F27s etc used the airport. It's what you had to do, and you learned to take it in your stride. Once you completed your navex's, and started cross country touring, you moved up to faster and more complex aircraft, such as the Piper Arrow and Beech Bonanza, with retractable gear and constant speed props. I'm no wizard or brainiac, but I seemed to manage it, you just have to apply yourself - if that's what you want. No-one forces you

 

 

[facthunter]

red750. I too have flown into those places, in the 3 aircraft you mention but that is not the point. If only a few do it (and some won't keep current), the rest will most likely be forced to bear some of the cost. What if it comes with an upgrade or rigid conditions (like what happened to the RPL ) medical required to all..? RAAus as we know it won't exist. A lot of the current members who will give up flying then, won't thank anyone who causes that outcome. Unlikely??? You would have to convince ME. Won't be easy. Why risk it. This is a tiny tail wagging a fairly big dog. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

That's why we need to have the discussion and investigate. If CTA comes at the cost of all RAA requiring a medical, then no I wouldn't be for it. If to use the CTA it requires a medical, I don't see how you are worse off?

 

I don't see how getting a PPL is easier or cheaper then getting a RPL. I think generally it will take more flight training with a GA School then the flight review required for the RPL.

 

 

[coljones]

IF you have a heart ache, it's impossible to get he RPL and if you get your ache checked it gets pretty hard to get the PPL but not impossible. snip snip snip

You are confusing the Medical standard with the licence. You can mix and match a RAMPC Medical and Class medical with an RPL or a PPL. You get CTA as part of a PPL, you need to do the endorsement with an RPL. With a RAMPC Medical you can use it with an RPL or PPL but there are restrictions about height, weight, Pax and Day VFR only but no impact on CTA access.

 

 

[facthunter]

The RPL got corrupted, Rhys.It was for older chaps who wanted to keep flying their 182's Warriors etc for longer.( No point changing planes in those circumstances.) They went for a "Car" medical BUT the boss wanted to access the larger aerodromes for HIS plane and the boom was lowered on the medical criteria, because of the safety implications so perceived , so we end up with what we have. A cock up, I suggest Nev

 

 

[Ignition]

Victor One is not in Class C airspace, the airspace has been designed around the route yes. Sadly this isn't possible at most aerodromes, using Coffs as an example, because the runway is close to the beach and flight paths cross without suitable altitude differences. Controlled Airspace must protect the arrival and departure paths, including the instrument approaches (and tolerances) at controlled aerodromes.

So therefore, because Coffs is close to the beach, you feel that it would be unsafe for Class E to be over the top of the airfield from say 5000ft up to the Class A LL and therefore the entire area needs to become a complete roadblock?

 

As an example, Santa Barbara in the USA (roughly 80nm NW of LAX) is reasonably similar setup to Coffs (and even Newcastle to an extent) - 5-7,000ft mountains and forest, pretty crappy place to fly over. Santa Barbara Airport is right on the beach, reasonably similar runway directions as Coffs & Newcastle, yet they manage to have Class E over the top from 4800ft up - and they do it just fine, safely. Aircraft on Approach or Descent are generally not going to be overhead the airport at these altitudes, and if they are, separation is rarely a problem. It makes it far safer for everyone.

 

This is an example of where the MDX crash wouldn't have happened had they been able to transit direct through Newcastle in an area that really wasn't going to be an issue. Newcastle already has VFR lanes, so if the traffic were to follow the lanes, in Class E (no clearance needed) the controllers already know where to route the traffic around that is going into Newcastle. It isn't like people transiting are going to be going all over the shop and completely unpredictable, they generally are transiting A to B for a reason and to be able to do this over safer terrain efficiently (not going out west) should be a big consideration.

 

With the amount of airspace our controlled airports already have locked away, protecting the approach & departure paths is hardly going to be a problem.

 

As a side note, you can fly directly overhead Atlanta airport (the busiest in the world by aircraft numbers) from 12,500ft upwards, in Class E; safely. And transit directly in front of the Runways, 5nm away - yet Newcastle is locked up for a 12nm radius - if this were reduced to 5nm to match the busiest airport in the world, the Coastal VFR lane would be in Class G. (Or alternatively, a Victor Lane could be put along the beach, just like Sydney.) which would solve that problem.

 

As I said before, there are plenty of ways to do it with out adding regulations and complicating things. As far as I am concerned, RAAus does not need a CTA Endorsement. Our Airspace on the other hand, could do with a reduction of boundaries, in line with the USA

 

 

[rhysmcc]

My comment in regards to Coff's was with transit routes, not class E airspace. I don't have plates for Coffs at hand, but if its similar to Cairns, 5000ft above the aerodrome does conflict with instrument approaches which do fly overhead (VOR/NDB).

 

Class E airspace does not protect the IFR aircraft coming into and out of aerodromes, as you have pointed out VFR do not require a clearance and could be in clear conflict without the IFR aircraft or Controller knowing anything about where they are, who they are and what they plan on doing. How many mid air's have happened in the US between RPT jets and light VFR traffic in Class E airspace? I can think of at least 2 without doing research.

 

If a pilot is deemed safe to fly a route such as along the Coffs coast line and remain clear of arriving and departing aircraft, then why not just give them a CTA endorsement and loop the other parties in on his flight (i.e. the IFR and ATC).

 

At the end of the day, CASA's focus is the safety of the traveling public. Class E doesn't support it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes Col . I was talking about the medical, which I further allude to above.. I hope I'm not confusing anyone. Nev

 

 

[Ignition]

Class E airspace does not protect the IFR aircraft coming into and out of aerodromes, as you have pointed out VFR do not require a clearance and could be in clear conflict without the IFR aircraft or Controller knowing anything about where they are, who they are and what they plan on doing. How many mid air's have happened in the US between RPT jets and light VFR traffic in Class E airspace? I can think of at least 2 without doing research.If a pilot is deemed safe to fly a route such as along the Coffs coast line and remain clear of arriving and departing aircraft, then why not just give them a CTA endorsement and loop the other parties in on his flight (i.e. the IFR and ATC).

 

At the end of the day, CASA's focus is the safety of the traveling public. Class E doesn't support it.

You need a transponder to use Class E airspace, ATC still know you are there, and where you are, so long as your transponder is working and if you are at correct hemispherical levels, IFR traffic should not conflict. The only conflict would be climb/descent but even then it is highly unlikely. Mid airs are one of the rarest causes of a crash, even in the USA, and is far less concern than say spinning onto final.

 

Sure, I am not saying they should not be allowed to have a CTA endorsement to transit in Class C, however the costs and regulations are not really worth it when it could be done with less trouble. Besides, Coffs is Class D, and RAAus already operate out of there (by exemption), and in Class D it is still up to the PIC to see and avoid, separation of VFR and IFR is not provided by ATC, not much different to Class E airspace.

 

The biggest difference with Coffs would be that you would have effctively the exact same aircraft operating exactly the same way, however as it stands, they are jammed into a smaller patch of sky, rather than opening up a currently under-used altitude block and spreading out across what could be a nice big block of E airspace, because of the current overlying Class C, which is unnecessary. Effectively, as it stands, it is less safe now than what it would be if the overlying C was reclassified as E - and CASA's role is supposed to focus on the safety of all aircraft, not just RPT, as far as I can see.

 

By your idea on Class E, Coffs (and all Class D and E airspace) would need to become Class C, and more restrictive.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Class D VFR still require a clearance and IFR are provided positive traffic information, both aircraft are under control of ATC who resolves their being a conflict. Class E, the controller has no idea of the VFR and it intention, traffic is provided when it can be. However as you get closer to an aerodrome aircraft become more in conflict, that's the nature of arrivial and departure paths. Flying at 8500feet doesn't stop a conflict for a Jer who is descending into the aerodrome, that could be up to 20-30 miles out, which is why in Australia controlled aerodromes (those set by CASA due to the number of movements and pax) are protected by Class C or D airspace. That protection is required for both the aerodrome (7-12nm radius) and the flight paths into and out of the aerodrome.

 

The US system seems to use Class E airspace where in Australia we would use Class G. But not in place of using D or C around controlled aerodromes.

 

 

[Nobody]

Class D VFR still require a clearance and IFR are provided positive traffic information, both aircraft are under control of ATC who resolves their being a conflict. Class E, the controller has no idea of the VFR and it intention, traffic is provided when it can be. However as you get closer to an aerodrome aircraft become more in conflict, that's the nature of arrivial and departure paths. Flying at 8500feet doesn't stop a conflict for a Jer who is descending into the aerodrome, that could be up to 20-30 miles out, which is why in Australia controlled aerodromes (those set by CASA due to the number of movements and pax) are protected by Class C or D airspace. That protection is required for both the aerodrome (7-12nm radius) and the flight paths into and out of the aerodrome.The US system seems to use Class E airspace where in Australia we would use Class G. But not in place of using D or C around controlled aerodromes.

I think you misunderstand the US system.

 

The image below shows the airspace situation as shown on the US sectional chart around Savannah Airport(KSAV), an airport with approximately 6.5 times more movements annually that Williamtown. The Class C airspace is shown by the maroon lines. Significantly there is an upper limit to the airspace at 4100 feet. Above that height the area is Class E which in the USA does not require a radio or a transponder* for VFR flight. The consequence of all of this is that the airport does not prevent movement of aircraft like Williamtown does.

 

*slight correction. In Class E you do not need a transponder in the USA but above Class C as in this case you do.

 

 

 

[ben87r]

I don't see how getting a PPL is easier or cheaper then getting a RPL. I think generally it will take more flight training with a GA School then the flight review required for the RPL.

And that's why you need a PPL RPL.

 

 

[poteroo]

This CTA issue would require a well developed case to both the Minister and CASA. It might be prudent to develop it by taking 1 or 2 CTA's as test cases and see whether RAAus aircraft are able to operate within the operational guidelines required. Any stuff ups - and it's off.

 

RAAus would need to demonstrate that a 'safe' CTA TRANSIT LANE could be developed through each contentious CTA. These 'routes' might be possibly structured so that they are easily entered via a clear cut VFR point, perhaps identified by a strobelight, but definitely as a GPS waypoint. They may be multi-leg, and might require flight at between 500ft agl and 1000 ft agl - depending on what's underneath. If the 'safe' aspect is sufficient - it may well allow passage along the transit route while only monitoring a COM frequency, and with a transponder + mode C set to 1200.

 

It seems to me that RAAus should be approaching this from the viewpoint that a PC could achieve the above without a full CTA endorsement. Thus, if such transit lanes were to be established, it removes the need for the pilot to hold a 'licence' to use the lanes because they are in fact not in CTA. It's really just a variation on the current VFR lanes-of-entry.

 

happy days,

 

 

[coljones]

This CTA issue would require a well developed case to both the Minister and CASA. It might be prudent to develop it by taking 1 or 2 CTA's as test cases and see whether RAAus aircraft are able to operate within the operational guidelines required. Any stuff ups - and it's off.RAAus would need to demonstrate that a 'safe' CTA TRANSIT LANE could be developed through each contentious CTA. These 'routes' might be possibly structured so that they are easily entered via a clear cut VFR point, perhaps identified by a strobelight, but definitely as a GPS waypoint. They may be multi-leg, and might require flight at between 500ft agl and 1000 ft agl - depending on what's underneath. If the 'safe' aspect is sufficient - it may well allow passage along the transit route while only monitoring a COM frequency, and with a transponder + mode C set to 1200.

 

It seems to me that RAAus should be approaching this from the viewpoint that a PC could achieve the above without a full CTA endorsement. Thus, if such transit lanes were to be established, it removes the need for the pilot to hold a 'licence' to use the lanes because they are in fact not in CTA. It's really just a variation on the current VFR lanes-of-entry.

 

happy days,

There are VFR Routes around Sydney that are not concessions but areas that exist under CTA or are in such topography that they don't interfere with CTAs. These include the (whatever you want to call them) lanes from Bankstown/Prospect to Patonga/Brooklyn Bridge, Victor 1 and the lane west of Williamtown. These are all in GSpace

There are other VFR Routes that pass through CTA eg Richmond, Nowra and over the top of Williamtown or Williamtown coastal. These all require a CTA endo and a transponder. For an RAA plan that means both a PC and a PPL or an RPL with CTA endo. These appear to be what you are suggesting but in these cases they are military airfields and access to the ground is generally not available. In the case of Coffs, Bankstown, Camden, Canberra and Albury it would be beneficial if access to the ground and training activities were made available to suitably trained pilots in properly equipped aircraft under control of ATC. Maybe we should promote the RAA Advanced Pilot Award as the entry level fot CTA access.

 

It will be interesting when Lawrence Hargraves/Badgerys Creek is built as that CTA may preclude GSpace west of Bankstown all the way to tiger country in the blue mountains blocking off RAA and some GA going between southern, western and northern parts of Sydney (except via Victor 1)

 

 

[DrZoos]

100% agree with original post....

 

Flying in or through many CTA could be much safer then around... Sure keep us out of Kingsford Smith, Melbourne, but many others could easily accept us in the interest of safety, hell we might even keep the ATC awake at times like

 

Newcastle, Coffs etc

 

 

[dsam]

100% agree with original post....Flying in or through many CTA could be much safer then around... Sure keep us out of Kingsford Smith, Melbourne, but many others could easily accept us in the interest of safety, hell we might even keep the ATC awake at times like

Newcastle, Coffs etc

Thanks DrZoos. As well, it seems I stand corrected regarding needing only the RPL with CTA endorsement, but I would still bear the added & unnecessary expense hiring some random VH aircraft - become current in it, then do the CTA check flights in it - not to mention paying for the english exam and additional medical requirements. Only then could I go back to using my own aircraft as I would like within CTA to avoid tiger country. Way too many hoops to jump through, when RA-Aus could just negotiate for our own CTA endorsement.

 

I note that since my original post on this, RA-Aus have started encouraging members to contact federal politicians regarding the Jabiru matter. I am very happy to see this development. I myself have written Warren Truss to express my concerns on CASA as a regulator, asking why he hasn't acted on all the recommendations in the Forsyth review. I have no reply yet, but no doubt he is swamped with letters from other RA-Aus members over the Jabiru issue more specifically.

 

I remain convinced that collective political lobbying by GA and Recreational Aviation organisations is the best way to force CASA to become compliant as per the Forsyth report, and not remain as a punitive and obstructive buraucracy like it is now.

 

 

[shags_j]

I think you all have buckleys chance of having the airspace changed. The red tape surrounding such things, and the cost of implementing into maps, atc systems (eurocat map upgrades etc) are too high.

 

Noone who is asking for CTA endorsements wants added costs and requirements on the guys who don't want to use it. We are asking only that we look into the issue. If it can be accessed for those who want it (regardless of what hoops they have to jump through) without affecting those who don't want it then what is the harm?

 

We are asking only that the issue be looked into again.

 

Oh and your VFR routes through CTA or Class E above aerodromes would be an absolute nightmare for ATC. Class E is horrible, I am with Rhys on this one. IFR pickup is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Especially in the one time I've seen it.

 

Cheers,

 

Shags