What if you controlled policy for a day, what would improve your safety most?

[K-man]

Do you want RAA to still be the AUF, or do you want it to be GA-lite?Do you want stalls to be demonstrated by someone who potentially doesn't understand loading charts, how to calculate CoG, and how CoG affects stall/spin behaviour?

 

You can't argue for watered down standards for ultralights and then claim that an RPC is equivalent to an RPL in training.

Ada Elle, people have different reasons for having whatever licence they have. I could have a CPL if I wanted. I always wanted to fly and I won't bore people with the reasons I didn't start flying fifty years back. Suffice to say, I didn't but now I am proud to owner of a beautiful RA aircraft that has taken my wife and me all around this magnificent country. Until recently I had no need for more than my RPC. More recently I have got my RPL to give me CTA. However, I am still the same pilot with the same training and the same ability. I have had several people over the years tell me that my RPC is not in the same league as their PPLs. Well I have news for anyone that thinks that. We share the same airspace so you had better hope that I am as competent as any other pilot flying in to Essendon, Broome, Alice or Bankstown. I don't believe there is anything watered down with my training and I don't believe any RA pilot who takes his/her flying seriously is a lessor pilot than pilots with a PPL.

Sure there are cowboys in RA who do nothing to help our cause but there are cowboys in GA as well, but in the total picture they are very much the minority in either class. In my experience the pilots I know are serious aviators regardless of the bit of paper they carry. It makes no difference to me if they fly a Bonanza or a Jabiru. We are all living the dream.

 

Now this thread is about safety. It is up to each and every one of us to take responsibility for our own safety and the safety of those around us. If we can demonstrate that we will be granted more privileges. If we don't, we will be saddled with more regulation.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Your leaps of logic from the discussion have me gasping for air.

First you want to keep all the existing weight limits and argue against any change, now you are going on about having 1500kg.

 

You have gone from one extreme to the other.

 

Also what the public or anyone in the media- who can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a Bi-plane thinks about what Ultralight means is not relevant. I don't care what Joe Blow thinks.

 

If you had not noticed we are not just rag and tube anymore, we have moved on and are actually called Recreational Aircraft.

 

Note: Recreational ie not for profit, Not for carrying commercial loads. For the fun and enjoyment of flying.

 

The whole idea is to have all the benefits of flying suitable aircraft that we can regulate and not have the costs and complexity of GA.

I haven't actually advocated for either keeping the existing limits as they are, nor for 1500kg merely pointing out that others have and that the arguments for safety or equivalence etc don't really hold water.

 

There's a vast difference between rag and tube, and LSA. There's not a lot of difference between LSA and VLA, at an airframe level (except potentially for certification).

 

If I had my druthers, my solution would be to:

 

- move LSAs, VLAs, and the bottom end of GA into a single 'recreational' class

 

- allow owner maintenance along the Canadian lines

 

- have a drivers license medical along UK lines (commercial drivers license standard)

 

- upgrade instructor ratings to have at least PPL theory, unusual attitude recovery, and allow CPL GA instructors to instruct like in the US (without a formal Part 141 organisation, for example)

 

- have similar airworthiness standards to VH experimental for 19-

 

Really, what are the downsides of GA?

 

- maintenance

 

- medical

 

If there was a compromise on maintenance and medical, but with an upgrade on training and airworthiness testing, who would not want to fly GA-lite rather than ultralights?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

However, I am still the same pilot with the same training and the same ability. I have had several people over the years tell me that my RPC is not in the same league as their PPLs. Well I have news for anyone that thinks that. We share the same airspace so you had better hope that I am as competent as any other pilot flying in to Essendon, Broome, Alice or Bankstown. I don't believe there is anything watered down with my training and I don't believe any RA pilot who takes his/her flying seriously is a lessor pilot than pilots with a PPL.

I'm obviously not communicating properly.

 

I'm not denigrating anybody's training. I have the same training as you - and my RPL is still in the mail, not in my hand yet.

 

I do think, however, that the minimum requirements for RAA instructors is too lax. I know that most people will be SIs and will have far more than the minimums - but why allow the barely competent to get through? My question is, if someone can't pass the PPL theory, should they be instructing? If they do instruct, how do you know that what they are teaching isn't the blind leading the blind?

 

 

[K-man]

Really, what are the downsides of GA?

- maintenance

 

- medical

 

If there was a compromise on maintenance and medical, but with an upgrade on training and airworthiness testing, who would not want to fly GA-lite rather than ultralights?

Ouch! There are lots of guys out there who would love to see the return of the good old days without the 'plastic fantastics'. For many, flying a microlight beats everything else.

No, we have a range of aircraft in RA and I think that is a good mix. There was talk of allowing heavier GA aircraft to transfer to and be registered as RA. Old aircraft age and maintainence issues put an end to that. Setting up a separate category along the lines you suggest would be expensive to administer for little if any additional benefit IMHO.

 

 

[K-man]

I'm obviously not communicating properly.I'm not denigrating anybody's training. I have the same training as you - and my RPL is still in the mail, not in my hand yet.

 

I do think, however, that the minimum requirements for RAA instructors is too lax. I know that most people will be SIs and will have far more than the minimums - but why allow the barely competent to get through? My question is, if someone can't pass the PPL theory, should they be instructing? If they do instruct, how do you know that what they are teaching isn't the blind leading the blind?

What do you think is in PPL theory that is not in RPC theory that would make a difference to the safety of RA flying. Maybe I could phrase it another way and ask what from the PPL theory you would like to see taught in RA that is relevant to RA and might improve safety?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

What do you think is in PPL theory that is not in RPC theory that would make a difference to the safety of RA flying. Maybe I could phrase it another way and ask what from the PPL theory you would like to see taught in RA that is relevant to RA and might improve safety?

Performance calculations, weight and balance.

 

It's not about content/syllabus, but about standards. I don't remember much about stall/spin, for example, in the BAK - although it's in the syllabus, the aerodynamics of it isn't particularly well examined.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Ouch! There are lots of guys out there who would love to see the return of the good old days without the 'plastic fantastics'. For many, flying a microlight beats everything else.

To each their own.

 

No, we have a range of aircraft in RA and I think that is a good mix. There was talk of allowing heavier GA aircraft to transfer to and be registered as RA. Old aircraft age and maintainence issues put an end to that. Setting up a separate category along the lines you suggest would be expensive to administer for little if any additional benefit IMHO.

Not if CASA administered it. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the UK NPPL and Permit to Fly.

 

so instead of the current system of 600kg and below, and GA, move to a system of 472kg and below, 475-1200kg, and 1200kg+, with the latter two administered by CASA but with a much less restrictive bureaucracy for the middle group. other countries have done it, why can't we?

 

tbh, I don't see why the LSA portion of RAA needs a separate licensing and membership scheme to GA licensing. What's the difference between a VH registered PiperSport and a RAA registered PiperSport, to the pilot? at an aircraft owners, maintenance and registration level there's a difference, sure.

 

 

[jetjr]

So you suggesting a separate permit to own an aircraft too?

 

Also linked to weight?

 

Also a division somewhere around 600kg for maintenance?

 

Geting complex and youll end up with same complaints. Whats the difference between flying a 470 kg aircraft and 490kg one.

 

At the edges of the limits is always going to be contentious.

 

Other point is more regulation and oversight is coming, always is. Have to accept it. Its a price for an activity becomng popular.

 

If we stand still we will have privaledges we have now wih higher regs and oversight, if RAA pushes for access to CTA or MTOW at the least we have bargained for something. I dont think smaller end of RAA has lost much with changes and growing of RAA

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Wow thats one seriously strange point of view......your entitled to it, but that has some serious flaws1. If the safest route is A to B, but one has to go via C D and E over inhospitable terrain to avoid CTA then its the pilots fault, not the regulators? thats just bizarre! And secondly you say "How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace?" ...well if route a to b is the safest but CTA stops that happening, then it can be less safe.

2. We are not arguing that we are making unsafe decisions, we are saying we are being forced to take less safe decisions see example 1 for how thats possible

 

3. Are sorry but we don't control where CTA is or where the mountains and coast are, or the routes available past those locations when ranges and oceans come into play... so sorry but that's also bizarre to say the least.. If you live in a remote area, it might be possible to think this...but if you have any familiarity with areas that have a lot of CTA , mountains and coast nearby its very different in reality, once any sort of cloud starts to build.

The thing is, that with all of your points above you're making out that you somehow have to fly in conditions or places that you consider to be unsafe. If you're doing that it's you that's making the operation less safe, not the conditions or the places that you're flying over, because the reality is that you don't have to fly at all, you're not conducting commercial operations, your flying is supposed to be for recreational purposes only. Since it's recreational flying you need to plan your operations for every contingency. If you've gone on a day excursion and the weather turns foul then get yourself home some other way and collect the aircraft the following weekend. Or buy a trailerable aircraft. Or fly back a different way. Or, if you're really dedicated to your flying you could get completely radical and do as some of us did, move home and work to a place or State where the conditions are better for flying.

 

There was a time when all of us in the ultralight fraternity built our planes and flew them purely for the fun of it. We trailered our planes to an airfield and flew in that locality. We trailered our planes to our 'fly-ins'. We never had any problems with bad terrain, bad weather or lack of CTA access. We didn't have many crashes and of those that did happen, a reasonably small percentage involved fatalities. It certainly wasn't considered a 'safe' pastime but we weren't in the news nearly as often as now.

 

Then along came a new wave of people wanting to benefit from our recreational flying organisation. They were the GA flyers who had lost their medicals but still wanted to get airborne. They enjoyed our kind of flying but quickly decided to change everything around so that it suited them better, and along came all the faster, enclosed LSA types. The crash per operation rate probably remained about the same but the fatality per crash rate soared. All of a sudden our sport starts to be seen as a 'dangerous' activity. The planes are actually built much better than they used to be, and the engine reliability has risen dramatically. So why are there still as many crashes? Given that the planes are better and more reliable, and the pilots are more experienced one would think that the crash rate should go down. The reason it didn't is obvious, it's not the planes or the pilots, it's the type of operations the pilots are choosing to make. All of a sudden the planes were being used as their GA planes were previously. The former GA pilots have just changed the kind of plane they fly, but not changed the kind of operation, except that the regulations exclude them from certain airspace.

 

The question is - if they still conducted their 'commuter flights', for want of a better expression, in their recreational planes but were allowed to access CTA, would that actually make the flight any safer? Do people magically not crash in CTA areas? Do air traffic controllers somehow keep the plane aloft? Is the weather actually any better in CTA? Is the terrain actually any better in CTA?

 

As I see it this whole business of wanting to access CTA has nothing to do with actually increasing safety, it's simply another step in some peoples' agenda of turning our sport into their daily commute. And that will inevitably make our activity less and less available as an affordable recreational activity and become more just a replacement for the bottom end of GA - and we can all see where the bottom end of GA ended up - nonexistent! Some will likely respond that there's nothing stopping the bottom end of ultralighting going on as it always has, but as anyone wanting to fly in that arena well knows, it's no longer available as it used to be, and never again will be. You're simply not permitted to buy a factory 95.10 anymore, and although kits are theoretically permitted, they have to be 'Approved', and no new ones have been, for many years.

 

IMHO the real answer is simple, you just have to get more hats as I, and many others, did. When I fly for fun in my RPC hat I fly safely in good weather, over good terrain, OCTA and without any pressing schedule if conditions change. That way it's truly a RECREATIONAL and INEXPENSIVE activity for me and I come home relaxed and happy regardless of the weather or other conditions.

 

When I have to get somewhere I wear my PPL hat and fly a plane that's certificated and professionally maintained with suitable instrumentation for the flight I am conducting, and I have a suitable medical to mix it with commercial traffic over populated areas. I can fly in varying weather and with steady Ts & Ps can spend a little time over inhospitable terrain if essential, and can use CTA and radar guidance as necessary to reach an ASIC controlled destination if I wish. That operation costs me a lot more than my fun flying but it's a reasonable expense when I need it.

 

At other times I may don my CPL hat and go and earn money from my operations. That's a really expensive hat and as I get older it's harder to keep my Class 1 medical. The carrier's insurance costs a fortune, the AOC/ASL is a nightmare to keep current, the operations manual requires constant attention, the facilities for crew and passengers have to meet various standards, the office has to be approved by CASA, work health and the like, the paperwork is endless. But my passengers and air- and ground-crew expect it all. With all of that I can use all of the airspace and facilities, but at enormous cost.

 

Those hats are available to most of the people who are now using the 'safety' argument to try and get access to all the bells and whistles - but without having to pay the extra cost of using them. For pity's sake people, be happy that you can fly a nice plane with a minimal RPC and the relatively minute costs that entails, and stop trying to turn Recreational flying into a mini GA, because if you succeed I can pretty much guarantee that you won't end up liking the trade-offs.

 

To be able to quite safely use what you have, all you have to do is take the slightly longer way around tigers and terrain, and stop the mindset that you'll be flying home late in the day into possibly worsening conditions, hell, even in commercial ops I try and get all the flying over with as early in the day as possible. Because, regardless of having CTA access, if you keep planning to leave places like Narromine at 4pm to get to Sydney before dark - you are going to come unstuck one day!

 

 

[Roundsounds]

What do you think is in PPL theory that is not in RPC theory that would make a difference to the safety of RA flying. Maybe I could phrase it another way and ask what from the PPL theory you would like to see taught in RA that is relevant to RA and might improve safety?

Perhaps, rather than insist on PPL theory, introduce some form of on-line training targeting theory issues specific to RAAus type aircraft? The suggestion of an on-line format is to create standardised training, allows remote pre-study for prospective instructors without the need to cram when attending an instructor approved school. Additionally, this allows students and RPC holders the ability to improve / refresh their knowledge. The content could initially be driven by findings from incident data - eg stall/spin or weather related decision making practices.

Instructor trainees could be required to pass a written exam prior to commencing their instructor training to establish they have a sound knowledge of RAAus aircraft type BAK and Human Factors principles.

 

 

[K-man]

Performance calculations, weight and balance.It's not about content/syllabus, but about standards. I don't remember much about stall/spin, for example, in the BAK - although it's in the syllabus, the aerodynamics of it isn't particularly well examined.

By performance calculations I'm assuming that you are talking about taking things like into account like wet /long grass, slope etc. and not heavy duty calculations such as these ... https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3oc9llQai5YC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=performance+calculations+in+general+aviation.&source=bl&ots=-wYN0U7A5i&sig=taOq9E9RS9aF7szbnGZQ1l2zzNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCGoVChMIj-SqhoCOyAIVjBmUCh2tUQ24#v=onepage&q=performance%20calculations%20in%20general%20aviation.&f=falseAs to weight and balance. It's not an issue in most RA aircraft. As long as I don't overload any particular compartment I can't be out of balance, and as long as I don't have too heavy a passenger with full fuel I won't be overweight. You seem to have an extraordinary requirement for theory. Do you still use your whiz wheel to do your flight plan?

For less than $10 there are heaps of electronic flight calculators if that lights your fire.

 

I think back to my Uni days and the amount of theoretical nonsense we were examined on to satisfy the requirements of the course even though they would play no part in a future career. Flipping through the training manuals just now I can see pages of trigonometry and other things that I'll bet your average PPL would have absolutely no idea how to calculate. That doesn't mean they're not perfectly competent pilots. In most cases having the basic understanding of why you do things or what to avoid or how to react is all you need. The secret of most education these days is knowing where to source information, not to necessarily have to remember it.

 

Not if CASA administered it. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the UK NPPL and Permit to Fly.

so instead of the current system of 600kg and below, and GA, move to a system of 472kg and below, 475-1200kg, and 1200kg+, with the latter two administered by CASA but with a much less restrictive bureaucracy for the middle group. other countries have done it, why can't we?

 

tbh, I don't see why the LSA portion of RAA needs a separate licensing and membership scheme to GA licensing. What's the difference between a VH registered PiperSport and a RAA registered PiperSport, to the pilot? at an aircraft owners, maintenance and registration level there's a difference, sure.

OK, the NPPL is similar to the RPL but interestingly, even though in some ways it is less restrictive, I wouldn't actually be allowed to fly the aircraft that I can fly here under RA with my RPC.I think that our major point of difference is, as you point out, you are approaching this question from the point of view of someone who is going to hire an aircraft (the much cheaper option) where I am looking at it from an aircraft owner's perspective. I think that rather than dividing the field by weights and speeds etc. we could be dividing by intent and I think that is the idea behind the RPL, to separate recreational flying from commercial flying. Personally, I think that all recreational flying should be under RA as the name suggests. That leaves CASA to look after the big issues. The problem is the age of the lower end GA fleet and how RAA could manage the maintainence issues. To some extent, this could be managed by requiring all aircraft used for hire to be still registered as VH and privately owned and operated aircraft under RAA. The immediate problem there is that RA training aircraft would have to be registered GA thus increasing the costs of getting the licence. Unfortunately it is a very complicated question and we are unlikely to solve it here to the satisfaction of all on this forum.

 

 

[kasper]

clipped... I'm thinking of something along the lines of the UK NPPL and Permit to Fly.

Ummmmm the absolute LAST thing RAA needs is permit inspection on aircraft ... and in fact the UK are unwinding that requirement - they started with SSDR and are now discussing DSDR ie creating the Australian 19- reg category.

As an insight the UK permit system REQUIRES

 

- the BMAA to employ an aeronautical engineer that is appointed by and reports through to the CAA and they must approve EVERY change/modification to ANY aircraft on permit - and it must comply with BCARS (even changing a dash board to add an instrument requires FULL documented load testing of all cutouts and the surrounds - lots of fun to do but it takes weeks and costs loads if you cannot do it yourself ... and not a lot of people can work out BCARS well enough to do it so turn to an approved inspectors who charges commercial rates ... then you pay the BMAA for the approval .... and it whole time your plane sits on the ground

 

- Every aircraft has to have a TADS or HADS that is a CAA approved specification of what the aircraft is - you CANNOT even change from 1 model of rotax 503 to another without approval - who is going to set up individual HADS for each of the 19- series aircraft because EVERY single one of them is a different spec from each other

 

- Every aircraft has to inspected by an approved person every year against the standard - and getting approval to be an inspector can be fun (I know I was one) and keeping it is a paperwork fest

 

- Every aircraft has to be check flown by an approved check pilot within x days of the inspection and must meet specified performance criteria

 

- the BMAA has to hold liability insurance for the engineer, all inspectors and all check pilots - last year the insurance bill was $142k ... and that does not provide third party to pilots just the people working within the permit system!

 

No - the absolute last thing we need is a permit system like the UK

 

 

[M61A1]

"Working fine".Obviously it's not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe that's a question of perspective......Mr Darwin's theory is working just fine and nothing you can regulate will change that.

 

 

[K-man]

Mr Darwin has a big fan in me and I love his awards.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hmmm 'the records stuck, the records stuck, the records stuck, the records stuck, the records stuck, records stuck, stuck stuck stuck stuck stuck stuck kkkkk

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't need to defend my position, I think Head in the Clouds has done it for me. But what I was trying to point out seems to have been shown to be true.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Head in the clouds, I guess nobody really has to fly anywhere, there are alternatives to flying even for business.

 

In my case, I have an interest in a farm near Edenhope and a Jabiru hangared at Gawler.

 

I am a taxpaying Australian. Why should these nasty and stupid bureaucrats deny me a fair go?

 

Of course I can find other ways to get to the farm, if fact I usually drive due to the load being carried or the weather.

 

But I say again, obeying unnecessary height restrictions is the most dangerous thing I do in flying. It's not very dangerous, there are really only a few minutes when an engine failure would be nasty.

 

But here we have a bureaucracy dedicated to my "safety" doing this for no good reason. Maybe they don't understand what they are doing.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Ummmmm the absolute LAST thing RAA needs is permit inspection on aircraft ... and in fact the UK are unwinding that requirement - they started with SSDR and are now discussing DSDR ie creating the Australian 19- reg category.snip

 

No - the absolute last thing we need is a permit system like the UK

wasn't advocating it for the current classes, but more for the new 550-1200kg class - the FatLSAs, Primary Category, and traditional GA aircraft. simpler than the current VH system, but not as deregulated as the RAA 19- class.

 

 

[K-man]

Current classes go to 600. So in the case of an aircraft like mine, a 'fat LSA' (560kg), you are saying that if it is factory built, ie 24-, it needs to be maintained by one type of engineer but if it is 19- , you can do it yourself. So I have to change my nose wheel to a lower spec which reduces my MTW to 540. Now I have a less safe aircraft but I can service it myself but it is no longer a 'fat LSA'.

 

To be honest, that is a dumb idea.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Amazing. A Fat LSA. Should be a hit with fat pilots. Where can I get one.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Amazing. A Fat LSA. Should be a hit with fat pilots. Where can I get one.

I'm a fat pilot, you can get me at YQDI

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Head in the clouds, I guess nobody really has to fly anywhere, there are alternatives to flying even for business.In my case, I have an interest in a farm near Edenhope and a Jabiru hangared at Gawler.

I am a taxpaying Australian. Why should these nasty and stupid bureaucrats deny me a fair go?

 

Of course I can find other ways to get to the farm, if fact I usually drive due to the load being carried or the weather.

 

But I say again, obeying unnecessary height restrictions is the most dangerous thing I do in flying. It's not very dangerous, there are really only a few minutes when an engine failure would be nasty.

 

But here we have a bureaucracy dedicated to my "safety" doing this for no good reason. Maybe they don't understand what they are doing.

Interesting post Bruce ... it rather sounds as if you feel that you're being singled out for vindictive treatment by the CASA.

 

But - just because you're a taxpaying Australian why should that make any difference? Unfortunately that just makes you one of us and in no way likely to be given special treatment by any government department. So let's get a few of your prejudices out of the way first. CASA isn't treating you any differently from anyone else, and if the majority of us can get on with our recreational flying quite happily I don't see why you can't, unless you're expecting something of recreational flying that isn't realistic.

 

When I had a busy commercial operation I got to know a lot of the DoA/DCA/CAA/CASA people, and while I didn't necessarily see eye to eye with them all the the time (and sometimes that was not a lot of the time), I did find that if I treated them as I like to be treated then they were never "nasty", very rarely what I would consider "stupid" and whilst they might have technically been bureaucrats they tended to only act that way when people got up their nose, and in my experience were ever-ready to give me a fair go if I went about things the right and courteous way.

 

This business of "obeying unnecessary height restrictions being the most dangerous thing you do" - what exactly makes these restrictions unnecessary? I assume you say unnecessary because they keep you out of CTA, and if that's the case they're not unnecessary restrictions. You are not qualified to use CTA and presumably neither is your aircraft built, equipped and maintained to a standard which is considered sufficient to mix with operations and over populous areas which both require a higher standard for public safety. So these are not unnecessary restrictions, in your case they are just inconvenient restrictions that irk you. If you want to use the CTA then quite simply get a licence and a plane that's suitably equipped and maintained, and don't complain about the very significantly higher cost of your flying.

 

I had similar restrictions of airspace, terrain and weather when I lived down south so I moved to Queensland. Having better flying conditions was sufficiently important to me to do that. There's still room up here for one or two more ...

 

Alternatively why not store your plane somewhere else? Even up here I've often had to, for quite a number of reasons. At one time I lived within a mile of a perfect airstrip but there wasn't sufficient hangarage so I had to keep the plane an hour and a half drive away. It didn't matter, the flying was recreational anyway so a bit of a drive wasn't much of an inconvenience and the surrounding areas were better to fly to and around, than the coast was anyway. And when I was going to a distant destination it made no noticeable difference.

 

The biggie in you post, though, is in the last sentence. You really haven't got the whole CASA thing sorted in your mind. I'm sure they understand very well what they're doing. The thing is they're not "a bureaucracy dedicated to your safety", they're a Department dedicated to the safety of the general public, preventing people like you and me from harming them - they're there for the public's safety, not ours. They really don't give a rats about us one way or the other, as long as we don't harm the public. That's why it's ridiculous to suggest they're deliberately denying you a fair go, frankly they almost certainly don't even know you exist, and if I was you I'd keep it that way.

 

Regarding the actual operation that you feel miffed about - once again it's a case of someone complaining that they're being denied the safe use of their RAA aircraft when it's being used for commuter purposes - to get to and from your farm. The logical thing would be for you to keep the plane at your farm so that you can go for a leisurely and safe fly when you visit there. That's what recreational flying is all about.

 

Don't get me wrong though, personally I've absolutely nothing against our RAA aircraft being used for things other than pure leisure, but only when it can be done without the risk of adding more cost to our already expensive sport. At one time you could build a plane and go flying for not much more than pocket-money. Then, as I said in yesterday's post, the GA pilots with failed medicals came along and progressively took over the ultralight movement and turned it into the LSA behemoth we have today. That's all very well, and as was said earlier it's what happens when an activity becomes popular. However, there's no escaping that a lot other than just the planes has changed and while some it is terrific, it's not all good by any means.

 

Regardless of all the complaining we now have vastly less restriction in terms of airspace use. When I started we couldn't fly above 300ft and we couldn't cross a road so we were legally limited to flying around a paddock below the lowest height any GA plane could fly - we had the same use of airspace as RC model aircraft. Compare that with how high and far we can fly today and you may see why some of us, and CASA too probably, consider that a few of us might be trying to run before we've got a licence, so to speak.

 

Then there's the speeds at which we can fly - at 4lbs/sqft max wing loading we had little chance of getting much over 50kts back then, and we now have more than double that, a passenger seat and baggage allowance - we've come a long way, and all that might be considered to be the good side of the progress, but at what cost? Now we need RPC/RPL, association membership, public liability, have constant scrutiny on the ramp, and the expense! You need a millionaire Dad now if you're to build your weekend flyer out of pocket money.

 

So with all that development and additional expense I'm certainly not advocating that we shouldn't be able to use our craft for something useful as well as attending a fly-in, taking a friend for a jolly or buzzing around Oz on holiday, but surely we can visit the farm, round up our own herd, examine the fences on our far paddock or take tools out to our grader driver, for instance, without constantly pushing for more changes to things that will ultimately cost everyone in RAA far more than it already does.

 

If RAA aircraft start regularly operating in CTA the costs will soar for everyone, and is it fair that the vast majority of us should subsidise the few? I think the few should go and get their RPL and upgrade their plane and leave the rest of us to our already-too-expensive category.

 

 

[kasper]

wasn't advocating it for the current classes, but more for the new 550-1200kg class - the FatLSAs, Primary Category, and traditional GA aircraft. simpler than the current VH system, but not as deregulated as the RAA 19- class.

Then I would politely say we do not want that class as it will just drag RAA into the mire of CASA regulation and documentation whilst pushing up the costs of running RAA to benefit the what would be very top end of the rec flyers.

If that's whats wanted then I would ask the people advocating it to go an create your own RAAO for what is recreational GA and leave the recreational ultralights/microlights alone.

 

 

[Camel]

Then I would politely say we do not want that class as it will just drag RAA into the mire of CASA regulation and documentation whilst pushing up the costs of running RAA to benefit the what would be very top end of the rec flyers.If that's whats wanted then I would ask the people advocating it to go an create your own RAAO for what is recreational GA and leave the recreational ultralights/microlights alone.

Agree 100% with you ! I have a PPL ! I have owned a GA 4 seater plane for 9 years previously ! I have owned a Trike ! I now fly RAA and keep my PPL current ! So do many others ! My point is if you can't get a medical for RPL or PPL then you have to enjoy and appreciate RAA and the cost is way cheaper than GA. if you want GA privilidge on an RAA budget then Kasper is right about another category of RAAO and the most likely organisation that fits this description is the SAAA and it would be great to see them pick up the 600kg plus catergory ! SAAA is the obvious choice in my opinion and I would love to see it happen ! More power to RAAO's but it may not change much, solves weight but back to the problem of medical ! This to me is the major issue and can be a real safety issue to some ! So what is it going to be ? Is the medical the real issue ?

 

My suggestion is push SAAA to become a RAAO and issue licences for over 600 kg, no medical, CTA and carry heaps of people ! GOOD LUCK. !

 

 

[Nobody]

Agree 100% with you ! I have a PPL ! I have owned a GA 4 seater plane for 9 years previously ! I have owned a Trike ! I now fly RAA and keep my PPL current ! So do many others ! My point is if you can't get a medical for RPL or PPL then you have to enjoy and appreciate RAA and the cost is way cheaper than GA. if you want GA privilidge on an RAA budget then Kasper is right about another category of RAAO and the most likely organisation that fits this description is the SAAA and it would be great to see them pick up the 600kg plus catergory ! SAAA is the obvious choice in my opinion and I would love to see it happen ! More power to RAAO's but it may not change much, solves weight but back to the problem of medical ! This to me is the major issue and can be a real safety issue to some ! So what is it going to be ? Is the medical the real issue ?My suggestion is push SAAA to become a RAAO and issue licences for over 600 kg, no medical, CTA and carry heaps of people ! GOOD LUCK. !

I don't think that pushing SAAA to change its role is the way to go. SAAA is primarily about supporting home builders to build, maintain and fly their home built aircraft. If it becomes the RAAus of the 600kg to 1500kg range then it likely will lose the focus it has on builders.