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

[Camel]

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.

Same could be said for the focus on RAA ultralights as Kasper points out ! Without any doubt you make a very valid point !

 

Some here may remember some history regarding SAAA and RAA some years ago when talk of a recreational Licence began !

 

 

[Nobody]

Reflecting on this a bit more I suspect that the better option is to go the other way. If 2 things could happen a lot of the discussion above would be resolved:

 

1.CASA fixed their drivers license medical so that it is what it was supposed to be. Ie if you can drive a car without restriction you can fly without restriction.

 

2.RAAus lets a person who holds an RPL fly an RAAus aircraft without needing to have a RPC.

 

This way those that wanted it could have one license that would allow them access to controlled airspace without needing to have 2.

 

 

[kasper]

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.

And where is the Focus of RAAAus on low interia home built aircraft ?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Reflecting on this a bit more I suspect that the better option is to go the other way. If 2 things could happen a lot of the discussion above would be resolved:1.CASA fixed their drivers license medical so that it is what it was supposed to be. Ie if you can drive a car without restriction you can fly without restriction.

 

2.RAAus lets a person who holds an RPL fly an RAAus aircraft without needing to have a RPC.

 

This way those that wanted it could have one license that would allow them access to controlled airspace without needing to have 2.

I think that's a nice concept for simplification but you could never expect there to be two types of operations within CTA since the ATC personnel wouldn't know the difference between the kinds of aircraft they were controlling.

 

That means that the LSA types would all have to have an ICAO designation to make recognition and performance information instantly available to the controller, but that's the relatively simple part ...

 

Operations within CTA often don't and cant' take into account the ability of the controlled aircraft to glide clear of built-up areas so it means that our planes would often be routed over populous areas with nothing but a road or school cricket pitch, perhaps, as emergency landing areas. And that means we won't get CTA without certificated engines, and TSOd transponders, ASI, compass, and altimeter at the very least.

 

So, quite apart from the aspect of licencing of the pilot, you've immediately added many thousands to the cost of the aircraft and another couple of thousand or so to the cost of the annual maintenance of the engine and airframe, and another thousand to get the avionics calibrated annually ... etc etc

 

You might well say that only the aircraft which will actually be using CTA should have to have these 'extras' but it wouldn't work, and CASA know that. Because how would the controllers know which TN35 (an imaginary Tecnam designator, for example) has the certificated and calibrated and professionally maintained equipment required for CTA and which doesn't have it? The only way to keep them separate is by their Rego code, hence they'd have to be VH reg and this discussion then becomes moot.

 

We have to keep in mind it's not just a matter of accessing the controlled airspace so we personally can come and go with increased safety, there's a very serious responsibility attached because in CTA you're mixing it with RPT traffic in very close proximity and the general airline travelling public won't accept having mishaps and incidents in airspace specifically reserved for their safe arrival and departure.

 

And - given some of the mind-boggling things that we read about on this forum and in the news I'm not sure that everyone in RAA is quite ready to be let loose on the fare-paying public.

 

 

[Nobody]

Head in the clouds, I agree with you statement above though I think that some of the issues you raise are not that difficult(though others are)

 

Just thinking about a 24 reg LSA, It could be registered VH without technical changes and so there is some argument that it would be safe in controlled airspace, provided that they have a transponder. For some aircraft this wont be an issue. For a one off home build with no electrical system and a time expired 2-stroke then...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Head in the clouds, I agree with you statement above though I think that some of the issues you raise are not that difficult(though others are)Just thinking about a 24 reg LSA, It could be registered VH without technical changes and so there is some argument that it would be safe in controlled airspace, provided that they have a transponder. For some aircraft this wont be an issue. For a one off home build with no electrical system and a time expired 2-stroke then...

You may well be right, I'm not all that well informed on 24 reg LSAs. Do they all have the certificated engines? i.e. 912S engines for example, I thought many of them used the un-certificated 912ULS. If that's right how would the controllers know which was which?

 

In any case, if they did have a certificated engine and were to be used in CTA then they'd need to be professionally maintained and Released by a LAME operating from a Licenced maintenance facility, and not just a transponder but a complete calibrated nav avionics package (alt, ASI, compass) and Released VHF comms. So if you went to all that extent, and you also have to have your RPL, what would be the point in keeping it 24 reg and having to pay annual registration fees to RAAus and annual membership to RAAus, when reg and licencing are free with CASA ...? So you change it to VH reg and once again this discussion becomes moot.

 

 

[01rmb]

You are aware that 24 registered aircraft are allowed and are currently operating in controlled airspace. You don't even need a transponder for class D. And nearly 1,000 RAAus pilots have been trained in controlled airspace (mostly Class D). Once trained these same pilots are restricted from continuing to operate from those same airfields until they cross over and get a RPL/PPL with minimal extra training - really only some time under the hood and fly into a class C airspace and airport for good measure.

 

Why not just have an additional 600-1500 class managed by RAAus and a CTA access endorsement for pilots with additional requirements (where necessary) that does not need to reflect on the other aircraft classes or pilots not interested in going into class C/D airspace? Maybe (and I don't think it is necessary) stricter medical, additional training and appropriate costs being applied to just those that are in that class and wanting those privileges.

 

Additional revenue from additional pilots and aircraft will help offset the current costs. If you only fly rag and tube then there should be no additional costs or medical/other requirements. Separate the costs to the specific privileges where the costs are not reflective of the use. No need for rag and tube to pay the same costs as a higher class if the costs to support each are not the same.

 

Given that many of the services provided by CASA and Air Services are already funded by airlines (really the public flying passengers) and through the taxes on avgas all those using avgas in RAAus are already paying for something they can't use. Where additional costs are necessary to cover services used then the user of those services should pay (reasonable costs).

 

 

[Camel]

Easily found and interesting reading and plenty of it below. As I said, For those wanting extra weight and no medical should join SAAA and help them. As I said I support SAAA being an RAAO but as "Nobody" said it may not be in the interest of members ! and I agree !

 

If I wanted extra weight and CTA I would be building a suitable Kit plane registering VH and maintaining PPL and be a member of SAAA, do all SAAA courses so I can maintain the aircraft myself ! Very unlikely to ever happen for many reasons and the best reason is I'm happy with RAA restriction at the moment,

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-8-may-2015

 

http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/Home%20Page/President%20Chat/Presidents%20Chat%20July%202013%20Rev%201%203.pdf

 

http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Sport%20Aircraft%20Association%20of%20Australia%20Minister%20Reply.pdf

 

http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/CASA/SAAA-Recreational%20Aviation%20Administration%20Organisation.pdf

 

http://www.saaa.com/home/news.aspx

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Head in the clouds, how do you think ATC know that the c172 flying in CTA has a current MR, or that the required SIDS has been completed or even that the pilot has a current medical. They don't and really don't need to. They trust the pilot and aircraft operator are meeting the regulations in regards to the aircraft. This would be the same with RA-AUS aircraft, they would trust if you are operating in CTA that you have all the required equipment.

 

Aircraft designators isn't really an issue either, most ATC wouldn't worry about recognition and performance other then the fact it's a Single Piston.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Head in the clouds, how do you think ATC know that the c172 flying in CTA has a current MR, or that the required SIDS has been completed or even that the pilot has a current medical. They don't and really don't need to. They trust the pilot and aircraft operator are meeting the regulations in regards to the aircraft. This would be the same with RA-AUS aircraft, they would trust if you are operating in CTA that you have all the required equipment.

Quite so, I realise that, but does this mean that you're suggesting RAAus should then introduce yet another system of paperwork for accountability? If some of the RAA planes would be using CTA they'll need Maintenance Releases so that they can not only be compliant, but be able to demonstrate that compliance when they get ramped - and to do that they'll need an ISO 9000 system in place for parts accountability and so on and so on. Then we're exactly where I suggested we'd end up, with vastly increased costs similar to GA.

 

To use CTA these planes would require all the same stuff that GA already has in place, so why duplicate these systems? It would be much simpler to just transfer the plane rego to VH and then save by not having to pay RAA rego and insurance and member fees. You'd have to have an RPL anyway, so just forget about RAA and go to GA, it makes a lot more sense.

 

Aircraft designators isn't really an issue either, most ATC wouldn't worry about recognition and performance other then the fact it's a Single Piston.

I doubt that. As with all things there's a system, and the system requires a designator to initiate I think. It may not apply if you were calling inbound in regional areas but to depart or arrive at many busy CTAs they'll require notice by flight plan in advance unless you want to orbit for half an hour waiting for a clearance.

 

In any case it's no particular drama for a manufacturer to be allocated a type designator for a production aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

SAAA is too small to train in my view. Australia is a big place and they base their activity on a CASA LICENCE. They are pretty much a open book on building Two seat jets etc. Getting an arrangement for endorsements of "Unusual" types is a difficulty requiring some flexibility of approach. Building under SAAA is quite involved and there is a lot of good work done in quality monitoring. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Is having an altimeter, ASI and compass an extra burden on recreational aircraft? I was under the impression that they were required under RAAus rules.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Whilst flying around Brisbane and surrounds I am quite often Brisbane Central radio Freq.

 

I am amazed at the number of times that I hear RAA Aircraft call up and ask for clearance through CTA.

 

Normally just transiting but there are occasions that I hear them heading to certain airfields.

 

Mostly they have a flight plan lodged but sometimes ATC will come back and say remain outside class c while I enter a plan for you.

 

I would say not a weekend goes by that I do not hear at least one or two. On one occasion I even heard a 19 rego ask for and receive clearance to transit through Gold Coast.

 

I just assume that these people are all flying on and RPC but have either an RPL or PPL to support their requests.

 

I am not sure about the 19 Rego but I did jot down the number, so that if I ever run into him somewhere I can check if his B*lls are as big as he thinks.

 

 

[DrZoos]

19 is not allowed in full stop!

 

If they are 24 they can if the pilot has PPL with CTA or nowadays RPL with CTA

 

 

[Geoff13]

I know that and you obviously know that but someone doesn't. And that is the type of thing that will stop any of us getting it.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Head in the clouds, I really appreciate your defense of the bureaucrats. You are the only one to stick up for them in several years.

 

However, I find your basic argument " you don't need to be there, it is only recreation and you could go somewhere else to play" quite ridiculous.

 

When do you see this argument anywhere else? Imagine this being used in the case of a road accident... " The plaintiff did not need to use that busy road... he was only on holidays. He could have gone a less busy way and therefore my client would not have run into him".

 

And as for our lack of importance compared with commercial passengers, consider this:

 

The most frequent flyer I ever knew was actually a sex tourist who liked very young Balinese. Was this recreation or commerce in your opinion?

 

Why should you consider his use of airspace more worthwhile than mine?

 

But I am not even arguing that the commercial carriers of such people be in any way inconvenienced. They could accommodate my safety without compromising them in the slightest.

 

And there would be LESS risk to the general public if I could glide to an airfield instead of coming down among the houses.

 

I find your contention that CASA staff are not stupid to need a lot more explanation.

 

 

[Camel]

19 is not allowed in full stop!If they are 24 they can if the pilot has PPL with CTA or nowadays RPL with CTA

You are WRONG, 19 that have approval from Raa can access CTA.

 

 

[Geoff13]

You are WRONG, 19 that have approval from Raa can access CTA.

What is the reference for that please?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

What is the reference for that please?

Para 7.3 of CAO 95.55 details when an aircraft can fly into controlled airspace. At first glance it does not rule out owner built aircraft.

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CAO95.55-24-Feb-2015.pdf

 

 

[DrZoos]

So does anyone actually have a 19 rego with approval?

 

 

[Nobody]

Head in the clouds, I really appreciate your defense of the bureaucrats. You are the only one to stick up for them in several years.However, I find your basic argument " you don't need to be there, it is only recreation and you could go somewhere else to play" quite ridiculous.

When do you see this argument anywhere else? Imagine this being used in the case of a road accident... " The plaintiff did not need to use that busy road... he was only on holidays. He could have gone a less busy way and therefore my client would not have run into him".

Actually this argument is used quite a lot on the roads. Have you tried riding a bicycle across the traffic lanes of the harbour bridge, or through a tunnel? Or on many freeways?

 

 

[frank marriott]

CAO 95.55 lists the requirements for RAA aircraft to use CTA. Basically certified engine/airframe and minimum of a RPL. Maintained as per the ops manual - different conditions listed for CTA and OCTA.

 

Sorry Happyflyer, your post occurred whilst I was typing.

 

 

[Camel]

What is the reference for that please?

Geoff 13. RAA operates under regulations laid down by CASA, the rules for single seat home build 95.10 trikes 95.32 and LSA, kit SLSA, approved kits etc are under 95.55 here is a link but I think there is a later version but I know for a fact there were no major changes only wording. Section 7 and 7.3 is the main part, enjoy.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100072/cao_95_55.pdf

 

 

[K-man]

Guys, this is getting heated over absolutely nothing. I can't complain out anything I can do in my RA aircraft. Heck, I can even fly into Tullamarine if I could afford it. I have nothing to complain about but it could have been better if I could have got my CTA endorsement through RA. For the guys who just want to fly basic aircraft, great. For those who want to go further and faster, fantastic. We are ALL able to do what we want, so why the aggro? I think there are things that CASA could have done better and there are things that RAA could have done better but in the total scheme of things, we have it pretty good.

 

Now if you want my opinion, and even if you don't .... in thirty years time when RA pilots are flying their cars on fly-by-wire technology, with their driver medical, some people will still be complaining that things were better sixty years ago before things got all complicated.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Nobody, I was referring to driving a car at the proper speed but on a busy road when a person on holidays could theoretically have used another route. Has that defense really been used?