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

[jetjr]

Re 19 into CTA

 

I believe it is "recognized" engine ( bugger all LSA are certificated powerplants) and approval is from CASA, and last ones lapsed without renewal being given.

 

No MR required, most are L2 or self maintained

 

Also remember you can have self maintaind 24 reg, non certified engines and they CAN access cta. Doesnt make sense

 

Very happy to be wrong on this but thoght this was outcome last time it was discussed

 

 

[Nobody]

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?

But that not really what you are doing in the air. Your jabiru is slower than any of the commercial/rpt aircraft. You are The cyclist of the air.

 

 

[K-man]

But that not really what you are doing in the air. Your jabiru is slower than any of the commercial/rpt aircraft. You are The cyclist of the air.

Sharing airspace with faster aircraft is always going to happen. I have better airspeed than Warriors and Cessna 172's. No one is questioning whether they should be in CTA. In uncontrolled airspace RPT aircraft generally give 20 mile calls with ETA if there is other traffic and most of us will ensure that we are out of their way.

I'm sure people will be able to quote when an RPT aircraft had to change an approach because of some RA aircraft enforcing his right of way in a circuit but that is not what normally happens. Airmanship is what we are talking about here and good airmanship is not the sole domain of GA.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

But that not really what you are doing in the air. Your jabiru is slower than any of the commercial/rpt aircraft. You are The cyclist of the air.

The speed differences between most GA singles and RAAus aircraft in the circuit is insignificant. Flying an appropriate sized circuit and approach for the speed of the aircraft will overcome most of the issues caused by differences, any remaining issues are dealt with by ATS. After all that's ATS's purpose in life, to stop aircraft from bumping into each other and facilitating an expeditious flow of air traffic.

 

 

[DrZoos]

But that not really what you are doing in the air. Your jabiru is slower than any of the commercial/rpt aircraft. You are The cyclist of the air.

Sorry about grammer , Im on phone and its glitching...We already deal with RPT on a regular basis, sometimes with 3 in or inbound into the circuit at a time, plus several chinese students and a few others in training areas, flying over head, the tourist seaplane and the meat bomber etc etc In a very busy circuit area and the speed differential even without anyone helping ( we are non CTA) us is the least of or issues... the issues are radio congestion from sharing with Taree and lack of a taxiway to clear the runway and keep the circuit flowing...so some times downwind ends up being extended 5-7 miles to the North... When its real busy the RPT guys will stay at 2500 and join mid to late down wind at a bit of a 45 of they make a strange base turn that sort of indicates they might have done a variation of a downwind out wider ...they might be 2 miles wider and do a big sweeping base turn... apparently this offers better visibility then merging at 45 ... judging by the alarms, i think it also stops their TCAS going of its brain as much as well.

I can honestly say after flying over 120 hours of my total hours just in our local circuit the RPT speed differential does not cause much problem if any for us. So I would imagine in CTA with highly trained professionals maintaining separation as their primary job, and monitoring speeds, its not going to be an issue... The issue in my mind would be some gumbie landing and then sitting on the runway causing a stack up behind him/her, or someone not following the headings, altitudes and speeds they have been assigned, or lining up for the wrong runway in a parallel runway situation. Form my experience which isnt much, through CTA with others, if you say unfamiliar they are super helpful, even to the point of telling you exactly what to look for .

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I personally don't want to fly in controlled airspace. Firstly, my Jabiru only flies in daylight on nice days. Secondly, it is only a matter of time before they start charging big money for using the service.

 

What I want is non-CTA access. I would like to fly into Caboolture for example without flying low over houses. I bet the locals there could work out a safe corridor which didn't interfere with anybody else, and I bet the powers that be would not approve of the idea.

 

 

[Nobody]

I know that different types of aircraft share the same airspace. I am just responding to Bruce by pointing out that it isn't only aviation where recreational users are excluded from access to allow other users priority.

 

 

[K-man]

The issue in my mind would be some gumbie landing and then sitting on the runway causing a stack up behind him/her, or someone not following the headings, altitudes and speeds they have been assigned, or lining up for the wrong runway in a parallel runway situation. Form my experience which isnt much, through CTA with others, if you say unfamiliar they are super helpful, even to the point of telling you exactly what to look for .

Even then it can be managed. We blew a tire landing at Broome and stopped dead in the middle of the active runway. I actually had the aircraft off the runway before the local guys arrived to offer assistance. Apart from being busy, controlled airports are no big deal. Controlled airspace is no big deal. As long as you do what you are trained to do it normally works like clockwork. To think that trained RA pilots are going to cause mayhem in controlled airspace is a red herring. RA should have access to CTA and in the very near future I'm sure they will be given that privilege for those who are prepared to undertake a small amount of additional training.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

It's clear that everyone has different wants and needs and I suppose that's only to be expected.

 

I really only have two concerns - the first is that we should be very cautious about what we end up getting because extra freedoms always end up with an exponential increase in cost, and I wouldn't like to see the majority, who won't ever use CTA, be subsidising the few who do want it. The second is that we don't want to end up having our seemingly high proportion of crashes within CTA because those areas are usually highly populous and an LSA sticking out of a roof with innocent public casualties will be a death knell to our sport. And a death knell very likely caused by someone not engaged in strictly recreational use of their plane at the time.

 

Anyway, it's been a useful discussion for me because I've learnt a few things about LSAs and CTA that I wasn't aware of because I have no desire to use CTA while flying an LSA, or other 95.55 category aircraft.

 

I'm not familiar with the airspace around Adelaide but I did find a scratchy image of the VTC on the net and I can quite sympathise with BT's situation at Gawler, it looks like a long trek north at low level to stay in clear country, if that's the right interpretation, the image is very low resolution. However it does look like it might be a military CTZ rather than CTA?? If so the military are usually a law unto themselves and if asked nicely will usually provide anyone with a clearance and can legally do so for you since their airspace is not governed by CASA. I've flown a Drifter into, out of, and transited through many active military airspace with their approvals and clearances and most of the time even without VHF, using scheds and tower light signals for communication.

 

I'd also completely missed BT's point about not wanting CTA access, instead wanting a new corridor. If there is a genuine safety case for that, it is something that may not be as difficult to implement as trying to change the rules for access to CTA. Airspace usage and boundaries are constantly under review and reasonable requests are required to be investigated and ultimately implemented if there is no good reason not to do so. The starting point would be to contact and become active in RAPAC and go from there.

 

Finally (it's weekend, and I want to get on with building DooMaw!) - from the earlier discussions there still seems to be confusion about which 95.55 aircraft can access CTA and which qualifications their pilots are required to have. It's all spelled out as clear as mud in CAO 95.55 and the bit about engines is in CAO 101.55

 

Someone colourfully mentioned that 'bugger all' of the LSAs had certificated engines. That may be the case, I really have no idea which engine models are fitted to which aircraft but just for info in case anyone isn't aware of it - the Jabiru engine is certificated and the Rotax 912 and 912S are also certificated. The Rotax 912UL and 912 ULS are not certificated. As I understand it the only difference between the certificated models and UL models is 5hrs of test running at the factory and the subsequent issue of a Release Note with the purchase - and another $5000/25% on the price tag, a good example of the increased costs associated with accountability. To retain their certificated status they must be maintained by a LAME via a licenced maintenance facility and documented appropriately - and that would probably cost 4-5 times as much as having an L2 maintain it.

 

The relevant paragraphs about CTA use from 95.55 and 101.55 are pasted below -

 

7.7.3 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with:

 

 

 

(a) the aeroplane is:

 

 

 

(i) certificated to the design standards specified in section 101.55; or

 

 

 

(ii) meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a) or regulation 21.186 of CASR 1998; or

 

 

 

(iii) approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in relation to flights over closely-settled areas;

 

 

 

(b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft, to which this Order applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

 

 

 

© the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988;

 

 

 

(f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

 

 

 

Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

AND

 

6 ENGINE

 

 

 

6.1 Engine Requirements. One of the following conditions must be satisfied in relation to the engine installed in the aeroplane:

 

 

 

(a) the engine is of a type to which a certificate of type approval under this subsection applies;

 

 

 

(b) the engine is of a type that has been certified as an aircraft engine in accordance with FAR 33, BCAR C or JAR E;

 

 

 

© the engine is of a type that has been approved by CASA as being appropriate for use in aeroplanes to which this section applies.

 

 

 

Note: An aeroplane to which this section applies that has an engine of a kind to which subparagraph 6.1 © applies may, because of the characteristics of that engine, have conditions included in its certificate of airworthiness.

 

 

[facthunter]

Transiting is fine . to avoid "tiger" country. Believing that there won't be problems with mixing it with congested areas of big stuff is ignoring a real possiblity. Keep the cost and the fallout to those who have pushed it. The RPL was ruined, medical wise by the need for access to controlled airspace.. If I don't use it I don't want to pay extra "potentially LARGE" costs for someone else who is doing something I don't believe in. Plenty of GA planes never go there, and you shouldn't be flying single engined planes over congested residential areas, at low level.. I'm not speaking from a position of not flying in CTA. MOST of my flying was in CTA. Held a ME IFR for well over 25 years. I can't think of anything MORE removed from what we stand for. WE should concentrate in not penetrating controlled airspace but gain more access to airspace they don't have to have. Special VFR procedures to get into places should be investigated where the location suits it. Nev

 

 

[fallowdeer]

Hi all

 

Makes me wonder from peering west over the ditch why it is all so complicated over your way. A plethora of different registration types, different maintenance regimes for the same frame depending whether is is amateur or "factory" built and so on. Not such great distinctions here.

 

Makes me feel lucky, permit to fly, appropriate pilot certificate level, and two yearly static system and radio and transponder/encoder certification and all good to go in CTA. Obviously in reality there is a de facto exclusion from the very busiest airports, and approach performance parameters to be met, but still a pretty good deal.

 

I'm unaware of any groundswell of opinion that allowing "uncertified" aircraft into CTA is the cause of any greatly increased risk. Not sure how a transponder equipped microlight transmitting CTA under ATS control poses a huge risk. Like I said makes me feel lucky over here.

 

Peter

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Yes Peter, you're quite right. Everything to do with aviation in NZ is vastly simpler than over here. I've always been envious of it.

 

The kinds of things your fellas can do in their pig and deer harvesting ops with helicopters leaves our regulators apoplectic.

 

It's not just in aviation either - for example bungee jumping could never have been born in Oz, too many nannies here ...

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes, your TOTAL population is now LESS than that of Melbourne. You ARE lucky over there.

 

We have 2 territories 5 geographical states and a state of confusion. The AIR route between Sydney and Melbourne is one of the most trafficked in the world I've heard, though I find it a bit hard to believe. Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

RA should have access to CTA and in the very near future I'm sure they will be given that privilege for those who are prepared to undertake a small amount of additional training.

RA has access to CTA for a small amount of additional training. The issue is the medical for the RPL.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Clouds, military airspace is considered Class C (or CTA), by asking for and accepting a clearance your actually breaking the regulations set for RA-AUS. While military aircraft don't fall under CASA, civil aircraft operating in military airspace does (as too military ATC and the airspace).

 

 

[Geoff13]

I personally don't want to fly in controlled airspace. Firstly, my Jabiru only flies in daylight on nice days. Secondly, it is only a matter of time before they start charging big money for using the service.What I want is non-CTA access. I would like to fly into Caboolture for example without flying low over houses. I bet the locals there could work out a safe corridor which didn't interfere with anybody else, and I bet the powers that be would not approve of the idea.

Why can't you do that now. I do it every day. Well every day that I fly. Just a little bit of planning and open eyes, and there are several ways in from most directions. So you may have to fly a little bit further and go around some areas but it is quite safe and more than doable.

 

 

[Geoff13]

But that not really what you are doing in the air. Your jabiru is slower than any of the commercial/rpt aircraft. You are The cyclist of the air.

Cool Cyclists in Queensland have it made. They have right of way over everyone now. If a cyclist rides into the side of my 65 tonne B/Double then technically I am in the wrong. It is a legal requirement now for me to give him 1 metre clearance, so if he hits me then I am in the wrong. So as the cyclist of the air can I demand to be given a wide berth by everyone else.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Clouds, military airspace is considered Class C (or CTA), by asking for and accepting a clearance your actually breaking the regulations set for RA-AUS. While military aircraft don't fall under CASA, civil aircraft operating in military airspace does (as too military ATC and the airspace).

That's a shame, I thought it might be a good solution for Bruce's dilemma.

 

Don't worry though, I didn't break any RAAus regulations, actually RAAus didn't even exist back then.

 

What I described was during a five month trip I did in a Drifter in the 1980s from SEQ to the Top End and back. I requested dispensations from DCA/CAA (can't recall which it was called then) to enter the mil airspace because I didn't have sufficient range otherwise, and they told me to request clearances direct from the bases' control, so it was all above board and with the regulator's knowledge.

 

Here's a pic of me being refuelled at Tindal Air Base near Katherine NT -

 

 

 

[K-man]

RA has access to CTA for a small amount of additional training. The issue is the medical for the RPL.

No, RA does not have access to CTA. A pilot with an RPL and endorsement, or a PPL for that matter, may fly an approved RA aircraft into CTA as long as they have the RPC to fly the RA aircraft. Those are GA qualifications. That is where the anomaly lies. The medical has nothing to do with it. That is another matter entirely. In past posts it sounds like RA pilots are RA because they can't get a GA medical. Most of us are RA because we want to be RA.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

no rules were good rules. ask and ye shall receive, just do it 28 days in advance. good old days sigh

 

 

[facthunter]

Memories Memories. When I was a kid you didn't have to lock your house or your car. Now it would be a crime not to, and people didn't carry knives or use ice. Just the six o'clock swill and I didn't drink then (sigh) and hadn't started smokin. Nev

 

 

[Ada Elle]

No, RA does not have access to CTA. A pilot with an RPL and endorsement, or a PPL for that matter, may fly an approved RA aircraft into CTA as long as they have the RPC to fly the RA aircraft. Those are GA qualifications. That is where the anomaly lies. The medical has nothing to do with it. That is another matter entirely. In past posts it sounds like RA pilots are RA because they can't get a GA medical. Most of us are RA because we want to be RA.

What does 'want to be RA' mean? I don't have any tribal identity with RA. I just want to fly an aircraft that I like to places I want to go. I don't have any ideological objections to using an RPL or RPC to do so.

 

Why would a pilot, flying an LSA or similar aircraft, not want to use an RPL to enter CTA?

 

- fear of CTA

 

- ideological hatred of CASA

 

- expense of training

 

- expense / inability to obtain a medical

 

- inability to pass training

 

If you claim it is for a safety benefit, and you're unwilling to pay an insignificant amount of money (compared to the cost of aviation in general) for the training/medical, then you're being unwisely frugal. (this goes for anyone who hasn't done unusual attitude training!)

 

 

[K-man]

What does 'want to be RA' mean? I don't have any tribal identity with RA. I just want to fly an aircraft that I like to places I want to go. I don't have any ideological objections to using an RPL or RPC to do so.Why would a pilot, flying an LSA or similar aircraft, not want to use an RPL to enter CTA?

 

- fear of CTA

 

- ideological hatred of CASA

 

- expense of training

 

- expense / inability to obtain a medical

 

- inability to pass training

Ada Elle, I can see that you are emotionally attached to your dream of getting your PPL because only then will you have a 'real' licence to fly. Don't worry, you are not alone with that attitude. You also don't own an aircraft. I do. It just so happens that an RA aircraft was the one I chose, so I have no need for a PPL. My wife and I have flown that aircraft around Australia four or five times since we retired, into and out of many major airports. It fits our needs perfectly. In the past my wife took on all the responsibility of flying in CTA. She happens to have a 'real' licence as opposed to the RPC I got by sending in the box tops off six cereal packets with the prescribed fee. Our situation has changed slightly so now I need to do the CTA flying and as a result I had to obtain the endorsement.

 

So you infer that I have an ideological objection to using the RPL. That is patently ludicrous. I have no such objection. That is what I had to do. Of course you know for all the reasons you have stated in the past that an RA pilot has nowhere near the standard of flying or knowledge required to fly into a controlled airport, even those who had an exemption to fly in controlled airspace and controlled airports when they were students. You know that an RA pilot would never have the skill to fly a circuit under the direction of an air traffic controller or safely transit some busy traffic lane because RA pilots just don't do that sort of thing and if they want to they should get a PPL because then everyone will know that they can fly. Have I got is right?

 

So let's look at the facts. Why do I need to hold two licences? Where is the logic of that? I fly an aircraft that could be registered RA or GA, and I hold the required certification to fly in CTA. Until McCormack arrived RA was almost at the stage of being given CTA privilege. You must have been relieved to see that that didn't happen. That was the reason I didn't go on to get my PPL. I had no need. I had my plane, I had my certificate to fly and I was about to be given CTA privileges.

 

Let's look at the other nonsense you has stated ...

 

Why would a pilot, flying an LSA or similar aircraft, not want to use an RPL to enter CTA?

 

- fear of CTA

 

No, no fear of CTA. Precisely the opposite.

 

- ideological hatred of CASA

 

No, where on earth does that idea come from? RA is licensed under CASA.

 

- expense of training

 

No, the money has already been spent and it would be spent regardless of which organisation issues the authority.

 

- expense / inability to obtain a medical

 

No, I have the medical and would have required a class 2 medical under the original proposal anyway.

 

- inability to pass training

 

No, I have successfully undertaken the training.

 

Five Nos! Of course the simple answer to your rhetorical question is ... "Because I feel I should be able to use my RPC."

 

This demonstrates conclusively that you have no grasp of what we are discussing. Either that or you are just having another go at stirring the pot, as has been suggested in the past by others.

 

If you claim it is for a safety benefit, and you're unwilling to pay an insignificant amount of money (compared to the cost of aviation in general) for the training/medical, then you're being unwisely frugal. (this goes for anyone who hasn't done unusual attitude training!)

Wow! That is cool! I can see that, once again, logic is not your strong suite. Let's see if I have what you are saying right. If I pay an insignificant amount of money, say $3K to $4K, and get my medical and have my RPL, I can now safely fly my RA aircraft into CTA. If I spend the same insignificant amount of money (for the same training) and get my medical and the endorsement was added to my RPC I am not safe to fly my RA aircraft into CTA. Hmm!Then there's the sting in the tail, regardless of my training I'm unwisely frugal if I haven't undertaken unusual attitude training! Where did that gem come from?

 

 

[Camel]

K-man, I don't quite follow, why would you not just get the RPL now then or is your argument that RAA should have CTA access and that's it ?

 

Also because Airservices can't get RAA info on registered owners this would also become a barrier as they want to charge ! Do you agree ?

 

I thought that Ada Elle made sense in her Questioning ( for once ) and I think you were a little harsh on her.

 

Before you go off at me I'm only interested in the reason for not getting a RPL as Ada was asking and believe you are saying why should you have two licences ?

 

My reason for wanting transit rights only for RAA and not full access is to increase safety in passing Coffs and Williamtown as examples, if full access was granted we then start having regulations on the standard of the aircraft increased and before we know it we are GA reinvented because if you look back in time that's how RAA got to exist because of what we couldn't do and slowly we are getting all those things ! Years ago you couldn't cross a road !

 

I am worried about the future of the freedom of RAA and what SASAO is doing is watching us likes Hawks to justify their existance.

 

Your argument is fine but are you not wanting all freedoms of GA on an RAA budget ? Which would be fine for a while until the costs go up and the regulations esculate and effects everyone flying RAA that don't use or need CTA.

 

I also have a REAL licence, and have to do Two Bi- annual reviews as I hold an instructor rating, plus class 2 medical so it's a pain but that's the game, but the benefit is I have a plane in the shed and can fly anywhere I want and the best part I can maintain it ! That to me is a big advantage and to be more specific I am a Motor Mechanic by trade or for want of a better title an Automotive Engineer, when my GA plane was serviced I always found faults they had made so I always tried to stay with it and watch and help. I also worked on other aircraft helping LAMEs and I consider myself competent. If I could not maintain my aircraft I would not bother any more and hire aircraft is not an option for me as when I have preflighted I find things neglected and that's GA as well. I'm not saying all LAMEs are bad just human as I've seen plenty of auto mechanics make mistakes including myself. If CTA was granted we may get forced into more stringent maintence inspections and in my opinion this will add cost and not nessecarily make it any safer but more dangerous in my opinion.

 

 

[K-man]

K-man, I don't quite follow, why would you not just get the RPL now then or is your argument that RAA should have CTA access and that's it ?Also because Airservices can't get RAA info on registered owners this would also become a barrier as they want to charge ! Do you agree ?

Camel, I have my RPL. The reason I have gone on to get my PPL is that I own my own aircraft and it is exactly the aircraft I want to fly. It just happens to be registered RA. My arguement is that RA pilots should be able to get CTA endorsement on their RA licence as was originally going to happen before McCormack pulled the plug about four or five years back.

I'm not sure what Airservices are going to charge for if I fly into CTA. Why would me flying into a controlled airport on an RPC cost more than flying in on an RPL or a PPL for that matter?

 

I thought that Ada Elle made sense in her Questioning ( for once ) and I think you were a little harsh on her.Before you go off at me I'm only interested in the reason for not getting a RPL as Ada was asking and believe you are saying why should you have two licences ?

Ada Elle has been belittling the RPC in many threads so this is nothing new. Harsh? Perhaps, but can you explain the rationale for me to be required to hold two licences to fly the same plane under certain conditions. Remember, I have an RPL so it's not that I am against getting one. It is just that I believe RA should have the same endorsement if it satisfies the same requirements as the RPL.

 

My reason for wanting transit rights only for RAA and not full access is to increase safety in passing Coffs and Williamtown as examples, if full access was granted we then start having regulations on the standard of the aircraft increased and before we know it we are GA reinvented because if you look back in time that's how RAA got to exist because of what we couldn't do and slowly we are getting all those things ! Years ago you couldn't cross a road !I am worried about the future of the freedom of RAA and what SASAO is doing is watching us likes Hawks to justify their existance.

And the sky might fall in tomorrow. Really, if you are concerned that that may happen, surely it will be the RA aircraft in question that would be subjected to the more rigorous requirements.

 

Your argument is fine but are you not wanting all freedoms of GA on an RAA budget ? Which would be fine for a while until the costs go up and the regulations esculate and effects everyone flying RAA that don't use or need CTA.

You've lost me totally. What are the costs of GA that I'm not paying now? The RA budget is the reduced cost of servicing the aircraft and if I wasn't an owner I would be paying about the same as a GA pilot.

 

I also have a REAL licence, and have to do Two Bi- annual reviews as I hold an instructor rating, plus class 2 medical so it's a pain but that's the game, but the benefit is I have a plane in the shed and can fly anywhere I want and the best part I can maintain it ! That to me is a big advantage and to be more specific I am a Motor Mechanic by trade or for want of a better title an Automotive Engineer, when my GA plane was serviced I always found faults they had made so I always tried to stay with it and watch and help. I also worked on other aircraft helping LAMEs and I consider myself competent. If I could not maintain my aircraft I would not bother any more and hire aircraft is not an option for me as when I have preflighted I find things neglected and that's GA as well. I'm not saying all LAMEs are bad just human as I've seen plenty of auto mechanics make mistakes including myself. If CTA was granted we may get forced into more stringent maintence inspections and in my opinion this will add cost and not nessecarily make it any safer but more dangerous in my opinion.

I can't disagree with that. I also now have to do two BFRs, one of which will be in an aircraft I fly once every 2 years. Perhaps you can explain the logic of that. And, FWIW, I stay with my aircraft as it is serviced too.