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

[Ada Elle]

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.

In other words, your objection is ideological.

 

You don't have to do two BFRs; an AFR in an aircraft of 1500kgs or less for an RPL or higher counts as an RAA BFR.

 

You don't have to pay anything to renew your RPL.

 

The imposition upon you to maintain your RPL-based privileges into CTA are:

 

- keeping your medical current

 

- doing your BFR in a GA aircraft with a GA school rather than an RA school

 

Assuming the medical isn't watered down, what you are really after is the ability to do a single BFR, in your aircraft, right?

 

I am not denigrating the RPC. I have made comments about

 

(A) the remarkably lax medical standard

 

(B) the underwhelming theory requirements for junior RAA instructors

 

© RAA's hands off approach to safety regulation in the past, without evidence that it has changed

 

 

[DrZoos]

Why is it that CASA is the only organisation these days incapable and not required to observe recognition of prior learning..

 

The govt has forcefully and strictly required almost every other industry to have procedures in place to recognize prior learning...surely someone who has been competently working a radio for years can apply and have an exemption to a $300 test to say they can speak english...and communicate effectively on the radio

 

We talk about eliminating red tape for the sake of red tape...

 

Well if that's the case then RAAus ought to be able to train RPL students and flight review them for CTA in RAAus aircraft and they ought to be able to sign off that they are competent on the radio to a level to enter CTA.

 

There would be many many RAAUS pilots extremely competent to handle most quieter areas of CTA right now with no training at all, simply because of current experience flying in and around those areas. m not saying it should work that way, but right now the bullshit to convert to an RPL is a bureaucratic bungled disgrace that seems to have been hijacked by GA FTF's in the hope they can cash in on the conversion process...

 

RAAUS ought to consider fighting to get the conversion process back under its wing and fight to make the RPC more equivalent especially for non low hour pilots... perhaps over 100 or 150 hours or similar. After all we already have most FTS's with GA / RA experienced instructors that hold PPL and many had significant CPL or Airline experience... surely within RAAUs we have the skillsets to achieve such a simple conversion

 

 

[Ada Elle]

RAAUS ought to consider fighting to get the conversion process back under its wing and fight to make the RPC more equivalent especially for non low hour pilots... perhaps over 100 or 150 hours or similar. After all we already have most FTS's with GA / RA experienced instructors that hold PPL and many had significant CPL or Airline experience... surely within RAAUs we have the skillsets to achieve such a simple conversion

How many RA planes have a TSO AH?

 

Also, I take issue with your 'most'. Of the 4 FTFs I've been to within 3 hours drive of the Sydney area, I've flown with 2 (out of 6) instructors with a PPL, and none with a CPL (although I've met two with CPLs but not flown with them).

 

The better way, IMHO, would be to permit CPL Gr2s and above to conduct training independent of a school, solely for conversion training and AFRs, and to permit 24-registered LSAs to be used for RPL AFRs.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Every single one of our instructors is former GA.two have tens of thousands of hours in airliners. Another has over 50 years instructing and tens of thousands of hours. Our .cfi is PPL our captain is PPL ....and plenty of other clubs are similar.... Sure there will be some that dont have it, but where clubs have this experience its crazy to have to go the GA route....

 

Its a different story if they want to say everyne who wants a. rPL needs to do say 4 hours in a 182. , but so far thats not the case...so why the expensive push to forcing us to do the test in a 152 or Vh registered jab.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

It's not a lot of money compared to how much everything else in aviation costs.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

If CTA access was as important to your safety as you claim, I would think that you would have already paid for it. As it stands, it seems that what you want is not actually improved safety, but saving money on not paying for the training for an RPL with CTA access.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's not really a valid point since the spirit (essence) of RAAus is safe, affordable flying. Not a competitor of GA. Ie REDUCED requirements for reduced exposure to risk. One person PIC,plus ONE passenger who is aware of the difference between an RAAus plane and other more regulated forms of flying that are more suited to commercial operations. No one forces anyone to join RAAus to fly aeroplanes unless you WANT to fly the type of planes RAAus support. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

Ada your point is valid (in the grand scheme) but that doesnt mean we should accept gross inefficiencies or expenses where expenses dont need to be...this is not out of self interest.....I can easily afford to pay...but having money does not make you immune to not wanting to waste money or more importantly see others who cannot afford it have to waste money, or have to miss out because they cannot afford it ....

 

I already have my RPL paperwork, I have paid for my medical, I have done my conversion and have simply got to do the flight review and CTA endo... and will have done it via GA, but that wont stop me arguing that this is a ridiculous waste of time and money and a gross inefficient use of peoples hard earned and saved dollars... for the thousands of pilots that come thru behind us we should be insisting these gross inefficiency or inequalities do not exist...

 

Our strength as an organisation is in our numbers and our numbers rely on a good sport that is administered well and run without too many gross inefficiencies and inequalities or barriers to entry. With so so so many RAAus pilots being baby boomers and soon medically retiring from flying we really have to focus sooner or later on making it easy for the new generations to come straight into RAA rather than from GA

 

Given how long it takes to get change in govt and legislation these sorts of issues need to be discussed and tabled soon, not after we lose 3000+ baby boomer pilots

 

 

[DrZoos]

It's not a lot of money compared to how much everything else in aviation costs.

By the way some of your other points are great....but this type of excuse for any cost imposed on anyone in society is ridiculous

No unnecessary cost or red tape should ever be even remotely justified, simply because other things cost a lot.

 

This thinking has corrupted Australian govt and bureaucracy into the mess it is in, where Australi is probably the hardest and most expensive place on earth to do anything..

 

Right now on the back of a resources boom we sit prettty and our standards of living allow us to ignore such costs...In the not too distant future as our standard of living decline as the boom tapers we will be forced to deal with such inefficiencies in a very severe way...or face the massive decline in living standards that such costs impose...

 

Greece has got where they have due to ignoring inefficiencies for decades...we will follow if we do the same

 

 

[DrZoos]

Further to the above post

 

For 90% of consumers in 90% of markets price dictates choice

 

If inefficiencies cause an equal product to cost more in country B than to produce in country A then country B will win...

 

Eg: Korean or OS car manufacturing compared to Australia

 

We may hate this, as I REALLY do, but this is economic reality

 

When Fred and Wilma get $400 pw to feed the Flintstone family save for retirement etc etc...they make choices which dictate economic reality over economic utopia every second, every minute, every hour, everyday, every week, every month, every year, every decade.

 

Similarly when fred and wilma get faced with the reality of family holidays v recreational flying the same economics come into play... Pilots will be forced to chose family or aircraft, families will be forced to chose husband over children... as much as we might want to avoid or ignore it , it is economic reality

 

Inefficient costs cause harsh choices and we need to stand up and stop them at every opportunity...we can do it in isolation or be 1000 times as effective as a united group against the BS CASA tries to impose... In light of the Forsyth review this is our once in a generation chance to actually achieve meaningful change

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

DrZoos, Australia has quite a lot more bureaucrats per head of population than Greece ever had. But as you said, we had the resources boom to pay for them.

 

I am pleased to be told Caboolture is possible to get into without going low. I really would like to go there one day.

 

Gawler is in military airspace, but it is not hard to get into although it does look daunting from the maps. Get in touch with us locals if you plan a visit.

 

Getting back to my problem flying to the east from Gawler, what I would like would be a 6,500 ft step midway between the 4,500 ft and the 8,500 ft steps. This would have no effect on the slope going into Adelaide but would connect Gawler to the east with a safe height over the hills.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Ada your point is valid (in the grand scheme) but that doesnt mean we should accept gross inefficiencies or expenses where expenses dont need to be...this is not out of self interest.....I can easily afford to pay...but having money does not make you immune to not wanting to waste money or more importantly see others who cannot afford it have to waste money, or have to miss out because they cannot afford it ....and saved dollars... for the thousands of pilots that come thru behind us we should be insisting these gross inefficiency or inequalities do not exist...

I agree, but we should be doing things without watering down standards - which is why I think the compromise way through is to allow independent instructors (GA CPL FIRs) to do the training and AFRs, in appropriate aircraft.

 

As for inefficiencies, what proportion of RAA members are aircraft owners? Given that a large amount of RAA's costs and imposts relate to aircraft and schools, why charge pilot members such a large proportion of the organisation's income?

 

(The RAA website says 10000 members and 3500 aircraft. The vast majority of the organisation's income is from membership - $1.4M out of $2.4M. If we increased aircraft registration costs and reduced membership costs, we would get more members from GA etc, and I doubt we would lose aircraft to the GA register.)

 

 

[DrZoos]

Why do we need GA qualified instructors to teach something as simple as heading, altitude and speed...

 

It aint rocket science and at the end of the day we have ATC monitoring separation to ask aircraft to change any of the 3 above.

 

Seriously what most of us at half busy airports face every day is 10x as hard as ATC areas...

 

This is evidenced every day when Virgin pilots rock up and struggle to fit in despite every other pilot including Qantas having no problems at all. They do all training in ATC then get thrown into our route and cant cope with a busy non controlled environment..this is far more dangerous than any ATC

 

 

[Camel]

I agree, but we should be doing things without watering down standards - which is why I think the compromise way through is to allow independent instructors (GA CPL FIRs) to do the training and AFRs, in appropriate aircraft.As for inefficiencies, what proportion of RAA members are aircraft owners? Given that a large amount of RAA's costs and imposts relate to aircraft and schools, why charge pilot members such a large proportion of the organisation's income?

 

(The RAA website says 10000 members and 3500 aircraft. The vast majority of the organisation's income is from membership - $1.4M out of $2.4M. If we increased aircraft registration costs and reduced membership costs, we would get more members from GA etc, and I doubt we would lose aircraft to the GA register.)

Ada, I understand where your coming from but I don't think you have looked at or care about RAA history and just briefly to help you, our system is good and our instructor system is good, do you realise a lot of accident are ex GA people ! Our former CEO and ops manager and board member Paul Middleton was ex CPL, ex CASA and was proud and happy with RAA with the aim to keep it simple, I meet Paul many times and had friends who knew him well, his heart was with RAA to keep flying affordable and FUN ! He flew a drifter and his property he called the bunny farm. He was keen to keep RAA simple and fun.

 

Since RAA has had the plastic fantastic people want more gadgets, faster and heavier machines. Safety is about sharing experience and knowledge and not taking risks. I can assure you people who fly seat of the pants aircraft like drifters and trikes make better pilots than some of the products of full time CPL and university Aviation Genius, I have met them and it's embarrassing that they can't even fly a plane in adverse conditions let alone basic aircraft handling. Junior RAA instructors have to work under direct supervision of a CFI and you don't get far teaching in RAA unless you are keen, I can assure you of that from personal experience. Many GA instructors teaching RAA are not able to fly as well as some RAA instructors for sure , I've met them, I was shocked !

 

I will also tell you without any doubt the hardest student is an ex GA person trying to convert to RAA ! The hardest part is to get them to use the rudder pedals for what they were designed for not footrests !

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Since RAA has had the plastic fantastic fpeople want more gadgets, faster and heavier machines. Safety is about sharing experience and knowledge and not taking risks.I will also tell you without any doubt the hardest student is an ex GA person trying to convert to RAA ! The hardest part is to get them to use the rudder pedals for what they were designed for not footrests !

I learned in an LSA55, I know all about rudder pedals! I learned to fly RA, and I learned to fly in a difficult-ish plane with very good stick and rudder instructors. I'm very grateful to them for the skills they taught me at a very low price (I paid $150/hr dual - try finding a GA school that cheap!).

 

but CTA is all about air law rather than actual flying skills, and this is where RA instruction especially falls down. I took an impromptu poll at the airfield one weekend about the rules about last light, and not one of the instructors (none PPL or CPL qualified) or RAA pilots knew what the actual rules about flying near last light were. they all had answers that were safe, conservative, and would not break the rules, but they didn't actually know what the CASRs and CARs specified.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Camel I agree

 

I have taken up around 6 current or recent former GA pilots up in my aircraft in the last 12 months, several with well over 1000 hours and their piloting skills, particularly rudder are atrocious...My aircraft hardly requires any rudder input till late final or touch down...but they seem to get it wrong all the time. Even when no rudder is required at all they have the ball way out of centre... In fact i would say a monkey can land my aircraft....but GA pilots seem to find it near impossible...they tend to want to smash it into the ground or land at twice the landing speed. They have no idea how to hold a wing low and keep it straight for touch down They have no idea how to hold a nose wheel off the ground and they have very poor general aircraft control from my experience.

 

Similarly I have taken up recent RAAus grads in my aircraft regularly and I have to say If you forced me to hand my aircraft over to 6 GA pilots or 6 RAAus former grads, I would have absolutely no hesitation handing it over to the grads over the GA pilots...in fact...i would outright refuse to hand it to the group of GA pilots. unless they had a lot of recent RAAus experience.

 

Its weird because GA look down at us as their reckless cousins, but from my experience not many GA pilots can handle a light RAAus aircraft without a LOT of time on controls. Where as me and they guys I know who have flown both recently come back and are astounded at how easy a heavier GA aircraft is to fly and land.

 

 

[facthunter]

For what my opinion is worth, the average Ultralight is much more difficult to fly than the general GA certified aircraft. That's because there is much more variation in U/L designs and the GA planes are designed to be stable and uncritical. (Not many vices) The low wing loading planes are gust sensitive and generally a smaller plane is more finnicky (quick to react) and requires more precise flying. Of course when you get into twins, the flying there is very precise to get the performance on one engine, so I'm not including them. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I learned in an LSA55, I know all about rudder pedals! I learned to fly RA, and I learned to fly in a difficult-ish plane with very good stick and rudder instructors. I'm very grateful to them for the skills they taught me at a very low price (I paid $150/hr dual - try finding a GA school that cheap!).but CTA is all about air law rather than actual flying skills, and this is where RA instruction especially falls down. I took an impromptu poll at the airfield one weekend about the rules about last light, and not one of the instructors (none PPL or CPL qualified) or RAA pilots knew what the actual rules about flying near last light were. they all had answers that were safe, conservative, and would not break the rules, but they didn't actually know what the CASRs and CARs specified.

The more of your descriptions I read about these disgraceful RA instructors that you seem to have found, all apparently congregated within your stamping ground, the more I am convinced that you are absolutely law-bound to take positive action.

 

Any pilot, let alone an instructor of any kind, ought to have a clear understanding about last light requirements and since you have determined that a number of them haven't, I trust you have made a full and detailed report to the RAAus Operations Manager?

 

I would say that you failing to make such a report, given your awareness of instructors not knowing about something so critical, would be a dereliction of your duty of care.

 

Can you please confirm that you have done so? Otherwise, as I understand it, since we are now aware of this, the duty would next fall upon us. In which case kindly supply the who/when/where information for the report to be properly compiled.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I fly and teach both GA and RAAus and cross train both. I can't say either group is better than the other at adapting. There are good and bad and average pilots on both sides and I don't think generalizing helps relationships between RAAus and GA.

 

 

[Camel]

Ada, I'm sure you are a very intelligent person, have you seen the flight safety magazine questions ? I'm always find them poorly or confusingly worded, your thoughts ? I never get them all because half the time I don't understand the question ! Bloody Geniuses!

 

 

[K-man]

but CTA is all about air law rather than actual flying skills, and this is where RA instruction especially falls down. I took an impromptu poll at the airfield one weekend about the rules about last light, and not one of the instructors (none PPL or CPL qualified) or RAA pilots knew what the actual rules about flying near last light were. they all had answers that were safe, conservative, and would not break the rules, but they didn't actually know what the CASRs and CARs specified.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what last light means to you and what the legal requirements are.

[Roundsounds]

I took an impromptu poll at the airfield one weekend about the rules about last light, and not one of the instructors (none PPL or CPL qualified) or RAA pilots knew what the actual rules about flying near last light were. they all had answers that were safe, conservative, and would not break the rules, but they didn't actually know what the CASRs and CARs specified.

The answer is actually in AIP-

 

AIP ENR 1.2, Visual Flight Rules:

 

1.1.2 Unless the pilot in command is authorised under CASR Part 61 to

 

conduct a flight under the IFR or at night under the VFR and the aircraft is appropriately equipped for flight at night or under the IFR, a VFR flight must not:

 

1. be conducted at night; and
    
    
   
2. depart from an aerodrome unless the ETA for the destination (or alternate) is at least 10 minutes before last light allowing for any required holding.
    
    
   

 

 

Or in the VFRG, pretty basic and simple rule.

 

http://www.vfrg.com.au/operations/general-information/visual-flight-rules/

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The more of your descriptions I read about these disgraceful RA instructors that you seem to have found, all apparently congregated within your stamping ground, the more I am convinced that you are absolutely law-bound to take positive action.

I don't know that I am, if it is not safety-related. You're not obliged to report every misconception that someone else has.

 

Roundsounds is right about the AIPs. The usual answer I got was on the ground 10 minutes before last light, which is safe and conservative.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Yes - and given Ada's description of 'over cautious' or words to that effect, one wonders whether 'they' might have been very responsibly referring to the unexpected dangers of tracking east to an evening destination or tracking east with high ground to the west?

 

Ever experienced either of those Ada? With cloud in the west, especially? It's so easy to be critical when you're a newbie. Ever seen the old hands being so incensed as you always seem to be?

 

Give it a few years, when you have some real experience and you'll see things in a different light. In the meantime take care not to harm those who may well have your best interests at heart.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I don't know that I am, if it is not safety-related. You're not obliged to report every misconception that someone else has.Roundsounds is right about the AIPs. The usual answer I got was on the ground 10 minutes before last light, which is safe and conservative.

Which means that you got the correct answer and still choose to say they're wrong.

 

You have problems lady!