Moratorium on unregistered planes and/or uncertificated pilots ... and other news

[Head in the clouds]

I attended the AGM of the GCSFC at Heck Field last evening - some snippets of news -

 

Heck Field operations continue as normal as the long-running dispute between the landowner and the GCSFC, who developed the facility, slowly moves toward a mutually acceptable resolution. There's still a way to go but following instruction from the Court, the two parties are making progress toward an agreement which will hopefully see operations continue uninterrupted at least for the next twenty years.

 

A new Committee was elected, the President and Vice President changed, the Secretary and Treasurer remained the same and some Ordinary committee members were added. There were more than sufficient nominations for all positions so no-one had to be coerced which is a good sign for the general health of the club. Hearty thanks were offered to those who have worked so hard through the difficult times dealing with legal issues over the last four years.

 

Mike Smith, SEQ Regional Rep gave an update on happenings at RAAus. I asked about the rollout of log-in details for the new members portal, I mentioned that I'd received mine on the first day and some still hadn't, though it was well over the expected two weeks already. He said it's taking longer than expected but anyone needing quick access, for plane registration for example, should phone or email using the contact form and they would either be given login details or the registration would be handled immediately by the staff.

 

The reported annual hours flown shown in the members area is a bit mangled in many cases, mine included, but apparently that will be editable by the members themselves in due course. I suspect it isn't editable now because things are still changing in the members area, even for those who already have their log-in details. For example - I was missing a few endorsements and didn't bother to report it yet while they're so busy but when I logged in yesterday they had miraculously appeared ... so perhaps some of the matters that have received criticism during the rolling changeover will resolve themselves if people just have a little more patience.

 

Mike also mentioned that RAAus understands that there are some planes still operating unregistered and some people flying without pilot certificates. He reported that RAAus has negotiated an agreement with CASA for a moratorium on those activities to give people the opportunity to 'get legal'. Mike said the moratorium is a once-only thing and is expected to last about three months. He was keen to point out that it's not intended for people to 'dob' others in, but that if anyone is aware of someone else doing the wrong thing they should urge them to contact RAAus and they will not be prosecuted, and will be given the opportunity to get their aircraft on the register. It wasn't made clear what the arrangement would be for them to get a pilot certificate, I imagine they'd have to become a member and pass a flight test, but that's just my take on it.

 

One thing that did concern me - in the past RAAus has made what I consider to be the mistake of losing and/or nearly losing freedoms we already have because it has been suggested that we don't need them. last night it was mentioned that RAAus is intending to bring in a 'Utility' endorsement, primarily aimed at those who are using their planes on the land for checking fences and stock and carrying tools and equipment around. my question is - why? We already have the right to do all and any of that without any endorsements except low-level so why add more hoops to jump through? I didn't speak against it last night, I'd thought I'd see what others think first.

 

Mike concluded by saying that in his opinion the Management and Board was working exceptionally hard, and well, and was the best RAAus had ever had. He said the change over the last 2-3 years is immense and it appeared that RAAus now has a very bright future to look forward to.

 

A couple of other things to do with RAAus website - some have mentioned on the other thread that their phone number won't update, as a test I've changed mine three times in the last few hours and it accepts the changes fine, so it must be a problem with some and not for others ... one for anyone with the problem to report I guess.

 

And - I sent in a feedback about the 'Emergency Contact' field. Naturally I have my wife as my first contact in emergency but if she was flying with me that wouldn't be much use. If we'd both crashed they'd need to contact my brother, so I suggested we need more than one person to contact. I got a response in half an hour saying they thought that was a good point and would refer it to the web team.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

One thing that did concern me - in the past RAAus has made what I consider to be the mistake of losing and/or nearly losing freedoms we already have because it has been suggested that we don't need them. last night it was mentioned that RAAus is intending to bring in a 'Utility' endorsement, primarily aimed at those who are using their planes on the land for checking fences and stock and carrying tools and equipment around. my question is - why? We already have the right to do all and any of that without any endorsements except low-level so why add more hoops to jump through? I didn't speak against it last night, I'd thought I'd see what others think first.

Did Mike mention how much this was going to cost membership to implement, both collectively and individually?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Did Mike mention how much this was going to cost membership to implement, both collectively and individually?

No, that wasn't discussed.

 

Oh - I forgot to mention the other news items that will have some of you jumping up and down ... with glee for once ...

 

Mike said that one of the Board (I didn't hear the whole sentence but I gather it was MM) was in conversation with Mr Skidmore and the subject of controlled airspace came up. Mr Skidmore took a while to appreciate what was being said until, apparently, his eyes widened with disbelief and he said (as close as I can recall the quote) "What, you mean you don't have access to controlled airspace?" This was confirmed and Mr Skidmore said that the matter should be added to other submissions due for lodgement at the end of this month, for immediate attention ... Mr Skidmore is a keen aviator himself, and he's certainly bringing a breath of fresh air following the repressive years of McCormick.

 

And - MTOW weight increase has been in discussion again with some suggesting it should be no different than for the RPL and others saying that would be stretching things (or words to that effect) but at least 750kg is looking likely.

 

My comment to both of the above is - be careful what you wish for. CTA is bound to end up with associated costs and just as 600kg LSAs cost 2-3 times as much as 450kg ones did, so 750kg LSAs will quite likely be in the $150-200K range.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

how does he get in charge of CASA and not know that?

 

 

[planesmaker]

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA.

 

Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA.Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

Personally I think it could work but as long as we don't lose any of our current freedoms, I don't see any reason why we can't have CTA for all (factory and homebuilt) of us with no change to our medical requirements.

Obviously that might not be doable but why not aim for the top? I wouldn't be happy accepting CTA if it required all of us to do a higher medical. At worst I would accept that if a higher medical was needed that it only applied to those wanting the CTA endo.

 

So to sum up, I am totally against losing ANY freedoms we currently have but don't see anything wrong with chasing more privileges as long as the losing no freedoms is guaranteed.

 

 

[Pearo]

Personally I think it could work but as long as we don't lose any of our current freedoms, I don't see any reason why we can't have CTA for all (factory and homebuilt) of us with no change to our medical requirements.Obviously that might not be doable but why not aim for the top? I wouldn't be happy accepting CTA if it required all of us to do a higher medical. At worst I would accept that if a higher medical was needed that it only applied to those wanting the CTA endo.

 

So to sum up, I am totally against losing ANY freedoms we currently have but don't see anything wrong with chasing more privileges as long as the losing no freedoms is guaranteed.

I think its obscene that RAA no longer has CTA. This would have to be one of the single most stupid decisions I have seen from CASA. Its not only preventing perfectly capable pilots from utilising the airspace, its outright dangerous in the fact that people become afraid of CTA rather than utilising the benefits provided from ATC. I also dont think a higher medical should be a condition of gaining access to CTA, the current rules are fine for recreational purposes. As long as your aircraft is fitted with complaint instrumentation, this should be sufficient.

 

With the increasing costs of GA, RAA is and will become the defacto standard for training new pilots. CASA needs to make this work.

 

I do have a few issues with RAA and I have been loathed to say it here to date, but the main one is the body itself handling accident and incidents. There is a good reason that the ATSB exists, and that is so it can make independent decisions on safety without bias from departments like CASA. The same arrangement needs to exist for RAA.

 

 

[P4D]

How come I'm not allowed a heart attack in CTA but its ok elsewhere?

 

Stupid fools

 

In CTA your'e closer to help and assistance than anywhere else.

 

 

[skeptic36]

How come I'm not allowed a heart attack in CTA but its ok elsewhere?Stupid fools

In CTA your'e closer to help and assistance than anywhere else.

It's not about you, it's about the primary school you where flying over when you had it.

 

 

[aro]

It's not about you, it's about the primary school you where flying over when you had it.

That would be built up areas, not CTA.

 

No access to CTA means you fly over the primary school at 2500' instead of 4500'.

 

 

[Pearo]

It's not about you, it's about the primary school you where flying over when you had it.

This gave me a good laugh. At YRED when landing on 07, you are basically flying into a school on the base leg!!

 

 

[skeptic36]

That would be built up areas, not CTA.No access to CTA means you fly over the primary school at 2500' instead of 4500'.

 

This gave me a good laugh. At YRED when landing on 07, you are basically flying into a school on the base leg!!

Ok, I'll be a little more specific, it's about minimising the potential for damage caused by you when you have the heart attack, i.e keeping you out of heavily populated areas, areas where other aircraft carrying large amounts of passengers tend to gravitate to, you know, that sort of thing.

 

 

[jetjr]

The risk of injury to persons on the ground is miniscule.

 

A medical doesnt ensure no medical incidents anyway

 

Even in current arrangements you can have legal access to CTA in aircraft BUT its void without valid medical - worded differently without a medical you cease to be legal as a PPL and revert to RPC, your still flying but no longer have CTA access

 

Isnt CTA mainly about traffic and other aircraft? otherwise there would be restrictions flying over built up areas not CTA

 

 

[P4D]

CTA is not necessarily a heavily populated area. Alice Springs NT, Hamilton Island QLD , East Sale Vic, Tamworth NSW or Dampier WA as examples of likely RAA destinations.

 

You can fly over lots of more heavily populated areas in G Class without your heart even noticing.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's about clearances to enter and leave airspace, accurate tracking, navigation and height keeping and position reporting with proper radio procedures. . CTA is often over country you shouldn't be flying over . Just get through it, when it's in your way and fly OCTA and be more relaxed and keep a good look outside. Nev

 

 

[P4D]

Facthunter

 

Whats that got to do with a medical?

 

 

[skeptic36]

It's about clearances to enter and leave airspace, accurate tracking, navigation and height keeping and position reporting with proper radio procedures. . CTA is often over country you shouldn't be flying over . Just get through it, when it's in your way and fly OCTA and be more relaxed and keep a good look outside. Nev

That's the skills side of the equation.

I maintain, the medical is to increase the likelihood that you will be in a fit state to control your aircraft when in the vicinity of places you are likely to find lots of people or valuable assets.

 

Many of the places quoted by P4d are there due to the skills part rather than the medical.

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree with your comments. Re the Class one medical there have been numerous instances when a pilot has died not long after having passed his medical with no evidence of a problem detected during the medical. People diagnosed with conditions that are properly treated and medicated with lifestyle changes are often much more safe than before. A stress ECG can bring on a heart attack some time later. Food poisoning is up there as a factor too. Crew are served different meals. Having flu or fatigued or hungover are other conditions of concern too. People can have brain heamorages or strokes without warning too. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

On the telephone contact field they got back to me and said yes, its broken but now is fixed. Good turnaround - 2 days from notice to RAA by their contact form to reply and fix on the site

 

 

[Pearo]

I agree with your comments. Re the Class one medical there have been numerous instances when a pilot has died not long after having passed his medical with no evidence of a problem detected during the medical. People diagnosed with conditions that are properly treated and medicated with lifestyle changes are often much more safe than before. A stress ECG can bring on a heart attack some time later. Food poisoning is up there as a factor too. Crew are served different meals. Having flu or fatigued or hungover are other conditions of concern too. People can have brain heamorages or strokes without warning too. Nev

OR have mental conditions and fly a plane full of PAX directly into the ground .

 

A drivers medical would be perfectly sufficienct, in fact its probably better than a class 2 medical given that you are likely to get it from your GP who actually knows your health history.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think if you are carrying a lot of Pax there should be a fair amount of scrutiny. Having two pilots makes it somewhat fail safe except for extenuating circumstances. The remaining pilot should be able to get it on the ground safely. It's been difficult to claim an effective test for heart and stroke conditions exists. They just list risk factors.

 

Under in flight stress a pilot's heart rate can go to over 200. This has often been recorded. Not everyone's body can cope with that easily. In many fun runs etc a few cark it. Even full-on athletes have heart failure events. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

CASA wont relax class 2 for CTA,

 

If they did it would make a mockery of their mantra for many years. They appear renown to follow a flawed track rather than reassess.

 

Would also seem unreasonable that PPL still required one if they allowed less for RPL or RPC

 

 

[SDQDI]

CASA wont relax class 2 for CTA,If they did it would make a mockery of their mantra for many years. They appear renown to follow a flawed track rather than reassess.

Would also seem unreasonable that PPL still required one if they allowed less for RPL or RPC

So how about the GFA? Weren't they the ones already in CTA with similar medical to us? Maybe it was another mob, my memory isn't the best

 

 

[jetjr]

Good point, do they have any restrictions?, not sure they wouldnt cause problems gliding into say essendon.

 

 

[Nobody]

Good point, do they have any restrictions?, not sure they wouldnt cause problems gliding into say essendon.

They do have some significant restrictions that I am not sure RAAus would want.

1. The need to be a member of a club and unless they hold an "independent operator" rating have to have a level 2 instructor on the field at all times.

 

2. They can't do owner maintinance and need to do significant training/courses to do an annual inspection.

 

3. Have to do annual flight reviews.

 

The reality is that GFA entry into controlled airspace is pretty limited. It allows flying at places like Camden where there was gliding long before the tower. They don't regularity get clearences into class c as far as I know.