Pseudo GA

[SDQDI]

Also just a note, I am very low hours and Nev and turbs have many more hours than me so I definitely am not trying to defend myself but more so RAA cert holders as a whole. Ironically even though I have flown into and out of tamworth a fair bit in training and once under my own steam since, I wouldn't be comfortable getting a cta endo without a lot more experience. It's just I don't see how getting my ppl and a cta endo would be better than just getting a cta endo with Raa.

 

Also note, even though I like the idea of a cta endo (tamworth is only 20 minutes away in my slow plane!) it wouldn't really benefit me too much as I fly a 19 reg. I don't think the requirements for planes needs too much adjustment but I do think it makes sense to have a level playing field when it comes to pilots.

 

 

[SDQDI]

And just before someone who knows me comments!

 

Yes I am a backwoods cowboy who rarely knows his exact location but I see lots of pretty scenery!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I had a look on the APF web site and the only thing I could find about medical conditions was on their application of member ship form CL8 which has a Disclosure of Medical Condition section (see below). It goes info a fair bit more detail than the RAAus medical declaration and is much more specific but there is nothing in there that worries me. It may make insurers happy and could keep insurance costs down. Perhaps RAAus could have given a bit more detail in their statement to keep conspiracy theorists' blood pressure down.

 

(i) Disclosure of Medical Conditions – You warrant that you:

 

(i) are and must continue to be medically and physically fit and able to undertake and participate in the Parachuting Activities;

 

(ii) are not a danger to yourself or to the health and safety of others;

 

(iii) have not at any time suffered any blackout, seizure, convulsion, fainting or dizzy spells; and

 

(iv) are not presently receiving treatment for any condition, illness, disorder or injury which would render it unsafe for you to take part in parachuting or flying including undertaking the Parachuting Activities.

 

You acknowledge that you must, and you agree that you will, disclose any pre-existing medical or other condition that may affect the risk that either you or any other person will suffer injury, loss or damage. You acknowledge that the APF and the Providers rely on information provided by you and that all such information is accurate and complete. You agree to report any accidents, injuries, loss or damage you suffer during any Parachuting Activities to the APF and the Providers before you leave any relevant venue.

 

 

[facthunter]

The last thing I wish to do is pull rank so I don't bring hours or such into the discussion. PPL's are no different to RAAus as faras flying capability is concerned, but RAAus is recreational VFR contact minimum complexity and cost flying not mini GA or mix it with airlines to fly across Australia and drop into all RPT airports. You can have the "airports" and transit rights if you are smart and don't go for the full monty. Hardly anything we do is ICAO compliant and that's why we are different. You have enemies out there who will (rightly ) "can" you when a dangerous situation is created that affects the big stuff and I can guarantee you won't be laughing when it happens because it will reflect on ALL of us not just the person(s) who stuff up. Why would you be able to fly on Non TSO'd instruments and NOT comply with other requirements that GA must do that affects the aircraft as well as the pilot's level of knowledge? Why would you expect special treatment or any kind of relaxation of standards? Whoever granted your wishes would expose themselves to a large liability so why would they do it.? Take it as an insult if you MUST think that way. Nothing I have said is meant in that vein but I'm talking about WHY it's not the way to go. Overshoot centreline on a parallel runway situation and it's critical like nothing else you encounter. All reporting times within 2 minutes. tracking and altitude specified accuracy all the time. If you are flying Bankstown to Kingsford Smith and your (only) radio fails what do you do at various points in the trip? Nev

 

 

[bull]

Nev, the trend as I see it is regulation for the recreational end of GA (not for reward) will *reduce* overtime based on the success of LSA in the USA. Medicals are already being moved in the right direction in the USA and the UK. I don't see a risk of regulation of RAAus getting more like the current GA unless you want to do something that we are not currently doing - like transit CTA. It is not unreasonable if you want to transit CTA to have a recently calibrated pitot system - annually rather than biannually. But there is no suggestion that all RAAus aircraft would need to change from the current bi-annual calibration for flying in Class G below 10,000 ft.Don

Nev, the trend as I see it is regulation

This one line says it all about how MR ramsay SEE,s OUR sport...............

[facthunter]

Maybe looks that way but in this case Don has qualified it to transit rights etc which I support. 500 ft Coastal at Williamtown wouldn't rely on a particularly accurate altimeter. It would be more allowing for actual RPT traffic which as known a fair while before it occurs , and having radio contact for the clearance. Where you are relying on minimum vertical separation as the main factor It's more critical to have accurately calibrated instruments and fly within the specified tolerences with an accurate area QNH in common with all other aircraft in the vicinity. Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

Nev I don't think the aircraft standards required for CTA should change (unless someone with better knowledge could show that it would be beneficial without added risk), that is why I don't expect to go there in my 19 reg plane. I would however like the option to fly a suitable RAA plane into CTA on just my certificate without needing to get a ppl. I would also expect to have to do the same training to get the endo though as if I did one day upgrade to a ppl (time and money but I will get there eventually!) I would like it to roll over with just a short check.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

All due respect Nev, if you a trained for CTA and operating a correctly equipped aircraft I can't see any reason why it would be any less safe then that same person flying in G or E airspace.

 

Why would a 10 hr c172 pilot be more safe then a RA-AuS pilot at not over shooting centreline?

 

 

[aro]

I think people are over-egging the requirements for CTA here. Maybe their CTA experience is primarily IFR not VFR? PPL pilots are not trained to the level being described.

 

• ATC will not let you within cooee of the larger aircraft. If you want to get in their way, you will have to go somewhere OCTA like Mildura or even Sunbury.
   
   
  
• In radar contact you have 2 independent altitude sources (altimeter and transponder/encoder) so if your altimeter has an error it should be picked up, unlike OCTA. (Does anyone have a reference for the different instrumentation requirements in CTA - I can't find one other than the transponder.)
   
   
  
• Tracking - in radar, if you are off track ATC will let you know. Tracking and altitude is more difficult when operating OCTA at the boundaries than inside CTA where you have ATC monitoring and help.
   
   
  

 

 

However, the path to CTA seems to exist already - convert RAA certificate to RPL and get the CTA endorsement. Surely that covers the requirements?

 

As I've written many times I don't accept the RA Vs GA delineation. I only see recreational aviation and commercial aviation. The size of you aircraft should not matter that much (within reason).

This I don't agree with. What Don is describing already exists: the PPL and CPL. If that's the environment you want it is available to you.

 

AUF/RAA came about because people wanted simpler qualifications, cheaper aircraft and maintenance and to be able to fly without a medical certificate. In return for this lighter regulation, restrictions on the size and weight of the aircraft were implemented, primarily to reduce the risk to other people:

 

• No more than 1 passenger
   
   
  
• A maximum weight limit
   
   
  
• A maximum stall speed in the landing configuration
   
   
  
• Limits on where you can fly e.g. OCTA, <5000 ft.
   
   
  

 

 

These are specifically designed to mitigate the risks from relaxing the other regulations.

 

There is a very real risk that in return for increased privileges, other regulations would be reintroduced e.g. if you have the same privileges, why would you have a different medical standard for RPL and RAA? If the RPL driver license medical is introduced for RAA, RAA is in big trouble.

 

If you wanted to create a step by step plan to kill off RAA you could do worse than:

 

1. Place restrictions on the aircraft used by flying schools to make them uneconomic
    
    
   
2. Place restrictions on owner maintenance privileges
    
    
   
3. Implement the driver license medical standard for RAA
    
    
   
4. Provide an easy path from RAA to a GA qualification
    
    
   
5. Allow LSA aircraft to be registered under GA (i.e. without recurring registration fees)
    
    
   
6. Allow for owner maintenance of LSA aircraft under GA, using the USA as a model.
    
    
   

 

 

#6 is the only one that seems unlikely, and that only due to certain attitudes within CASA.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . However, the path to CTA seems to exist already - convert RAA certificate to RPL and get the CTA endorsement. Surely that covers the requirements?

When CASA created the RPL, they proposed it as an alternative form of recreational flying licensing but one that was equal to the RPC. What RAAus is up to is getting CASA to put their money where their mouth is. If the RPL = RPC then they should have the same rights (not "privileges").

 

This I don't agree with. What Don is describing already exists: the PPL and CPL. If that's the environment you want it is available to you.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one for the reasons I state above. If you have a PPL but no CPL or ATPL you are, in ordinary English words a recreational pilot. With a PPL you have had more training hours than for an RPL or RPC and you have been tested on more skills. But, you are still flying not for reward and that means flying for fun (i.e. recreation).

 

AUF/RAA came about because people wanted simpler qualifications, cheaper aircraft and maintenance and to be able to fly without a medical certificate. In return for this lighter regulation, restrictions on the size and weight of the aircraft were implemented, primarily to reduce the risk to other people:

• No more than 1 passenger
   
   
  
• A maximum weight limit
   
   
  
• A maximum stall speed in the landing configuration
   
   
  
• Limits on where you can fly e.g. OCTA, <5000 ft.
   
   
  

 

 

These are specifically designed to mitigate the risks from relaxing the other regulations.

Agree with the above with the exception of the Altitude limit now 10,000 ft and below (9,500 in practice because of the need to fly hemispheres above 5,000 ft)

 

There is a very real risk that in return for increased privileges, other regulations would be reintroduced e.g. if you have the same privileges, why would you have a different medical standard for RPL and RAA? If the RPL driver license medical is introduced for RAA, RAA is in big trouble.

Currently, if you fly in Class G you need instruments calibrated only every 2 years. If you fly in CTA they need to be calibrated every year. Why would that rule need to change for pilots who do not wish to enter CTA? On the same basis, there could be an argument to apply the RPL medical or even PPL medical standard to those who fly in CTA but why would that need to be extended to those who continue to only operate in Class G? Reality is that with Part 149 CASA is hinting at the demise of the RPL (no need for a "parallel path").

Use of the word "privileges" is a big con by CASA to make you think that they are doing you a huge favour every time they remove a restriction on your flying rights. We really need to look at flying as a right not a privilege. This is the same for Free Speech. We all see free speech as a right not a privilege. That right has some reasonable restrictions put on it like not yelling "fire"in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

 

Same for flying and driving a car - it is a right that has reasonable restrictions placed on it so that you don't harm yourself or others while exercising that right. It is reasonable to restrict a would be pilot from flying without an instructor beside them as PIC until the student has demonstrated a level of knowledge and skill that convinces the instructor that the student is safe to allow to go solo.

 

Our right to fly in CTA is currently restricted until we can demonstrate the knowledge and skill to be able to do it safely. I have no problem with that. My big problem with the CTA issue is that even if our aircraft meets the required specs and you have demonstrated the knowledge and skill required (like pilots that learn to fly at Coffs in CTA) you still face an unreasonable restriction on your rights to fly.

 

If you wanted to create a step by step plan to kill off RAA you could do worse than:

1. Place restrictions on the aircraft used by flying schools to make them uneconomic
    
    
   
2. Place restrictions on owner maintenance privileges
    
    
   
3. Implement the driver license medical standard for RAA
    
    
   
4. Provide an easy path from RAA to a GA qualification
    
    
   
5. Allow LSA aircraft to be registered under GA (i.e. without recurring registration fees)
    
    
   
6. Allow for owner maintenance of LSA aircraft under GA, using the USA as a model.
    
    
   

 

 

#6 is the only one that seems unlikely, and that only due to certain attitudes within CASA.

If CASA killed off RAAus as a SASAO, it would be faced with having to administer another 9,000 very angry pilots and 3,000 aircraft. They would also have sent 180 small businesses bankrupt. They would need to go to the Minister and ask for an extra $30 million per annum (Vs the $100,000 it currently costs them). Do you think any Minister for Aviation or Federal Treasurer would thank the CASA CEO for such a FUBB?

 

Reality is CASA needs RAAus to save it a great deal of money and annoyance - they don't like GA and find it a distraction from running the airlines into the ground and imagine how little desire there is at the top of CASA to take on RA?

 

 

[bull]

When CASA created the RPL, they proposed it as an alternative form of recreational flying licensing but one that was equal to the RPC. What RAAus is up to is getting CASA to put their money where their mouth is. If the RPL = RPC then they should have the same rights (not "privileges").

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one for the reasons I state above. If you have a PPL but no CPL or ATPL you are, in ordinary English words a recreational pilot. With a PPL you have had more training hours than for an RPL or RPC and you have been tested on more skills. But, you are still flying not for reward and that means flying for fun (i.e. recreation).

 

Agree with the above with the exception of the Altitude limit now 10,000 ft and below (9,500 in practice because of the need to fly hemispheres above 5,000 ft)

 

Currently, if you fly in Class G you need instruments calibrated only every 2 years. If you fly in CTA they need to be calibrated every year. Why would that rule need to change for pilots who do not wish to enter CTA? On the same basis, there could be an argument to apply the RPL medical or even PPL medical standard to those who fly in CTA but why would that need to be extended to those who continue to only operate in Class G? Reality is that with Part 149 CASA is hinting at the demise of the RPL (no need for a "parallel path").

 

Use of the word "privileges" is a big con by CASA to make you think that they are doing you a huge favour every time they remove a restriction on your flying rights. We really need to look at flying as a right not a privilege. This is the same for Free Speech. We all see free speech as a right not a privilege. That right has some reasonable restrictions put on it like not yelling "fire"in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

 

Same for flying and driving a car - it is a right that has reasonable restrictions placed on it so that you don't harm yourself or others while exercising that right. It is reasonable to restrict a would be pilot from flying without an instructor beside them as PIC until the student has demonstrated a level of knowledge and skill that convinces the instructor that the student is safe to allow to go solo.

 

Our right to fly in CTA is currently restricted until we can demonstrate the knowledge and skill to be able to do it safely. I have no problem with that. My big problem with the CTA issue is that even if our aircraft meets the required specs and you have demonstrated the knowledge and skill required (like pilots that learn to fly at Coffs in CTA) you still face an unreasonable restriction on your rights to fly.

 

If CASA killed off RAAus as a SASAO, it would be faced with having to administer another 9,000 very angry pilots and 3,000 aircraft. They would also have sent 180 small businesses bankrupt. They would need to go to the Minister and ask for an extra $30 million per annum (Vs the $100,000 it currently costs them). Do you think any Minister for Aviation or Federal Treasurer would thank the CASA CEO for such a FUBB?

 

Reality is CASA needs RAAus to save it a great deal of money and annoyance - they don't like GA and find it a distraction from running the airlines into the ground and imagine how little desire there is at the top of CASA to take on RA?

(edited...mod) ,you really want to fly under the Sydney harbour bridge don,t you,,,,is all this drive to turn raa into ga , just so you can cross another item off your bucket list? AND whilst talking about the death of RAA ,,,I really don't think he is talking about casa doing the killing,,,more like a better fairer cheaper way forward {ELAAA] Has come into being and if raa keep going GA with regulation/rules/costs, etc example the recent email from RAA about medical review ,,,WHY under the present system no attributable accidents caused by medical incapacitation are happening everday,,,SO why the need ,no cause /no regs[your Quote there] ..Will see so many jumping ship so quick the rats will feel very lonely very quickly and RAA will not be able to pay the bar bill after all ah Mr Ramsay...................lol

 

 

[turboplanner]

Also just a note, I am very low hours and Nev and turbs have many more hours than me so I definitely am not trying to defend myself but more so RAA cert holders as a whole. Ironically even though I have flown into and out of tamworth a fair bit in training and once under my own steam since, I wouldn't be comfortable getting a cta endo without a lot more experience. It's just I don't see how getting my ppl and a cta endo would be better than just getting a cta endo with Raa.

Also note, even though I like the idea of a cta endo (tamworth is only 20 minutes away in my slow plane!) it wouldn't really benefit me too much as I fly a 19 reg. I don't think the requirements for planes needs too much adjustment but I do think it makes sense to have a level playing field when it comes to pilots.

I was just responding to the statement: "I can't see the logic that CTA is less safe?"

 

All participants referred to were PPL and above, so no aspersions on RAA pilots.

 

I just covered some of radio and situational awareness, but to that you can add non-compliant circuits, jockeying for landing position, queue jumping, and even failure to find reporting points. On one occasion I was inbound and almost at the reporting point when I saw a 210 tail fin pass at around 90 degrees to me from left to right, in the lower sight line.

 

You've probably summed it up nicely, and that's just based on Tamworth.

 

Tamworth, in the 12 months ending June 2009 had 90,402 movements.

 

This compares with:

 

Moorabbin 2009 310,000

 

Bankstown 2011 243,126

 

Jandakot 2011 275,506

 

Archerfield 2011 140,000

 

Essendon 2012 57,000

 

A CTA endorsement is a little like a Command Instrument Rating; first there's a cost, then there's more cost to keep yourself current (safe), then there's an aircraft cost.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just staying on a medium volume airport like Tamworth; about 19 of the top bar is not complying with ATC - shows you what happens when pilots are untrained, nervous, non-current for CTA. And, SQ, just for you, this chart includes GA pilots only. If the bars suddenly go out with newly released RA pilots, you can bet your boots the scrutiny will be on ALL RA pilots.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Some are being very selective here as to what they choose to base their argument on. It's the WHOLE thing and most of our planes don't get close to being up to the required quality in a documented and certified way. You can't just skip the TSO'd bit by saying the non TSO'd stuff is more sophisticated. It's the International standard. OUR CERTIFICATE is not recognised either and never will be if it's made for our purposes and until the whole world has an equivalent (which may never happen), it won't change. Don't wish for it as that will act against our interests..

 

Safety.... Controlled airspace is the MOST safe flying environment there is. There's a reason for that. Money is spent on it and uniform world wide standards apply. To be part of it you will have to spend money and conform to the "normal" standards. To talk of "your rights" is a distraction. Your rights are to be treated the same as any other PERSON. Your plane doesn't have any rights. Just what is lawful. so we are talking about design, servicing, training, recency. radio competency and radio quality electrical system load assessments and more. If it can be inferred that "WE" are getting breaks against requirements "others" must meet, how fair is that to them? THEY meet the accepted standard. We want equal access, but concessions to apply for us . The logical fix for safety conscious authorities is to say meet all the standards, like the others do. Why would they go out on a limb for a small group of a section of Aviation they fundamentally have a big difficulty with already? If something goes wrong (and it will) The U/L movement will cop all the brickbats, and whoever allowed access will get it in the neck. I keep saying you have many enemies, who will just be waiting to wipe out the existence of "less than" GA Don't BLAME me I'm only the messenger. Someone has to tell you what you don't want to hear occasionally, and it's to preserve what we have that I'm motivated by. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Some are being very selective here as to what they choose to base their argument on. It's the WHOLE thing and most of our planes don't get close to being up to the required quality in a documented and certified way. You can't just skip the TSO'd bit by saying the non TSO'd stuff is more sophisticated. It's the International standard. OUR CERTIFICATE is not recognised either and never will be if it's made for our purposes and until the whole world has an equivalent (which may never happen), it won't change. Don't wish for it as that will act against our interests..Safety.... Controlled airspace is the MOST safe flying environment there is. There's a reason for that. Money is spent on it and uniform world wide standards apply. To be part of it you will have to spend money and conform to the "normal" standards. To talk of "your rights" is a distraction. Your rights are to be treated the same as any other PERSON. Your plane doesn't have any rights. Just what is lawful. so we are talking about design, servicing, training, recency. radio competency and radio quality electrical system load assessments and more. If it can be inferred that "WE" are getting breaks against requirements "others" must meet, how fair is that to them? THEY meet the accepted standard. We want equal access, but concessions to apply for us . The logical fix for safety conscious authorities is to say meet all the standards, like the others do. Why would they go out on a limb for a small group of a section of Aviation they fundamentally have a big difficulty with already? If something goes wrong (and it will) The U/L movement will cop all the brickbats, and whoever allowed access will get it in the neck. I keep saying you have many enemies, who will just be waiting to wipe out the existence of "less than" GA Don't BLAME me I'm only the messenger. Someone has to tell you what you don't want to hear occasionally, and it's to preserve what we have that I'm motivated by. Nev

Nev,

No one is asking for a relaxation of standards

 

1. some RAA planes can currently fly into CTA (or parts thereof)

 

2. Some RAA pilots (who have PPL c/w CTA endos) can currently fly into CTA (or parts thereof)

 

What is the issue with a competently trained and examined RAA Pilot being awarded CTA access in RAA planes currently permitted under 1.above? And why shouldn't a competently trained RAA Instructor be permitted to issue that endorsement?

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm happy for transit for safety reasons. A good case can be made there. Some training is done at certain aerodromes and that's a pragmatic approach also, but that's a very limited exposure to the whole gamut of CTA flight. The rest is already in my posts re compliance to international standards which CASA is signatory to. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Lots of us don't want to fly in CTA. What we do want is for there to be less CTA and VFR corridors as needed to enable VFR planes to safely operate.

 

There is lots of CTA around here which is NEVER used, unless you count the deliberate forcing of VFR planes to fly lower than safe as a "use".

 

 

[coljones]

I'm happy for transit for safety reasons. A good case can be made there. Some training is done at certain aerodromes and that's a pragmatic approach also, but that's a very limited exposure to the whole gamut of CTA flight. The rest is already in my posts re compliance to international standards which CASA is signatory to. Nev

Nev, do you fly RAA planes into CTA? What planes do you fly into CTA?

 

 

[facthunter]

I've done more flying in CTA than most ever will in the planes it was structured for. I don't really believe in going there with U/L's, so why the question? My position is pretty clear. GA are supposed to use the secondary aerodromes. which are the hairiest places to be. I used to go into Willytown a fair bit and Kingsford Smith where we had "negotiated " a VFR procedure and I was told in no uncertain terms to not stuff it up and ruin the arrangement or I'd be for it. This was in single engine GA planes which they preferred to go to Bankstown. Did My Command ME/IFR out of Essendon for about 4 years. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Think you'd find secondary airports are also in CTA (controlled), no one is suggesting flying your LSA into Sydney Kingsford Smith, there is a lot more to CTA then landing at capital city airports (restrictions are already in place to prevent such access).

 

 

[frank marriott]

The fees associated with landing/parking at Kingsford Smith would be enough to keep me away.

 

 

[Admin]

Col, and others promoting CTA endorsement in RAAus, give me one good reason why you can't simply change your aircraft to VH reg and have your RPL or PPL and go and fly CTA to your hearts content. Recreational aviation in RAAus is not for that and was never intended to be. If you want to fly CTA then do what has always been available to you. What's next? Night VFR, just in case you get caught out with end of daylight, I bet you will all claim that for safety reasons etc etc etc...one day soon CASA will just say HEY, you are now GA and we need to manage you under world standards so thanks, we will take you now.

 

Keep pure recreational aviation just that, flying around the country for fun, and for the others go and fly GA and leave us alone...

 

 

[Admin]

Incidentally, for those that are citing things like "Well they can do that in NZ"...get your facts because you will find you have to do many more hours training to get your basic certificate to start with...you are not comparing apples for apples

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Col, and others promoting CTA endorsement in RAAus, give me one good reason why you can't simply change your aircraft to VH reg and have your RPL or PPL and go and fly CTA to your hearts content. Recreational aviation in RAAus is not for that and was never intended to be. If you want to fly CTA then do what has always been available to you. What's next? Night VFR, just in case you get caught out with end of daylight, I bet you will all claim that for safety reasons etc etc etc...one day soon CASA will just say HEY, you are now GA and we need to manage you under world standards so thanks, we will take you now.Keep pure recreational aviation just that, flying around the country for fun, and for the others go and fly GA and leave us alone...

Why should RA-AUS exist at all? Why shouldn't everyone have to buy VH and get a PPL?

 

Why shouldn't you be restricted to 500ft over your own land? Wasn't that what AUF was all about?

 

It's about giving people choices, no one is making you get a CTA or modifying your aircraft to meet CTA standards. Why is your right as a member to have RA-AUS advocate on your behalf greater than mine?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why should RA-AUS exist at all? Why shouldn't everyone have to buy VH and get a PPL?Why shouldn't you be restricted to 500ft over your own land? Wasn't that what AUF was all about?

 

It's about giving people choices, no one is making you get a CTA or modifying your aircraft to meet CTA standards. Why is your right as a member to have RA-AUS advocate on your behalf greater than mine?

Logic.