Pseudo GA

[bull]

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?

AUF was NOT about being able to fly at 500 ft over your own land at all,,YOU get your facts right ,,,The Auf was formed to manage a section of Australian Aviation that came into being because of the costs and complexities involved in GA,Another form of flying was created,, simple .LIGHT BASIC AIRCRAFT flying for FUN REPEAT FUN,without the burden of GA which you all seem so driven to turn RAA into!!!!! Safe AFFORDABLE flying for everyone... NOT JUST Another way around the requirements of GA for those that for whatever reason cant fly GA ,,be it medical or whatever,,,,,,,,PLEASE people if you cant do it by the tried and established methods and present rules and regs etc, well so be it,,,,,DONT KILL OFF SOMEONE ELSE,S SPORT, for your own ends,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

[kasper]

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?

Know your history ... 500ft not over sealed roads was from the predecessor of CASA ... and with no training and those ops limits guess what - horrible safety outcomes. Result a HORSCOTS report - based on logic and facts - that identified the causes as being ridiculously low altitude and lack of training and training aircraft ... predecessor of CASA did not want to deal with all that non-GA non-commercial so the AUF was born to look after the decidedly non-GA "rabble" of this area ... and the more GA you look and expect to operate the more CASA can legitimately in my opinion expect you to align with GA full deal.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Admin, while I agree with your argument about flying GA if you want to fly in CTA, I am still looking for a justification of having more then necessary CTA.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Actually it was not above 300' and not cross roads.

 

 

[bull]

Actually it was not above 300' and not cross roads.

Not cross roads is incorrected David ,, the definition was ,,,not above 300 ft and not to fly along sealed roads,[primarily to avoid power lines if I remember correctly] Also land owners permission was required unless public land or parks Also as this was the birther movement of ultralighting in Australia there was no licence requirements and airworthy rules, so many a dreaming biggles brought a kit from the states or built their own ,and as a result of no two seaters ,or proper training ,the death rate spiralled.AUF was brought into being to regulate this lighter side of aviation in Australia.and the movement to two seaters was originally designed to allow safe training , NOT TO ALLOW YOU TO FLY COASTAL AT 140KTS,or use GA PRIVLIGES AS A RIGHT of your little ''certificate to fly''

 

 

[kasper]

Actually it was not above 300' and not cross roads.

Sorry yes, it was not above 300AGL that became not below 500AGL ... but it was sealed raods you were not allowed to cross - gravel and dirt were ok.

Similar it used to be not greater than 115kg empty and that became not above 300kg MTOW and add in the wing loading.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

My point was the AUF started out with restrictions and over time these have been reviewed and improved/lifted. Why should access to CTA be any different? It could be an option for those who use it, those who don't want it are not forced too.

 

You can jump up and down about making people "go GA" because you don't like the idea, at the end of the day we are all members of RA-AUS and the majority wanted us to take this path (based on the old board of 13 who represented the members voting in favor). If your so concerns about us going down this route, put together a resolution to direct the board to not pursue CTA access and see if you really have the numbers.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Sorry yes, it was not above 300AGL that became not below 500AGL ... but it was sealed raods you were not allowed to cross - gravel and dirt were ok.Similar it used to be not greater than 115kg empty and that became not above 300kg MTOW and add in the wing loading.

I remember those days well. I met Frank Bailey in those days and used to fly his designed 'Mustang' out of the old WWII strip at Berrima near Mittagong. I currently own one of his later designed Javelins.

Long before Pilot Certificates. The difference for me was that I was already a PPL holder. Great days and great fun.

 

 

[SDQDI]

For me personally I do eventually intend to get my ppl (not for CTA but so I can take my whole family on recreational trips) but not until I have finished my LL endo (so certainly could still be a few years away knowing my pace) and yes no doubt I could change over to VH rego BUT I don't want to do that as I prefer paying rego and membership fees rather than jumping through medical hoops every two years.

 

Telling people like me to just go GA and clear out is imo very short sighted. Rag and tube numbers from what I have seen are certainly not going ahead like the fancier machines. I guess, other than home building and the second hand market, there are not a lot of new r&t machines to be had cheaply and at the same time you have secondhand machines like jab and foxbats ect for reasonable dollars and the majority of people while still liking the idea of wind in the hair will choose a bit of comfort just because that is how we are wired. Similar to cars and motorcycles, for sure you will always have people who love their bikes but the population in general will cling to their comfort and a fair few bike riders will have a car at home too.

 

So what happens to RAA if all the people like me go full GA? The RAA financials would take a huge hit. Why is it that some think only rag and tube are recreational? How does having metal skins and a door (sometimes) make me unultralighty?

 

I have mentioned getting my ppl so I can take my family, which I must add I accept and don't expect it to change BUT in my perfect world I think it would be nice if that was considered recreational, also I think the current RAA medical requirements should be all that is required for ALL non commercial flights with a MTOW of 5700kgs or less

 

Anyway I am up past my bedtime again and rambling again.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Quote "you realise that our mistrust of the future makes it hard to give up the past"

 

Seems to apply to many of the posts I have read lately

 

 

[Admin]

Rag and tube numbers from what I have seen are certainly not going ahead like the fancier machines.

Personally I am not referring to rag and tube as the aircraft type of recreational flyers, remember I had both a Gazelle and a plastic fantastic 130 knot CT with full glass and auto pilot. Even in the CT I still just flew for fun and enjoyed flying over the country side or on big trips. My point is it WILL cost ALL RAAus members more in membership fees if you start adding more and more endorsements that are already avaialable in other forms of aviation. Every activity in the office has a cost, answering the phone, submitting documents, accident investigations, technical research etc etc etc and every little actvity that comes with every "extra" puts more burden on administration. Take for example the ASIC card. When I was on the board almost 50% of 1 staff member cost was taken up by that without extra cost recovery...guess what, membership fees went up. Every RAAus member is paying for all the little extras when MOST just fly for fun around the country side.

We are our own worst enemy so let's complain about our fees going up to pay for say the 10% who want to fly CTA instead of them simply changing to VH and RPL/PPL. Remember, the medicals are there for a reason, right or wrong, but that's another argument, and what will we all say after CASA don't allow us to do our own maintenance the minute after an accident happens in CTA

 

 

[coljones]

Personally I am not referring to rag and tube as the aircraft type of recreational flyers, remember I had both a Gazelle and a plastic fantastic 130 knot CT with full glass and auto pilot. Even in the CT I still just flew for fun and enjoyed flying over the country side or on big trips. My point is it WILL cost ALL RAAus members more in membership fees if you start adding more and more endorsements that are already avaialable in other forms of aviation. Every activity in the office has a cost, answering the phone, submitting documents, accideng investigations, technical research etc etc etc and every little actvity that comes with every "extra" puts more burden on administration. Take for example the ASIC card. When I was on the board almost 50% of 1 staff member cost was taken up by that without extra cost recovery...guess what, membership fees went up. Every RAAus member is paying for all the little extras when MOST just fly for fun around the country side.We are our own worst enemy so let's complain about our fees going up to pay for say the 10% who want to fly CTA instead of them simply changing to VH and RPL/PPL. Remember, the medicals are there for a reason, right or wrong, but that's another argument, and what will we all say after CASA don't allow us to do our own maintenance the minute after an accident happens in CTA

The RAA ASIC fee is cost neutral and not subsidised anymore. The handling costs of an ASIC application is not trivial - and if there are complexities in issuing any endos then perhaps there should be handling fee.

 

 

[bull]

The RAA ASIC fee is cost neutral and not subsidised anymore. The handling costs of an ASIC application is not trivial - and if there are complexities in issuing any endos then perhaps there should be handling fee.

A very LARGE fee for cta endo,s to offset the amount of money spent on lobbying Canberra to get cta access too ah.....................sounds familiar Col,,,another reason for RAAus to justify our fee increases just around the corner or will our fee,s go down for those who don't want cta access as the "large amount'' of members who want cta access pay that large fee for lobbying ,therefore bringing costs for cta into the ""user pays ''bracket??

 

 

[facthunter]

No one 's proposing not flying through it, but flying IN it is something else. You can't expect to do that without meeting certain standards which GA planes must meet, so why would they reduce those standards for us, and create a problem where there wasn't any?. Having only one radio isn't clever and the radio's performance is critical, but that's only ONE important aspect of the whole picture.

 

The idea we just keep progressing is simplistic and would lead to some outcomes that act against what the show was FORMED for, ignores the cheap, simple. affordable which we stand for. and having a standard of one engine failure /10,000 hours (something totally unattainable) foisted on us, is an example. Where does THAT sort of thing end? and there will be more and more restrictions, BS and complexity.

 

Of course we progress. Nothing stands still. What say we progress the cheap affordable safe idea and address the rising costs and the stupid ASIC and not just want everything GA has?

 

If you want what GA has, be like GA. that appears to be CASA's rules.

 

Still be able to design and build and maintain our own planes and engines and perhaps not fly over populous areas to have that privilege. Remember that? makes sense to me.. I don't think it's smart to fly over populous areas in single engine planes where there is NO possible safe landing area available. We have less and less organisations I would trust to work on my plane anyhow. GA is in decline. IF we don't control costs we will suffer as well. If we don't remain true to our main "essence" there will be many people who leave. Go and set up your Quasi GA because that really is what you are proposing, because NVFR will be next. You can count on it. Empire building appeals to most organisations and will happen unless they voluntarily realise that's not why they were established. IF RAAus sticks to its principles it will still grow but not as fast as if it wants to run GA. I think growth is all this team wants. if so, they have lost the plot. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

I'll poke the hollow log.

 

What if the licensing of all pilots was under the control of CASA, and the many facets of the operation of aircraft for non-commercial purposes devolved to organisations such as RAAus, GFA etc?

 

That way the syllabus for licences would be the same for all pilots and there could be graduated levels of licence

 

1. Student

 

2. Restricted (Local ares flights only - pre nav, motor vehicle driver's medical standard)

 

3. Conditional - Day VMC, MTOW < 2000lbs

 

4. Advanced - NVMC, IFR, Aerobatic, Water-based, Crop dusting, Mustering (? Class 2 medical?)

 

5. CPL

 

6. ATPL

 

Included in the Student/Restricted licence would be the skills for operating in CTA. One might never fly into a Primary airport, so that knowledge could reasonably be forgotten, but at least by the time a Conditional licence was issued, the recreational pilot could operate in lesser classes of CTA, provided that the aircraft was suitably equipped.

 

With licensing all on the same level, special interest organisations could take over monitoring aircraft registration.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Nev, could to explain this difference between flying through CTA and flying IN CTA for those of us who don't have a million hours in CTA under our belt?

 

 

[facthunter]

Well, I don't have a million hours either. (This debate is starting to deteriorate.) CTA was created to serve RPT on fairly congested routes where they don't have to look out the window and they make up funny names for waypoints for their highway in the sky. The type of flying done there is regulated more than any other and meets international standards. You know this. They didn't have U/L's in mind when they made the rules. We only operate on a certificate, not a licence, which is peculiar to Australia with dispensations to permit our type of operation. This gives CASA the willies already. The first incident will be all over the papers with the ratbag media making a great scene over it. Quite a few straying GA planes have brought down RPT Planes in the USA. Their procedures weren't followed, and the system broke down. It's a thing you should do regularly to be good at. Airlines have all sorts of normal ops that double check all set assigned altiudes and clearances. A mistake normally means you lose your job or get a lot of retraining. The "everybody makes mistakes sometimes" attitude some have, just doesn't fit that kind of operation.. They still get TCAS actuated avoidance situations despite all the extra effort. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

I'll poke the hollow log.What if the licensing of all pilots was under the control of CASA, and the many facets of the operation of aircraft for non-commercial purposes devolved to organisations such as RAAus, GFA etc?

 

That way the syllabus for licences would be the same for all pilots and there could be graduated levels of licence

 

1. Student

 

2. Restricted (Local ares flights only - pre nav, motor vehicle driver's medical standard)

 

3. Conditional - Day VMC, MTOW < 2000lbs

 

4. Advanced - NVMC, IFR, Aerobatic, Water-based, Crop dusting, Mustering (? Class 2 medical?)

 

5. CPL

 

6. ATPL

 

Included in the Student/Restricted licence would be the skills for operating in CTA. One might never fly into a Primary airport, so that knowledge could reasonably be forgotten, but at least by the time a Conditional licence was issued, the recreational pilot could operate in lesser classes of CTA, provided that the aircraft was suitably equipped.

 

With licensing all on the same level, special interest organisations could take over monitoring aircraft registration.

 

Old Man Emu

I thought that was pretty much what EALAA is aiming at.

 

Kaz

 

 

[farri]

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 Civil Aviation Order 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 pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

 

 

 

(i) issued under Part 61 of CASR 1998; and

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(e) the pilot has a valid flight review for the class rating in accordance with Part 61 of CASR 1998;

 

 

 

(f) 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.

 

Unless I`m mistaken,there you have it!.... The push to access CTA is nothing new but I`ll take a guess and say there are still plenty of pilots out there, quite happy to fly in class G airspace and never go near CTA....I`m one of them.

 

As an AUF / RA-Aus member and pilot, I have no problem with those wanting access to CTA in RA-Aus registered aircraft, doing what is required of them to achieve it but I do have great objections if it means the rest of us who remain in class G are penalised with extra regulations,or, restrictions and fees....As far as I`m concerned, it`s up to those wanting access to CTA to do what is required of them.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

Wht is the difference between a pilot licence and a pilot certificate.

 

I hold a PPL, but if I was in the USA I would have a certificate. There is a lot of noise here about RAAus only having certificates, but that is the norm in the USA. Can anyone explain the difference.

 

 

[Admin]

The RAAus Certificate is not recognised outside of Australia I believe

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't believe the RPL is either.

 

Let's assume RA-AUS is requesting access to CTA only in Australia...does that bring a few more in favor?

 

 

[kaz3g]

The RAAus Certificate is not recognised outside of Australia I believe

Same problem with gliding certificates as I recall.

 

Was something happening about that...memory stretch?

 

Kaz

 

 

[bull]

I don't believe the RPL is either.Let's assume RA-AUS is requesting access to CTA only in Australia...does that bring a few more in favor?

NO

 

 

[David Isaac]

I had believed the RPL was ICAO and recognised, it is effectively the same as the restricted PPL I thought.