Replacement poll on RAA weight and CTA

[Kyle Communications]

Ok so now we need to also make a choise between Class D and Class E......CTA privledges means all of them in the context being used here. I dont want to land at Brisbane or Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast airports the landing fees alone are ridiculous then there is ASIC crap as well..so being able to transition through Class D would be handy. But this discussion has NOT defined that...they are 2 very different things. You cant just say CTA because that means it all so go get a PPL or a RPL with the appropriate endorsements.

 

Also I believe to eat a elephant you do it one bite at a time. I think we push for a higher weight limit as the first priority then once that is done and dusted with all the drama that comes with that THEN start looking at specific CTA issues that we can go for. Get the better aircraft first then the endorsements after

 

 

[coljones]

Ok so now we need to also make a choise between Class D and Class E......CTA privledges means all of them in the context being used here. I dont want to land at Brisbane or Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast airports the landing fees alone are ridiculous then there is ASIC crap as well..so being able to transition through Class D would be handy. But this discussion has NOT defined that...they are 2 very different things. You cant just say CTA because that means it all so go get a PPL or a RPL with the appropriate endorsements.Also I believe to eat a elephant you do it one bite at a time. I think we push for a higher weight limit as the first priority then once that is done and dusted with all the drama that comes with that THEN start looking at specific CTA issues that we can go for. Get the better aircraft first then the endorsements after

and the other 95,000 would say that CTA access is becoming the defining issue whether it is Class D or C or both. Class E is accessible at the moment with the right gear. In Sydney, a Harbour Scenic requires Class C access. When you consider the number of RAA planes crisscrossing Australia chasing CAGIT endurance (weight) is not insurmountable (and as we get older it is bladder capacity that is the real limitation)

 

 

[Cosmick]

You can now if your aircraft complies with 95.55 - only need a RLP. Even if RAA gets CTA approval it will still require CTR/CTA endorsement AND I would suspect the same medical certification as the RPL. I would expect 95.55 restrictions on aircraft would not change either).

In this recent video in the MTOW increase thread, Linke talks about CTA and MTOW from 15.00 and Medicals from 23.00. They will never abandon "Drivers Licence Medicals" for RAA membership so I would say that includes the new group G up to 1500kg and CTA.

 

RAA MTOW increase?

 

 

[frank marriott]

They will never abandon "Drivers Licence Medicals" for RAA membership

That's why I used the words "suspect" and "expect". After my experience with the Linke/Monk approach I wouldn't rely on a FB post - But that is just me, you are more then welcome to put your faith in some BS promotion, and best of luck with that. I would hope that the mini board has some input even though obviously not control.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

SkippyHi Kyle

 

I am pretty sure you will find its about 15 to 1 ratio. - seems a bit like a statistic snatched out of thin air. What about all those RAA aircraft located around greater Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne/Perth/Adelaide that have to take a circuitous rout around their neighbouring CTA(s) To say nothing of the smaller Albury/Tamworth/Williamtown/Coffs/etc

 

Just that ratio alone is a reason of why most will not use CTA. - Sorry cant accept this as a logical argument. If it was offered, I believe a substantial number of RAA pilots (many with lapsed PPL) would avail themselves of this privilege.

 

I agree about the transitioning that would be handy but to do so you currently would need certified hardware according to the CASA rules as well as a factory built aircraft. - I stand to be corrected but I believe the ADS-B transponder and fully functional transcever in my aircraft is (with the addition of legality) fully acceptable for entry into CTA

 

I believe we should all have transponders so we can see where we all are and ATC can see where we all - Agreed but it should only be a requirement for entry to CTA

 

The current crop are just way to expensive as you need a certified transponder AND a certified GPS to go with it. - WHAT! you are flying an aircraft not pottering about in a vintage car. My transponder set me back about $4k did the install myself and a licensed shop did the coding & letter of certification. Not a small amount of dosh I grant you but what price to you put on your life. ATC have contacted me/or aircraft in close proximity to me, about 5 times in 8 years to warn of a potential conflict - seems like $$ well spent to me.

 

So I would be happy to be able to transition CTA if possible as well but I know the technical stumbling blocks currently in the way. - It seems to me the "stumbling blocks" are political not technical. If you can have gliders and parachutes passing through CTA without radios (or on some mysterious frequency) or transponders what possible technical problem could there be letting an aircraft so equipped transition the air space.

 

this is a separate matter to any weight limit increase.

Very true, I would prefer to see the topics weight/stall & CTA well separated

[spacesailor]

Not all RAaus aircraft can mount "."suitably equipped" transponder and all certified electronic avionics".

 

Some of us don't carry a battery, Hand-held radio is all our electronics.

 

spacesailor,

 

 

[coljones]

Not all RAaus aircraft can mount "."suitably equipped" transponder and all certified electronic avionics".Some of us don't carry a battery, Hand-held radio is all our electronics.

spacesailor,

Ok, that solves your problem

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Thanks Mick I hadnt seen that video...I watched and and its interesting on the MTOW arguments. IF and IF they stick to what they said there there would be weight categories with the appropriate maint and proficiencies in place. So long as 750kg with 45kts stall comes in with my L1 being ok for maint...in other words no change except weight limit I would be a very happy camper. The 1500kg category with LAME maint is a good thing also so people just dont register pieces of crap into RAA is also a good thing....all seems pretty fair to me. The CTA thing seems to be going ok...again they are treating it as a separate issue and if it comes in I will look at it then to see if I am interested at all...maybe I will maybe I wont. The only thing that does concern me is that big IF I stated earlier

 

But I dont think we will see too much happening until much later this year by where they are at in the negotiations

 

Mark

 

 

[frank marriott]

Do not get confused between "certified as within tolerance" and TSOed instruments. Big difference in cost and the certification process. - L1 can test and certify (except transponder) in RAA. - 12 months for CTA, 24 months OCTA only.

 

Remember RAA is for VFR day only.

 

 

[DrZoos]

You can now if your aircraft complies with 95.55 - only need a RLP. Even if RAA gets CTA approval it will still require CTR/CTA endorsement AND I would suspect the same medical certification as the RPL. I would expect 95.55 restrictions on aircraft would not change either).So similar extra training as getting a RPL and a time delay in getting qualified RAA instructors (obviously excluding those that are already GA/RAA instructors - who can already cover the situation with a RPL).

 

Also watch what "Our?" organisation is doing with (instrument) certification for CTA because they "think it is a good idea" (quote) - Even though seamless operations in CTA have existed for over 10years (licence being only an issue prior to the RPL).

 

So nothing much changes even when/if RAA obtaines CTA approval other then further requirements issued by some ill advised RAA individuals.

Agree except and RPL costs almost $1400 when realistically they could and should let RAA aircraft through these minor CTa areas like Coffs and Willy etc

 

 

[ian00798]

$1400 is a lot, however even if we get CTA approval your still going to need to do a training program to get CTA access, which I believe will take at least 5 hours, probably more for those who don't learn as quickly. That gets pretty close to $1400 fairly quickly anyway, and in all fairness if you want CTA access, then it should be you that bears the cost, not the rest of the organisation who have no interest.

 

 

[coljones]

$1400 is a lot, however even if we get CTA approval your still going to need to do a training program to get CTA access, which I believe will take at least 5 hours, probably more for those who don't learn as quickly. That gets pretty close to $1400 fairly quickly anyway, and in all fairness if you want CTA access, then it should be you that bears the cost, not the rest of the organisation who have no interest.

In GA the student pays for the training, the school pays for the rubber stamp that goes into the log book. In RAA, I would imagine, the student pays for the training, the school would stamp the book and send the Endo to RAA (just like all the other endos). To RAA, no more expensive than a 2 stroke Endo.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Just a note, at 700kgs, diesel engines become viable.

 

 

[kgwilson]

I voted 750kg, Yes & 45 knots.

 

I know many will disagree but I believe ALL recreational aircraft and pilots should be under a single governing authority with various classes, ratings or endorsements for CTA, PAX, Instruments, power, weight, stall speed etc and on the one register as they are in most other countries. It could happen but very unlikely with the current big brother regulator. Also the ASIC needs to be scrapped.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I dont think there are many disagreeing with you...look at the results for 750kg and 45knots...speaks for itself I think

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Seconded - for a small (population) country Australians have an inexplicable love of bureaucracy, to our detriment in so many way but certainly in aviation there are far to many governing bodies, all after their slice of the cake or is it place at the trough.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Seconded - for a small (population) country Australians have an inexplicable love of bureaucracy, to our detriment in so many way but certainly in aviation there are far to many governing bodies, all after their slice of the cake or is it place at the trough.

Not sure about the love of bureaucracy, more like loathing of bodies like CASA if you read aviation forums I would have thought! What we do seem to have is apathy and a lack of unity between the differing aviation bodies like RAAus, AOPA, GFA etc, etc. We seem to put up with this BS from our bureaucracy and our politicians more than most countries, event though we hate it. Love em or hate em, the yanks seem to be able to muster enough united support to target pollies to prevent the excesses of their bureaucracy.

 

 

[Camel]

Just a note, at 700kgs, diesel engines become viable.

You think the Subaru diesel would get a look at then ?

 

Subaru diesel EE20 aircraft RV-7 - VAF Forums

 

 

[bexrbetter]

You think the Subaru diesel would get a look at then ?

I was talking around 700, not 1700!

 

EE20 = 173kgs, no thanks. I would be looking at VW/Audi or other Euro diesels.

 

 

[ave8rr]

You think the Subaru diesel would get a look at then ?Subaru diesel EE20 aircraft RV-7 - VAF Forums

The RV7 will be above the 45kt stall speed. Only RV9/9A would qualify. RV12 is LSA.

Mike

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Yes the RV9 and 9a and RV12 would fit under the 750kg and 45kt stall..so I would be happy there...This one would do me...

 

 

David

 

 

[ave8rr]

This one is even better as Aus Registered and has slider canopy therefore no wet instruments when tipping up the canopy.

 

 

Mike

 

 

[DGL Fox]

This one is even better as Aus Registered and has slider canopy therefore no wet instruments when tipping up the canopy.[ATTACH=full]49138[/ATTACH]

Mike

No I like the tilting canopy Mike because I like the full view out of the canopy without the frame like the Sporty .....someone told me the other day that the RV9 is just a Sporty on steroids...

David

 

 

[ave8rr]

No I like the tilting canopy Mike because I like the full view out of the canopy without the frame like the Sporty .....someone told me the other day that the RV9 is just a Sporty on steroids...David

I like mine...Cruises 160kt at 28ltrs/hr and lands at 40kts...

Mike

 

 

[Jaba-who]

No I like the tilting canopy Mike because I like the full view out of the canopy without the frame like the Sporty .....someone told me the other day that the RV9 is just a Sporty on steroids...David

I don't think I'll I'll ever get into a tilting canopy aircraft again. A member of our saaa chapter flipped his RV a few months back. While it was on its back he was unable to be extracted for about an hour. While in that position became increasing medically unstable on final extraction had cardiac arrest, because of the extreme urgency at that point was expedited to a position for resuscitation and destabilised an otherwise probably stable spinal injury. Now paraplegic ( well was last time I heard ). Needed prolonged ICU - all the really bad stuff would/couldhave been avoided if the lid could have been opened and extracted sooner.

Side doors or at sliding lid would have made a huge difference to his extraction time and handling.