Replacement poll on RAA weight and CTA

[ave8rr]

Don't just worry about CASA look at the new Tech Manual for instruments for CTA - our wonderful organisation Solely responsible. NOT CASA. I tried to have it changed but without success before submitting to CASA - and got the same comment as above re "mixing with the big boys etc"

Frank, you are probably right but maybe just maybe CASA gave RAAus a list of requirements of things that had to be in the new manual before it was submitted for approval so that it wouldn't be bounced back requesting required changes.

Just a thought.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

But don't you require the heavy road transport medical (aviation) issued by a doctor for the RPL?Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner's Certificate (RAMPC)

Mike...

No. You can have the GP medical for thr RPL but if you want to carry more pax or do aerobatics you need a class 2 or class 1 medical.

 

 

[ave8rr]

No. You can have the GP medical for thr RPL but if you want to carry more pax or do aerobatics you need a class 2 or class 1 medical.

Yes...GP medical required for RPL 1 pax.

RAAus does NOT require a Dr's visit IF RPC holder holds a drivers licence so upgrading from RPC to RPL does require a Dr's medical every two years up to age 65 then yearly.

 

 

[kgwilson]

So much talk about what medical or what stall speed etc.

 

If I was CASA head honcho, this is what I'd do

 

1. Scrap the ASIC for ALL recreational pilots (GA & RA).

 

2, Scrap the Class 2 medical for ALL recreational (RA & GA) pilots who fly by day. There is no evidence to show it has any effect whatsoever & pilots have had medical episodes just after gaining their latest Class 2.

 

3. Have all recreational aircraft on the same register (VH) with no annual fee.

 

4. Have various aircraft classes and licence endorsements with appropriate limitations based on what is happening now. e.g PAX, CTR, etc

 

5. Have a single body managing all recreational aircraft with specialist groups looking after different classes.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes...GP medical required for RPL 1 pax.RAAus does NOT require a Dr's visit IF RPC holder holds a drivers licence so upgrading from RPC to RPL does require a Dr's medical every two years up to age 65 then yearly.

Yes, agree but you don't have to hold a drivers licence you just need to sign a declaration saying that you are fit enough to have one for RPC.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Frank, you are probably right but maybe just maybe CASA gave RAAus a list of requirements of things that had to be in the new manual before it was submitted for approval so that it wouldn't be bounced back requesting required changes.Just a thought.

To be honest I don't care if back door deals (and probably happened) between 2 employees and an elected member of RAA & Ungermann. - the organisation is supposed to be run by an elected board. - is is not a privately owned company although it appears to be run that way unfortunately

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi SD, you have what everybody else can have if they want. So why don't they go and get it rather than try to change things at great cost and to achieve the very same thing they can have now. Plus the additional rules and regs that will be added will affect all raa.

Hi TerryC,

Just because I have a PPL does not mean I should complacently site back and accept the ridiculous mish mash of rules/exemptions that seem to apply to aviators who just happen to have longer/shorter wings, radio/no radio, transponder/or not, or no wings at all.

 

(If you are rich does this mean you should have no empathy for the poor?)

 

I view change for changes sake, as one of the social ills that bedevils our society, but when there are such glaring and illogical inconsistencies/impositions on our sport, it behoves all of us to support change for the good.

 

I doubt that additional rules/regs would apply to those flying outside CTA and who are not endorsed to fly inside CTA.

 

To fly inside CTA would , I imagine, require some additional training/endorsement and yes of course you would have to pay for the training and abide by the rules.

 

My reasons for supporting RAA (endorsed pilots) access to CTA is simple - other recreational pilots are allowed to do so, why not RAA?? (PLEASE EXPLAIN!!)

 

I am an advocate, for the most part, of the KISS principal - WHY MUST WE BE LUMBERED WITH RULES THAT ARE THEN COMPLICATED BY GLARING INEXPLICABLE EXCEPTIONS??

 

 

[Geoff13]

But don't you require the heavy road transport medical (aviation) issued by a doctor for the RPL?Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner's Certificate (RAMPC)

Mike...

Yes but the comment that I responded to was that you need a Class 2 medical which is clearly not correct.

 

 

[terryc]

Hi TerryC,Just because I have a PPL does not mean I should complacently site back and accept the ridiculous mish mash of rules/exemptions that seem to apply to aviators who just happen to have longer/shorter wings, radio/no radio, transponder/or not, or no wings at all.

 

(If you are rich does this mean you should have no empathy for the poor?)

 

I view change for changes sake, as one of the social ills that bedevils our society, but when there are such glaring and illogical inconsistencies/impositions on our sport, it behoves all of us to support change for the good.

 

I doubt that additional rules/regs would apply to those flying outside CTA and who are not endorsed to fly inside CTA.

 

To fly inside CTA would , I imagine, require some additional training/endorsement and yes of course you would have to pay for the training and abide by the rules.

 

My reasons for supporting RAA (endorsed pilots) access to CTA is simple - other recreational pilots are allowed to do so, why not RAA?? (PLEASE EXPLAIN!!)

 

I am an advocate, for the most part, of the KISS principal - WHY MUST WE BE LUMBERED WITH RULES THAT ARE THEN COMPLICATED BY GLARING INEXPLICABLE EXCEPTIONS??

Hi SD, I agree totally with what you have said with the exemption of cta. Don't for a minute think that things will be made simpler with these changes because they won't. Don't you think we'd be better to accept and keep what we have now because all we need do is get the training at our cost and away we go. can't get any simpler than that The costs are far more that what you have stated. I would like to know how much raa have spent on this item alone.

 

 

[Riley]

So much talk about what medical or what stall speed etc.If I was CASA head honcho, this is what I'd do

 

1. Scrap the ASIC for ALL recreational pilots (GA & RA).

 

2, Scrap the Class 2 medical for ALL recreational (RA & GA) pilots who fly by day. There is no evidence to show it has any effect whatsoever & pilots have had medical episodes just after gaining their latest Class 2.

 

3. Have all recreational aircraft on the same register (VH) with no annual fee.

 

4. Have various aircraft classes and licence endorsements with appropriate limitations based on what is happening now. e.g PAX, CTR, etc

 

5. Have a single body managing all recreational aircraft with specialist groups looking after different classes.

KG, when can you move to Canberra?

 

 

[coljones]

A bit off the thread but I see your point ,however as a 912 powered pilot (just a tad biased) surrounded by Jab powered aircraft and some very competent maintainers of same - I see Jabs as engines requiring comparatively extreme levels of maintenance and care to stay in the air.These maintainers manage to obtain high levels of reliability (still well below 912's in my opinion) but at high cost in $$ & time (non operational).

 

Yous buys cheap Yous pays the price - somewhere!

 

It seems to me that without such dedicated and high levels of maintenance, the old Jab is indeed unreliable engine.

 

The dedicated and high levels of maintenance I see at my local airfield is unlikely to be found in every Jabs local - ergo Jabs by dint of their maintenance requirements are less reliable than comparable aircraft engines

 

So in my humble & totally biased opinion there is some reason/rational behind the CAA restrictions on Jab powered aircraft

Yes, totally biased and irrational - same as the ban on Jan engines, as a class, in the first case.

 

 

[coljones]

To be honest I don't care if back door deals (and probably happened) between 2 employees and an elected member of RAA & Ungermann. - the organisation is supposed to be run by an elected board. - is is not a privately owned company although it appears to be run that way unfortunately

I haven't seen the current board or close contacts squealing about loss of their power and influence - or is the dreaded gag in place, again?

 

 

[coljones]

Hi SD, I agree totally with what you have said with the exemption of cta. Don't for a minute think that things will be made simpler with these changes because they won't. Don't you think we'd be better to accept and keep what we have now because all we need do is get the training at our cost and away we go. can't get any simpler than that The costs are far more that what you have stated. I would like to know how much raa have spent on this item alone.

There would be no obligation on you to do the training and testing (at your cost) to get the endorsement that you don't need or want. Don't like CTA access? Just don't do the endorsement - save your money.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I haven't seen the current board or close contacts squealing about loss of their power and influence - or is the dreaded gag in place, again?

Yep.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi SD, Don't for a minute think that things will be made simpler with these changes because they won't. Don't you think we'd be better to accept and keep what we have now because all we need do is get the training at our cost and away we go. can't get any simpler than that The costs are far more that what you have stated. I would support maintaining the "status quo" if it was not so clearly broken/inconsistent/illogical.

 

Not wanting to change a flawed system, is a bit like saying, I am frightened to go out into the dark corridor and furthermore refuse to turn on a light, as I am happy & safe in my room.

 

Its a position I grant you but not one that I think is laudable.

 

I have no recollection of stating a cost high/low to enter CTA - what I have said is there is bound to be associated costs with additional training for a qualification/endorsement to enter CTA. Training for a CTA endorsement would be up to the individual pilot (ie not mandatory) to apply for. Ultimately, I guess, the costs would be a combination of those set by the regulatory body and the training organisation(s).

[spacesailor]

Not very often does a "change" become, for the better!

 

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Not very often does a "change" become, for the better!spacesailor

Ooooh! are we just a tad cynical?

 

 

[Xavier]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it already a way to access CTA and CTR in a RAA AUS aircraft (equipped appropriately) ?

 

Just get a RPL with CTA and CTR endorsements.

 

To transfer your RA-AUS Certificate to a RPL :

 

- 2 hours Instrument flying in a VH aircraft (to validate the Navigation endorsement) (need a certain amount of hours as PIC and in X-country)

 

- English proficiency test ( to validate Radio endorsement )

 

- Certified copies of logbook

 

- One last form and about $50 for CASA

 

Then get the proper CTA / CTR endorsement for the RPL and happy days.

 

 

[Camel]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it already a way to access CTA and CTR in a RAA AUS aircraft (equipped appropriately) ?Just get a RPL with CTA and CTR endorsements.

 

To transfer your RA-AUS Certificate to a RPL :

 

- 2 hours Instrument flying in a VH aircraft (to validate the Navigation endorsement) (need a certain amount of hours as PIC and in X-country)

 

- English proficiency test ( to validate Radio endorsement )

 

- Certified copies of logbook

 

- One last form and about $50 for CASA

 

Then get the proper CTA / CTR endorsement for the RPL and happy days.

Correct ! And some people think they can get qualified cheap and not meet requirements ! CASA will want medical and appropriate training. CTA is an endorsement on a RPL but is part of a PPL and not an endorsement under the new part 61 licence.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Correct ! And some people think they can get qualified cheap and not meet requirements ! CASA will want medical and appropriate training. CTA is an endorsement on a RPL but is part of a PPL and not an endorsement under the new part 61 licence.

This seems to be a common perception of the proponents of RAAus CTA access etc. seems to be a feeling that the additionals should be granted without the additional training, cost or without expectation that CASA will say that all the other things that GA require to fly in CTA ( medicals, equipment in aircraft etc) will be ignored for an aircraft with 24 or 19 xxx on the side.

 

If anything CASA will go the opposite direction. To get it you will either have to straight out up-grade to RPL or PPl ( personally I suspect that's what CASA will say eventually) or at a minimum upgrade your medical, upgrade your aircraft equipment and probably have some log book endorsing like 3 flights into CTA every 90 days (or something like that) to retain validity.

 

Given the number of problems that RAAus pilots have now ( roughly 1 fatal a month for the last few years), the high accident rate, the frequently cited less than ideal radio skills and usage etc and the low hours ( thus low rate of keeping up ofCTA skills and procedures ) I suspect that CASA are not going to go for this at all let alone with any standards less than GA.

 

Could be wrong but given their intransigence on everything else I can't see them being different for this.

 

 

[Camel]

Absolutely agree with Jabwho and Xavier, i would like to see transit rights given to suitably trained and with suitable equipment and type aircraft, this would be at locations that are in effect transit lanes such as Williamtown, Coffs Harbour, it would not be a major disruption to any traffic as these are not busy locations but the CTA does block safe coastal routes. There is no need to reinvent GA again ! It's expensive and been there and done that, RAA is affordable at the moment but could turn sour to please the real cheapskates that want all and no effort or payment !

 

 

[ian00798]

I strongly disagree with only a transit approval. Either you can do CTA properly, or you can't go in there. No part endorsements. And as a previous poster mentioned, there is a system for getting a proper endorsement, and that is get the RPL. If you want to argue that on occasion the weather makes having to stay OCTA difficult then do the proper training and get the appropriate endorsement. I don't buy into the whole argument that somebody is going to get themselves in trouble with weather because they can't enter CTA. As a pilot you comply with the conditions of your licence. I'm not type rated on a 747, so I don't fly one. If your not endorsed in CTA, stay out of it. If the weather catches you out badly one day, declare a pan and ATC will give you what you need. Be a pilot in command, not a passenger with a control column in your hand.

 

 

[coljones]

This seems to be a common perception of the proponents of RAAus CTA access etc. seems to be a feeling that the additionals should be granted without the additional training, cost or without expectation that CASA will say that all the other things that GA require to fly in CTA ( medicals, equipment in aircraft etc) will be ignored for an aircraft with 24 or 19 xxx on the side.If anything CASA will go the opposite direction. To get it you will either have to straight out up-grade to RPL or PPl ( personally I suspect that's what CASA will say eventually) or at a minimum upgrade your medical, upgrade your aircraft equipment and probably have some log book endorsing like 3 flights into CTA every 90 days (or something like that) to retain validity.

 

Given the number of problems that RAAus pilots have now ( roughly 1 fatal a month for the last few years), the high accident rate, the frequently cited less than ideal radio skills and usage etc and the low hours ( thus low rate of keeping up ofCTA skills and procedures ) I suspect that CASA are not going to go for this at all let alone with any standards less than GA.

 

Could be wrong but given their intransigence on everything else I can't see them being different for this.

As far as I can see GA pilots don't have to maintain currencyin CTA. Currently RA planes only need a radio to enter to enter Delta Space and only need a transponder in Class Charlie. If you can stuff a transponder into a Cri-Cri you could get a homebuilt into C with a radio. CASA is currently reviewing medicals and may relax a lot of rules depending on traffic density, built-up areas, length of flights, and aircraft type. There is a degree of snottiness from GA and sections of RAA towards the performance of RAA pilots which is unfair. I have a PPL (and RPC) but there are lots of RPC holders out there much better than me and with vast amounts of experience.

 

 

[ian00798]

As far as I can see GA pilots don't have to maintain currencyin CTA. Currently RA planes only need a radio to enter to enter Delta Space and only need a transponder in Class Charlie. If you can stuff a transponder into a Cri-Cri you could get a homebuilt into C with a radio. CASA is currently reviewing medicals and may relax a lot of rules depending on traffic density, built-up areas, length of flights, and aircraft type. There is a degree of snottiness from GA and sections of RAA towards the performance of RAA pilots which is unfair. I have a PPL (and RPC) but there are lots of RPC holders out there much better than me and with vast amounts of experience.

I don't think anyone has a "snotty" attitude towards RAA in CTA. What people have an issue with is people thinking it will become a shortcut to access CTA with little to no training. The standards will need to be as high as they are for GA pilots and the equipment and medical requirements will have to be the same. So basically the avenue already exists through the RPL route. Why should the rest of RAA that don't want to use it have to pay when there is already a system to allow that? Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? RA pilots with the appropriate training will be every bit as competent as a GA pilot, so go and get the training if you want the access.

 

 

[Camel]

I have no problem with your ideas Ian except as far as transit, it would allow a safer route especially Coffs , at no point do I think anybody should access CTA without training. Bear in mind Port Macquarie seems just as busy as Coffs and just a CTAF, the argument for Coffs being CTA is not really totally warranted most of the time I believe !

 

I realize what you do and you would be aware of the amount of traffic that transits Coffs, and it's my belief more traffic transits than inbound ! I truely believe Coffs requires a transit lane that is available to RAA, if pilots took nessecary training.

 

Coffs should not be controlled airspace !!!