Replacement poll on RAA weight and CTA

[spacesailor]

Wondering

 

If flying coastal past Sydney, you have to be a long way out to sea!, why is it illegal to turn towards the beach before ditching into the sea, close enough to be saved.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[ian00798]

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 !!!

I don't really think Coffs could do a transit lane as easily as you think, it is already a very very tight piece of airspace and the room just isn't there. With a jet or two going in and one trying to come out, which isn't at all unusual, throw in a transit or two and you just run out of space, especially since with the mountain range to the west we lose half the places we like to send our traffic. If runway 03 is in use a coastal transit lane just won't work either, and that's why there is a control zone there, it gets very busy and complex very quickly. There are very few places I have scared myself controlling, but Coffs has had my heart skip a few beats every now and then.

 

 

[Camel]

I don't really think Coffs could do a transit lane as easily as you think, it is already a very very tight piece of airspace and the room just isn't there. With a jet or two going in and one trying to come out, which isn't at all unusual, throw in a transit or two and you just run out of space, especially since with the mountain range to the west we lose half the places we like to send our traffic. If runway 03 is in use a coastal transit lane just won't work either, and that's why there is a control zone there, it gets very busy and complex very quickly. There are very few places I have scared myself controlling, but Coffs has had my heart skip a few beats every now and then.

And I'm sure your problem is the fact you rely on pilots to give exact location and no radar at Coffs ! My opinion is without radar how can you control ! I have been in Coffs whilst someone gave incorrect position and I questioned it, as I know the area well. I previously owned a hangar in Coffs.

 

Most RPT use 21 and 03, light aircraft use the short 10 and 28 , if transit traffic remain over water as is mostly required I don't see the problem ! It would be no problem for the lane to go around the harbour at higher or lower than circuit say 500 feet or 1500 feet not to interfere with base on 21. Mostly I've transited at not above 1000 feet.

 

So I have every reason to believe that there is a strong case to allow all to Transit !

 

 

[ian00798]

Actually radar is quite often relied on at Coffs, and coverage is quite good. However we still need 5 miles separation on radar or 1000ft. Pull out a map of the Coffs control zone and see how much of it 5 miles takes up. If this lane you propose goes around the harbour at 500ft agl how is the aircraft launching straight off runway 03 on upwind going to go? For the lane to be accessible to RA AUS it would have to be OCTA, and they aren't going to put an uncontrolled transit lane OCTA on the upwind threshold of a runway with 737s firing off it, that would be truly dangerous.

 

If you truly want to transit Coffs, go get a RPL with CTA approval and it won't be a problem. Like everyone else has to do.

 

 

[turboplanner]

WonderingIf flying coastal past Sydney, you have to be a long way out to sea!, why is it illegal to turn towards the beach before ditching into the sea, close enough to be saved.

spacesailor

Believe it or not, people have hit the sea and died without even calling a Mayday there.

Call a Mayday and put down on the beach if that's your survival plan.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

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.

 

It seem to me that you make my point. That is: - we all fly (with the exception of jumpers, who drop) the standards and rules should be uniform across all types. If you have a CTA endorsement and your aircraft is appropriately equipped, why should you not be able to access CTA. It should not matter from what segment of the sport aviation flying fraternity you hail from or that you have a RAA Cert, RPL or PPL - Do the training get the endorsement, when the need arise's or the whim takes you enter CTA legally.

[Camel]

Actually radar is quite often relied on at Coffs, and coverage is quite good. However we still need 5 miles separation on radar or 1000ft. Pull out a map of the Coffs control zone and see how much of it 5 miles takes up. If this lane you propose goes around the harbour at 500ft agl how is the aircraft launching straight off runway 03 on upwind going to go? For the lane to be accessible to RA AUS it would have to be OCTA, and they aren't going to put an uncontrolled transit lane OCTA on the upwind threshold of a runway with 737s firing off it, that would be truly dangerous.If you truly want to transit Coffs, go get a RPL with CTA approval and it won't be a problem. Like everyone else has to do.

I have a PPL and not my problem but I understand the issue and that's what ithis is about !

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

CASA have set a precedent by allowing RAAus students to operate in CTA i.e. Class D, therefore they will have to grant us CTA approval with the relevant training for those that don't or haven't held a RPL, PPL etc.

 

I for one hold a current class one medical & ATPL, minor problem it's from an overseas authority, all my Australian licenses apart from RAAus expired in 1999, so I'm in the same boat, waiting.................hopefully it will happen this year.

 

 

[frank marriott]

CASA have set a precedent by allowing RAAus students to operate in CTA i.e. Class D, therefore they will have to grant us CTA approval with the relevant training for those that don't or haven't held a RPL, PPL etc.I for one hold a current class one medical & ATPL, minor problem it's from an overseas authority, all my Australian licenses apart from RAAus expired in 1999, so I'm in the same boat, waiting.................hopefully it will happen this year.

As CASA licences do not expire surely you would only have to hold a current CASA BFR (or instrument renewal) and maybe Aust medical?

I know of one RAA certificate issued operating out of class C, but I'm not suggesting that it was all above board. With the current form of our ops section nothing surprises me any more.

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

As CASA licences do not expire surely you would only have to hold a current CASA BFR (or instrument renewal) and maybe Aust medical?

Yes Frank you are 100% correct, I fly RAAus by choice & want nothing to do with CASA, the class two medical or a BFR in a VH a/c. So I guess I'll just have to wait & see.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

CASA have set a precedent by allowing RAAus students to operate in CTA i.e. Class D, therefore they will have to grant us CTA approval with the relevant training for those that don't or haven't held a RPL, PPL etc.I for one hold a current class one medical & ATPL, minor problem it's from an overseas authority, all my Australian licenses apart from RAAus expired in 1999, so I'm in the same boat, waiting.................hopefully it will happen this year.

As the current RRAus rules do not have CTA endorsements or allowance there is no precedent as such. It doesn't matter where it was done and how proficient the pilot became at it there isn't a licence that includes a CTA endorsement that can be given to the pilot because it doesn't exist. And to make waves and get belligerent to CASA to do so would "draw the crabs" as we say and fairly quickly lead to charges and fines and closure of the school who appears to be operating on the fringes of, if not completely, outside the rules.

Strictly speaking if the pilot mentioned by Frank does not also have a licence that allows CTA ( ppl etc) and the aircraft was not fitted with radio and transponder then it was illegal to fly in CTA even for training.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Ian00798

 

The RPL route is a no go for quite a lot people..the reason is the stupid medical requirements that that then gives NO access to any CTA. Example..how many pilots have had heart bypasses that your know.....BOOM sorry total exclusion....how many diabetics do you know on insulin (who mind you are probably a better bet than anyone who hasnt been checked and is waiting for the big day to come crashing down...most insulin diabetics have so much control over their bodies that most others dont even have a clue) ?...BOOM sorry total exclusion and many many more conditions..where you can seem to be able to drive a car down Pitt St in sydney yet not manage to run over people on the footpath or crash into cars or buildings.

 

Everyone agrees here that even for transiting areas of CTA you will need the appropriately equipped aircraft AND have done and passed a training regime to allow this to happen. So its not that easy to say just go and get a RPL or a GA licence..its far more complex than that

 

 

[coljones]

As the current RRAus rules do not have CTA endorsements or allowance there is no precedent as such. It doesn't matter where it was done and how proficient the pilot became at it there isn't a licence that includes a CTA endorsement that can be given to the pilot because it doesn't exist. And to make waves and get belligerent to CASA to do so would "draw the crabs" as we say and fairly quickly lead to charges and fines and closure of the school who appears to be operating on the fringes of, if not completely, outside the rules.Strictly speaking if the pilot mentioned by Frank does not also have a licence that allows CTA ( ppl etc) and the aircraft was not fitted with radio and transponder then it was illegal to fly in CTA even for training.

There are some schools at D dromes that have been issued with an exemption that permits students and certificate holders, under authority from the school's CFI, to fly school planes at that site. Access to controlled airspace in RAA planes by RAA certificate holders is under the control of CASA, not RAA.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Access to controlled airspace in RAA planes by RAA certificate holders is under the control of CASA, not RAA.

The point being an RAA school must operate within the ops manual (approved facilities etc), anyway I am not going there - multiple breaches occurring with more then one school - but that is what one would expect when run by the "Canberra based knowledge base".

 

I have no longer ANY interest or involvement (other then as an owner/pilot/L1 doing my own thing) but I "suspect" our organisation could well be called on down the line to explaine credibility which would not be good for any of us - I just hope I don't receive a subpoena to any action as I have NO involvement or interest in RAA operations that don't involve me personally.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Ian00798The RPL route is a no go for quite a lot people..the reason is the stupid medical requirements that that then gives NO access to any CTA. Example..how many pilots have had heart bypasses that your know.....BOOM sorry total exclusion....how many diabetics do you know on insulin (who mind you are probably a better bet than anyone who hasnt been checked and is waiting for the big day to come crashing down...most insulin diabetics have so much control over their bodies that most others dont even have a clue) ?...BOOM sorry total exclusion and many many more conditions..where you can seem to be able to drive a car down Pitt St in sydney yet not manage to run over people on the footpath or crash into cars or buildings.

 

Everyone agrees here that even for transiting areas of CTA you will need the appropriately equipped aircraft AND have done and passed a training regime to allow this to happen. So its not that easy to say just go and get a RPL or a GA licence..its far more complex than that

Hello Kyle,

You are correct regarding heart conditions. The people with undiagnosed heart problems are at a big risk. What I have seen and witnessed and the situations were not good outcomes for the victims. Hence the biggest unannounced heart problems come from the undiagnosed brigade. The people with diagnosed problems get warnings during their monitoring process and actions are taken to correct the problem forthwith. Oh! I tell you all when a heart problem is detected "monitoring" becomes a way of life.

 

KP

 

 

[ian00798]

Ian00798The RPL route is a no go for quite a lot people..the reason is the stupid medical requirements that that then gives NO access to any CTA. Example..how many pilots have had heart bypasses that your know.....BOOM sorry total exclusion....how many diabetics do you know on insulin (who mind you are probably a better bet than anyone who hasnt been checked and is waiting for the big day to come crashing down...most insulin diabetics have so much control over their bodies that most others dont even have a clue) ?...BOOM sorry total exclusion and many many more conditions..where you can seem to be able to drive a car down Pitt St in sydney yet not manage to run over people on the footpath or crash into cars or buildings.

 

Everyone agrees here that even for transiting areas of CTA you will need the appropriately equipped aircraft AND have done and passed a training regime to allow this to happen. So its not that easy to say just go and get a RPL or a GA licence..its far more complex than that

I understand that the GA route has different and tedious medical requirements, and I wouldn't doubt for a second you are probably as fit as most of the pilots to fly in CTA. However if we want to get into a discussion about the effectiveness or lack thereof for avmed then I think we will need another thread. However the reality is even if casa was to grant RAA access to CTA it won't be on a drivers licence medical as exists now, it would require something more along the lines of what is needed for the RAMPC for the RPL. So the reality is it won't really open up CTA to anyone that doesn't already have the access. Frankly I disagree with the medical standards changing between CTA and OCTA, however the reality is casa won't budge on that one.

 

 

[aplund]

It seems to me that there is a mismatch here. The reasons for these problems, and it's obvious to 90% of participants and 0% of the regulators, is the way CASA operates. The CAO which exempts "recreational" planes from the CAR (is it CAO 95.55?) is a big part of the enabling of RAAus to operate a much better operation than CASA could. GA operators see this and want a piece of the pie, hence the whole weight/CTA thing.

 

Really, what is required is another set of exemptions for GA operators to break free of the CASA dungeon without troding on the exemptions won by the ultralight community. So some "other" set of exceptions for 600-2000kg, 3 - 4 pax, VFR private operators? The problem will be that, even if CASA agreed to something like that, is that it'd be far too much work for all 5 people left in GA to deal with. None of this would be required if CASA didn't bloody mindedly drop the ball for GA. But given that they have ruled out changing direction (as everything is perfect), I don't see any other way.

 

It's funny (or rather devastating) how the head honchos of CASA point to the number of members of RAAus and the quantity of operations in the same breath as saying that GA is alive and well in Australia.

 

 

[ian00798]

It seems to me that there is a mismatch here. The reasons for these problems, and it's obvious to 90% of participants and 0% of the regulators, is the way CASA operates. The CAO which exempts "recreational" planes from the CAR (is it CAO 95.55?) is a big part of the enabling of RAAus to operate a much better operation than CASA could. GA operators see this and want a piece of the pie, hence the whole weight/CTA thing.Really, what is required is another set of exemptions for GA operators to break free of the CASA dungeon without troding on the exemptions won by the ultralight community. So some "other" set of exceptions for 600-2000kg, 3 - 4 pax, VFR private operators? The problem will be that, even if CASA agreed to something like that, is that it'd be far too much work for all 5 people left in GA to deal with. None of this would be required if CASA didn't bloody mindedly drop the ball for GA. But given that they have ruled out changing direction (as everything is perfect), I don't see any other way.

 

It's funny (or rather devastating) how the head honchos of CASA point to the number of members of RAAus and the quantity of operations in the same breath as saying that GA is alive and well in Australia.

And that would probably be the ideal, let private and recreational GA self administer like RA with more reasonable medical requirements that keep in mind they aren't taking the paying public up flying. As soon as you start wanting night, IFR, multi ETC your entering the professional domain and as such different rules start to apply. The reality of course is that casa will never let that happen.

 

 

[aplund]

The reality of course is that casa will never let that happen.

But yet, ultralights did get exemptions, presumably on the grounds of being so far away from professional that they couldn't argue out of it.

 

I'm a bit to new to know anything of the history, but presumably there would be some argument that could be made in a similar vein to what ultralights did. But the line would have to be pushed.

 

Clearly RAAus has put an enormous amount of effort to getting the procedures, rules and documentation right. It'd be all much easier, and creative "solutions" wouldn't need to be found, if the regulator wasn't so blind to the situation.

 

 

[ian00798]

I think ultralights got away with it because of the weight, a 500kg ultralight has a lot less potential to cause damage than a 1500kg C182

 

 

[aplund]

I think ultralights got away with it because of the weight, a 500kg ultralight has a lot less potential to cause damage than a 1500kg C182

Due to the likely-hood of "skill" errors? Yet the Part 61 RPL (which is, it must be said, very similar to a RPC), is more skilled? What about those "student" pilot licenses that fly C172s solo over my house out of Archerfield most days? Should I be more concerned than I actually am? Also, I would think that the internal energy of the fuel you hold is going to be more important in assessing potential damage than the max weight.

 

Maybe I don't understand the quantitative risk argument here.

 

 

[ian00798]

I was more referring to the potential issue of an incapacitated pilot hitting buildings on the ground. A 1500kg C182 at 140+ knots has a lot more energy than a 600kg jabiru at 90 knots. Not to mention the 182 has 3 times the fuel, twice the passengers, and possibly may be doing IFR. I may not agree with the casa risk assessment, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. And ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

 

[ben87r]

more reasonable medical requirements that keep in mind they aren't taking the paying public up flying. As soon as you start wanting night, IFR, multi ETC your entering the professional domain and as such different rules start to apply.

Not to support the current medical requirements but they already do with the class 1/2 medical requirements. Change needs to happen with the whole medical requirements.

 

 

[ian00798]

My recommendation was more that if you want to buzz around day VFR in a single engine piston then a drivers licence medical is probably sufficient. As soon as you want more than that, you need a class 2 medical at least. On a class 2 you can do basically everything a class 1 can do, just not professionally.

 

 

[aplund]

I may not agree with the casa risk assessment, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. And ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere.

That's for sure. Given how much documentation matters to bureaucracies, there must exist something that shows where that number came from and not say (let's just pull a figure out of, I don't know, this poll) 750kg MTOW? There are factors which decrease risk with increasing weight (e.g. higher turbulence resistance), so it'd be good to know the exact reasoning behind the number as it stands today.

 

PS Just out of numerical curiosity, the Sling 2 holds 150L of fuel (the C172 I trained in had 189L usable). At maximum weight, that's the same energy as dropping your plane from ~2x10^6 feet with no air resistance. Of course in reality most of the energy in the fuel goes into overcoming drag also there's no air up there to give you any lift, so I wouldn't try requesting a climb to that altitude. But the point of this is to remember that most of the potential energy in your plane is in your fuel. To have an order of magnitude less risk from an uncontrolled decent, you need an order of magnitude less fuel, and I'm not sure how many planes have anything over the 45 min fuel reserve with just 15L of fuel.