Anyone got a working Crystal Ball on our leaders in the RAA on weight increase

[Nobody]

If CASA said you can have the controlled airspace access like the GFA provided you meet the other operating requirements of the GFA would you be happy?

 

The GFA maintenance requirements mean that significant training is required to perform an annual inspection.

 

The GFA has annual check flights with an instructor not every 2 years like in RAAus.

 

Or how about the requirements to be an "independent operator" or else operate under the supervision of an instructor.

 

 

[coljones]

If CASA said you can have the controlled airspace access like the GFA provided you meet the other operating requirements of the GFA would you be happy?The GFA maintenance requirements mean that significant training is required to perform an annual inspection.

 

The GFA has annual check flights with an instructor not every 2 years like in RAAus.

 

Or how about the requirements to be an "independent operator" or else operate under the supervision of an instructor.

I don't have a problem with training and endorsements (I have done that with my PPL). I do have a problem with requiring RAA pilots needing a PPL. I don't understand why there is the need for an extreme medical for recreational PPLs. What I am looking for is the same rights without the stupidity (nor the snide comments from the GA fraternity about RAA ill-discipline when a lot of GA have neither discipline nor manners)

 

 

[facthunter]

IF RAAus is to be the NEW GA, have we actually LOST the concept of cheap, affordable,flying and all that goes with it? Whatever training is done it should be adequate for the environment it operates in. That's commonsense. Training is not necessarily "better" . It is just different. Airline pilots environment is different from what a U/L pilot might normally operate in. They share the same space( Feeder airlines) at "Country" Aerodromes sometimes

 

If people stuff it up in a CTA environment you will certainly hear about it, and it could be expensive for the person involved too, if you break rules and incur costs for operators. RPT can't be expected to be enthusiastic about more stuff in THEIR airspace that may be less compliant. Don't forget that CTA is established where IFR Traffic operate at a density that warrants that airspace being established in the first place. Unauthorised entry into CTA is a matter taken pretty seriously.

 

I can't see why getting the CTA thing done has to be a requirement for the weight increase to be progressed. There's no connection as far as I can see, with the two considerations. Why link them? You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

I can't see why getting the CTA thing done has to be a requirement for the weight increase to be progressed. There's no connection as far as I can see, with the two considerations. Why link them? You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nev

Exactly - the restriction NOW is based on certificate V Licence (subject to compliance with CAO 95.55)

 

The changed instrument conditions in the new tech manual were introduced by the current RAA administration (despite opposition from some of the then board) But if people keep voting for them then you get what you deserve.

 

 

[facthunter]

Meanwhile with all the BS and uncertainty people who could and would have been (or remained) part of an aviation fraternity go elsewhere, if they have any brains. Nev

 

 

[ian00798]

I don't have a problem with training and endorsements (I have done that with my PPL). I do have a problem with requiring RAA pilots needing a PPL. I don't understand why there is the need for an extreme medical for recreational PPLs. What I am looking for is the same rights without the stupidity (nor the snide comments from the GA fraternity about RAA ill-discipline when a lot of GA have neither discipline nor manners)

I would hardly call a class 2 medical extreme, it just covers the fitness requirements to let someone operate an aircraft in the environment that a PPL is entitled to operate, ie night, IMC.... CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....

 

If you want to operate in the controlled airspace then you should meet an appropriate medical standard, simple as that. You are now potentially in a high density environment mixing it with passenger aircraft carrying hundreds of people, the travelling public have an expectation that something has been done to reduce the risk of pilot incapacitation.

 

I will support RA Aus CTA access when people in the organisation stop looking at it as a way to bypass the rules and instead look at how they can comply with the rules. Until then, the status quo should remain.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I would hardly call a class 2 medical extreme, it just covers the fitness requirements to let someone operate an aircraft in the environment that a PPL is entitled to operate, ie night, IMC.... CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....If you want to operate in the controlled airspace then you should meet an appropriate medical standard, simple as that. You are now potentially in a high density environment mixing it with passenger aircraft carrying hundreds of people, the travelling public have an expectation that something has been done to reduce the risk of pilot incapacitation.

 

I will support RA Aus CTA access when people in the organisation stop looking at it as a way to bypass the rules and instead look at how they can comply with the rules. Until then, the status quo should remain.

So what are your thoughts on glider operations in controlled airspace?

 

No CASA medical, no PPL or or flight review. My main beef involves ops in class D airspace, For example Camden isn't busy enough to justify a tower, particularly midweek!

 

 

[ian00798]

Frankly I'm not a huge fan of glider ops in controlled airspace, I think it should be done OCTA and I strongly doubt most gliders would get a clearance into busy controlled airspace.

 

I don't know enough about the Camden traffic volume to comment on that.

 

 

[facthunter]

The RAAus "certificate" is not an ICAO compliant document. If heavy jet traffic from all over the world operate in Australian Controlled airspace how would it "easily" be incorporated in the mix. I can't see it happening unless under an exemption and McCormick for one was for removing exemptions. The legality of it I do see as the problem. Transit right of access..... sure to cross through... I support that and defined procedures for access to primary airports also. Since all this stuff has started to dominate the scene .Have we sort of lost the plot? ALL through this, if it's so important you could have got the PPL and done it without it being a HOT topic for the RAAus? IF RAAus is to be the new GA . I can't think of one person who currently flys GA I know, who would welcome that idea. It might suit the CASA.. but that's not our problem unless we let it be. Have the affected GA pilot group been consulted and won over to the idea?. Do they just get confronted with a fait accompli?. I suggest THAT won't happen any more than something just dictated to US would be acceptable. I would like to know what the NEW RAAus is likely to resemble. WE were unique enough to have the majority of pilots of non commercial aircraft in the country under our flag. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

This talk of training for control area endorsements ha me wondering. I have no doubt that I and many others could pass any theory questions and parrot out the correct language to be considered OK for CTA. But and it is a big but can we do the job in practice. It is easy to say what needs to be said in a classroom, not quite so easy with an instructor sitting beside you in the plane and I find myself making stupid omissions when actually flying solo.

 

For me it takes the recreational out of RAAus flying.

 

 

[Downunder]

I don't have a problem with training and endorsements (I have done that with my PPL). I do have a problem with requiring RAA pilots needing a PPL. I don't understand why there is the need for an extreme medical for recreational PPLs. What I am looking for is the same rights without the stupidity (nor the snide comments from the GA fraternity about RAA ill-discipline when a lot of GA have neither discipline nor manners)

The problem is GA pilots (ppl) losing their medical, joining RAA and lobbying for the same rights their PPL gave them, without the medical.

 

I personally, as an RAA pilot, see no need for the RAA to get involved with cta access. One serious accident involving a few hundred people in an airliner and an RAA aircraft wanting to be a bug on it's windscreen doesn't fair well for our reputation and I don't see see the RAA as an organisation that should be heading this way. Just because we "can" does't mean we "should". It is not what the RAA is about!

 

The RAA managment made a song and dance over not continuing to issue ASIC's due to the risk analysis and onerous conditions involving instructors approving them, yet want to send 80 year old RAA pilots (with failed GA medicals) into airports mixing it with tripple sevens...WTF?...... I CAN SEE THE HEADLINES NOW.....

 

As far as the GFA is concerned, number one, I'm not a member of that organisation so I really don't care. (They can have the headlines)

 

Two, I've watched them operate and they work as a slick, well organised team with a disiplined structure. Really nothing like RAA random and individual pilots.

 

It all sounds like schoolboy antics, "He's got some bubblegum, why can't I have some too..."

 

I'm all FOR the weight increase (700 kg or so) as I don't see much more risk in where we fly and how we fly now..

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Agreed, don't care much about CTA access, bring on the weight increase to 750kg/ 760 kg. If you want the older GA fleet of 150's tomahawks etc leave them 24 (?) registered and maintained by authorised Maintainer, wether that's AME or L2 or whatever (another can of worms there...). Extra weight allows for newer stronger designs too, not necessarily more fuel & bigger pilots

 

 

[coljones]

I would hardly call a class 2 medical extreme, it just covers the fitness requirements to let someone operate an aircraft in the environment that a PPL is entitled to operate, ie night, IMC.... CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....If you want to operate in the controlled airspace then you should meet an appropriate medical standard, simple as that. You are now potentially in a high density environment mixing it with passenger aircraft carrying hundreds of people, the travelling public have an expectation that something has been done to reduce the risk of pilot incapacitation.

 

I will support RA Aus CTA access when people in the organisation stop looking at it as a way to bypass the rules and instead look at how they can comply with the rules. Until then, the status quo should remain.

It might be a medical standard but is it appropriate or reasonable?

 

 

[ian00798]

It might be a medical standard but is it appropriate or reasonable?

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, are you?

 

 

[kasper]

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, are you?

I'm no doctor but last I checked the casa medical was not an ICAO compliant medical ... it didn't do a resting cardio graph that was required by ICAO specs because oz medical a determined it was not indicative of underlying heart risk.

So if explains why I have an oz medical certificate and a uk one. Only the uk one is recognised in European countries even though the NPPL licence it was used with was not. But they did recognise the oz ppl licence but not the medical!

 

Found it interesting to fly a U.K. Registered aircraft in France with an oz licence and radio licence but the uk medical.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Ah yes ICAO harmonisation, the road to the death of GA in Australia.

 

 

[Roscoe]

The problem is GA pilots (ppl) losing their medical, joining RAA and lobbying for the same rights their PPL gave them, without the medical.I personally, as an RAA pilot, see no need for the RAA to get involved with cta access. One serious accident involving a few hundred people in an airliner and an RAA aircraft wanting to be a bug on it's windscreen doesn't fair well for our reputation and I don't see see the RAA as an organisation that should be heading this way. Just because we "can" does't mean we "should". It is not what the RAA is about!

 

The RAA managment made a song and dance over not continuing to issue ASIC's due to the risk analysis and onerous conditions involving instructors approving them, yet want to send 80 year old RAA pilots (with failed GA medicals) into airports mixing it with tripple sevens...WTF?...... I CAN SEE THE HEADLINES NOW.....

 

As far as the GFA is concerned, number one, I'm not a member of that organisation so I really don't care. (They can have the headlines)

 

Two, I've watched them operate and they work as a slick, well organised team with a disiplined structure. Really nothing like RAA random and individual pilots.

 

It all sounds like schoolboy antics, "He's got some bubblegum, why can't I have some too..."

 

I'm all FOR the weight increase (700 kg or so) as I don't see much more risk in where we fly and how we fly now..

Do you have any facts or statistics to support your argument that RAA Pilots are not medically fit to venture into Controlled Airspace?

You are denying these Pilots access to holiday destinations such as Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, and Coffs Harbour because of the perceived risk of collision with an Airliner?

 

If the Pilot is trained, and the Aircraft is equipped with Radio and Transponder, why can't he or she operate into a Towered Airport as is the case in America?

 

Show me the facts regarding sudden incapacitation in the air resulting in death. I am aware of one such incident in the last 2o years and that was a GA Pilot with no history of Cardiac issues.

 

Your argument also precludes these Pilots from operating into Bankstown and Moorabbin on a quiet weekday because of a perceived medical risk?

 

Sorry, i don't agree.

 

 

[ian00798]

You are denying these Pilots access to holiday destinations such as Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, and Coffs Harbour because of the perceived risk of collision with an Airliner?

All of those destinations have other aerodromes close by that don't require CTA access. That would be like me arguing that I don't have access to pine gap because there is a massive restricted area over it.

 

As for medical incapacitation in controlled airspace, it's not the case resulting in sudden death I'm worried about. It's the case resulting in partial incapacitation that is the bigger problem. Just look at the case of Stanley Keys where a heart problem lead to a more subtle type of incapacitation. That's the sort of thing that is more likely to lead to someone doing something stupid like entering a runway in front of an airliner or something. I think if your mixing it with passenger jets in a high density environment the medical standard needs to be higher than "I pinky swear there is nothing wrong with me".

 

 

[KRviator]

But are we going to be mixing it up with HCRPT, really?

 

There's more of a risk of an RAAus bug-smasher becoming a hood ornament on a 737 at Ballina than there is at Bankstown. Even if it is limited to Class D, that is a massive boost to RAAus.

 

 

[ian00798]

Well that doesn't work, there are lots of very busy class D aerodromes where you do mix it with RPT, like Sunshine Coast, Brooke ETC. ultimately if you are being issued a CTA endorsement it is been given to you assuming you could go and fly into Sydney straight after the test. If you can't meet that standard then you don't get the endorsement.

 

As for Ballina, yes if the one particular savannah that loves flying through the circuit area without making any radio calls at all keeps doing that then he will eventually become a hood ornament on an A320. That's not because of any complexity at the aerodrome, that's because people do dumb things.

 

 

[Roscoe]

All of those destinations have other aerodromes close by that don't require CTA access. That would be like me arguing that I don't have access to pine gap because there is a massive restricted area over it.As for medical incapacitation in controlled airspace, it's not the case resulting in sudden death I'm worried about. It's the case resulting in partial incapacitation that is the bigger problem. Just look at the case of Stanley Keys where a heart problem lead to a more subtle type of incapacitation. That's the sort of thing that is more likely to lead to someone doing something stupid like entering a runway in front of an airliner or something. I think if your mixing it with passenger jets in a high density environment the medical standard needs to be higher than "I pinky swear there is nothing wrong with me".

All of those destinations have other aerodromes close by that don't require CTA access. That would be like me arguing that I don't have access to pine gap because there is a massive restricted area over it.As for medical incapacitation in controlled airspace, it's not the case resulting in sudden death I'm worried about. It's the case resulting in partial incapacitation that is the bigger problem. Just look at the case of Stanley Keys where a heart problem lead to a more subtle type of incapacitation. That's the sort of thing that is more likely to lead to someone doing something stupid like entering a runway in front of an airliner or something. I think if your mixing it with passenger jets in a high density environment the medical standard needs to be higher than "I pinky swear there is nothing wrong with me".

I say again, show me the statistics that confirm that a trained RAA Pilot is more of a risk than a GA Pilot operating in Controlled Airspace.

 

 

[coljones]

Well that doesn't work, there are lots of very busy class D aerodromes where you do mix it with RPT, like Sunshine Coast, Brooke ETC. ultimately if you are being issued a CTA endorsement it is been given to you assuming you could go and fly into Sydney straight after the test. If you can't meet that standard then you don't get the endorsement.As for Ballina, yes if the one particular savannah that loves flying through the circuit area without making any radio calls at all keeps doing that then he will eventually become a hood ornament on an A320. That's not because of any complexity at the aerodrome, that's because people do dumb things.

Including GA pilots. Having a CASA licensed is no proof that one doesn't behave badly. Your comments about local airstrips close to controlled airspace is a little laughable and doesn't reflect reality or practicality. With the death of GA Camden has become a bit of a morgue especially during the week. It used to be weekend GAAP but is now D 7 daylight days a week. Thanks

 

 

[ian00798]

I say again, show me the statistics that confirm that a trained RAA Pilot is more of a risk than a GA Pilot operating in Controlled Airspace.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5474110/ar2014084_final.pdf

 

As per the report, RA AUS shows a significantly higher rate of incidents/accidents than their GA equivalents.

 

Including GA pilots. Having a CASA licensed is no proof that one doesn't behave badly. Your comments about local airstrips to controlled airspace is a little laughable and doesn't reflect reality or practicality.

Seems fairly practical to me. Near the Sunshine Coast you have caloundra and Noosa. Near Coffs Harbour you have Nambucca heads, Grafton and several others. Fly to destinations within the priveleges of your licence or go get the licence that lets you go where you need.

 

 

[Roscoe]

Including GA pilots. Having a CASA licensed is no proof that one doesn't behave badly. Your comments about local airstrips to controlled airspace is a little laughable and doesn't reflect reality or practicality.

Agree Col.

If an RAA Pilot wants to go to Coffs, why not?

 

Port Macquarie has RPT as well so is that a no go too? Where does one go?

 

 

[Roscoe]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5474110/ar2014084_final.pdfAs per the report, RA AUS shows a significantly higher rate of incidents/accidents than their GA equivalents.

 

Seems fairly practical to me. Near the Sunshine Coast you have caloundra and Noosa. Near Coffs Harbour you have Nambucca heads, Grafton and several others. Fly to destinations within the priveleges of your licence or go get the licence that lets you go where you need.

I thought we were discussing Medicals?

However, IF an RAA Pilot is trained, and the Aircraft is equipped, why deny access to CTA??

 

We assume that the RAA Pilot is fit and healthy like his GA Counterpart .

 

RAA Pilots sign a declaration re medical standards and i don't see any trends showing RAA incidents or accidents solely due to med issues