RAA Pilot Certificate and 25nm

[ben87r]

can't see what the fuss is about.

So you believe you were competent in DR Nav in reducing weather without ever being trained in it? What about lost procedures or diversions?

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm not talking about navs of several hundred miles, just extending the 25 NM limit a bit.

 

Though, to answer your question, I did take enough interest to study, and practice within my allowable limits, so that when I did my XC, it was nothing new.

 

 

[coljones]

Consider a medical student. At what point should they be permitted to conduct a vasectomy?

 

 

[onetrack]

Just replace "radius" with "distance" in the first line of the regulation, and there is no confusion about just how far you can go from your original point of departure.

 

As always, it's the poor wording of regulations, laws, and instructions, that leads to confusion, errors and accidents.

 

Clarity is a great feature of American training and instruction - even down to using comic-style instructional books!

 

I think the OP needs some comic-book style of instruction!

 

http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/comics/2011-01-06-cw2L0029.jpg

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not talking about navs of several hundred miles, just extending the 25 NM limit a bit.Though, to answer your question, I did take enough interest to study, and practice within my allowable limits, so that when I did my XC, it was nothing new.

There are PLENTY of students who, over the years have had to be assisted back to their airfields, and others who have panicked with a weather

 

Just replace "radius" with "distance" in the first line of the regulation, and there is no confusion about just how far you can go from your original point of departure.As always, it's the poor wording of regulations, laws and instructions that leads to confusion, errors and accidents.

Clarity is a great feature of American training and instruction - even down to using comic-style instructional books!

 

I think the OP needs some comic-book style of instruction!

It would be better to adopt the specific training area in line with GA. The CFI can then map out an area clear of CTA and other issues, and maximise forced landing opportunities. Tha non-endorsed pilot can then go and learn P&O, Met, Nav with beyter focus.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Consider a medical student. At what point should they be permitted to conduct a vasectomy?

Don't know how that is relative Col, actually as far as vasectomies go wasn't there a couple of yobos that did their own at home a year or so ago? (They may have had to get infection fixed by a pro later but that's not the point:wink:)

M6 while I agree that the limits in some areas (for example western NSW) could be further I think the 25nm is adequate especially if you consider some coastal or hilly areas.

 

On a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

 

Yes yes of course the satellites can be switched off and all our batteries could die but seriously the odds of that are much less than miscalculating wind drift and ending up miles off course anyway and if we can't find a strip or do a precautionary landing safely then we shouldn't be flying.

 

 

[coljones]

Don't know how that is relative Col, actually as far as vasectomies go wasn't there a couple of yobos that did their own at home a year or so ago? (They may have had to get infection fixed by a pro later but that's not the point:wink:)

M6 while I agree that the limits in some areas (for example western NSW) could be further I think the 25nm is adequate especially if you consider some coastal or hilly areas.

 

On a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

 

Yes yes of course the satellites can be switched off and all our batteries could die but seriously the odds of that are much less than miscalculating wind drift and ending up miles off course anyway and if we can't find a strip or do a precautionary landing safely then we shouldn't be flying.

At what point in training would you allow anyone to do what they pleased? Sometimes my parables are a little too thick.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't know how that is relative Col, actually as far as vasectomies go wasn't there a couple of yobos that did their own at home a year or so ago? (They may have had to get infection fixed by a pro later but that's not the point:wink:)

M6 while I agree that the limits in some areas (for example western NSW) could be further I think the 25nm is adequate especially if you consider some coastal or hilly areas.

 

On a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

 

Yes yes of course the satellites can be switched off and all our batteries could die but seriously the odds of that are much less than miscalculating wind drift and ending up miles off course anyway and if we can't find a strip or do a precautionary landing safely then we shouldn't be flying.

There are answers for that, but this is a case of not being trained on what the rule is for, then thinking up a word assocation to do untrained flying.....without gps nav skills

 

 

[ben87r]

n a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

Seriously?

 

Every RA VFR flight IS DR....

 

Also wasn't even till last year that GNSS was a primary IFR navaid.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Seriously?Every RA VFR flight IS DR....

 

Also wasn't even till last year that GNSS was a primary IFR navaid.

For sure every RAA vfr flight should be DR most recreational GA VFR flights should also be DR but I know from the majority of airfields that I visit that nearly all rec flyers (RAA and GA) are using ozrunways or gps as their primary source of Nav and the compass is only there as a backup at best and no doubt a decoration for some.

Thinking that most people are using DR as a primary source is just kidding yourself even though legally that is what is supposed to be happening.

 

Imo it should be taught in the syllabus how to properly use these devices and their limitations rather than just a blanket statement saying 'don't use them as your primary source of navigation' because clearly that isn't working and seems a bit draconian.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The simple explanation at least IMO:

 

A pilots licence includes the Nav component. But as a stepping stone during training (whether RAA or GA) the "restricted" Lic allows you to keep current by flying locally until you have the time/money etc to complete your complete licence.

 

 

[M61A1]

There are PLENTY of students who, over the years have had to be assisted back to their airfields, and others who have panicked with a weather

That's terrific......I'm not talking about students. I'm specifically talking about people with a pilot certificate.

Generally speaking, they are people who fly from their home airstrip and have good knowledge of their surrounds for several hundreds of miles. we're not flying 250 kt rockets that need a mile of runway, and travel between time zones, the average RA aircraft is still cruising at or below 100 kts, so I would suggest that it would be quite feasible for RAAus or instructors to use their own judgement and have a system where they can prescribe how far the pilot without a XC endo might go, in a particular aircraft.

 

 

[Yenn]

What happens to the pilot who trains from several airstrips. Is he committed to 25 miles from just one of them, or can he do 25 from each one? That would have applied to me when I started flying. Within 10 hours I had flown from Mackay, Collinsville, Gladstone and Grovedale.

 

I certainly don't always fly using Deduced Reckoning, I can follow my course on a map.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I would suggest that it would be quite feasible for RAAus or instructors to use their own judgement and have a system where they can prescribe how far the pilot without a XC endo might go, in a particular aircraft.

They do, it is 25 NM

 

In fact where I learned to fly, it was not even 25nM if I was to hire a school aircraft after gaining my certificate I had 4 boundaries that I had to remain within. In one direction it was no more than 5 NM. Didn't bother me, I played by the rules and got in and got my XC endo asap.

 

Having said that I did travel to another airfield and hired a plane and was not restricted by boundaries, just the 25nM.

 

I must admit that by the time I started my XC endo, I was not ready to go outside my boundaries. Knowing the area means nothing, unless you know it from the air.

 

 

[nathan_c]

That's terrific......I'm not talking about students. I'm specifically talking about people with a pilot certificate.Generally speaking, they are people who fly from their home airstrip and have good knowledge of their surrounds for several hundreds of miles. we're not flying 250 kt rockets that need a mile of runway, and travel between time zones, the average RA aircraft is still cruising at or below 100 kts, so I would suggest that it would be quite feasible for RAAus or instructors to use their own judgement and have a system where they can prescribe how far the pilot without a XC endo might go, in a particular aircraft.

You have not completed a nav endorsement, you are therefore a nav STUDENT, regardless of whether you hold a pilot certificate or not. Turboplanners comment on students having troubles outside the 25nm area is therefore relevant to this topic. Depending on the area it is quite easy to get lost outside that distance (or inside it for some people) when people that have not been appropriately trained.

 

Also, allowing instructors to develop their own rules would be a dangerous move. There is a syllabus and defined rules for a reason, it needs to be followed and people creating their own standards for how far a student can go is a. fraught with danger and b. opening up a huge can of worms in regards to liability.

 

Additionally, you are required to conduct every flight using DR procedures. GPS navigation (either aircraft mounted or ozrunways on an Ipad) can be used to supplement your primary form of navigation (DR) and give you greater situational awareness, but is only ever a secondary form of navigation for RA pilots. Using (and admitting) that you use GPS as your sole source of navigation is illegal and in my opinion stupid because you are knowingly going outside the rules and you would rightfully be deserving of any actions legal or otherwise that came your way in the event of an incident.

 

 

[ian00798]

I would suggest that it would be quite feasible for RAAus or instructors to use their own judgement and have a system where they can prescribe how far the pilot without a XC endo might go, in a particular aircraft

Sounds like a fantastic idea that could never be misused/abused.........

 

 

[M61A1]

You have not completed a nav endorsement, you are therefore a nav STUDENT, regardless of whether you hold a pilot certificate or not. Turboplanners comment on students having troubles outside the 25nm area is therefore relevant to this topic. Depending on the area it is quite easy to get lost outside that distance (or inside it for some people) when people that have not been appropriately trained.Also, allowing instructors to develop their own rules would be a dangerous move. There is a syllabus and defined rules for a reason, it needs to be followed and people creating their own standards for how far a student can go is a. fraught with danger and b. opening up a huge can of worms in regards to liability.

 

Additionally, you are required to conduct every flight using DR procedures. GPS navigation (either aircraft mounted or ozrunways on an Ipad) can be used to supplement your primary form of navigation (DR) and give you greater situational awareness, but is only ever a secondary form of navigation for RA pilots. Using (and admitting) that you use GPS as your sole source of navigation is illegal and in my opinion stupid because you are knowingly going outside the rules and you would rightfully be deserving of any actions legal or otherwise that came your way in the event of an incident.

And that's why not many people are taking up flying any more. People who like unnecessary rules making stuff more complicated than it needs to be.

You could argue that we're all "students" until the day we die., but once you have your pilot cert, (unless you are training) you aren't a student, I understand that GA do it different, but that's GA.

 

"Cross country"' is an endorsement, as is tailwheel, and many others, if you can show me different I am happy to be corrected.

 

Sounds like a fantastic idea that could never be misused/abused.........

About as much as the current system. Seems to work for many drivers that are restricted to certain times and places, Oh hang on this is aviation, we're different....we need it be unnecessarily restrictive, or everyone might be able to do it.

 

 

[ian00798]

About as much as the current system. Seems to work for many drivers that are restricted to certain times and places, Oh hang on this is aviation, we're different....we need it be unnecessarily restrictive, or everyone might be able to do it.

Your kidding right? Your actually suggesting we let people do something for which they have no training or evidence that they are actually competent? While you may think cross country is a piece of cake there is actually a lot to it. Even if the radius was doubled to 50NM that's just quadrupled the amount of area the student has to get lost in. I have literally seen pilots get lost in the circuit area of the aerodrome they took of from, so I think 25NM is quite a fair and reasonable restriction for someone who has no Nav training.

 

As for the creative interpretations of the rule some people are using, seriously how hard is it to just apply the rule like a normal person would and if you want to go further then do the appropriate training?

 

 

[nathan_c]

I could argue a lot of things with you M61A1, but I have no particular desire to beat my head against a brick wall tonight.

 

Whether you like it or not, if you are completing training for and have not yet been issued the "endorsement" you are a student because you are learning, it doesn't matter if you have a certificate or not. If someone has a bachelor and they go back to complete masters, are they no longer a university student because they already hold the bachelor? That's your logic you are using.

 

People wanting unrealistic and dangerous relaxations of rules is one of the reasons Ra Aus has such a bad reputation in regards to safety and compliance.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Relying on your moving map on OzRunways or your Garmin 296 to navigate in remote areas is the way to get lost.

 

Charts along with clock, compass and regular fixes supported by the electronic marvels is the ultimate way to get there for those of us who do not have TSO'd GPS, ADF or VOR. Even those are AIDS to VFR navigation and you must still get your regular position fixes between chart and ground.

 

Kaz

 

 

[ian00798]

Yep as per what kaz said, unless you hold an NVFR or IR you can't even use the ground based navaids as your primary Nav source, or even an IFR gps. All that leaves you with is visual Nav and all the assosciated rules, ie 30 min position fixes etc. Of course if you do a Nav endorsement you know those regulations unlike the idiot using a technicality to just jump 25 nm at a time.

 

 

[M61A1]

I should have seen where this would go before I started.....not one reasonable argument, essentially it is what it is "because" so just do it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We've given some very good reasons.

 

Maybe it needs a tap on the shoulder and some mandatory retraining to get the message through

 

 

[nathan_c]

No, thats not what is being said at all. There are many actual cases of people undergoing nav training getting lost once going outside the immediate surrounding area. Someone undergoing nav training is either someone with an Ra Aus pilot certificate or a PPL/RPL student, who by the time they have reached nav training are equivalent too or at a higher standard then a bare bones pilot certificate.

 

If those people have the potential to get lost (and it does happen) then what real safety justification do you have for sending a pilot certificate holder with no training out further than 25nm? Because thats what you are asking for, further allowances for people with no documented training in navigation techniques.

 

25nm may have been an arbitary number plucked somewhere in the past or it may have been a carefully chosen limit based on safety cases, I have no idea, but have a real look at how far that actually gets a pilot. From Redcliffe, that means I can fly up to caloundra, around the glass house mountains, most of the way to kilcoy (that might be a few miles out I havnt measured), down to around archerfield, and also out to moreton island.... Thats an astonishing area to cover, and includes in it some very busy airspace, mountain ranges, and enough room for weather to have a significant impact on a pilot within those boundaries. Its totally possible in the right scenario that a new, potentially nervous pilot may still get unsure of their position within those boundaries because 25nm is still a decent distance away. Further than that and you are just increasing the risk factor even more, and inviting trouble.

 

Now, if you want to argue "well as an instructor I should be able to deem him more competent to go out to 50nm because I know him". As was said, that is a system that has incredible potential to get abused, and it would be a hard argument to justify why you deemed that person safe to go further with no further training, especially if other people/schools are only sending their students a smaller distance. Id also like to see you try and fairly tell one student they can go half the distance then the other because you deem them less competent with the same qualification. Thats asking for trouble too.

 

Stubbornly asking for relaxations of rules because you want or think others should have an easier time of it with less training involved is not the answer for a better RA Aus. Having personally seen some of the quality of new pilot certificate holders hitting the world from various schools, I dont believe that we have a good enough common standard of training and testing across the country to allow for us to be changing to any sort of relaxed standards. Not every one is a top gun, and that has to be allowed for.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Not every one is a top gun

And further NOBODY is without training first.