RAA Pilot Certificate and 25nm

[SSCBD]

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?

Just to be a voice on the other side of the fence,

 

AND while not recommended - We did before AUF AND RAA - fly around for 100's of k's without any Nav endorsement or XC with mates in the back blocks and we survived. We camped out overnight, had a few beers under the wing, or hitched to town had a few beers and booked into the pub. Nothing was dangerous with having a few beers and flying the next day.

 

This RAA flying game is supposed to be for for fun, but now so much on rules and regs that common sense is out the window here. What ever happened to adventure and some fun.

 

I am sorry guys today will never experience this, as they have been conditioned to be so PC and the peer pressure shows with this forum the inflexible attitudes.

 

If anyone was at the old Mangalore flyins we had 100 guys with ultralights flying around together and camping at night all having a few beers under the wing. Some flew a long way back then and with NO license.

 

NO one died. Yes the machines are faster now, but its not like we are flying jets most are only cruising 80 to 100 kts.

 

 

[Yenn]

All this raises the question. If you are so poor at navigating that you can't be trusted to go further than 25 miles, how are you going to be able to work out where the 25 mile boundary is?

 

It reminds me of when I got my first driving licence in Australia. I had to be able to quote the sight distances required to be able to overtake. Nobody taught me how to calculate those distances. Not as stupid as it sounds it does at least make the idiots think, even if they only do it occasionally.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Just to be a voice on the other side of the fence,

 

AND while not recommended - We did before AUF AND RAA - fly around for 100's of k's without any Nav endorsement or XC with mates in the back blocks and we survived. We camped out overnight, had a few beers under the wing, or hitched to town had a few beers and booked into the pub. Nothing was dangerous with having a few beers and flying the next day.

 

My memory isn't all that good now but I seem to remember that there were a number of deaths and even more injuries back in those unregulated days and that was what brought it all to the stage where the regulations did more than just keep you in the paddock below 300'. Not sure how you flew 100's of km like that.

 

You were also flying so slow you could call out and ask people on the ground for directions or simply read the street or railway signs.

 

I did lots of stupid things when I was young but that doesn't mean they were ok or that I would want my grandkids doing them now.

 

Kaz

 

 

[M61A1]

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

I think Ben is on the money here, and that's why I think 25 NM could be relaxed.

 

The instructor that signs off on your pilot cert is in the perfect position to have some input on how ar you might be able to go. They are usually already responsible for deciding when you solo.

 

As previously mentioned, by the time you get your pilot cert, you are already quite comfortable navigating up to 50 NM, managing fuel, traffic, radio, restricted and CTA.

 

I understand that there is some variation in skills, so just make it flexible instead of default "lowest common denominator ".

 

 

[red750]

once you have your pilot cert, (unless you are training) you aren't a student

You are always training. ATPL holders are still learning. When you stop learning, you're dead.

 

Oh hang on this is aviation, we're different....we need it be unnecessarily restrictive

Right. And driving is not restrictive? So you think you should be able to drive through a shopping centre at 100kph? Through a school precinct at 75? The world is full of restrictions and regulations.Getting lost is easy. I've recounted this incident a couple of years ago. Admittedly it was GA, in an aircraft with a cruise speed of 106 Kt. I was on a 5 hour solo navex. On the longest leg, YMNG to YKER, I got lost. It was a hot and bumpy day and the compass was tossing around like a cork in the ocean. Very difficult to cross reference the DG with it. Not many landmarks to navigate by, and the DG had a precessing error which caused me to drift off course. By the time I came across a identifiable landmark I was 20nm off course. Fortunately I located a river which led me to YKER. It made the rest of the trip, YKER - YHSM (turning point) - YMMB a bit of an exercise, relying only on a frenetic compass. We didn't have GPS in 1968.

 

 

[red750]

This deviates from the subject slightly, but relates to M61's comment and my reply above. Here's a regulation you might not know about which could cost you.

 

Did you know that if you are driving along, and come to a roundabout, but are proceeding straight ahead, you must still turn on your left indicator when exiting the roundabout. It doesn't matter whether you exit on the first turnoff or last, you must use your left indicator. Fine $180 and two demerit points for failure to do so. Still think it's only flying that cops it?

 

 

[KRviator]

This deviates from the subject slightly, but relates to M61's comment and my reply above. Here's a regulation you might not know about which could cost you.Did you know that if you are driving along, and come to a roundabout, but are proceeding straight ahead, you must still turn on your left indicator when exiting the roundabout. It doesn't matter whether you exit on the first turnoff or last, you must use your left indicator. Fine $180 and two demerit points for failure to do so. Still think it's only flying that cops it?

I think you will find the caveat "if practical to do so" in there...Australian Road Rule 118...

[onetrack]

Red - That traffic regulation only applies to VIC. - In W.A., indicator use is optional at all times.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I am not 100% sure red but I think i heard in nsw they canned that rule as a mandatory thing within the last 12 months or so. The amount of times I have pulled in front of people who put their left blinker on to go straight ahead before they even get to the roundabout is staggering, all because they misunderstand the blink off rule.

 

Anyway it maybe just a rumour, I am too lazy to check, but nevertheless I still indicate off but be careful as not everyone does what they are indicating they will do.

 

 

[red750]

Yes. Vic is drowning in red tape. You can be booked for using your phone in a McDonalds/KFC/Hungry's drive through, or not wearing a seatbelt in a shopping centre carpark.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Figure this digital watch not a handy tool ? Neil

 

 

[M61A1]

This deviates from the subject slightly, but relates to M61's comment and my reply above. Here's a regulation you might not know about which could cost you.Did you know that if you are driving along, and come to a roundabout, but are proceeding straight ahead, you must still turn on your left indicator when exiting the roundabout. It doesn't matter whether you exit on the first turnoff or last, you must use your left indicator. Fine $180 and two demerit points for failure to do so. Still think it's only flying that cops it?

Yes I I'd know that, but there seems to be thousands that don't . It would actually give just a little bit of faith in our police service to know that they were doing something about it..

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes. Vic is drowning in red tape. You can be booked for using your phone in a McDonalds/KFC/Hungry's drive through, or not wearing a seatbelt in a shopping centre carpark.

Well they are public places but how often does it happen.

They have also removed the right to urinate in street nexr to a horse trough.

 

 

[seb7701]

You know what the spirit of the legislation is, so why look for loopholes when you know the original intent of the reg,..

 

 

[M61A1]

You know what the spirit of the legislation is, so why look for loopholes when you know the original intent of the reg,..

Yes, we know what the intent of the 25 NM reg is, I am suggesting that it could be safely extended a bit.

In regard to the intent of QLD traffic regs, it doesn't seen to matter what the intent is, there is always someone who will interpret it in a way that suits them. For example I have seen a few examples of people losing licences for sleeping in their car after drinking, which would seem to a sensible thing to do, yet they get punished for doing the right thing. There many examples of harassed motorcyclist after VLAD laws were introduced, and laws designed to stop stunting on motorcycles, resulted in riders being fined for stretching their legs, until it happen to a motorcycle cop.

 

 

[spacesailor]

M61A1

 

The Biggest MC club in Australia is the cops.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, we know what the intent of the 25 NM reg is, I am suggesting that it could be safely extended a bit.In regard to the intent of QLD traffic regs, it doesn't seen to matter what the intent is, there is always someone who will interpret it in a way that suits them. For example I have seen a few examples of people losing licences for sleeping in their car after drinking, which would seem to a sensible thing to do, yet they get punished for doing the right thing. There many examples of harassed motorcyclist after VLAD laws were introduced, and laws designed to stop stunting on motorcycles, resulted in riders being fined for stretching their legs, until it happen to a motorcycle cop.

They get booked if they are in control of the car, and the definition for that is keys in the ignition, so that is easily fixed.

When someone is in difficulties with the aviation authorities and the road authorities, it' starts to send a clear message.

 

 

[ben87r]

They get booked if they are in control of the car, and the definition for that is keys in the ignition, so that is easily fixed.When someone is in difficulties with the aviation authorities and the road authorities, it' starts to send a clear message.

That may be the case elsewhere TP, but I've also heard of people getting done for just being in the vehicle in QLD, one was a backpacker in the back of a converted Van.

 

 

[KRviator]

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.

But you can use an approved GPS (ie TSO-C129 or better) to move the position fix times from 30 minutes to 2 hours for VFR operations, and a C129 GPS meets the requirements for a positive fix. I'm not sure where your advice that you need a NVFR or IR to use them comes from?

 

NAVIGATION REQUIREMENTS 4.1.1 Flight under the IFR

An aircraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by:

 

a. an approved area navigation system that meets performance requirements of the intended airspace or

 

b. use of a radio navigation system or systems on routes where, after making allowance for possible tracking errors of 9* from the last positive fix, the aircraft will come within the rated coverage of a radio aid which can be used to fix the position of the aircraft. The maximum time interval between positive fixes must not exceed two (2) hours; or

 

C. visual reference to the ground or water by day, on route segments where suitable en route radio navigation aids are not available, provided that weather conditions permit flight in VMC and the visual position fixing requirements of para 4.1.2.1b. are able to be met.

 

4.1.2 Flight under the VFR

 

4.1.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR:

 

a. The pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water, or by using any of the methods specified in para 4.1.1, except that when operating at or below 2,000FT above the ground or water, the pilot in command must be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water.

 

[/Quote]

[turboplanner]

That may be the case elsewhere TP, but I've also heard of people getting done for just being in the vehicle in QLD, one was a backpacker in the back of a converted Van.

There are also locations where overnight camping is illegal.

 

 

[ben87r]

There are also locations where overnight camping is illegal.

Correct, but they were done DUI.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

But you can use an approved GPS (ie TSO-C129 or better) to move the position fix times from 30 minutes to 2 hours for VFR operations, and a C129 GPS meets the requirements for a positive fix. I'm not sure where your advice that you need a NVFR or IR to use them comes from?

Not many RAaus aircraft have TSO'd equipment so for the vast majority positive visual fix every 30 mins is the go. AIP further states:

"The pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by means of radio navigation systems or any other means must indicate in the flight notification only those radio navigation aids with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is competent to use under CASR 61.385."

 

61.385 is a GA requirement to be competent as defined by the manual of standards. I would suggest this does not apply to RAAus pilots so the two hour fix by GPS would be for GA only.

 

 

[poteroo]

61.385 is a GA requirement to be competent as defined by the manual of standards. I would suggest this does not apply to RAAus pilots so the two hour fix by GPS would be for GA only

I think it probably does apply. You would need to have it 'signed' into your logbook though, and the instructor would themselves need to have been found competent to use GPS under 61.385. Then, the instructors' instructor would need to have been signed off under 61.385. Then, that instructor would..............ad nauseum.

 

 

[ben87r]

Poteroo,.385 speaks only of licence holders, I would have thought that would exclude RA?

 

I had actually thought, possibly incorrectly that part 61 only applied to GA?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Correct, but they were done DUI.

Since you've attracted a like, can you give us the evidence so we can check it out?

You are talking about at least two cases where innocent backpackers in converted vans, with no keys in the ignition were charged with Driving Under the Influence?

 

I'd be happy to ask a few questions from a qualified person.