760kg upgrade and CASA consultation

[ave8rr]

What have these CTA posts got to do with a weight increase? Another thread for CTA I suggest.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Let's not start making stuff up.

 

A CTA Lower Level is a CTA Lower Level, and is for the protection primarily for Commercial Aircraft with passengers.

 

Protection/separation of commercial traffic is certainly an outcome but I would have thought CTA is primarily an IFR facility (yes I know full well that GA VFR can enter CTA but I see this a secondary almost coincidental function) and that commercial traffic is the main user of IFR.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Protection/separation of commercial traffic is certainly an outcome but I would have thought CTA is primarily an IFR facility (yes I know full well that GA VFR can enter CTA but I see this a secondary almost coincidental function) and that commercial traffic is the main user of IFR.

 

It doesn't matter what it's for; you don't get to fly through it unless you and the aircraft qualify.

 

As ave8rr says, this is a red herring with one or two people thinking they can get a short cut home, but increased weight and CTA access were a combined dream some time ago.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Ave8r is right and turbs had only a platitude to offer, so I declare this ( CTA) discussion closed, on this thread anyway.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ave8r is right and turbs had only a platitude to offer, so I declare this ( CTA) discussion closed, on this thread anyway.

 

And so you should.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

It doesn't matter what it's for; you don't get to fly through it unless you and the aircraft qualify.

 

As ave8rr says, this is a red herring with one or two people thinking they can get a short cut home, but increased weight and CTA access were a combined dream some time ago.

 

Sorry to continue BUT the emphasis does matter - in your statement we, the great unwashed RAA, would never be permitted to enter CTA, it being the domain of much larger commercial traffic.

 

Under mine CTA is but an endorsement away, a privilege to be earned to be sure, but permissible along with all other fringe (GA, Gliders, Balloons) aviators.

 

I take my flying seriously, its pleasures and risks,  you appear to be trivialising it by such statements as "people thinking they can get a short cut home" - thanks for nothing!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry to continue BUT the emphasis does matter - in your statement we, the great unwashed RAA, would never be permitted to enter CTA, it being the domain of much larger commercial traffic.

 

Under mine CTA is but an endorsement away, a privilege to be earned to be sure, but permissible along with all other fringe (GA, Gliders, Balloons) aviators.

 

I take my flying seriously, its pleasures and risks,  you appear to be trivialising it by such statements as "people thinking they can get a short cut home" - thanks for nothing!

 

With a suitable aircraft available, becoming qualified to fly in CTA is a relatively straightforward component of the PPL, and, particularly in Sydney many RAA students have qualified during their training, so calling the RAA the great unwashed is BS. There is a pathway there right now.

 

The previous comments were not about someone training to transit CTA in a suitably equipped but about attempting to change CTA boundaries, which is an entirely different thing, is very complex, and must take into account the reasons the CTA boundaries and levels have been put there in the first place.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The term great unwashed was used "tongue in cheek"  but meant to highlight RAA exclusion when other, one could argue comparatively less maneuverable,  aircraft types have permission. These other aircraft pilots do not need to go to the additional trouble/expense of a PPL - its part of their basic qualification, as it should be for ours.

 

You keep banging on about suitable aircraft - as a pilot we all surely know that both pilot & aircraft must be qualified/certified for the airspace they operate in ie goes without saying.

 

I apologise if I  misunderstood your last point however you appear to be all to willing to accept that the Government Bureaucrats always get it right - I  on the other hand feel that,  in a democracy (ours is failing fast) questioning the authorities is the only way to keep them honest AND moving with changing circumstances. It is our duty to regularilly  challenge the status quo.

 

 

[facthunter]

 There IS an argument for releasing more airspace to GA and that can probably be done, but has been an issue forever.. Transit lanes  coastal,etc provide needed safe alternative options near places like Williamtown and Coffs Harbour. With single engines flying over tiger country is a bit of a lottery. I still say "don't fly over what you can't land on" in simple planes. You can have other emergencies other than engine failure. This is not a THEM and US thing. CTA flying is not as simple as just flying it by instruments sometimes. There's heaps of rules and procedures that even fail regular flyers in tests if they are not up to speed. Holding a Command Instrument rating endorsement requires regular testing and there's  recency required on some things  as there is in passenger carrying in RAAus. You aircraft also has to meet extra standards with electrical supply and TSO'd equipment. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

 There IS an argument for releasing more airspace to GA and that can probably be done, but has been an issue forever.. Transit lanes  coastal,etc provide needed safe alternative options near places like Williamtown and Coffs Harbour. With single engines flying over tiger country is a bit of a lottery. I still say "don't fly over what you can't land on" in simple planes. You can have other emergencies other than engine failure. This is not a THEM and US thing. CTA flying is not as simple as just flying it by instruments sometimes. There's heaps of rules and procedures that even fail regular flyers in tests if they are not up to speed. Holding a Command Instrument rating endorsement requires regular testing and there's  recency required on some things  as there is in passenger carrying in RAAus. You aircraft also has to meet extra standards with electrical supply and TSO'd equipment. Nev

 

Gee Nev! - when I did my PPL (VFR), way back when, all you needed to fly in CTA was a functioning (calibrated) cumpass, radio and transponder - what's all this about "Command Instrument rating" ?? & "flying on instruments" ?? Also how many gliders & balloons, operating in CTA, are so equipped??

 

As for your excellent advice "don't fly over what you can't land on" - please let me know how to exit the Sydney Basin to the north & west without taking this very real risk??

 

I try to moderate the risk of flying over "tiger country" by flying as high as the CTA (7500 ft) step will allow to maximise glide and thinking time and almost always exit via YKAT as a possible emergency landing point . The reality is however, that there are a few minutes of transit time when I will be unable to make it to a suitably cleared area.

 

My other exit/entry is via the " Lane of Entry" - at a ceiling of 2000-2500 ft, giving approximately 1000 ft terrain clearance at times, the glide/landing options are pretty poor . I continually look for golf courses, playing fields etc but know that, in the event of a complete engine failure,  I will be doing very well to just survive and not injure anyone on the ground.

 

 

[Yenn]

Skippy. You reckon questioning the authorities is the only way to keep them honest. Is it working? I don't think so. We have got to the position Nazi Germany was in, way back. If it is not permitted it is forbidden.

 

With CASA you can question as much as you like, but they seldom give way, in fact I can only recall it happening once and then it was wrong. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 Skippy, I've done plenty of flying in CTA and haven't encountered too many balloons and gliders . There are Notams issued warning of such activity in what I would call a blanket clearance between certain levels at certain times. In CTA you will be given clearance limits that are not necessarily VFR waypoints but are defined by Instrument facilities. Do you have any knowledge of radio fail procedures? Are you used to reporting all positions to a 2 minute error and maintaining assigned levels to the required accuracy with a TSO'd altimeter and your transponder has to be regularly checked as required by law. People cleared into CTA don't expect incursions into THAT airspace and doing so will attract  a lot of unwanted attention, same as if you fly outside of the clearance parameters.  YOU might not like what I say but I'm only the messenger. . I don't MAKE the rules. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Skippy. You reckon questioning the authorities is the only way to keep them honest. Is it working? I don't think so. We have got to the position Nazi Germany was in, way back. If it is not permitted it is forbidden.

 

With CASA you can question as much as you like, but they seldom give way, in fact I can only recall it happening once and then it was wrong. 

 

I do hope you are wrong but unfortunately we do seem to ne heading in that general direction. However ineffective it may seem questioning is just about the only tool (short of rebellion) that we have to at least try to keep the b ...s honest. Leaving them to their own devices just encourages the God complex.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

 Skippy, I've done plenty of flying in CTA and haven't encountered too many balloons and gliders . There are Notams issued warning of such activity in what I would call a blanket clearance between certain levels at certain times. In CTA you will be given clearance limits that are not necessarily VFR waypoints but are defined by Instrument facilities. Do you have any knowledge of radio fail procedures? Are you used to reporting all positions to a 2 minute error and maintaining assigned levels to the required accuracy with a TSO'd altimeter and your transponder has to be regularly checked as required by law. People cleared into CTA don't expect incursions into THAT airspace and doing so will attract  a lot of unwanted attention, same as if you fly outside of the clearance parameters.  YOU might not like what I say but I'm only the messenger. . I don't MAKE the rules. Nev

 

I could have put it better - my point was that the authorities seem to be quite comfortable with inconsistent rules ie gliders/balloons operate in CTA without the navigation/comms & maneuverability that are required of powered aircraft and yet RAA aircraft , with all the gizmos, are not allowed in CTA - please explain ??

 

 I have flown GA in CTA - dont remember it being that complicated - File a flight plan - Canberra App. Twr. & Grnd. were all very helpful. ERSA spelt it out in detail. Just had to follow the book and the voice in the head set and everything went as expected. No prob.!

 

No offence intended  - the phrase "mountains out of molehills" comes to mind.

 

 

[facthunter]

 I'm certainly NOT making "mountains out of molehills" You are consistently giving the impression there's nothing in it which is quite misleading but becoming more common in this discussion. . . It's not just a matter of getting  out of Canberra on a fine day. If you think that's all that's in it you just don't know what you don't know.

 

 I DID explain the circumstances of gliders and balloons and it's the same with active gunnery ranges etc all of which can occur in CTA. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

 I'm certainly NOT making "mountains out of molehills" You are consistently giving the impression there's nothing in it which is quite misleading but becoming more common in this discussion. . . It's not just a matter of getting  out of Canberra on a fine day. If you think that's all that's in it you just don't know what you don't know.

 

 I DID explain the circumstances of gliders and balloons and it's the same with active gunnery ranges etc all of which can occur in CTA. Nev

 

Can't comment on IMC/IFR -  never been there - strictly VFR opps and with the appropriate training/discipline, it just didn't seem that hard to me.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Here is the connection with weight and stall-speed... A heavier plane with a higher stall speed is more dangerous in the event of an engine failure, and it therefore needs more height to find a safe place for the emergency landing.

 

Forcing heavier planes to fly lower than could be done is a nasty thing to do.

 

Whoever wrote the Jabiru flight manual sure agrees with Facthunter... the manual  says that , like any single engined plane, the Jabiru should be operated with a view to the fact that the engine may cease at any time. 

 

But this has been rendered impossible by "safety" authorities!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here is the connection with weight and stall-speed... A heavier plane with a higher stall speed is more dangerous in the event of an engine failure, and it therefore needs more height to find a safe place for the emergency landing.

 

Forcing heavier planes to fly lower than could be done is a nasty thing to do.

 

Whoever wrote the Jabiru flight manual sure agrees with Facthunter... the manual  says that , like any single engined plane, the Jabiru should be operated with a view to the fact that the engine may cease at any time. 

 

But this has been rendered impossible by "safety" authorities!

 

No it hasn't.  You as Pilot in Command have the choice of where to fly. You as Pilot in command have the responsibility for your decision.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

No it hasn't.  You as Pilot in Command have the choice of where to fly. You as Pilot in command have the responsibility for your decision.

 

True! But try flying north or west out of the Sydney Basin without compromising your best safety judgement/principals. Yes it's still the PinC choice though.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs is right, the CTA have taken all the good airspace and we are left with the crumbs. But of course we can choose which crumb we like.

 

I wonder if the forces of darkness are not way ahead of us in this matter. In whose interests is it that we crash?

 

There is an impossible dream I have in which all of us stop crashing. After awhile, I bet that  CASA funding would be cut back. 

 

 

[facthunter]

Crashing is against the Law. In nearly 100% of crashes, a pilot was found at the scene of the crime. A very damning statistic. Proof positive IF you ever needed it. Nev

 

 

[Kenlsa]

Just to show how little we count.......I am at Gawler, with Bruce, and if you look at the chart, we are in military airspace.  We run a 7 day a week operation with a tight circuit area with a pie shaped training area that alternates between 2500 and 4500, depending if the RAAF decide to launch a plane for a jolly. If you look at the chart our circuit is squated off due to their ILS.  I can say right now that our club has more movements in a single day than the RAAF would complete in a month. But they own all the airspace. To their credit they allow gliders to more height but not me anymore as I fly a Jab. 

 

I guess it is ok as I get a nose bleed if I have over 500 feet beneath me as required by the cta.

 

Ken

 

 

[aro]

 I'm certainly NOT making "mountains out of molehills" You are consistently giving the impression there's nothing in it which is quite misleading but becoming more common in this discussion. . . It's not just a matter of getting  out of Canberra on a fine day. If you think that's all that's in it you just don't know what you don't know.

 

 I DID explain the circumstances of gliders and balloons and it's the same with active gunnery ranges etc all of which can occur in CTA. Nev

 

 

 

How much VFR flying have you done in CTA? It's not as hard as you make out. I suspect most of your CTA work might have been IFR?

 

I was a passenger in a balloon that landed at Essendon. It was interesting to see the process - transponder, airways clearance etc. No NOTAM as fas as I am aware - I don't think they could predict where they were going to go far enough in advance.

 

 

[turboplanner]

How much VFR flying have you done in CTA? It's not as hard as you make out. I suspect most of your CTA work might have been IFR?

 

I was a passenger in a balloon that landed at Essendon. It was interesting to see the process - transponder, airways clearance etc. No NOTAM as fas as I am aware - I don't think they could predict where they were going to go far enough in advance.

 

I don't know about Facthunter but I've flown in CTA as little as possible.

 

You don't have tp do a whole PPL to qualify, just the CTA module and flight training and test.

 

You need an airctrfaft with the required equipment.

 

In theory, you request an airways clearance then wait to be called in.

 

There are several entry points, and you plan to enter by the one which usually gives you a straight in approach to the active runway.

 

The Tower Controller sets your journey and separation rather than you. You give call back on all instructions, and some instructions have special meaning so your radio skills need to be a step up from RA.

 

You need to know what the entry points look like and what the reporting points look like.

 

When you get the clearance to enter, you come in through the entry point and if there are no traffic issues you'll be told to report at the reporting point, told to proceed and cleared to land.   So as people have said, not too difficult. However it's not always like that. I've had one entry where someone caused a delay and I was told to orbit at the reporting point for about five minutes. The reporting points can be hard to see - a breeze if you fly there every week, but on one occasion, search as I might I couldn't find mine, and luckily just spotted it as my time was about to run out. Another time someone behind me couldn't see the reporting point, and he was told to make a 180 turn and depart via his entry point. That could have cost him up to an hour delay, or even no slots available. On another occasion I had a dream run in, but on the way out I received a warning of a thunderstorm approaching from the south. Since I was taking off to the east I wold be flying away from it so committed to take off. I heard a medivac airctraft given a take off clearance behind me. He was much faster than I was and the Controller ordered me to make a right turn and depart via the southern entry point  (a) I hadn't swotted up on the southern reporting points (b) I was heading into a thunderstorm. I got out of it with a blistering tirade from the CFI who was testing me at the time.     You may not be in IMC but taht doesn't mean that there are not several people out there under the hood training for missed approaches etc in aircraft twice as fast as yours. The Controllers are telling them what to do.

 

With the right training and regular currency work, it is not really hard, just keeps you right on your toes at times.

 

Someone made a simple comparison between the Adelaide CTA and Dallas Fort Worth. If you look at this diagramme it really is all happening inside a 30 mile radius, but look at all those shapes; if you were sent to one for 15 minutes, how would you stay within its odd shaped boundaries VFR. The answer is you wouldn't, the aircraft in that CTA have the instruments that allow them to do that, so you can't make a direct comparison with Adelaide.

 

[spacesailor]

Just an aside from a none (tears) flyer. 

 

Sydney is 30-40 mile .And Badgerys will be the same (?). 

 

SO

 

Do they touch, And will it encroach onto RAAF Richmond.

 

And will that combined CTA, cover the whole of the Sydney basin ?

 

Bankstown, Camden.& the Oaks.  All to close.

 

spacesailor