The Latest Outstanding Communication from RA-Aus

[facthunter]

You HAVE to be Joking.  Nev

[turboplanner]

No, but I'm pulling up the pros and cons; might take a while.

[Blueadventures]

4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I don't see 760kg happening for RAAus unless or until RPL and PPL cssa license holders get the same medical standard as RAAus certificate pilots. Will be impossible to justify a double standard for a Cessna 150,152.

Agree, medical if being changed, and I believe it should be, should be done first.  This way then if / when RAA get 760kg people can make a fully considered decision about if they stay VH (GA or SAAA) or join RAA.  I recon most would stay GA / SAAA.

[facthunter]

It's not just the actual plane it's the WAY it's allowed to be operated. Certain concessions are permitted  where a balance of restrictions applies. The biggest ongoing issues are pilot medicals and working /building/ modifying your own plane. IF the medical aspect was fixed I'd go GA  (EXP) as many others have also advocated and forget RAAus. It's no longer what it was and perhaps there's not a large number of people who care. I DO but I'm just trying to face the reality. Uncertainty for so long has done a lot of damage. At the end of the day it's bang for bucks(GOOD) and angst and confusion (BAD).  Nev

[peterg]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

How much AUF type flying did you ever do? Have you instructed? Do you have an RAAus certificate? These things DO matter. Nev

I'll take a punt - ZERO or close to (by AUF I presume Thrusters, Drifters or similar), NO, NO

 

I presume you (New) are sick of the BS like a lot of us.

 

Some of the "legal" crap makes me grind my teeth.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Did you say " Casa didn't make "  those rules we live by ! .

Like enforcing the ' wing load rule '  in 95-10 .

I don' see that rule on any other aircraft ! .

Only the old AUF models. 

spacesailor

[jackc]

MY opinion is the whole RAA thing is a total crap show and needs disbanding THEN rebuilding.  It CANNOT continue as a company AND regulator with compulsory membership. 

[facthunter]

More Importantly as I see it how can it reflect Members wishes and administer penalties fairly and curry favour with CASA at the same time.  CASA has a  punitive system of strict  liability. that no free person would ever agree to. You accept it or you don't FLY. Your RAAus fees are a user PAYS concept.  That's just a way of saving gov't costs. My pointing this out certainly doesn't mean I agree with it, let me make that clear.  Nev

[jackc]

I might suggest there are people flying out there who don't fly to the rules,  WHY because many are onerous and unfair in some cases.

I don't care how many rules you make…….people will always die flying aircraft, same applies to cars.

Education is the key……..even pilots with thousands of hours make mistakes.  There are risk taking pilots, will rules force them to think different?  Some maybe, others no……

Be honest, what is the chance of breaking rules and being caught?   Many pilots will never see a ramp check in their flying life?

People want to fly incognito?  They turn their Transponder off, don't file a flight plan? and don't use their radio except to listen.  fly in remote populated areas from private/property airstrips?  Some probably dont have a licence nor a registered aircraft.

First that CASA or RAA know they exist is when they fatally crash.  How do you prosecute someone who is DEAD?  Fine his Estate?   They simply become another DEATH by misadventure statistic?   One that CASA or RAA cannot prevent, no matter how many rules there are…….

[facthunter]

 In isolated places you might get away with it. I don't really think many do it and how an unregistered Plane is the responsibility of say the RAAus. That job (breaking LAWS) would be one for the police. People can buy, build or steal a plane. That wouldn't be that hard and you are less likely to injure someone else than when in a car.. The fundamental responsibility of any PIC is to operate the Plane in the SAFEST manner possible. That in some circumstance's may require that you operate breaking some rule to be ultimately more safe in your particular  situation. . Nev

[Roundsounds]

16 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I don't see 760kg happening for RAAus unless or until RPL and PPL cssa license holders get the same medical standard as RAAus certificate pilots. Will be impossible to justify a double standard for a Cessna 150,152.

The GFA have pilots flying quite sophisticated motorised gliders, these aircraft are flown into controlled airspace by pilots holding self certified medicals. The precedent has been set, RAAus should have used the GFA example for both increased MTOW and CTA access. 
The Grob 109 and Super Xiamango have an MTOW of 850kg. 

[old man emu]

Please point out the logic in this situation.

 

At Camden there was a flying school operating Jabirus. One was VH-XXX and the other 24-9876. It was possible that both these aircraft were doing circuit work at the same time,  each flown solo by a student. Camden is a controlled airport from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, so a visitor in 24-&^%$  is not permitted to fly into Camden between those time.

 

Leaving out the fact that the flying school had a CASA exemption to operate the 24-9876, where are the safety issues involved in that? Bearing in mind that the student in VH-XXX might be flying on a Basic Class 2 medical and the 24-9876 is self-declaring, and both are making the same broadcasts, why can't 24-&^%$ fly in from The Oaks between 8:00 am to 4:00 pm?

 

My opinion is that by creating RAAus, CASA has caused more problems than it saved. A plane is a plane, is a plane, is a plane. As long as the design is sufficient for purpose, and the finished product is maintained to an acceptable standard why should VH-XXX and 24-9876 use the skies and the airports under different rules?

[turboplanner]

43 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Please point out the logic in this situation.

 

At Camden there was a flying school operating Jabirus. One was VH-XXX and the other 24-9876. It was possible that both these aircraft were doing circuit work at the same time,  each flown solo by a student. Camden is a controlled airport from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, so a visitor in 24-&^%$  is not permitted to fly into Camden between those time.

 

Leaving out the fact that the flying school had a CASA exemption to operate the 24-9876, where are the safety issues involved in that? Bearing in mind that the student in VH-XXX might be flying on a Basic Class 2 medical and the 24-9876 is self-declaring, and both are making the same broadcasts, why can't 24-&^%$ fly in from The Oaks between 8:00 am to 4:00 pm?

 

My opinion is that by creating RAAus, CASA has caused more problems than it saved. A plane is a plane, is a plane, is a plane. As long as the design is sufficient for purpose, and the finished product is maintained to an acceptable standard why should VH-XXX and 24-9876 use the skies and the airports under different rules?

Because they have different levels of training.

Who was to know that as soon as AUF was set up to allow people to build their own aircraft using small two stroke engines and basic materials, and fly locally without the complications of navigation, older people who couldn't meet the medical standard for PPL would migrate into it, manufacturers would come up with aircraft which looked like GA aircraft, bigger engines would be fitted, people would try to use them as touring aircraft and want to fly town to town and into cities and cross country, but still with the exemptions they'd been granted for local flights. 

[old man emu]

16 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Because they have different levels of training.

 

ay, there’s the rub!

 

So what elements of CASA training are missing from RAAus training? I would have thought a rose by any other name would fly as sweet. 

[turboplanner]

18 minutes ago, old man emu said:

 

ay, there’s the rub!

 

So what elements of CASA training are missing from RAAus training? I would have thought a rose by any other name would fly as sweet. 

P&O, Met, Nav, Leg, C&E, Maint in various aspects. Things that weren't critical in Trikes and Drifters flying out of paddocks, but have never caught up.

[kgwilson]

Just ensure the RA syllabus covers the appropritae aspects. Training is an area that needs a bit more scrutiny as it appears to vary by Instructor and whether they are flying at an uncontrolled aerodrome in Class G or in controlled airspace.

 

Jabirus, Slings etc are completely different in flying characteristics, power and controls than Trikes, Drifters, Thrusters etc.

 

Coffs is the same. Class G till 8am, then class C/D till 5pm. Training continues in RA registered aircraft all day. The instructor must have a PPL. The whole process is BS. In NZ where RA has always had access to CTR there used to be an RA CTR rating & that is no longer a requirement. Now all aircraft in CTR must have ADSB out as a minimum.

 

The rules are a crock. At 4.59pm it is illegal for an RA aircraft/pilot to be in CTR at Coffs but at 5.01pm it is perfectly legal & RPT and all other operations continue seamlessly, just without a controller.

[jackc]

It’s no wonder people don’t care too much for the rules and go and do their own thing and are harmless to everybody around.  

[turboplanner]

There is plenty of RAA training going on in the cities. The RAA aircraft don’t need much to be made compliant and the extra student training is minimal. 

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

P&O, Met, Nav, Leg, C&E,

Met, Nav and Leg, I understand, but what are P&O and C&E, please?

 

If RAA certificate holders are not getting this instruction, how are they tootling all over the country?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Met, Nav and Leg, I understand, but what are P&O and C&E, please?

 

If RAA certificate holders are not getting this instruction, how are they tootling all over the country?

P&O Performance & Operations - the things you caculate before you leave the ground and recalculate in flight.

e.g. Take Off distance at point of departure which this morning is at an altitude of 3000' up a mountain with an outside temp of 28 degC.

 

C&E Compliance and Enforcement items for the trip.

 

I haven't seen statistics from RAA on where people are tootling, but from social media chatter I'd suggest most fly around their local areas.

Some will have been trained in GA so these modules aren't an issue for them.

Some have partially self-taught from books.

Some, trained in GA based schools would be taught all the modules at the night sessions.

 

I would recommend these modules be taught for RPC with electronic external testing, much the same as boat licences are tested.

I would also recommend the training be conducted using electronic classrooms so the student gets the benefit of others asking questions, struggling to grasp the principle etc. and collectively planning a flight and getting confident in calculations. Doing it that way covers the whole of country Australia.

 

[spacesailor]

But , I , as an RAA student DID learn P & O ! .

We have to know how far the fuel we put in the tank , the take off weight , L p hour fuel use, weather ( MET ) at next stop .Which includes N A V , Oaks / Mittagong / Kiama coalcliff / Mountannan & back to the Oaks .

AND

I FAILED ,! .

C & E ! . We just called it LAW . Had to know ALL the Rule's & Regulations .

SO you say it's just our Vocabulary,  you don't like ? .

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

33 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

But , I , as an RAA student DID learn P & O ! .

We have to know how far the fuel we put in the tank , the take off weight , L p hour fuel use, weather ( MET ) at next stop .Which includes N A V , Oaks / Mittagong / Kiama coalcliff / Mountannan & back to the Oaks .

AND

I FAILED ,! .

C & E ! . We just called it LAW . Had to know ALL the Rule's & Regulations .

SO you say it's just our Vocabulary,  you don't like ? .

spacesailor

No, nothing to do with vocabulary, I did say various  versions are taught. In a city GA/RA school, you would be likely to get the full PPL training which is what you seem to be referring to, ie total useable fuel at start, taxy/runup fuel, takeoff and climb fuel, cruise fuel, descent and taxi fuel at destination and calculate the fuel you need to get to the destination with the legal reserve.

Then take off distance with the airfield surface, grade, altitude, outside air temp etc.

and so on.

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

P&O Performance & Operations - the things you caculate before you leave the ground and recalculate in flight.

C&E Compliance and Enforcement items for the trip.

Thanks for that. Abbreviations and acronyms inhibit communication. Now to discuss them.

 

The topic, Aircraft performance and operations, is definitely one that you need to have by the short and curlies before you head off anywhere, even, as per your example,  a few laps of the training area. Would you agree that "operations" would include how to operate an aircraft when the air is full of potholes and your airspeed indicator is flicking back and forth like windscreen wipers in a downpour?

 

Proper compliance and enforcement is a bit like the road rules. Who knows the wording and intent of every single rule pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle on a public street?  You've got to rely on the main ones and hope you don't fall foul of a nit-picking inspector.

[turboplanner]

13 minutes ago, old man emu said:

The topic, Aircraft performance and operations, is definitely one that you need to have by the short and curlies before you head off anywhere, even, as per your example,  a few laps of the training area. Would you agree that "operations" would include how to operate an aircraft when the air is full of potholes and your airspeed indicator is flicking back and forth like windscreen wipers in a downpour?

Yes, the example spacesailor gave was Fuel Burn.

You'll often find in the posts after a fly include a few that never made it due to hiccups on the way one of them being the weather and that someone in a Drifter or Thruster was running short of fuel because of a big head wind and had to turn back.

 

Doing the Met and factoring the wind into the buel burn calculation would have told him that before he left and given him the option of, say taking a can of fuel and refueling on the way, or just cancelling without the stress.

 

13 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Proper compliance and enforcement is a bit like the road rules. Who knows the wording and intent of every single rule pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle on a public street?  You've got to rely on the main ones and hope you don't fall foul of a nit-picking inspector.

Yes and No; Members of Self Administering Organizations fly under two different types of regulations, CASA's "Precriptive/Proscriptive" regulation system where they take the liability on what is safe, tell you what to do/what not to do and inspect you on yor behaviour the same as the cops on the road.

The second type is the Self Administering requirement to eliminate reasonably forseeable risks where you and others up the chain are deemed to have a duty of care and if someone can prove you breached it you can finiish up paying for their injuries and recovery. This is the one most people struggle to grasp. They're right on the mark after they've been bitten by one though.

[bushcaddy105]

9 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Who was to know that as soon as AUF was set up to allow people to build their own aircraft using small two stroke engines and basic materials, and fly locally without the complications of navigation, older people who couldn't meet the medical standard for PPL would migrate into it, manufacturers would come up with aircraft which looked like GA aircraft, bigger engines would be fitted, people would try to use them as touring aircraft and want to fly town to town and into cities and cross country, but still with the exemptions they'd been granted for local flights. 

Turbs, what's your argument against 19- and 24-  registered aircraft (which have bigger 4-stroke engines and look like a GA aircraft) being used as cross-country tourers? They still have to be flown by qualified pilots under the same rules e.g. equipment carried, airspace, radio procedures, etc. The only real difference is no CTA, not wanted anyway in my case. What exemptions do I fly under?