The Latest Outstanding Communication from RA-Aus

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, bushcaddy105 said:

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?

Where you are there wouldn't be much noticeable difference, but around the coast and some of the bigger towns and cities,  some people have difficulty with restrictions.

I'm just in the process of researching some of the pros and cons relating to this thread; things like the implications of various Medical standards and where a change would leave some of the owners of larger aircraft and some of the rag and tubes. I'm aout 1/3 of the way into it.

[bushcaddy105]

Thanks for the reply, Turbs

Yes, some people may have difficulty with restrictions. It comes down to planning, preparation and flexibility. I have flown many interstate trips "low and slow", for example in to CTA at Avalon for display at the airshow more than once. Dodging CTA down the East coast isn't impossible, just a matter of being flexible with regards to weather and restricted airspace. We are all recreational flyers - why complicate our sport by carving it up into defined chunks? Let us all enjoy the amount of "rules" with which we are confortable.

[old man emu]

I know that you will correct me if I am wrong, but I see the prohibition on entering controlled airspace harkens back to the days when AUF aircraft were slow, simplistic things. Obviously you would not want them mixing with even the likes of a C-150 of PA28-140. I suppose those AUF aircraft couldn't carry a radio, either. Nowadays many of the grandchildren of those AUF aircraft are fast enough to mix it with the big boys. In fact, they can fly loops around something like a Tiger Moth which would be free to fly all day in controlled airspace. So why persist with the prohibition?

 

I'm not saying that an RAA aircraft should be flying into Kingsford-Smith, or Tullamarine and the like. Those airports are part of the country's economic infrastructure. Slow aircraft operating there are like caravaners on a single-lane highway holding up trucks and tradies. But why should RAA aircraft be prohibited from using the Secondary airports like Bankstown and Archerfield if they are carrying R/T sets that allow them to carry on the same level of communication as VH- aircraft. Again I use the example of two Jabirus, built exactly the same, but registered under different systems.

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, old man emu said:

I know that you will correct me if I am wrong, but I see the prohibition on entering controlled airspace harkens back to the days when AUF aircraft were slow, simplistic things. Obviously you would not want them mixing with even the likes of a C-150 of PA28-140. I suppose those AUF aircraft couldn't carry a radio, either. Nowadays many of the grandchildren of those AUF aircraft are fast enough to mix it with the big boys. In fact, they can fly loops around something like a Tiger Moth which would be free to fly all day in controlled airspace. So why persist with the prohibition?

 

I'm not saying that an RAA aircraft should be flying into Kingsford-Smith, or Tullamarine and the like. Those airports are part of the country's economic infrastructure. Slow aircraft operating there are like caravaners on a single-lane highway holding up trucks and tradies. But why should RAA aircraft be prohibited from using the Secondary airports like Bankstown and Archerfield if they are carrying R/T sets that allow them to carry on the same level of communication as VH- aircraft. Again I use the example of two Jabirus, built exactly the same, but registered under different systems.

I did mention the city training facilities doing that with RA aircraft suitably specified and students suitably trained. One of our members Motzart Merv was an instructor in Sydney who would have produced many RA pilots that way, but that's not the issue on this thread.

[facthunter]

I doubt a Tiger moth could be allowed at a major airport. It has absolutely NO electrical system at all. and a very low Max X wind figure and 78 knot Cruise, In their day the tower used coloured lights.   Nev

[hkaneshiro]

i think the biggest issue that GA guys have with RAAus is the more variable training standards with the latter. also testing requirements are different (CFI versus an authorised testing officer). 

 

face it though, there is some regulatory arbitrage going on.. if i were a GA school, i woukd be tempted to do the combined RA/GA thing for efficiencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hkaneshiro]

On 09/04/2023 at 5:12 AM, 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?

the VH student pilot will be on a full class 2 (cant take the RPL/PPL test on a Basic). Student 24-9876 will be on a full class 2 too (not self declared - they will not be able to solo in Class D/C otherwise) 

 

therein lies the answer.. 24-&^%$ could be flying into Camden on a self-declared medical. 

 

 

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, hkaneshiro said:

the VH student pilot will be on a full class 2 (cant take the RPL/PPL test on a Basic). Student 24-9876 will be on a full class 2 too (not self declared - they will not be able to solo in Class D/C otherwise) therein lies the answer.. 

 

 

Therein lies the stupidity. When will CASA come back down to earth and accept that, apart from some blatantly obvious physical and mental conditions, a medical examination will not disclose the conditions that cause sudden unexpected death. How many examples  of otherwise apparently unaffected people dropping from heart attack, stroke or aneurysm? 

 

I think that we should rise up and demand that every CASA employee undergo an annual medical, at their own expense, to maintain their position. Let them walk 1609.344 metres in our shoes.

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Therein lies the stupidity. When will CASA come back down to earth and accept that, apart from some blatantly obvious physical and mental conditions, a medical examination will not disclose the conditions that cause sudden unexpected death. How many examples  of otherwise apparently unaffected people dropping from heart attack, stroke or aneurysm? 

 

I think that we should rise up and demand that every CASA employee undergo an annual medical, at their own expense, to maintain their position. Let them walk 1609.344 metres in our shoes.

I've been, in my spare time trying for two days to research some of these instant answers. After what I've done so far I would caution people not to give simplified answers to such a complicated subject. It's clear to me that some of the people who've given medical statements in the past haven't read the disclaimers and followed the channels that anyone with a medical condition must follow. The Unconditional Commercial Vehicle Medical, is also very difficult to follow. Neither will be a problem for most people under 50, but when some of the long term conditions set it it's complicated so best to read all that's on the sites before jumping to conclusions.

[facthunter]

 OME, Then they are far away and have your shoes?  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Therein lies the stupidity. When will CASA come back down to earth and accept that, apart from some blatantly obvious physical and mental conditions, a medical examination will not disclose the conditions that cause sudden unexpected death. How many examples  of otherwise apparently unaffected people dropping from heart attack, stroke or aneurysm? 

 

I think that we should rise up and demand that every CASA employee undergo an annual medical, at their own expense, to maintain their position. Let them walk 1609.344 metres in our shoes.

Hit the books like I did; you will quickly see that very specific medical conditions, stages, medical terms determine different pathways. You will also see very similar conditions for drivers which from my first readings have been changing almost yearly from 2016. I haven't found anything so far about dropping dead from a heart attack.

[jackc]

Some 25,000 people die from Sudden Cardiac Arrest every year in Australia and many, who have no previous Cardiac problems history.  Life has many elements of risk from various causes……

[kgwilson]

In the UK there was a survey of pilots in July 2015 regarding medical requirements for a PPL. In April 2016 UK CAP 1397 was released & recommendaytions were adopted. They were PPL holders are required to self declare medical fitness once up to the age of 70 & every 3 years after that. Medical requirements were that the person was medically fit to drive a standard motor car.

 

They found in 10 years of data only 20 of 151 fatalities may have had a medical factor but none were found to be the major contributing cause. The issues included hypoxia, fatigue, dehydration, alcohol & suidide as well. None of the 20 could conclusively be atributed to a medical issue which was only suspected.

 

They looked at risk to those on the ground as well & found only 6 accidents in 10 years & there were no fatalities of 3rd parties.

 

They looked at the risk of incapacitation in flight (siezure, heart attack, etc) where the pilot would be unaware of the issue prior to flight & found that the risk was 2 per year, up from 1 when pilots underwent full medicals & decided the risk was so low as to be insignificant.

 

That's what it takes in a country of 68 million with massively more aircaft density to come up with a sensible regulation.

 

Not so here though. Look at the RPL originally designed to allow ageing pilots to continue to fly without the need to hold a class 2 medical. It took 90 days to approve in NZ & here it took 10 years and is so complex it is not valid anywhere else in the world. Where does the responsibility and lack of action lie, clearly with CASA. Will things ever change? Never with such an ingrained rigid culture CASA has.

[jackc]

I have just bought a house in town, so just something crazy to do, I walked to the Post Office for my mail, a round trip of 6.5km up and down many hills. I did the walk with one stop, at the Post office and drank 500ml of water and went home.

No problems doing it and when I have time might do it more often. 

Now, I am 71 and fast become a target of medicals.

I am quite fit for age as I lead an active life BUT, I could walk out the door tomorrow  and have a Aortic Dissection and drop dead on my lawn 😞. 

Would a medical have found impending disaster?  No, but a full CT/MRI would have,  more probably than not.  How far do we go with medicals for anything?  Car, Truck, Employment etc etc?  

Medicals need to be unworkably intense to catch many impending Medical events. Still, there can never be 100% success.

But our regulators are too fcking dumb to see the woods for the trees.  Nothing can ever be perfect……  

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

I have just bought a house in town, so just something crazy to do, I walked to the Post Office for my mail, a round trip of 6.5km up and down many hills. I did the walk with one stop, at the Post office and drank 500ml of water and went home.

No problems doing it and when I have time might do it more often. 

Now, I am 71 and fast become a target of medicals.

I am quite fit for age as I lead an active life BUT, I could walk out the door tomorrow  and have a Aortic Dissection and drop dead on my lawn 😞. 

Would a medical have found impending disaster?  No, but a full CT/MRI would have,  more probably than not.  How far do we go with medicals for anything?  Car, Truck, Employment etc etc?  

Medicals need to be unworkably intense to catch many impending Medical events. Still, there can never be 100% success.

But our regulators are too fcking dumb to see the woods for the trees.  Nothing can ever be perfect……  

I take it you didn't have the time to read what our regulators actually say; no point getting wound up if there isn't a problem.

[jackc]

Modern day regulators make legislation and rules so complex, a lay person struggles to understand most of it. I just try read and interpret what I can……IF I fail, then I just say…..too hard and forget it.

Regulators do have a duty of care to make rule interpretation that is easily achievable IF they want compliance.  They have failed their task IF they don't do this and I have used this to get off the hook in the past…..relating to transport vehicle matters.

[facthunter]

Ignorance of the Law is NO excuse they keep saying but simple justice includes the Knowing commission of a  crime and intention. The proclaimers are morally duty bound to educate and inform clearly as  well as enforce and penalise.  Nev

Edited April 10, 2023 by facthunter
typo

[old man emu]

Not to knock the sensibly thought out contributions being made in this thread, but it's getting to be a May Pole dance with no sign of the threads finally weaving something.

 

 

 

I'm the same age as Jackc and over the past year I've somehow become healthier through no work of my own. Each year I have to pass the AusRoads medical because I hold a heavy vehicle licence and a Public Vehicle Driver's Authority. Over the years this medical has become less stringent, yet CASA demands the original format. Thinking about it, I come to the conclusion that the original, more stringent test is in fact better suited to aviation as it does involve a test for balance. My doctor is quite happy to carry out the examination for the Basic Class 2, and fill out the Ausroads paperwork at the same time.

 

So why does my Basic Class 2 have these restrictions as pointed out below?

3 hours ago, hkaneshiro said:

student pilot will be on a full class 2 (cant take the RPL/PPL test on a Basic). Student 24-9876 will be on a full class 2 too (not self declared - they will not be able to solo in Class D/C otherwise

 

[Carbon Canary]

I had a leaky mitral heart valve resulting in breathlessness on exertion. I voluntarily grounded myself but hadn’t got around to formally advising CASA. On my most recent visit with the cardiologist involving a treadmill stress test, ecg, ultrasound etc. the leaky valve problem has completely resolved by itself, and the cardiologist doesn’t wish to see me for at least two years.

 

Do I inform CASA that I had an unreported historical problem, but now I don’t ?

[turboplanner]

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Not to knock the sensibly thought out contributions being made in this thread, but it's getting to be a May Pole dance with no sign of the threads finally weaving something.

Perhaps that's because of thread drift.

The thread is about a delay in CASA making a decision to give RAA a 25% weight increase. That's what I started to research a couple of days ago.

 

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

AusRoads medical because I hold a heavy vehicle licence and a Public Vehicle Driver's Authority. Over the years this medical has become less stringent, yet CASA demands the original format.

CASA accepts the Unconditional Commercial Vehicle licence.

If you have a medical condition the Commercial Vheicle licence has a series of pathways similar to CASA.

Basic Class 2 is good for a person with no medical conditions because it costs less. but Class 2 gives you access to a Dame decision, and managing a condition.

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

 

 

35 minutes ago, old man emu said:

So why does my Basic Class 2 have these restrictions as pointed out below?

 

The thread drifted into another direction; access to CTA, and I pointed out that several City schools taught both GA and RA in CTA with the training required plus aircraft modifications.

 

As the guy says, the RA student got a full Class 2 the same as the GA student.

 

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, jackc said:
Medicals need to be unworkably intense to catch many impending Medical events. Still, there can never be 100% success.

But our regulators are too fcking dumb to see the woods for the trees.  Nothing can ever be perfect……  

I suspect that for road users and flyers, the biggest risk factor is not physical health but mental.
Is there a test to weed out those of us with faulty decision-making, let alone a dangerous attitude?

[facthunter]

The DAMES are charged with that responsibility.    Nev

[spacesailor]

CASA' s lawyerspeak is sending me  !

CRAZEY

Will that no., 2 medical fix me up. OR is it just B  S , that means more Money to friends in higher places than me .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

IF you aren't obsessive compulsive and are perfectly psychologically stable, you"ll be just fine. Nev