Finally Group G is getting closer

[aro]

10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

"G'Day guys, can I get some help on how to get in here? is not a transmission and when I see people posting that that's what they do all the time and Airservices "looks after them" Airservices needs their bum kicked and should be doing follow ups because there are some very weird calls out there, and lot's of radios either not working or with issues.

 

No-one's saying you don't need training. But you have the same deal with GA pilots flying out of controlled airports into a CTAF.

 

Weird radio calls, no idea how to join a circuit, flying a straight in approach because that is what they would be given by ATC from that position never mind the traffic, downwind landing because there's no ATIS and the wind didn't match the forecast... all sorts of things.

 

The idea that GA pilots fly to a higher standard is just nonsense, based on my observations. GA pilots can be just as rubbish as RAA.

[facthunter]

How many GA pilots would be IFR rated and satisfy recent experience requirements. ?  Nev

[aro]

No-one is talking about RAA getting IFR. IFR and CTA are totally different things.

[facthunter]

It wasn't the point of my post which was related to "extra" skills which are available in GA other wise  a a  GA person might be as good as the RAAus people or vice versa in basic piloting. I've often said that many U/Ls require quite a lot of skill..  Nev

[BurnieM]

Surely CTA transits are a skill to be taught, learned and practised like anything else.

I can see that people who learned 20 years ago and currently only fly in class G may be taken back but even old b*stards can learn.

Non-standard radio calls from all types of pilots are more of a concern.

Edited January 27 by BurnieM

[facthunter]

 Transits? They have been around for ages and are relatively simple compared with other options. You would need good radio(s) and be able to hold sometimes or notify earlier to be slotted in.  Nev

[Reynard]

22 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

I am told by my source that CTA is well underway for RAAUS and the source is NOT RAAUS.

I said really most of us just want to be able to traverse CTA...I know I dont want to fly into Brisbane or Archerfield what so ever but was told CTA is CTA you will need the proper endorsements

The kicker of course is the technical details.

Your instruments need to be TSO'd no different to GA with the same regular checks/calibration and of course transponder/ADSB and all that which goes with that like a approved baro source for the equipment.

The aircraft whether factory built or amateur built or normal 600kg MTOW or the new 760kg Group G. 

The medical also "may" play a part in this but I think that is being worked on

 

Mark

 

 

If the instruments need to be TSO’d, won’t that automatically exclude a very large proportion of the RA-Aus fleet ?

[facthunter]

I would think so. Nev

[rodgerc]

40 minutes ago, Reynard said:

If the instruments need to be TSO’d, won’t that automatically exclude a very large proportion of the RA-Aus fleet 

There is no blanket requirement for TSO’d instruments in 19-XXXX amateur built RA-Aus or experimental GA to fly in controlled airspace. 
 

Here’s a reference: https://raaus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/raap-14-can-i-fly-in-controlled-airspace.pdf

[Kyle Communications]

I was always told previously the RAA aircraft had to be a factory built with a recognised engine and all instruments were to be as per what was fitted in a GA aircraft.

Most GA aircraft have TSO'd instruments as far as I am aware..no cheapie chinese ones

 

My source a week or two ago when we were speaking about this told me if the aircraft had all the correct instruments and transponders and all was in calibration with all the sign offs and you had the correct medical any RAA aircraft including a amateur built could fly in CTA. This is not what I was aware of previously. I thought there was some special deal done a couple of airports like Coffs Harbour and maybe Port macquarie and not too many others had some sort of special dispensation.

Obviously I was wrong or had the incorrect information that I thought I knew.

So if you have the "correct instruments" now I am not sure if you go and buy a chinese ASI and get it calibrated and put it in your Cessna 310 that that would be considered the correct instruments. If the instruments are proper ones like UMA or similar they are usually TSO'd...you can tell usually due to the price. This is why I said if the instruments are TSO'd then all should be fine.

 

Below is what I just got from the document that Rodger posted these are really the main points. Asi I said earlier I was not aware you could fly a amateur built in CTA but if your aircraft and you complied you always could fly in CTA. For us that can not get the required medical other than currently the RAA drivers licence one then you cant do it anyway

 

 

 

2. The aircraft - must be compliant to the airspace requirements with current RAAus registration, CAO 100.5 pressure instrument calibration completed in the past two years, only nominated specific engines may be fitted, and transponder fitted (if required for the airspace type).

3. The airspace – to operate in the airspace the pilot must hold a current CASA Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL) or higher – which includes an in-date flight review, correct medical and has successfully completed training for the relevant airspace endorsements for CTA/CTR

 

The pilot

The pilot must be compliant to operate both the RAAus aircraft as pilot in command and to operate in the airspace as a current CASA qualified pilot. Therefore, pilots must hold both a current RAAus Pilot Certificate and a current CASA licence (i.e. have satisfactorily completed an Aircraft Flight Review (AFR) in the previous 2 years for an RPL* or higher (cannot hold a student pilot licence), and have completed the appropriate airspace training in order to meet the pilot criteria for flight through controlled airspace (CTA) in an RAAus aircraft. The medical requirements for access to CTA must also be held, which include a CASA Class 2 (Basic) Medical Certificate or higher. *Holders of a Recreational Pilot Licence must also hold the controlled airspace, controlled aerodrome and flight radio endorsements.

 

Section 12.4 1 AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (CTA) – CLASS C, D, E, 1.1 Aircraft that are currently legally permitted to fly in Controlled Airspace (CTA) as detailed in provisions of CAO 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55, must have their instruments maintained in accordance with the provisions of CAO 100.5. The checks are only available through a LAME with specialised calibrated equipment and appropriate licence ratings.

 

This means the aircraft must have a calibrated altimeter, airspeed indicator and fuel gauges (under Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 100.5 by a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) using specialised equipment to complete such a task; and If the controlled airspace in which the pilot intends to operate requires a transponder, the aircraft must be fitted with a suitable and calibrated transponder. Calibration must be carried out by a qualified avionics LAME.

[BurnieM]

While this is the current situation the new CTR endorsement and use of it has not been defined. Particuarly, whether we will need more than our current self declared medical to use it.

 

What happens with Casa basic 5 medical seems to be intertwined with this.

I do not think we will know for another 6 months.

[skippydiesel]

RAA aircraft have been operating from controlled airfields for years.

 

Some against the rules and some within, under a training dispensation. Doesn't seem to have caused widespread chaos/accident/problems.

 

While  I support the need for appropriate training/endorsement,  much of the "problem"  is "hype" &  bureaucratic make work.

[RFguy]

RA-AUS aircraft need to be evaluated per CAO 100.5. every 2 years just like GA aircraft.

https://www.raa.asn.au/nsm/week-5/instrument-and-transponder-calibration/

 

CTR for RAAUS should be simple enough

1) a few radio proceedures- you need to know what to expect ::::  what sort of information will be requested of you, info you need to automatically volunteer , and what sort of directives they're going to issue,specifcally entering CTR/CTR, departing, startup and taxing and holding etc

2) Class C is easy, just do what  you are told. 

3) Class D requires alot more awareness and knowledge of the local proceedures for the area and Aerodrome.  that can be hectic.

 

Really not much to learn but can be a handful  as the above can occur simultaneously AND if you have to throw in weather, busy radio, unfamiliar airspace - which only needs CURRENCY to fix that.,

 

Most country GA pilots I know stay right away from CTA/CTR due to currency confidence.

 

Edited January 27 by RFguy

[BrendAn]

Are all these new privileges , If they happen going to raise the membership and rego fees of members with no interest  in flying in controlled airspace or heavier aircraft.  I don't see why we should be picking up the tab for the rich men's club with 150 K plus aircraft.

[BurnieM]

Most of the work has already been done so you have already paid for it.

 

Wait till they get into MOSIAC 🙂

Edited January 27 by BurnieM

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Are all these new privileges , If they happen going to raise the membership and rego fees of members with no interest  in flying in controlled airspace or heavier aircraft.  I don't see why we should be picking up the tab for the rich men's club with 150 K plus aircraft.

Something that the lazy ones haven't bothered with so far, but a good point along with the fact that most of this group will shift from government supervision and liability to private supervision and liability which will reflect in member costs.

Edited January 27 by turboplanner

[BrendAn]

It just seems like raaus is chasing the high end of town not the core membership which are in it for affordable flying. If us rag and tube people get dragged along with the current momentum we could end up paying annual fees worth as much as our aircraft.  Hopefully raaus won't forget the low end of the scale.

[facthunter]

Good luck with that Hope.   Nev

[spacesailor]

No hope at all , for the UFA , that they took over .

Even that name " recreational Aviation " , is not what the ' old ' Association began as .

spacesailor

Edited January 28 by spacesailor

[facthunter]

AUF isn't it, At one stage the RAAus said they were the "NEW GA". Of course that went down as you would expect with the rest of the flock. .  Nev

[skippydiesel]

Seems to me that Group G  may benefit, if at all, a very few pilot/owners.

Comes across as a diversion away from enhancing/benefiting, existing, members.

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

Seems to me that Group G  may benefit, if at all, a very few pilot/owners.

Comes across as a diversion away from enhancing/benefiting, existing, members.

It will make the circuit much more lively and entertaining from my experience. These are the bottom feeders, the two or three times a year group and if one gets onto a taxyway in front of you, take a newspaper to read, if you hear your "Clear for Takeoff" call now and again you'll hear a burst of power and one has got around you. Although the 150/152 performance indicates they should be a lively performer, its not unusual to lose sight of them on crosswind, but they'll call Base ahead of you, and if you look out half a mile, sure enough you'll see one out there, so you call base and you'll be taxying home before they've turned for final, they also land very well, but the most common sight when they're out is a 150/152 floating almost the whole runway, so you have to go round. Excitement in a tin can.

 

[jackc]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

AUF isn't it, At one stage the RAAus said they were the "NEW GA". Of course that went down as you would expect with the rest of the flock. .  Nev

Well, just go back to flying out of paddocks, NO Rego NO licence, like it used to be.

Anyone ready to form a ‘new’ clandestine AUF? With the slogan ‘catch us if you can’

Awaiting incoming ‘do gooder’ incoming Missiles 🤩🤩

[LoonyBob]

I don't see a justified safety argument for going full LAME maintenance, or TSO if applicable; the whole basis of "reducaed airworthiness standards" was that GA was exceeding the ICAO target for most everything but pilot error.

 

I think the disproportionate "safety" crap is arse covering for liability; thanks Mr Keating!

[LoonyBob]

12 minutes ago, jackc said:

Well, just go back to flying out of paddocks, NO Rego NO licence, like it used to be.

Anyone ready to form a ‘new’ clandestine AUF? With the slogan ‘catch us if you can’

Awaiting incoming ‘do gooder’ incoming Missiles 🤩🤩

Awfully tempting... I find the explicit retention of the freedoms of 95:10 to be a very heartening example of NOT losing the "lower end"(BS phrase, that one!)... but I do like to do the odd long X-country. 450kg is adequate, 600kg is more than enough for an efficient aircraft. I suppose my T83 COULD do long X-country flights...