Finally Group G is getting closer

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

This is the link to the RAA anouncement on 18/1/24. it has more information, questions and answers: https://raaus.com.au/news/mtow-increase-601kg-to-760kg/

I has a brief scan of the reference you supplied - my thanks.

 

What I read does not enthuse me - it seems to be an unnecessary drift away, from what I feel is the core of RAA  - small, simple, economical aircraft.

 

Despite it not being of great importance to my flying,  I would see our entry to Controlled Airspace (with suitable training/endorsement/instrumentation) as being far more desirable, than taking on a whole new class of aircraft and attendant standards to be administered - where is the cost benefit in this?

 

 

[facthunter]

Safe and cheap to own.  The weight limit is supposed to be part of reducing the energy of a crash.  Nev

[spacesailor]

skippydiesel 

I would have jumped at the chance to throw a few dollars into your 172 empty seat .

And I expect There's a few more like me .

Awaiting a " spare seat " . ( was that the forum name ( I probably couldn't afforda half cost ) .

spacesailor

[rodgerc]

It’s likely aimed at the owners of C150’s, Tomahawks and Air Tourers who have had recent exchanges with CASA medical staff. 

[turboplanner]

There are 6300 active pilots in RAA so the extra 400 would increase the numbers by 6.3%

 

There are 3232 aircraft so the extra 400 would increase the numbers by 12%

 

There are 9000 financial members, so the extra would increase the numbers by 4.4%

 

There are only 160 Flight Training schools, which looks way under what’s needed to safely manage the pilots and aircraft.

 

Given that more management of pilots and aircraft would be required, the expenditure vs income percentages are going to wrong way unless RA pilots are happy to pay more for these people to be managed.

[skippydiesel]

Perchance, the Editor of "Sport Pilot" could be a closet supporter of Group G - his RV6A ,  registered VH-UFS, is his "Perfect Plane" 😈

[Kyle Communications]

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

 

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour 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

 

 

I'd be very interested to see what the GA people think about this; it's flying at a different level, and a lot of modules to learn for RA people.

[Blueadventures]

11 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I'd be very interested to see what the GA people think about this; it's flying at a different level, and a lot of modules to learn for RA people.

I reckon there will be RAA pilots who cruise through getting the endorsement; at the end of the day its gaining the qualification and then good airmanship.  I know a few GA pilots who are uncomfortable in controlled airspace.  I'll get it when available and meet the requirements.

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I reckon there will be RAA pilots who cruise through getting the endorsement; at the end of the day its gaining the qualification and then good airmanship.  I know a few GA pilots who are uncomfortable in controlled airspace.  I'll get it when available and meet the requirements.

Engine, TSO instruments, Regular Maintenance & Checking, Currency, knowing how to thread, modules and currency, correct radio etc. Certainly you can do it as an RA pilot, many have in Sydney; the last GA thread on it was 300 posts when the dream started in 2011.

[Kyle Communications]

The Group G licence requirements are basically a RPL. which is GA. so to fly Group G you WILL need to upgrade your RPC or currently hold a GA licence...simple

 

[coljones]

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

There are 6300 active pilots in RAA so the extra 400 would increase the numbers by 6.3%

 

There are 3232 aircraft so the extra 400 would increase the numbers by 12%

 

There are 9000 financial members, so the extra would increase the numbers by 4.4%

 

There are only 160 Flight Training schools, which looks way under what’s needed to safely manage the pilots and aircraft.

 

Given that more management of pilots and aircraft would be required, the expenditure vs income percentages are going to wrong way unless RA pilots are happy to pay more for these people to be managed.

The extra 400 planes and extra 400 pilots would also be hit with fees which would pay for admin. As Scotty says "I don't hold a hose" and so it goes with RAA, the additional load is administration not mechanical handing or pilot training.

[Blueadventures]

7 minutes ago, coljones said:

The extra 400 planes and extra 400 pilots would also be hit with fees which would pay for admin. As Scotty says "I don't hold a hose" and so it goes with RAA, the additional load is administration not mechanical handing or pilot training.

They will have to do time with an RAA instructor to get a pilot certificate; in late March they will start process of ratifying the instructors and guess they will need to do such in a 'G' aircraft???  If they accept a recognition of the GA license then they would have to limit to above 600kg.

Edited January 26 by Blueadventures

[coljones]

4 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

 

 

For us in NSW, 2 towns, Sydney and Coffs Harbour! CTA transit rights are key to the continuation of enjoying RAA flying. I'm sure the other states can draw up their lists.

[coljones]

3 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

They will have to do time with an RAA instructor to get a pilot certificate; in late March they will start process of ratifying the instructors and guess they will need to do such in a 'G' aircraft???

RAAus is user pays - I doubt that RAAus will be forking out much to support G.

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, coljones said:

For us in NSW, 2 towns, Sydney and Coffs Harbour! CTA transit rights are key to the continuation of enjoying RAA flying. I'm sure the other states can draw up their lists.

The AUF >>>> RAA was not established for cross-country flying; if you remember, it was grudgingly allowed provided you stayed in paddocks away from airfields; from memory 5 Nm away from all of them, and you stayed below 300 feet. Now that I think about it, the lifting from just clear of ground level to 500 feet minimum when practicing GA forced landings and precautionaries probably occurred to provide a clearance bwteen RA and GA aircraft out in Training Areas.

 

Similarly CTA wasn't opened up for a long time, and even now requires a lot more than some people have suggested on this thread to be safe; but if you want to do it, and if you are prepared to comply with the conditions, there are no issues; some RA schools where students have to transit CTA have been doing it in compliance for years. It's the non-compliant transits that pose the safety risks.  The CTA subject should have been raised separately to 760 kg.

[Kyle Communications]

CTA has always been a totally separate to the Group G...They are NOT tied together and never have been'

CTA access will be for 600kg and Group G but the hoops to jump through will be the same

 

[facthunter]

I think you will find that the RAAus linked the 2 together in the records . The Logic in that evades me.. I think many here hugely underestimate the difficulties with using CTA. I'd be targeting better transitioning of zones first as it's suites the majority more.. There is already a path for those who want CTA and watering that down will be somewhat difficult as we have to be aligned with  the rest of the world as a signatory to ICAO.  Nev

[Kyle Communications]

I asked about just transitioning and was told there will not be any half measures it full CTA

They are not tied together at all CTA was worked on long before group G was started on. Group G is just a addon to the CYA endorsement....it will be a CTA endorsement and the pilot will be required to do what is required to pass the test. The only real difference will be the new medical standard if and when it comes in...I am told maybe late this year

 

[aro]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I think many here hugely underestimate the difficulties with using CTA.

I think people hugely overstate the difficulty of CTA. Maybe you only flew IFR in CTA? VFR is not the same as IFR.

 

Really, the main thing you need to be able to do are:

Fly a heading

Fly an altitude

Visually navigate and follow a track

Talk on the radio and follow instructions.

 

If you make a mistake, ATC are there to help.

 

Will you get in the way of a jet if you make a mistake? No - ATC will keep you well out of their way so that is not possible.

 

If you want to cause problems for jet traffic it is much more likely OCTA under the steps north or south of Melbourne - where the separation from jet traffic could be only 500' vertically - at least theoretically. Or somewhere like Mildura where you have RPT traffic in a normal CTAF.

 

Talk to the people who fly out of Essendon and they will tell you flying into a class G airport is much more difficult because you have to arrange and judge your own separation, without ATC to help you. They hate it.

[facthunter]

Of course CTA has been discussed for quite a while but the way RAAus was "treating it" it had the two together for some reason or other that was their way of doing it a few years ago. Just after the TALK of the NEW GA. BS. Group "G" is the latest version of a weight increase isn't it?. It's been a long time coming. WE were supposed to be there before McCormick took over and set us back more than a decade. Nev

[facthunter]

The above was a response to Kyle.

 ARO.   I flew DC 9.s into places full of Cessnas and  other vfr only traffic / and Austers into mascot. Rebel into places with RPT I've covered it from both sides. DC4's onto grass strips no aids  all vfr.. No Towers there. There's always been people saying as you do. Sorry. I think YOU just don't know..  Nev

[aro]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Sorry. I think YOU just don't know.. 

Austers into Mascot and DC4s are a long time ago.

 

I did my PPL at Essendon so I know a little bit.

 

When was the last time you flew VFR in Class C?

[turboplanner]

Just now, aro said:

Austers into Mascot and DC4s are a long time ago.

 

I did my PPL at Essendon so I know a little bit.

 

When was the last time you flew VFR in Class C?

CTA is usually a breeze within the GA/PPL training system shortly after first solo, so by the time you are let loose to go out to the training area and make your own entry back in it's the breeze you say it is, and particularly the entry to the circuit and the traffic synching within the circuit. You're current and you've been trained by GA Instructors.

 

The samed goes for RA students trained in CTA; you learn a lot of things over quite a few hours.

 

However someone who's learning out in RA or has been flying for years out in RA is going to be hit with all that at once, and, he may not necessarily have been examined for radio procedure, entry, circuit entry, or ground procedures.

 

"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.

 

That's not something that can't be fixed but the RA structure and programmes needs to be changed to achieve it.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

That would be when I followed a Black Cat into Avalon I suppose. RPT get cleared for visual approach a fair way out often but if you want to go outside CTA (the DME steps or the minimum sector altitude) you would need a Clearence before doing it and there could be unnotified traffic below. / Many of by BFR's were into CTA visual.  but many of the published routes are not over the best Country for single engined planes in any case so why goo there if you don't have to.  You won't get the service for nothing. Nev.