RAAus access to class C and D airspace.

[Thruster88]

From the May CASA email briefing. 

 

 

Access to Class C and Class D airspace

We're developing a policy proposal to allow sport and recreation aircraft and pilots access to Class C and Class D controlled airspace after a wide-ranging response to our discussion paper on the issue. The discussion paper, released last year, received 130 submissions from a variety of stakeholders, including recreational and commercial pilots, air operators, air traffic service providers, flying training operators and sport aviation bodies. Feedback and ideas received have helped us consider the options for increasing sport and recreation opportunities as part of our General Aviation Workplan. The consultation asked about current standards required of pilots in controlled airspace in relation to pilot and radio competencies, English language proficiency, medical fitness, aircraft equipment and priorities for airspace access. An analysis of the responses indicated broad support for the concept of expanding access to Class C and Class D airspace for sport and recreation pilots so long as equivalent skills and standards are met. There was also broad support for consistent standards to be applied, where appropriate, across different licensing schemes. The policy proposal we’re developing would allow approved self-administering aviation organisations (ASAOs) to issue certification for sport and recreation pilots to operate in Class C and Class D controlled airspace with the appropriate aircraft and pilot certification. We’ll engage with stakeholders, including ASAOs, and plan to publish the policy proposal for consultation before the end of June 2024.

[skippydiesel]

Looks hopeful.

 

I realise that only a small percentage of RAA pilots will want to take advantage of entry to controlled air space (CTA) BUT for this few it's not just a convenience, it's also a safety matter. 

Large sections of the Australian eastern seabird has become CTA, forcing transitioning RAA pilots in to sometimes scarry low level transit lanes or flying around CTA over large areas of "Tiger Country".

This has always been a far more important privilege to try for than the doubtful benefits of the empire building Group G achievement.

[Thruster88]

Training, a transponder with CAO 100.5 compliance and a minimum of a class 5 medical seems to be the requirements.  

[Area-51]

Class C will probably be limited to certified LSA factory built ADSB equiped aircraft only.

 

Class D will probably be any Ra aircraft with mode C transponder and radio

[Roundsounds]

8 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Class C will probably be limited to certified LSA factory built ADSB equiped aircraft only.

 

Class D will probably be any Ra aircraft with mode C transponder and radio

There’s no requirement for XPDR / ADSB in class D.

[Freizeitpilot]

On 2/5/2024 at 5:15 PM, Thruster88 said:

Training, a transponder with CAO 100.5 compliance and a minimum of a class 5 medical seems to be the requirements.  

A class 5 medical requirement as opposed to an RAAus self- declared would seem overly beauracratic, if that were to eventuate.

[BurnieM]

Very little in the way of requirements have been floated.

My best guess would be; all RAAus aircraft, a CTA endorsement and maybe a transponder.

 

Talk is the Sydney basin becomes a sort of D+ but this is not defined.

 

Edited May 4 by BurnieM

[BurnieM]

I would like to see 'management' get this in place no later than the end of 2024.

 

While group G would have been a goer 2 years ago, with Basic 5 Med it is pretty much dead now.

ie stop the group G work and put the effort into CTA endorsement doco.

 

Edited May 4 by BurnieM

[Freizeitpilot]

Given the immense diversity in RAAus aircraft in terms of performance, I can see some resistance with blanket acceptance of CTA access, even with an endorsement.  
I’m sure ATC understands and can separate say an X-Air from an A320, but when you get the ‘expedite’ request or ‘caution wake turbulence’ from ATC it may mean different things to different aircraft.

 

That aside, bring it on !

[Roundsounds]

4 hours ago, BurnieM said:

I would like to see 'management' get this in place no later than the end of 2024.

 

While group G would have been a goer 2 years ago, with Basic 5 Med it is pretty much dead now.

ie stop the group G work and put the effort into CTA endorsement doco.

 

RAAus dropped the ball on this from day 1. 
The GFA have always had access to CTR / CTA, cannot see any reason RAAus aircraft couldn’t too and should have been the lever to gain access. Obviously appropriate training required with a suitable endorsement, copy and paste the GFA syllabus. 
I was a CASA delegated testing officer for many years and could deem a pilot as being competent to operate in all types of airspace. However in order to access controlled airspace exercising the privileges of an RPC I must maintain my GA medical / AFR. 
I go to a class G airfield to complete my AFR, zero assessment on my CTA procedures but I’m good to fly in CTR / CTA exercising my RPC. 
just dumb

[Roundsounds]

4 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

A class 5 medical requirement as opposed to an RAAus self- declared would seem overly beauracratic, if that were to eventuate.

Meanwhile GFA pilots simply self declare and access controlled airspace. Camden is a prime example. 

[skippydiesel]

17 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Class C will probably be limited to certified LSA factory built ........................

 

 

I stand to be corrected - Dont see the logic in that - GA experimental (home built/modified) are not so restricted.

Edited May 4 by skippydiesel

[Area-51]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I stand to be corrected - Dont see the logic in that - GA experimental (home built/modified) are not so restricted.

Comes back to the type equipment  installed; certified or not certified; there will be no concessions offered to Ra aircraft wanting to enter Charlie, parallel minimum GA requirements will need to align.

[skippydiesel]

13 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Comes back to the type equipment  installed; certified or not certified; there will be no concessions offered to Ra aircraft wanting to enter Charlie, parallel minimum GA requirements will need to align.

So you agree, the entry criteria is likely to focus on equipment carried ( ie com, transponder, etc) rather than build type.

[Area-51]

All your answers will be found within the relevant MOS documents regarding operating in controlled air spaces.

[RossK]

On 04/05/2024 at 10:41 AM, BurnieM said:

I would like to see 'management' get this in place no later than the end of 2024.

 

While group G would have been a goer 2 years ago, with Basic 5 Med it is pretty much dead now.

ie stop the group G work and put the effort into CTA endorsement doco.

 

I can't see them getting it by the end of this year.

CASA have to come up with the regs, and then RAA have to come up with a Syllabus - it's years away.

I gave up waiting and got my RPL.

 

[Roundsounds]

52 minutes ago, RossK said:

I can't see them getting it by the end of this year.

CASA have to come up with the regs, and then RAA have to come up with a Syllabus - it's years away.

I gave up waiting and got my RPL.

 

I’ve gone back to GA, the cost of RAA outweighs the benefits for me. 

[Area-51]

There is just no "why" to this; so it will never get off the drafting table.

 

Anybody with a RA PC can go get themselves a GA RPL SEA rating tomorrow and CTA endorsement in a few days of studying and a flight review exam.

 

Add a NAV endorsement and task is done.

[BurnieM]

41 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

Anybody with a RA PC can go get themselves a GA RPL SEA rating tomorrow and CTA endorsement in a few days of studying and a flight review exam.

 

Probably the way to go.

 

PS

The why for Sydney people is WSI. Would not surprise me if 80% of Sydney RPCs want CTA.

Do we really want to wait till the last minute in 2026 then get stuck in a 12? month backlog ?

 

Basic 5 Med is easy and RPL is limited effort and if you have an RPL then you can buy a 4 seater. Over time this will lead to a drop off in RAA members.

Does not seem to have been thought thru.

 

Edited May 6 by BurnieM

[Roundsounds]

5 hours ago, Area-51 said:

There is just no "why" to this; so it will never get off the drafting table.

 

Anybody with a RA PC can go get themselves a GA RPL SEA rating tomorrow and CTA endorsement in a few days of studying and a flight review exam.

 

Add a NAV endorsement and task is done.

The CTA stuff has been going on for at least 8 years. The GFA and Balloon Federation have had CTA access from day 1, there’s the precedent. I haven’t seen any progress, just lots of excuses and it’ll happen soon.

[Freizeitpilot]

Extract of interview of RA-Aus new CEO by Australian Flying 2nd May, 2024.
 

……And access to CTA?

"We have been told that access to controlled airspace is tied to CASR Part 103, so you’ll have to speak with CASA about that one!"

[facthunter]

Free BEER tomorrow. .    Nev

[skippydiesel]

18 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

I’ve gone back to GA, the cost of RAA outweighs the benefits for me. 

Your comment reinforces the gut feeling, that I have had, all along, about the RAA move to higher max weight - how exactly does this change make  RAA so attractive that GA pilots , that they will rush to join?????😈.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Your comment reinforces the gut feeling, that I have had, all along, about the RAA move to higher max weight - how exactly does this change make  RAA so attractive that GA pilots , that they will rush to join?????😈.

I get the feeling that the GA people out there and on social media are not aware of any change or they would have resurrected their ‘“not Goming to a CTA near you” thread

[Keith Page]

On 06/05/2024 at 3:10 PM, Roundsounds said:

I’ve gone back to GA, the cost of RAA outweighs the benefits for me. 

You are on to the RAA, actually a good con to get money out of people for a pie in the sky.