RAAus access to class C and D airspace.

[BurnieM]

I'm surprised that senior RAA managers are not pushing CTA access hard.

 

It is not something that will get more members but RAA will definitely lose members if they do not pull their fingers out.

[turboplanner]

26 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I'm surprised that senior RAA managers are not pushing CTA access hard.

 

It is not something that will get more members but RAA will definitely lose members if they do not pull their fingers out.

Have you been reading the posts? You don't realise you can fly in CTA with the right specifications and training?

[BrendAn]

11 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Have you been reading the posts? You don't realise you can fly in CTA with the right specifications and training?

You have to have an RPL , so what's that got to do with raaus. You might have an raaus aircraft with transponder and radio but only a GA pilot can fly it.

[BurnieM]

35 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Have you been reading the posts? You don't realise you can fly in CTA with the right specifications and training?

Yes.

With an RPL and endorsements.

But this thread is 'RAAus access...'

 

My comment about RAA management not actively pushing this stands.

 

Edited May 11 by BurnieM

[Roundsounds]

15 hours ago, Keith Page said:

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

CTA access was a poorly handled situation and will be a major contributing factor in the demise of RAA. Allowing CTA access would have seen substantial growth of the organisation. As it stands now anyone who gains an RPC under the convoluted exemption at a Class D airport immediately obtains an RPL to allow continued access to CTA. Why would these pilots bother to maintain an RAA membership?

Glider pilots have always enjoyed CTA access, Camden has a very active gliding club as the result. There are a number of motor gliders based there who operate under the GFA - no PPL or medical certificates. This situation should have been cited as a precedent. The reason RAA had limitations placed on them operating in CTA was based on the very early AUF style aircraft.

[Arron25]

16 hours ago, BurnieM said:

Yes.

With an RPL and endorsements.

 

 

From what I read the requirement will be extra training for the CT endorsement.. which is 'essentially' similar to training requirements for an RPL and the same medical and aircraft requirements... so....

What am I missing here .. and why is there discussion on this failed proposal.

IF You have want or need CT .. do RPL...

 

What I would prefer is a "realistic" 700+Kg not the present GA spec requirement (LAME etc)

If I am required to fly essentially a GA plane I would not be in RAA would I...

Edited May 12 by Arron25

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Arron25 said:

From what I read the requirement will be extra training for the CT endorsement.. which is 'essentially' similar to training requirements for an RPL and the same medical and aircraft requirements... so....

What am I missing here .. and why is there discussion on this failed proposal.

IF You have want or need CT .. do RPL...

It would seem straightforward to me. You may not be neatly in one camp or the other, but you're not wanting to just fly in one camp either.

 

1 hour ago, Arron25 said:

What I would prefer is a "realistic" 700+Kg not the present GA spec requirement (LAME etc)

If I am required to fly essentially a GA plane I would not be in RAA would I...

If you want to fly a GA plane just go GA.

[Freizeitpilot]

The latest email communique from RA-Aus tends to confirm that ADS-B will be required for Class C access.

 

“Remember, ADS-B makes your aircraft visible to drone operators (particularly when they are operating Beyond Visual Line of Sight or BVLOS), other airspace users, Airservices and if you intend to operate in controlled airspace once this becomes available to RAAus, will permit operations in Class C.”

[Thruster88]

Will permit, and will be required not the same. A mode C transponder will permit as it stands now. 

[RFguy]

WT.

 

To get CTA access would require doing a CTA endorsement. This requires instruction and a flying test.

 

To get an RPL, that's a couple of hours for a flying test in a Cherokee, plus the above CTA instruction  which *could* be done at the same time.

If you've had your RAAus-XC for a while, you know how to talk on the radio, and talk to Center. C is easy. D you need to know local procedures, so I guess the test is about looking up procedures (and if you comply!).  

 

I'm guessing there is a case where there isn't easily a GA aircraft available to do this, Although in an area where there is a class C or a class D, there's surely a busy enough aerodrome that there would be GA instruction and aircraft available.

 

But in support of RAA-aus options- Really , the CTA endorsement should be able to be done in any  aircraft that has the minimum equipment.   

 

 

Edited June 16 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

The problem is they don't want to do that because it involves learning some formal radio procedures, and studying a few documents, and flying within a formal framework. An Instructor should easily be able to train them in a few hours. When it's required for your training, you're competent by the time you go solo, but I 've never seen an Instructor come on here and say "This is easy, I should be able to get you through that in x hours."

[RFguy]

Turbs you've hot the nail on the head with "but I've never seen an Instructor come on here and say "This is easy, I should be able to get you through that in x hours."

That's really what needs to happen. The person is already competent on the radio, talking to Centre, etc, it is really a very small extra step I believe to run the radio procedures.   But it does need the pilot to have good recency -  fly regularly, use radio regularly, be used to all the chatter on Centre  for it all to run smoothly.  If the pilot in training cant deal with a bit of extra workload and radio work they they probably should not be in CTA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roundsounds]

30 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Turbs you've hot the nail on the head with "but I've never seen an Instructor come on here and say "This is easy, I should be able to get you through that in x hours."

That's really what needs to happen. The person is already competent on the radio, talking to Centre, etc, it is really a very small extra step I believe to run the radio procedures.   But it does need the pilot to have good recency -  fly regularly, use radio regularly, be used to all the chatter on Centre  for it all to run smoothly.  If the pilot in training cant deal with a bit of extra workload and radio work they they probably should not be in CTA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dumb set of rules! I was a CASA delegated testing officer and could issue airspace endorsements. I am required to maintain a current PPL in order to fly my RAA registered airplane from a Class D airfield. I recently an AFR at a country airfield, zero assessment of my CTA skills. 

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

The problem is they don't want to do that because it involves learning some formal radio procedures, and studying a few documents, and flying within a formal framework. An Instructor should easily be able to train them in a few hours. When it's required for your training, you're competent by the time you go solo, but I 've never seen an Instructor come on here and say "This is easy, I should be able to get you through that in x hours."

How do you know what people want to learn or not learn.  

[Blueadventures]

There will be some who just can’t cope with radio comms to ATC. They get the equivalent of stage fright (all in their head).  

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Dumb set of rules! I was a CASA delegated testing officer and could issue airspace endorsements. I am required to maintain a current PPL in order to fly my RAA registered airplane from a Class D airfield. I recently an AFR at a country airfield, zero assessment of my CTA skills. 

You're looking at the "dumb set of rules"  from the previous prescriptive era which has been progressively, and quietly, disbanded.

They're not dumb when you realise the legal liability is now with the pilot.

 

[turboplanner]

35 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

How do you know what people want to learn or not learn.  

They tell us in the hundreds of posts on this subject over the years.

[kgwilson]

The quality of radio transmissions has been discussed here before and there are some who can't even cope with CTAF transmissions let alone talking to ATC. I put a lot of this on to the poor training in radio etiquette by instructors, some of whom are pretty poor themselves. Back in the day you had to  be issued with a FRTO (Flight Radio Telephone Operator) licence and know all of the correct pro-words and the phonetic NATO alphabet and be competent in communicating with ATC and getting read backs correct. I can't even understand what some of the foreign student pilots are saying at all and they are supposed to have been tested for their English comprehension and dialogue.

[Area-51]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

The quality of radio transmissions has been discussed here before and there are some who can't even cope with CTAF transmissions let alone talking to ATC. I put a lot of this on to the poor training in radio etiquette by instructors, some of whom are pretty poor themselves. Back in the day you had to  be issued with a FRTO (Flight Radio Telephone Operator) licence and know all of the correct pro-words and the phonetic NATO alphabet and be competent in communicating with ATC and getting read backs correct. I can't even understand what some of the foreign student pilots are saying at all and they are supposed to have been tested for their English comprehension and dialogue.

Sausage factory training academy... fortunately we have ADSB to see where they actually are in the sky!

 

CTA endorsement also requires completion of a written test; its not a big test; more to ensure the student knows correct procedure and which publications or sources to go to to access information.

 

Being able to competently maintain required altitude level and execute Tower vector and altitude change instructions upon request without delay is also required.

 

Some ATC's speak really fast and its difficult to get it all; so just ask them to slow down and repeat request. Listening to coms between IFR and Tower is often lightning quick; the coms being heard are mandatory procedural with both ends knowing beforehand what the communication and response is going to be. Listening to LiveATC website is a great way to become accustomed to the ATC environment; tune into Bankstown or Moorabbin for an hour each day or so for a week and listen to Tower and Ground op' frq's. By the time you take your checkflight CTA environments will feel more natural. It also gets you accustomed to "what" information to include on readbacks.

 

Dont forget the all important notepad and pencil to write down squak codes, flight levels, vectors, taxi ways, and runways when ATC provides requests; and have a detail ground map of the airfield at hand to refer to.

[Area-51]

For those putting themselves into the environment, this podcast may be very useful:

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/pilots-discretion-from-sportys/id1571051265

[Red]

On 16/06/2024 at 11:57 PM, kgwilson said:

The quality of radio transmissions has been discussed here before and there are some who can't even cope with CTAF transmissions let alone talking to ATC. I put a lot of this on to the poor training in radio etiquette by instructors, some of whom are pretty poor themselves. Back in the day you had to  be issued with a FRTO (Flight Radio Telephone Operator) licence and know all of the correct pro-words and the phonetic NATO alphabet and be competent in communicating with ATC and getting read backs correct. I can't even understand what some of the foreign student pilots are saying at all and they are supposed to have been tested for their English comprehension and dialogue.

The FRTOL is no longer a requirement for a PPL in Australia?

 

[spacesailor]

"No longer a requirement " .

Does that mean , I don't have to remove ' communication ' equipment from aircraft, when the new owner is not a licensed operator. 

Never did see those licenses for each part of the radio spectrum . 

As nothing more than revenue raising. 

spacesailor

[kgwilson]

9 hours ago, Red said:

The FRTOL is no longer a requirement for a PPL in Australia?

 

I know and that is partly responsible for the poor radio use by many pilots both GA & RA.

[Freizeitpilot]

On 06/05/2024 at 9:49 PM, Freizeitpilot said:

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!"

 

....and now the latest from "Australian Flying" magazine.......

 

CASA to reconvene Part 103 Working Group - Australian Flying

 

Glaciers move a lot faster.

[jackc]

The CEO of RAAus does not run the place, it’s all the mouth pieces behind her, with vested interests. I have NO faith in that place, except for a few technical people in it.