skybum Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hot news people. It would appear that RAA has been refused the amendments in CAO95 to allow access to controlled airspace. Minimum requirment is PPL. Will await the official announcment but the buzz is solid on the intel!
farri Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Could anyone realy be supprised???????????????:baldy: Frank.
skybum Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 I reckon there are a few exPPL refugees who are hitting their own heads against the wall, Frank. Admittedly, having the current RAA regs with that section included gave the impression of a forgone conclusion....now it is just plain gornnnn.
Guest JRMobile Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 It's probably not a bad thing though. Could you expand a little on this comment. cheers JR
Tracktop Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 From a novice understanding point of view I think it's a bugger. Why ( my limited understanding - correct me if I am wrong) - Maitland sits on the edge of CTA but only weekdays during the day. Other times Mornings, evenings and weekend are CTAFR so that large area is currently available to fly through, land in - not the AP in particular. There are a number of ac that have and use landing options ( paddocks / strips) in this area. Flying through the edges of this area is safer than other routes heading east as it is less populated and has less tigers and more EO options. D. Sm in his wisdom has managed to convince the powers to be that this area should have 24/7 CTA. This is in the process of being implemented, so locking up an important flying area to some at least. I am a trike pilot ( yes my choice). If I had a PPL I could fly my trike into this area ( after meeting the other conditions like transponder.) Any trike flying hours do not count towards PPL unlike rec 3 axis ( according to another thread ) so to get PPL I would have to start from scratch. Again from a novice point - in trying to learn as much as possible in my newly chosen sport, it would seem to me that one very common factor in trike accidents around the world is pilots have previous 3 axis training - often very experienced 3 axis pilots. So if I have to get my PPL does that then greatly compromise my safety in either or both aircraft types. Surely the additional requirements to fly into CTA is primarily theory ie procedures, regs, requirements. - assuming that the rec pilot has good flying skills. To me it seems it's not just flying into the BIG few airports that is the issue. Additional rec lic categories shouldn't effect those who don't want to proceed that way. Just like you don't have to get XC if you don't want. Ray
Guest Orion Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 People We really should wait for an announcement. The supposed "solid intel" may be nothing more than pure bullXXXX. after reading this I made the effort to ring RAA. Nothing is known about it so maybe just maybe there is nothing to this at all. Guess what i'll do next is call CASA and see if they have any comment on it. Beats wasting everyones time speculating.
ahlocks Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 ...and one other snake in the grass :Disappointed: forum member when the time is right...
Guest Crezzi Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Again from a novice point - in trying to learn as much as possible in my newly chosen sport, it would seem to me that one very common factor in trike accidents around the world is pilots have previous 3 axis training - often very experienced 3 axis pilots. So if I have to get my PPL does that then greatly compromise my safety in either or both aircraft types. Simple answer = NO getting your PPL wouldn't (or shouldn't) compromise your safety in the trike. Many trike pilots eventually descend down the food chain & get 3-axis certification. Its worth remembering that with 500 hours on (say) trikes you would still be a novice with (say) 50 hours 3-axis. And vice versa of course. Just because you would be confident and competent to fly in certain conditions in the type you are most familiar with doesn't mean you should do so on the type in which you are less experienced. This might account for the accidents you are thinking of but, many many pilots fly competently with both control systems and I don't personally believe it is generally a factor in accidents. Cheers John
Guest brentc Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I wish to advise that unfortunately this IS true and the RA-Aus office does in fact know about it and that the letter informing them about it was received this morning, however the letter was in circulation on Wednesday. Note that the CTA part is only 1 component of a bigger picture and remember that this picture includes: - Over 5,000ft operations - Over water flights - 760 kg's of which none have been rejected as yet. Why did this happen? Possibly with the recent (imminent) changes of GAAP to Class D airspace CASA do not want the headache of potentially thousands of additional aircraft in what is already airspace that is causing massive headaches for them. Take Moorabbin for example. Loosely, it's full up on the weekends in the circuit and can't physically handle more aircraft. Keeping out RA-Aus for the time being will keep this problem under control. It is NOT off the cards forever, but rather just a minor setback, so don't slit your wrists just yet.
skeptic36 Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Many trike pilots eventually descend down the food chain & get 3-axis certification. Cheers John Your a bad bad man John :no no: .You better:run: cos when you them 3 axis boys and girls they're gonna open up a can o':mulie:on you
Matt Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 My opinion only and likely to stir the pot as usual...I think this is a vote for common sense...assuming it's true of course. There is an existing system in place for aircraft and pilots to operate in controlled airspace, why try to duplicate that which already exists?
Guest Mad Dave Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 And if you really want to go into controlled airspace, it isn't really that hard to get and maintain a PPL
Guest Crezzi Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 And if you really want to go into controlled airspace, it isn't really that hard to get and maintain a PPL And arguably could even be quicker than doing the RAAus CTR endorsement syllabus though it is tough for weightshift only pilots. John
Admin Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I am waiting on an email of the official letter that has been sent to me to arrive and I will then post it in the RAAus News in the Australian section of the site. It will let everyone know more
Simonflyer Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 After much thought, and please dont whack me for saying this, but i think its not a bad decision. If we want to fly in CTA with everyone else, we should have the same training standards and license's.My limited knowledge of RA operations is that overall training standards are on the rise, and this is a good thing, but it would only take a few incidents for all RA flyers to wear the actions of a few nuffers who havent been trained to standard.... We should keep RA flying recreational As was mentioned earlier, it really isnt that hard to get a PPL and maintain it, and that should be encouraging if you really want to fly CTA. Now that im flying in GA and RA i can see the benefits to them both, and if RA keeps moving towards being a mini GA, costs will increase and so will the weight of the world when there are incidents.. I like Ra being Recreational...Just my opinion..And yes it is a pain for people flying right next to CTA..Maybe we go for some kind of a transiting rule??It just gets complicated again!:confused:
hihosland Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 It frightens me to see where RAA is aiming with faster, bigger, more complex aircraft and pitching for above 5000 ft and CTA endorsements. I fear that some day a heavy, fast RAA aircraft will be involved in a fatality within CTA and the reaction by the media, the coroner and other authorities will be to close down the priveledges currently enjoyed by RAA owner/pilots. I don't see the requirement of a full PPL an excessive burden for those who aspire to fly pseudo GA aircraft. Outside of the medical there is essentially no difference between the skill/competency requirements for an OCTA PPL and a RAA certificate. To my mind it would be a tragic if the rush for bigger, faster, higher the sub-550kg, sub-80knts aircraft became sidelined. Unfortunately that seems to be happening. 'dems my thoughts Davidh
Spriteah Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Well I am very interested in this one. Firstly, I will say that the RAA proposed training I believe was going to be more involved than PPL. If that is correct (an I have not seen the package) then the comments from GA pilots on here would be moot. More importantly most RAA Pilots would not go near CTA. You would need a TSO ASI, ALT, and a transponder that is all in test (certified). If your plane does not already have that the cost would be between 2 to 4 thousand dollars. So the traffic increase would be very minor. But watching with anticipation. Jim
Guest brentc Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I have already seen the letter from CASA. There is no identifiable justification so you will be disappointed I'm afraid. Hopefully it will be tabled again in the near future and the outcome will be positive. It is simply bad timing due to the recent gaap fatalities and gaap restructure currently going on. CASA are after less traffic in gaap, not more and to be realistic, the major entry into cta for raaus pilots is likely to be in gaap which can't handle the extra traffic right now. When gaap is converted to class d early next year it will be even worse. If you think raaus is getting a raw deal, spare a thought for GA with their near 1 hour taxi times in some gaap's.
Guest basscheffers Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 More importantly most RAA Pilots would not go near CTA. You would need a TSO ASI, ALT, and a transponder that is all in test (certified). If your plane does not already have that the cost would be between 2 to 4 thousand dollars. If all you want to go is into the GAAP (or class D) you would not need a transponder. The traffic increase from private pilots would not be great at first as you say, but there are lots of schools eager to start training RAA in GAAPs and that could certainly increase the traffic. Even in GAAP, you easily save yourself $50-60 an hour training RA instead of GA, which is attractive, not to mention the location of GAAPs would open up the possibility for training to those who do not wish to travel an hour and a half to get to an OCTA airfield. (like I would have to for Aldinga or Murray Bridge, when Parafield is on my doorstep) I am still all for the CTA endorsement. Here at Parafield we could certainly handle the traffic, but I understand CASAs concerns about some other GAAPs. Sounds to me like the Parafield schools need to start advertising in the other cities, pointing out there are no 1 hour taxis here! (please don't, I like YPPF quiet)
turboplanner Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Take Moorabbin for example. Loosely, it's full up on the weekends in the circuit and can't physically handle more aircraft. Keeping out RA-Aus for the time being will keep this problem under control.Attached are the national movements. Moorabbin is down from its 1989 heyday of 395,000, so I don't accept the volume argument. The Tower Control argument might be another matter, but the fact is we've done it before. I don't think an RA accident would becessarily be stigmatized either. Of course you have to remember that CASA have the records on the incidents, accidents, fatalities, public behaviour and they are able to navigate a website as part of their research. Not all of that information is squeaky clean just yet.
John Brandon Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I am waiting on an email of the official letter that has been sent to me to arrive and I will then post it in the RAAus News in the Australian section of the site.It will let everyone know more I placed Lee Ungermann's advice to members and John Mc Cormick's letter on the RA-Aus website today. I've also added a listing of the 304 CASR Part 139 certified aerodromes and registered aerodromes where the proposed mandatory carriage of VHF radios imight become compulsory. John Brandon
Admin Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Thanks John Lee phoned me yesterday and said he sent a copy of the letter to me by email to post here for all RAAus members (still haven't received the email) so I have posted the RAAus copy - it's on the Australian site home page under RAAus News
Guest Cloudsuck Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 When gaap is converted to class d early next year it will be even worse. If you think raaus is getting a raw deal, spare a thought for GA with their near 1 hour taxi times in some gaap's. Yes... I don't know what they hope to achieve. By turning a GAAP into Class D you will still enter via the same inbound points and it will still be procedural separation (VFR are not separated from VFR in Class D). You will require a taxi clearance (not many fatalities occur during taxi) and the frequency will be congested with those stupid outbound departure calls (Alpha Bravo Charlie departed at four five, tracking two five six, on climb two thousand five hundred, estimate Humptydoo at five niner). On a side note, I have heard that the new CEO of CASA is a good guy but is one that has come up through the RAAF and then the airlines. He apparently has little understanding or time for grass roots aviation and was a big influence in knocking back the CTA endorsement.
Guest ozzie Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 He apparently has little understanding or time for grass roots aviation brilliant just what i need someone else to go into battle against.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now