Move over RAA here comes CASA

[turboplanner]

I think you're on the right track Thalass, separating requirements for the various types/areas of flying, but the people directly involved would need to put some long term work in.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

Any piece of equipment that interacts with Airservices has got to be TSO'd and in the case of any new installation of mode S, a discreet code is allocated each and every aircraft. This would make the idea of a shared portable transponder most unlikely, even for mode C.

 

Transponders are mandatory for all aircraft operating in controlled airspace and class E airspace (which will include a lot of coastal airspace that can be used if RA-Aus are allowed to fly above 5000ft).

 

They are not only an ATC tool, but TCAS, (traffic collision avoidance system), in most RPT aircraft can, and do, interrogate your transponder to avoid pranging into you.

 

If you fly in congested CTAF's where RPT operate or want to operate in class E airspace, you are both wise and compliant to have a transponder. You would also be more likely to get a transit clearance through controlled airspace if CASA deem that a reasonable request as has been put to them. Airservices would be liable to you to provide this service especially in stress of weather or geography or emergency.

 

Because they are a TSO item, they are expensive. Yellow tagged US prices fetch minimum around $600 and upwards. But then again I've seen people in $20,000 aeroplanes spend 10% of that value on a GPS. How safe and how compliant you want to fly is up to you of course.

 

 

[Mazda]

At present transponders are not mandatory for flight in 'controlled' airspace. They are required for flight in Class A, C and E airspace. Flight into Class D (and current GAAP) does not currently require a transponder. Most places in the world do not require transponders in Class E either, the fact that we have the requirement was the result of a "deal" made some time ago.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Just a thought

 

Just a thought, slightly off topic but what about splitting aircraft catagories to say LSA factory built with CASA guidelines re engine etc. with CTA training for pilots to access or at least transit CTA.

 

Say, 100kn verified cruise, transponder and radio.

 

I doubt many slower aircraft owners would consider going into CTA anyway by what I have read in these posts.

 

I fit into the above suggested category but personally I would not bother to pursue mainly due to the extra work load it would require for a pilot of my age.

 

The above 5000' would bring you into contact with most GA fliers that are in your area. I certainly follow these guys on the area frequencies with their calls to centre and at times I have made contact with them to relay my position etc, if a possible height or course conflict is a possibility. So bring that one on.

 

My thoughts.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

At present transponders are not mandatory for flight in 'controlled' airspace

Really?

 

A,C and D "ARE" controlled.

 

GAAP does not require a transponder, however it is yet to be seen where CASA end up with the transition from GAAP to D towered airports.

 

fact that we have the requirement was the result of a "deal" made some time a

If you call Australia being an ICAO, signatory a "deal" then we are on par with the rest of the world.

 

The above 5000' would bring you into contact with most GA

RA-Aus is part of GA. You have as much right to that airspace as anybody else does, provided you are suitably qualified to use a radio, have what is necessary by way of mandatory equipment like a transponder in class E, and use common sense and airmanship.

 

An aircraft with a VH registration has no rights or claims to ownership of that airspace.

 

If you have right of way over an RPT SAAB in your Jabiru, you can exercise that right. (however as an act of courtesy and to prevent abrasive comments on PPRune and the like, I would pay him the courtesy and let him through).

 

I doubt many slower aircraft owners would consider going into CTA

Many can and do. If you were suitably equipped and were faced with flight over dense timbered mountainous country in marginal weather, and a safer coastal route was available, wouldn't you use that option if available to you?

 

GA pilots just don't just fly into CTA, they are endorsed to do so as part of their flight test. There are some that don't make the grade and have their licences marked OCTA only. RA-Aus has this facility available now to endorse your certificate if you are so qualified.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Just a thought, slightly off topic but what about splitting aircraft catagories to say LSA factory built with CASA guidelines re engine etc. with CTA training for pilots to access or at least transit CTA.Say, 100kn verified cruise, transponder and radio.

I doubt many slower aircraft owners would consider going into CTA anyway by what I have read in these posts.

 

I fit into the above suggested category but personally I would not bother to pursue mainly due to the extra work load it would require for a pilot of my age.

 

The above 5000' would bring you into contact with most GA fliers that are in your area. I certainly follow these guys on the area frequencies with their calls to centre and at times I have made contact with them to relay my position etc, if a possible height or course conflict is a possibility. So bring that one on.

 

My thoughts.

I think that I'd prefer to see a simple system. the way things are going is OK. I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect in the not too distant future, that any pilot should have access to CTA with the right training (weather RAAus or GA) and with the right gear (radio and transponder). Lets don't even think about creating another them and us divide??? There is no reason in the world why a slow a/c should be discriminated against. How are you going to set and then enforce a defferentiation based on speed????

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

My thinking was along the lines of RAA registered aircraft llke Tecnam, Texan, Jabiru etc. when I mentioned the speed. These would be 24 registration and also experimental if approved by CASA. There are some VH reg slower planes at the moment which would not be a hassle as they are already GA qualified for CTA.

 

Yes I agree that we don't want a division but I was trying to think around the access to CTA and controlled aerodromes and the objections that CASA has to our access and this could be a way around it!!!.But you are probably right.

 

I was not aware that one could get an endorsement for CTA at this stage. How and where?

 

This would fix the problem as I see it if correct.

 

Re the 5000' What I really meant but was not very plain in my post was that you would encounter MORE traffic above 5000' than below. My experience anyway.

 

I believe that a resposible pilot would not fly over tiger in adverse weather. If he happened to be caught out, I believe that help can still be obtained from the area freq. I know I would ask if in trouble.

 

That's it.

 

Happy New Year to all.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Pduthoit, I don't see any reason to disadvantage or discriminate against any section of our RAAus fleet, we all fly, and why would an owner of a slower a/c not want or need access to CTA any different from anyone else. It will come in time and there is no reason to exclude anyone. As to your question about CTA endorsements, CTA endorsments are are available there was a fair bit involved, lots of study and flying but I got one from the Aero Club of Tasmania, they called it a PPL but to me its a CTA endorsement.

 

Sirius, May I offer a word of wisdom (advice really), think carefully about anything that Mazda posts. I have found her to be considered and accurate, I'm guessing at about a 95% failure rate if you want to take her on, she knows her stuff.

 

Cheers, and happy new year, the beginning of the last year of the 199th decade. Qwerty.:thumb_up:

 

 

[Yenn]

Qwerty. I have a PPL but I cannot fly into controlled airspace. I still have to have a current medical. To call the PPL a CTA endorsement is a bit of a play on words and not what those RAAus certificate holders want to hear.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

Qwerty;

 

Without wanting to re-open the airspace debates, Mazda is essentially correct about "deals" and who did what with the NAS2B episode. However the fact is that if you want to fly in class E airspace, in Australia you will need a transponder. As an ICAO signatory, we have certain obligations, but our regulator seems bent toward making things peculiar to Australia. What will happen with regard to The GAAP/ D towers is anybody's guess at the moment. I don't envisage there will be transponder requirement as there is none now at places like Rockhampton and Albury. There is a requirement if you consider flying in any other CTR including getting a transit clearance if ever CASA give the OK.

 

happy new year to you all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As to your question about CTA endorsements, CTA endorsments are are available there was a fair bit involved, lots of study and flying but I got one from the Aero Club of Tasmania, they called it a PPL but to me its a CTA endorsement.

Play fair now QWERTY, you'll have hordes of RA pilots applying for a mythical endorsement.

 

PPL is not to be taken lightly, and although a number of people have made getting a PPL sound simple, it's the work/admin/hours/cost to stay current that makes it a more serious commitment.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Fair enough guys, but I expect that a CTA endorsement will come with a medical requirement anyway. And maintaining my PPL is not too onerous, $132 fee for the licence and I do my PPL and RAAus BFR (OK AFR) concurrentlywith a GA/RAAus instructor. Do 'em both at once. Not too dear.

 

 

[Mazda]

Sirius, transponders are not required in Class D, which is 'controlled' airspace. That's what I was getting at. Class A, C and E are controlled and require transponders.

 

It is my understanding that ICAO does not require transponder carriage in Class E, but transponders are required in Australian Class E for reasons I won't go into here.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

I did warn you Sirius. :spruce_up:

 

 

[Guest sirius]

We are in total agreement except class E airspace is not controlled airspace. It is available for RA-Aus to use subject to a transponder and radio if the 5000ft limit is removed.

 

ICAO class E is typical of the Australian peculiar requirements I mentioned before, despite us being a signatory to that treaty.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

David your understanding is correct. EXCEPT. The term BFR is no longer used by CASA, someone in CASA has had a brain fade, evidently there was someone continuing to fly rotary wings claming that he was current because his fixwing BFR was current. Now we have the AFR.....wait for it.......this is a gem......are you ready......Aircraft Flight Review, its still biennial BTW. One word is sufficient here.....wankers.

 

happy new year. Qwerty

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was a bit concerned at your criticism of CASA QWERTY, so I tried to find out how many employees Dotars has covering aviation.

 

It appears impudent enquiries like mine are not encouraged because after ten minutes or so of searching I couldn't find the answer to that simple question. SoI don't know if it's hundreds, or thousands.

 

However, Airservices had thoughtfully provided information on the preparation of Santa and the elves, and on December 25 (double time? triple time?) loaded the site to say that he had concluded a successful flight.

 

I bet they don't do that for you Qwerty.

 

And I bet Santa isn't up to date with his AFR, unless someone has been flown to the North Pole to do a sleigh appraisal course.

 

Interesting how Airservices spend our money, isn't it.

 

Before the BFR was changed to AFR there must have been many meetings, debates, positions and so on, all paid for by us taxpayers, and this sort of minutae, with no real safety outcome is one of the things which really gets up my nose about this organization.

 

It's almost like they make changes, then lie in wait to catch us out.

 

Why ever would you give up the clear message that a pilot needs to come in every two years for a major test, and replace it with something which could mean a check after some advanced training.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Airservices and dare I say it, CASA seem to have that basis to be reasonable organisations. From a broader perspective, all the problems with both organisations seem to me to be linked to a couple of driving forces that, if removed would see a marked imrpovement in both organisations. The problems seem to me be:

 

Buerocracy gone mad.

 

Arxx covering gone mad

 

Paying too much attention to the RPT lobbyists

 

I would also suggest that a heap of idiot rules could go out the window and what's left could be written in english and in order so that you don't have to spend day ferreting around for obscure exceptions.

 

OK rant over, I feel better now.

 

 

[BigPete]

It's the old "Bull%^&* Baffles Brains" in operation. thumb_down

 

Use some big words, :confused: invent a few new ones (Little Kevy Crudd is so good at it :broken_heart:) and say it like it was cast in stone - you will convince 95% of the public. :yuk: (unless they fly aeroplanes, then your down to 2% - but there just aint enough of us!!)

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

David, your GA BFR (screw em a BFR is a BFR) is valid for your RAAus licence IF your GA instructor is also an RAAus instructor and he makes the RAAus BFR entry in your log book and sends off the paperwork. You can do both flight tests concurrently = save $.

 

Don't be afraid of MAZDA....be very afraid. No, I'm joking, she is just on top of aviation, she is currently doing her instructor rating, so she is very current too. And just for the record, she actually thinks too, her posts are considered. I, (that is, me) would tread very carefully before taking her to task on anything.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Nah, not me, you have seen my posts, does that look like the work of a chiken. I guess the point is that if I find myself at odds with her, there is a reasonable chance that I need to do more research.

 

 

 

[Guest sirius]

If you want to see your taxpayer dollar at work, check this little gem out;

 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project MS 09/22

 

Re Mazda. I yield to her female right to have the last say and acknowledge we can't play "mine is bigger than yours" so I am at a slight disadvantage with my 45 years in the industry.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

If you want to see your taxpayer dollar at work, check this little gem out;Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project MS 09/22

That's gold. Its like Ozzie's signature, Be ware of this sign.....I love it.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

My understanding is that if you are PPL with current medical ( because without the medical you are not PPL) you can fly an RAA aircraft (of the correct type) as long as it has a certified engine into CTA with appropriate clearances and in most cases that will mean you will need a transponder (you need a transponder just to go down Victor 1 in any AC). Can someone confirm that for me please.

Happy new one to you too David. Good to see everyone having a mass debate this morning instead of nursing hangovers.

 

Just a couple of other things, I believe you can only fly RAA registered aircraft if you have an RAA certificate. So for CTA in an RAAus plane, you would need RAAus cert, current PPL, Xpndr and an appropriate engine.

 

Second, you don't need a Xpndr to fly Victor 1. It is a VFR transit lane OCTA.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

I'm reasonably certain you don't need one. At least, they haven't knocked on my door.

 

It doesn't mention the requirement in ERSA under V1 procedures.

 

You are certainly not watched by Sydney Radar, and there are no RPTs at 500 feet.

 

The requirement is to broadcast your position and direction to anyone else on V1 to provide self-separation.