Jaba-who

In any other field of endeavour gaining only a 6 out of 10 would not be considered something good. Even if it’s less crap than it was it’s still crap.

Yep I accept that he has specifically referred to current aircraft that would currently fit into RAAus. But of course he has to, because currently CASA are offering two levels of medical for different pilots flying the same model aircraft etc. so it is logical to establish fairness on that patch of turf first. Any comparing of apples and oranges would be thrown out immediately ( even if a fruit salad was obviously coming) But of course everyone is otherwise posturing towards the next step - weight increase, CTA entry and it needs the first step of fairness to be established beyond doubt.

You can already do this in GA experimental. And no - there is currently no capacity for a certified aircraft to be maintained by an L2 and retain its GA status and value and many GA pilots who you are suggesting should become members of RAAus have certified aircraft. There is a minefield of issues about the status of aircraft having gone to RAAus then being restricted from going back to GA For sale etc. Plus as yet we are still talking about far off into the future events like RAAus weight increases and CTA access for these pilots if they converted. The likelihood is these changes will take far far longer than a more simple change of medical.

Mmm nope! The source legislation often does not carry or refer to the detail of the exemptions found in other parts of the entire air law. That’s the reason for all the layers of books we are talking about. Each outlines more details and if there are exceptions to the more general statements contained in the higher order text.

It’s a bit harder than that. If you have a kit build - I’m talking here about the current sutiuation and specifically about GA experimental so I am happy to accept it may be a bit different for RAAus and you build it yourself. The kit manufacturer has to have specified some weight specifications to get the kit approved. As the builder you could claim anything as the new weight but you would have to convince the person who issued the C of A that your weight is acceptable and the kit manufacturers weight is not. This would probably have to be accompanied by testing which you couldn’t do because you have to build it and get it approved at the normal weight and fly it first then change the weights to prove your weights ok. Once it’s approved at a specific weight it’s difficult to change it to something else. So it would be unlikely an authorised person would approve a weight that differed from the kit manufacturer.

I agree with your last bit but would suggest that your first bit is not a true reflection of reality. I’ve got way more education than Grade 9, basically as far up the education chain in my field that’s possible go, done 2 aviation licence exams that have air law, done 2 maintenance procedures course (the ones where you are taught how to read and find stuff in the AIP and various other CASA books and CASA website ) and honestly - it is not easy. If you can find it, which is sometimes near impossible; just about every rule is countered by an exemption or a modifier, some of which themselves are difficult to find. Some of the rules are not spelled out in black and white and clearly are written by someone who has never been in the applicable position because they just don’t make sense. The rules are ambiguously written and interpretation is often varied. If they weren’t we wouldn’t have all these discrepancies turning up all the time.

Not sure what you mean by this. There is no suggestion in the CASA releases ( unless they have said someelse recently that I messed) that you will have any capacity to nominate weight. They have stated the certified weight will be the ONLY weight you will be able to use. So if the RAAus weight went up to hypothetically 820 kg, but an aircraft is certified at say 890 kg then that’s it. You won’t be able to nominate say 820 kg and then only ever load it up to 820 kg nor pull out a seat or baggage compartment to limit the actual weight. You will only be allowed to take an aircraft that is certified at 820 kg and register it with RAAus. There is no change in the Jabiru weights. Those weights have been that way since they started selling the kits.

Without wanting to fan any flames I will have to jump to Jetjr's defence here. He has said he wasn't sure of the regs - not an unreasonable statment BUT more importantly all his assertions are correct.

You are correct that not ANY RAAus aircraft (even if transponder, radio and any other nit picking reference to equipment are present). There is reference in further paragraphs that pertain to engine types and airframe types. But for many aircraft types there’s no problem. Eg RAAus Jabirus currently operate in and out of Cairns Class C.

I did not say they were classified as inactive. I said they had gone inactive. If they now are active again under the same instrument then I am glad to hear it but it doesn’t change any of my factual statement. They do so only under an instrument.

Irrelevant to this argument. The requirement in question here is radio and transponder.

We’ve discussed this before ( or maybe was on another forum) and I have not only looked up the rules but also read the instruments. They are available on the Internet. There is the allowability for RAAus training organisations to function in class C or D under an instrument of authority. But as of about three months ago as I best recall are no current instruments allowing anyone to function in class C. The last I found was a Townsville establishment who had gone inactive. Anyone is allowed to apply and be considered but with no certainty of being allowed. There are about 6 or 8 instruments allowing operations in class D. As I recall all in Adelaide and Perth but could be wrong. I assume they are grandfathered from when they were GAAP airfields. But all are strictly for a specific aircraft ( rego and aircraft make and model are specified in the instrument) and owned and operated by a specific person also specified in the instrument. And all were strictly related to student pilots training in them. Once the pilot got qualified they were no longer allowed to use the aircraft in the class D airspace. There was a proposal to change the rules to allow those RAAUs pilots having qualified in that aircraft and airspace to then hire the aircraft from the organisation and operate in that airspace. I don’t know if that’s happened yet. There was not and never was any proposal to allow any other RAAus pilots or aircraft to enter the same CTA. Nor to allow those pilots to travel to any other CTA and fly in that airspace. There is a requirement for that pilot to extend their medical to a GA medical to retain that ability to fly as a hirer.

I think you’re using a bit of over generalisation there. “RAAus” does not have CTA access. The quoted CAO regs say RAAus has access but only if it fulfills further rules as outlined in section 7.3 and when you go there it says - (paraphrased) An RAAus pilot (who also a GA licence )has CTA access by virtue of their GA licence. IF they happen to be in an RAAus aircraft that’s equipped to the same standard as a GA aircraft. There are also a very small number of instruments to allow some training organisations to train RAAus in class D but they are for specific named organisations and only if they continue to be owned by the named person and only using the named aircraft with the nominated rego. None of the access is available to just any regular RAAus pilot.

As all have said above don’t make any short term plans based on the noise put out by CASA. Particularly not while CASAs proposed rules actively discriminate against GA pilots on the medical front. CASA seems intransigent about buckling on the medical stuff for GA (and has never suggested that maintenance will ever change beyond Schedule 8 maintenance for GA ) - so I suspect that this facet is going to slow down everything for RAAus because a win on weight will have to be accompanied by a lose on the maintenance and medicals. AOPA has already used the discrimination and the forcement of GA pilots into a private organisation as legal argument.

Riverfire has been going on for decades. Every year an F111, more recently hornets and some years a gaggle of blackhawks as well come through the same path and do the same things. I well remember and still have a photo of an F111 doing a dump and burn along the same stretch of river for Riverfire. Just another bunch of noise makers who want to complain about something and love the sound of their own voices.

Sorry can’t help you there. I was told. It was a trike of some sort. With a four stroke engine. I don’t know much about trikes Well actually that’s not true I know nothing about trikes.

Find out who you are going to use to calibrate it and ask them what ones they’d recommend. We have a guy in cairns who actually refuses to calibrate kinchromes. Says they are frequently go out of calibration as soon as they first get used after a calibration.

Well, yeah they “can” approve a flight without a radio too but that doesn’t mean they will. And it’s not that you can rely on it being available. Nev’s post seemed to indicate a transit version of CTA entry would only (normally ) require a radio.

At present there is no differentiation between transit access and complete access to CTA and I would have to suggest there should not be. The requirement for a transponder as well would not be waived ( nor should it) for entry/transit of CTA.

Humans have a number of inbuilt cognitive biases. One of them ( I forget it’s proper “xx bias” nomenclature ) is that when shown something new humans jump to an immediate opinion based on nothing more than a like or dislike. The strength that that this belief is held varies from person to person and is highest in the poorly educated or poorly experienced and sadly is more affected the older you get. In some studies age overrides experience or education. Only after this position is in place they then seek reasons to back up their already placed preference. Some people will go to extremes of irrational evidence to support this position while ignoring strong valid evidence that does not support their belief.

Don’t know what the mates qualifications were/are. But was not the instructor who taught him to fly originally.

Further info. Trike “ultralight”. Pilot who had taken up flying late and took many hours more than usual to learn to fly. Had bought a two stroke and instructor felt it was about suited to his skill level. His mate apparently convinced him to upgrade and get a bigger four stroke machine to go touring. Spent the day with the mate two up in the new machine. Then went solo for first time in the new machine. Take off went bad - rolled one way then the other and then nose down at full power rolling dive into the trees. His instructor thinks he probably was not used to the change in performance solo plus maybe difference in torque of the four stroke created the roll that he didn’t correct quickly enough.

I’ve used “I require”! twice in my twenty years of flying. The one described at Willy and once when directed to hold and orbit over mountainous country just west of cairns in huge turbulence with only 500 ft clearance between the cloud base and the trees and I asked them to vector me out. They replied I had to hold where I was for some reason and when I got hit with another hammer blow of turbulence I called em and “I require vectors to vacate the area immediately otherwise tracking xxx degrees at tree top height.” Got response I wanted a tracked out of the washing machine. No follow up or problems from CASA on either account so someone else must have agreed with me.

I'm more concerned that controller could not see the problem and would not allow or try to block a pilot from coming in. I can understand in a stressful situation the pilot has tried to explain a bad situation but because in the stress of the moment he doesn't think to utter the words he is blocked out. Of course the pilot could override the controller ( as it seems he finally did) but it sounds like he felt he could be pushed around by the controller. I was flying past williamtown a few years back in an R44 when we got hit by huge westerly winds gusting up to about 60 knots and turbulence was the roughest I've I've ever felt. Couldn't fly nose forward due to left pedal reaching the stops. Pitch was such I still am sure I was near chopping the tail boom off. Anyway called willy tower advised I needed to enter and land. They responded to confirm I was south of some point and to turn south and depart the area. As it happened I wasn't I was basically coast abeam Willy so said no to which they responded they wanted me to try to go south. My response was " I require entry and landing at Willy immediately. Tracking xxx at yyy ft inbound this time! " and from then on they were really helpful. Sometimes pilots need to remember that if they consider it justifiable the ATC can be under their direction not just the other way round.

Sort of disturbing to think that despite adequate transmission of concern and information it requires the uttering of specific words to have people act in a reasonable manner.