Roundsounds

Yes, many times and this weekend should be great. They're flying all of the aircraft that are currently serviceable.

Not necessarily referring to elected positions, it seems like ground hog day. Maybe some fresh ideas are needed?

Doesn't surprise me at all, it's time for some fresh blood in there.

After watching the RAAus video of the QandA session following the AGM, it seems we can forget any MTOW increase or CTA privileges for a few more years. The latest Board communique makes for interesting reading, telling us how well things are going with highlights like: - lobbying CASA for better outcomes for sport aviation. CASA have put CTA/MTOW on the back burner, I wonder if the lobbying helped that situation? - finances going well, including an interesting description of depreciation from an accounting perspective. Expecting a small cash surplus, I wonder if that was before the board graciously donated $30,000 of RAAus' funds to the 2017 Narromine AVA event? - another round of strategic planning under way. I wonder what ever happened to the last strategic plan? It seemed to vanish as the target dates were adjusted, then not met.

Timely following my comments regarding airport viability: Will Australia's small airports soon be a thing of the past? - RN - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Ah and blindly abeying "Rules of Thumb"...

Essentially you would need to demonstrate proficiency and meet the minimum hour requirements. Your previous aeronautical experience count towards both RPL/RPC. You'd find that by the time you reach proficiency and complete some solo consolidation you'd have the minimum hours satisfied to obtain the RPL or RPC. The Nav endorsement would be additional training and theory. The best investment you'll make is spending some time going to visit a few GA and RAA flying schools and seek their guidance. If they tell you none of your previous hours can be taken into account, walk away. Also try and talk to some of their students, note whether there are pre/post flight briefings and have a look at the condition of the aircraft. Generally, your time travelling to a distant airport is cheaper than settling with a closer sub-standard flying school. This might even mean saving up some cash and doing a live in course. Dan Compton at a Dubbo and Sheldon Jones at Moruya are a couple I could recommend.

I have just read this great article on AVWEB, pretty sums up my thoughts on spin training. I'm not a fan of the Muller (hands off) recovery technique, certainly no harm in going through the training, but cannot see any practical application for non-aerobatic pilots as most stall/spin accidents happen too low for it to be used. Here's the article: Spin Training? Yes - AVweb Features Article

So you're both deluded enough to think RAAus management would respond to input from a lone member?

I'm glad you How did you come up with the conclusion that RAAus had prioritised CTA over weight from my ramblings? My business sustainability comment is about aviation in Australia in general. The majority of airports I use are under utilised and given the approach of user pays it's only a matter of time before these are assets are repurposed. (Read developed for residential or industrial purposes.) My local Council wanted to close the tip because it wasn't profitable - I can only imagine what they'd want to do to an airport. I see RAAus waisting an enormous amount of time and effort in pursuing the airspace issue from the wrong angle.

If you're suggesting I failed as a GA operator you're wrong, I sold my business at profit and moved up the food chain. My interest is simply seeing a fair and sustainable aviation industry. If you allow the only growing sector of the small end of aviation to access controlled aerodromes, it can only help sustain a rapidly declining industry. With the ever reducing utilisation of airports, the cost per movement will continue to increase. I recently conducted approximately 20 hours of flying training with a retired airline Captain in his newly acquired GA aircraft. This training was primarily conducted at a Class D airport, there is no way the movement fees would go anywhere near meeting the cost of the airport or air traffic services whilst we operated. At times we operated in the circuit area for an hour and was the only aircraft flying. Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

You make many uniformed or incorrect statements in your response, so I won't bother addressing them. Maybe you could take the time to review the relevant rule sets, as indicated I operate within both systems and have a working knowledge of them. You will find the Gliding Australia exemption under CAO 95.4 and the Gliding Aust operations manual is freely available from their website.

At no point was I suggesting access to controlled airspace for incompetent pilots. There is simply no justification for the blanket airspace restrictions imposed upon RAAus pilots, access should be competency based. The present system allows RAAus pilots under training to operate from controlled aerodromes, the minute they obtain a pilot certificate they're banned. As a grade 1 GA instructor, former ATO and RAAus CFI I find the system to be inconsistent and discriminatory. I can train a pilot to the same standard in either RAA or GA, one is permitted to operate in CTA/CTR and the other is not. The RAAus pilot can do a medical, some paperwork and a GA Flight review to convert their RPC to an RPL, they too can then access CTA/CTR in their RAAus registered aircraft. The only difference being a couple of pieces of paper costing upwards of $5K - zero difference in competency or safety. Meanwhile, at Camden (Class D) you've got glider pilots flying over populous areas, on a self certified medical, with only a certificate issued by Gliding Australia. These pilots are trained by instructors not requiring any powered aeroplane experience or comprehensive airspace training as required by GA. The same glider pilots can complete a self launching glider qualification and operate in all controlled airspace and aerodromes. I'm in no way suggesting the glider pilots to be incompetent, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in regulations. The regs as applied to glider pilots would seem to be the standard, I don't see a whole lot of incident reports in the ATSB weekly summaries for airspace issues. The limitations on RAAus ops would most likely stem from the days of the single seat "flying clothesline" style aircraft and the associated self training system.

Which particular piece of BS are you referring to?

It's was stated at the QandA session following the AGM 23/9. You can watch the recording online via Facebook on their FB page. I don't know why RAAus don't simply insist on the same privileges as the Gliding federation and Ballooning Assn - they have access without a CASA licence or medical And minimal training. I understand that CASA are in breach of the Civil Aviation Act by discriminating against RAAus without any safety justification.

"a comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it you'll find it" Hmmm, the program doesn't read that way. It looks like the highlight of Saturday is the paper plane competition! The RAAus Weight increase and CTA presentations are bound to be interesting, particularly given CASA have put them on the back burner.

That'd be a Howard 500. I sat under the shade of it at Airventure 2017. Howard 500 - Wikipedia

Not so, the recommendations in CAAP 166 have been developed over many years of experience and research into incidents. Making more than the recommended calls creates a situation whereby busy airports (or airports in close proximity using a common frequency) leads to over-transmissions and a lack of "airtime" to make necessary calls. It also makes flight training difficult - I stop talking to students when radio transmissions are made by other aircraft so both me and student can hear and react to them. More and more I'm hearing routine multiple unessessary calls being made by pilots. Unfortunately this is being taught by both GA and RAA.

Ask this CFI to educate you by showing you this regulation. It simply doesn't exist!! There's way too much quoting of regulations that don't exist by people who are supposed to know their stuff.

We need to get the various representative organisations to work together to sort out this ridiculous situation!

Why add 3 additional calls to those recommended in the CAAP in a publication intended to be educational to RAAus members? The table in the CAAP lists 6 calls, the author lists 8, having added "about to initiate takeoff" and "clear of runways" to the table and "mandatory base call" in the body of the article. Additional broadcasts are only required if there is a potential of conflict, but to routinely make additional calls is poor airmanship. It displays a lack of knowledge and/or disregard for safe practice recommendations.

The problem with asking, rather than referring to the official documents (CAAP 166 and AIP) being that you'll pick up people's personal preferences and lack of knowledge, resulting in the proliferation of incorrect practices. The latest radio guidance in the RAAus magazine is a classic case, the table of "radio procedures" is not as per CAAP 166 and mentions the "mandatory base call" (no such thing)

Absolutely nothing wrong with this operation, assuming there were no other aircraft in the circuit. Anyone else departing / arriving would make the appropriate calls which would alert the aircraft in the circuit and likely prompt further broadcasts from them. The growing trend for continuous radio babble is in fact reducing safety, not improving it. The regs and guidance regarding RT at non-towered airports is written the way it is deliberately. If there was a case / evidence for multiple calls / circuit or "as recommended" by the various "experts" teaching this poor behaviour CASA would mandate it.

Although I tend to agree and I have spent my entire working life working within / teaching these rules. They are a complete horses bum when you stand back and look at them objectively. As an exercise, try explaining the purpose of the various references, Act, CAR, CASR, CAO, CAAP, AC, AIP, ERSA etc to a non-aviator who is interested in learning to fly. Then explain where to find the airspace rules relating to a local flight for the holder of an RPL with Nav endorsement from a class D metro airport.