Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You

[Jabawocky]

Well it seems the RAAus will not be getting the CTA endorsement deal.

So back to what I have posted many times before. If you want CTA, go get the medical, as you would have had to do anyway, and do your PPL, extra training just as you would have had to do anyway.

And............ the bonus! You will not be clogging up the RAAus system with more work and you (the minority of RAAus members) who want the CTA endo will not drive costs up through the roof for all your fellow members. It really is a blessing in disguise. Some of you will spit chips, but I see only positives from this.

I think this is a Win / Win.:ok:

At last a CASA boss with Brains and some Common Sense to go with it. :D


PS : the other bonus is if you do the PPL and CTA training, you will open up a whole heap of extra possibilities of aircraft hire and extra pax possibilities for the odd time you may want to use it.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Jaba, this thread would be better posted in that other site that we are all banned from, rather than here, but I have no idea how you're gonna do that. :E

Are there likely to be many RAA only pilots hanging about here?

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

in the words of Col. Nathan Jessop....." YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH".....and they can't!............too bad...:{

[The Green Goblin]

increase safety by not forcing RAA transit over tiger country and with CTA privelages they could transit safely.

It increases safety by keeping them out :ok:

[carbon]

:ok:Exactly, RAA is fantastic for that which it's designed, though one can not have one's cake and eat it too.

Common sense prevails.:eek:

[gassed budgie]

I was speaking recently to one of those nice people from CASA and he said that as long as John McCormick is running the show, RAA into CTA just isn't going to happen. Ever!
They stood a chance of it happening with Bruce Byron, but McCormick is evidently dead against it.

[PyroTek]

Firstly: Open to constructive criticism, haven't done all that much CTA work just yet, and no flames, thankyou.

I agree with the RAA-not-in-CTA movement personally, but looking from the other side, speaking of the issue of RAA aircraft having to fly over tiger country to get from A-B OCTA, what if they were permitted limited CTA privileges unless required to do otherwise by an Air Traffic Controller, for example, being 'endorsed' to transit class C (and D?) airspace, but not land or do anything else, except being instructed on what to do by the ATC?
(though this could lead to some "I didn't know we couldn't LAND here" situations):confused:

:ok:Pyro

[Jabawocky]

Pyro dear chap, a few thoughts for your question,

Brisbane CTA = Tiger Country
Sydney CTA = Tiger Country
Melbourne CTA = Tiger Country
Adelaide......:rolleyes:....who goes there:E
Perth.....Don't think Tigers are that silly, but its the same kind of built up area, so Tiger County
Darwhine....Tinpis would shoot em....so its Tiger Country :}


now lets look at the regionals......ummmm only excuse I can think of is Canberra, and lets face it we are talking Recreational Aviation Aust....so why would you want to go there:ok:. The rest say like Cairns and Townsville the country surrounding is actually more friendly than through the CTA.

Most other towers like Alice or Launy or Tindal even will let you in if you ask nicely as they know they are remote and the only fuel sources around, so there are some common sense applications.

Let me introduce you to some of the "Old Fart Flying Club" folk some of whom had Casa licences and are just not interested any more, you will get the idea then. Those that really need it can go do the PPL and Medical and it will cost them about the same anyway. I think it was an ego thing, and a path to trouble!

John McCormick has really done the RAA members a big favour.

J:ok:

PS: If you took a survey of the folk who would have actually put their money where their mouth was and done the training.....I bet it would be very small. So best they use the existing path, with added benefits!

[Chu Mai Huang]

JABA
Where you getting your info - I'd like to read up on it some. TKS.

I recall a friends 'cross-country endorsement' in his Jabiru - one lap around Port Phillip bay - WITH GPS ASSISTANCE!:rolleyes:

Don't forget the RAAus increased weight limit bleating:{ - so they can all carry "extra safety equipment" (for when they fly over tiger country in CTA?) Yeah??? "Equipment" such as......... what exactly...........? Parachutes? Liferafts? Emergency escape pods? Thermal underwear? What?:yuk:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Chu Mia Huang......worse than that....ME!

Ever done a W&B on a 230? or a 170? Two half decent sized aussie guys and you are going NOWHERE! (legally)

540kg limit is a joke when you look at how heavy these little buggers are EWs at around 300kg or more leaves very little for two people and fuel. You have to built like a bludy greyhound to utilise one.

[Frank Arouet]

It doesn't bother me either way because I don't need fly GA into CTA.

But can someone tell me, for the sake of this arguement, how you can do your GFPT at say, Coffs Harbour, solo circuits and all, with a Student Pilot Licence? (medical perhaps).

Is GAAP a Control Zone in this case? It has a control tower.

I take it that GFPT to PPL NAV's are also acceptable transitting into or through CTR?

When are you actually endorsed to fly in CTR?

Therefor is it the aircraft or the pilot that is not allowed into the CTR?

If you have a class 2 medical and a fly a LSA certified aircraft, (600 KG), and you are endorsed to fly in CTA (whether as a PPL lapsed, current, or other), and you have a RA-Aus certificate to fly the LSA aircraft, can you transit through a CTR?

If it is the aircraft that is the issue, does this include "limited" and
"experimental" aircraft? Does it include LSA?

Further there are many many PPL's out there with a OCTA licence only because they either had no need or couldn't hack the standards to fly therein.

More information would be appreciated Jaba.:)

[VH-XXX]

I can assist with your questions Frank as best as I can.

When are you actually endorsed to fly in CTR?

When you have a PPL with CTA on it. Don't think of GAAP as CTA with regard to your GFPT as there are dispensations etc. Think of it this way, if you have your GFPT and fly out of Bankstown GAAP, you can't just take off in Moorabbin GAAP without approval from instructor etc. It's valid for the GAAP in which you are learning.

Therefore is it the aircraft or the pilot that is not allowed into the CTR?

It is the pilot that is not allowed into CTA in terms of RAA, not the aircraft.

If you have a class 2 medical and a fly a LSA certified aircraft, (600 KG), and you are endorsed to fly in CTA (whether as a PPL lapsed, current, or other), and you have a RA-Aus certificate to fly the LSA aircraft, can you transit through a CTR?

Yes. As long as you meet the criteria for 95.55 under the section of CTA entry.

If it is the aircraft that is the issue, does this include "limited" and
"experimental" aircraft? Does it include LSA?

The aircraft is not the issue. Many RAA aircraft with approved engines and appropriate equipment can utilise CTA, along with experimental. For GAAP, it's an approved engine and radio for example and logically for CTA Class C it's a transponder on top of that. It's in CAO95.55.

Further there are many many PPL's out there with a OCTA licence only because they either had no need or couldn't hack the standards to fly therein.

Yes that's right and they can't fly RAA aircraft into CTA either.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, for your information-

If you are PPL then to get RAA licence you just pays your licence and do 5hrs conversion of which 3hrs can be solo....that easy!

The plane can fly in cta provided it has an approved engine, radio and transponder and a PPL licenced PF doing the stearing.

When GAAPs go CTAF after hours and there is daylight you can fly in on RAA licence.

If the PPL licence is lapsed then you have to do the whole RAA licence to get to the same level.

If your medical has been revoked then no RAA licence without passing that medical. If PPL lapsed and no revoked medical then OK on drivers licence.

Weight breaks are 540kg if you roll your own and 600kg for factory rolled LSA. Thats about my limit of knowledge on RAA rules. plenty of info on the RAA site if you really want to dig.

As for GFPT? You can do your solo NAV training out of a ClassC aerodrome like EN if you wish. My surprise was finishing my licence at EN after many years break on a very lapsed RPPL and found it quite refreshing to fly solo from EN down to PK for some circuits. Almost as much experience as my NAV3, Class C airspace MBZ and Tower aerodrome in one trip! Fly in that environment all the time and the ATO has a hard time trapping you on procedures:ok:

[VH-XXX]

OZ says:
Ever done a W&B on a 230? or a 170? Two half decent sized aussie guys and you are going NOWHERE! (legally)

Indeed you are right. Luckily for RA the 600kg's solved this problem partially, however the problem still exists:

J230 BEW around 365+
95kg of fuel
leaves 2 x 70kg bods with no baggage and no room for safety equipment :bored:

The tiger country argument was an extremely loose one and had it been successful would have meant every man and his dog heading into Class C fields such as Essendon, plus GAAP. GAAP's don't need more traffic right now!

OZ Says:
When GAAPs go CTAF after hours and there is daylight you can fly in on RAA licence.

Yes, RAA can experience the thrill of flying into a large GAAP like aerodrome like Moorabbin, by flying in there when it's a CTAF(R).


If the PPL licence is lapsed then you have to do the whole RAA licence to get to the same level.


If you had a PPL previously and your BFR has lapsed, you effectively have a non-current PPL as far as RAA is concerned and as such won't have to do the whole syllabus again.


If your medical has been revoked then no RAA licence without passing that medical. If PPL lapsed and no revoked medical then OK on drivers licence.


Yes, good call, important to note. If you want to keep flying and think that you will fail your medical, don't sit for your medical and you will still be able to fly RAA.


Weight breaks are 540kg if you roll your own and 600kg for factory rolled LSA. Thats about my limit of knowledge on RAA rules. plenty of info on the RAA site if you really want to dig.


Aircraft certified under 95.55 (properly certified) are limited to 544 kgs. Aircraft approved under LSA are up to 60kg's.

The LSA regs are somewhat "looser" than the 95.55 ones. The purpose of LSA was to level the playing field for low end cheaply operated GA aircraft to bridge the pricing gap between GA and RAA. This is happening if you consider the Sportstars at Moorabbin and the Tecnam's at Bankstown (if they are still there).

[Frank Arouet]

Thank you all for confirming what I thought was the case.

In conclusion RA-Aus CAN fly into a CTR if equipped with necessary aircraft, pilot and equipment.

Out of further curiosity, does this apply to gliders and motorgliders? If I recall correctly some non powered glider altitude records of over 35,000 ft happened around Mt Beauty some years back.

[Jabawocky]

Howdy Frank.

Yes the status quo is the go........ No changes at all as I understand it.

And yes you point out, nothing has changed if the RAA machine is equipped and flown by suitably licensed pilot.

Speaking to one high profile CFI today, and he was delighted. Same opinion about some other wild ideas that were being sought. Seems my comments above are actually similar to those who run schools and have been long term members.

A good outcome for RAA .... blessing in disguise. ;)

J

PS Just a point that we all may forget from time to time, a GAAP is not really CTA in the true sense of the word, just because they have a tower. Different rules apply and basically the tower controls the bitumen strip and provides a traffic service and sequencing advisory......the ATC folk might clarify further but its like a restriced CTAF R with a ATC clearence to land......maybe I have not explained that well. Lets just say just because it looks feels and sounds like Class C or D..... its NOT!

[VH-XXX]

Out of further curiosity, does this apply to gliders and motorgliders? If I recall correctly some non powered glider altitude records of over 35,000 ft happened around Mt Beauty some years back.

Gliders including Motorgliders will be unaffected, so too for Hot Air Balloons.

It would appear on the face of it that this action is to mainly keep RAA out of GAAP due to the recently announced changes.

[The Green Goblin]

It would appear on the face of it that this action is to mainly keep RAA out of GAAP due to the recently announced changes.

Now all we need is a curfew for PPL's and students, then the GAAP aerodromes will be worth using again :)

[GADRIVR]

Really Green gobbler....you go just TOO far some days!!!!;)

[Jabawocky]

Greenie..... the folk that now own all the GAAP's are doing that for us already, none of them can afford to stay! :rolleyes:

Mind you I think there are too many training schools at GAAP's, too crowded and accidents do seem to have happened of late.......whether that is attributable to the level of activity I do not know!

J

[PlankBlender]

Gee and not a month ago the RAAus Ops Mgr told me at the Bundy show that there was no doubt in his mind whatsoever that the endorsement would come, it had been all but rubber stamped I think were his words.. he must be so p!ssed! :ouch: Welcome to Oz Aviation methinks.. :\

[superdimona]

Chu,

If you seriously knew someone who got their cross-country endorsement that easily, please let the RAA know about it. The endorsement is now supposed to be at least ten hours of cross-country training, minimum.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Oh my god.

TEN WHOLE HOURS!?!?

The ultralight industry is being destroyed by all these new requirements!

The students will be leaving in droves!

We'll all be ROONED! :eek:

TEN FCKN HOURS??? :rolleyes:

[superdimona]

I wasn't complaining about it - just saying that if anyone actually WAS given a XC endo free in a cornflakes box, then the RAA should have a friendly chat with the instructor. Stuff like that is what gives the RAA a bad name.

[VH-XXX]

As much as we like or dislike the RAA I seriously doubt that a XC endorsement was given after a quick lap around the bay.

[may_day]

Going through my log book it took me over 80 hours to obtain my RAA certificate from start to finish as far as I can go in RAA.
Roughly forty hours of that comprised cross country flying. My first solo nav was 175 miles from point of departure with four way points. We were not allowed to use any nav. aids on our exercises. Also, we did not fly to towns, most of the way points were private air strips on rural properties.
I do approximately 250 hours of business and private flying per year. Currently I am not far off taking my exam for GFPT and I am also half way through my Instructor training.
The decision that RAA pilots cannot fly into controlled airspace is concerning because of the fact it is assumed that people who fly RAA cannot be trained to the same or better competency than pilots with their PPL. It is my understanding that there is no recognised syllabus for CTA training in PPL. At least you can give some credit to RAA in putting a sylabus into existence so their pilots can get the proper training and competency before they get their CTA endorsement.
The way alot of GA pilots are carrying on is if once this CTA endorsement is passed there would be eight and a half thousand members swarming into controlled air space.
I will continue my training to become a better and safer pilot. I do agree there are cowboys in RAA Ithink it's unwise to label all pilots as cowboys. Let us not allow the few cowboys out there to stuff it up for everybody.

Regards, Mayday

[Frank Arouet]

You will find the problem is that RA-Aus, (the whole 8500 of them), are flying in "THEIR" airspace. It matters not whether class G or CTA and from "expert" analysis on this forum, it appears they all fly at the same time of day at the same altitude and are a menace to society across the entire 7.5 million square Kilometers of Australian land mass.

It is probably better that you stay in bed when "THEY" are flying. You know, 12/24/7.:(

[maverick22]

C'mon Frank,

you're not going to let an ultralight put you off going flying are you? At the end of the day it's just another aircraft. The airmanship of the pilot may be questionable but it only seems to be the minority. I fly in and out of class G everyday and don't really have a problem with them. You get the odd pilot who makes life hard for you, but I see this from VH registered operators too:suspect:

Anyway, if in doubt just stay above 5000 feet :ok:

[Jabawocky]

may day

quite correct in many ways.......... keep doing your training! :ok:

Now go back and READ all of my posts in thhis thread. I think you will find your post above is wrong. we do not think that way. many of my mates who fly RAA.....fly A320/737 etc..... they are not all fools. that being said there are some hwo are..VH Tailed and all.

This whole thread is not about nit picking one against the other.

I do believe this is GOOD for the bulk of RAA members and thise members I have spoken too in the last few days, are a typical cross ection of pilots instructors CFI and school owners.............and they all agrre.... "Thank God for That!"

its not about us and them.......... as YOU sir are evidence, as you are now doing your PPL training.

So get off your high horse and see the wodds for the trees!

J:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Going through my log book it took me over 80 hours to obtain my RAA certificate from start to finish as far as I can go in RAA

Bit of a slow learner, huh?

Dr :8

[maverick22]

and 40 hours x country training? Considering RAA navs are OCTA that does seem quite excessive too:eek:

[may_day]

Not that I was slow, I use my cross country flying training and fit it in with work, so you could say tying my training in with my job, yes a lot of hr, but also a lot of flying, work payed for.

[Wallsofchina]

"Your assumption is correct about RAA pilots not being trusted after the shameful display put on at Narromine infront of the big cheese from CASA. You reap what you sew I'm afraid."

Had a look at the Narromine info on Recreational Flying

How's this gem from "Soggy Natfly"

"At times on the flight out I was solely on intruments"

Some feat with a Tandy Panel, and a compass from Autobarn, wouldn't like to be sharing his airspace.

After reading the posts it does seem to be just a few though, and there are plenty of skeletons in the GA cupboard.

[Deaf]

How's this gem from "Soggy Natfly"

"At times on the flight out I was solely on intruments"

Some feat with a Tandy Panel, and a compass from Autobarn, wouldn't like to be sharing his airspace.

Just shows the standards in GA - You do know it was a GA plane and pilot don't you.

[Wallsofchina]

Didn't know that, but in that case you would be concerned.
The thread goes on.
Wouldn't he have to be qualified?

[VH-XXX]

I dropped in there this year. There were raa pilots doing circuits and flying over town when vis was less than 1km. All trumped by cirrus taking off into thunderstorm though.

[Frank Arouet]

maverick22;

you're not going to let an ultralight put you off going flying are you?

Irony is wasted it seems.

VH-XXX;

RAA pilots not being trusted after the shameful display put on at Narromine infront of the big cheese from CASA.

I recall some "shameless" GA "******" beating up the airstrip in a jet one Easter in front of some CASA FOI's. Don't know if they are "the big cheese" though. Some expert reckoned it was a precautionary strip inspection. (at mach .5 and clean).

[Deaf]

The issues at Narromine appear to be more of a pilot thing than GA/RAA. Any flyin type event appears to cancel any form of judgement and the bigger the event

- The more people affected
- The greater the pressure to outdo/not be outdone

This has been going on for as long as aviation and I have seen some pretty bad efforts long before powered hang gliders. I wasn't at Narromine this year but a lot of the dubious efforts I have seen there were GA.

[criticalmass]

As an RA-Aus (and HGFA) member I always thought the RA-Aus in CTA thing was being a bit optimistic. Putting it in the last issue of the Op Regs was hubris of the first degree! I also have grave doubts about the weight for RA-Aus going beyond 600Kg (which is probably about where ultralights realistically should finish) and as for increasing it to 760Kg I really think that opens several cans of worms for which RA-Aus is ill-prepared. I'd prefer we didn't go there at all.

I don't have any problem with the idea of getting a PPL and a CTA endorsement once I've got a good amount of RA-Aus flying under my belt, especially as the 3-axis hours count one-for-one. My idea of a good amount of RA-Aus experience is somewhere between 200-300 hours of regular flying, by which time a pilot who applies himself ought to be flying resonably well and capable of getting a PPL and CTA endorsement, providing he can pass the medical (I hold a CASA Class 2 medical).

Upgrading skills and operating to a high standard ought to be in the best interests of any pilot, irrespective of which organisation they belong to.

[triton140]

I agree criticalmass.

I reckon there was a whole lot of stuff not really thought through on the CTA endorsement, so we're probably lucky it got rejected.

There's also a strong body of thought among RA members that we were better off without it - and for those who really wanted/needed to fly in CTA there was always the option to go PPL (which many of us are anyway).

And, given that many schools use GA instructors in planes that can be VH registered, that would not necessarily be a huge step (for instance, our school encourages RA students to sit the PPL BAK exam rather than the RA one - and a fair proportion of our students swap to PPL at the nav stages).

So, probably all for the good.

And despite VH-XXX's comments at the start of the thread, I don't actually see a whole lot of whingeing and moaning going on over at the other forum!

[VH-XXX]

No whinging? Looks like whinging to me. Like the guy who thinks his sat phone is better than a plb!!!!!

http://www.r. ecreationalflying.org/forum/general-discussion/44016-raa-cta-3.html

[Deaf]

Like the guy who thinks his sat phone is better than a plb!!!!!

Can't see that in this

http://www.r. ecreationalflying.org/forum/general-discussion/44016-raa-cta-3.html

Also can see where a sat phone may be better than a plb as in a incident with one of my plb's 16 days ago.

[D-J]

Whilst I don't like to promote a site that is managed by such one-sided self-promoting individuals, look more closely as there are now 4 seperate threads on there with whinging about poor behaviour and the CTA endorsement denial being the end of the world and half of them saying that they never wanted it in the first place and how the management of the organisation are heading them more and more towards GA which they didn't want in the first place.

after reading a few of their threads the lack of thought or more to the point the lack of knowledge about aviation is out standing :ugh::{:ugh::{


can I add missiles to my meat bomber? :E

[superdimona]

"there are now 4 seperate threads on there with whinging about poor behaviour and the CTA endorsement denial being the end of the world and half of them saying that they never wanted it in the first place and how the management of the organisation are heading them more and more towards GA which they didn't want in the first place."


What, you'd rather people _didn't_ complain about the few idiots that influenced this decision? Would you really feel better if the ultralight community instead supported morons that displayed terrible airmanship?

I still think that CTA transit should be allowed provided the pilot is trained properly. It's not rocket science.

[ZappBrannigan]

But can someone tell me, for the sake of this arguement, how you can do your GFPT at say, Coffs Harbour, solo circuits and all, with a Student Pilot Licence? (medical perhaps).

Is GAAP a Control Zone in this case? It has a control tower.

I take it that GFPT to PPL NAV's are also acceptable transitting into or through CTR?

When are you actually endorsed to fly in CTR?Yes, this is all fine, of course. Any student who does/did their training at an aerodrome such as YMEN (like myself) has done nothing but depart from/transit through/arrive in CTA solo with a SPL/GFPT since they started their training. I've flown solo over the runway intersection at YMML at 1500' around 5 times with nothing but a GFPT. Whether this adds weight to the RAA-in-CTA argument or not, I don't know. I really don't have an opinion one way or another - apart from that fact that as a person's level of training and competency decreases, the less I want to be near them in the air, CTA or not. This applies across the board though.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

XXX, you have a motive that isn't honourable.:hmm:

Zapp:ok: How true. It's all about the training and the professionalism.

[Jabawocky]

superdimona

I still think that CTA transit should be allowed provided the pilot is trained properly. It's not rocket science.

Have a read of the rest of the thread........the is no barrier to entry now that would have been less with the changes, so no disadvantage in that respect. The big downside would have been for schools and the organisation, they have been saved a burden. One school owner has confirmed this to me and plenty of members. Not one complaint so far! :ok:

Good decision, albeit a serendipity :D

Big words for Jaba there!

J:ok:

[VH-XXX]

I argue that there is little difference with the end result.

To get the "endorsement" under the old system, one would have to have got their PPL which would have entailed getting a medical, passing the exam, plus a nav or two into controlled airspace, then the flight test.

Under the proposed system the pilot would have had to get a medical, do a few navs into CTA and sit the test to obtain the endorsement.

If RAA training is as far advanced as those on here and other forums endeavour to lead the GA fraternity to believe, the difference at best might be a few hours and a little bit of extra study.

Perhaps up to $1,000 extra considering the flight time is only slightly more expensive and you've got a lifetime ticket to drive the big stuff if you really want to go somewhere with your Mrs and kids.

Have a look at this, it is a rough guide that shows how it's not that hard after all:

http://www.rvac.com.au/files/flighttrainningstepsv3.pdf

The only error I can see is that the PPL exam should be over to the right hand side to the right of the dotted line coming down from RA Cross Country Endorsement.

[Horatio Leafblower]

My sentiments exactly.

If RAAus is so clever and so advanced and oh-so-much better than GA, what would be hard about the conversion?

Either:
1/. Medicals; (fair enough) or
2/. GA looks menacing and scary (an image problem GA would do well to remedy); or
3/. RAAus is run by private pilots and PPL wannabes who want to be able to achieve the 'big' prize with less work.

...or possibly varying combinations of all three. :ugh:

With respect to

how you can do your GFPT at say, Coffs Harbour, solo circuits and all, with a Student Pilot Licence?

...because such students have a Flight Radio Telephone Operator's Licence or are working under a CASA instrument permitting RAAus training in that specific airspace.

[baswell]

All trumped by cirrus taking off into thunderstorm though.If that's the same Cirrus I heard about, that one was piloted by a gazzilion hours ex-airline captain that now runs the (GA and RA) school at Aldinga, I think he knows what he was doing! :) (And might have taken off towards a thunderstorm, but I doubt he actually flew into it!)

To get back on topic, that is also the kind of school that cranks out very qualified pilots that with CTA training would no doubt put weekend GA pilots trained in the country to shame with their knowledge and skills when it comes to transitting Melbourne airspace. But I guess we won't know for now! :(

[Wallsofchina]

There was a hot debate on the Cirrus on the other site (soggy Natfly) Bas.

I thought that had been cleared up there in the end.

[VH-XXX]

Baswell also signed up on that other site and offered his advice as to how the pilot of the Cirrus was an ex airline pilot with millions of hours etc etc etc however from memory he wasn't here so didn't see what happened.

Had Baswell signed up with a location other than Adelaide he would be more believable, however he is obviously a friend of the pilot or knows him well thus his desire to try and defend his actions even though he wasn't there.

Just because you might have thousands of hours, doesn't mean that you don't use poor judgement on occasions!

I also wonder how some school in Adelaide is pumping out these brilliant raa pilots that are able to transit Melbourne's hugely complex airspace given that they would be 4+ hours flight from there and have never flown in it :D

If you are going to post, don't post fluff :=

WallsofChina, if my memory serves me correctly, there was an argument between all of the thousands of visitors to Narromine that watched a Cirrus SR22 take off into a Thunderstorm versus some guy who claims to know the pilot, who suggested that the pilot would never have done that.

Seems to me that the argument was indeed cleared up!

[baswell]

LOL, you seem to know me well! I never discussed this on "the other site". The first I heard of it was from someone at a fly-in, who was there and does know the guy closely. I have never spoken to him myself. I only know him by reputation and flying with some of the people his school has trained.

You completely missed my point about the melbourne reference. Say someone learns to fly out in the sticks, hours away from *any* CTA, but they have a PPL and can use CTA so one day after years hopping between their paddock and town they decide to fly to Melbourne. Who do you think will be better equiped to handle it, the PPL (a real pilot!) or the RA+CTA guy who has been flying the Adelaide CTA every weekend for a long time?

How well equiped you are to deal with the situation has nothing to do with whether you have a PPL or RA cert, and everything with training and experience. Not to mention a great deal of RAA flyers, especially near CTAs that would be interested in gaining the endorsement tend to train at schools that do both RA and GA, trained by the exact same instructors using the same sylabus.

[QNH1013.2]

I don't know why anyone is complaining about this.

Nothing has been lost because they never had it in the first place.

Why do so many RAA pilots think that a PPL is the holy grail I wonder? It's not that hard after all.

It doesn't matter how good your flying school is or isn't and how close it is to CTA or not, the fact remains that you require a PPL to access it.

As for those that began their training in RAA on the premise that CTA would be coming soon, I don't pity you either because you can still do your PPL as the hours still count, so nothing wasted and you'll end up a better pilot in the end anyway.

[baswell]

QNH: I think it is a misconception that RA flyers do not get their PPL because they think it is hard. It has to do with cost.

It costs more to gain and maintain a PPL, which seems pointless if all you do is fly RAA aircraft! Paying annual fees to two arganisations, for instance. BFR with a PE in a hired VH plane is more expensive than with an RAA CFI in your own plane, etc. (remember: 1 in 3 RAA flyers own their aircraft!)

As PPLs, you can ask why not just get your PPL? Other than the answer given above, you can look at the question from an RAA pilot: why can non-PPL gliders go into CTA but somehow we can't be trusted?

As for me: I do fly into CTA using the special exemption we have here at Parafield. The main reason I would like to see the CTA endorsement is that we might see a more active RAA scene here. After all, one of the best things about flying is hanging out with similar minded friendly folks!

[UnderneathTheRadar]

To the RAA crew who may not be aware, a PPL on it's own doesn't permit it's owner to fly in CTA - you must get PPL CTA (Radar) and/or PPL CTA (non-radar) on your license. Even if you never fly in CTA, your BFR is supposed to refresh your memory of procedures by simulating CTA procedures.

There is a reason why CASA Ops cost more money - the BFR makes sure you're still ok.

UTR

[baswell]

I am aware of that.

RAA has BFRs too that keep you current, they just cost less to do but achieve the same thing...

[Jabawocky]

RAA have a BFR also.

Baswell
The reality is only a small minority of RAA members wanted it and the cost and paperwork for RAA and the schools would not be worth it. So while you may find it handy, about 4750 of your RAA fellow members would be funding yours and a few others privilege.

The alternative is the GA CASA PPL and CTA endo, which is in my opinion not going to cost you much more at all, and without the costs slugged to the rest of the members.

For example.....why should MY RAAus membership go up just to cover the cost for a privilege I already have!!

End of arguement I think! CASA no doubt made the decission for some other reason, and who knows if it was really a good one, but its a good stroke of luck I think.

J:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

you must get PPL CTA (Radar) and/or PPL CTA (non-radar) on your license

I know of a dozen or more people with an OCTA PPL. I know many more who pass BFR's who have never, nor will ever, fly into CTR.

There is a reason why CASA Ops cost more money

Yes, over inflated, over prescriptive, over regulated, nauseating bureaucratic red tape. ASIC cards, medical extortion costs, local council landing fees, parking charges, out of control aircraft maintenance costs, mandatory chart and update costs, privatisation of Taxpayer funded assets that are given to greedy developers and corporate bandits. "Expert" ego's that don't believe simple tasks can be carried out by anyone without a highly trained level of competency that they themselves have achieved which is akin believing their 100 or 1,000 hr PPL is of a level of competency to that of high capacity Intercontinental jet jockey or a RAAF top gun.

Australian aviation "elitism" demonstrated by it's worst.:mad:ing "proceedural experts" who probably lack basic "stick and rudder" ability and their dog bites them because they are stipid :mad:'ers.

Jabawocky- you are pretty close to the money.

[maverick22]

Uh oh.... here comes another RAA/GA p!ssing contest :ugh:

I reckon Jaba has a valid point. It is most likely the minority of RAA members that actually want CTA priveliges, and at the end of the day those guys should just go and get a PPL anyway. We all know that the RAA hours count towards a PPL, so why not just go out and do it. Sure it might cost you more money, but it also will expand your knowledge/skills and open up more doors to aircraft options.

And finally, for the RAA guys who keep bagging out how expensive GA is then why would they want to fly into CTA anyway? When you think about the landing fees, parking fees and enroute charges etc at controlled aerodromes compared to most airfields that are OCTA, they are significantly higher. When your average RAA pilot sees this they would probably baulk at the cost of operating into CTA.

It's not that bad flying OCTA anyway. You can get to most places in oz OCTA, which is what the RAA guys have been doing since day one

Just my thoughts anyway.

[baswell]

So while you may find it handy, about 4750 of your RAA fellow members would be funding yours and a few others privilege.
The same argument has been used in the past and if it were listened to every time, we'd still have only trikes below 500 feet and not allowed to cross a major road.

I don't see how this would cost much. The major cost (CASA negotiations and Ops guide changes) has already been incurred. From now it is nothing more than a few extra tick boxes for processing the endorsements. Besides, I also sponsor the 95.10 and 95.32 aircraft with my membership, even though I would never go near them. That's just the way things work.

[baswell]

Martin, the "rediculous" $160/year and $110 annual rego fee saves me at least $500 off my insurance as it includes a fair chunk of 3rd party.

Obviously, for the hiring pilot that does 50 hours a year, the $40/hour lower rental fee more than makes up for the $160 you pay for membership.

You can argue the individual charges till the cows come home, but what counts is the total cost.

[j3pipercub]

I love it when the RAA guys froth at the mouth...

Bas...it's ridiculous...spelling police, to serve and correct...also I'd like to see Raa aircraft gome to a CTA...

There's no point arguing any of this, it was the actions of its own members in front of CASA that caused this decision. Clean up your own backyard then it might happen...

[triton140]

Most of my flying is RA-Aus, but I'm with Jaba and j3 on this.

Regardless of CASA's reasoning, 'twas a good thing I reckon ...

[Ultralights]

is it possible the CTA endo for RAAus licence holders was canned as a result of CASA having no faith in controllers in handling more than 6 aircraft at any time. ??? http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/deal.gif

http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ne_nau.gif

[baswell]

it was the actions of its own members in front of CASA that caused this decision.
That is only hear-say, propagated by a few people that seem to have an agenda. (There actually seems to be only one unique source for this "cowboys at Narromine story) CASA so far seems to not have given a clear reason. I'd like to hear the real reason straight from the horse's mouth.

Ultralights has a very good point. CASA is under great pressure to lower traffic in GAAP. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out where RAA CTA endorsements would be used the most. And it is not just existing pilots; I'd say many of the flying schools in GAAP would love to offer RAA to attract new customers. After all, it is not just cheaper for the students, also more profitable for the school!

[j3pipercub]

But you guys didn't only want GAAPs and remember, GAAPs aren't technically CTA. Don't you think there are many many GA pilots who have CTA licenses that avoid CTA like the plague, due to expense/trouble.

[Wallsofchina]

Have a look on the other site Martin

[D-J]

Don't forget J3, the ra pilots wanted this so they can *safely transit tiger country type cta areas* so they never intended going into GAAP with it

I don't suppose you could inform as to the locations of this 'tiger country' that RAaus members are unable to avoid whilst remaining octa?

With the exception of townsville & canberra i can't see to many issues... & in the case of these 2 locations if RAAus members are so concerned why don't they push for a VFR lane as many locations around oz already have? would be much simpler than having to get a cta endorsement & cheaper

[Wallsofchina]

Makes sense D-J, the concept has worked well for years and would be a good first step.

[D-J]

missed the sarcasm bit :}


The other problem that would likely occur, is that non-CTA endorsed pilot certificate holders would just be saying "RAA pilots can fly into CTA now, I'll just get a clearance." I know people that already do this but given that ultralights would be allowed to do it per-se, more will think that they can get away with it (and will).

and wouldn't that make life 'fun' :ugh:

[Wallsofchina]

How are the areas working which currently have exemptions?

[baswell]

I think by areas, he means the VFR lanes discussed. I know of some VFR lanes into GAAPs and Victor 1. Our local "Hope Valley VFR Route" certainly does require ATC clearance.

GAAP training in limitted numbers is already done with the exemptions. But limitting it to training in GAAP doesn't make a whole lot of sense as even after training, people will want to fly from their closest airfield anyway. (A proper FBO/school rather than just the club at Gawler would be a good solution for RAA near Adelaide.)

[baswell]

Uhm, I am not sure why this is directed to me, but the gentleman in question seems to be a flying RAA aircraft on his PPL, which doesn't have the endorsements. Yup, he was trained by a real GA school and they didn't teach him he needed the CTA endorsment on his PPL!

And this is somehow RAA's fault, how?

[baswell]

Even more fun, earlier in the same thread qwerty says:

I know how you feel about the $$$$, I paid heaps for my PPL, 1) to improve my flying and education and importantly, 2) to be able to transit CTA and occasionally land wherever the hell I wanted.So he got his PPL solely to transit CTA and most likely told his CFI why he was doing it and still the CFI of this *GA* school didn't endorse him.

But somehow, that is an RA-Aus problem, obviously.

[baswell]

So now we've gone from him flying into CTA into saying he flew an ILS into Essendon? You have a vivid imagination.

The fact that it was an ultralight is irrelevant. A pilot without the proper endorement flew into CTA. That's a no-no and we all agree on that. The fact remains that he was doing this on his PPL.

When I had my RA-Aus check ride, my CFI (also GA grade 1) made damn sure during the verbal part I knew where and when I was allowed to fly. Obviously, this has not happened here or he would have known he wasn't going to be endorsed for CTA.

The fact of the matter is that the moment he realised he needed a separate endorsement he booked in to get it. That shows more responsible behaviour on his part than his old CFI of ATO.

I'd also like to mention, he's not the only one that didn't know a PPL doesn't give him CTA access. The forums are full of PPLs not realising they need an endorsement, and one each for CTA, CTR and GAAP.

RA-Aus on the other hand has been speaking about the CTA *ENDORSEMENT* for a long time. I would imagine most pilots are well aware they need training, unlike, it seems, a lot of PPLs.

[RAAus_Pilot]

It's interesting seeing the constant bashing of RAAus and its members. Obviously the CTA endorsement is a touchy one but lets just say, it's not over just yet, it's just on hold for now. It will be more than likely that RAAus pilots will be allowed into CTA in the future once completing the correct training AND that the pilot and aircraft meet the required standards.

1. Aircraft is fitted with an approved engine
2. Pilot holds a Class 2 medical
3. Aircraft has approved radio and transponder

So no matter how much you like it or not, it is going to happen.

[D-J]

great......

next some wa%ker will want to do an approach to SYD in his trike at 35kts :ugh:

(and yes this has already come up in the 'other' forum)

[Wallsofchina]

Not to mention the alleged inbound radio call asking passengers to fasten their seat belts D-J. Every group has its warts, but we need to focus on the big picture.

The old GA aircraft are just going to get beyond our capacity to maintain, so where are we going to get affordable new ones?

We need to be looking at the future objectively, making sure safety is not reduced and at the same time ensuring there's a bigger critical mass of Pilots resisting the encroachment of Direct Factory Outlets. (At Moorabbin, the local Councillor is desperate for support, but can only call on GA pilots).

[D-J]

Not to mention the alleged inbound radio call asking passengers to fasten their seat belts

NFI what thats about :confused:


I do agree re the age of the current ga fleet, I like a lot of the real a/c in the RA sector & they are / will be great replacements imparticulary for training fleets.
Although I'm dead against the thought of having to deal with trikes & the like in CTA after they've bolted in an approved engine & zippy tied on a radio / transponder.

What I would like to see is improved training focused on correct procedures & use of the radio for both GA & RA alike, This is one of our biggest problems in both sectors! getting pilots to communicate effectively. I think more FOI's that spend time on the ground & listening to what some of these clowns are doing may help esp if they start issuing directives for pilots to receive further training.

RAaus will from what I can see become the new ga, so they need to step up their game big time & so does casa but we all know that wont happen :ugh:

[RAAus_Pilot]

DJ, you won't be dealing with Trikes and those type of aircraft because they most probably wont have the approved engine.

An approved engine will most probably consist of a Rotax or Jabiru 4 stroke motor. No modified car motors or 2 stroke engines.

And give these pilots some credit because it would be common sense NOT to put an aircraft like that into a major airport unless it is an emergency.

Besides, I've seen C152's and C172's coming into YPPH, YMML and even YSSY on a number of occasions all under the VH register, so what are your thoughts on those pilots?

[VH-XXX]

Golly gosh I go away for a few days and look where the conversation leads to :ouch:

I'd like to summarise where we are at:

- GA don't want RAA in CTA and think RAA are tossers.
- Some RAA want CTA and think that GA is full of tossers
- Some school in Adelaide that we've never heard of trains the best RAA pilots in Australia that never get lost and you'd want them in CTA
- A Cirrus SR22 did or didn't take off into a thunderstorm at Narromine
- RAA thinks that CASA don't want them in GAAP because it will be too busy
- Some dual licenced guy didn't realise he didn't have a CTA stamp
- RAA are optimistic that they will get the endorsement one day
- VFR lanes could be a solution, considering the premise of RAA wanting the endorsement primarily for safe the transit of CTA in dangerous areas
- GAAP's aren't full CTA but it won't matter soon anyway

All in all, an interesting conversation for which there are no definitive andwers because none of us are the CEO of CASA :)

[j3pipercub]

Love ya work XXX

[D-J]

And give these pilots some credit because it would be common sense NOT to put an aircraft like that into a major airport unless it is an emergency.


the thing about common sense is it's not very common


Besides, I've seen C152's and C172's coming into YPPH, YMML and even YSSY on a number of occasions all under the VH register, so what are your thoughts on those pilots?
that might be part of their CTA endorsement although unfortunately there's idiots in both camps....


nicely summarized VH-XXX :ok:

[Wallsofchina]

"A Cirrus SR22 did or didn't take off into a thunderstorm at Narromine"

Not so fast.

After looking at the accusations made here and on the "Soggy Natfly" thread on the other site, and the safe transit of the aircraft involved, it would seem to me that the probability is that he didn't take off into a thunderstorm - unless you have more information?

[j3pipercub]

XXX, You're world famous on the wreck flying site as anti RAA. Thought that was quite funny...

[VH-XXX]

I thought they were all too busy discussing their full flap takeoffs, subaru engines, increasing mtow and owner maintenance to bother reading here :ugh:

[PyroTek]

I say give 'em all GAAP endorsements...They get their fun for a year and then GAAP turns into Class D!:} - back to square one!:D

:ok:Pyro

[baswell]

I think you'll find a lot more owner maintained Subaru engines in the CASA experimental category than in RAA aircraft. And there are more than enough stories of these pretending everything is fine and dandy and hapily flying into CTA. (And not falling out of the sky, I might add)

[baswell]

Some RAA want CTA and think that GA is full of tossers
Nope, some think there are some tossers. You see, that is the difference: quite a few in GA see the bottom end of RA-Aus and assume everyone acts like that.

RA-Aus flyers see the bottom end of GA and assume ... that it's the bottom end.

[VH-XXX]

I think you'll find a lot more owner maintained Subaru engines in the CASA experimental category than in RAA aircraft.

If you are going to make BOLD statements like that Baswell, be prepared to back them up.

There are 19 Foxcon Terriers on the RA-Aus aircraft register of which most are fitted with Subaru EA81 engines. This doesn't include the PLETHORA of other aircraft with Subaru engines.

There are 2,874 aircraft on the RAA register. If I said there 30 on there with Subaru engines (being lenient for your sake) that's 1.04% Subaru engines of the total.

There are ONLY 15 Subaru powered aircraft on the whole CASA register.

There are 13,533 aircraft on the CASA register of which 15 have Subaru, so that's .11%.

Do your maths and get back to me.


FRP RJ FRANCIS EA 81
NIE NIEUPORT EA 81
NKT SKYWAY EA 81
OMI FOXCON EA 81
WRX AEROMIR EA 81
XLL ZENITH EA 81
WPW POLLIWGN EA81
BAQ STOD-HAM EJ 25
TMC JABIRU EJ 25
TRI KIS TR-1 EJ 25
RUP VANGRUSV EJ 25-205
BNL JODEL EJ-22
NRU SPORTSMAN H6
MED GLASTAR 2.2 EJ
MSK GLASTAR 2.5L CONVERSION

[Wallsofchina]

If YOU said there were 30 in Rec Av??????????
You aren't doing anyone a favour by making up your own statistics VH.
How about you go away and get the facts

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Walls of China,
(At Moorabbin, the local Councillor is desperate for support, but can only call on GA pilots).

Can you PM me the councillor's name please?:ok:

[baswell]

The number don't matter, the fact that there are any VH registered means you can hardly use it as an argument against RA-Aus.

Besides, the myth of the unreliability of auto conversions was thoroughly debunked several years ago by Kitplanes magazine going through years and years of FAA data to find accidents where engine failure was to blame. They found no statistical significant difference.

[Jabawocky]

Besides, the myth of the unreliability of auto conversions was thoroughly debunked several years ago by Kitplanes magazine going through years and years of FAA data to find accidents where engine failure was to blame. They found no statistical significant difference.

THAT'S BULL##!T

Maybe you should ask someone who realy knows and not a journo......... :ugh:

[D-J]

WELL SAID Jaba
:E

[Ultralights]

yeah yeah yeah, i think this threads life is over.

[baswell]

Quite happy to ask someone else, just show me the research that proves it. I haven't found it and I tried very hard. (Yeah, I value my life so I like to get all the info I can)

I could ask CASA or the FAA. Oh wait, they have already made up their minds about the issue and they allow you to fly with these engines. 'nuff said.

[RAAus_Pilot]

Hey VH-XXX, you're RAAus ticketed aren't you?

[Wallsofchina]

"Ps: chinaman, a quick call to ra aus would tell you how many suby's are out there. I'm led to believe it could be approaching 50."

Ni Hao Martin

I could do that, but I didn't use fantasy figures to shoot someone else down.

VH XXX owes us an explanation for the rubbery figures.

He also hasn't come back with clearer information on the Cirrus at Natfly.

If he's going to put people down, he needs to be able to back up his statements

[Jabawocky]

I could ask CASA or the FAA. Oh wait, they have already made up their minds about the issue and they allow you to fly with these engines. 'nuff said.

Baswell......NOT ENOUGH SAID..........clearly you are not familiar with the process of putting one of these "Auto" conversions on the VH register! Now I have not and will not, but in saying that, the guy who does my CofA's , a CASA AP (ex RAF and QF LAME and pilot) who really does know the figures, (and beats me how but really knows the regs), will happily write you out a CofA for your auto engined Warp-Borer MkIII...........But wait, There's more!!!! You will also get a big bunch of restrictions in your CofA as is required. It WILL include exclussions from CTA and built up areas. You may depending upon their opinion of the design/build get assigned a test area like Woomera where you pose little threat to the rest of the population.

So before you get carried away with the idea of jamming an AUTO conversion in your IFR six seater, and blasting around CTA......wake up and go talk to someone who really knows their stuff. SAAA would be a good start!

Believe me when I say after building one a/c with an approved engine I thought I learned a lot, then building another and IFR........I discovered I knew bugger all before.....and I am still trying to keep up!:bored:

J:ok:

PS Ohhh and while I think of it, some ppruners may even know the guy, but aforementioned AP was telling me about a Sydney based guy (maybe airline pilot) who spent a fortune on a Subie in an RV6 or 7, anyway after several failures......firewall forward refit!!! A Lycosaurus went in, he was bored with finding paddocks!:eek:

Now back to topics after my own thread drift.:ouch:

[VH-XXX]

The cirrus argument has been done to death, all of the relevant information has been provided (wallsofchina I got a pm about it and apparently you did too) therefore there is nothing more to add to that discussion.

The Subaru discussion is moot because even if the figure of 30 wasn't used there is still more Subaru engines in raa than ga (no surprises there).

I don't think anyone has anything more to offer as there is now an explanation elsewhere that explains why ras didn't get the tick.

Xxx is not raa ticketed but was a long time ago when flying from paddocks was fun and before the raa got political.

[Wallsofchina]

VH XXX I don't think there is a Cirrus argument - I don't think a pilot's name should be blackened.



You raised the subject, but haven't backed up your assertion.

How did you know I got a PM?

I never reveal details of private correspondence or discussions, but if the sender comes on here and gives me permission I'll print it in full.

It looks to me as if you can’t back up your Subaru assertion either.

RA Aust Pilot asked: “Hey VH-XXX, you're RAAus ticketed aren't you?”

Xxx???? Your other posts are always so precise.

I don’t have a probem with robust debates, but we need to have facts to work on.

[VH-XXX]

I believe I got the same pm that you did so said the sender.

Aside from the irrelevance I will call raa and get said stats for you.

I have already responded to the question see previous post.

Nobody's name has been blackened, unlike other sites this is a rumour network.

[maverick22]

Well it's official, THIS THREAD IS GOING NOWHERE!

To the RAA boys and girls, in the wise words of ATC: "Clearance not available, remain outside controlled airspace"

Now go flying and have some fun (OCTA):ok:

[RAAus_Pilot]

So since that XXX is not RAAus ticketed, is everything you are saying just speculation? You're against something that you obviously don't know much about, you can't back up any of the so called stories you're coming up with and really you need to think a little more before you type anything.

I'm with Maverick on this, at the moment RAAus is not allowed in CTA. The discussion may come up at a later date so until then this thread os pretty much going no where.

[Wallsofchina]

Don't wish too soon Maverick.

The way it's looking to me, we may be flying C172's and PA 28's out there too before long, unless we want to spend a day to fly an hour.

[D-J]

and time to head back to the 'other' forum :E :p

[baswell]

Jaba: nice rant, but what part of my post #97 makes you think I believe VH Subarus are allowed in CTA, let alone IFR?

Clearly they are not, as I express in that post, but have heard enough first hand stories of people on the ground some have been doing it regardless. Just like the bottom end of RA-Aus flaunts the rules, so does the bottom end of PPL, that much is clear.

[j3pipercub]

RAAus, just because someone isn't RAA ticketed doesn't mean they can't have an opinion of what they have seen around them. Using your logic, the vast majority of RAA pilots who wanted the CTA endo can't comment on GA as they aren't licensed...perhaps you should have thought of that before you made your argument...

Now I'm with DJ and mav, guys, enough said, better luck next time and chat to you on the other forum...

j3

[RAAus_Pilot]

RAAus, just because someone isn't RAA ticketed doesn't mean they can't have an opinion of what they have seen around them. Using your logic, the vast majority of RAA pilots who wanted the CTA endo can't comment on GA as they aren't licensed...perhaps you should have thought of that before you made your argument...

Now I'm with DJ and mav, guys, enough said, better luck next time and chat to you on the other forum...

j3

Never said they can't have an opinion, just not speculate. But that's been sorted. Most RAA pilots I know are GA qualified and they have been speaking up, it's the RAA pilots that "have difficulty" using a radio that, I agree, shouldn't be allowed into CTA. Even with a CTA endorsement I think they'll still have issues within CTA so RAAus needs to work on the kind of training that the endorsement will provide.

But as you say, it's not happening now, maybe later so will leave it at that.

[QNH1013.2]

Next thing the RA guys will be wanting IFR and NVFR :\

There's already enough of them out there doing that already!

(Puts on flame proof overalls for the public flaming about to commence)

[VH-XXX]

A thought just sprung to mind. Could it be the case that Airservices had some consultation with CASA and didn't want raa aircraft in CTA because the raa aircraft register is private and as such they couldn't charge for landing fees?

[Jabawocky]

Good point XXX :ok: .... maybe they were not willing to give up the "privacy" for the sake of landing fees and the ATC fees.

Baswell, you asked Jaba: nice rant, but what part of my post #97 makes you think I believe VH Subarus are allowed in CTA, let alone IFR?

But previously you said;
I think you'll find a lot more owner maintained Subaru engines in the CASA experimental category than in RAA aircraft. And there are more than enough stories of these pretending everything is fine and dandy and hapily flying into CTA. (And not falling out of the sky, I might add)

And........Besides, the myth of the unreliability of auto conversions was thoroughly debunked several years ago by Kitplanes magazine going through years and years of FAA data to find accidents where engine failure was to blame. They found no statistical significant difference.

And..........I could ask CASA or the FAA. Oh wait, they have already made up their minds about the issue and they allow you to fly with these engines. 'nuff said.

And you have the hide to tell me "Nice Rant" :=

Now where would I have picked up the idea Baswell....:rolleyes:

So bottom line is, if you want CTA in any shape or form, get the following, Medical, Training and tested and reviewed, Radio/Transponder, Approved Engine, and get on a database for billing!

J:ugh:

[triton140]

if you want CTA in any shape or form

With all the GAAP crap ATM, who would want to do it for recreation? My CTAF is looking better and better .....

[VH-XXX]

You've got me thinking more Jaba, the whole raa aircraft register being private is a real cop out by them. They use the same facilities day in day out as ga aircraft including the same sized machines or smaller, yet they get off scot-free on landing fees. Take an aircraft flying to Moorabbin. For something in the ultralight size but ga registered you would be up for around $8 for air services fees, plus $5.50 landing fee from avdata, not to mention that if you only go there once a month you are up for a minimum charge of $16.50. So all up around $24.50 for a SINGLE landing. Now if some raa Jabiru comes along he pays $0 for the privelage and contributes in no way to the atc system that safely supports him or to the aerodrome operator.:mad:

How can they get away with this in the user pays aviation system in Australia? Why can't the register be public and what are they trying to hide? C'mon raa guys you have been outspoken about airspace, tell us why you don't want to pay for the services that you use.

[Wallsofchina]

VH-XXX/QNH1013.2
There should be equity, and there are methods by which that can be fixed.

We should be looking at the level of those charges, and the cause of all this. Are the lessees using safety to use public support to expand their DFO areas?

[Frank Arouet]

Now if some raa Jabiru comes along he pays $0 for the privelage and contributes in no way to the atc system that safely supports him or to the aerodrome operator.

What are you "rabbiting" on about? I suppose they don't pay Avdata charges either? Where do you blokes come up with these claims?

[VH-XXX]

That's right, they don't pay Avdata either ( that was one of the main points of my post ). Because the register is private avdata doesn't know where to send the bill. Raa simply refuses to share the register except for CASA and the ato.

[RAAus_Pilot]

Not sure where you guys are getting your info from but RAAus aircraft do pay landing fees. I'll pay landing fees at any strip I land in that charges a fee. There's no getting away from it.

[YPJT]

Not sure where you guys are getting your info from but RAAus aircraft do pay landing fees. I'll pay landing fees at any strip I land in that charges a fee. There's no getting away from it.
Care to tell us where the data is available so that the invoice can be sent out? I know a few airports that are just dieing for that information.

[RAAus_Pilot]

What airports are interested? They all should know that they can get the info from RAAus. It's not that hard. Every aircraft is registered so really if the airports need info on aircraft owners all they need to do is contact RAAus. Not that hard.

[The Green Goblin]

What airports are interested? They all should know that they can get the info from RAAus. It's not that hard. Every aircraft is registered so really if the airports need info on aircraft owners all they need to do is contact RAAus. Not that hard.

And if RAAus don't give it out due to the privacy act?

Sounds like GA is subsidizing RAAus again :ugh:

[RAAus_Pilot]

Well that's simple, the airport in question would then bill RAAus and have that forwarded to the registered owner.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Furphy argument!

It is no different from GA to RAA. There are a few types in RAA who hide behind the known outcome of AVDATA attempting to gain access to the RAA register...no different to the lowlifes in GA who use someone elses call sign or no calls at all to avoid the AVDATA tape recorder...wouldn't be surprised if it is the same pilots in either a GA or RAA machine every time. Possibly those same people who resist any form of surveillence to be fitted to RAA aircraft, either transponder powered by SSR or ADS-B. (Personally, AVDATA is a blunderbus approach and easily bypassed by crooks...there are better ways of collecting data.)

It would take nothing to produce a document as part of RAA registration giving authority to RAA to provide confidential information to Airservices for charging purposes as part of the annual registration process...It could be a simple electronic transfer exercise that provides that database to AirServices that ONLY these registered aircraft are allowed into CTA. Flightplans, NAIPS and TAAATS are still the gatekeepers. No rego on the database=no entry, simple!

As the Jaba has pointed out, there should be no difference between a RAA pilot or GA pilot in CTR....the training and performance MUST be to the same standard.

Right now, the director sees that this is not possible, directly related to the experiences personally witnessed by himself. That attitude can be changed by demonstration. How long depends on the RAA administration to get their own nest in order and try again down the track.

[Frank Arouet]

Ref RA-Aus magazine September 08, page 3.

“RA-Aus policy is that members are responsible for paying landing fees where applicable”. “We have notified councils that continue to insist that we send on landing fee accounts to owners that we charge a $10 processing fee per account. Unfortunately, you may find that the council charges you the landing fee plus the $10 we charge them.”

“Where our members have both PPL and RA-Aus privileges and fly in controlled airspace in RA-Aus registered aircraft, Airservices sends their airways charges accounts to us to pass on to the member concerned. We again treat those requests similarly to landing fees”.

[Wallsofchina]

VH-XXX just likes to come up with anything he can find to damage RA, but you can only sit on a barbed wire fence for so long without getting your jewells cut off.

[VH-XXX]

That statement is great in theory but incorrect given that vfr flights in raa aircraft don't incur airways charges. Shows they have little understanding of the system in which they are trying to enter.

Would be nice to think that they would be more cooperative as the current system is long winded. I have no idea why not even avdata can get a hold of the register.

[Frank Arouet]

vfr flights in raa aircraft don't incur airways charges

Nor do GA VFR, VH registered aircraft, ballons, gliders, ornithopters, weight shift aircraft, man powered flaperagijs, parachutes, left handed lesbian surfboard riders, or helicopters in non CTR airspace.

Whats your point?

Shows they have little understanding of the system in which they are trying to enter

They are not trying to enter it. Read the thread title again. "RA Aus Not coming to a CTA near you" Are you deliberately making mischief or are you naturally thick?

Possibly those same people who resist any form of surveillence to be fitted to RAA aircraft, either transponder powered by SSR or ADS-B.

It would seem a lot here are against uncertified aircraft flying in controlled airspace, yet the same bleating souls are those keen on getting non certified ADSB mandated for use by the great unwashed in any airspace in any aircraft.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just to add a little "source" to the soup, Natfly was not the problem re. standards observed by the new CASA CEO. Let's just say there were "events" in Vic. and Qld. that were a major consideration.

On another matter, would any of you like to present a rational case as to why the "medical" requirement for the (now stalled) RAOz CTA endorsement has anything to do with air safety outcomes. Present your justification by including the rational for a (proposed) CASA RPL with CTA endorsement having a lesser medical standard than an RAOz pilot certificate, for exactly the same operation.

Perhaps, to clarify the above, the draft CASA RPL standard includes the "driver's license medical" as the ONLY medical standard, there is no proposal/provision for "enhanced"(PPL) medical standards to fly with an RPL into CTA.

This RPL draft is entirely consistent with the FAA Sports Pilot License, and remember that there is likely to be a considerable spread of low level (below 8500) of Class E airspace any time soon.

E is legally controlled airspace.

Tootle pip !!!

[Frank Arouet]

Jeeezus LeadSled, this mob are barely literate in not being able to understand stated arguement, words and facts to date. Most haven't the attention span to read more than the previous post and Crisssknows what they will make of a "RPL".

As for Natfly, (I was there), anything done by some GA pilot last time pales into insignificance when you consider the jet beatup by a well known GA representative and identity the year before. Obviously something else to blame RA-Aus for.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadie, I first heard about the RPL nearly twenty years ago. I think RAA has filled that niche quite successfully. Methinks the CASA possibly likes it as well. Administration for RPL flown, VH reg'd, LSA types (now with the same certification process as the yanks???) would be a headache for the CASA they do not need...it allways came across as a pipe dream for the SportAv boys and girls to secure a piece of RAA's pie and a lead in to self administration for the SAAA. That horse has bolted for the SAAA, RAA has got too big.

A cold hard think about it just leads to duplication of a successful operation. If RAA finally gets 760kg the evolution will be complete.

CTA endorsment will come for RAA, they just have to prove the training standards can pass through the CASA scrutiny. The Jaba is correct in pointing out that, at this time, the RAA has dodged an admistrative and training nightmare.

[LeadSled]

Frank,
Thanks for the reminder, RPL is the long mooted Recreational Pilot License, a sub-ICAO license, that some would like "community administered", as competition to RAOz.

As a matte of interest, most western European nations now have a "National Private Pilots License", by whatever name. The various NPPLs, the proposed CASA RPL, the FAA SPL/RPL and the RAOz Pilot Certificate all have a "programmatic specicivity" ( to use the proper Ruddbot cyberspeak) , a commonality, a flying syllabus and flying competency standards ( to use the up to date term for what we have always needed to demonstrate --- that we can fly) that are remarkably similar ---- the Daylight VFR syllabus of 40 or so years ago, the one so many of us experienced ----- and somehow survived.

Australia is not the only country where the "ICAO" PPL has become increasingly un-affordable ---- for no good reason ----- nothing earth shattering has changed in that time, whether it is aircraft, equipiment or matters airspace ---- where there have been minor incremental changes of little impact on daylight VFR operations.

Tootle pip!!

PS: A crossover, Ozbusdriver, I agree with you, but you would be surprised at the present level of confidence being demonstrated by "the usual suspects".

[OZBUSDRIVER]

On the issue of a medical, other than cost grounds there is no justifiable reason to argue AGAINST having a medical. It is only the ones that have something to hide that will argue against sitting for one. Besides, as far as the class 2 goes, the important questions are still based on trust that the pilot is honest when they tick the boxes one the first page.

Honesty and a medical vs Honesty...it would not make any difference to me because I am honest to myself( I hope) However, why should the CASA trust me, they do not know me personally.

[LeadSled]

Ozbusdriver,
The point about medicals in general, is that they have no discernible impact on air safety outcomes.

There is a vast resource of medical statistics for pilots, worldwide, likewise accident reports, there is no measurable connection between the two.

Indeed, there is a case ( not a good one, but better than aviation medicals) to suggests that "driver medicals" could be tougher, because of the carnage a sudden incapacitation in a motor vehicle can and has caused, but to impose that would be political suicide --- but pilot votes don't sway elections.

Indeed, pilot medicals were originally for military screening, intended to reject some 95% of applicants, and had NOTHING to do with the minimum physical standards required to safely pilot an aircraft.

FAA did a huge study before the first FAA RPL, the conclusions are fascinating, apply to all levels of medical certification, and the history clearly show the ability of doctors to lobby to preserve cash flow ---- true air safety considerations, the level of medical certification necessary for the task, did not get a look-in.

The history of FAA v. ATC staff with diabetes is equally fascinating, the medical "standards" had nothing to do with a properly controlled diabetic being able to cope with an ATC job.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

The "medical" was another hangover from WW2 where the RAAF were omnipresent in all things flying. We still see the Military Mentality in a lot of current rules and reg's. Add a few Bureaucrats and you have the clusterfluck we have today. The medical is just another revenue earner.

A different scenerio if you have fare paying bums on seats of course.

[VH-XXX]

Raaus pilot, you have quite obviously never seen an avdata bill before and you wouldn't have unless you owned or operated a ga aircraft. Most council airfields that charge use avdata for the billing of visiting aircraft. I'm not talking about your usual airports that have a collection box. Most touring raa aircraft would be oblivious to the fact that they are racking up bills until such time that they receive one eventually, if at all. A I asked 4 raa a/c owners today at a field during a BBQ and none of them had ever heard of avdata.

[Big_Binocs]

I don't want to get in the way of your discussion here but thought I might clarify something.

Be very clear that a GAAP CTR IS CTA.

Don't be misled by the fact that you don't get a formal airways clearance. The whole design of GAAP is to facilitate high movements of VFR aircraft in VMC. To reduce frequency congestion GAAP uses standard arrival/departure procedures as outlined in AIP ERSA which are used in conjunction with the verbal circuit entry instruction and constitute your airways clearance.

While separation in the air in VMC is primarily with the pilot, you must comply with an ATC instruction and you still require a clearance to enter/transit GAAP CTRs. Try entering without a clearance and you will incur an incident report in the form of a VCA (Violation of Controlled Airspace).

Also when it is non-VMC then it is full separation, IFR to IFR/SVFR and SVFR to SVFR, we don't suddenly stop becoming a GAAP CTR and change into Class D.

If it makes it a bit clearer for you then try thinking of GAAP as Class D with a few exceptions in VMC ;).

We have heard a few rumblings of this whole RAAus in CTA issue but as yet not received any formal direction. As far as this humble tower person is concerned I have no opinion either way on the merits of the RAAus vs GA debate, you are all the same to me :E I just process you as you come. Besides we have bigger issues (to us anyway) to worry about with the CASA drive towards Class D.

Hope that clarified the CTA thingy for you guys, if I missed the point then sorry.

Cheers

[VH-XXX]

Thanks bignocs for adding your professional opinion here, it is most welcome.

[maverick22]

A different scenerio if you have fare paying bums on seats of course.

Sorry Frank, but I fail to see how it matters whether there are "fare paying bums on board" or not. An aviation medical, whilst becoming more expensive every year is quite valuable in determining whether someone is suitably fit to be behind the controls of an aircraft. Even if you are the sole occupent of an aircraft, you still pose a risk to the general public if you are suffering a condition that could jeoparidise your ability to safely pilot an aircraft. If you crash on your own due to incapacitation, then there is no love lost, but what happens when you crash into a populated area? Poor sods on the ground are going to be asking questions about why the pilot was allowed to be in the air.

Totally agree with ozbus, if you have something to hide.... that's when you start worrying about medicals. Otherwise just do one like everyone else has to (in GA anyway) not only to satisfy big brother but yourself!

And thanks Big_Binocs for clarifying that, thought that was the case all along:ok:

[Wallsofchina]

He's not thick, but he is persisting in making mischief, and the aim seems to be to do as much damage to Recreational Aviation as he can.

In recent times this has backfired with a PPL, easily identified, accused of breaking the law, and causing revelations to come to the surface about non VMC operations of an easily identified Gyro.

Apart from anything else this muddies the water at a time when the two groups of aviators need to be banding together to scrutinise ominous developments which affect us all.

[Jabawocky]

It would seem a lot here are against uncertified aircraft flying in controlled airspace, yet the same bleating souls are those keen on getting non certified ADSB mandated for use by the great unwashed in any airspace in any aircraft.

Frank, you are stretching the truth out of context here......and we really should save this for another thread another day, and after I have had time to digest a very long and interesting discussion with a senior ATC guy from BNE CEN last night!


Ohh and some of us can read back past one post too! :ooh:

[VH-XXX]

I'm not even sure if I am even the one being referred to. People need to learn to read. No ppl has allegedly broken the law or been accused of and I have not made accusations against gyro pilots. There is a big difference between breaking the law and bad airmanship and judgement. Perhaps given recent events some raa pilots should be looking to their peers to address this and improve their airmanship and image in aviation as the perception of others is most important given the small size of the industry.

[Frank Arouet]

maverick22;

Have you ever noticed that every safety issue is always addressed with a fee of some sort. Identity cards for example (I don't know for sure but would bet on it being so), were free in Hitler's conquered nations, as were those of Stalinist Russia, Mao's China and so forth. The US doesn't have an ASIC that I know of and trusts their citizens. Only Australia has fee based remedy's for every safety consideration. This country doesn't believe it's citizens can make a rational decision nor be trusted enough to do things within the bounds of common sense and within legal limits.

A DAME signed and isued medical should be sufficient for what is proof of your ability to fly and the best person to judge your health between the validity period is yourself. CASA need not be involved unless persueing that burden of proof as required in legal matters.

Things are happening in Australia today that are moving the goal posts to all of us being GUILTY unless "WE" can prove otherwise.

I personally believe everyone should have a VOLUNTARY medical check every one or two years and concur not only to satisfy big brother but yourself

Jabawocky;

I was not having a shot at you. It was directed to someone who has been gentleman enough to accept and say nothing in response that may lead to inevitable thread drift.

Frank, you are stretching the truth out of context here

Yes it is out of context, but the truth is, I was highlighting some double standards being exhibited here.

[Jabawocky]

fair enough:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, I knew someone once that had a real bad run in with the CASA chief medical officer, he managed to eventually get his licence back but the CASA had the last laugh on him by stamping his licence At CASA discretion or words to that effect...I reckon he had a real reason to hate the system.

For the rest of us, a class2 is no more than a standard check-up with a questionaire. RAA have to pay an annual membership fee to keep their quals alive and fill in a questionare, same diff but no medical....honesty. I race bikes I do a class2, I drive a coach load of people I do a class2, I drive LPG around I do a class2....what is it that gives people the willies about a basic medical?

What really gripes me is the individual cost of doing a heap of medicals every two years... I tee'ed up my DAME one year to cover my class2 and my ANDRA medical he said fine but still charged me for two medicals...that's the gripe. I still have to do two medicals class2 and now for my DG bulk haulage licence...so I am still stuck.

Rules is rules...:}

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

To be fair to CASA, the "renew by CASA only" stamp is so the medico's can assess specialists reports. Specialist reports are normal practice with some medical conditions. They are not a punishment. One would hope this branch of our regulator is as you would expect of the medical profession.

It may be of interest to you also that a rumour of new Director of Aviation Medicine has taken over the chair and word is that he is in favour of more stringent medical's. I believe he is Ex NZ CAA and ex military.

As the ASIC could have been handled with additional checks on your Passport application or renewal for it to substitute and have multiple use for one cost, a universal medical check for aged drivers, truckies, dangerous goods, pilot's- boat licence, insurance, etc could similarly be achieved in this day and age.

But then again there is no money to be made for the "empire builders" is there?

EDIT to add: Just because it is a rule it doesn't mean it is a good rule. Bad rules and laws need to be constantly challenged. I am reminded of the saying, evil prevails when good men do nothing.

This forum is a good place to start a campaign of opposition to those rules that are corrupted by government or bureaucratic greed or incompetence. I know it is followed closely in Canberra.

[Joker 10]

The job of all good bureacrats is to perpetuate the bureacracy, whether it be a Medical , Security, License,Taxation or any other vexatious regulatory requirement.

Australia has one of the most sophisticated bureacracies in the world, ergo they then create the most specialised and bloody minded regulatory framework so they can ensure their Job security and make the system inviolate.

And if a Federal Bureacrat steps out of line you can bet S 70 of the Federal Crimes Act comes down with full force and effect to bash him/her back into line.

So can we expect any change for the better, simplified regulation and sensible risk based application of regulation, I think not.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. Joker 10's reference to the bureaucracy as "sophisticated", ain't that the truth, as per a major meaning of "sophisticated" from the times of ancient Athens.

Thus, a sophist:"Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone."

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric).

"A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual".

Thanks to Wikipedia for the quotes, near enough to the Oxford definition for this purpose.

Applying these definitions, all the "arguments" to justify the ASIC, and many other recent bureaucratic imposts can be more easily "explained".

Tootle pip!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

So.....in effect, Francis, joker and Leadie, your all of the opinion that the RAA has got the medical issue spot on?

[Frank Arouet]

Well, I don't understand why somebody would propose an accepted overseas model of a RPL, with no medical but demand RA-Aus have one to fly in the same airspace. Does this not get back to a syllabus to "teach" someone how to fly in or transit CTR like you do with a post GFPT PPL.

[VH-XXX]

The medical for CTA under RAA was a good idea, but the standard of the medical proposed was not realistically necessary.

As an example, if you're sight was failing and you continue to drive a car and you manage to do so quite safely because you only drive at 60 and you usually only drive to the shops then in theory that is fine. The same driver may fly an RAA aircraft and struggle to safely see to be able to aviate and navigate, but still keeps flying (trust me, I've known of people that have done this), however had this pilot had even the most basic of medicals, his condition would be picked up at this point and appropriate action would be taken (sorry no flying for you, or corrective lenses etc). We all know that ECG's and the full cario workups can be a shocking waste of time given that even a healthy looking 40 year old could die of a heart failure, so a basic medical would suffice.

In summary, for RAA or an RPL there needs to be some basic form of medical screening to ensure the obvious things get picked up.

[LeadSled]

So.....in effect, Francis, joker and Leadie, your all of the opinion that the RAA has got the medical issue spot on?OZ/XXX,
No, I think CASA has it right, applying the National Drivers License medical standard to the RA Oz Pilot Certificate, and the proposed CASA RPL.

That's why applying a different (higher) medical standard to RAA Pilot Certificates for flight in CTA, compared to an RPL in CTA, makes no logical sense.

There is certainly no medical/operational evidence to justify such an action, re. RAA, it is is no more than an artificial obstacle to flight in CTA.

RAA does not "make rules", it administers a set of functions, as delegated by CASA, as do the GFA, HGFA and a few others.

None of this is new, for the GFA, since just after WW 11, about 60 years, for RA Oz, some twenty years ----- all a long enough history for any real ( as opposed to imagined) problems to be evident.

Tootle pip!!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Cute, Leadie....lets rephrase, shall we?

Given the equivalent standards of training between PPL and RAA to fly OCTA/CTAF do you consider the RAA pilot is well covered for fitness to fly medicaly, equivalent to holding a car driver's licence?

[Joker 10]

The medical does not provide fitness to fly, that assessment is with the pilot alone on the day the flight is planned, the category of medical certificate that the examined and measured parameters are acceptable for the life of the certificate and are based on objective scientifically valid limits as witnessed by a qualified observer, DAME. Which is why any General Practicioner cannot do the medical TEST, the DAME is trained to know the limits set out in the CASA handbook which are expressed numerically in the main with tight tolerances.

The PIC is responsible for his/her ongoing fitness and must evaluate that prior to each flight, the consumption of medicine, an abnormal pain, bad teeth,cosumption of alcohol or prohibited substances all remove fitness to fly even though a medical certificate is still valid and inplace.

The time honoured resistence of ICAO licenced pilots to allow any form of "lesser" pilot with only recreational license into their play ground has always invoked the mantra "They are not fit to fly, only fit to drive".

So in an historic sense Douglas Bader was not acceptable to have a medical certificate, but he was fit to fly.

I well remember the really good work done by Dr Artur Pape on colour blindness where colour blind folk simply got knocked out by the test, no ifs no buts, Arthur proved these folk were fit to fly, their sight was good if not as colourful as the general population, but the medical category knocked them out.

After a lot of work Arthur proved that the colour blind folk were indeed fit to fly and new testing was devised for them so they could be objectively tested and given a medical certificate, but the fitness to fly still rests with the pilot, not with the DAME.

[Wallsofchina]

You make a lot of sense Joker 10.

What irritates me is finding the DAME is on the other side of town, and the cost.

As someone previously mentioned, the standards seem to be based on a miltary and possibly not very scientific basis, and for PPL and Recreational licences some reform would seem to be a good idea, and it may be possible to set a common standard for both which would allow a local GP to carry out the medical.

I'm not trying to minimise the testing here, just take away one of the hurdles which causes PPL to give up, the other being the cost of the BFR for an occasional pilot.

[VH-XXX]

Both raa and ga have a bfr, so I don't understand why this is a financial burden. The bfr/afr is an integral part of maintaining currency and should not be seen as an annoying thing that you have to do every two years. I always look forward to doing mine.

[maverick22]

Valid points there Joker, just read DB's book the other day actually. Excellent read:ok:

Wallsofchina, the medical does seem to be rediculously overpriced, but it does remain effective for 4 years. RAA annual membership is $160 odd dollars per annum so over 4 years that outweighs the cost of the medical.

With regard to a BFR (AFR nowadays), I not wuite sure what you are getting at. Whether you fly 50 hours per year or 500 hours per year, an AFR has to be done regardless. Aircraft hire costs are fixed and so is instructor hire, it's just the less you fly over a two year period, the more you will probably need to cover in the AFR. Please also remember that there is a certain amount of theoretical knowledge which needs to be discussed on the ground as part of the flight review, and ground time needs to be paid for too:eek:. A flying school is a business and needs to cover costs! It's just something that you need to cop on the chin as a pilot. What you really need to do is find an instructor that you trust and who knows how you fly, so you know what to expect when it comes time for the AFR. Flight reviews shouldn't be frowned upon, they are an opportunity to brush up on your skills and practise things that you would otherwise not get a chance to do in your day to day flying. Hell, you might even learn something

[Frank Arouet]

but it does remain effective for 4 years

??? It used to be two.

A lot of flying clubs and particularly flying schools maintain currency checks. Used to be 90 days if you hadn't flown in the interim. Night VFR similar if you want to carry passengers.

[maverick22]

but it does remain effective for 4 years

??? It used to be two.

Sorry Frank, it's four years for us younger fellas. It's valid for two years if you are over the age of 40.:ok:

The school I used to work for had compulsory 90 day currency checks, which I believe allowed them to reduce their insurance premiums. Damn good idea regardless I reckon

[Wallsofchina]

Frank, I'd rather have currency checks at shorter intervals, but my main point was about the medicals - the system could be improved without any loss of safety.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is rediculous. Joker, Francis and Leadie....you can quote chapter and verse...I have already got my AIP/CAO/CAR I do not need you guys to regurgitate. What do YOU think is the best for GA/RAA types to fly around in the GAFA?

DAME medical...or...honesty?

[LeadSled]

OZBUSDRIVER,

Nothing cute about it, just a statement of fact, indeed, to be a little more precise, Parliament is the rule maker, and even CASA is an administrator of the rules.

Let us not forget that "regulations" and "orders" are both "dis-allowable documents" in the process of creating secondary legislation by executive government -- Parliament is the final arbiter, as it should be.

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 is perfectly clear about CASA's legislated authority to delegate functions, which it does. This is common across all Commonwealth legislation, nothing unique about the CAA Act 1988. Differentiate carefully between "functions" and "powers", they are not the same.

Do I believe that the National Driver's License Standard (which is not necessarily without a medical examination) is adequate for an RA Oz pilot certificate and CASA proposed RPL --- Unquestionably YES.

In fact, adequate for a PPL, but there is an "ICAO" constraint here.

The statistics (despite their absolute dismissal as an assessment tool by our mate Owen Stanley) are in support of this conclusion.

The biggest study on this subject, of which I am aware, was by FAA, in the development of the original FAA RPL. FAA was well aware of the AUF experience in Australia --- that no air safety threat (let alone measurable threat) could be ascribed to the less restrictive medical standard.

A major conclusion of this FAA study was that any medical certificate/ standard was a very poor predictor of any in-flight medical event/incapacitation/air safety threat. This was across the board, not just 2nd/3rd class medical standards. Thus FAA proposed the (US) national drivers license medical standard as the requirement for the original RPL.

In a similar fashion, but later, the then FAA prohibition on insulin dependent diabetics being air traffic controllers could be shown to have no air safety validity, with the consequent changes to medical standards for ATC folks --- but not before a big stoush with those types who automatically oppose change --- unless it is for more restriction ---- we are rather too good at that in Australia.

After a very vigorous lobby campaign of Dept. of Transport, by the association covering aero-medical doctors/FAA DAMEs (nothing to do with cash flow, of course --- such professional wouldn't let a conflict of interest -- the prospect of losing up to 50% of income ---cloud their judgement, would they) the DoT over-ruled FAA, and into the rules went a more restrictive medical standard ---- same as the PPL.

This was a major factor in "thinking up" the FAA Sports Pilot License (along with suitable aircraft design/certification standards, the Light Sports Aircraft---- somewhat less than FAR 23), so that, in this area US finally caught up with Australia, and to a lesser degree, Canada, UK and several western European countries.

All the above is fact, not opinion, all the documents are publicly available. The amount of medical information alone, on the FAA/DoT web sites, is bordering on the mind-boggling. The shear size of the samples guarantee that the conclusions are valid.

The probability of the class of medical certificate being a predictor of incapacitation in flight is: Vanishingly small.

The only way this would change would be to greatly increase the invasive tests, such as an angiogram, CAT scans, nuclear stress ECG, EEG, echocardiogram etc.---- Does anybody want to pay for that, to "solve" a problem that is already "vanishingly small".

Any takers for an annual $5-10,000 medical --- don't forget medical funds do not pay for "medical certification".

Save us from the likes of the UK CAA --- who are rapidly moving in that direction, including annual colour vision test that would (by their estimates) knock out about 5% of existing UK professional pilots.

Tootle pip!!!

[Wallsofchina]

Well can we go forward with a unified voice in Australia to get the outcome which matches the statisitics?

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

I thought this was about RA-Aus in CTA, but as for the GAFA, the status quo with RA-Aus is fine by me.

If a RPL was introduced, (probably would be administered by RA-Aus anyway), whatever that requirement be. As for the rest of private GA if they stayed in the CASA system I would imagine the CASA requirements would be the point of reference.

maverick22;

This is age discrimination?

Wallsofchina;

If you were an owner /pilot and flew every day for 90 days, why would you need a currency check every 90 days?

As for medicals, and I have said before, if CASA (delegate), designate a medical examiner (DAME), why can't he sign the pilot off without CASA being involved with a money grabbing tax to process something they need only persue when the burden of proof is needed in a legal matter. If CASA don't trust the DAME, why make him a delegate?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, I think we are getting somewhere. Now, WHO does the DAME medical protect? The pilot? the CASA?...or the pilot's passengers?

This is the reason RAA has no formal medical requirments. INFORMED RISK!

All things being equal...pound for pound, there should be NO DIFFERENCE between skill levels between RAA and GA PPL. It is a SKILL LEVEL that limits RAA entry into CTA,( and a visible lack of airmanship for a highly visible small minority) not a medical requirment.

[Jabawocky]

Leadie

My thoughts on medicals are this, speaking about Class 2 V the RAA medically fit declaration.

1. A 4/2 year medical does at least give some indication of the state of ones health, possible problems such as diabetes.

2. It does kind of prevent, or mostly prevent someone having a rather optomistic opinion of their own health, and just signing away the form.

So for the PPL end of the food chain in CTA, I do think the current level of "supervission is appropriate.

For the RAA level of class G, it is appropriate also, but it does expose a slightly higher level of risk to those who may be a bit one eyed (no pun intended) about their medical abilities to fly.

J:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Ozbusdriver;

I'll leaveLeadSled to answer your medico-legal question, I have my thoughts but I am not qualified to give an answer. However I don't think the CASA DAME medical inspection is a warranty that the pilot will remain fit for the next 2 years. There have been many instances of pilot incapacitation when the pilot has a valid medical certificate. One not so long ago where a wife had to sit by and wait for the crash when hubby dropped dead at the controls.

I have been through this validity tenure thing with the maintenance release.

Jabawocky;

What do you know of this 4 year medical. Have you a reference for it's legitimacy? First I've heard of it, but then again I am over 40.

[Wallsofchina]

"If you were an owner /pilot and flew every day for 90 days, why would you need a currency check every 90 days?"

If I was spending the money to fly every day, I wouldn't need it. If I flew once or twice a month I'd be very rusty.

Some good points being made here.

[maverick22]

No discrimination Frank, just the rules. And understandably so too.

From the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998:
Part 67.205

(3) Subject to subregulation (6) and regulations 67.215 and 67.220, a
medical certificate issued by CASA to a person who has undergone
any relevant examinations required for the purpose of the issue of the
certificate remains in force for the period set out in the certificate,
being a period of not more than:
(a) in the case of a class 1 medical certificate — 1 year after the day
when the certificate comes into force; and
(b) in the case of a class 2 medical certificate:
(i) if the person is less than 40 years old when the certificate
is issued to him or her — 4 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; or
(ii) if the person is 40 years old or older when the certificate is
issued to him or her — 2 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; and
(c) in the case of a class 3 medical certificate — 2 years after the day
when the certificate comes into force.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

maverick22:ok:

Francis...forget to regurgitate that bit of the regs?:}

Also seem to remember something about the regs being quaranteened from the discrimination act a few years ago...something about refering to overweight people and emergency exit seats. I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regard:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Thanks maverick22. My first medical was in 1965 and have been 2 yearly ever since. Age overlaps the implementation.

Wallsofchina;

You obviously need to buy an aeroplane and spend your money on something you own instead of giving it to someone else. Remember however, that if you want to make a small fortune out of owning an aeroplane start off with a big fortune.

[Wallsofchina]

Throwing hundred dollar bills out of the upstairs window?

[Frank Arouet]

This may sound simplistic, but one hour of solo flying in a Jabiru is the same as one hour of solo flying in a Bonanza. An hour is an hour is an hour and it depends on your needs of course, but if you can't afford the Bonanza the answer is obvious whether you own or hire.

Assuming of course you don't need to fly a RA-Aus registered Jabiru into or transit a CTR for a while. It's the same aeroplane as the VH registered equivalent, but lets not go there.

[Joker 10]

Age has a natural cause legally, ergo there is no discrimination possible if the distinction requiring extra vigilance on medical outcomes is merely age.

MARK my words age will get all of you !!

I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regardhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

:=

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

but one hour of solo flying in a Jabiru is the same as one hour of solo flying in a Bonanza

Ya thunk?

Dr :8

[Ultralights]

i think 1 hr in a jab would be more difficult than a bonanza. no gps, no another gps, no yet another gps, no laptop, no autopilot....



sorry, couldnt help myself...:}

[Jabawocky]

Ultralights.... I think you are qualified to comment on this too............and I agree! :}

I must say there is a different slant to the story though under different conditions.

Of course I can now lay claim to an even lazier form of transport than the Bonanza.... :}:}:}

yes Multi GPS tablet....Autopilot WITH GPSS......and no gear to worry about:ok:....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG :E.

Sorry ... Back to normal viewing!

Ultralights :=:= you bring the worst out in me! :E

PS: Frank...... 4 years it is, I have been on them, up until this November :{ when at 41 I will be joining all you Old Farts on the 2 years system. And bugger it CAMS do not recognise the CASA medical any more like they used to :ugh:....... see moronic rules is not just aviation, its motor racing as well! :rolleyes:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

yes Multi GPS tablet....Autopilot WITH GPSS......and no gear to worry abouthttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

How did it go again? Two aircraft left Hervey Bay, the RV10 departing ahead of the Bonanza V35B.

Which one arrived at Maleny VOR 13 nm ahead of the other one?

Dr :8

[Frank Arouet]

What have I done?:(

[triton140]

Ya thunk?

You clearly are not familiar with the V160 ....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/3814677736_2f14ef08c6_o.jpg

[j3pipercub]

Is that supposed to make it look better?? Any high wing aircraft that you can easily stand and look down on the top of the wing is wrong, just wrong...


..but not a bad photoshop attempt, better than anyhting I could do :}

[Jabawocky]

FTDK...... will you ever be brave enough to do that test again? :ok:

[QNH1013.2]

J3, that would depend entirely on how tall you are ;)

[j3pipercub]

perhaps, but if you are tall enough to look down on the top wing of a C172, then it might look average too...

[Wallsofchina]

and a J 3 from any angle?

[j3pipercub]

I must be seriously short cos I can't stand in front of a j3 and look over the top of the wing...anyway taildraggers don't really count, was referring to the fantastic plastic varieties...

[ahlocks]

I must be seriously short cos I can't stand in front of a j3 and look over the top of the wing..

..looking for someone to do an underwing inspection on the tin toy..you could be a walk up start. :E

[Ultralights]

Business as usual.
Nav lessons are combined with solo circuit time at the destination aerodrome. or Camden/Wollongong.

[C180FOXTROT]

Give it a rest Brent, focus on your own skills

[SokPuppet]

Is it just me or are post disappearing from this thread?

[j3pipercub]

Posts magically disappear all the time, they go to that great big forum in the sky...

[SokPuppet]

Thanks J3.

Wasn't sure if there was a problem with google or if it was a problem here. Either way the problem has vanished. ;)

TTFN

[j3pipercub]

no worries, did you want to put your right age in when you come across from the 'other' forum though...

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

Me thinks Sokpuppet (amongst many others here) = avid Baker supporter.

When RAAus and GA play nicely together the world will be a better place an optimist would say!

Perhaps RAAus can stay below 5,000ft and GA above and GA use left circuit and RAAus use the right and everyone will be happy. Perfect solution. I haven't worked out the bit where GA get to above 5,000ft though.

[SokPuppet]

Come on J3,
I'm a sock puppet and only a few hours old so I had to lie about my age.

The bloke with his hand up my bum said to tell you he's not interested in pretending to have a CPL and just likes flying around with an RAA certificate because it provides what he wanted. He reckons that CTA might of have been of some use, but certainly not essential and not worth jumping through hoops to get a PPL for. But that's just his opinion.

Contrary to what a couple of other sock puppets would have you believe, GA and RAA can play nice together. Just have to weed out the idiots and egos.

CYA

[Wallsofchina]

Goodness me, any more files destroyed in this thread and it will collapse!

What's going on?

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

C'mon, give it a rest guys, you're not doing the RA-Aus reputation any good by continally entering into such debates that can never end nicely.

Let's all just play happy and enjoy the same airspace together :)

[Wallsofchina]

That's an odd reaction dot com - what are you rabbiting on about?

It's GA posts that are going missing, and the ones going missing seem to be the ones critical of your lot.

Don't you want that?

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

Ok then I came in at the tail end and probably missed a few things I got some pm's about what was going on over here so I registered. Either way Id love a CTA endorsement but looks like I'll have to wait a bit longer for it. We are a fair way from Controlled Airspace at Shep so I dont NEED an endorsement but it would be good to have one as we are close enough to be able to zoom in there in an afternoon and visit rellies in Melbourne.

[Wallsofchina]

Went down to Shep last week. Good show on at Rawhide!

[j3pipercub]

The bloke with his hand up my bum Knew you RAA blokes were different but.....:}

he's not interested in pretending to have a CPL I love pretending to be a CPL, it's great, works a treat at the terminal coffee shop

j3

[Wallsofchina]

Pretending to be a CPL in the coffe shop is innocent enough, but a PPL handing out flying advice as a "CPL" might have different consequences though.

[SW3]

This is an old thread which has been thrashed to pieces, however there is still life in it yet. This coming to thought recently as a pilot was attempting to obtain a clearance. He eventually got there however in an unorthodox manner.

I believe a CTA Endorsement for the RAAus would be extremely benificial. I know there will be many 'Egos' for the want of a better word attack this so lets look at some cold hard facts.

* RAAus pilots are NOT substandard and neither are RAAus instructors. Hands up who has ever conducted a 100% perfect flight without a mistake? Those that have are either lying or didn't know they made a mistake. Those that throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses. No one is perfect, RAAus OR GA.
RAAus pilots take a lot of pride in their flying and fly for the enjoyment of it. After all isn't that why we are all pilots? We all have a common interest right? RAAus aircraft are no different to fly to a GA aircraft.
RAAus instructors are their because they want to be, not to just build hours. Many have distinguished flying careers, are extremely professional and teach the nearly extinct arts of stick and rudder flying and airmanship.
RAAus is here to cater for the enthusiast. So it should be able to cater for the enthusiast who lives in a city area as well.

* RAAus aircraft are NOT substandard. The aircraft in question for CTA flying are CASA certified with a certified engine. They have two wings, a tail and an engine. Sounds like an aeroplane to me. And also, the aeroplane only knows it is flying in the sky, it doesn't know what type of airspace it is in.

* Education and training is the key. Understanding airspace is of upmost importance. CTA is a professional and procedural environment and these procedures must be adhered to. This goes for RAAus and GA. So long as there is sufficient training there is no reason why RAAus pilots can't be trained to fly RAAus aircraft in CTA. It's not rocket science. RAAus pilots are not incapable of being taught and RAAus instructors are not incapable of teaching it. I see an argument which comes up so often is "RAAus training is substandard and not to the same level of GA". Those who think that should realise we aren't in the 1980's anymore and RAAus is here to stay. GA pilots are not elite or superior pilots to RAAus and vice versa.

* Controlled airspace is not difficult. In fact it is easier and safer than OCTA. Sufficient training will reduce VCA's and prevent pilots from being scared of airspace. In addition CTA flying is not to only fly into and land at a primary airport, it can be for crossing airspace. Why smash around the bumps, terrain and traffic when you could simply obtain a clearance and be on your way.

A controversial issue but not a complicated one.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Hands up who has ever conducted a 100% perfect flight without a mistake?

Yep, that would be me!

It was 22 April 1990, C402 VH-XDW, YBTL-YBMA-YBTL to collect a load of gold bullion - damn that was a good flight - as close to perfection as you can get! :ok:

Dr :8

[SW3]

Close to perfection, the best we can all do!

[Horatio Leafblower]

SW3,

Many of your points are 100% correct. However, I take issue with the following:

"RAAus training is substandard and not to the same level of GA".

It is not necessarily true that the training is substandard.

It IS, however, true that the CONTROL AND REGULATION of RAAus schools is less than that of CASA schools.

CASA struggle to audit my school once in 3 years. The RAAus were recently boasting that they had more flying schools than CASA, yet they have HOW many inspectors? 2? The Ops Manager and his Deputy?

[VH-XXX]

Many are correct Horatio, how about many are not?

Anyone would think that Mr. baker wrote that post to stir people up into posting onto his ailing forum that has gone completely down hill of late.

The aircraft in question for CTA flying are CASA certified with a certified engine

No. That is wrong.

They are not "certified.". They are "approved" and that being said, you do NOT need an approved aircraft to fly into CTA in either GA or RA. This information is so freely Available in RA publications and operations manuals so I have no idea why people continue to post made up facts all over the forums! It is your "certificate" that is letting you down, it has nothing to do with the aircraft at all!

If you want people to think that RA should be allowed I side CTA (including CASA) you need to write letters based on fact. Talk about high standards of training, how the instructors will be taught themselves, how the knowledge will be gained by the students, the theory behind the endorsement etc etc. Don't just write how your instructor Bob is really good at his radio calls in CTA. There ARE still plenty of RA instructors out there that have NEVER flown in CTA and many that rarely have so you (or RA) somehow need to solve that problem. One would say that they could limit it to certain instructors with the required experience, fair enough, however remember that many of these instructors have never taught in CTA before and probably the only exposure they had was when they did their PPL years before.

There is an endorsement available for RAA pilots and it's called a PPL. Great news is that it is likely your aircraft is already equipped so not much required there.

[Sunfish]

Still waiting for the RAA to get 600kg. That was supposed to happen last July.

[VH-XXX]

* Controlled airspace is not difficult. In fact it is easier and safer than OCTA. Sufficient training will reduce VCA's and prevent pilots from being scared of airspace. In addition CTA flying is not to only fly into and land at a primary airport, it can be for crossing airspace. Why smash around the bumps, terrain and traffic when you could simply obtain a clearance and be on your way.


SW3, Have you even ever flown in CTA before?

So Class C is "easier" than Class G?

What about the radio work, the clearances, frequency changes, readbacks, sequencing, transponder codes, vectoring, IFR waypoints, altitude changes, terminology? Not to mention weather; trying to get a clearance on a clogged frequency because you are approaching cloud, or a radio failure at 5,000ft overhead Tullamarine, or perhaps flying over built up areas unable to glide clear, bumping around in CTA in thermals, stuck at a certain altitude, or not being granted your clearance and bumping around just next to clouds wondering if you will fit between them and the nearby CTA boundary.

Eeeeeeeasy.

It would seem that the RAA is trying to sell the idea to CASA that their pilots would want to use CTA to simply transit areas in safety. There's this feeling that if you are being bumped around, just "get a clearance" and climb over it.

We all know that whilst there might be some truth in that, in reality RAA aircraft will simply start operating in CTA areas, Class D etc, just like any other aircraft. It was for that reason that CASA didn't allow the CTA endorsement through. With the recent GAAP fatailities they simply didn't want the extra traffic in GAAP at the time and if you've visited a busy Class-D lately, you would probably agree yourself.

[baswell]

What about the radio work, the clearances, frequency changes, readbacks, sequencing, transponder codes, vectoring, IFR waypoints, altitude changes, terminology? Not to mention weather; trying to get a clearance on a clogged frequency because you are approaching cloud, or a radio failure at 5,000ft overhead Tullamarine, or perhaps flying over built up areas unable to glide clear, bumping around in CTA in thermals, stuck at a certain altitude, or not being granted your clearance and bumping around just next to clouds wondering if you will fit between them and the nearby CTA boundary.
Bwahaha!!! How many flight through Class C airspace do GA pilots do before being signed off? And IFR waypoints? Yes, ATC tell VFR flights to track to IFR waypoint all the time.

Have you looked at the standard "ATC flight radio for VFR pilots" book? A whole two or tree pages of CTA. Last time I checked, it didn't even have the phrase "Clearance limit" in it.

Seriously, dude, CTA training in GA is a joke; RA-Aus was ready with an actual syllabus and a 50-question exam.

[VH-XXX]

Bwahaha!!!

With an attitude like that, I seriously question whether you have also been into CTA recently, or a busy one for that matter.

RA pilots should buy a scanner and listen to what goes in in CTA. You don't hear the approach, departure and tower frequencies when you're banging around in your Class G CTAF some 300 kms out of Adelaide or where-ever you are.

And IFR waypoints? Yes, ATC tell VFR flights to track to IFR waypoint all the time.


So this is in the RAA syllabus is it? Do RAA pilots even carry a map that has these on it?

Seriously, dude, CTA training in GA is a joke; RA-Aus was ready with an actual syllabus and a 50-question exam.

If that was true, then CASA would have accepted it, wouldn't they, so why didn't they? Is a 50 question exam going to give you enough experience in CTA to get you through and safely?

How many times Baswell did you go into CTA to get your PPL?

I'm not anti RAA at all, don't get me wrong. The members need to realise what they are asking for. It's not the holy grail that everyone seems to think it is and an endorsement does already exist; the PPL.



Still waiting for the RAA to get 600kg. That was supposed to happen last July.


Interesting point there Sunfish. I wonder if the recent discovery by CASA that many an RAA aircraft including low-end Cessna's were over weight will have any impact on 600 coming. Ramp-checks do happen to RAA aircraft too a few pilots recently discovered! If they can't abide by 544kg, I can't see them abiding to 600kg either.

[baswell]

I seriously question whether you have also been into CTA recently
I regularly fly my recreational aircraft out of Parafield into Adelaide's class C under the exemption granted by CASA to Forsyth Aviation. One of the requirements of this exemption is that students get the same CTA training as GA students.

And yes, I too find it easy and relaxing.

So this is in the RAA syllabus is it? Do RAA pilots even carry a map that has these on it?
You mentioned IFR waypoints for VFR flights in CTA, I responded sarcastically. RA-Aus pilots have the same map carrying requirements as GA pilots and I am sure they always make sure they up to date ones, like GA pilots. (Another bit of sarcasm, in case you missed it.)

If that was true, then CASA would have accepted it, wouldn't they
Or could the shelving be due to a combination of a new director at the same time as the knee-jerk GAAP circuit number changes, as GAAP airfields would have been a likely destination for many recreational flyers?

Is a 50 question exam going to give you enough experience in CTA to get you through and safely?
Nope, you need practical experience as well, which is in the syllabus. In any case, it's a lot more CTA theory questioning than GA gets.

[baswell]

Ramp-checks do happen to RAA aircraft too a few pilots recently discovered! If they can't abide by 544kg, I can't see them abiding to 600kg either.
You make it sound like GA pilots never overload their aircraft. I have witnessed the practice happing many times.

Pot, kettle.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

And IFR waypoints? Yes, ATC tell VFR flights to track to IFR waypoint all the time.

??????? They do?

Would be interesting to hear from an ATC'er about that.

Not in my experience. Occassionally ask me, when on an IFR plan, to track via a VFR entry or reporting point but not the other way round that I can recall.

Dr :8

[baswell]

??????? They do?
According to VH-XXX they do. Not in my experience either. Had some points that were not actually VFR waypoints, some location not even marked on the VTC and only locals would know, but never an IFR waypoint.

[mcgrath50]

If RA-Aus is so good why don't we close down down GA and let them regulate it?

RA-Aus was set up to allow easy local area flights for people interested in flying themselves and possibly a friend around for the day. Not to be GA.

[SW3]

VH-XXX you need to get OFF your high horse and READ my points rather than just fire off your opinion because I mentioned RAAus. Like I said, it's not 1980 anymore and oh yeah, RAAus aircraft do carry maps.

For your information I fly in CTA everyday for a living so yes I have flown in CTA before and so I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Reading your reply of how difficult CTA is leads me to ask you, have you ever flown in CTA before?? And how much?? Maybe you need to go in for more training? WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT I'M GETTING AT!

Let me reiterate. Training and education is the key. Yes many RAAus instructors have not flown in CTA before, neither had GA Instructors before they did the CTA component.
Therefore, train the instructors who will then train the students. Rocket science hey? And I recall something about a high standard is required in CTA and this would have to be adhered to?

Baswell is correct. Way back when I did my PPL I did three navs into CTA. Not what you would call exhaustive.

McGrath50 did you read my point about catering for those enthusiasts who live in a city area? Why should they miss out on the benefits of RAAus? RAAus is NOT trying to be GA, it was set up for the enthusiast and it does that fantastically. Not surprisingly CTA WAS NOT SET UP FOR GA to have to itself. It's not a holy land open only to PPL holders and above.

As for IFR waypoints, I believe the ERSA states to track as closely as possible to IFR routes. Can't say I've ever heard of a VFR aircraft being asked to track via an IFR waypoint. How exactly do you do that via primary means (Map) without an approved GPS?

VH-XXX you say you aren't anti RAAus. Mate read your replies. YOU ARE. Every point you raise against RAAus pilots, many GA pilots have been guilty of. However I'm not going to enter into an argument, my point is we all deserve use of Australian airspace and we all have a common interest, FLYING. Who cares what you fly, as long as you fly. We should be united, not have 'this camp and that camp'. I'm in both and its nonsense this game of them and us.

Horatio yes RAAus schools don't have as many anchors from CASA as GA schools do, and this is what makes it so good. Less regulation doesnt mean a lower standard, it only takes away the requirements which don't apply. Wouldn't that be nice for all?
Schools in RAAus are regularly inspected and must conform to all requirements. If they don't there are severe repucussions, as for any pilots which flout the rules.

[VH-XXX]

If the standard is (or is going to be) as high as you say, that is going to cost money to implement and it will cost the end user / pilot in the end.

If 3 or whatever NAV's in GA is not enough, how many will there be in RAA and if so how much will this cost?

Why don't RAA pilots want to take the now easy route then and get their PPL - it sounds like it's going to be a piece of cake compared to the new proposed RAA endorsement.

Don't forget, it's not the AIRCAFT that can't go into CTA, it's the PILOT. There's no discrimination against RAA pilots as far as the system is concerned. Your RAA certificate allows you to fly under certain privileges and exemptions, which everyone wants to stretch to get more bang for their buck. I understand that, however the qualification route to fly in CTA has been there for quite a number of years. If you want the privileges, get the licence. It can't be any more simple.

I am like many RAA pilots in a way. I used to fly RAA but was getting annoyed at not being able to fly into CTA. The rules didn't allow this, so instead of doing it anyway and breaking the rules and complaining, writing on forums and writing letters to CASA and the RAA, I simply went out and got my PPL and moved on from there. Problem solved. Why can't others do the same?

I along with many other members ditched my membership in the end. I was sick of people whinging all the time about weight increases and CTA. I was also terribly disappointed at the level of lies, deceipt and corruption at the board level (happy to start another thread about that if you want). It is an organisation that really needs a cleanup and removal of the double-standards and lack of process.

Baswell says: You make it sound like GA pilots never overload their aircraft. I have witnessed the practice happing many times.


True you are, BUT, GA aren't the ones campaigning for a weight increase! TO be successful in anything in life you need to keep your noses clean. If you want to fly a Cessna 150 or an RV9 on an RAAus registration, you simply can't just take out the passenger seat, have it inspected, then put it back in again when nobody is looking. RAA and CASA (and the people watching from your local airfield) are a little smarter than that!

Dr. says: ??????? They do?

We get that a bit down here in Melb. I certainly would not say that it was "all the time" as previously suggested by another poster. Inbound YMMB from north of the CBD you may get something along the lines of "track Lacey, Essendon" or something like that. Not uncommon, but not frequent.


And yes, I too find it easy and relaxing. (CTA)


I'm glad that the recreational pilots that I share CTA with think like this. It really makes me want to continue to be there, sharing the airspace with you.

[SW3]

VH-XXX, completing your PPL to enable entry to controlled airspace was your choice which is great. It is an option around the issue. As for getting involved in RAAus politics, not what I'm here for. They are doing a fantastic job and I am not here whinging or complaining about what we can and can't do on a pilot's certificate. I am merely pointing out a specific area where certificate holders should have access to.

Obtaining a PPL is relatively expensive and not everyone would want to do this, nor would it suit all. The point I am making is the option should be made available to RAAus certificate holders. Just doing your PPL is not on the table for a lot of people.

The type of licence you have depends on your flying needs. If you wish to take more than one passenger, PPL it is. If you want to fly at night, PPL it is. If you wish to fly for a living, CPL it is and so on. RAAus wishes to provide affordable flying to the people and I cannot for the life of me see why CTA is such a massive issue. It is just airspace, and I'll say it again not rocket science. How about the RAAus aircraft owner near a metro area. Why should they have to drive hours on end to fly their aeroplane or obtain a new licence? There are horses for courses, and CTA shouldn't require another horse to run the course.

Yes to implement the training/endorsement and so on would incur more expense to the membership. Therefore it should pass through a vote to determine if this is what the membership desires.

Once again CTA is not some magical place where only a certain few are allowed. I've flown RAAus aircraft in CTA and surprisingly it was no different to flying anything else in there. And the same would go for a RAAus certificate holder trained in CTA, there would be no difference to a PPL holder.

[SW3]

VH-XXX I think you'd rather argue than fly, I'm not playing cat and mouse here. And I'd prefer it if you would refrain from referring to the board of the RAAus in such a slanderous manner, and I'm not joking. Once again, read what I have written, THIS IS NOT WHAT I"M HERE ABOUT.

Slightly higer costs?? Have you recently looked at the cost of dual training in GA compared to RAAus?? It makes no sense for an RAAus pilot to convert to GA just to do the CTA component as AGAIN, it is not a massive undertaking, only to never fly a GA aircraft again. Theory and navexs including the CTA component, as for GA.

I have no idea where you got the view of it being simply wanting something for nothing. As per today, user pays for airspace. That being the pilot or operator. ASICs do cost money but are required in more and more places. Again, it is an OPTION if you wish to do it, as for GA. The cost of these and a medical are not going to put an end to one's financial state and in no way adds costs to members not using CTA. Clutching at straws now I think, don't you?

Around and around in circles we go. Read my points. Agree with them or disagree, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just as we are all entitled to Australian airspace.

[mcgrath50]

The type of licence you have depends on your flying needs. If you wish to take more than one passenger, PPL it is. If you want to fly at night, PPL it is. If you wish to fly for a living, CPL it is.

If you want to go in CTA PPL it is. If RAAus wants to be in the CTA then they will have to apply the standards and regulations across training, currency and maintenance which would surely close much of the price gap that you guys cherish.

I have a go-kart license doesn't mean I am allowed on the roads although most of the skills are the same!

[baswell]

If 3 or whatever NAV's in GA is not enough
Who said it wasn't enough? Clearly it is. Pretending that GA has any better CTA training than it has and RA-Aus could never achieve that standard only undermines your argument for no CTA in RA-Aus; you better find a different good reason 'cause this ain't it.

Why can't others do the same?
Because a) there is no good reason to deny it and b) it doesn't make any sense to spend thousands to get the PPL and then never fly a GA aircraft again. All this doesn't seem to be an issue for the sport pilot certificate in the US, but obviously, CASA knows something the FAA doesn't.

I'm glad that the recreational pilots that I share CTA with think like this. It really makes me want to continue to be there, sharing the airspace with you.
You confuse a relaxed state with not taking what you are doing serious. Relax, man. You can always opt not to fly. (The last thing that somewhat raised my stress levels in CTA was two highly trained GA pilots with similar call signs answer calls for the other when the controller was clearly trying to keep one away from me.)

[SW3]

McGrath50, lets compare apples with apples. An RAAus aircraft is not a go-kart in comparison to a GA aircraft. Explain to me then why you can register many RAAus aircraft VH? Is it still a go-kart? Or does it magically change to a car? Can you register your go-kart as a car?

What makes a PPL so special as to allow CTA entry and not an RAAus pilot with CTA training? Scared of someone else playing in your playground? If your PPL makes you superman, hop in your FA18 and let other pilots enjoy flying again.

And my point about 3 navs is that it isn't too hard to complete the training, therefore not too hard for anyone.

[Unhinged]

Just as we are all entitled to Australian airspace.

Ahhh there it is; had to be somewhere ... The aggrieved sense of denied entitlement.

What a load of rubbish. We are not all entitled to any such thing, no more than we are all entitled to drive on the road. If you want access to any controlled privilege in life, you need to meet the appropriate requirements. And if you want access to CTA, you simply need to qualify for it in the prescribed manner. If you put as much energy into getting a PPL as you're putting in to avoiding it, then you'd have solved the problem a long time ago.

[VH-XXX]

If you put as much energy into getting a PPL as you're putting in to avoiding it, then you'd have solved the problem a long time ago.

Here here...! (or is it Hear, Hear?) Well said.

That is my point with the whole thing!

This has been going on for years.

I thought I'd add in some pictures so some of the posters can better understand some of the differences between Ultraights and General Aviation.

http://imtalkingames.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/deadhorse_featured.jpg


http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/flying-car-dune-buggy-7.jpg?w=499&h=413


http://planetmousepad.com/images/m1442.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2325660754_95a6dd1881.jpg



Photo credit to their respective owners - see source link for more details.

[SW3]

Ahh huh, pilots are entitled to use airspace. That's why we have aeroplanes and learnt to fly. Granted yes it is a priviledge, potato potarto. Again my point, all pilots be it GA or RAAus should be entitled to the priviledge (Happy now Unhinged?) of CTA.
May I suggest you read my first post? The whole point I'm trying to get across, education and allowing us all to enjoy the skies. End of broken record, not going to repeat my points again.
My reasoning for this post in the first place Unhinged is not for me at all, I have licences and a PPL is just one of them so this post is not for my own personal needs. No one is after a free ticket, however it is not just a right of passage open to only a few.
Nice pics VH-XXX, too bad these are the aircraft not of the type wishing to use CTA.
Anyway, my point is raised and I will leave the fun and games to you. Enjoy!

[mcgrath50]

Yes they can be registered on the VH register but then the users and maintenance upkeep must jump through the more stringent and more costly hoops. As XXX said its not that I think I'm amazing with my PPL and my F18 (if you can tell me where I left it, it would be much appreciated) but an issue of safety.

It is exactly like a go-kart, they perform over 100km/h are driven by people who don't fit the bill for a road license (can be driven by people under 17 for example) and is by all accounts a skill that would probably allow you to drive on the road ok. But that's not the process, the process is to get a road license so we are all judged safe by the same yardstick.

[SW3]

McGrath50, open your eyes. Its 2011, not 1980.
My opinions are based on experience, not simply on what I think. Insulting percieved ability, qualifications and age is not very intelligent I must say.

[Sunfish]

I agree with VH-XXX. I've got my PPL. I've investigated getting an RAA ticket. I would like to build an LSA kit and register it under RAA, but what I've found in terms of uncertainty have turned me right off the entire process.

For the record, I live in Melbourne, and the idea that I cannot transit areas around Melbourne, nor fly over built up areas, nor legally fly the aircraft at its designed MTOW, destroys the value of RAA registration and licensing permanently.

I am not interested in the "Nod Nod , wink wink, know what I mean" solutions I have been offered. I will not even detail what those solutions are out of deference to those using them right now because CASA would come down like a ton of bricks on them if I am correct about their legality (which is moot , since I'm not a lawyer.)

To put it another way, I'm not investing Sixty Grand in an aircraft that might, sort of, be legal, sometimes. And I'm heartily sick of people who keep telling me that something is OK via the RAA without being able to show me specific written regulations that would conclusively prove it in a court of law.

The RAA should for once come clean on what they can and cannot provide in plain English. As far as I am concerned, all an RAA licence and registration can provide for a kit built aircraft and RAA licensed pilot is operation outside controlled airspace at a maximum weight of 544 Kg.

For the record, I often fly a factory built LSA aircraft out of YMMB, but then I have PPL. If it was a kit built aircraft of exactly the same type, I'm not sure I can fly it in CTA, let alone over built up areas, and I know I certainly can't use it for training or airwork.

The solution to that is getting an "Experimental" certificate and that is a subject I hope to research with the SAAA if the have a stall at Avalon. The RAA showing at the last air show left me no wiser, probably because I went on the trade days.

[Jabiman]

VH-XXX wrote:
I thought I'd add in some pictures so some of the posters can better understand some of the differences between Ultraights and General Aviation.
From the Jabiru website, here is what their instrument panel looks like:
http://www.jabiru.net.au/instruments/Option%205%20IMG_0513.gif

Now compare this to a GA clapped out 30 year old Cessna.

[Jabiman]

And I'm heartily sick of people who keep telling me that something is OK via the RAA without being able to show me specific written regulations that would conclusively prove it in a court of law.

Dont know which world you are living in but 'interpretation' of the law is a problem in most facets of life and especially business. If it wasnt then there wouldnt be a need for all those legions of well paid lawyers which permeate all of society.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This argument is a tail chase...things were looking rosy for RAA...right up until the CASA got a new director. Coincidence?

The procedures are just a competancy. There is nothing "God Like" in the ability to levitate through controlled airspace. There is nothing special about an aeroplane other than a working radio and a working transponder.

Face it, until the deckchairs get reshuffled, RAA is not ever likely to be allowed into anything higher than E. Nothing personal...it's just personal!

[VH-XXX]

I must say SW3, I am now a little intrigued by the motive of your (likely innocent) original post.

This is an old thread which has been thrashed to pieces, however there is still life in it yet. This coming to thought recently as a pilot was attempting to obtain a clearance. He eventually got there however in an unorthodox manner.

I believe a CTA Endorsement for the RAAus would be extremely benificial. I know there will be many 'Egos' for the want of a better word attack this so lets look at some cold hard facts.

So you heard a guy in his ultralight that asked for a clearance into CTA. Let's assume that he was not authorized to fly into CTA because of his unorthodox method of obtaining a clearance. (if he had a PPL he would have known what he was doing). Fair enough, you have then suggested that RAA should be able to get an endorsement for CTA operations, presumably so this guy may better know what he is doing next time?

This is the type of pilot that we don't want operating into CTA and you are supporting him to an extent. Why if he wasn't licensed to do so, did he try and enter, obviously not an emergency as he would have said so? Did he have a certified altimeter which he is required to do so under RAA regs, did he have the RAD43/47 done on his transponder? Don't forget, he is mixing it with RPT. Do you want him mixing it with airliners that your friends or family might be on?


On a side note, was speaking to an avionics guy recently. He was perplexed (and peeved off) at the number of RAA aircraft owners that believe that they don't have to have their transponders RAD checked every two years. GA does and RAA is not exempt. He cited a recent example where a newly built and purchased Aircraft was flown from Qld to Vic. The new transponder had not been checked and the pilot removed the unserviceable tag. On the way home in central NSW an airbus overhead had to perform a collision avoidance as the transponder was incorrectly reading over 30,000 ft. That is someone I don't want to share CTA with!

[mcgrath50]

McGrath50, open your eyes. Its 2011, not 1980.
My opinions are based on experience, not simply on what I think. Insulting percieved ability, qualifications and age is not very intelligent I must say.

My opinions too are based on my experience and the experience of others (from both sides) I have listened to. I can almost guarantee you have more years under your belt but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid as a part of a discussion which is what I believe we are having. In no way have I insulted anyones personnel ability or even mention age.

My issue is the inequity, what makes RAAus great (and a reason I would 'migrate' to it) is because it's cheap because it doesn't need to be regulated as highly because they avoid costly things like CTA (user pays), CASA systems of maintenance (costly) and the increased training needed to conduct CTA ops (maybe I am a bad pilot but I most certainly found CTA flying harder to grasp than Class G flying initially.). This will all need to be implemented to RAAus and will make it costly to something much closer to GA fees. Why go there? If you want CTA get a PPL. An experienced RAAus pilot such as yourself shouldn't have much difficulty converting and the cost would be much reduced.

[VH-XXX]

Sure Jabiman, that is a picture of a panel available in new Jabiru aircraft.

The difference between the 30 year old "clapped out Cessna" is that the Jabiru has the lowest cost denominator non-TSO'ed Dynon with an Avmap GPS. it has a non TSO'ed $350 turn coordinator, a non TSO Chinese $350 altimeter, a $200 ASI and a bunch of LED's from Supercheap autos. This is actually an LSA night VFR model and costs approx $30k extra. To its' credit, it does have a TSO'ed Garmin SL30, however that is not typical as it is a requirement for NVFR.

Short of the SL30 which is not standard in this aircraft there are no useful TSO'ed navaids so how are you going to track legally to an IFR approach point or similar?

This discussion was more about the pilot than the equipment though I guess.

[VH-XXX]

The solution to that is getting an "Experimental" certificate and that is a subject I hope to research with the SAAA if the have a stall at Avalon. The RAA showing at the last air show left me no wiser, probably because I went on the trade days.

Sunny, you are spot by considering the SAAA and certainly on the right track with your thinking. As an SAAA member (a number of us are here including Jabawocky) I can tell you from experience that the rules and regulations are much more flexible and accommodating than the Raa guidelines. You are fully authorized in an amateur built aircraft to fly at the MTOW for the aircraft, be GA registered, fly into CTA, over built up areas and perform your own maintenance, as well as NVFR and IFR flight. It is actually the Holy Grail that you are thinking it is. That is why there are so many RV's and the like buzzing around all over the country. (You also don't have to pay $220 to register it and $110 every year!)

Happy to discuss further via PM.

[superdimona]

Why would you need to track to an IFR approach point while flying VFR?

Personally I find it rather insulting that a GA student can fly in CTA with 10 hours on his first solo, yet an RAA pilot with 500 hours can't be trained to do the same thing. Obviously they can because several RAA schools have exemptions. And gliders have been legally allowed to fly in CTA since forever, with FAR less training then the proposed RAA endorsement.

And yes, I could go and get a PPL. I then go from spending ~$200 an hour to training in a new RAA aircraft (with free briefings), to ~$300 an hour in a clapped-out 20 year old 172. If I'm lucky I'll find a flight school that will recognize I can in fact fly (I've had a GA school want to start me from Straight & Level!) Then I need to pay for a medical, then finally pay for a flight test and the testing officer. All this and I'll get a license that lets me fly aircraft I never intend to again. It's like being required to get a bus license in order to drive your car down the highway.

Edit: Is there any actual evidence that modern non-TSO'd instruments are less reliable?

[VH-XXX]

Edit: Is there any actual evidence that modern non-TSO'd instruments are less reliable?

Doesn't matter does it. It is about what is legal.

Just like RAA pilots. They can fly in CTA, bit it's not legal.

[Icarus2001]

You cannot bitch and moan about not being able to go into CTA since you knew that limitation when you decided to go down the RAA route.

You make your choice and live with the consequences. You cannot then complete the training and want the rules changed.

If you want to go CTA go PPL.

What would be next...we have great panels...why can't we go in IMC with a PIFR under RAA? The aircraft are very reliable why can we only carry one passenger.

Build a bridge.

[superdimona]

I very well can bitch and moan. If people don't push for changes they will never happen (and I have pushed for change in places other then this forum). As for the IFR comparsion, it's apples and oranges. How many hours does a GA pilot spend learning controlled airspace? How many hours do they spend getting an IFR cert?

To repeat: 10-hour GA students are allowed to fly in CTA, as are gliders and RAA pilots operating under one of the exemptions. Why can I jump in a motor-glider and transit class D, but I can't in CT-shortwing? Am I somehow becoming less qualified by sitting in a different aircraft?

[Jabawocky]

Let's cut to the chase shall we.

RAA was all anout the recreational end of the industry....the old AUF.

If you start adding more training requirements, more GA like structures, etc etc and all the Head Office overheads, all of a sudden the RAA of old that appealled to the masses becomes too complicated and too expensive.

What happens........participation drops and the downward spiral has begun....and will not stop.

All for what........a CTA endo???? FFS it exists now....its called a Class 2 medical and training and a test. now that is exactly what will happen if RAA get it too, so why the **** double up?

It is just plain stupid.

In simple terms if you have an RAA registered (home built even) Savannah or Jabiru or a factory built one, or a Tecnam, and it has AN APPROVED engine, and a VHF and a Transponder (for C) and a PPL you can use CTA just as if it was a certified Cessna.

So the only difference is.........................a PPL vs a RAA Pilot Certificate.

So at the end of the day, if you do your PPL, which will be the same cost and workload, you can have the same privilleges WITHOUT loading up the RAA with all the admin and training etc overheads.

Everybody wins.

Why is it so many are so thick they do not get this??? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Sunnie.........check your PM's:ok:

[superdimona]

If the CTA endorsement went through, being an endorsement it'd be optional. If someone thinks it's a PITA, then they pretend the option doesn't exist and life is the same as before. If someone wants to be able to operate in CTA (or even just to do the odd Class C transit to avoid bad weather) then they can do it. If instructors don't want to bother with the training then they don't have to offer it.

It's no different from any of the other endorsements they offer, ranging from simple radio, to wobbly-prop, glider-towing, formation, low-level flight or float endorsements - you don't see RAA members saying "this is all too complicated and expensive, save us from these endorsements". The training syllabus and associated documents are already written so no added expense there. Worst case the RAA could charge people applying for the CTA endo a small fee to cover the extra bookwork.

I also would be amazed if participation dropped, if anything the additional freedom would attract more pilots, which means more money to the RAA and increased political power.

Let's assume that it takes an RAA pilot 10 hours to do their CTA training. It'd cost maybe 10x$200 + maybe the cost of a medical (another waste of money but evidentally politically required). Call it $2200. Please let me know how much you think it would cost to get a PPL. Real-world figures please - factor in the more expensive training, extra textbooks, cost of the exams, medical, cost of the flight test, etc. Also assume that the RAA instructor already knows what you are capable of, but the GA instructor doesn't know you from a bar of soap.

Why aren't glider pilots required to get a PPL?

Edit: Yes I know you can get a PPL then use it as a CTA endorsement. As I said it makes as much sense as requiring a bus license to be allowed to drive your car on the highway.

[SW3]

VH-XXX just to fill you in from my first post, it was in fact a GA aircraft and not an RAAus aircraft seeking the clearance. However this is beside the whole point I'm getting at. It also reminded me of one GA pilot recently who stated that he "rings the tower ahead and tells them he is coming."

It is people like Superdimona out there whom I'm reaching out to. CTA is possible, legally and responsibly given the chance. These are the enthusiasts with a go ahead mentality who love flying and must be fostered.


MsGrath50 as I mentioned, this whole post wasn't for me to try and get somewhere cheaply. I have an ATPL (Began flying in RAA) and it was definitely not cheap so believe it or not I am attempting to help others, not just feather my own nest. I fly in CTA every day for a living and still fly for fun as well.

Somewhere this thread lost sight of the fact we all share the same sky so why is it so impossible to get along?? More flying, less politics. :ok:

[VH-XXX]

There is no doubt a bit of RAA jealousy from the GA guys. Those with a PPL+ did the "hard yards" and when the RAA members come along wanting to not have to do the same, we get upset. That's life, still cheese as hey say. Until it happens, bad luck! :oh:

Jaba, not sure if you've realized with your being busy with all of your Angel and flood relief flights, however the downwards spiral has already begun. RAA members are dropping lime flies as they say. I blame the GFC and the RAA executives broken promises plus the actions of certain board members making the RAA the place not to be.

[superdimona]

I don't understand why there would be any jealousy at all. As you know once you have a PPL it's trivial to drop down to an RAA cert. And unlike a PPL, the RAA has much smaller weight limits, only 1 passenger, no possibility for multiple engines, aerobatics, night VFR, IFR etc.

I think it's mainly the '2 seats max' policy that lets the RAA exist without as many rules. You can do an awful lot more damage with a PPL.

[VH-XXX]

You are probably right. Maybe the RAA pilots are jealous that we can fly an Airbus A380 on our licence and the best they can do is a 600kg Jabiru :ok:

PS: 249 posts and still an annoying typo in the subject.

[mcgrath50]

more expensive training, extra textbooks,

But you just said, you guys already had the knowledge to do all this? Surely the step would just be a simple top up and revision to pass the theory. A Cessna 152 (which shouldnt be a hard jump in terms of power) can be rented at a major BK school for $235 dual. I can't remember off the top of my head how much you can convert from RAAus to PPL hours but it should only take you all the minimum cause you are already at the standard.

I am on your side. We need to be measured by the same yardstick of competency but to do that for RAAus would increase the expense to so close to GA it makes GA (with the bonuses of multi, IFR, night, CPL etc.) more worthwhile.

SW3, fair enough, I respect your opinion. We can most definitely agree on this no matter which side of the argument we fall:

More flying, less politics.

[baswell]

I can't remember off the top of my head how much you can convert from RAAus to PPL hours
All of it if it was in the type of RA-Aus aircraft that could be VH registered as well.

So assuming you have done qualifying navs, all you technically need is the PPL theory exam, 2 hours of instruments, recommendation flight and check ride. If you go to a school that has your ultralight in a VH-registered version, even easier. Probably worth traveling for. (you can do all the training in an RA-Aus aircraft as well, just need the check ride to be in VH.)

Unfortunately, few GA schools seem to know this and instead of making it purely competency based, they generally make people jump through the hoops of getting an SPL first and then do the entire syllabus of navs. So a lot of people are looking at spending a lot more money than they need to.

(And then of course, there are people who simply need at least 10 hours just to just learn to fly a Cessna or Piper, just as there are GA pilots who need that many hours to get to solo a Jabiru. Both should probably find another hobby...)

[VH-XXX]

The 2 hours of instrument flying can be completed in a suitably equipped RAA registered aircraft so there is a small saving there.

The conversion can be completed in as little as 3-5 hours for someone who is on the ball as they say.