RAA Increased Height, Weight and Water

[spriteah]

Im curious as to what others think about CASA allowing RAA pilots and aircraft to 9999ft, increase weight if aircraft is compatible to 600kg and allowing water crossings including to Tassie.

[Jabawocky]

What do I think.......more Oxygen use :8 as I plan FL110/120/130/140/150/160 as required.

Many of the RAA folk have been flying up to 10K anyway, and only some of them flying the correct levels, listening to the appropriate frequency, and understanding what they are hearing. Not to mention flying over under and around cloud :uhoh:

Personally I think they should be requiring all members to undergo some training just like they did for Human Factors in order to keep their flying privileges, or provided they are ATPL, CPL or PPL with current BFR or Instrument renewals so it can be demonstrated they have understanding of the current rules and how to operate.

Otherwise its just a mate saying....go for it and not knowing what they should be doing.

And before some of you arc up saying thats unfair, thats snobbery or based on anecdotal hearsay..........think again, its based on a lot of experience operating around some of the most densely populated RAA skies in the country.

BTW......the most appropriate frequency is????? 123.45 or 126.7 ;)

J:ok:

............now this should be a cracker of a thread.:}

[Ultralights]

popcorn at the ready.

[criticalmass]

Flight above 5000ft has (in many cases) been more honoured in the breach than the observance but with proper training I see no great difficulties. The necessary procedures, hemispheric cruising-levels, radio frequencies and monitoring, meterological considerations and navigational aspects (buffer from controlled airspace etc) should be incorporated into nav training, if not already included. If flight above 5000 feet enhances safety by reducing forced landings in inhospitable country then it is a useful gain. I have spent some time at FL140 without supplemental oxygen during my skydiving career and would not anticipate a need to exceed FL100 in the types of flying one could reasonably expect RA-Aus aircraft to do. Those wishing to exceed FL100 should carry supplemental oxygen and be trained to use it.

As far as the 600Kg MTOW weight increase, this allows a number of aircraft to now carry enough fuel to perform nav training with some of the heavier individuals who are coming to RA-Aus, possibly due to loss of medical for GA, possibly because they simply didn't fit into 152-sized training aircraft. It means an aircraft which can be certified for MTOW of 600Kg instead of 544Kg can use this increase for additional fuel so navs of reasonable duration and complexity to fully develop navigational skills and exercise the student over a suitable period of time can be achieved instead of shorter flights with frequent stops for refuelling. However, this may require a number of 544Kg MTOW aircraft to be re-certified at the increased weight, and the manufacturers may not wish to go to the expense involved in re-certification.

As far as over-water flight is concerned, it is encumbent on the pilot and crew to equip themselves appropriately for such flights, including the use of personal floatation devices and personal locator beacons operating on the 406Mhz GMDSS frequency, registered with AMSA. This applies equally to GA as well as RA-Aus aircraft. Provided the aircraft is suitable in terms of endurance and performance, and the pilot(s) are equipped with the necessary survival equipment, then flights such as Bass Strait crossings should be undertaken with a reasonable expectation of a successful outcome. However, for pilots wishing to undertake such flights, a course in basic survival-at-sea might be money well-invested. I underwent this training (and subsequent refresher training) during my time in the merchant marine but I would say I am now un-current in this and if I were to undertake such a flight I'd certainly seek some re-training in this area.

In summary, with poper training and equipment as required, all three situations should not result in any degradation of existing safety standards, and may reduce the frequency of incidents leading to an increase in safety for RA-Aus aircraft. In addition, the increase in pilot skills and knowledge will see RA-Aus pilots better-equipped for the challenges which these recent concessions will present. RA-Aus has a significant number of aircraft already well-able to fly to these new limits, it is a case of bringing the pilots up to standard.

[Jabawocky]

Agreed Criticalmass......But the key is some mandatory training for those who have never had any. Just like the Human Factors training, which was a good thing.

With the training I think its a good thing. Without, which is how it is written now by CASA it will be hot and miss.

Hey Ulralights, ya wanna beer with that popcorn mate?
http://multiply.com/mu/ntensenvention/image/6/photos/15/1200x120/80/Beer-smiley.gif?et=3NA%2C402ZboRWHO3L3QR6FA&nmid=67631243

[Jake.f]

With the right knowledge and equipment there really shouldn't be any problems with it.
As long as people know and aknowledge personal limits though. I know when I eventually get my certificate later this year or early next year I won't be rushing to cruise on up to 9999ft or to cross over bass strait either.

[peuce]

As long as the extra Altitude comes with the appropriate Attitude :)

[Howard Hughes]

They are letting them fly to 10,000? I have enough problems finding them in the circuit!:eek:

'Hood Ornaments', coming soon to a windscreen near you...;)

[VH-XXX]

As long as they are using appropriately maintained Mode-C Transponders in Class E airspace I wouldn't see an issue with it. Class G is a free-for-all anyway at the moment so keep your eyes open fully when in it.

[Frank Arouet]

As long as they are using appropriately maintained Mode-C Transponders inIt wasn't so long ago people on this forum were advocating NON TSO'd ADSB.:ugh:

so keep your eyes open fullyAs opposed to "half open fully" (in Class G VFR airspace)?

Perhaps instead of another gloom and doom thread, we can reasonably estimate there will be no 95:10 aircraft at those nose bleeding altitudes. The aircraft most likely to be seen are those with a reasonably high performance but perhaps with a low wing loading that makes flying above the convection layer attractive. Something rather about the optical size of a C150, has a wireless of some kind, and flown by someone without suicidal tendencies.

As that pilot will be, by law, flying VFR, persons flying IFR in that VFR really should look out the window every now and then to preserve the notion of practicing good airmanship.

As those people would reasonably expect NO VFR aircraft to be flying in cloud, it's not much to ask really. Or is it?

Anyone who has a cross country endorsement has a knowledge of hemispherical levels. Anyone with a RAA certificate has undergone a Human Factors exam. Anyone who has a transponder will have it turned on as is the law. Anyone who has a radio will, as is also the law, be licensed and competent to use it. And anyone capable of reading his now common gadget (a GPS), will have some degree of knowing where he is.

The alternate to all this is that everyone with a RAA certificate is a moron and only GA PPL's have a valid reason to be flying in that airspace. Oh, and the RPT God's and Princesses.

As for flying over water, well if the above paragraph rings true to you, there is a good chance they will drown themselves thus ridding you of the worry of bumping into them.:)

[baswell]

I think it's great, it allows me to climb above the Stupid Pilot Tricks performing PPLs. Can't hear them coming into the CTAF anyway with their crackly 40 year old "certified" radios broadcasting on the the area frequency.

Nothing like flying over the hills and all of a sudden seeing an idiot doing aerobatics where you least expect them, no way they can keep an eye out for you.

I hope we finally get CTA access soon too so we can get even further away from the untrained masses!

Ahhh.... nothing like yet another thread of the pot calling the kettle black, though the pot will never admit that's what he's doing. The pot is certain his peers all act as perfect as He does.

[VH-XXX]

The biggest pushing of the "over water" part has been from the President and he lives in Tasmania, so join the dots there :D but hey, no reason why RAA can't go over water and GA can really.

One thing which these changes do fix is that RAA can now legally fly to King Island as previously they couldn't do it legally which presented a problem for those on the island with RAA aircraft! Progress has been made there.

[Jabawocky]

Frank

It wasn't so long ago people on this forum were advocating NON TSO'd ADSB.:ugh:A bit of imagination going on here :=, but to be frank in Class G that is better than being blind. Now stick to the facts would ya!


As that pilot will be, by law, flying VFR, persons flying IFR in that VFR really should look out the window every now and then to preserve the notion of practicing good airmanship. Yep, provided they are following the LAWS of VFR which I have seen countless numbers of them not. - So Training ought to be mandatory.

As those people would reasonably expect NO VFR aircraft to be flying in cloud, it's not much to ask really. Or is it?Nope......provided they do stick to the VFR rules, and that means clearance FROM cloud.

Anyone who has a cross country endorsement has a knowledge of hemispherical levels. Anyone with a RAA certificate has undergone a Human Factors exam. Anyone who has a transponder will have it turned on as is the law. Anyone who has a radio will, as is also the law, be licensed and competent to use it. And anyone capable of reading his now common gadget (a GPS), will have some degree of knowing where he is.Yep, but tell me in the RAA Syllabus for all the presently certificated pilots (and they go back a long way), how much training of transponders is there? How much training on appropriate frequency is there? The fact you mention anyone who has a current certificate has done human factors course and passed the exam, says to me the same should be required for those new privilleges.


The alternate to all this is that everyone with a RAA certificate is a moron and only GA PPL's have a valid reason to be flying in that airspace. Oh, and the RPT God's and Princesses.

As for flying over water, well if the above paragraph rings true to you, there is a good chance they will drown themselves thus ridding you of the worry of bumping into them.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gifFrank := insolent attitudes like that do nobody any good, and really I know you were just trying to be funny and you do not really mean it.

Unlike the CTA campaign, which I strongly oppose, for the RAA's own good, this bunch of privilleges is really a good thing. However, with increased freedoms comes increased responsibility, and to be honest the same kind of mandatory requirement for a two day training course and exam just like the HF course, would be very beneficial.

Now Frank and anyone else who is brave enough to pick up the last RAA magazine, can I ask you to read about the story of the delighful old chap travelling into Victoria, across the Bass Straits, back up the coast of Vic/NSWQld. Read that and tell me how well this chap knows the rules?

More the point I happen to be privy to a whole lot more of his story, and thank the aviation Gods he did not print that :eek:. For that matter read the last 12 months worth.

So lets stop having biased shots, and lets start seriously tackling the problem, and Frank & Leadsled both could use common sense here and apply pressure to their RAA mates to introduce a requirement for training courses to be completed by the next BFR. You know you have the contacts, its just doing the right thing by your mates.

Unfortunately you and Leadie and the RAA management probably all have a PPL or mostly higher and do not often realise the average punter member does not know what he does not know.

This is not an Anti-RAA sentiment folks, its proactive constructive criticism.

J:ok:

[Sunfish]

Just did my Bi-annual flight review and got my new elephant stamp.

Do RAA licence holders have to do the same thing?

[Frank Arouet]

the HF course

The little plastic cup at the end of the HF wire got tangled up in the fence last time I used one.

But seriously, the mindset to attack is the perceived "freedoms" of RAA that need to be ameliorated with that special aviators need called airmanship. This tempered with some recency of both technology and operational needs which is usually a requirement to demonstrate at the BFR. Be this as it may, you can't regulate or educate against idiots and we have lots of them in all the aviation spectrum.

I hope this also addresses Sunfish' post. :hmm:

[VH-XXX]

Yes Sunny-Jim, RA-Aus also has the requirement for flight reviews every 2 years. Your GA AFR will cover you for high-performance RA-Aus renewals usually.

I don't think Transponder use as such and adherence to VFR levels is beyond the education level of an RA-Aus pilot, however they (as the operator of the aircraft) do need to know that it must comply with the regs and be calibrated every 2 years. Last thing anyone wants is an auto-avoidance from an airbus up top because someone didn't bother getting their transponder checked out. That one certainly got the attention of the pen-pushers in the CASA head office!

[baswell]

mandatory requirement for a two day training course and exam just like the HF course, would be very beneficial.
What do you imagine would take two days to teach for flight above 5000? What's so special that is not currently covered in the nav syllabus?

[baswell]

Last thing anyone wants is an auto-avoidance from an airbus up top because someone didn't bother getting their transponder checked out.
Did investigation actually show he hadn't had his RADs done?

Regardless, this is not a small amount of creep; such an event is a major malfunction that can happen a day after it's been signed off.

At the same time, if I fly today and ATC reports no issues. But if the 2 years expires tomorrow and I can't get it done in time*, leaving it off, as the law says you should, would be counter productive to safety.

* yes, you should have planned ahead, that is not the point.

[Jabawocky]

Bas

You and I and many of us here may be right up to speed on Airspace rules, Nav skills, radio do's and don'ts, but I can assure you there are many out there who desperately need the two day option.

FFS if they needed the two day HF course..........maybe this one needs to be a week.

If you do not believe me, come up here for a few days, I'll shout your airfare and in exchange for a lifetime subscription to your work ;) when you see the light you take up the challenge to get the RAA to do the training.

Don't worry about Franks part of the world, I can show you more traffic in a day than Frank will see all year.:ok:

Its not rocket science beyond 97% of them, it just needs to be taught, and presently its not exactly across the fleet so to speak. The other 3% well as frank points out there is no hope for them anyway. Part of lifes mysteries.

Now have you read that article yet? Huh?? ;)

[T28D]

Jaba self serving crud, geez you are the one !!!!!

[djpil]

all of a sudden seeing an idiot doing aerobatics where you least expect them.You should expect aeroplanes to be anywhere they are entitled to be. I sometimes see aeroplanes flying straight and level where they shouldn't be. eg transient aircraft the opposite way to downwind at the same height was a recent surprise.

..no way they can keep an eye out for you...We can indeed, you would be surprised at how easy it is to pick up other traffic while doing aerobatics and how much time we spend looking for other traffic compared with straight and level pilots I happen to ride with from time to time. I'd be happy to show you sometime.

Reminds me of the last aerobatic contest - we had people on the ground specifically watching for other traffic as the contest was held overhead an airfield. NOTAM so it would have been expected. A certified airfield so radio required.

We certainly didn't expect that Jabiru flying though no-radio. I'm not going to call him an idiot though.

[baswell]

Jabby, my problem isn't so much with the statement that there are many RAA pilots out there not minding the rules as much as they should.

My problem is with the implied assumption that private flyers with nothing more than minimum hours PPL training had significantly better training and are any better at applying said training.

[UnaMas]

The GA guys are trained to a much higher standard than the RA guys / gals.
End of story, I dont know why Baswell is so hell bent on proving that not to be the case? He is just coming off as another cocky RA "pilot"? who thinks he is amazing.
Idiot.

Also Baswell, no one gives a Fu#k what you problem is. Why don't you go get at least a PPl so you can see for yourself the difference in training that both organizations provide.

Don't forget that you don't know what you don't know.

[VH-XXX]

Oh dear, I haven't seen language and passion like that since the infamous RA-Aus thread a few weeks back that saw complaints from certain persons find their way all the way to the UK, home of PPRuNe.

There is far more to worry about than RA-Aus aircraft over 5,000ft and that "worry" was announced today.

[baswell]

UnaBoy, you sound like a typical integrated CPL course CPL who went straight to work and doesn't mingle with the PPL crowds at the weekend fly-ins.

Don't forget that you don't know about people what you don't know about people.

Now take your foot out of your mouth.

(See how many managed to say all that without profanity or calling people names?)

[onemore]

What is wrong with you Baswell any hint of a RA THREAD and you turn With childish who is better then who garbage and the old 40 year old GA crap.

Seriously -

[Ultralights]

i need another beer, this is great :D

[baswell]

onemore, you misread. I am not saying who is better than who; I am saying we're all as bad as each other. I am probably the only one not pretending to be better than anyone else and I get accused of just that.

Sigh.

[OCTAgone]

There is far more to worry about than RA-Aus aircraft over 5,000ft and that "worry" was announced today.
Don't we know it. Can we get someone decent to put their hand up for election in Victoria, please?

[Jabawocky]

Bas,

I will save my dummy spitting for the Irrational Illogical Idiot, but to answer your more polite response........Jabby, my problem isn't so much with the statement that there are many RAA pilots out there not minding the rules as much as they should.

My problem is with the implied assumption that private flyers with nothing more than minimum hours PPL training had significantly better training and are any better at applying said training. When you refer to a bare minimum hours PPL I can only assume you mean a GFPT, if so that is similar to a basic RAA, and the issues at hand are not dealt with at this stage. You are 100% correct.

Once at PPL with no airspace restictions the level of understanding is far greater. I might add that the high concentration of RAA activity in my part of the world is actually above average, and the schools are run along the GA PPL syllabus and run by folk who are ATPL ex airline and GA folk. So the result is better. But this is the most recent graduates. Before this, say 5-15 years before the training to that standard did not exist. I see the result of this on a weekly basis. As do others.

If you want a classic example, have a look at this http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3412453/aws11mar2011.pdf and then refer to 201101218. Looks simple enough on the face of it, maybe a stray into the edge of CTR? Well no... in fact it started as several serious penetrations of CTA, and with dozens of attempts by BNE RAD to halt it from ging further but the a/c managed to then punch through BN CTR at 4 miles from the VOR, and into the wake turbulence zone of a B763.....and kept on trucking. Because I knew who and how this all happened, being so self serving as T28 would have you believe I knew that ATC had the radar tapes and would nail his ar$e, I convinced the RAA pilot to file a REPCON, which he did, hence the detail in the weekly summary. But as a result they are less likely to nail nail his butt so hard because he stuck his hand up. So what was his appropriate freq? yep 123.45MHZ. What is worse he did not even turn on his G296 because he is daunted by it. :hmm: So yes some folk in very much high performance RAA machines as FRANK points out do get around and need a lot more education. This guy did not even believe it was him until I showed him the radar tracks.

This level of education is generally administered at the PPL/CPL level. It is not always now, and more rarely previously supplied at the RAA and old AUF level.

The morons do not know what they do not know, and I am referring to the morons I am about to deal with in the next part of this post, not the RAA folk.

By the way have you read the article yet? I am serious, read this and get back to me. I doubt the stupid joker of a T28D even has the article as he is probably not a member of RAA. I bet he now has Frank scanning it and emailing it to him though, and if not he should ask. Maybe then the serious side of this debate will be understood.

I say again...........RAA getting these new freedoms is a great thing. But if HF courses were mandatory, some expanded VFR airmanship training applicable to these ops should be applied.

Jaba self serving crud, geez you are the one !!!!! T28D...what a joke....you of all people...Pot/Kettle :rolleyes: you can't add anything of value to the conversation but when your little mate is caught out telling some fanciful stories you come up with that. Well cupcake my feelings are so shattered :ok:.

Well lets look at some definitions of the english language shall we.
Definition of SELF-SERVING

: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others

Ahhhhh no I am not serving my interests over those of others one bit, in fact I am serving the interests of ALL OTHERS before mine. If you care to read back a bit I have said I am all in favour of this extended freedom, however if HF courses were considered mandatory training this should be even more so. FOR EVERYONES BENEFIT.

What you do not seem to understand is that I would have to prove I have the training (although not dificult) that I would already qualify, or just have to do the course, pass the test or whatever they deemed necessary. I did their HF course too. Why? because at times I fly my Airline Pilot mates RAA machine. But you do not seem to understand that others, many in fact in RAA do not have that training or background.

You T28D are more than qualified, I know, but I realise you do not understand what you do not know. These guys need on the whole a greater level of training than they already posess.

Again you are found wanting ........... :ugh::ugh::ugh: So next time think twice before slagging me, otherwise I might arc up like others have done in the past, and then you will want to sue somebody for telling the truth. Unless of course I am mistaking you for some other w@nker.

J:mad:

[Shrike135]

Jaba, I think you have a good point and I think this should happen.

Having flown both GA and RAA, I think there are the good, bad and hopeless on both side of the divide, so I would like to see regular ground training/study/testing applied also to flyers who clock up less than 10 hours per week, maybe even six monthly.

My most memorable events were with PPL pilots including:

One gentleman from the sub continent practicing at a country airfield who did five circuits, not one the same, on one radio call, and departed the circuit illegally with no departure call.

The guy I met in my windscreen who called downwind when he was coming in upwind

The classic where Sydney called "Tiger Moth ABC, confirm operations normal"
Back came the comment "We're lost" and in answer to queries as to whether he could see certain roads "Yes", "which way did you say", "alright", "we'll follow that road" etc.

VH-XXX/OCTAgone
This is a thread which has a reasonable chance of doing a lot of good.
I didn't miss the opportunity you took to once again attack Ian Baker
Appealing for a "decent" candidate implies that he is not decent, so you have already crossed the line.

[VH-XXX]

I was not referring to board candidates. EOS. Another announcement was made yesterday but it will take a little while to filter through. Did notice though that said individual is running again even though he said he wouldn't.

[Jabawocky]

10 hours a week :} are you taking the p1$$ here? If not you better book me in too! Some weeks I do some not:suspect:

Yep it's all over the place, but radio calls are not so much the topic here. Having said that I have heard a lot of ..... Climbing FLxxx pending clearance :ugh:
Now where do they learn that?

So I gather nobody has done any bedtime raa mag reading?

[baswell]

Jabby, I have scanned the article. The obvious stand out question is: does this guy have a PPL that would allow him to fly where he did? That doesn't seem to be answered in the article.

As for your VCA story, that is a bad one, but I doubt it is exclusive to RA pilots or epidemic among them. Many RA schools are just outside/under CTA, so the average RA pilot would be trained in how to read a map and avoid it.

The "daunting gps" story again is not RA exclusive; I myself was witness to a local CPL and instructor being lost in marginal conditions over the hills and eventually calling up and asking for a vector, even though there was a perfectly good GPS in the aircraft that was not being used due to unfamiliarity.

But at least we can agree on that there are lots of bad apples in both camps!

So does a PPL have more knowledge than a well trained RA-aus pilot? I am not convinced; having done both sets of theory exams, I don't spot much difference and whatever may be harder on the CASA exams is probably off-set by the higher pass mark (80%) required for the RA exams.

It all comes down to airmanship; it's not about what you know, it's how you use it. And I think I have listed my (ever growing) list of Stupid Pilot Tricks by PPLs I have been witness to enough times on these and other forums by now!

[VH-XXX]

Entertaining link there thanks Jaba

The pilot incorrectly assembled the ailerons onto the aircraft. During
the take-off run, the aircraft vacated the runway and came to rest in
long wet grass


!! :mad: ouch!

[Shrike135]

Jaba I might have been over enthusiastic about the hours.
What I've seen is a sharp dividing line between those who fly regularly and those who fly occasionally for pleasure.

[Howard Hughes]

10 hours a week? Then I'm in trouble!:eek:

Luckily I am already getting training every six months...;)

[baswell]

Entertaining link there thanks Jaba
Very, but I did struggle to find the VCA Jabba was referring to; it's getting drowned out by the two dozen GA, RPT and military VCAs during the same period.

I can, however, categorically state the SportStar VCA near Adelaide on 25/2/2011 wasn't me as at the time the airframe had wings nor an engine attached! :{

[Ultralights]

interesting.. that link to ATSB throws up almost 20 incidents of entering CTA or runway without clearance.. only 1 is RAAus... Just sayin.
another funny thing, its almost weekly that somone doing circuits at YSBK busts into YSSY airspace while turning base for 29.

also noted a BAE Hawk struck a bird on take off, but burned off fuel before returning, hmmm i know for a fact the the Hawk does have fuel dump capability, but sadly no afterburner to ignite it :E

[baswell]

hmmm i know for a fact the the Hawk does have fuel dump capability, but sadly no afterburner to ignite it
Really sad too we're not getting the "B" model F-35; can you imagine that doing a dump and burn ... in the hover! :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Historically there have been more VCA's by GA- VH registered aircraft in Australia than any other group. Full stop. end of quote. End of misleading statements about RA-Aus being the primary culprits. Indeed many of the OCTA PPL's flying around today have demonstrated they are incapable of flying safely in CTR, usually by an imminent VCA during training or testing or BFR.

You seem to disbelieve the fact that anybody can be as smart as a private PPL. It's been my experience in the last 46 years of flying that they have exhibited more idiocy and lack of airmanship than any other group with the exception of some of the Regional RPT bods.

And Jaba old fruit, I happen to know T28D owns 2 RA-Aus aircraft which he regularly flies. One should assume therefor he has access to a copy of the article you refer without my intervention. Also given he regularly flies a Warbird and IFR Turbines, you could also assume he has a "handle" on the basics of survival.

Oh, and about the C340, do you know who owns it today?

[Jabawocky]

BAS

Very much agree with your comment, however many of the VCA's are minor incurssions but the Piper LSA was a doosy. Lucky and I am deadly serious, lucky he did not get rolled up in the wake of the B767.

The greater numbers of the reported VCA's could be the fact ATC actually get a hold of the GA guys becuase they are on the appropriate frequency. Many RAA guys poke through undetected due lack of transponders, or they are turned off. So they never make the reports.

So does a PPL have more knowledge than a well trained RA-aus pilot? I am not convinced; having done both sets of theory exams, I don't spot much difference and whatever may be harder on the CASA exams is probably off-set by the higher pass mark (80%) required for the RA exams.Sounds like you went to a decent RAA school, years ago this was not always the case, believe me! The Pass mark on CASA exams is around 80ish % also, or is for IREX which is the last one I remember, PPL stuff was too long ago.

The point here is a well trained RAA pilot, like many produced around my part of the world is just as aware, but in the past the concept of flight above 5000' was not an issue, it was not available and the concept of actually sticking to the correct levels, clearance from cloud and using an ERC chart for the most appropriate frequency is greatly unheard of. A very large number of capable, safe and well meaning older RAA pilots have no idea what an ERC is, let alone use it. You can bank that one too. Knowing who you are I believe your experience, heck I and most on here have no trouble with this, but there are a large number of folk who just simply do not know what they don't know. They hear the new freedoms and blast off.

Bas
I have scanned the article. The obvious stand out question is: does this guy have a PPL that would allow him to fly where he did? That doesn't seem to be answered in the article.
No this guy DOES NOT have a PPL, he is 72 and did his RAA certificate last year. I might add he also kept asking for a clearance to enter Class G airspace :rolleyes: because he did not have a clue how to use the VTC. Sure at least he did the right thing and contacted ATC, and they then stepped him down to keep him OCTA, but in other cases, he was in CTA/R some of which were not printed. He is being given remedial training by a JQ C&T Captain over this, but thats a friendly deal, not an official RAA training program.

What strikes me as strange is that just about every magazine they send out has a story with something like this that should never be printed. Not because it will get them into strife, others think its OK to do the same. :ouch:

Shrike
What I've seen is a sharp dividing line between those who fly regularly and those who fly occasionally for pleasure. Yep you have hit the nail on the head there mate :ok:

Frank
History lessons hey Frank, well the great mobility of RAA is a recent thing not part of the history of 46 years ago. Think about today:ok:.

I know T28D has a vast experience, great qualifications etc etc....and I have never questioned them, but when he starts his usual...."cant add anything constructive so start name calling", such as self serving crud, I think he deserves a spray. Geeze if we really started the name calling dummy spits it would be like you lot and your A##A bunfights of the past. So when he pulls his head in a little and adds something of value, even if he does not agree with others views, I will have nothing to take offense from.

As for the C340....yep I do thanks. But only a very small few on here would have picked that little cryptic description, so how about you don't run any more flags up the pole, because YOU may out him by mistake.

Get your mate to stick to debates and quite the childish behaviour. You know there is a common thread there..... :rolleyes:

As for T28D joining RAA, thats great news, :D:D over in his part of the world I hope he can contribute to furthering their members education and experiences. After all in such an environment it is a waste of talent and experience if it is not shared around.

[Frank Arouet]

bunfights of the past

At least we added a bit of dignity to what would otherwise have just be a vulgar brawl.

BTW, your SAAA petticoat is showing.:)

[Bic4Pen]

Yes I think many of us picked up on the "Triple Idiot" reference... thank you... I was wondering who he was! :E

[Jabawocky]

Not yet Frank...........but you are a funny guy .... Love ya work :ok:

[baswell]

What strikes me as strange is that just about every magazine they send out has a story with something like this that should never be printed. Not because it will get them into strife, others think its OK to do the same.
That is my fear also.

The magazine so far has seemed to print just about anything you throw at it verbatim. I reckon if you sent a recipe for a aircraft shaped birthday cake it would get in.

Brian Bigg, editor of AOPA's magazine, has won the contract to do the magazine from now. Imagine that, an actual pilot as editor of a flying magazine.

Hopefully that will mean content will be more closely scrutinised before being printed.

I look forward to seeing the next magazine!

[Jabawocky]

Agreed Bas, the editorial quality has been an issue, but you almost have to submit an article on here to get it screened properly.

There is a retirement job for Frank and T28D :}

[CoodaShooda]

Hopefully that will mean content will be more closely scrutinised before being printed.

Might I suggest that there would be more benefit in publishing the 'tales of derring do' as they are presented, and then have a Macarthur Job-type person do a critique at the end of it. Point out both the positives and negatives and suggest ways to turn the latter into the former.

That way the readership might (re)learn the do's and don'ts - just as we used to be able to do with the Aviation Safety Digest.

[Jabawocky]

Now that would be progressive........

So what do you reckon Frank, you and T28D :ok: Teach us all with your years of wisdom.

[VH-XXX]

I suspect that RA-Aus would welcome with open arms some individuals with loads of experience to critique articles and offer feedback, just like in Flight Safety magazine.

It's a good idea if you guys are volunteering.

Far better than an open forum (like this or some of the other lesser popular forums) as you won't get slagging off on others by opinion, unless the complainant writes a letter to the editor and with 2 months wait for the magazine to be printed as by then the argument will have lost momentum.

[Frank Arouet]

You can only teach someone who is prepared to listen. Unfortunately, most of aviation in this country has a peculiarity unbeknown anywhere else in the world that makes everyone with 100 hours or the metric equivalent, an expert. (insert 1,000 hours if RPT seated in right hand seat).

I can't possibly compete with this professionalism, so the BFR remains my choice of education policy update. I personally learn something new every time. But then again my hearing is still OK.

However the concept of a critique to submitted works to a magazine should be considered as Mr Shooda recommends.(They broke the clay when they made Macarthur-Job).

As for "experts", I'm a farmer and I can't even grow choko's on my outside dunny. In this case wisdom is of little use unless there is motivation to teach and motivation for someone to learn. (and you like choko's of course).

And I'm easily distracted by large breasts.:p

[T28D]

And I'm easily distracted by large breasts. ME TOO !!!!!!

[Runaway Gun]

Keep away from the mirror you fellas ;)

[Sunfish]

This thread does nothing for the reputation of the RAA or CASA registered (PPL) recreational pilots.

For a start, the p1ssing contest regarding breaches of CTA is unseemly. If it is a fact that most of the breaches are VH registered GA aircraft, i think it would be necessary to control for experience level, recency and location, since places like the Moorabbin Schools are far more likely to generate CTA violations than some school teaching RAA stuff in the back blocks of Queensland.

As for the RAA "resistance" that seems to favour "no radio", "no transponder" tendencies, I assume you also don't carry an EPIRB or PLB, and that you don't expect any search action or inquiry if you fail to return one day.

[baswell]

If it is a fact that most of the breaches are VH registered GA aircraft, i think it would be necessary to control for experience level, recency and location, since places like the Moorabbin Schools are far more likely to generate CTA violations than some school teaching RAA stuff in the back blocks of Queensland.
As common sense would dictate that people fly near where they live, and indeed they do: near major cities and CTA. The busiest schools by far here in SA are:

Murray Bridge: under a 4500' step and next to a H24 Romeo.
Aldinga: below 4500' and right next to a 2500' step.
Gawler: go above 1500' or fly a wide circuit and you are in CTA.

This is where people in SA learn to fly, not in the "back blocks". Read the "other" forums; most pilots seem to be scared ****less of controllers and CTA and give it a wide berth. That's most likely why there are so few listed in the report. But every once in a while an outrageous story, self confessed or otherwise, shows up and you get the people here assuming everyone is like that.

As for the RAA "resistance" that seems to favour "no radio", "no transponder" tendencies
Here we go again with generalisations. The vast majority of RA-Aus aircraft have radios. And if you are not allowed in CTA anyway, why buy a transponder? You cannot hold against people what CASA doesn't hold against them...

I assume you also don't carry an EPIRB or PLB,
Would you mind elaborating why you assume that? Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say... (I don't have any stats, but presumably, you do?)

[CoodaShooda]

most pilots seem to be scared ****less of controllers and CTA and give it a wide berth.

Which is a healthy attitude to take until you have been trained to deal with it.:}

I personally believe that CTA should be part of the RAA syllabus, even though you may not fly in it. Much better to at least understand what happens on the other side of the line on the VTC than to view it as a blank space labelled "here be dragons".

While on the subject of training and passing on knowledge, am I alone in thinking the current CASA regime is focussing too much on quoting rules and regs and too little in explaining what they mean in a practical sense.

When faced with a situation, I find little comfort in remembering that it is covered by CAO 954(AAA)(cy)(345)(ix) but would take greater comfort if I just knew what I had to do (without the legal citation).

But perhaps that is why a former 4 hour forklift endorsement is now a 40 hour TAFE course.

Sunfish
The RAA aircraft I am flying has 2 VHF, 1 Transponder, EPIRB, fire extinguisher and flares. The radios and transponder are used and I have been trained in the use of the rest.

[Frank Arouet]

the RAA "resistance" that seems to favour "no radio", "no transponder" tendencies

Typical "elitist" uninformed and mischievous claptrap.

Best ignored, but proof of my earlier post about "experts".

[Flying Binghi]

the RAA "resistance" that seems to favour "no radio", "no transponder" tendencies

95-10 still going ?







.

[maverick22]

There's a lot of VH machines out there without transponders too, or maybe they are fitted but aren't used. So it is not fair to classify this as an RAA tendency. An operating transponder should be a requirement at any certified airfield, just like a radio is.

[Frank Arouet]

95-10 still going ?

Yes. Grass Roots aviation at it's best, and most have a handheld radio to keep the "experts" happy. Don't know where they will fit a transponder though. I believe some even carry an ELT for those long flights of 55nm.

Funny thing while on this topic. If you want to fly any distance in a 95:10 kite, you have to do the whole cross country syllabus despite most being averse to flying above circuit height and distances so small that a simply understanding of map reading and listening to the local weather on the ABC is required for safe operation. Just imagine how many do a 1:60 check in an open cockpit single seater doing 40 Kts on a 50 mile cross country.

In this case I would say the pilot is overqualified for the task at hand. An obvious expert with qualifications to prove it.

[Shrike135]

Right ON CoodaShooda

GA taught me procedures, traffic and regulations
RA taught me how to fly

[T28D]

Frank he is Chasing his tail as usual

[Frank Arouet]

Give him a break, he's got a dog of a job.:)

[Sunfish]

I'm provoked now.

Frank:

Yes. Grass Roots aviation at it's best, and most have a handheld radio to keep the "experts" happy. Don't know where they will fit a transponder though. I believe some even carry an ELT for those long flights of 55nm.

Funny thing while on this topic. If you want to fly any distance in a 95:10 kite, you have to do the whole cross country syllabus despite most being averse to flying above circuit height and distances so small that a simply understanding of map reading and listening to the local weather on the ABC is required for safe operation. Just imagine how many do a 1:60 check in an open cockpit single seater doing 40 Kts on a 50 mile cross country.

In this case I would say the pilot is overqualified for the task at hand. An obvious expert with qualifications to prove it.

I have a slight problem with this.........

I see the reverse attitude in sailing the Sydney and Melbourne Hobart yacht races.

I end up in a bar somewhere and hear a yachting "legend" talk about how great they are after doing the Hobart race...

I then ask about how they would like to do it;

1) With no HF radio and no possible prospect of rescue if they spring a leak.

2) Without Goretex clothing and numerous other creature comforts.

3) Without GPS.

They generally shut up rather quickly. Of course, the aviation community do the reverse.

I'm amazed that there are aviators that seem to make a virtue out of not making use of the safety equipment available to them, in some perverse belief that they are therefore being "grass roots" aviators.

Hence my comment that these grass roots aviators should not expect any search and rescue operations on their behalf, since they won't help themselves.

FFS if there are systems there that make you safer, then use them.

Me? I belong to the "squawking chicken" school of aviation, and I regard any pilot that does not avail themselves of the full panoply of safety and communication equipment, and uses it, as retarded.

I also think that most of those people are poseurs, since they seem to be highly selective about the equipment they label as "grass roots". To me, "grass roots" is cotton, wood, wire and castor oil. Synthetic coverings and CDI ignitions don't cut it.

[Jabawocky]

Sunny......you are usually spot on....seems so AGAIN!!! Now tell us what you really think:ok:

The Chaser!!! Long time no speak:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

..."grass roots"...

Hmmm..., perhaps grass roots is simple grass field operations - think about it..:)


The Hoi polloi who caint aford all them fancy gadgets should just be banned from flying their own aircraft. Make things easyier..:hmm:












.

[Sunfish]

I don't usually stir the pot,..but just couldn't help it this time;)

I just think that if Poly-fibre and GPS had been available in 1903, Orville and Wilbur would have used them.

[Shrike135]

Grass Roots is a generic term for the basic aircraft which were the foundation of recreational aircraft around the world.

With money to burn, Australians have progressively upped the specifications to the point of overlapping the bottom end of GA aircraft in specification and speeds, thereby creating a blur in the airspace between 40 and 150 kts.

Which is why this thread can be a useful discussion

[T28D]

Sunfish as a Sydney Hobart sailor and committed Ofshore Competitor I must defend the regulations set out in the Yauchting Australia Blue Book and corresponding ISAF regulations which are predicated on a principle of self sufficiency for competing offshore yachts and are based on the stabilty requirements Base SSS or STIX/AVS in the IRC rules as well as the distance ofshore as set out in OSR race categories.

This is necessary as Cat 2 and Cat 1 offshore racing is conducted over extended time (days) and crews must be able to be self sufficient as one of the fundamental principles in offshore racing is to keep your tactics and thus course chosen as secret as one possibly can from your opposition save that mandatory position reporting after the fact is carried out in Australian Offshore racing, no forward estimates of position are required or given, such is the nature of the tactical battle.

To compare Aviation with Offshore racing is somewhat misleading, very few General Aviation aircraft have endurance beyond 4 hours, yet the average yacht with a TCC of 1.100 will take 72 hours to get to Hobart, a significantly different proposition in terms of time and exposure to differing weather systems as well as "climate" change going South, it gets cold ! and protective clothing HPX and Gore Tex are absolutely necessary as Yachts unlike powered aircraft don't have heaters and can be very wet.

Whilst I agree with your potential comparison in where one now gets the best bang for your leisure buck, offshore yachting wins hands down over aviation now, and in the past 10 years my personal spending has been 10 times more on yachting than aircraft, much more satisying and less intrusive regulation even though yachting is potentially more personally hazardous and now very technically challenging.

I will line up for Hobart this coming Boxing Day, 2.5 days to the QLD.

[Frank Arouet]

I regard any pilot that does not avail themselves of the full panoply of safety and communication equipment, and uses it, as retarded.

You have an Iridium phone I take it?

Perhaps, so I can have the benefit of availing myself to the equipment available to me, (but unaffordable I confess), you can buy me one. Or perhaps ask Airservices to include this in a "grant" with the ADSB "thingy". I have 2 radio's, but another would be safer I guess. Can I have that as well, and I had my eye on a nice bomber jacket so I can look the part in the club bar, if you could include that too. Oh, and a new transponder and radar altimeter. Nearly forgot, an auto pilot also for when things get bumpy. Have I forgotten anything. Oh yes of course. A new aeroplane to fit it all in. Mine's a bit short of space.

One last thing if you would. Can you tell that vile Chaser person I'm not talking to him. I'd hate to improve his education and I shiver at the thought of another educated idiot, especially with his necrotic psychosis.

[T28D]

Another salient difference I failed to mention, there is NO Mention of Strict Liability offences in the Yachting regulations or Supplementary Sailing Instructions for Hobart.

The event attracts significant sponsorship so could be classed as a "commercial operation".

Contrast that with the new poroposed part 91 and it is plain to see why much more is being invested in up market sail boats ( $2.0 million+ ) than recreational aircraft.

[Frank Arouet]

I wonder if The Skull's latest announcement to hurry up the regulatory reform programme which has dragged on for the last 20+ years means RA-Aus will be included in the laws as they are to be written. (As they should be by now).

Australian aviation is administered in effect by "instruments" or "exemptions" from existing inadequate laws because of this incompetent attempt at regulatory reform. RA-Aus is no exception, being an "exemption" from existing laws in it's own right.

This "exemption" is now granted further "exemptions" from the "exemptions" to fly above 5000 ft.

I've heard rumours that CASA find it easier to grant "exemptions" than address the reform project. I've also heard it has gone on for so long there is no way to just abolish "exemptions" because in effect it would ground most every aircraft flying in Australian airspace.

Had the regulatory reform been completed, and the "spirit" of the original recreational licence been written into law, we wouldn't have RA-Aus certificates and we wouldn't need special permission or priveleges to fly VFR where VFR now has the ability to fly.

My first impression of the concept of a recreational licence was a replacement of the existing RPPL with "add ons" like the PIFR to improve the basic theoretical and practical skills pending upgrades like medicals, endorsements etc..

I get the impression if CASA could, they would be happy for anyone to take the administrative workload off them and they would lump all non fare paying operations into a self regulatory institution like RA-Aus. Unfortunately they have probably found out what I've known for years that there is no harmony or cohesion with any in the GA community. Further they compound the problem with their policy of "divide and conquer" so no amalgamation can gang up on them. (think about guilt or paranoia here).

Regulation has not kept pace with aviation evolution and I remember the balking of allowing the first twin engine jets to overfly oceans. If sport and ultralight aircraft have demonstrated their evolution and ability, and if pilots have done likewise, why should they be left struggling for permission to fly above reasonable convective heights? Why are half the pilots in Australia forced to fly under "exemptions" granted by a sometimes, (sometimes not) benevolent bureaucracy.

Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?

[Jabawocky]

Hey Frank

As hard as you may find this to believe, I Agee with most of what you said in that last most, until the last paragraph.

20-25 hours compared to 40-50 hours in training will generally yield two different outcomes. Surely you can see this. You certainly have more dual and training in your log book during your first 100 hours than 20-25. ;)

[superdimona]

20 hours will only get you a restricted RAA license, that is very, very roughly the same as a GFPT. Realistically, you need

RAA License + Passenger Endorsement + Cross-country Endorsement

Which works out to be just over 30 hours minimum - but if you don't know your stuff naturally it'll take longer.

The extra time in a PPL is instrument flight (possibly useless if your RAA aircraft does not have them!) and controlled airspace (and I bet a fair number of pilots would willing accept it, in exchange for a CTA endorsement).

[Frank Arouet]

Jaba;

What's that, intelligence or manipulative skills. I know surgeons who now also fly ultralights and some "primates" who fly C172"s. But if it makes you happy, pick any number over 50 hours of dual instruction. And before you start, the surgeon I mentioned took 70 hours to get his RPPL, can't change a tyre on his Merc and probably earns half a million a year. (owns a Mooney and a drifter if that helps).The primate, well, how much time have you got? It's all about manipulative skills.

Concentrate on the general thrust of the post, not the mathematical irregularities or the "pecking order" of the piloted gentry.

EDIT to add to the above. You also need a tailwheel endorsement if you don't have one, a variable or adjustable pitch propellor, high or low performance, two stroke, low inertia, low level, radio, human factors, float, floating hull, and anything else that comes to mind. I have seen jet powered motorgliders in GFA guise as well.

[Jabawocky]

Superdimona

Yes 30 hrs is most pokey the full kit, but pax is not a function of training is it ? It's a function of solo PIC so nags is the rest, some solo. Being realistic as you suggest the PPL will also take typically 50-60 hours so it's still a heap more one on one time with an instructor.

Frank.... You always claim "that's anecdotal" get real facts Jaba, but now Frank you are sprouting on with ?????

Get real mate. Your expels are pretty lame.

Ohh and is that your wishist of endo's? Not sure why I would but but seems I better do the floats then, then I will be to your pecking order.

As usual you have drifted this so far from the thread topic it's crazy. I love a little drift like most do, but you drift out of the range of the navaid!

[baswell]

Minimum hours are irrelevant; you won't get your license until you are competent. Typical RA-Aus is closer to 50 hours for high performance plus cross country endorsement.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Frank Arouet]

drifted this so far from the thread topic it's crazy

I was trying to rescue it from the previous personal tirade.

When you have been around as long as I have, they are not anectodes but observations made by the first party, (me). I've altered the aircraft types owned by the Doctor thats all to hide his identity in case he reads PPRune.

Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?

Why would you choose to quarrel over this statement and leave alone discussing "exemptions", The RPPL basis for a Recreational Aviation Licence, the fact that the Regulatory review process has had a detrimental effect that impacts on us all and if things were written into law we wouldn't have this "elitist claptrap". Why not address why there is no harmony or co-hesion in GA and how CASA apply the divide and rule law.

How about my gut feeling about CASA ridding itself of the administrative burden of GA and who, (if there was sufficient co-hesion in the industry), is capable of running the show to their satisfaction????

As for endorsements, if I get a need to fly a 2 stroke boat, I'll just go to the pub and think about it a bit. Now a PBY would be more my speed and style.

[Jabawocky]

Well Frank.....I will remember that for future, my observations are anecdotal stories, your anecdotal stories are FACTS observed by YOU. I am sure everyone else on these boards now understands like I do. Sorry to doubt you.

NEWSFLASH

Thread topic about the new privilleges was discussed by/with me one of the folk at RAA ops management today............:D:D:D:D:D And gues what Frank and T28D and anyone else who has bagged me up over this. Without prompting and I kid you not.....he almost word for word said EXACTLY what I have been saying on this thread. Talk about LMAO........and not at RAA pilots and the changes but the fact that everything I have argued here is 100% in line with his views on the need to sort these issues. I was stunned but not not surprised.

Remains to be seen what he can get done. This guy IS a good operator and also a good progressive influence on RAA. Only downside is anything he observes with his own eyes, including bead pilot behavior at the flyins he is observing at, can only be anecdotal stories because Frank says so....he is only in his 40's so he can't be trusted as a source of fact and observation.

................pretty good chance this thread will drift down the queue now I reckon. :hmm:

GAME OVER:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

I couldn't be bothered arguing with you sunshine. However your post only reinforces what I have said about "elitism".

one of the folk at RAA ops management

Now I'm not quiet sure what 100% of your views are and I'm unsure what I, or anyone else bagged you for, except for an unhealthy attitude toward RA-Aus, but I am concerned at the anectdotal evidence you post here today as coming from either of the two Ops Mgrs and purporting to be any sort of RA-Aus policy or dogma.

I can guarantee your claims will be subject to scrutiny tomorrow to ascertain what validity and what they specifically agreed with you on.

[poteroo]

JC....... a pair of egos looking for an audience !

Quit while you're ahead gentlemen.

There is no bloody difference in times to solo, or, times to completion between GA and RAA, - when you consider all the aspects.

A C152 is a whole lot easier to fly than a J-160. Which in my experienced opinion - renders the relative 'skills' arguement to the non-events file.

In the final washup, the student starting with RAA 3-axis, will be able to transition to GA after completing RAAus PC + pax endo + x/c , only requiring some IF and a couple more x/c's. The nett saving will be about $3000 to attain PPL.

Yes, RAAus is becoming the lower weight end of GA, and it's credibility will increase with the expansion of the syllabus, and the increasing of the instructing 'power'. You might be surprised at how many RAAus instructors are dual rated, and quite experienced - both sides of the fence.

happy days,

[Jabawocky]

I couldn't be bothered arguing with you sunshine. However your post only reinforces what I have said about "elitism".

Quote:
one of the folk at RAA ops management
Now I'm not quiet sure what 100% of your views are and I'm unsure what I, or anyone else bagged you for, except for an unhealthy attitude toward RA-Aus, but I am concerned at the anectdotal evidence you post here today as coming from either of the two Ops Mgrs and purporting to be any sort of RA-Aus policy or dogma.

I can guarantee your claims will be subject to scrutiny tomorrow to ascertain what validity and what they specifically agreed with you on. Frank you are clearly not paying attention....yet again.

Let me ask you to think slowly about this.

1. Elitism. Total and utter bull****, get it through you thick skinned skull. There is not one bit of elitism in my comments regarding RAAus. I am a member too sunshine! Probably long before you! I think they have a great and wonderful part to play. But it needs to be played right.

2. Well, for a start read back on my posts, my views are the new privilleges are a great thing for RAA, indeed very good. However with privilleges comes responsibility. Just as they had mandatory HF courses to achieve an educational improvement, the new privilleges also need some form of education. Just like HF courses, across the whole membership, as many members were from around 20 years back and had nothing much in training since, this was a good move. I thought it was an excellent programme. And I think a smilar one now would be also. Many have no idea what a ERC is let alone how to read it or use it. Something agreed in todays discussion.

3. So if you have no idea what my views are, this just confirms YOU DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO ANYONE, least of all those you are debating with. instead you and your mate engage in name calling and other diversionary tactics when you are found wanting.

4. but I am concerned at the anectdotal evidence you post here today as coming from either of the two Ops Mgrs and purporting to be any sort of RA-Aus policy or dogma. Geez Frank you make yourself out to be a bigger fool than even us younger folk can do. :rolleyes::rolleyes: today was not anecdotal at all. no it was a classic case of Frank Arouet observing and reporting exactly how it was. Would you believe it. I reported it as it was. I used old fart has been techniques to bring you comments that were pearls of wisdom as done by your generation...........FFS Frank you can't get any clearer than that.

5. Frank.........you also NEED TO PAY ATTENTION A BIT MORE NOW...... At no time did the said Ops guy say anything was RAA policy or about to be, nor did I say that was the case. Stop shooting from the hip. := What I said was........ .he almost word for word said EXACTLY what I have been saying on this thread. and........Remains to be seen what he can get done.

So Frank, before you go off half cocked as usual and make a fool of yourself with RAAus Head Office folk, get your facts straight. Said person expressed the exact same views I did in this thread and had exactly the same concerns I shared in this thread. He also shared the same delight in the good things to come from these new privilleges.

SO CRANKY CRANKY.......he was not purporting to be any sort of RA-Aus policy or dogma. This was a private discussion with somebody who really knows his stuff. Get your facts straight Frank. It will surely bite you on the A$$.

I can guarantee your claims will be subject to scrutiny tomorrow to ascertain what validity and what they specifically agreed with you on. You would not know where to start.......even though you know all the folk, they would all roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders at you. The report I made above was not a claim of RAA dogma you fool, read again my passage above.

If you want the truth, and I doubt you can handle the truth, phone me, you have my number. Phone me, and i will pass you onto said person with their permission of course so you can get it all from the two horses mouths. mine and His. If his concernes and views, as shared with me, eventually find their way to RAA board & policy, and if they result in training programmes, which they might, albeit a slim chance, will you get back on here with a public apology for claiming my observations were some form of mythical anecdote?

Ring me Frank. :ok:

By the way Frank.....you know that article that I reffered to earlier, DID YOU READ IT??????? Even if you did you probably will dismiss it as anecdotal :ugh:

Well I can assure you RAAus did take the right action, with the lovely old chap, who I hope will be airborne again one day after some serious talks and training, but also the guy who trained him has had some serious action taken with respect to his approvals etc and will also be counselled.

I am sure Frank you would agree that RAAus have acted in the most desirable manner, and I beleieve.....from the msytical anecdotes told to me, by the horses mouth, they process is one of great fairness and understanding. I would say definately a job well done and one CASA could learn from. they have set the right example here.

I think RAAus with leadership like this will do far better than they will from a confrontational, head in sand, I am old and experienced there for know it all attitude that some would portray. And no I am not talking about some Gen Y kind of response to old folk. Just a realistic one from those who are older than me. Well done to RAAus :D:D:D:D

[Sunfish]

T28D, I stand by what I said. The current Hobart fleet thinks its gods gift to sailing, when all it really is is a bunch of amateurs no different from their Grandafthers, just tricked up with modern technology and materials.

To put it another way: I dislike all assertions that something is "grass roots" and something else is not, and similar assertions of the superiority of one form of activity or another.

It matters not what you fly or what you sail. You will be just as dead when you screw up.

[Sunfish]

How many regulations are being broken here by this "grass roots" pilot?


The Drifter manual says spins are prohibited. I think I counted Ten rotations

YouTube - Maxair Drifter Incipient Spin and recovery

[VH-XXX]

Is that the pilot that died not long after?

[Shrike135]

Sunfish, I don't think flying's for you. One minute you're condemning RA Aus, next you're joining SAAA, next you're throwing theory in the air to RA Aus people, then you decide this piece of trash is legitimate debate.

For everyone's information the guy died shortly after, and took out his best friend, when the aircraft broke up in flight.
Aeros are prohibited under RA Aus regulations, full stop.
The close up photos taken BEFORE the break up showed severely corroded tubes, attachments and cables.
The video in your post was just one of many grossly irresponsible incidents which occurred during the pilot's short ownership of the aircraft.
He took himself out before authority could reach him.
He was severely criticised by many RA Aus Pilots moved to express alarm and shown as an example of behaviour which should never be condoned, to the extent that members of his grieving family came into the discussion, and magnanimously agreed that although they loved him, the discussion was useful as an example to others.

Anyone who would use this video as an example of grass roots flying clearly doesn't understand the terms and belongs in a pond hiring a paddle boat.

[Jabawocky]

Yep.... Dead and his mate.

This was also discussed yesterday as was the inglewood fly in. It was a great small town event at which in the beginning raa only yahooing was rife. This set bad examples to young drifter spinner types. After seeing some very poor circuit behavior a few years ago Mrs Jaba said we would not go back. Last year a friend of mine, A320 C&T went along and came back horrified at how this young drifter spinner was taking paying pax and doing aero's as per video. He noted poor attitude and defiance to some sound advice from someone who cut his teeth in PNG. Maintenance also appeared to be something treated the same way.

That evening he retold the story to me. Couple of days later drifter spinner and mate are killed.

Roll forward 12 months, RAA send ops guy to site and very few folk turned up. Maybe they knew eyes were watching or maybe folk had had enough of the yahooing. CASA were not seen to be there and if so they were not making themselves known unlike RAA ops who were in full colours.

Again, :D to RAA.

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

I'll ring you this afternoon before I make any other phone calls to HQ RA-Aus.

Before I go for another appointment this morning may I say, you answered my post, that I put up in an effort to get the thread back on track after a personal and irrelevant spray by a well known trouble maker.

In your response you went on a fairly narrow track and failed to address any of the more salient points I made. One such was directed at differences in training and how poor RA-Aus seemed by comparison.

You then advise that a paid employee of RA-Aus and you have discussed matters in which he concurs with you 100%.

If you are now maintaining the discussion revolved around an incident involving the above featured Drifter and the apparant abuse of privelege taken by that pilot and somehow claim training would fix this sort of thing, I think both you and the Ops Mgr in question should look at some historical GA fatalaties caused by stupidity.

There is no way any training can address this sort of thing and regulatory punishments only serve to warm people who probably wouldn't carry out such actions anyway. It's the old story, the majority pay for the acts of a few.

It would be handy to know therefor what you refer to when you say he agreed with you 100% and why this particular discussion should be "hot off the press" as if some official statement was due for impending action.

[Sunfish]

Shrike and others, all I am saying is that flying is flying. It matters not whether it is in an A380 or a hang glider. The results of failure to respect the activity are exactly the same.

Following from that, I take exception to the assertion that "grass roots" flying is somehow superior and that folk "learned about flying" in some special way from some provider and that the rules of safe airmanship apply to them in a different way to say, someone who is flying a C172.

To put it another way, if you don't consider the same precautions as the Pilot of an A380, albeit in a very different way, then it is you that are going to be the next headline maker.

Personally, I don't like the "rag and stick" ultralights since they remind me of the Quicksilver hang glider I built and crashed circa 1973.

[Flying Binghi]

Methinks its a bit unfair using the Drifter prang to attack RAA...


the aircraft broke up in flight...

The close up photos taken BEFORE the break up showed severely corroded tubes, attachments and cables.



Hmmm..:hmm: ...extra loads from aero's dont help though.


Anybody who reads the crash comics or spends a couple of minutes on youtube knows its not just RAA pilots/aircraft which prang....

Wing falls off, 20 dead...

"Chalk's Ocean Airways Flight 101 was an aircraft crash that occurred off Miami Beach, Florida, in the United States on December 19, 2005. All 20passengers and crew on board the 1947 Grumman G-73T Turbin Mallard died in the crash, which was attributed to metal fatigue on the starboard wing resulting in separation of the wing from the fuselage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight_101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways_Flight_101)



Video of a large jet pranging when some mild aero's go wrong. Seven dead...

YouTube - Plane Crashes into Ocean






.

[Shrike135]

Sorry FB, didn't mean to imply that corrosion caused the mid air break up. My guess was on the pilot's behaviour

[Jabawocky]

If you are now maintaining the discussion revolved around an incident involving the above featured Drifter and the apparant abuse of privelege taken by that pilot and somehow claim training would fix this sort of thing, I think both you and the Ops Mgr in question should look at some historical GA fatalaties caused by stupidity.

Frank

Two different posts ....two different incidents. I did discuss the drifter thing much later as it came up in discussion later. That being said I had no intention of it being mentioned in this thread at all and it was rather ironic that Sunfish posted that video. Rather funny really that Sunfish thinks a bit the same way...and as yet I have never met nor spoken with him. If I ever do it should be interesting as I think I could learn a lot from him and his experience.

Interesting I had a phone call from another RAA instructor today, guess what he said.........RAA really need a training programme to educate what the new privilleges and so on mean and how to comply because a great number do not understand what it all means. For example, not transponder equipped to be aware of avoiding Class E.

Frank.....considering your NON POSITION on the board, maybe you can affect change for good things.:ok:

Binghi Buzz Bomber
You are muck raking, so quite it. I am not RAA bashing one bit. When you add something constructive to the thread regardless of whether I agree or not, I will engage in debate. Otherwise, give it a rest. We are all aware of how the three of you operate with diversions, rude or name calling comments just to deflect the spotlight from short comings in your flawed arguments.

If you are a moron in RAA....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron in GA....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron in RPT....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron on PPRuNe....I'll be on your case.

I do not discriminate based on which camp you are in. Morons are morons. Which one are you?:ugh:

[VH-XXX]

It won't matter in the end when part 91 in its' present form goes through !

[superdimona]

Yes, because we'll all have flying cars by then.

[Flying Binghi]

via Jabawocky;

Binghi Buzz Bomber
You are muck raking, so quite it. I am not RAA bashing one bit. When you add something constructive to the thread regardless of whether I agree or not, I will engage in debate. Otherwise, give it a rest. We are all aware of how the three of you operate with diversions, rude or name calling comments just to deflect the spotlight from short comings in your flawed arguments.



............................................................ ... :hmm:













.

[Jabawocky]

It won't matter in the end when part 91 in its' present form goes through !

And our good mate Leadsled has already raised this point. And what a corkup it is! :mad:

Mind you its taken me all this time to read some (not all) of it and I can assure you its a cure for insomnia. So given the rate at which others around here read things like this, that might be important, I would not expect too many informed and intelligent replies any time soon.

J:zzz:

[Shrike135]

SpriteAH, you started this mess, and since you apparently fly both RA and GA, couldn't you have answered your own question?

Why not discuss something positive such as simplying and commonising regulations, and looking at what training requirements are needed for every step up the ladder?

[Frank Arouet]

A navex is a navex is a navex.

A RA-Aus cross country endorsement includes what is required of any VFR flight in whatever airspace. Perhaps to date everybody just flew B050 OCTA. Perhaps with extra vertical airspace now a focus should be on hemispherical levels in those navex and endorsements. If it makes any signifcant difference some reinforcement about the equipment and pilot needs to fly in whatever airspace could also be included.

It would just seem like common sense and not worthy of any great drama for this to be an education thing that begins with RA-Aus and it's instructors and if a simple reminder wasn't put in the magazine by either Ops managers, they would be failing in their responsibilities.

Now is there a drama about over water flights in any single engine aircraft and is there any drama about a weight increase to 600KG for RA-Aus?

May as well get it out in the open now.

[Jabawocky]

Frank now you are coming around to what we have been saying :ok:

You are quite right ...a navex is exactly that, no matter who.:ok:

Perhaps to date everybody just flew B050 OCTA They were supposed to and many did not, nor did they comply, but thats because they were not well informed and educated.

Perhaps with extra vertical airspace now a focus should be on hemispherical levels in those navex and endorsements.
Yep you betcha :ok:..........but what about all those folk who have not seen Nav training in the last 25 years....or those who travel far and wide with the endo or any training? :ooh: Now you are getting the picture :ok:

It would just seem like common sense and not worthy of any great drama for this to be an education thing that begins with RA-Aus and it's instructors and if a simple reminder wasn't put in the magazine by either Ops managers, they would be failing in their responsibilities.

Ahhhhh common snese Frank, there are no issues there surely? :ooh: But there are and those who need bringing up to speed don't read and if they do don't always believe it applies to them. Look at Tizz's continual writings and frustrations.

I think you are progressing well Frank. Good work ;)

Over water and 600kg, how about you champion that one for the team huh? :ok:

[Shrike135]

So now we have a polarised solution:

You two solving the "problems" in a couple of thread posts.

CASA attempting to do the same in a gazillion words, in a gazillion clauses, with a gazillion amendments, in a gazillion documents scattered into a gazillion places.

[Flying Binghi]

via jabawocky;

...if you are a moron in ga....i'll be on your case.
...if you are a moron on pprune....i'll be on your case.





via forktaileddrkiller;

check ya notams and watch out for active restricted areas - jaba nearly got me into trouble with that one!

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/451556-lake-eyre-trip-bankstown.html




.......;)











.

[Sunfish]

As my old headmaster used to say: "A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules".

Some of you will remember Sir Brian....


Why do we have to endlessly make this point?

[Jabawocky]

HAHAHAHAHHA

HOOK LINE AND SINKER

YOU GRADE 'A' FOOL........

Binghi Buzz Bomber, you clearly are thick as three short planks. Read on a bit further and for that matter every other thread where Forkie pulls that gag just to be a funny bugger. And funny he is indeed.

But you would never get that humour would you Binghi???? No, because you would not check your facts.

Fact is Forkie was planned on blundering through the R airspace and it was Jaba that saved our butts being shot at by some stealthy beast in the bush.

So stick that in ya pipe and smoke it...........AND STOP STUPID ATTEMPTS AT DIVERTING THE THREAD DEBATE FROM THE TOPIC AT HAND BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING OF VALUE TO ADD.

AND YESS I AM YELLING AT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SHORT OF SIGHT, HEARING AND COMPRHENSION SO I HOPE THIS HELPS.

J:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Jabawocky]

If you are a moron in RAA....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron in GA....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron in RPT....I'll be on your case.
If you are a moron on PPRuNe....I'll be on your case.

I do not discriminate based on which camp you are in. Morons are morons. Which one are you?:ugh:

I guess we just found out Which kind of moron you are Binghi Buzz Bomber, thanks for clearing that up.




:hmm:

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/DeadHorse-1.gif

[Jabawocky]

You two solving the "problems" in a couple of thread posts.

CASA attempting to do the same in a gazillion words, in a gazillion clauses, with a gazillion amendments, in a gazillion documents scattered into a gazillion places.

Shrike you are spot on......CASA have taken 20 years squillions of dollars and spat out some utter garbage. If they were consultants working for me, they would be starving and out of work by now.

Can anyone get the FAA rules in MS word, we do a simple "Find - Replace" and charge them $10K for a finished product. They would not even notice .....even if we missed an FAA or two!

I doubt Frankie and Jaba are really the men for the job, but it shows how hard is is if we can sort something out between us. And that says something! :)

J

[Flying Binghi]

HOOK LINE AND SINKER

YOU GRADE 'A' FOOL........

Binghi Buzz Bomber, you clearly are thick as three short planks. Read on a bit further and for that matter every other thread where Forkie pulls that gag just to be a funny bugger. And funny he is indeed.

But you would never get that humour would you Binghi???? No, because you would not check your facts.

Fact is Forkie was planned on blundering through the R airspace and it was Jaba that saved our butts being shot at by some stealthy beast in the bush.

So stick that in ya pipe and smoke it...........AND STOP STUPID ATTEMPTS AT DIVERTING THE THREAD DEBATE FROM THE TOPIC AT HAND BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING OF VALUE TO ADD.

AND YESS I AM YELLING AT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SHORT OF SIGHT, HEARING AND COMPRHENSION SO I HOPE THIS HELPS.



Heh, looks like i did fall for it. Interesting response though. Another one to add to the 'Jaba deletes' file..:)







.

[Jabawocky]

That will make us both happy:ok:

If you are going to come on here and throw muck around and ruin threads like you have on all sorts of other forums in an attempt to hijack threads and bully others, this is what you will get..... Again and again.

Add another to the Jaba delete file please:)

[T28D]

Sunfish, Whilst I agree with what you say to some extent

T28D, I stand by what I said. The current Hobart fleet thinks its gods gift to sailing, when all it really is is a bunch of amateurs no different from their Grandafthers, just tricked up with modern technology and materials.

The Hobart I sail is characterised best as "every mans mountain".

However you miss the point I was making, part 91 Flight rules ( operations) is riddled with strict liability offences which apply to amateur and recreational aviation, a slightly risky but well defined by the laws of physics activity, which presumably now needs jailable penalties to regulate it.

Whereas on the other hand Offshore Yacht Racing an equally slightly risky activity has NO STRICT LIABILITY consequences for those who tread lightly on the convention of risk mitigation.

Point is why would one with appropriate skills and financial ability put ones neck into the part 91 guilliotine wnen equally one could clinb "every mans mountain" and go to Hobart (or Port Lincoln, or Geraldton ) and share the experience without the sword of Democles hanging over ones head.

Much has been said about the difference between G/A and RAA when factually little difference actually exists, you "canna change the laws of physics", aviation is dependent on simple rules and a vast body of experience that dictates what is sensible and what is simply "twaddle"

We share a common bond, lets not trash that, experience is the thing that differentiates us from machines, it also is the very thing that allows us to challenge unjust rubbish like the proposed Part 91.

Use the experience wisely, collaborate and collectively we can change this rush to use strict liabilty to bring us all "into line"'.

[Flying Binghi]

If you are going to come on here and throw muck around and ruin threads like you have on all sorts of other forums in an attempt to hijack threads and bully others, this is what you will get..... Again and again.



Jabawocky, you are fantasizing again..:hmm:


Jabawocky have another look at the standard of your posts.







.

[Frank Arouet]

I'll post this again for those who either missed it or concentrated too much on the last paragraph. If it helps, ignore that last paragraph;


I wonder if The Skull's latest announcement to hurry up the regulatory reform programme, (The CASA Briefing April 2011), which has dragged on for the last 20+ years means RA-Aus will be included in the laws as they are to be written. (As they should be by now).

Australian aviation is administered in effect by "instruments" or "exemptions" from existing inadequate laws because of this incompetent attempt at regulatory reform. RA-Aus is no exception, being an "exemption" from existing laws in it's own right.

This "exemption" is now granted further "exemptions" from the "exemptions" to fly above 5000 ft.

I've heard rumours that CASA find it easier to grant "exemptions" than address the reform project. I've also heard it has gone on for so long there is no way to just abolish "exemptions" because in effect it would ground most every aircraft flying in Australian airspace.

Had the regulatory reform been completed, and the "spirit" of the original recreational licence been written into law, we wouldn't have RA-Aus certificates and we wouldn't need special permission or priveleges to fly VFR where VFR now has the ability to fly.

My first impression of the concept of a recreational licence was a replacement of the existing RPPL with "add ons" like the PIFR to improve the basic theoretical and practical skills pending upgrades like medicals, endorsements etc..

I get the impression if CASA could, they would be happy for anyone to take the administrative workload off them and they would lump all non fare paying operations into a self regulatory institution like RA-Aus. Unfortunately they have probably found out what I've known for years that there is no harmony or cohesion with any in the GA community. Further they compound the problem with their policy of "divide and conquer" so no amalgamation can gang up on them. (think about guilt or paranoia here).

Regulation has not kept pace with aviation evolution and I remember the balking of allowing the first twin engine jets to overfly oceans. If sport and ultralight aircraft have demonstrated their evolution and ability, and if pilots have done likewise, why should they be left struggling for permission to fly above reasonable convective heights? Why are half the pilots in Australia forced to fly under "exemptions" granted by a sometimes, (sometimes not) benevolent bureaucracy.

Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?

[VH-XXX]

In an ideal world, RA-Aus, CASA, AOPA, SAAA, GFA, Warbirds and others would all play nicely together. Until such time, threads like this one will be in existence.

It is a pity, as all are out to effectively achieve the same purpose.

[Frank Arouet]

The fact that all the alphabet soup organisations have failed to alter the Regulators mindset in whatever the guise over the course of the last 40+ years indicates the solution to the problem lies elsewhere.

There can only be a political solution and unfortunately we are bereft of imaginative, competent or willing political might.

I wouldn't rely on there being an ideal world for some time.

[Shrike135]

Ironically Frank, while giving a Department the authority to introduce rules under Exemption from the original Act usually results in corruption, incompetence or just an uncontrollable mess without the safeguard of Parliamentary scrutiny and debate, it also provides the Instrument which allows the Department to rapidly respond to issues and changing circumstances.

Which is probably why the Politicians long ago set it up that way.

[Frank Arouet]

I doubt politicians are that imaginative.

"Instruments" are a product of the regulator.

They have that ability because politicians are lazy and couldn't be bothered to pick up and read "tabled" documents and they pass into law without debate.

[Shrike135]

After a compliment like that Frank I can't see any politicians dropping their work on welfare issues, roads, or any of the other important work to do some major reform for a bunch of weekend leisure seekers.

And you need to do a little more research on how the separation from Government occurs.

[Frank Arouet]

bunch of weekend leisure seekers

Applies to all Australian aviation. Qantas and most other airlines flying in Australia can only do business by "exemption".

separation from Government

Are you referring to The Separation of the Powers, as in Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers, or that grey area between politicians and the bureaucracy which includes advisors, ex military, ex Cathay and general dogsbody's who appear to run the show.

As for politicians dropping their work on important issues, they already do mate. It's a free for all for greens, illegal immigrants, gay and lesbian marriage, left handed surfboard riders, and all at the cost of our health, welfare, and military security. Strewth!

Please don't tell us the church is involved. (something I could speculate on without your help). Or perhaps chat room involvement and a plot to overthrow the establishments?

But you obviously have something more to say about this, so go ahead and educate us. This should be interesting.

[Shrike135]

You're not suggesting this is a forum for serious discussion are you?

[superdimona]

I fail to see why if someone wants to fly Cessnas, Gliders and Ultralights they need 3 different bits of paper and have to belong to 2 different non-government groups. Why a GA pilot can fly a GA Jabiru but not the same aircraft with numbers on the side. Why the pilot of a motorglider can legally fly through controlled airspace, yet the holder of a RAA cert (who has far more things to cover in the syllabus) can't.

Why not just introduce a recreational license, limit it to a few pax and say 2000kg for liability reasons, provide endorsements for LSA/microlights/gliders/CTA etc and get rid of all these redundant groups that just foster the "us and them" mentality.

[fencehopper]

The above post is possibly the only sensible and reasonable post out of the whole thread.

[Frank Arouet]

You're not suggesting this is a forum for serious discussion are you?

Is there an aviation forum more suitable for serious discussion?

[Jake.f]

I definitely agree.

EDIT: With superdimona

[Flying Binghi]

...get rid of all these redundant groups that just foster the "us and them" mentality...



methinks superdimona puts up a good idea there.

History seems to show one of the problems.

We probably wouldn't have todays ultralights if there were no ultralight focused management crew (todays RAA) pushing fer a better deal for 'ultralights'.

Interestingly, a couple of years ago i heard of suggestions of forming a breakaway 95-10 group as there were a belief that the current RAA management had lost sight of cheap basic flying.. and so it goes.....








.

[Jabawocky]

Why not just introduce a recreational license, limit it to a few pax and say 2000kg for liability reasons, provide endorsements for LSA/microlights/gliders/CTA etc and get rid of all these redundant groups that just foster the "us and them" mentality.

CASA have been sitting on their hands for years I believe on the RPL. This would cover S/E up to 4 or maybe 6 seats and a medical requirement of RAAus. It would be DAY VFR only, and no CTA/R.

I think this is what you are reffering to. If you really think its worth it write to Mr McCormick and ask him to get the RPL back on the table. Its a worthy cause indeed. Of course T28D would say I am being self serving or something, but I reckon he and many others will need this at least 20 years before I do ;).

As for the us and them, well if an RPL could also cover RAA/Gliders and unmedicalled GA, well that would chop a big whole in the income stream of a certain group of "rent seekers" that some folk seem to be defending quite a lot around here. Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is. :}

Jake.f
If you are 17......that would explain the level of understanding of the complex nature of all this aviation stuff. And yes it all should be simpler. But if you listen to Frank, you comments can only be seen as anecdotal, where as his comments are his valued observations from 50 years in the game. So just be careful what you agree with.......:E

[Jake.f]

I am aware of that, but from my standpoint knowing little context of these issues I know enough to see that an RPL system sounds like a feasible idea.

[Frank Arouet]

There seems to be a lot of people with the 100 hour VFR/ 1000 hour IFR hour "expert" syndrome. Reckon raising the bar to their level should be made mandatory.

Reminds me of a well told story of a Blackbird pilot requesting FL 600 and the ATCO snidely asking how he thought he was going to climb to that altitude.

Answer came back, "requesting descent buddy".

You'll all come down one day, depends on what you learn while you're up there that determines the landing.

Good luck listening to young experts. I'm still alive, had an equal number of take offs and landings, so I must be doing something right.;)

EDIT for Jake;

The Recreational Pilot Licence was a great idea but like a lot of things it got corrupted on the way. There was a Restricted PPL once, bastardised into a GFPT that needed an instructor to sign you out on the day. This should and could have formed the basis of a sensible licence. CASA unfortunately couldn't get their ducks in a row and we now fly recreational aircraft on "instruments" or "exemptions" to existing rules. God only knows why there is a weight factor.

[Jabawocky]

Frank
There seems to be a lot of people with the 100 hour VFR/ 1000 hour IFR hour "expert" syndrome. Reckon raising the bar to their level should be made mandatory.

I have not seen one post suggesting anything like that in this entire thread. Of course I am one of many wanting the bar raised in a few areas, for the good of all, mostly those needing it of course. Do not confuse the two.

Good luck listening to young experts. I'm still alive, had an equal number of take offs and landings, so I must be doing something right.;)

Yep, thats you and we are listening to you Frank. And as a result mine all tally up the same too. And the last couple were pearlers in the dark and strong X-winds, so my good luck must be about to run out :\

Onto more serious stuff....
The Recreational Pilot Licence was a great idea but like a lot of things it got corrupted on the way.
Frank as you have a great depth of history for a young fella :E, I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.

I think its a great concept indeed. I do not think it should be run by a third party group like the RAA or anyone else. It needs to be a CASA run licence just like PPL/CPL etc.

God only knows why there is a weight factor.
frank with all your years of wisdom you have not figured that out.....coz give an inch and they will take a nautical mile ;)

J:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

...if an RPL could also cover RAA/Gliders and unmedicalled GA, well that would chop a big whole in the income stream of a certain group of "rent seekers" that some folk seem to be defending quite a lot around here. Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is...

Jabawocky, i thought yer flew a VH rego'd aircraft ? Whats the $170 for ?





.

[Frank Arouet]

A bloke I saw did a restricted pilot licence on his own Citation. Likewise a bloke with a Mooney and others who owned Austers and cessnas.

The only difference between that and an unrestricted PPL was an area endorsement cancellation. There was no need for an instructor to sign you out as long as you didn't fly out of the immediate training area. There was no weight restriction except to the limit of a CPL/ ATPL licence.

The original recreational concept was covered by the restricted licence, sans medical with upgrades. It would have allowed glider tug pilots, for instance, to tow gliders without having to do the NAVEX and MET part of the licence which they didn't need.

give an inch and they will take

Who is the "they". Sounds a bit elitist to me. What would it matter to you if "they" flew a B52 within the confines of the "training area". Why can't a GFA pilot fly a Hamilcar glider. Why can a GFA pilot fly a 1000 KG motorglider with a Rotax to FL350 and an RAA aircraft certificate holder can't.

From memory one Bill McGonagle, CAA. (spelling), could put you right on the original concept details.

[poteroo]

The 'restricted' PPL lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL. The thinking was that the GFPT process kept the pilot a 'student' - and that would keep them home. It seems to have worked. It's just made more unpaid work for instructors.

The RPL has nothing to do with the old RPPL. The proposed RPL is sans medical, night,IFR,CTA - the old RPPL required the full Cl2 med.

The RPL is alive & well via SAAA, who are still pushing for it.

As proposed by others - if CASA are going to make an industry decision, it should make any 'recreational' flying come under a single ticket...perhaps with weight and a few other limits.

happy days,

[superdimona]

I really don't understand the opposition to a CTA endorsement. Many other countries (with much busier airspace) let sub-ICAO pilots fly in CTA, what's so special about Australia?

If people are worried about rogue operators granting it willy-nilly, then require a CASA or GA instructor checkride or something.

My guess is it's mainly an ego-thing - "I had to pay $300/hr for a PPL, so should you".

[Frank Arouet]

it should make any 'recreational' flying come under a single ticket.

And it would if CASA got their finger out and completed the regulatory review process which would enshrine the "exemptions" into law.

lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL

As one could if it was your aircraft, you had a PPL at the controls (yes left or right hand seat). I believe there are people around today with a RPPL. Privelege granted prior to GFPT.

[Jabawocky]

Jabawocky, i thought yer flew a VH rego'd aircraft ? Whats the $170 for ?

here we go again.........yet again... hang on where is Binghi's favourite smiley face..:hmm::hmm::hmm:

You are truly a thick moron, if you had paid attention for the last sevral years, including recent posts, I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.

Just shows me how much you know..........FARKALL. Now why is it when you research all the AGW stuff, you actually read and use your brain.....or is that all just a big fluke?:confused:

Now stick to the meat and potato's of the thread would ya!


Frank
Who is the "they". Sounds a bit elitist to me. What would it matter to you if "they" flew a B52 within the confines of the "training area". Why can't a GFA pilot fly a Hamilcar glider. Why can a GFA pilot fly a 1000 KG motorglider with a Rotax to FL350 and an RAA aircraft certificate holder can't.

Mate you really are losing the plot..........you have a balanced view of the world, a large chip on each shoulder!

"they" means anyone in GA mostly, but for that matter it boils down to the bulk of society. Stop reading with a guilty concience, because your responses seem to be that way.

Superdimona
My guess is it's mainly an ego-thing - "I had to pay $300/hr for a PPL, so should you".
I do not think so.......I certainly do not think that way at all. Like most folk I have forked out heaps for all sorts of things. Standards are standards and success does not bargain with the price, thats life. No matter where the money is spent.

As a thought in the USA there is no NVFR as we know it. So if you want to fly at night VFR in the USA what do you need to do? Do you think that is wise? I like many of the FAA rulings etc, but that one I do not. I think it's the cause of many deaths.

So Frank.......I asked you a serious well meaning question about something you gave the impression to know plenty about, yet so far only poteroo has commented on, let alone answered.

So what can you educate me with mate. This is a serious genuine question. Not a petty point scoring battle.

J:ok:

[Flying Binghi]

:rolleyes:


here we go again.........yet again... hang on where is Binghi's favourite smiley face..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

You are truly a thick moron, if you had paid attention for the last sevral years, including recent posts, I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.

Just shows me how much you know..........FARKALL. Now why is it when you research all the AGW stuff, you actually read and use your brain.....or is that all just a big fluke?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Now stick to the meat and potato's of the thread would ya!



Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..:hmm:





.

[Sunfish]

Poteroo:

The 'restricted' PPL lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL. The thinking was that the GFPT process kept the pilot a 'student' - and that would keep them home. It seems to have worked. It's just made more unpaid work for instructors.

Without wishing to start another fight, there is a difference between cruising around your "patch" in good weather, far from controlled airspace, and actually touring with something like a rough schedule, to places reasonably far away that you may not necessarily be all that familiar with, where you have to take the weather as it comes and make that decision about staying or going multiple times.

By the way, does NAIPS accept plans from RAA registered aircraft?

[Jabawocky]

TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT

And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........

Jaba says Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifAnd Jaba also says......I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.

And Binghi Buzz Bomber says Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..:hmm:
So viewers.......tell me if I am completely nuts, apart from biting at the trolls taunts, and feeding him more, did I not say why I keep the RAA ticket even if I do not NEED it, heck I don't NEED a CIR either, but its damned useful I must say. And when did I complain about $170. At least the $170 from RAA gets me some value unlike the CASA fees and worse still the ASIC:ugh:

So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?






........ :hmm:

Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder :hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

Stop being a big girls blouse.

You asked:

Frank as you have a great depth of history for a young fella http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif, I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.

I answered that Bill McGonagle ex CAA could better advise you. I understand he comes from up your way. I last had correspondence from him regarding another (PIFR) matter about 1993.

My understanding of it was to basically re-name the RPPL and as the endorsements were achieved it gradually evolved into a fully fledged UPPL. Unfortunately someone decided a GFPT was a good idea.

I believe I also mentioned I can't recall how any weight considerations came into being except perhaps to bring RA-Aus/ AUF into the fold with the ability to fly sans medical.

It may also have had something with the regulator divesting itself of the administrative burden and eventually saw RA-Aus as the only credible organisation able to carry out that function.

Such I would suggest that is something CASA got right.

LeadSled may have some information. Perhaps Dick Smith recalls the concept?

In conclusion, we must make the best of what we have now. This now approximates a standard set in the US which appears to be well received by them and aircraft manufacturers world wide appear to embrace building aircraft to meet with that demand.

My one wish is for the RA-Aus certificate to become a licence. This won't happpen until CASA write the "exemptions" into law and complete the Regulatory Review process.:(

[Flying Binghi]

.



............. :)



TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT

And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........

Jaba says Quote:
Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
And Jaba also says...... Quote:
I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
And Binghi Buzz Bomber says Quote:
Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
So viewers.......tell me if I am completely nuts, apart from biting at the trolls taunts, and feeding him more, did I not say why I keep the RAA ticket even if I do not NEED it, heck I don't NEED a CIR either, but its damned useful I must say. And when did I complain about $170. At least the $170 from RAA gets me some value unlike the CASA fees and worse still the ASIC:ugh:

So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?






........ http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif




Jabawocky, it is interesting to note your complaints about paying $170 fer something yer dont really need. How do you think ultralight aircraft owners would feel about paying thousands of dollars for them ADS-B thingy's that they dont need ?.........





..........:hmm:






.

[VH-XXX]

Frank, why do you want it to become a licence versus a certificate? Are you wanting a level playing field with the one licence for all as such?

[superdimona]

I'd like something like: this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Private_Pilot_Licence). I think the UK has it right. With the training, their NPPL grants all the privs that a recreational flyer realistically wants.

We have a 2 main paths for powered recreational flying: RAA and PPLs. The problem is the RAA was supposed to be about ultralights, but has been flooded with people trying to escape from the expense of GA flying. They now outnumber true 'ultralight' pilots, and are pushing RAA into 'GA lite'.

This isn't a great system for anyone. The 'GA-lite' folk are annoyed by what they see as unnecessary restrictions (no CTA endo, weight limits etc). The ultralight pilots are worried that by pushung for less restrictions, CASA will look harder at the RAA and make their life a misery. The PPLs are (perhaps rightly) concerned that the more 'carefree' RAA pilots shouldn't be anywhere near CTA.

We should ask ourself "What privileges do most recreational pilots (eg anyone that flys for pleasure, not the artificial 'recreational' definition we have at the moment) actually need?" And once we work out the answer, figure out what they need to know to do so safely.

Most recreational flyers will never use the full freedoms (IFR rating, 5700kg, multiple engine rating) that can come with a PPL. My guess is most PPLs will never fly anything more then a SE 4-seater, and will not often undertake navs that cost a weeks wages. Why not make a license suitable for them, then leave the RAA to worry about ultralights. Or better yet allow ultralight, glider etc ratings to be added to it (oops, this might bankrupt the GFA/RAA - we can't have that).

[Frank Arouet]

XXX;

The current RA-Aus certificate is an "exemption" from the regulations. It's not a licence. Actually RA-Aus is an "exemption" in itself.

If these "exemptions" were written into the regulations there would be no uncertainty regarding CASA having a "hissyfit" and withdrawing that "exemption". There is a regulatory review process going now for some 22 years from memory. Isn't it about time someone called a halt to this ongoing and expanding waste of taxpayers money?

The US recreational licence is a good model and covers all the concerns. As superdimona notes, even the Poms have a licence. The NPPL is very much like the way the initial Recreational licence was explained to me.

RA-Aus has proved it has the means of administering these concepts. CASA simply have to write a law to enable it. Probably less effort than writing the endless "exemptions".

The recent announcements regarding over water flights, weight increase to 600KG and increased altitude are sensible, probably mirror overseas templates but are in themselves "exemptions" from "exemptions".

[Jabawocky]

Frank,

I am not being a big girly blouse, I am sick of that moron buzz bomber trying to derail discussion and debate, which if you look at his last post, he is try to do yet again:ugh:

Maybe I am confused or I confused you, the RPL as I understood it to be if it comes in one day is Recreational Pilot Licence and would be for VH rego, DAY VFR, OCTA and a drivers licence medical standard just like RAAus.

What I think you are talking about is the Restricted PPL.

Again this was before my time so I am keen to hear what you know about it.

Tell me this, would you be in favour of having a car licence medical level for an RPL that gave you Day VFR OCTA and you could keep your VH registered Auster or C172 flying for your PVT ops?. Would mean not selling your C172, Cherokee or Auster and having to buy a Jabiru.

What do you think?

[Jabawocky]

Jabawocky, it is interesting to note your complaints about paying $170 fer something yer dont really need. How do you think ultralight aircraft owners would feel about paying thousands of dollars for them ADS-B thingy's that they dont need ?.........





..........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


How many times do you need to be told? You are either thicker than I thought, or just plain stupid. I have never complained once in my life about the RAA membership fee. Not once. Go find where I have moaned and complained about being ripped off $170 a year by RAA and I will give you $170 as well.

Unlike you Buzz Bombing Binghi, I am not such a tight arse, I do not expect all the privilleges without paying the price and that includes things such as devices that enhance safety. If you want top argue that point start another thread, because i am about one click of the mouse away from that little icon http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif that might well get you a little holiday to contemplate your stupidity. You are behaving like the kind of child that everyone in class hates and the teacher wishes he/she could take out the back and flog with a big stick.

This will be my last post reacting to your stupidity, if I do it again I hope a moderator bans me for a week. Even my own dummy spits are ruining threads with decent debate going on. I believe this is your plan and end game anyway.

Sorry viewers........back to topic....for the umteenth time!:rolleyes:

[Frank Arouet]

What I think you are talking about is the Restricted PPL.

Exactly, but with a new name and without the class 2 medical.

Instead of evolving to what you sensibly describe, it mutated first into a GFPT which was a useless bastardisation, and the recreational concept was separated into what we now have which is only just beginning to be half sensible.

Imagine how much time would have been saved had that original concept been hatched. Everything would simply be an endorsement on the basics which would allow a 95:10 pilot to upgrade if he wished to the equivalent of the UPPL. All hours counted and a medical would be required if you wanted to fly for profit or gain.

As for CASA administering this, I would suggest they would be glad if PVT GA just went away.

[Jabawocky]

Thanks Frank :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

via Jabawocky #65;
The Chaser!!! Long time no speak



via Jabawocky #141; I am not being a big girly blouse, I am sick of that moron buzz bomber trying to derail discussion and debate, which if you look at his last post, he is try to do yet again...


Interesting, i get called names and accused of derailing the thread. I had a look-see for The Chaser posts that had introduced ADS-B to this thread and all gone!!! ...except fer the reference in the Jabawocky post #65.. interesting.... So yer got me again there Jabawocky, looks like i introduced ADS-B to the thread..:hmm:




via Jabawocky #142; How many times do you need to be told? You are either thicker than I thought, or just plain stupid. I have never complained once in my life about the RAA membership fee. Not once. Go find where I have moaned and complained about being ripped off $170 a year by RAA and I will give you $170 as well.

Unlike you Buzz Bombing Binghi, I am not such a tight arse, I do not expect all the privilleges without paying the price and that includes things such as devices that enhance safety. If you want top argue that point start another thread, because i am about one click of the mouse away from that little icon http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif that might well get you a little holiday to contemplate your stupidity. You are behaving like the kind of child that everyone in class hates and the teacher wishes he/she could take out the back and flog with a big stick.

This will be my last post reacting to your stupidity, if I do it again I hope a moderator bans me for a week. Even my own dummy spits are ruining threads with decent debate going on. I believe this is your plan and end game anyway.

Sorry viewers........back to topic....for the umteenth time!


Hmmm, lets go back a bit....



sundry extracts via Jabawocky #30; ...the irational illogical idiot... , ...Morons..., ...w@nker...

via Jabawocky #42; ...Geeze if we really started the name calling dummy spits it would be like you lot...



And then we get my first post at #58......



Jabawocky i suggest you go and re-read yer posts - they are less then edifying.

Jabawocky, although i dont agree with yer on some things you write there is still much that i agree with. Perhaps you can stick to pionting out where you think i am wrong in a more lucid and readable format..:)






.

[VH-XXX]

Maybe we could end this "tirade" some time soon?

[sprocket check]

Why? I'm only half way through the popcorn. :}

Not often we see Jaba get so animated!

[VH-XXX]

I must say, it's not the Jaba that we all know.... :confused: someone must have pushed his button(s) ;)

[Jabawocky]

You are correct Sproket :ok:

It is not that often I get so wound up, it seems however that our serial pest Mr Binghi Buzz Bomber seems to have finally lost the plot. Taking great delight in recalling some of my dummy spits.

Byby the way I stand behind each and every one, as they are ALL in response to moronic posts by the likes of himself or T28D. I doubt very much, and correct me if I am wrong Mr Sprocket, that none of these are initiated by myself. I am however sick of these folk derailing threads with slagging others and or me such as "self serving crud", or deliberately miss quoting, telling me why I hate RAA and begrudge $170 a year when this is the furthest from the truth. I am sure you will have noticed this.

It all seems to be in attempt to distract posters from the real topic of the thread. Go back and read it for yourself. Let me know what you think.

Now he seems to think I am "The Chaser" or something? I am not sure what drugs he is on but I am sure those who do know who is who will get a big laugh out of that one. But of course if we argue the similar points we must be the same. :rolleyes:

Anyway.......I am not debating his stupidity with him any more, or not on this thread at least. Sorry if that ends your entertainment value. :)

J:ok:

[Much Ado]

Thank fck:rolleyes::ugh: