RAA training at YMMB?

[Shifty-Au]

I have a friend who just did a T.I.F at Moorabbin in a Jabiru with Melbourne Aviation an start his RAA Certificate

I thought that only GA could fly and train at Moorabbin ??

[VH-XXX]

I was waiting for this discussion to appear.

As of 2 weeks ago their "308?" (the approval for them to operate as solo RA-Aus students in CTA) approval was only "a couple of days away."

So the answer is, yes they can.

Melbourne Aviation is in the same building that used to house Oasis Flight training that was forcibly "relocated" from Point Cook a few years back. I am unsure if they are the same company.

They also have 2 x Liberty XL2's on their fleet information on the web-site. I heard that these aircraft were purchased 2nd hand from an Asian country and there have allegedly been large costs involved in getting them on the Australian register, so much so that they should have purchased them locally from the pool available here at the moment.

[Shifty-Au]

According to there FB page they are awaiting a J160 and J230,
Is this "approval" going to be permanent then?

[VH-XXX]

Unless something goes wrong or some regulation changes, one could expect that the approval would indeed be permanent. There would be a significant impact to them if they lost the approval later on.

There are other schools running at Bankstown etc in Class D under a similar arrangement so it certainly can be successful if run well.

I am not sure if Oasis ever had approval, so this might be a first for Moorabbin. I do recall a few years ago that they (Oasis) were doing first solo's etc at fields outside Moorabbin but they may have got it later.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Does the limit on no further training past their pilot cert in a CTR unless they hold a PPL and medical still apply?

[VH-XXX]

It would have to, because you can't fly an RA-Aus registered aircraft in CTA/Class D etc without a PPL and a medical. If that wasn't the case, then you could fly on a RA-Aus cert without a PPL by hiring from that place specifically and I can't see that working very well :=

One could assume that the excemption allows them to get away with it because they are under direct supervision during their solo flight.

I suspect they are using the RA-Aus registered aircraft to reduce costs for the PPL so in the end it won't matter for most piots, but that being said if you went there exclusively for RA-Aus training you would feel somewhat ripped to find out that you can't fly from the airport that you trained (including solo) at!

[spinex]

Similar scenario prevails at Archerfield; an RA school with a loose association with one of the GA schools has opened its doors. I believe plenty hoops to jump through for the exemption and as you say no hire and fly down the line, but as an intro to a PPL it works pretty well. They require a medical for solo flight too.

[baswell]

These exemptions say: "student or pilot under the control of the operator", so clear as mud.

Both RA-Aus and CASA are fully aware that under all these exemptions, the operators allow hire and fly with passenger at the end of training and they have not taken issue with it.

So expect it to be the same here; "graduates" will be able to hire and fly in CTA from this school. Obviously, they can't go hire a jab at Tooradin and fly into the CTA because they would in no way shape or form be "under the control" of Melbourne Aviation.

Interestingly enough, most people assume this is only for the local Delta. That's not true, it just says "controlled airspace". Nothing stopping you from going into the MEL Charlie, or even flying to SY.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re Mr 'XXX's' comment....

" I suspect they are using the RA-Aus registered aircraft to reduce costs for the PPL"

So, for a TRAINING (Commercial) organisation at a class 'D' location, -
Apart from the fuel consumption, and possible purchase price, what are the other savings to be had, assuming that the 'infrastructure costs' would be the same for both types of school? (Lets assume vs a C-152)

I mean, instructors need to be paid - I would assume at the same rate...(?)
Building rents, and assoc. on goings.... no change here...(?)

At a 'country' OCTA location for the same organisation -
Any more savings over a VH registered aircraft?

Cheers:ok:

[MACH082]

What I see happening is smart schools training all students under RAA to the CASA GA standard and sitting the relevant flight tests for issue of GA licences along the way (and RAA). Might also help out with the odd show cause notice in being able to continue to operate in spite of CASA :D

You can have a jab registered under VH and RAA and there are many LSAs with a CSU and cruise speed >120 Kts.

We shall see hey :)

[VH-XXX]

what are the other savings to be had

Maintenance is the big one plus the recommended labour hours for many RA-Aus aircraft are less than their GA counterparts (particularly for a Jabiru).

An RA-Aus Level 2 mechanic can maintain the aircraft thus not requiring a LAME. That being said though, you're probably talking about a difference of $20 to $30 an hour (if that) for the L2 versus LAME, possibly less, so your point rings true, there probably isn't a huge saving. Many RA-Aus operators boast LAME maintenance so it does make you wonder if there is much of a difference in the end. Same transponder checks, still needs oil and filters changing, still uses tyres probably at a faster rate than aviation grade tyres, but engines are cheaper. Probably a percentage cheaper but not massively significant, particularly when operated from metropolis.


Bas, I can't see this being correct as much as it sounds logical:

So expect it to be the same here; "graduates" will be able to hire and fly in CTA from this school.

That would imply that I can go and get a check-ride with Melbourne Aviation in a Jabiru, then continue to fly that Jabiru into Class D Moorabbin without a PPL. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So expect it to be the same here; "graduates" will be able to hire and fly in CTA from this school. Obviously, they can't go hire a jab at Tooradin and fly into the CTA because they would in no way shape or form be "under the control" of Melbourne Aviation.

But once they have their pilot cert, (ie have "graduated"), won't they have to fly from Tooradin or Tyabb unless they hold a PPL?

[VH-XXX]

They can hire from Tooradin or Tyabb but can't fly from there into Moorabbin.

[kyandy]

Maintenance is the big one plus the recommended labour hours for many RA-Aus aircraft are less than their GA counterparts (particularly for a Jabiru).

An RA-Aus Level 2 mechanic can maintain the aircraft thus not requiring a LAME. That being said though, you're probably talking about a difference of $20 to $30 an hour (if that) for the L2 versus LAME, possibly less, so your point rings true, there probably isn't a huge saving. Many RA-Aus operators boast LAME maintenance so it does make you wonder if there is much of a difference in the end. Same transponder checks, still needs oil and filters changing, still uses tyres probably at a faster rate than aviation grade tyres, but engines are cheaper. Probably a percentage cheaper but not massively significant, particularly when operated from metropolis.


You are correct, RA-Aus aircraft thus not require a LAME. Hence anyone with RA-Aus Licence can sign off, e.g. Owner of the aircraft, School, Pilot.
Literally your cost for RA-Aus registered A/C maintenance is close to zero (except the cost of parts) vs $2500 per 100hrs plus cost of parts.

[baswell]

That would imply that I can go and get a check-ride with Melbourne Aviation in a Jabiru, then continue to fly that Jabiru into Class D Moorabbin without a PPL. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.
The other operators, including the one I trained at, only let people they trained from ab-initio hire and fly. They would not check out random people for CTA and let them fly.

But once they have their pilot cert, (ie have "graduated"), won't they have to fly from Tooradin or Tyabb unless they hold a PPL?
See above. :)

Like I said: the rules are clear as mud. I am not saying what the rules are or how they should be interpreted; I'm just saying what those with the exemption are doing with it in the real world.

[VH-XXX]

Sorry I'll just have to pick you up on that one:

You are correct, RA-Aus aircraft thus not require a LAME. Hence anyone with RA-Aus Licence can sign off, e.g. Owner of the aircraft, School, Pilot.
Literally your cost for RA-Aus registered A/C maintenance is close to zero (except the cost of parts) vs $2500 per 100hrs plus cost of parts.



If the aircraft is being used for Hire or Reward it must be maintained by an RA-Aus Level 2 mechanic.

Owner maintenene is only permitted for aircraft not used for hire or reward. As I stated earlier, costs may be a bit less, but certainly not zero for labour. The annoying part for Moorabbin is that there aren't RA-Aus aircraft there as a general rule, so there's not likely to be any RA-Aus exclusive mechanics, so they would have to bring in all of their maintenance kit or find a facility - hence up goes the hourly rate and down go the savings.

[SW3]

Simplest solution rather than dispensations; stop blocking an RAAus CTA endorsement.. Most rediculous ruling ever:ugh:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Yeah, why not let them conduct CPL training, night flights, IFR and aeros while we're at it?

If you want to play with the "big boys" (for lack of a better description), get some proper training, get a transponder and go for it.

If you can't be bothered studying for a PPL, doing 2 hrs IF, getting your nav standard up to PPL level (if required), getting recommended and proving you can pass the test, I for one don't want you bumbling around while ATC has to send everyone else around you out of your way.

Seen plenty of nav endos pulled by an RA school because of sub-standard skills. Not saying this is the case everywhere, but every other pilot flying a VH registered aircraft has had to do it. Why shouldn't RA?

XXX,
surely (no Flying High jokes, please), if you approached a couple of LAMEs at MB, there will be one who flies RA or at least would be willing to get the quals required if it means some extra business?

Baswell,
I believe the gist of the argument is that if there is no nearby facility nearby and OCTA for RA training, approval may be granted to train up to but no further than the RA pilot's cert. After that, you need to hold PPL airspace qualifications to continue operation into and from CTRs. An RA school cannot allow you to do this regardless of whether you did your initial training with them or not.

[VH-XXX]

Yep sure, qualification is simply a tick in a box plus a few hundo's for a qualified LAME to get started as an L2. The only issue you'll come across though is that you expect an L2 to be cheaper than a LAME.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Or you could try Help Garden Lawn Mower repairs.
They're in Bentleigh on 0407520835:}:}:}:E

[SW3]

Make It Happen Captain hey? Captain of what??
An RAAus CTA endorsement wouldn't do a thing for me, "bumble" there all the time with an ATPL, but would advantage many others. Think about it, a SPL can go solo in CTA with a few hours experience. But there is an old thread hashed out on this subject....

[VH-XXX]

We probably don't need to go down that path MIHC, otherwise the usual suspect will join in and it will all end badly (thread closed).

We have probably explored this enough and discussed everything that needs discussing around the original question without heading down the RA v's GA path.

[superdimona]

If you want to play with the "big boys" (for lack of a better description), get some proper training, get a transponder and go for it.Believe me I'd love to get the proper(*) training. I have ready access to an RAA aircraft with a transponder, but for some reason the skull blocked that path.

Oddly enough, were the wings longer and the aircraft registered as a motorglider, CTA would be A-OK (legally with far less training then the planned endo) - yet we don't hear about motorglider pilots causing carnage in the skies. Funny that.

(*)Proper training, as in training relevant for safe operations of CTA in an RAA aircraft. Requiring a license for aircraft I'm not going to use is like requiring me to get a Truck license in order to legally drive a motorbike on the highway. The end result is far more expense then necessary, which is what RAA is about avoiding in the first place!

[baswell]

approval may be granted to train up to but no further than the RA pilot's cert.
How did you come to that conclusion?

The wording of the exemptions is clear as mud, every school does this and has done for years, yet CASA has never cracked down on it, clarified the exemption or changed the wording.

Sounds to me like CASA agrees with the schools' interpretation of the exemption rules.

I know that doesn't fit in your picture perfect world of "a safe sky is a sky with no RA-Aus pilots in it", but them's the facts...

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

SW3
About twelve different ME types including over 3000 hrs of teaching pilots how to do things like find their way around and through CTA/CTR.

I'm not against RA. It has it's place for people to enjoy flying without the major expense of VH registration. But it also has it's limitations and these need to be recognised.

I have seen some very good schools an attitudes amongst RA, but have also seen the other side of the coin. What i have a problem with is the near enough is good enough appearance of some pilots and the apparent argument that it's only RA, why do we have to bother with that?

If you choose to fly with a limited licence, you either accept those limitations, or get a higher licence. CTA was considered and rejected. Must have been a reason for it.

Any aviation has the potential to kill you if you f:mad:ck it up and I will make no apologies for wanting to see as high a standard of training and flying as possible from anyone, whether they are CPL or RA.

Sorry, XXX, was more a reference to cost than anything else.

[SW3]

MIHC I respect your position and your opinion so please don't assume any pro RAA comments come from non professional pilots wanting something for nothing. I've spent a long time in the industry as well going from small to big and still fly both so my opinion isn't from a lack of understanding. Trust me, GA is not immune to less than desirable piloting techniques and professionalism.
CTA is not some mystical airspace open to a select few. It's open sky after all. Learn the procedures and operate to them meticulously (one of my pet things) and everyone will be fine. I hear no difference in skill level at times between a 'weekend warrior' GA pilot and an RAA pilot, all of us can always do a better job and no one ever gets it perfect.
As for near enough is good enough, tarring all with one brush don't you think? It's only that way of one chooses so, GA or RAA. Irrespective of type, all training must be conducted properly, otherwise don't bother. I know of an RAA instructor having to fly out and find a lost Warrior on a Nav. After landing a lack of basic Nav skills was to blame. And GA training is flawless? From a 300 hour instructor just chasing hours? In my option the standard needs lifting, industry wide.

[mcgrath50]

Give RAA CTA, give them up to <5700kg, give them multi engine, instrument ratings, NVFR, aerobatic.

Where do you draw the line? They're all just planes and types of flying.

[baswell]

Give RAA CTA, give them up to <5700kg, give them multi engine, instrument ratings, NVFR, aerobatic.
Now as an IQ test: spot the odd one out.

OK, let me help:


Aerobatic: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
NVFR: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
instrument ratings: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
multi engine: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
600 - 5699 kg: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
CTA: already allowed in RA-Aus aircraft if the pilot has the right training.


Spot it yet?

So where do we draw the line? I don't know, but the list you created to indicate impending doom makes no sense.

[SW3]

NVFR, IFR, Multi is over the top. CTA and aerobatics is not. Be a bit practical for crying out loud.Flying in different airspace isn't a different facet of flying, it's just airspace and procedures.

[djpil]

Aerobatic: only in certifiedNot true in this country - plenty of Limited and Experimental aerobatic aeroplanes. In other countries LSA's also.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

SW3
I agree with you with respect to many GA pilots needing to lift their game and the standard of some instructors (both sides of the fence). I also stated it was the perception of some RA attitudes, not all. Could give some spectacular examples, but that's not going to help anyone.
Personally, I really don't want to see the outcome from someone trying aeros in some of the RA aircraft out there. Acutally, I've seen it being done already (both in unsuitable GA and RA aircraft) and it scares the bejeezus out of me.


Baswell,
That was how it was explained to me by two separate RA CFI aquaintances.
Maybe you could supply a reference from the RA docs. Surely, (again no Nelson jokes please) they can't be that ambiguous?
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be regulating themselves.
list you created to indicate impending doom
Your picture perfect world of a "a safe sky is a sky with no RA-Aus pilots in it"
But you believe whatever makes you happy or feeds your inferiority complex.:rolleyes:

Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?

[Flying Binghi]

via VH-XXX; ...Owner maintenene is only permitted for aircraft not used for hire or reward. As I stated earlier, costs may be a bit less, but certainly not zero for labour...

VH-XXX, are there any work shop requirements for RAA level two's ?



via djpil; ...plenty of Limited and Experimental aerobatic aeroplanes...

Probably the only difference would be the medical requirements ?

Methinks there would be a lot more aerobatic comp pilots if there were a cheap standardised RAA type comp machine. Certainly something is needed to boost the aero comps. Perhaps single seat only to get around the medical requirements...



.

[baswell]

Not true in this country - plenty of Limited and Experimental aerobatic aeroplanes. In other countries LSA's also.
Yes, you are correct, my wording wasn't very good. But the point is valid, all those other things require a VH registered aircraft you can fly only on a PPL+. CTA is something that is already allowed in RA aircraft.

Although I am not advocating for it, I don't see the issue with aerobatics in RA-Aus. There are plenty of aircraft designed for aerobatics that will fit in the weight category. Rans S-9 and Onex come to mind.

Maybe you could supply a reference from the RA docs. Surely, (again no Nelson jokes please) they can't be that ambiguous?
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be
There are no RAA docs regarding the training in CTA; this is purely a matter between the school and CASA. Here's an example:

CASA EX06/10 - Exemption - solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated at Parafield Aerodrome (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L00143)

Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?
Nope, two engines is two engines...

[VH-XXX]

The scary part about that exemption is that it has an expiry date. Would hate to run a business (and earn a living) based on an exemption.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Baswell, happy to stand corrected.
Cheers.

[baswell]

The scary part about that exemption is that it has an expiry date. Would hate to run a business (and earn a living) based on an exemption.
So far renewals seem to have been easy, though of course around $500 for the privilege.

With the experience here at PF, there were not very many pure-RA pilots going through, most used it as a cheaper way to do ab-initio and build some hours.

For schools to do that without exemption, all that would need to change is for the RA-Aus ops manual to say that CTA in an RA-Aus registered aircraft is allowed on an SPL if supervised by the GA FTF.

That would be a great compromise, actually. Use the lower cost RA aircraft for GA training at class D aircraft, but no exemption would be required to do so.

[YMRYFlyer]

Give RAA CTA, give them up to <5700kg, give them multi engine, instrument ratings, NVFR, aerobatic.

Where do you draw the line? They're all just planes and types of flying.

RAAus can already have Multi Engine under CAO 95.10, they can have any type and any number of engines that they like, so long as it fits in with 300kg MTOW and a wing loading of 30kg per square metre or less.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JWbIxgGVOQcJ:www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9510.pdf+casa+CAO+95.10&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShSrhkqCqqhwI7AreKE1r20ndndWXtGsuffsuQQ7hUoL4p1pR xIF4qfFuNpmW-hyiefWIUnm7NInTTbqleRSl_Qq5bFhOEuWkem4n4J_xOD1Qkzs53lFPu0FYs aEUwjyCYpzzQx&sig=AHIEtbRzxDtSF63PGT8qsn5oBhwDsUzMdg



Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?

No, the wing loading of the cri-cri is too high (55kg/m2).


Nope, two engines is two engines...

Correct on that the Cri-Cri can not be RAAus, Incorrect about the two engines. RAAus are allowed any number or any type of engine they like under CAO 95.10 as stated in this post, above.

[baswell]

Correct on that the Cri-Cri can not be RAAus, Incorrect about the two engines. RAAus are allowed any number or any type of engine they like under CAO 95.10 as stated in this post, above.
Thanks for the correction, I am just a 95.55 snob and don't think much about 95.10! :p

[VH-XXX]

I spotted what appeared to be a new J230 and J160 at Moorabbin today.

No approval for CTA as yet, but the aircraft are certainly flying and are raring to go.