Down the coast a little (YHBA) all the GA operators there bitch about the Qlink then JQ and then VB in that order, for bad circuit manners and the odd transmitting their arrival on the PAL frequency! The lights respond accordingly !
What part don't you get? If it's IMC, there is no legal VFR traffic. (full stop).
Reread the first 2/3's of PlankBlenders' post.
I agree., there shouldn't be VFR rated folk inside IMC, but there can still be legal VFR traffic underneath that IMC.
heck, even an overcast base at 4000' could have an IFR descend on top of a VFR who's inbound on descent from, or climbing to, just below that base.
heck, even an overcast base at 4000' could have an IFR descend on top of a VFR who's inbound on descent from, or climbing to, just below that base
Biggles the way I read the Visual Flight Rules, in Oz, VFR aircraft between 3000' and 10,000' should be 1500M horizontally and 1000' vertically from cloud.
....but of course, we all know that they are NOT !
Aeroplanes At or above 8,000M 1,500M horizontal
10,000FT 1,000FT vertical
AMSL
Below 5,000M 1,500M horizontal
10,000FT 1,000FT vertical
AMSL
At or Below 5,000M Clear of cloud and Carriage and use of radio
3,000FT in sight of ground is required when
AMSL or or water operating to these
1,000FT conditions for
AGL communications on the
whichever MBZ frequency or the
is the CTAF when within the
higher prescribed distance of an
aerodrome, or on the
area VHF whilst En Route
That sums it up pretty well I think. ignore the old MBZ thing please
Just want to pick up on something you asserted on page 1 of this thread:
Quote:
It won't matter soon because the 5,000ft restriction is about to be lifted, prior to part 103 being implemented. That AND entry into CTA will be available for RA pilots.
I have just read the DP proposing to allow RAAus to administer everything up to 760kg MTOW.
In the DP it is repeatedly stated (to assert the "low risk" of the reg change) that only RAAus registered aircraft operated by current PPL holders or better are permitted in CTA and only in certified aircraft.
From what you are telling us I can only infer that there is another agenda in play?
Get all the C152s, Tommy-axes and C150s into RAAus and then remove ANOTHER layer of risk mitigation?
is that bit accurate....... or does it really mean in aircraft with approved engines.
A kit built Glasair Jabiru or whatever is OK now in CTA with an approved engine, there by blocking the lawn mower conversion brigade. There is a difference between approved and a completely certified aircraft.
povopilot your a bit hard accusing a BRS pilot of a poor radio call last weekend. Facts are the pilot was GA and visiting BRS NOT a BRS pilot.
As for this post there is a lot of biterness in some of the posts between GA and RAA connections. The fact is everyone is entitle to use the airspace, and yes a great deal of the problem comes back to training and the amount of times you fly and put into practice what is learnt.
It is about time the training syllabus were parrallel no matter what aircraft you are going to fly. You must pass the set BAK, Radio, Met, Crosscountry etc. units then get endorsement on the aircraft of your choice be it a tinny, a plastic, or a raggie.
Radio should be mandatory in ALL aircraft and should be used. It appears many don't use the radio, don't think before what they are going to say, don't do a radio check before taking off to ensure the radio is working, and as for the number of ethnics they should have clear english skills before being allowed in the air.
Lets hope something can be done before its too late considering the number of new aircraft and pilots taking to the air each month. Flying is meant to be enjoyable.
Leaf Blower, you may not have heard however there is an amendment coming to allow CTA and above 5,000ft prior to 103 because 103 is going to be a long time away, potentially 1-2 years.
As for the "certified" bit with CTA, this is not correct and bad wording by way of the author. The article is referring to current operations only and not resultant of the 103 implementation. It is also incorrect if it says "certified" as we all know that you only require an "approved" engine, such as 4 stroke, dual ignition etc etc, but that's a whole other thread.
So yes, there is another agenda at play at the moment. There's been talk for quite some time about getting CTA pushed through before 103 but that may now include above 5,000ft.
Additionally for those that didn't realise PART 103 when approved will allow COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS in RA-Aus aircraft. Unfortunately there is no CPL as such for RA-Aus so the only pilots capable of legally performing a joy-flight will be RA-Aus instructors. For those that want some spare cash, if you want that to include CPL's, I URGE you to respond in favour to the discussion paper!
flying from YHOX 20 hrs a week, every close call and display of poor airmanship has been a VH registered aircraft from Bankstown, and almost every incident has been poor circuit procedure, eg, landing on the wrong runway direction, and never using the radio!
fortunately most of the cowboy RAA minority are to scared to come into YHOX, but the GA non radio, no circuit procedure causing immediate dangerous situations, has always been GA pilots
Many years ago I regularly attended flyins and airshows. One thing I noted was the very poor attendance of fly-in aircraft on the days when the weather was poor. This suggests to me that the majority of VFR pilots (I include ultralight aircraft) dont fly in bad weather. Which, unforetunatly, contradicts the implied claims, that on a poor weather day, every VFR aircraft in the country will be found loittering just below the clouds hopeing to upset IFR pilots.
Interesting thread. I fly GA IFR and VFR and until recently also had an RAA craft and operate in the full range of airstrips/airspace. I've seen cowboys (and even a few cowgirls) across the spectrum.
The risk of descending on top of a no radio VFR ACFT (GA or RAA) under a low overcast on an approach or let-down to <3000' AGL can not be completely mitigated. It's a risk you take once out of primary radar coverage/control and always a risk in CTAF (non-R). Mudgee's a good example of being able to a GPS arrival to about 1500' AGL beneath which VFR ACFT can be legally tootling about without radios - and even if radio equipped, there are 3 surrounding FIA FRQ in addition to the CTAF to choose from or monitor.....
The cropdusters have to be one of the most common GA ACFT that fly low, often fly non-standard circuits and will keep operating under a low overcast and be rather allergic to radio use. There are exceptions, I'm sure.
I have a particular b!tch about IFR ACFT, usu RPT, I'm afraid, proudly announcing that they're doing a "RNAV Approach with a November Charlie transition" or similar. IT MEANS NOTHING TO MOST VFR PILOTS. Make the effort to say that you are (say) tracking to a 15 mile straight in approach for runway (insert number), or link the waypoint to a geographic feature (e.g. a point 5 miles south of (insert town name here). Do this whether you're doing an RNAV/NDB/GPS procedure, fellas and girls.
There's room for improvement across the board.......
Interesting to note that pilots licences are not issued to the RAA folk. Just pilot 'certificates'. Seems a deliberate choice of words........personally think most aviators who shy away from the 'hassles' of rules and such need to be 'certified'. By the way what do you call someone who flies without a licence? (interested passenger maybe?)
The cropdusters have to be one of the most common GA ACFT that fly low, often fly non-standard circuits and will keep operating under a low overcast and be rather allergic to radio use
In my experience, the croppies generally fly so low as to not be an issue!
I recently sat on the ground with the prop turning, waiting for the cloud to lift off the tree tops and get somewhere near the 300' ceiling that would make my departure legal. While I waited, the local croppy departed and returned several times.
not having a go here just challenging the logic of your argument
... are you saying that your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence?
No problemo Horatio Leafblower, I presented that Reductio ad Adsurdum type 'observation', because I think near all pilots, and even non-pilots, understand the attraction of fly-ins and airshows to many pilots. If the VFR pilots are not flying in...... ergo, most VFR pilots will not fly in the 'minimas' conditions some here present to back up their piont of view.
As was posted by someone earlier there is some classics from the IFR crew as well if you happen to monitor both frequencies..
"centre abc 2 min TOD xxx"
"abc NO REPORTED IFR TRAFFIC"
"all stations 126.7 xxx CTAF abc an IFR xxx is xx dme inbound on the xxx radial on decent passing FL xxx tracking direct NA for the runway xx rnav aproach estimate NA at time xx"
What the hell is billy bob in the drifter suposed to think !!!
If you have no reported traffic then who the hell are you talking to...???
should he pipe up and say "station inbound I have no idea what you are talking about but I am on a wide left base xx, on the ground in 10"
In reality you have made life so hard for them they will more likely shut up and say nothing...!
YOU are the visitor (most of the time), be friendly, courteous and speak english, you will get much further i reckon !!
They call thirty miles. I tell 'em where I am and what I'm planning to do.
They say "got you on TCAS" and I stay clear until I've got them visual.
Courtesy and airmanship really. They're working and I'm not and it's no skin off my nose if I have to hold, change course or extend a leg of the circuit.
IMC? no thanks. I fly to enjoy it.
R/T procedure...Oh, it's terrible! you often hear things like "thanks for your help" and "have a good one..." Absolutely disgusting in a CTAF(R)
Onya REX and Eastern into YSWG it's a pleasure to share the airspace with you.
!
VH-XXX
Linear Mode
