Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You
The bloke with his hand up my bum
he's not interested in pretending to have a CPL
j3
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an old thread which has been thrashed to pieces, however there is still life in it yet. This coming to thought recently as a pilot was attempting to obtain a clearance. He eventually got there however in an unorthodox manner.
I believe a CTA Endorsement for the RAAus would be extremely benificial. I know there will be many 'Egos' for the want of a better word attack this so lets look at some cold hard facts.
* RAAus pilots are NOT substandard and neither are RAAus instructors. Hands up who has ever conducted a 100% perfect flight without a mistake? Those that have are either lying or didn't know they made a mistake. Those that throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses. No one is perfect, RAAus OR GA.
RAAus pilots take a lot of pride in their flying and fly for the enjoyment of it. After all isn't that why we are all pilots? We all have a common interest right? RAAus aircraft are no different to fly to a GA aircraft.
RAAus instructors are their because they want to be, not to just build hours. Many have distinguished flying careers, are extremely professional and teach the nearly extinct arts of stick and rudder flying and airmanship.
RAAus is here to cater for the enthusiast. So it should be able to cater for the enthusiast who lives in a city area as well.
* RAAus aircraft are NOT substandard. The aircraft in question for CTA flying are CASA certified with a certified engine. They have two wings, a tail and an engine. Sounds like an aeroplane to me. And also, the aeroplane only knows it is flying in the sky, it doesn't know what type of airspace it is in.
* Education and training is the key. Understanding airspace is of upmost importance. CTA is a professional and procedural environment and these procedures must be adhered to. This goes for RAAus and GA. So long as there is sufficient training there is no reason why RAAus pilots can't be trained to fly RAAus aircraft in CTA. It's not rocket science. RAAus pilots are not incapable of being taught and RAAus instructors are not incapable of teaching it. I see an argument which comes up so often is "RAAus training is substandard and not to the same level of GA". Those who think that should realise we aren't in the 1980's anymore and RAAus is here to stay. GA pilots are not elite or superior pilots to RAAus and vice versa.
* Controlled airspace is not difficult. In fact it is easier and safer than OCTA. Sufficient training will reduce VCA's and prevent pilots from being scared of airspace. In addition CTA flying is not to only fly into and land at a primary airport, it can be for crossing airspace. Why smash around the bumps, terrain and traffic when you could simply obtain a clearance and be on your way.
A controversial issue but not a complicated one.
I believe a CTA Endorsement for the RAAus would be extremely benificial. I know there will be many 'Egos' for the want of a better word attack this so lets look at some cold hard facts.
* RAAus pilots are NOT substandard and neither are RAAus instructors. Hands up who has ever conducted a 100% perfect flight without a mistake? Those that have are either lying or didn't know they made a mistake. Those that throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses. No one is perfect, RAAus OR GA.
RAAus pilots take a lot of pride in their flying and fly for the enjoyment of it. After all isn't that why we are all pilots? We all have a common interest right? RAAus aircraft are no different to fly to a GA aircraft.
RAAus instructors are their because they want to be, not to just build hours. Many have distinguished flying careers, are extremely professional and teach the nearly extinct arts of stick and rudder flying and airmanship.
RAAus is here to cater for the enthusiast. So it should be able to cater for the enthusiast who lives in a city area as well.
* RAAus aircraft are NOT substandard. The aircraft in question for CTA flying are CASA certified with a certified engine. They have two wings, a tail and an engine. Sounds like an aeroplane to me. And also, the aeroplane only knows it is flying in the sky, it doesn't know what type of airspace it is in.
* Education and training is the key. Understanding airspace is of upmost importance. CTA is a professional and procedural environment and these procedures must be adhered to. This goes for RAAus and GA. So long as there is sufficient training there is no reason why RAAus pilots can't be trained to fly RAAus aircraft in CTA. It's not rocket science. RAAus pilots are not incapable of being taught and RAAus instructors are not incapable of teaching it. I see an argument which comes up so often is "RAAus training is substandard and not to the same level of GA". Those who think that should realise we aren't in the 1980's anymore and RAAus is here to stay. GA pilots are not elite or superior pilots to RAAus and vice versa.
* Controlled airspace is not difficult. In fact it is easier and safer than OCTA. Sufficient training will reduce VCA's and prevent pilots from being scared of airspace. In addition CTA flying is not to only fly into and land at a primary airport, it can be for crossing airspace. Why smash around the bumps, terrain and traffic when you could simply obtain a clearance and be on your way.
A controversial issue but not a complicated one.
Last edited by SW3; 9th Jan 2011 at 11:15.
Hands up who has ever conducted a 100% perfect flight without a mistake?
It was 22 April 1990, C402 VH-XDW, YBTL-YBMA-YBTL to collect a load of gold bullion - damn that was a good flight - as close to perfection as you can get!
Dr
Correction
SW3,
Many of your points are 100% correct. However, I take issue with the following:
It is not necessarily true that the training is substandard.
It IS, however, true that the CONTROL AND REGULATION of RAAus schools is less than that of CASA schools.
CASA struggle to audit my school once in 3 years. The RAAus were recently boasting that they had more flying schools than CASA, yet they have HOW many inspectors? 2? The Ops Manager and his Deputy?
Many of your points are 100% correct. However, I take issue with the following:
"RAAus training is substandard and not to the same level of GA".
It IS, however, true that the CONTROL AND REGULATION of RAAus schools is less than that of CASA schools.
CASA struggle to audit my school once in 3 years. The RAAus were recently boasting that they had more flying schools than CASA, yet they have HOW many inspectors? 2? The Ops Manager and his Deputy?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many are correct Horatio, how about many are not?
Anyone would think that Mr. baker wrote that post to stir people up into posting onto his ailing forum that has gone completely down hill of late.
No. That is wrong.
They are not "certified.". They are "approved" and that being said, you do NOT need an approved aircraft to fly into CTA in either GA or RA. This information is so freely Available in RA publications and operations manuals so I have no idea why people continue to post made up facts all over the forums! It is your "certificate" that is letting you down, it has nothing to do with the aircraft at all!
If you want people to think that RA should be allowed I side CTA (including CASA) you need to write letters based on fact. Talk about high standards of training, how the instructors will be taught themselves, how the knowledge will be gained by the students, the theory behind the endorsement etc etc. Don't just write how your instructor Bob is really good at his radio calls in CTA. There ARE still plenty of RA instructors out there that have NEVER flown in CTA and many that rarely have so you (or RA) somehow need to solve that problem. One would say that they could limit it to certain instructors with the required experience, fair enough, however remember that many of these instructors have never taught in CTA before and probably the only exposure they had was when they did their PPL years before.
There is an endorsement available for RAA pilots and it's called a PPL. Great news is that it is likely your aircraft is already equipped so not much required there.
Anyone would think that Mr. baker wrote that post to stir people up into posting onto his ailing forum that has gone completely down hill of late.
The aircraft in question for CTA flying are CASA certified with a certified engine
They are not "certified.". They are "approved" and that being said, you do NOT need an approved aircraft to fly into CTA in either GA or RA. This information is so freely Available in RA publications and operations manuals so I have no idea why people continue to post made up facts all over the forums! It is your "certificate" that is letting you down, it has nothing to do with the aircraft at all!
If you want people to think that RA should be allowed I side CTA (including CASA) you need to write letters based on fact. Talk about high standards of training, how the instructors will be taught themselves, how the knowledge will be gained by the students, the theory behind the endorsement etc etc. Don't just write how your instructor Bob is really good at his radio calls in CTA. There ARE still plenty of RA instructors out there that have NEVER flown in CTA and many that rarely have so you (or RA) somehow need to solve that problem. One would say that they could limit it to certain instructors with the required experience, fair enough, however remember that many of these instructors have never taught in CTA before and probably the only exposure they had was when they did their PPL years before.
There is an endorsement available for RAA pilots and it's called a PPL. Great news is that it is likely your aircraft is already equipped so not much required there.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 9th Jan 2011 at 21:23. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
* Controlled airspace is not difficult. In fact it is easier and safer than OCTA. Sufficient training will reduce VCA's and prevent pilots from being scared of airspace. In addition CTA flying is not to only fly into and land at a primary airport, it can be for crossing airspace. Why smash around the bumps, terrain and traffic when you could simply obtain a clearance and be on your way.
So Class C is "easier" than Class G?
What about the radio work, the clearances, frequency changes, readbacks, sequencing, transponder codes, vectoring, IFR waypoints, altitude changes, terminology? Not to mention weather; trying to get a clearance on a clogged frequency because you are approaching cloud, or a radio failure at 5,000ft overhead Tullamarine, or perhaps flying over built up areas unable to glide clear, bumping around in CTA in thermals, stuck at a certain altitude, or not being granted your clearance and bumping around just next to clouds wondering if you will fit between them and the nearby CTA boundary.
Eeeeeeeasy.
It would seem that the RAA is trying to sell the idea to CASA that their pilots would want to use CTA to simply transit areas in safety. There's this feeling that if you are being bumped around, just "get a clearance" and climb over it.
We all know that whilst there might be some truth in that, in reality RAA aircraft will simply start operating in CTA areas, Class D etc, just like any other aircraft. It was for that reason that CASA didn't allow the CTA endorsement through. With the recent GAAP fatailities they simply didn't want the extra traffic in GAAP at the time and if you've visited a busy Class-D lately, you would probably agree yourself.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the radio work, the clearances, frequency changes, readbacks, sequencing, transponder codes, vectoring, IFR waypoints, altitude changes, terminology? Not to mention weather; trying to get a clearance on a clogged frequency because you are approaching cloud, or a radio failure at 5,000ft overhead Tullamarine, or perhaps flying over built up areas unable to glide clear, bumping around in CTA in thermals, stuck at a certain altitude, or not being granted your clearance and bumping around just next to clouds wondering if you will fit between them and the nearby CTA boundary.
Have you looked at the standard "ATC flight radio for VFR pilots" book? A whole two or tree pages of CTA. Last time I checked, it didn't even have the phrase "Clearance limit" in it.
Seriously, dude, CTA training in GA is a joke; RA-Aus was ready with an actual syllabus and a 50-question exam.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bwahaha!!!
RA pilots should buy a scanner and listen to what goes in in CTA. You don't hear the approach, departure and tower frequencies when you're banging around in your Class G CTAF some 300 kms out of Adelaide or where-ever you are.
And IFR waypoints? Yes, ATC tell VFR flights to track to IFR waypoint all the time.
Seriously, dude, CTA training in GA is a joke; RA-Aus was ready with an actual syllabus and a 50-question exam.
How many times Baswell did you go into CTA to get your PPL?
I'm not anti RAA at all, don't get me wrong. The members need to realise what they are asking for. It's not the holy grail that everyone seems to think it is and an endorsement does already exist; the PPL.
Still waiting for the RAA to get 600kg. That was supposed to happen last July.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously question whether you have also been into CTA recently
And yes, I too find it easy and relaxing.
So this is in the RAA syllabus is it? Do RAA pilots even carry a map that has these on it?
If that was true, then CASA would have accepted it, wouldn't they
Is a 50 question exam going to give you enough experience in CTA to get you through and safely?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramp-checks do happen to RAA aircraft too a few pilots recently discovered! If they can't abide by 544kg, I can't see them abiding to 600kg either.
Pot, kettle.
And IFR waypoints? Yes, ATC tell VFR flights to track to IFR waypoint all the time.
Would be interesting to hear from an ATC'er about that.
Not in my experience. Occassionally ask me, when on an IFR plan, to track via a VFR entry or reporting point but not the other way round that I can recall.
Dr
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
??????? They do?
If RA-Aus is so good why don't we close down down GA and let them regulate it?
RA-Aus was set up to allow easy local area flights for people interested in flying themselves and possibly a friend around for the day. Not to be GA.
RA-Aus was set up to allow easy local area flights for people interested in flying themselves and possibly a friend around for the day. Not to be GA.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX you need to get OFF your high horse and READ my points rather than just fire off your opinion because I mentioned RAAus. Like I said, it's not 1980 anymore and oh yeah, RAAus aircraft do carry maps.
For your information I fly in CTA everyday for a living so yes I have flown in CTA before and so I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Reading your reply of how difficult CTA is leads me to ask you, have you ever flown in CTA before?? And how much?? Maybe you need to go in for more training? WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT I'M GETTING AT!
Let me reiterate. Training and education is the key. Yes many RAAus instructors have not flown in CTA before, neither had GA Instructors before they did the CTA component.
Therefore, train the instructors who will then train the students. Rocket science hey? And I recall something about a high standard is required in CTA and this would have to be adhered to?
Baswell is correct. Way back when I did my PPL I did three navs into CTA. Not what you would call exhaustive.
McGrath50 did you read my point about catering for those enthusiasts who live in a city area? Why should they miss out on the benefits of RAAus? RAAus is NOT trying to be GA, it was set up for the enthusiast and it does that fantastically. Not surprisingly CTA WAS NOT SET UP FOR GA to have to itself. It's not a holy land open only to PPL holders and above.
As for IFR waypoints, I believe the ERSA states to track as closely as possible to IFR routes. Can't say I've ever heard of a VFR aircraft being asked to track via an IFR waypoint. How exactly do you do that via primary means (Map) without an approved GPS?
VH-XXX you say you aren't anti RAAus. Mate read your replies. YOU ARE. Every point you raise against RAAus pilots, many GA pilots have been guilty of. However I'm not going to enter into an argument, my point is we all deserve use of Australian airspace and we all have a common interest, FLYING. Who cares what you fly, as long as you fly. We should be united, not have 'this camp and that camp'. I'm in both and its nonsense this game of them and us.
Horatio yes RAAus schools don't have as many anchors from CASA as GA schools do, and this is what makes it so good. Less regulation doesnt mean a lower standard, it only takes away the requirements which don't apply. Wouldn't that be nice for all?
Schools in RAAus are regularly inspected and must conform to all requirements. If they don't there are severe repucussions, as for any pilots which flout the rules.
For your information I fly in CTA everyday for a living so yes I have flown in CTA before and so I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Reading your reply of how difficult CTA is leads me to ask you, have you ever flown in CTA before?? And how much?? Maybe you need to go in for more training? WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT I'M GETTING AT!
Let me reiterate. Training and education is the key. Yes many RAAus instructors have not flown in CTA before, neither had GA Instructors before they did the CTA component.
Therefore, train the instructors who will then train the students. Rocket science hey? And I recall something about a high standard is required in CTA and this would have to be adhered to?
Baswell is correct. Way back when I did my PPL I did three navs into CTA. Not what you would call exhaustive.
McGrath50 did you read my point about catering for those enthusiasts who live in a city area? Why should they miss out on the benefits of RAAus? RAAus is NOT trying to be GA, it was set up for the enthusiast and it does that fantastically. Not surprisingly CTA WAS NOT SET UP FOR GA to have to itself. It's not a holy land open only to PPL holders and above.
As for IFR waypoints, I believe the ERSA states to track as closely as possible to IFR routes. Can't say I've ever heard of a VFR aircraft being asked to track via an IFR waypoint. How exactly do you do that via primary means (Map) without an approved GPS?
VH-XXX you say you aren't anti RAAus. Mate read your replies. YOU ARE. Every point you raise against RAAus pilots, many GA pilots have been guilty of. However I'm not going to enter into an argument, my point is we all deserve use of Australian airspace and we all have a common interest, FLYING. Who cares what you fly, as long as you fly. We should be united, not have 'this camp and that camp'. I'm in both and its nonsense this game of them and us.
Horatio yes RAAus schools don't have as many anchors from CASA as GA schools do, and this is what makes it so good. Less regulation doesnt mean a lower standard, it only takes away the requirements which don't apply. Wouldn't that be nice for all?
Schools in RAAus are regularly inspected and must conform to all requirements. If they don't there are severe repucussions, as for any pilots which flout the rules.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the standard is (or is going to be) as high as you say, that is going to cost money to implement and it will cost the end user / pilot in the end.
If 3 or whatever NAV's in GA is not enough, how many will there be in RAA and if so how much will this cost?
Why don't RAA pilots want to take the now easy route then and get their PPL - it sounds like it's going to be a piece of cake compared to the new proposed RAA endorsement.
Don't forget, it's not the AIRCAFT that can't go into CTA, it's the PILOT. There's no discrimination against RAA pilots as far as the system is concerned. Your RAA certificate allows you to fly under certain privileges and exemptions, which everyone wants to stretch to get more bang for their buck. I understand that, however the qualification route to fly in CTA has been there for quite a number of years. If you want the privileges, get the licence. It can't be any more simple.
I am like many RAA pilots in a way. I used to fly RAA but was getting annoyed at not being able to fly into CTA. The rules didn't allow this, so instead of doing it anyway and breaking the rules and complaining, writing on forums and writing letters to CASA and the RAA, I simply went out and got my PPL and moved on from there. Problem solved. Why can't others do the same?
I along with many other members ditched my membership in the end. I was sick of people whinging all the time about weight increases and CTA. I was also terribly disappointed at the level of lies, deceipt and corruption at the board level (happy to start another thread about that if you want). It is an organisation that really needs a cleanup and removal of the double-standards and lack of process.
True you are, BUT, GA aren't the ones campaigning for a weight increase! TO be successful in anything in life you need to keep your noses clean. If you want to fly a Cessna 150 or an RV9 on an RAAus registration, you simply can't just take out the passenger seat, have it inspected, then put it back in again when nobody is looking. RAA and CASA (and the people watching from your local airfield) are a little smarter than that!
We get that a bit down here in Melb. I certainly would not say that it was "all the time" as previously suggested by another poster. Inbound YMMB from north of the CBD you may get something along the lines of "track Lacey, Essendon" or something like that. Not uncommon, but not frequent.
I'm glad that the recreational pilots that I share CTA with think like this. It really makes me want to continue to be there, sharing the airspace with you.
If 3 or whatever NAV's in GA is not enough, how many will there be in RAA and if so how much will this cost?
Why don't RAA pilots want to take the now easy route then and get their PPL - it sounds like it's going to be a piece of cake compared to the new proposed RAA endorsement.
Don't forget, it's not the AIRCAFT that can't go into CTA, it's the PILOT. There's no discrimination against RAA pilots as far as the system is concerned. Your RAA certificate allows you to fly under certain privileges and exemptions, which everyone wants to stretch to get more bang for their buck. I understand that, however the qualification route to fly in CTA has been there for quite a number of years. If you want the privileges, get the licence. It can't be any more simple.
I am like many RAA pilots in a way. I used to fly RAA but was getting annoyed at not being able to fly into CTA. The rules didn't allow this, so instead of doing it anyway and breaking the rules and complaining, writing on forums and writing letters to CASA and the RAA, I simply went out and got my PPL and moved on from there. Problem solved. Why can't others do the same?
I along with many other members ditched my membership in the end. I was sick of people whinging all the time about weight increases and CTA. I was also terribly disappointed at the level of lies, deceipt and corruption at the board level (happy to start another thread about that if you want). It is an organisation that really needs a cleanup and removal of the double-standards and lack of process.
Baswell says: You make it sound like GA pilots never overload their aircraft. I have witnessed the practice happing many times.
Dr. says: ??????? They do?
And yes, I too find it easy and relaxing. (CTA)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX, completing your PPL to enable entry to controlled airspace was your choice which is great. It is an option around the issue. As for getting involved in RAAus politics, not what I'm here for. They are doing a fantastic job and I am not here whinging or complaining about what we can and can't do on a pilot's certificate. I am merely pointing out a specific area where certificate holders should have access to.
Obtaining a PPL is relatively expensive and not everyone would want to do this, nor would it suit all. The point I am making is the option should be made available to RAAus certificate holders. Just doing your PPL is not on the table for a lot of people.
The type of licence you have depends on your flying needs. If you wish to take more than one passenger, PPL it is. If you want to fly at night, PPL it is. If you wish to fly for a living, CPL it is and so on. RAAus wishes to provide affordable flying to the people and I cannot for the life of me see why CTA is such a massive issue. It is just airspace, and I'll say it again not rocket science. How about the RAAus aircraft owner near a metro area. Why should they have to drive hours on end to fly their aeroplane or obtain a new licence? There are horses for courses, and CTA shouldn't require another horse to run the course.
Yes to implement the training/endorsement and so on would incur more expense to the membership. Therefore it should pass through a vote to determine if this is what the membership desires.
Once again CTA is not some magical place where only a certain few are allowed. I've flown RAAus aircraft in CTA and surprisingly it was no different to flying anything else in there. And the same would go for a RAAus certificate holder trained in CTA, there would be no difference to a PPL holder.
Obtaining a PPL is relatively expensive and not everyone would want to do this, nor would it suit all. The point I am making is the option should be made available to RAAus certificate holders. Just doing your PPL is not on the table for a lot of people.
The type of licence you have depends on your flying needs. If you wish to take more than one passenger, PPL it is. If you want to fly at night, PPL it is. If you wish to fly for a living, CPL it is and so on. RAAus wishes to provide affordable flying to the people and I cannot for the life of me see why CTA is such a massive issue. It is just airspace, and I'll say it again not rocket science. How about the RAAus aircraft owner near a metro area. Why should they have to drive hours on end to fly their aeroplane or obtain a new licence? There are horses for courses, and CTA shouldn't require another horse to run the course.
Yes to implement the training/endorsement and so on would incur more expense to the membership. Therefore it should pass through a vote to determine if this is what the membership desires.
Once again CTA is not some magical place where only a certain few are allowed. I've flown RAAus aircraft in CTA and surprisingly it was no different to flying anything else in there. And the same would go for a RAAus certificate holder trained in CTA, there would be no difference to a PPL holder.