Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news for PPL holders
There seems to be a common assumption in this thread that a bare PPL permits you to fly in controlled airspace. That's not actually true, a PPL holder needs a Controlled Airspace Endorsement.
CAO 40.0:
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...cao40/4000.pdf
You do not need to be qualified to fly in controlled airspace to be issued a PPL. The VFR Day Syllabus requirements specify prior to the PPL flight test:
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma.../vfrasfull.pdf
The PPL requirement is to know the airspace types, identify them on charts and avoid controlled airspace - this is actually very similar to the RAA syllabus.
is CPL level according to the VFR Day Syllabus
I know most PPL training is done to a higher level than the minimum and would usually include CTA endorsements, but if we are arguing about what the rules actually say...
So what is required to get a CTA endorsement, if you didn't do it in your PPL? From the Flight Crew Licensing Procedures manual
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...l/010r0401.pdf
Again it is the minimum set by CASA and many instructors would set the bar higher, but the minimum standard is not particularly stringent. It is interesting that it explicitly notes that a flight test is not required.
As for finding IFR waypoints etc. I wouldn't expect a VFR aircraft to be cleared to an IFR waypoint in CTA unless you actually nominated it on your flight plan - in which case you might reasonably be given what you asked for. You are still supposed to be navigating by visual reference to the ground.
It is possible I suppose that you might be asked to track a VOR radial or something if you nominate VOR equipment on your flight plan, but you are only supposed to do that if you are qualified to navigate using it as sole means of navigation - which again is not required for PPL level or a CTA endorsement.
CAO 40.0:
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...cao40/4000.pdf
3.2 The holder of a private pilot licence must not fly an aircraft as pilot in command in controlled airspace that is:
(a) a control area; or
(b) a control zone for which there is a radar service; or
(c) a control zone for which there is no radar service;
unless:
(e) the holder has received training in the aeronautical knowledge needed to
safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and
(f) an authorised flight instructor, or CASA, is satisfied that the holder can
safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and
(g) the instructor, or CASA, has made an entry to that effect in the holder’s
personal log book.
(a) a control area; or
(b) a control zone for which there is a radar service; or
(c) a control zone for which there is no radar service;
unless:
(e) the holder has received training in the aeronautical knowledge needed to
safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and
(f) an authorised flight instructor, or CASA, is satisfied that the holder can
safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and
(g) the instructor, or CASA, has made an entry to that effect in the holder’s
personal log book.
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma.../vfrasfull.pdf
3.6.1 Differentiate between the various classifications of airspace.
3.6.2 With respect to the terms listed in (a) to (g):
• explain each term and, if applicable.
- identify airspace boundaries on appropriate charts
- extract vertical limits of designated airspace from charts or ERS(A)
(a) flight information service FIR FIA OCTA
(b) air traffic control service CTA CTR controlled airspace
(c) radio "reports" and "broadcasts"
(d) VFR route and lanes of entry
(e) PRD areas
(f) CTAF(R) areas
(g) controlled aerodromes GAAP aerodromes.
3.6.3 Extract/apply permitted tracking tolerances for VFR aircraft to avoid controlled airspace.
3.6.2 With respect to the terms listed in (a) to (g):
• explain each term and, if applicable.
- identify airspace boundaries on appropriate charts
- extract vertical limits of designated airspace from charts or ERS(A)
(a) flight information service FIR FIA OCTA
(b) air traffic control service CTA CTR controlled airspace
(c) radio "reports" and "broadcasts"
(d) VFR route and lanes of entry
(e) PRD areas
(f) CTAF(R) areas
(g) controlled aerodromes GAAP aerodromes.
3.6.3 Extract/apply permitted tracking tolerances for VFR aircraft to avoid controlled airspace.
3.6.4 Know the requirements and procedures to be adopted when operating:
(a) in any class of airspace
(a) in any class of airspace
I know most PPL training is done to a higher level than the minimum and would usually include CTA endorsements, but if we are arguing about what the rules actually say...
So what is required to get a CTA endorsement, if you didn't do it in your PPL? From the Flight Crew Licensing Procedures manual
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...l/010r0401.pdf
PPL holders are not required to pass a flight test for the issue of a CTA endorsement.
They only need to satisfy a Grade 1 or 2 Instructor that they can safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned. The instructor then certifies the pilots’ logbooks using the following recommended wording:
XY Jones has been instructed and found competent to fly an aircraft as pilot in command in controlled airspace in {the relevant class or classes of airspace as per CAO 40.0}.
AB Smith (ARN {nnnnnn})
7 June 1995.
They only need to satisfy a Grade 1 or 2 Instructor that they can safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned. The instructor then certifies the pilots’ logbooks using the following recommended wording:
XY Jones has been instructed and found competent to fly an aircraft as pilot in command in controlled airspace in {the relevant class or classes of airspace as per CAO 40.0}.
AB Smith (ARN {nnnnnn})
7 June 1995.
As for finding IFR waypoints etc. I wouldn't expect a VFR aircraft to be cleared to an IFR waypoint in CTA unless you actually nominated it on your flight plan - in which case you might reasonably be given what you asked for. You are still supposed to be navigating by visual reference to the ground.
It is possible I suppose that you might be asked to track a VOR radial or something if you nominate VOR equipment on your flight plan, but you are only supposed to do that if you are qualified to navigate using it as sole means of navigation - which again is not required for PPL level or a CTA endorsement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Andrewr
You are correct and i think this had been detailed previously however it is a moot point.
Most folk who go through the system do get a PPL or higher do so by doing CTA.
You are correct and i think this had been detailed previously however it is a moot point.
Most folk who go through the system do get a PPL or higher do so by doing CTA.
Balloons fly in CTR! Statement of fact, not a question,
How is that relevant here?
The PIC either holds a PPL or a CPL NOT an RAA issued certificate.
How is that relevant here?
The PIC either holds a PPL or a CPL NOT an RAA issued certificate.
I don't really have a stance either way on whether it is safe or appropriate. However it clearly does require a regulatory change and that is where it is likely to be bogged down for a very long time indeed. I know of a couple issues that are far simpler, with less impact on aviation safety that even have the relevant regulators nodding in agreement that are unlikely to change soon because of the processes involved.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You miss the point Icarus.
If ABF with an AOC, can issue CTA endorsements why can't RAA with an AOC do the same?
Who issues Air Operator Certificates and are they able to "tick the right boxes"?
Jabba;
I know quiet a few pilots with OCTA licences, some probably better off not being there at all, and some simply saving flying hours and money because they will never in their forseeable future want to fly in CTR.
If clipping through a CTR in bad weather were a safety benefit, wouldn't you be happier knowing they are there in the system than them being some unknown shadow on primary radar.
It's a way to turn idiots into law abiding and sensible humans. A truly magnamimous gesture by any standard wouldn't you say.
If ABF with an AOC, can issue CTA endorsements why can't RAA with an AOC do the same?
Who issues Air Operator Certificates and are they able to "tick the right boxes"?
Jabba;
I know quiet a few pilots with OCTA licences, some probably better off not being there at all, and some simply saving flying hours and money because they will never in their forseeable future want to fly in CTR.
If clipping through a CTR in bad weather were a safety benefit, wouldn't you be happier knowing they are there in the system than them being some unknown shadow on primary radar.
It's a way to turn idiots into law abiding and sensible humans. A truly magnamimous gesture by any standard wouldn't you say.
If ABF with an AOC, can issue CTA endorsements why can't RAA with an AOC do the same?
Who issues Air Operator Certificates and are they able to "tick the right boxes"?
Who issues Air Operator Certificates and are they able to "tick the right boxes"?
The ABF might have an AOC but RAAus certainly don't. If the ABF have an AOC and issue licences and CTA endorsements, its because they have an operation that complies with the relevant part of CAO 82 and they have instructors qualified in accordance with the CARs, and testing officers qualified in accordance with whatever rules CASA had for Balloon ATOs at the time.
You cannot operate RAAus-registered aircraft on an AOC even if you wanted to. Even assuming the regs allowed it, there is certainly no way the RAAus could exert the required level of supervision and control on all their operators to hold an AOC. That is not a criticism of Mick and his team - it is simply impossible.
CASA issues AOCs but even if it were a "box ticking" exercise, there are simply no suitable boxes to be ticked!
Balloons are VH-registered and the requirements for a Balloon Commercial Pilot LICENCE or a Balloon Private Pilot LICENCE are described in the Civil Aviation Regs. There are VH-registered Gyros and Gyro LICENCES, and VH-registered airships and airship LICENCES described in the CARs too.
Frank that's a LICENCE... not a certificate. RAAus pilots are exempted from the requirement to hold a licence.
The trade-off for that freedom is a limitation on your privileges. As Jaba says, if you want a CTA endorsement on a RAAus ticket then upgrade to a GA LICENCE.
[/RANT]
I understand your point. If you have been around avaition for 46 years you would know very well that it is FULL of inconsistencies. The fact that a "vanishingly small" 
number of ABF pilots can fly in CTA, for short periods in lets face it, controlled situations (no pun intended) is very different to allowing any RAA pilot with a CTA endorsement into CTA.
I do not have an ideological issue with allowing this to happen. My point is that anyone starting to learn to fly NOW knows the rules of the game and so cannot bleat about being hard done by. By all means complain to your local federal member (yeah right) but it will not change.
The ridiculous and inconsistent attitude shown by government to "ultralights" is best shown by the fact that they used to be told, never fly above 500 feet agl, now they are told never fly below 500' agl. An obvios 180degree change in policy.
Of course an RAA pilot could be trained to fly in CTA. Perhaps the thought of medically unchecked people flying over capital cities bothers someone, perhaps people putting unapproved fuel or oil lines on their engine and then flying over a city bothers someone, I don't know. Either of these things can happen in a"GA" aircraft I know.
I think you guys need to pick your fights. I don't think this one is a winner.
number of ABF pilots can fly in CTA, for short periods in lets face it, controlled situations (no pun intended) is very different to allowing any RAA pilot with a CTA endorsement into CTA.I do not have an ideological issue with allowing this to happen. My point is that anyone starting to learn to fly NOW knows the rules of the game and so cannot bleat about being hard done by. By all means complain to your local federal member (yeah right) but it will not change.
The ridiculous and inconsistent attitude shown by government to "ultralights" is best shown by the fact that they used to be told, never fly above 500 feet agl, now they are told never fly below 500' agl. An obvios 180degree change in policy.
Of course an RAA pilot could be trained to fly in CTA. Perhaps the thought of medically unchecked people flying over capital cities bothers someone, perhaps people putting unapproved fuel or oil lines on their engine and then flying over a city bothers someone, I don't know. Either of these things can happen in a"GA" aircraft I know.
I think you guys need to pick your fights. I don't think this one is a winner.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me 100% that you honestly want the guy in his homebuilt Morgan aircraft (refer to previous hyperlink) with an incorrect specification oil hose from SuperCheap autos, to be flying in CTA and or over built-up areas? Who controls him maintaining his own aircraft? Nobody.
The SAAA are on the right path with this as they have mandatory maintenance classes to be able to register, operate and maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. No such regulations exist within RAA circles. The monthly RAA magazine is littered with examples of maintenance stupidity and those are only the ones that bothered to report it.
The SAAA are on the right path with this as they have mandatory maintenance classes to be able to register, operate and maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. No such regulations exist within RAA circles. The monthly RAA magazine is littered with examples of maintenance stupidity and those are only the ones that bothered to report it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groan
Many GFA organisations have AOC's as have RA-Aus organisations.
Nobody said RA-Aus itself had One.
Oh! and balloons don't have "certified" engines similar to a number of SAAA and Warbird aircraft that can and do fly in CTR.
I suppose you all know Bankstown, Archerfield, Jandakot etc are "control zones"
How far do you want to take this? Is a certified VW OK? And don't tell me they don't exist.
I'm bored already.
An AOC (Air Operator's Certificate) is a CASA approval for an organisation to carry out a commercial aviation enterprise. With it comes CASA control.
Nobody said RA-Aus itself had One.
Oh! and balloons don't have "certified" engines similar to a number of SAAA and Warbird aircraft that can and do fly in CTR.
I suppose you all know Bankstown, Archerfield, Jandakot etc are "control zones"
How far do you want to take this? Is a certified VW OK? And don't tell me they don't exist.
I'm bored already.
I'm bored already.
Folks,
What always amazes me about all this is the idea that flying in CTL is some big deal.
Equally amazingly, except more so, is that "flying in CTA" isn't automatically part of any normal basic flying training, as per most of the rest of the known aviation universe.
And, pleeeeze don't start claiming that having a PPL medical is because a Drivers License standard medical isn't good enough, when driving to or from the airfield and having an incapacitating event is going to be far more dangerous to the general public.
Having flown around UK, most of western Europe (including landing at major airfields) , and parts of US on my original UK PPL, only when I got back to Australia did I find that flying CTA was some big deal that required special additional training and checking.
That's all a long time ago, but bugger all has changed in Australia, reading the posts on this thread, most of you ( with several honorable exceptions) don't seem to have any idea that it could all be quite different --- and a bloody sight better for all involved.
The idea that about half the active pilots in Australia cannot fly along the Australian coastline is ludicrous.
But it never will be better, while you all fight these silly battles amongst each other.
Tootle pip!!
What always amazes me about all this is the idea that flying in CTL is some big deal.
Equally amazingly, except more so, is that "flying in CTA" isn't automatically part of any normal basic flying training, as per most of the rest of the known aviation universe.
And, pleeeeze don't start claiming that having a PPL medical is because a Drivers License standard medical isn't good enough, when driving to or from the airfield and having an incapacitating event is going to be far more dangerous to the general public.
Having flown around UK, most of western Europe (including landing at major airfields) , and parts of US on my original UK PPL, only when I got back to Australia did I find that flying CTA was some big deal that required special additional training and checking.
That's all a long time ago, but bugger all has changed in Australia, reading the posts on this thread, most of you ( with several honorable exceptions) don't seem to have any idea that it could all be quite different --- and a bloody sight better for all involved.
The idea that about half the active pilots in Australia cannot fly along the Australian coastline is ludicrous.
But it never will be better, while you all fight these silly battles amongst each other.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Leadsled,
Big broard sweeping statements there mate! In general I agree with you, CTA/R is not rocket science at all, but why is it then it is not a mandatory part of every level/type of licence then?
There are some folk who can't cope with a quiet CTAF let alone a busy one, and they do not see the value in training to be better. So its a lost cause.
Simple hey...........well just go fix it would you please!
I am not so sure about the silly little battles. In the real world for a moment, there are a greater number of folk in the RAA who would want to entertain the idea, so why lumber the organisation that operates on exemptions, to have to provide a service that already exists. Just seems like winding up overheads for the rest for no apparent gain.
Now Frank...you are the first to bleat on here when there is $1 more expense to the bloke in his Auster/Warp Borer MkII without a radio or transponder, legislated overheads at the expense of folk like yourself. So adding CTA/R's to RAA is only going to do one thing to yours and everyone elses membership, and it certainly willnot be reduce it.
J
Big broard sweeping statements there mate! In general I agree with you, CTA/R is not rocket science at all, but why is it then it is not a mandatory part of every level/type of licence then?
There are some folk who can't cope with a quiet CTAF let alone a busy one, and they do not see the value in training to be better. So its a lost cause.
Equally amazingly, except more so, is that "flying in CTA" isn't automatically part of any normal basic flying training, as per most of the rest of the known aviation universe.
I am not so sure about the silly little battles. In the real world for a moment, there are a greater number of folk in the RAA who would want to entertain the idea, so why lumber the organisation that operates on exemptions, to have to provide a service that already exists. Just seems like winding up overheads for the rest for no apparent gain.
Now Frank...you are the first to bleat on here when there is $1 more expense to the bloke in his Auster/Warp Borer MkII without a radio or transponder, legislated overheads at the expense of folk like yourself. So adding CTA/R's to RAA is only going to do one thing to yours and everyone elses membership, and it certainly willnot be reduce it.
J
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba old mate;
I endorse and encourage the use of equipment when it is a mandatory requirement for a particular flight. If flying CTR means one has to have a radio, transponder of any kind, or an audible horn, and I wish to fly there, I can't see any argument for not having that gear. Likewise if RA-Aus pilots want to fly there, they should be required to have sufficient training and a suitable endorsement to do so.
If this costs more $$$ then it should be viewed as something similar to a float endorsement. If you want to fly floats, you pay to learn how to do so and be endorsed.
I don't want to fly floats, so I don't have to pay.
May I be so bold as to once again suggest had CASA completed their regulatory review process all the "exemptions" would now be written into the regulations and had the original concept of the Recreational License been adopted without the usual CASA "mongrelisation" of the concept, a crossover similar to the US system would now be in place.
Exactly what is a recreational aircraft? From what I've seen they can be anything from a B707 to Drifter. One KRudd has a BBJ for joyflights.
I endorse and encourage the use of equipment when it is a mandatory requirement for a particular flight. If flying CTR means one has to have a radio, transponder of any kind, or an audible horn, and I wish to fly there, I can't see any argument for not having that gear. Likewise if RA-Aus pilots want to fly there, they should be required to have sufficient training and a suitable endorsement to do so.
If this costs more $$$ then it should be viewed as something similar to a float endorsement. If you want to fly floats, you pay to learn how to do so and be endorsed.
I don't want to fly floats, so I don't have to pay.
May I be so bold as to once again suggest had CASA completed their regulatory review process all the "exemptions" would now be written into the regulations and had the original concept of the Recreational License been adopted without the usual CASA "mongrelisation" of the concept, a crossover similar to the US system would now be in place.
Exactly what is a recreational aircraft? From what I've seen they can be anything from a B707 to Drifter. One KRudd has a BBJ for joyflights.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: nowra
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX keep it real mate, any acft going CTA would need a certified angine etc, so old mate in his morgan would not qualify to enter after doing work on his own engine.
I couldn't be fussed either way, if the RAA get CTA endo then so be it, if not then a PPL is needed. I don't feel there is a high percentage of RAA members wanting it anyway.
cheers
I couldn't be fussed either way, if the RAA get CTA endo then so be it, if not then a PPL is needed. I don't feel there is a high percentage of RAA members wanting it anyway.
cheers
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite - a certified engine is not required for any RAA aircraft but an "approved" one is. Owner maintained aircraft can indeed be flown into CTA regardless of RAA or GA.
The SAAA are on the right path with this as they have mandatory maintenance classes to be able to register, operate and maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
Mandatory, Yes!! Rent seekers. Lobbied for years to get back some of the cash flow they lost with the introduction of the Experimental cat. in 1998.
The mandatory course is a great little earner, has little to do with actual hands-on continuing airworthiness --- unless you believe that airworthiness is directly related to the weight of the paperwork generated.
You should have a very close look at the syllabus, it looks rather adjacent to the CASA Airworthiness Administration exam syllabus.
This quite remarkable similarity is, no doubt, related to the fact that SAAA did not develop a syllabus to assist in training owners to conduct their own maintenance, but have simply accepted a completely inappropriate syllabus, at the direction of the CASA Permissions Center.
Making SAAA little more than a glove puppet for CASA ---- but a profitable glove puppet.
In the real world, the "CASA mandatory" courses will not make the slightest difference to air safety outcomes, but will result in much aggravation and expense.
Nobody had demonstrated an actual real world problem, to which the new mandatory qualifications are the answer.
But, Hey!! We have never bothered about "evidence based" or "outcome base" regulation in aviation in Australia, have we??
Nah!! Prejudice, self interest and old wives tales are a far better basis for yet more regulation.
At least we can claim, without fear of contradiction, to have the world's best aviation regulations, based on page or word count, we all know biggest is best, don't we???
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of the most common failures I see on standard cat. aircraft, GA or otherwise, is a hose failure. The ADRs ( auto design rules) are far tougher for critical hoses than aviation standards, much like auto seat belt standards are far tougher than aviation equivalents.
Don't make the mistake of thinking all aviation standards "top of the heap".
There are some folk who can't cope with a quiet CTAF let alone a busy one, and they do not see the value in training to be better
Unfortunately, too true, but why??
The same folks have no trouble talking and communicating on their mobile phone, Skype or whatever, so why are they struck dumb with an aircraft radio, if it was a CB there would be no problem.
To me, the answer is clear.
By an large we do not teach pilots to communicate, they are required to learn "radio procedures" ----- what is a matter of course in every other country in which I have been involved, is turned into a "big deal" in Australia ---- Just like the CTA issue.
The best proof of this is to look at Australia's filed differences with ICAO.
Australian MANDATORY (that's CASA's interpretation, not mine) radio procedures and phraseologies are about ten times the ICAO recommendations. In the rest of the known aviation universe, the idea of "doing some radio work for practice" or "failing radio" is an unknown concept ----- because the rest of the world communicates.
So some poor sod in the back blocks is sh1t scared of getting it wrong, particularly if there are any self styled "professionals" about, who will be quick to let aforementioned poor sod and the rest of the world know that said poor sod is an incompetent, a threat to humanity, and should vacate the airspace immediately.
So sod shuts up, hardly benefiting air safety, wouldn't you say.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should have a very close look at the syllabus, it looks rather adjacent to the CASA Airworthiness Administration exam syllabus.
This quite remarkable similarity is, no doubt, related to the fact that SAAA did not develop a syllabus to assist in training owners to conduct their own maintenance, but have simply accepted a completely inappropriate syllabus, at the direction of the CASA Permissions Center.
Making SAAA little more than a glove puppet for CASA ---- but a profitable glove puppet.
This quite remarkable similarity is, no doubt, related to the fact that SAAA did not develop a syllabus to assist in training owners to conduct their own maintenance, but have simply accepted a completely inappropriate syllabus, at the direction of the CASA Permissions Center.
Making SAAA little more than a glove puppet for CASA ---- but a profitable glove puppet.
When some of you blokes get off your horses to walk in the real world, you may see the damage being attributed to the "divided we fall, united we conquer" FACT. It's standard CASA divisive mantra.
Has anyone really considered why the proportional growth in RA-Aus mirrors the losses in "those" other compliant organizations?
If the SAAA think they will rearrange my owner maintenance on my experimental RA-Aus aircraft they will be in for a fight. Me, with the support of 10,000 others.