Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You

[Jabawocky]

I could ask CASA or the FAA. Oh wait, they have already made up their minds about the issue and they allow you to fly with these engines. 'nuff said.

Baswell......NOT ENOUGH SAID..........clearly you are not familiar with the process of putting one of these "Auto" conversions on the VH register! Now I have not and will not, but in saying that, the guy who does my CofA's , a CASA AP (ex RAF and QF LAME and pilot) who really does know the figures, (and beats me how but really knows the regs), will happily write you out a CofA for your auto engined Warp-Borer MkIII...........But wait, There's more!!!! You will also get a big bunch of restrictions in your CofA as is required. It WILL include exclussions from CTA and built up areas. You may depending upon their opinion of the design/build get assigned a test area like Woomera where you pose little threat to the rest of the population.

So before you get carried away with the idea of jamming an AUTO conversion in your IFR six seater, and blasting around CTA......wake up and go talk to someone who really knows their stuff. SAAA would be a good start!

Believe me when I say after building one a/c with an approved engine I thought I learned a lot, then building another and IFR........I discovered I knew bugger all before.....and I am still trying to keep up!

J

PS Ohhh and while I think of it, some ppruners may even know the guy, but aforementioned AP was telling me about a Sydney based guy (maybe airline pilot) who spent a fortune on a Subie in an RV6 or 7, anyway after several failures......firewall forward refit!!! A Lycosaurus went in, he was bored with finding paddocks!

Now back to topics after my own thread drift.

[VH-XXX]

The cirrus argument has been done to death, all of the relevant information has been provided (wallsofchina I got a pm about it and apparently you did too) therefore there is nothing more to add to that discussion.

The Subaru discussion is moot because even if the figure of 30 wasn't used there is still more Subaru engines in raa than ga (no surprises there).

I don't think anyone has anything more to offer as there is now an explanation elsewhere that explains why ras didn't get the tick.

Xxx is not raa ticketed but was a long time ago when flying from paddocks was fun and before the raa got political.

[Wallsofchina]

VH XXX I don't think there is a Cirrus argument - I don't think a pilot's name should be blackened.



You raised the subject, but haven't backed up your assertion.

How did you know I got a PM?

I never reveal details of private correspondence or discussions, but if the sender comes on here and gives me permission I'll print it in full.

It looks to me as if you can’t back up your Subaru assertion either.

RA Aust Pilot asked: “Hey VH-XXX, you're RAAus ticketed aren't you?”

Xxx???? Your other posts are always so precise.

I don’t have a probem with robust debates, but we need to have facts to work on.

[VH-XXX]

I believe I got the same pm that you did so said the sender.

Aside from the irrelevance I will call raa and get said stats for you.

I have already responded to the question see previous post.

Nobody's name has been blackened, unlike other sites this is a rumour network.

[maverick22]

Well it's official, THIS THREAD IS GOING NOWHERE!

To the RAA boys and girls, in the wise words of ATC: "Clearance not available, remain outside controlled airspace"

Now go flying and have some fun (OCTA)

[RAAus_Pilot]

So since that XXX is not RAAus ticketed, is everything you are saying just speculation? You're against something that you obviously don't know much about, you can't back up any of the so called stories you're coming up with and really you need to think a little more before you type anything.

I'm with Maverick on this, at the moment RAAus is not allowed in CTA. The discussion may come up at a later date so until then this thread os pretty much going no where.

[Wallsofchina]

Don't wish too soon Maverick.

The way it's looking to me, we may be flying C172's and PA 28's out there too before long, unless we want to spend a day to fly an hour.

[D-J]

and time to head back to the 'other' forum

[baswell]

Jaba: nice rant, but what part of my post #97 makes you think I believe VH Subarus are allowed in CTA, let alone IFR?

Clearly they are not, as I express in that post, but have heard enough first hand stories of people on the ground some have been doing it regardless. Just like the bottom end of RA-Aus flaunts the rules, so does the bottom end of PPL, that much is clear.

[j3pipercub]

RAAus, just because someone isn't RAA ticketed doesn't mean they can't have an opinion of what they have seen around them. Using your logic, the vast majority of RAA pilots who wanted the CTA endo can't comment on GA as they aren't licensed...perhaps you should have thought of that before you made your argument...

Now I'm with DJ and mav, guys, enough said, better luck next time and chat to you on the other forum...

j3

[RAAus_Pilot]

Originally Posted by j3pipercub

RAAus, just because someone isn't RAA ticketed doesn't mean they can't have an opinion of what they have seen around them. Using your logic, the vast majority of RAA pilots who wanted the CTA endo can't comment on GA as they aren't licensed...perhaps you should have thought of that before you made your argument...

Now I'm with DJ and mav, guys, enough said, better luck next time and chat to you on the other forum...

j3

Never said they can't have an opinion, just not speculate. But that's been sorted. Most RAA pilots I know are GA qualified and they have been speaking up, it's the RAA pilots that "have difficulty" using a radio that, I agree, shouldn't be allowed into CTA. Even with a CTA endorsement I think they'll still have issues within CTA so RAAus needs to work on the kind of training that the endorsement will provide.

But as you say, it's not happening now, maybe later so will leave it at that.

[QNH1013.2]

Next thing the RA guys will be wanting IFR and NVFR

There's already enough of them out there doing that already!

(Puts on flame proof overalls for the public flaming about to commence)

[VH-XXX]

A thought just sprung to mind. Could it be the case that Airservices had some consultation with CASA and didn't want raa aircraft in CTA because the raa aircraft register is private and as such they couldn't charge for landing fees?

[Jabawocky]

Good point XXX .... maybe they were not willing to give up the "privacy" for the sake of landing fees and the ATC fees.

Baswell, you asked

Jaba: nice rant, but what part of my post #97 makes you think I believe VH Subarus are allowed in CTA, let alone IFR?

But previously you said;

I think you'll find a lot more owner maintained Subaru engines in the CASA experimental category than in RAA aircraft. And there are more than enough stories of these pretending everything is fine and dandy and hapily flying into CTA. (And not falling out of the sky, I might add)

And........

Besides, the myth of the unreliability of auto conversions was thoroughly debunked several years ago by Kitplanes magazine going through years and years of FAA data to find accidents where engine failure was to blame. They found no statistical significant difference.

And..........

I could ask CASA or the FAA. Oh wait, they have already made up their minds about the issue and they allow you to fly with these engines. 'nuff said.

And you have the hide to tell me "Nice Rant"

Now where would I have picked up the idea Baswell....

So bottom line is, if you want CTA in any shape or form, get the following, Medical, Training and tested and reviewed, Radio/Transponder, Approved Engine, and get on a database for billing!

J

[triton140]

if you want CTA in any shape or form

With all the GAAP crap ATM, who would want to do it for recreation? My CTAF is looking better and better .....

[VH-XXX]

You've got me thinking more Jaba, the whole raa aircraft register being private is a real cop out by them. They use the same facilities day in day out as ga aircraft including the same sized machines or smaller, yet they get off scot-free on landing fees. Take an aircraft flying to Moorabbin. For something in the ultralight size but ga registered you would be up for around $8 for air services fees, plus $5.50 landing fee from avdata, not to mention that if you only go there once a month you are up for a minimum charge of $16.50. So all up around $24.50 for a SINGLE landing. Now if some raa Jabiru comes along he pays $0 for the privelage and contributes in no way to the atc system that safely supports him or to the aerodrome operator.

How can they get away with this in the user pays aviation system in Australia? Why can't the register be public and what are they trying to hide? C'mon raa guys you have been outspoken about airspace, tell us why you don't want to pay for the services that you use.

[Wallsofchina]

VH-XXX/QNH1013.2
There should be equity, and there are methods by which that can be fixed.

We should be looking at the level of those charges, and the cause of all this. Are the lessees using safety to use public support to expand their DFO areas?

[Frank Arouet]

Now if some raa Jabiru comes along he pays $0 for the privelage and contributes in no way to the atc system that safely supports him or to the aerodrome operator.

What are you "rabbiting" on about? I suppose they don't pay Avdata charges either? Where do you blokes come up with these claims?

[VH-XXX]

That's right, they don't pay Avdata either ( that was one of the main points of my post ). Because the register is private avdata doesn't know where to send the bill. Raa simply refuses to share the register except for CASA and the ato.

[RAAus_Pilot]

Not sure where you guys are getting your info from but RAAus aircraft do pay landing fees. I'll pay landing fees at any strip I land in that charges a fee. There's no getting away from it.