Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What airports are interested? They all should know that they can get the info from RAAus. It's not that hard. Every aircraft is registered so really if the airports need info on aircraft owners all they need to do is contact RAAus. Not that hard.
What airports are interested? They all should know that they can get the info from RAAus. It's not that hard. Every aircraft is registered so really if the airports need info on aircraft owners all they need to do is contact RAAus. Not that hard.
Sounds like GA is subsidizing RAAus again
Furphy argument!
It is no different from GA to RAA. There are a few types in RAA who hide behind the known outcome of AVDATA attempting to gain access to the RAA register...no different to the lowlifes in GA who use someone elses call sign or no calls at all to avoid the AVDATA tape recorder...wouldn't be surprised if it is the same pilots in either a GA or RAA machine every time. Possibly those same people who resist any form of surveillence to be fitted to RAA aircraft, either transponder powered by SSR or ADS-B. (Personally, AVDATA is a blunderbus approach and easily bypassed by crooks...there are better ways of collecting data.)
It would take nothing to produce a document as part of RAA registration giving authority to RAA to provide confidential information to Airservices for charging purposes as part of the annual registration process...It could be a simple electronic transfer exercise that provides that database to AirServices that ONLY these registered aircraft are allowed into CTA. Flightplans, NAIPS and TAAATS are still the gatekeepers. No rego on the database=no entry, simple!
As the Jaba has pointed out, there should be no difference between a RAA pilot or GA pilot in CTR....the training and performance MUST be to the same standard.
Right now, the director sees that this is not possible, directly related to the experiences personally witnessed by himself. That attitude can be changed by demonstration. How long depends on the RAA administration to get their own nest in order and try again down the track.
It is no different from GA to RAA. There are a few types in RAA who hide behind the known outcome of AVDATA attempting to gain access to the RAA register...no different to the lowlifes in GA who use someone elses call sign or no calls at all to avoid the AVDATA tape recorder...wouldn't be surprised if it is the same pilots in either a GA or RAA machine every time. Possibly those same people who resist any form of surveillence to be fitted to RAA aircraft, either transponder powered by SSR or ADS-B. (Personally, AVDATA is a blunderbus approach and easily bypassed by crooks...there are better ways of collecting data.)
It would take nothing to produce a document as part of RAA registration giving authority to RAA to provide confidential information to Airservices for charging purposes as part of the annual registration process...It could be a simple electronic transfer exercise that provides that database to AirServices that ONLY these registered aircraft are allowed into CTA. Flightplans, NAIPS and TAAATS are still the gatekeepers. No rego on the database=no entry, simple!
As the Jaba has pointed out, there should be no difference between a RAA pilot or GA pilot in CTR....the training and performance MUST be to the same standard.
Right now, the director sees that this is not possible, directly related to the experiences personally witnessed by himself. That attitude can be changed by demonstration. How long depends on the RAA administration to get their own nest in order and try again down the track.
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
Ref RA-Aus magazine September 08, page 3.
“RA-Aus policy is that members are responsible for paying landing fees where applicable”. “We have notified councils that continue to insist that we send on landing fee accounts to owners that we charge a $10 processing fee per account. Unfortunately, you may find that the council charges you the landing fee plus the $10 we charge them.”
“Where our members have both PPL and RA-Aus privileges and fly in controlled airspace in RA-Aus registered aircraft, Airservices sends their airways charges accounts to us to pass on to the member concerned. We again treat those requests similarly to landing fees”.
“RA-Aus policy is that members are responsible for paying landing fees where applicable”. “We have notified councils that continue to insist that we send on landing fee accounts to owners that we charge a $10 processing fee per account. Unfortunately, you may find that the council charges you the landing fee plus the $10 we charge them.”
“Where our members have both PPL and RA-Aus privileges and fly in controlled airspace in RA-Aus registered aircraft, Airservices sends their airways charges accounts to us to pass on to the member concerned. We again treat those requests similarly to landing fees”.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX just likes to come up with anything he can find to damage RA, but you can only sit on a barbed wire fence for so long without getting your jewells cut off.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That statement is great in theory but incorrect given that vfr flights in raa aircraft don't incur airways charges. Shows they have little understanding of the system in which they are trying to enter.
Would be nice to think that they would be more cooperative as the current system is long winded. I have no idea why not even avdata can get a hold of the register.
Would be nice to think that they would be more cooperative as the current system is long winded. I have no idea why not even avdata can get a hold of the register.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 8th Aug 2009 at 04:04.
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
vfr flights in raa aircraft don't incur airways charges
Whats your point?
Shows they have little understanding of the system in which they are trying to enter
Possibly those same people who resist any form of surveillence to be fitted to RAA aircraft, either transponder powered by SSR or ADS-B.
Folks,
Just to add a little "source" to the soup, Natfly was not the problem re. standards observed by the new CASA CEO. Let's just say there were "events" in Vic. and Qld. that were a major consideration.
On another matter, would any of you like to present a rational case as to why the "medical" requirement for the (now stalled) RAOz CTA endorsement has anything to do with air safety outcomes. Present your justification by including the rational for a (proposed) CASA RPL with CTA endorsement having a lesser medical standard than an RAOz pilot certificate, for exactly the same operation.
Perhaps, to clarify the above, the draft CASA RPL standard includes the "driver's license medical" as the ONLY medical standard, there is no proposal/provision for "enhanced"(PPL) medical standards to fly with an RPL into CTA.
This RPL draft is entirely consistent with the FAA Sports Pilot License, and remember that there is likely to be a considerable spread of low level (below 8500) of Class E airspace any time soon.
E is legally controlled airspace.
Tootle pip !!!
Just to add a little "source" to the soup, Natfly was not the problem re. standards observed by the new CASA CEO. Let's just say there were "events" in Vic. and Qld. that were a major consideration.
On another matter, would any of you like to present a rational case as to why the "medical" requirement for the (now stalled) RAOz CTA endorsement has anything to do with air safety outcomes. Present your justification by including the rational for a (proposed) CASA RPL with CTA endorsement having a lesser medical standard than an RAOz pilot certificate, for exactly the same operation.
Perhaps, to clarify the above, the draft CASA RPL standard includes the "driver's license medical" as the ONLY medical standard, there is no proposal/provision for "enhanced"(PPL) medical standards to fly with an RPL into CTA.
This RPL draft is entirely consistent with the FAA Sports Pilot License, and remember that there is likely to be a considerable spread of low level (below 8500) of Class E airspace any time soon.
E is legally controlled airspace.
Tootle pip !!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 8th Aug 2009 at 07:28.
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
Jeeezus LeadSled, this mob are barely literate in not being able to understand stated arguement, words and facts to date. Most haven't the attention span to read more than the previous post and Crisssknows what they will make of a "RPL".
As for Natfly, (I was there), anything done by some GA pilot last time pales into insignificance when you consider the jet beatup by a well known GA representative and identity the year before. Obviously something else to blame RA-Aus for.
As for Natfly, (I was there), anything done by some GA pilot last time pales into insignificance when you consider the jet beatup by a well known GA representative and identity the year before. Obviously something else to blame RA-Aus for.
Leadie, I first heard about the RPL nearly twenty years ago. I think RAA has filled that niche quite successfully. Methinks the CASA possibly likes it as well. Administration for RPL flown, VH reg'd, LSA types (now with the same certification process as the yanks???) would be a headache for the CASA they do not need...it allways came across as a pipe dream for the SportAv boys and girls to secure a piece of RAA's pie and a lead in to self administration for the SAAA. That horse has bolted for the SAAA, RAA has got too big.
A cold hard think about it just leads to duplication of a successful operation. If RAA finally gets 760kg the evolution will be complete.
CTA endorsment will come for RAA, they just have to prove the training standards can pass through the CASA scrutiny. The Jaba is correct in pointing out that, at this time, the RAA has dodged an admistrative and training nightmare.
A cold hard think about it just leads to duplication of a successful operation. If RAA finally gets 760kg the evolution will be complete.
CTA endorsment will come for RAA, they just have to prove the training standards can pass through the CASA scrutiny. The Jaba is correct in pointing out that, at this time, the RAA has dodged an admistrative and training nightmare.
Frank,
Thanks for the reminder, RPL is the long mooted Recreational Pilot License, a sub-ICAO license, that some would like "community administered", as competition to RAOz.
As a matte of interest, most western European nations now have a "National Private Pilots License", by whatever name. The various NPPLs, the proposed CASA RPL, the FAA SPL/RPL and the RAOz Pilot Certificate all have a "programmatic specicivity" ( to use the proper Ruddbot cyberspeak) , a commonality, a flying syllabus and flying competency standards ( to use the up to date term for what we have always needed to demonstrate --- that we can fly) that are remarkably similar ---- the Daylight VFR syllabus of 40 or so years ago, the one so many of us experienced ----- and somehow survived.
Australia is not the only country where the "ICAO" PPL has become increasingly un-affordable ---- for no good reason ----- nothing earth shattering has changed in that time, whether it is aircraft, equipiment or matters airspace ---- where there have been minor incremental changes of little impact on daylight VFR operations.
Tootle pip!!
PS: A crossover, Ozbusdriver, I agree with you, but you would be surprised at the present level of confidence being demonstrated by "the usual suspects".
Thanks for the reminder, RPL is the long mooted Recreational Pilot License, a sub-ICAO license, that some would like "community administered", as competition to RAOz.
As a matte of interest, most western European nations now have a "National Private Pilots License", by whatever name. The various NPPLs, the proposed CASA RPL, the FAA SPL/RPL and the RAOz Pilot Certificate all have a "programmatic specicivity" ( to use the proper Ruddbot cyberspeak) , a commonality, a flying syllabus and flying competency standards ( to use the up to date term for what we have always needed to demonstrate --- that we can fly) that are remarkably similar ---- the Daylight VFR syllabus of 40 or so years ago, the one so many of us experienced ----- and somehow survived.
Australia is not the only country where the "ICAO" PPL has become increasingly un-affordable ---- for no good reason ----- nothing earth shattering has changed in that time, whether it is aircraft, equipiment or matters airspace ---- where there have been minor incremental changes of little impact on daylight VFR operations.
Tootle pip!!
PS: A crossover, Ozbusdriver, I agree with you, but you would be surprised at the present level of confidence being demonstrated by "the usual suspects".
On the issue of a medical, other than cost grounds there is no justifiable reason to argue AGAINST having a medical. It is only the ones that have something to hide that will argue against sitting for one. Besides, as far as the class 2 goes, the important questions are still based on trust that the pilot is honest when they tick the boxes one the first page.
Honesty and a medical vs Honesty...it would not make any difference to me because I am honest to myself( I hope) However, why should the CASA trust me, they do not know me personally.
Honesty and a medical vs Honesty...it would not make any difference to me because I am honest to myself( I hope) However, why should the CASA trust me, they do not know me personally.
Ozbusdriver,
The point about medicals in general, is that they have no discernible impact on air safety outcomes.
There is a vast resource of medical statistics for pilots, worldwide, likewise accident reports, there is no measurable connection between the two.
Indeed, there is a case ( not a good one, but better than aviation medicals) to suggests that "driver medicals" could be tougher, because of the carnage a sudden incapacitation in a motor vehicle can and has caused, but to impose that would be political suicide --- but pilot votes don't sway elections.
Indeed, pilot medicals were originally for military screening, intended to reject some 95% of applicants, and had NOTHING to do with the minimum physical standards required to safely pilot an aircraft.
FAA did a huge study before the first FAA RPL, the conclusions are fascinating, apply to all levels of medical certification, and the history clearly show the ability of doctors to lobby to preserve cash flow ---- true air safety considerations, the level of medical certification necessary for the task, did not get a look-in.
The history of FAA v. ATC staff with diabetes is equally fascinating, the medical "standards" had nothing to do with a properly controlled diabetic being able to cope with an ATC job.
Tootle pip!!
The point about medicals in general, is that they have no discernible impact on air safety outcomes.
There is a vast resource of medical statistics for pilots, worldwide, likewise accident reports, there is no measurable connection between the two.
Indeed, there is a case ( not a good one, but better than aviation medicals) to suggests that "driver medicals" could be tougher, because of the carnage a sudden incapacitation in a motor vehicle can and has caused, but to impose that would be political suicide --- but pilot votes don't sway elections.
Indeed, pilot medicals were originally for military screening, intended to reject some 95% of applicants, and had NOTHING to do with the minimum physical standards required to safely pilot an aircraft.
FAA did a huge study before the first FAA RPL, the conclusions are fascinating, apply to all levels of medical certification, and the history clearly show the ability of doctors to lobby to preserve cash flow ---- true air safety considerations, the level of medical certification necessary for the task, did not get a look-in.
The history of FAA v. ATC staff with diabetes is equally fascinating, the medical "standards" had nothing to do with a properly controlled diabetic being able to cope with an ATC job.
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
The "medical" was another hangover from WW2 where the RAAF were omnipresent in all things flying. We still see the Military Mentality in a lot of current rules and reg's. Add a few Bureaucrats and you have the clusterfluck we have today. The medical is just another revenue earner.
A different scenerio if you have fare paying bums on seats of course.
A different scenerio if you have fare paying bums on seats of course.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raaus pilot, you have quite obviously never seen an avdata bill before and you wouldn't have unless you owned or operated a ga aircraft. Most council airfields that charge use avdata for the billing of visiting aircraft. I'm not talking about your usual airports that have a collection box. Most touring raa aircraft would be oblivious to the fact that they are racking up bills until such time that they receive one eventually, if at all. A I asked 4 raa a/c owners today at a field during a BBQ and none of them had ever heard of avdata.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaap Is Cta
I don't want to get in the way of your discussion here but thought I might clarify something.
Be very clear that a GAAP CTR IS CTA.
Don't be misled by the fact that you don't get a formal airways clearance. The whole design of GAAP is to facilitate high movements of VFR aircraft in VMC. To reduce frequency congestion GAAP uses standard arrival/departure procedures as outlined in AIP ERSA which are used in conjunction with the verbal circuit entry instruction and constitute your airways clearance.
While separation in the air in VMC is primarily with the pilot, you must comply with an ATC instruction and you still require a clearance to enter/transit GAAP CTRs. Try entering without a clearance and you will incur an incident report in the form of a VCA (Violation of Controlled Airspace).
Also when it is non-VMC then it is full separation, IFR to IFR/SVFR and SVFR to SVFR, we don't suddenly stop becoming a GAAP CTR and change into Class D.
If it makes it a bit clearer for you then try thinking of GAAP as Class D with a few exceptions in VMC
.
We have heard a few rumblings of this whole RAAus in CTA issue but as yet not received any formal direction. As far as this humble tower person is concerned I have no opinion either way on the merits of the RAAus vs GA debate, you are all the same to me
I just process you as you come. Besides we have bigger issues (to us anyway) to worry about with the CASA drive towards Class D.
Hope that clarified the CTA thingy for you guys, if I missed the point then sorry.
Cheers
Be very clear that a GAAP CTR IS CTA.
Don't be misled by the fact that you don't get a formal airways clearance. The whole design of GAAP is to facilitate high movements of VFR aircraft in VMC. To reduce frequency congestion GAAP uses standard arrival/departure procedures as outlined in AIP ERSA which are used in conjunction with the verbal circuit entry instruction and constitute your airways clearance.
While separation in the air in VMC is primarily with the pilot, you must comply with an ATC instruction and you still require a clearance to enter/transit GAAP CTRs. Try entering without a clearance and you will incur an incident report in the form of a VCA (Violation of Controlled Airspace).
Also when it is non-VMC then it is full separation, IFR to IFR/SVFR and SVFR to SVFR, we don't suddenly stop becoming a GAAP CTR and change into Class D.
If it makes it a bit clearer for you then try thinking of GAAP as Class D with a few exceptions in VMC
.We have heard a few rumblings of this whole RAAus in CTA issue but as yet not received any formal direction. As far as this humble tower person is concerned I have no opinion either way on the merits of the RAAus vs GA debate, you are all the same to me
I just process you as you come. Besides we have bigger issues (to us anyway) to worry about with the CASA drive towards Class D.Hope that clarified the CTA thingy for you guys, if I missed the point then sorry.
Cheers
A different scenerio if you have fare paying bums on seats of course.
Totally agree with ozbus, if you have something to hide.... that's when you start worrying about medicals. Otherwise just do one like everyone else has to (in GA anyway) not only to satisfy big brother but yourself!
And thanks Big_Binocs for clarifying that, thought that was the case all along
