Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You

[SW3]

VH-XXX I think you'd rather argue than fly, I'm not playing cat and mouse here. And I'd prefer it if you would refrain from referring to the board of the RAAus in such a slanderous manner, and I'm not joking. Once again, read what I have written, THIS IS NOT WHAT I"M HERE ABOUT.

Slightly higer costs?? Have you recently looked at the cost of dual training in GA compared to RAAus?? It makes no sense for an RAAus pilot to convert to GA just to do the CTA component as AGAIN, it is not a massive undertaking, only to never fly a GA aircraft again. Theory and navexs including the CTA component, as for GA.

I have no idea where you got the view of it being simply wanting something for nothing. As per today, user pays for airspace. That being the pilot or operator. ASICs do cost money but are required in more and more places. Again, it is an OPTION if you wish to do it, as for GA. The cost of these and a medical are not going to put an end to one's financial state and in no way adds costs to members not using CTA. Clutching at straws now I think, don't you?

Around and around in circles we go. Read my points. Agree with them or disagree, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just as we are all entitled to Australian airspace.

[mcgrath50]

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.

If you want to go in CTA PPL it is. If RAAus wants to be in the CTA then they will have to apply the standards and regulations across training, currency and maintenance which would surely close much of the price gap that you guys cherish.

I have a go-kart license doesn't mean I am allowed on the roads although most of the skills are the same!

[baswell]

If 3 or whatever NAV's in GA is not enough

Who said it wasn't enough? Clearly it is. Pretending that GA has any better CTA training than it has and RA-Aus could never achieve that standard only undermines your argument for no CTA in RA-Aus; you better find a different good reason 'cause this ain't it.

Why can't others do the same?

Because a) there is no good reason to deny it and b) it doesn't make any sense to spend thousands to get the PPL and then never fly a GA aircraft again. All this doesn't seem to be an issue for the sport pilot certificate in the US, but obviously, CASA knows something the FAA doesn't.

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.

You confuse a relaxed state with not taking what you are doing serious. Relax, man. You can always opt not to fly. (The last thing that somewhat raised my stress levels in CTA was two highly trained GA pilots with similar call signs answer calls for the other when the controller was clearly trying to keep one away from me.)

[SW3]

McGrath50, lets compare apples with apples. An RAAus aircraft is not a go-kart in comparison to a GA aircraft. Explain to me then why you can register many RAAus aircraft VH? Is it still a go-kart? Or does it magically change to a car? Can you register your go-kart as a car?

What makes a PPL so special as to allow CTA entry and not an RAAus pilot with CTA training? Scared of someone else playing in your playground? If your PPL makes you superman, hop in your FA18 and let other pilots enjoy flying again.

And my point about 3 navs is that it isn't too hard to complete the training, therefore not too hard for anyone.

[Unhinged]

Just as we are all entitled to Australian airspace.

Ahhh there it is; had to be somewhere ... The aggrieved sense of denied entitlement.

What a load of rubbish. We are not all entitled to any such thing, no more than we are all entitled to drive on the road. If you want access to any controlled privilege in life, you need to meet the appropriate requirements. And if you want access to CTA, you simply need to qualify for it in the prescribed manner. If you put as much energy into getting a PPL as you're putting in to avoiding it, then you'd have solved the problem a long time ago.

[VH-XXX]

If you put as much energy into getting a PPL as you're putting in to avoiding it, then you'd have solved the problem a long time ago.

Here here...! (or is it Hear, Hear?) Well said.

That is my point with the whole thing!

This has been going on for years.

I thought I'd add in some pictures so some of the posters can better understand some of the differences between Ultraights and General Aviation.













Photo credit to their respective owners - see source link for more details.

[SW3]

Ahh huh, pilots are entitled to use airspace. That's why we have aeroplanes and learnt to fly. Granted yes it is a priviledge, potato potarto. Again my point, all pilots be it GA or RAAus should be entitled to the priviledge (Happy now Unhinged?) of CTA.
May I suggest you read my first post? The whole point I'm trying to get across, education and allowing us all to enjoy the skies. End of broken record, not going to repeat my points again.
My reasoning for this post in the first place Unhinged is not for me at all, I have licences and a PPL is just one of them so this post is not for my own personal needs. No one is after a free ticket, however it is not just a right of passage open to only a few.
Nice pics VH-XXX, too bad these are the aircraft not of the type wishing to use CTA.
Anyway, my point is raised and I will leave the fun and games to you. Enjoy!

[mcgrath50]

Yes they can be registered on the VH register but then the users and maintenance upkeep must jump through the more stringent and more costly hoops. As XXX said its not that I think I'm amazing with my PPL and my F18 (if you can tell me where I left it, it would be much appreciated) but an issue of safety.

It is exactly like a go-kart, they perform over 100km/h are driven by people who don't fit the bill for a road license (can be driven by people under 17 for example) and is by all accounts a skill that would probably allow you to drive on the road ok. But that's not the process, the process is to get a road license so we are all judged safe by the same yardstick.

[SW3]

McGrath50, open your eyes. Its 2011, not 1980.
My opinions are based on experience, not simply on what I think. Insulting percieved ability, qualifications and age is not very intelligent I must say.

[Sunfish]

I agree with VH-XXX. I've got my PPL. I've investigated getting an RAA ticket. I would like to build an LSA kit and register it under RAA, but what I've found in terms of uncertainty have turned me right off the entire process.

For the record, I live in Melbourne, and the idea that I cannot transit areas around Melbourne, nor fly over built up areas, nor legally fly the aircraft at its designed MTOW, destroys the value of RAA registration and licensing permanently.

I am not interested in the "Nod Nod , wink wink, know what I mean" solutions I have been offered. I will not even detail what those solutions are out of deference to those using them right now because CASA would come down like a ton of bricks on them if I am correct about their legality (which is moot , since I'm not a lawyer.)

To put it another way, I'm not investing Sixty Grand in an aircraft that might, sort of, be legal, sometimes. And I'm heartily sick of people who keep telling me that something is OK via the RAA without being able to show me specific written regulations that would conclusively prove it in a court of law.

The RAA should for once come clean on what they can and cannot provide in plain English. As far as I am concerned, all an RAA licence and registration can provide for a kit built aircraft and RAA licensed pilot is operation outside controlled airspace at a maximum weight of 544 Kg.

For the record, I often fly a factory built LSA aircraft out of YMMB, but then I have PPL. If it was a kit built aircraft of exactly the same type, I'm not sure I can fly it in CTA, let alone over built up areas, and I know I certainly can't use it for training or airwork.

The solution to that is getting an "Experimental" certificate and that is a subject I hope to research with the SAAA if the have a stall at Avalon. The RAA showing at the last air show left me no wiser, probably because I went on the trade days.

[Jabiman]

VH-XXX wrote:

I thought I'd add in some pictures so some of the posters can better understand some of the differences between Ultraights and General Aviation.

From the Jabiru website, here is what their instrument panel looks like:


Now compare this to a GA clapped out 30 year old Cessna.

[Jabiman]

And I'm heartily sick of people who keep telling me that something is OK via the RAA without being able to show me specific written regulations that would conclusively prove it in a court of law.

Dont know which world you are living in but 'interpretation' of the law is a problem in most facets of life and especially business. If it wasnt then there wouldnt be a need for all those legions of well paid lawyers which permeate all of society.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This argument is a tail chase...things were looking rosy for RAA...right up until the CASA got a new director. Coincidence?

The procedures are just a competancy. There is nothing "God Like" in the ability to levitate through controlled airspace. There is nothing special about an aeroplane other than a working radio and a working transponder.

Face it, until the deckchairs get reshuffled, RAA is not ever likely to be allowed into anything higher than E. Nothing personal...it's just personal!

[VH-XXX]

I must say SW3, I am now a little intrigued by the motive of your (likely innocent) original post.

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.

So you heard a guy in his ultralight that asked for a clearance into CTA. Let's assume that he was not authorized to fly into CTA because of his unorthodox method of obtaining a clearance. (if he had a PPL he would have known what he was doing). Fair enough, you have then suggested that RAA should be able to get an endorsement for CTA operations, presumably so this guy may better know what he is doing next time?

This is the type of pilot that we don't want operating into CTA and you are supporting him to an extent. Why if he wasn't licensed to do so, did he try and enter, obviously not an emergency as he would have said so? Did he have a certified altimeter which he is required to do so under RAA regs, did he have the RAD43/47 done on his transponder? Don't forget, he is mixing it with RPT. Do you want him mixing it with airliners that your friends or family might be on?


On a side note, was speaking to an avionics guy recently. He was perplexed (and peeved off) at the number of RAA aircraft owners that believe that they don't have to have their transponders RAD checked every two years. GA does and RAA is not exempt. He cited a recent example where a newly built and purchased Aircraft was flown from Qld to Vic. The new transponder had not been checked and the pilot removed the unserviceable tag. On the way home in central NSW an airbus overhead had to perform a collision avoidance as the transponder was incorrectly reading over 30,000 ft. That is someone I don't want to share CTA with!

[mcgrath50]

McGrath50, open your eyes. Its 2011, not 1980.
My opinions are based on experience, not simply on what I think. Insulting percieved ability, qualifications and age is not very intelligent I must say.

My opinions too are based on my experience and the experience of others (from both sides) I have listened to. I can almost guarantee you have more years under your belt but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid as a part of a discussion which is what I believe we are having. In no way have I insulted anyones personnel ability or even mention age.

My issue is the inequity, what makes RAAus great (and a reason I would 'migrate' to it) is because it's cheap because it doesn't need to be regulated as highly because they avoid costly things like CTA (user pays), CASA systems of maintenance (costly) and the increased training needed to conduct CTA ops (maybe I am a bad pilot but I most certainly found CTA flying harder to grasp than Class G flying initially.). This will all need to be implemented to RAAus and will make it costly to something much closer to GA fees. Why go there? If you want CTA get a PPL. An experienced RAAus pilot such as yourself shouldn't have much difficulty converting and the cost would be much reduced.

[VH-XXX]

Sure Jabiman, that is a picture of a panel available in new Jabiru aircraft.

The difference between the 30 year old "clapped out Cessna" is that the Jabiru has the lowest cost denominator non-TSO'ed Dynon with an Avmap GPS. it has a non TSO'ed $350 turn coordinator, a non TSO Chinese $350 altimeter, a $200 ASI and a bunch of LED's from Supercheap autos. This is actually an LSA night VFR model and costs approx $30k extra. To its' credit, it does have a TSO'ed Garmin SL30, however that is not typical as it is a requirement for NVFR.

Short of the SL30 which is not standard in this aircraft there are no useful TSO'ed navaids so how are you going to track legally to an IFR approach point or similar?

This discussion was more about the pilot than the equipment though I guess.

[VH-XXX]

The solution to that is getting an "Experimental" certificate and that is a subject I hope to research with the SAAA if the have a stall at Avalon. The RAA showing at the last air show left me no wiser, probably because I went on the trade days.

Sunny, you are spot by considering the SAAA and certainly on the right track with your thinking. As an SAAA member (a number of us are here including Jabawocky) I can tell you from experience that the rules and regulations are much more flexible and accommodating than the Raa guidelines. You are fully authorized in an amateur built aircraft to fly at the MTOW for the aircraft, be GA registered, fly into CTA, over built up areas and perform your own maintenance, as well as NVFR and IFR flight. It is actually the Holy Grail that you are thinking it is. That is why there are so many RV's and the like buzzing around all over the country. (You also don't have to pay $220 to register it and $110 every year!)

Happy to discuss further via PM.

[superdimona]

Why would you need to track to an IFR approach point while flying VFR?

Personally I find it rather insulting that a GA student can fly in CTA with 10 hours on his first solo, yet an RAA pilot with 500 hours can't be trained to do the same thing. Obviously they can because several RAA schools have exemptions. And gliders have been legally allowed to fly in CTA since forever, with FAR less training then the proposed RAA endorsement.

And yes, I could go and get a PPL. I then go from spending ~$200 an hour to training in a new RAA aircraft (with free briefings), to ~$300 an hour in a clapped-out 20 year old 172. If I'm lucky I'll find a flight school that will recognize I can in fact fly (I've had a GA school want to start me from Straight & Level!) Then I need to pay for a medical, then finally pay for a flight test and the testing officer. All this and I'll get a license that lets me fly aircraft I never intend to again. It's like being required to get a bus license in order to drive your car down the highway.

Edit: Is there any actual evidence that modern non-TSO'd instruments are less reliable?

[VH-XXX]

Edit: Is there any actual evidence that modern non-TSO'd instruments are less reliable?

Doesn't matter does it. It is about what is legal.

Just like RAA pilots. They can fly in CTA, bit it's not legal.

[Icarus2001]

You cannot bitch and moan about not being able to go into CTA since you knew that limitation when you decided to go down the RAA route.

You make your choice and live with the consequences. You cannot then complete the training and want the rules changed.

If you want to go CTA go PPL.

What would be next...we have great panels...why can't we go in IMC with a PIFR under RAA? The aircraft are very reliable why can we only carry one passenger.

Build a bridge.