RAA Increased Height, Weight and Water
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Geelong
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAA Increased Height, Weight and Water
Im curious as to what others think about CASA allowing RAA pilots and aircraft to 9999ft, increase weight if aircraft is compatible to 600kg and allowing water crossings including to Tassie.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What do I think.......more Oxygen use 
as I plan FL110/120/130/140/150/160 as required.
Many of the RAA folk have been flying up to 10K anyway, and only some of them flying the correct levels, listening to the appropriate frequency, and understanding what they are hearing. Not to mention flying over under and around cloud
Personally I think they should be requiring all members to undergo some training just like they did for Human Factors in order to keep their flying privileges, or provided they are ATPL, CPL or PPL with current BFR or Instrument renewals so it can be demonstrated they have understanding of the current rules and how to operate.
Otherwise its just a mate saying....go for it and not knowing what they should be doing.
And before some of you arc up saying thats unfair, thats snobbery or based on anecdotal hearsay..........think again, its based on a lot of experience operating around some of the most densely populated RAA skies in the country.
BTW......the most appropriate frequency is????? 123.45 or 126.7
J
............now this should be a cracker of a thread.
as I plan FL110/120/130/140/150/160 as required.Many of the RAA folk have been flying up to 10K anyway, and only some of them flying the correct levels, listening to the appropriate frequency, and understanding what they are hearing. Not to mention flying over under and around cloud
Personally I think they should be requiring all members to undergo some training just like they did for Human Factors in order to keep their flying privileges, or provided they are ATPL, CPL or PPL with current BFR or Instrument renewals so it can be demonstrated they have understanding of the current rules and how to operate.
Otherwise its just a mate saying....go for it and not knowing what they should be doing.
And before some of you arc up saying thats unfair, thats snobbery or based on anecdotal hearsay..........think again, its based on a lot of experience operating around some of the most densely populated RAA skies in the country.
BTW......the most appropriate frequency is????? 123.45 or 126.7
J
............now this should be a cracker of a thread.
Flight above 5000ft has (in many cases) been more honoured in the breach than the observance but with proper training I see no great difficulties. The necessary procedures, hemispheric cruising-levels, radio frequencies and monitoring, meterological considerations and navigational aspects (buffer from controlled airspace etc) should be incorporated into nav training, if not already included. If flight above 5000 feet enhances safety by reducing forced landings in inhospitable country then it is a useful gain. I have spent some time at FL140 without supplemental oxygen during my skydiving career and would not anticipate a need to exceed FL100 in the types of flying one could reasonably expect RA-Aus aircraft to do. Those wishing to exceed FL100 should carry supplemental oxygen and be trained to use it.
As far as the 600Kg MTOW weight increase, this allows a number of aircraft to now carry enough fuel to perform nav training with some of the heavier individuals who are coming to RA-Aus, possibly due to loss of medical for GA, possibly because they simply didn't fit into 152-sized training aircraft. It means an aircraft which can be certified for MTOW of 600Kg instead of 544Kg can use this increase for additional fuel so navs of reasonable duration and complexity to fully develop navigational skills and exercise the student over a suitable period of time can be achieved instead of shorter flights with frequent stops for refuelling. However, this may require a number of 544Kg MTOW aircraft to be re-certified at the increased weight, and the manufacturers may not wish to go to the expense involved in re-certification.
As far as over-water flight is concerned, it is encumbent on the pilot and crew to equip themselves appropriately for such flights, including the use of personal floatation devices and personal locator beacons operating on the 406Mhz GMDSS frequency, registered with AMSA. This applies equally to GA as well as RA-Aus aircraft. Provided the aircraft is suitable in terms of endurance and performance, and the pilot(s) are equipped with the necessary survival equipment, then flights such as Bass Strait crossings should be undertaken with a reasonable expectation of a successful outcome. However, for pilots wishing to undertake such flights, a course in basic survival-at-sea might be money well-invested. I underwent this training (and subsequent refresher training) during my time in the merchant marine but I would say I am now un-current in this and if I were to undertake such a flight I'd certainly seek some re-training in this area.
In summary, with poper training and equipment as required, all three situations should not result in any degradation of existing safety standards, and may reduce the frequency of incidents leading to an increase in safety for RA-Aus aircraft. In addition, the increase in pilot skills and knowledge will see RA-Aus pilots better-equipped for the challenges which these recent concessions will present. RA-Aus has a significant number of aircraft already well-able to fly to these new limits, it is a case of bringing the pilots up to standard.
As far as the 600Kg MTOW weight increase, this allows a number of aircraft to now carry enough fuel to perform nav training with some of the heavier individuals who are coming to RA-Aus, possibly due to loss of medical for GA, possibly because they simply didn't fit into 152-sized training aircraft. It means an aircraft which can be certified for MTOW of 600Kg instead of 544Kg can use this increase for additional fuel so navs of reasonable duration and complexity to fully develop navigational skills and exercise the student over a suitable period of time can be achieved instead of shorter flights with frequent stops for refuelling. However, this may require a number of 544Kg MTOW aircraft to be re-certified at the increased weight, and the manufacturers may not wish to go to the expense involved in re-certification.
As far as over-water flight is concerned, it is encumbent on the pilot and crew to equip themselves appropriately for such flights, including the use of personal floatation devices and personal locator beacons operating on the 406Mhz GMDSS frequency, registered with AMSA. This applies equally to GA as well as RA-Aus aircraft. Provided the aircraft is suitable in terms of endurance and performance, and the pilot(s) are equipped with the necessary survival equipment, then flights such as Bass Strait crossings should be undertaken with a reasonable expectation of a successful outcome. However, for pilots wishing to undertake such flights, a course in basic survival-at-sea might be money well-invested. I underwent this training (and subsequent refresher training) during my time in the merchant marine but I would say I am now un-current in this and if I were to undertake such a flight I'd certainly seek some re-training in this area.
In summary, with poper training and equipment as required, all three situations should not result in any degradation of existing safety standards, and may reduce the frequency of incidents leading to an increase in safety for RA-Aus aircraft. In addition, the increase in pilot skills and knowledge will see RA-Aus pilots better-equipped for the challenges which these recent concessions will present. RA-Aus has a significant number of aircraft already well-able to fly to these new limits, it is a case of bringing the pilots up to standard.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Agreed Criticalmass......But the key is some mandatory training for those who have never had any. Just like the Human Factors training, which was a good thing.
With the training I think its a good thing. Without, which is how it is written now by CASA it will be hot and miss.
Hey Ulralights, ya wanna beer with that popcorn mate?
With the training I think its a good thing. Without, which is how it is written now by CASA it will be hot and miss.
Hey Ulralights, ya wanna beer with that popcorn mate?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the right knowledge and equipment there really shouldn't be any problems with it.
As long as people know and aknowledge personal limits though. I know when I eventually get my certificate later this year or early next year I won't be rushing to cruise on up to 9999ft or to cross over bass strait either.
As long as people know and aknowledge personal limits though. I know when I eventually get my certificate later this year or early next year I won't be rushing to cruise on up to 9999ft or to cross over bass strait either.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They are letting them fly to 10,000? I have enough problems finding them in the circuit!
'Hood Ornaments', coming soon to a windscreen near you...
'Hood Ornaments', coming soon to a windscreen near you...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as they are using appropriately maintained Mode-C Transponders in Class E airspace I wouldn't see an issue with it. Class G is a free-for-all anyway at the moment so keep your eyes open fully when in 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
As long as they are using appropriately maintained Mode-C Transponders in
so keep your eyes open fully
Perhaps instead of another gloom and doom thread, we can reasonably estimate there will be no 95:10 aircraft at those nose bleeding altitudes. The aircraft most likely to be seen are those with a reasonably high performance but perhaps with a low wing loading that makes flying above the convection layer attractive. Something rather about the optical size of a C150, has a wireless of some kind, and flown by someone without suicidal tendencies.
As that pilot will be, by law, flying VFR, persons flying IFR in that VFR really should look out the window every now and then to preserve the notion of practicing good airmanship.
As those people would reasonably expect NO VFR aircraft to be flying in cloud, it's not much to ask really. Or is it?
Anyone who has a cross country endorsement has a knowledge of hemispherical levels. Anyone with a RAA certificate has undergone a Human Factors exam. Anyone who has a transponder will have it turned on as is the law. Anyone who has a radio will, as is also the law, be licensed and competent to use it. And anyone capable of reading his now common gadget (a GPS), will have some degree of knowing where he is.
The alternate to all this is that everyone with a RAA certificate is a moron and only GA PPL's have a valid reason to be flying in that airspace. Oh, and the RPT God's and Princesses.
As for flying over water, well if the above paragraph rings true to you, there is a good chance they will drown themselves thus ridding you of the worry of bumping into them.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's great, it allows me to climb above the Stupid Pilot Tricks performing PPLs. Can't hear them coming into the CTAF anyway with their crackly 40 year old "certified" radios broadcasting on the the area frequency.
Nothing like flying over the hills and all of a sudden seeing an idiot doing aerobatics where you least expect them, no way they can keep an eye out for you.
I hope we finally get CTA access soon too so we can get even further away from the untrained masses!
Ahhh.... nothing like yet another thread of the pot calling the kettle black, though the pot will never admit that's what he's doing. The pot is certain his peers all act as perfect as He does.
Nothing like flying over the hills and all of a sudden seeing an idiot doing aerobatics where you least expect them, no way they can keep an eye out for you.
I hope we finally get CTA access soon too so we can get even further away from the untrained masses!
Ahhh.... nothing like yet another thread of the pot calling the kettle black, though the pot will never admit that's what he's doing. The pot is certain his peers all act as perfect as He does.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest pushing of the "over water" part has been from the President and he lives in Tasmania, so join the dots there 
but hey, no reason why RAA can't go over water and GA can really.
One thing which these changes do fix is that RAA can now legally fly to King Island as previously they couldn't do it legally which presented a problem for those on the island with RAA aircraft! Progress has been made there.
but hey, no reason why RAA can't go over water and GA can really. One thing which these changes do fix is that RAA can now legally fly to King Island as previously they couldn't do it legally which presented a problem for those on the island with RAA aircraft! Progress has been made there.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank
A bit of imagination going on here 
, but to be frank in Class G that is better than being blind. Now stick to the facts would ya!
Yep, provided they are following the LAWS of VFR which I have seen countless numbers of them not. - So Training ought to be mandatory.
Nope......provided they do stick to the VFR rules, and that means clearance FROM cloud.
Yep, but tell me in the RAA Syllabus for all the presently certificated pilots (and they go back a long way), how much training of transponders is there? How much training on appropriate frequency is there? The fact you mention anyone who has a current certificate has done human factors course and passed the exam, says to me the same should be required for those new privilleges.
Frank insolent attitudes like that do nobody any good, and really I know you were just trying to be funny and you do not really mean it.
Unlike the CTA campaign, which I strongly oppose, for the RAA's own good, this bunch of privilleges is really a good thing. However, with increased freedoms comes increased responsibility, and to be honest the same kind of mandatory requirement for a two day training course and exam just like the HF course, would be very beneficial.
Now Frank and anyone else who is brave enough to pick up the last RAA magazine, can I ask you to read about the story of the delighful old chap travelling into Victoria, across the Bass Straits, back up the coast of Vic/NSWQld. Read that and tell me how well this chap knows the rules?
More the point I happen to be privy to a whole lot more of his story, and thank the aviation Gods he did not print that. For that matter read the last 12 months worth.
So lets stop having biased shots, and lets start seriously tackling the problem, and Frank & Leadsled both could use common sense here and apply pressure to their RAA mates to introduce a requirement for training courses to be completed by the next BFR. You know you have the contacts, its just doing the right thing by your mates.
Unfortunately you and Leadie and the RAA management probably all have a PPL or mostly higher and do not often realise the average punter member does not know what he does not know.
This is not an Anti-RAA sentiment folks, its proactive constructive criticism.
J
It wasn't so long ago people on this forum were advocating NON TSO'd ADSB.
, but to be frank in Class G that is better than being blind. Now stick to the facts would ya!
As that pilot will be, by law, flying VFR, persons flying IFR in that VFR really should look out the window every now and then to preserve the notion of practicing good airmanship.
As those people would reasonably expect NO VFR aircraft to be flying in cloud, it's not much to ask really. Or is it?
Anyone who has a cross country endorsement has a knowledge of hemispherical levels. Anyone with a RAA certificate has undergone a Human Factors exam. Anyone who has a transponder will have it turned on as is the law. Anyone who has a radio will, as is also the law, be licensed and competent to use it. And anyone capable of reading his now common gadget (a GPS), will have some degree of knowing where he is.
The alternate to all this is that everyone with a RAA certificate is a moron and only GA PPL's have a valid reason to be flying in that airspace. Oh, and the RPT God's and Princesses.
As for flying over water, well if the above paragraph rings true to you, there is a good chance they will drown themselves thus ridding you of the worry of bumping into them.
As for flying over water, well if the above paragraph rings true to you, there is a good chance they will drown themselves thus ridding you of the worry of bumping into them.
insolent attitudes like that do nobody any good, and really I know you were just trying to be funny and you do not really mean it. Unlike the CTA campaign, which I strongly oppose, for the RAA's own good, this bunch of privilleges is really a good thing. However, with increased freedoms comes increased responsibility, and to be honest the same kind of mandatory requirement for a two day training course and exam just like the HF course, would be very beneficial.
Now Frank and anyone else who is brave enough to pick up the last RAA magazine, can I ask you to read about the story of the delighful old chap travelling into Victoria, across the Bass Straits, back up the coast of Vic/NSWQld. Read that and tell me how well this chap knows the rules?
More the point I happen to be privy to a whole lot more of his story, and thank the aviation Gods he did not print that
. For that matter read the last 12 months worth.So lets stop having biased shots, and lets start seriously tackling the problem, and Frank & Leadsled both could use common sense here and apply pressure to their RAA mates to introduce a requirement for training courses to be completed by the next BFR. You know you have the contacts, its just doing the right thing by your mates.
Unfortunately you and Leadie and the RAA management probably all have a PPL or mostly higher and do not often realise the average punter member does not know what he does not know.
This is not an Anti-RAA sentiment folks, its proactive constructive criticism.
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
the HF course
But seriously, the mindset to attack is the perceived "freedoms" of RAA that need to be ameliorated with that special aviators need called airmanship. This tempered with some recency of both technology and operational needs which is usually a requirement to demonstrate at the BFR. Be this as it may, you can't regulate or educate against idiots and we have lots of them in all the aviation spectrum.
I hope this also addresses Sunfish' post.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Sunny-Jim, RA-Aus also has the requirement for flight reviews every 2 years. Your GA AFR will cover you for high-performance RA-Aus renewals usually.
I don't think Transponder use as such and adherence to VFR levels is beyond the education level of an RA-Aus pilot, however they (as the operator of the aircraft) do need to know that it must comply with the regs and be calibrated every 2 years. Last thing anyone wants is an auto-avoidance from an airbus up top because someone didn't bother getting their transponder checked out. That one certainly got the attention of the pen-pushers in the CASA head office!
I don't think Transponder use as such and adherence to VFR levels is beyond the education level of an RA-Aus pilot, however they (as the operator of the aircraft) do need to know that it must comply with the regs and be calibrated every 2 years. Last thing anyone wants is an auto-avoidance from an airbus up top because someone didn't bother getting their transponder checked out. That one certainly got the attention of the pen-pushers in the CASA head office!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mandatory requirement for a two day training course and exam just like the HF course, would be very beneficial.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last thing anyone wants is an auto-avoidance from an airbus up top because someone didn't bother getting their transponder checked out.
Regardless, this is not a small amount of creep; such an event is a major malfunction that can happen a day after it's been signed off.
At the same time, if I fly today and ATC reports no issues. But if the 2 years expires tomorrow and I can't get it done in time*, leaving it off, as the law says you should, would be counter productive to safety.
* yes, you should have planned ahead, that is not the point.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bas
You and I and many of us here may be right up to speed on Airspace rules, Nav skills, radio do's and don'ts, but I can assure you there are many out there who desperately need the two day option.
FFS if they needed the two day HF course..........maybe this one needs to be a week.
If you do not believe me, come up here for a few days, I'll shout your airfare and in exchange for a lifetime subscription to your work when you see the light you take up the challenge to get the RAA to do the training.
Don't worry about Franks part of the world, I can show you more traffic in a day than Frank will see all year.
Its not rocket science beyond 97% of them, it just needs to be taught, and presently its not exactly across the fleet so to speak. The other 3% well as frank points out there is no hope for them anyway. Part of lifes mysteries.
Now have you read that article yet? Huh??
You and I and many of us here may be right up to speed on Airspace rules, Nav skills, radio do's and don'ts, but I can assure you there are many out there who desperately need the two day option.
FFS if they needed the two day HF course..........maybe this one needs to be a week.
If you do not believe me, come up here for a few days, I'll shout your airfare and in exchange for a lifetime subscription to your work
when you see the light you take up the challenge to get the RAA to do the training.Don't worry about Franks part of the world, I can show you more traffic in a day than Frank will see all year.
Its not rocket science beyond 97% of them, it just needs to be taught, and presently its not exactly across the fleet so to speak. The other 3% well as frank points out there is no hope for them anyway. Part of lifes mysteries.
Now have you read that article yet? Huh??