RAA training at YMMB?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make It Happen Captain hey? Captain of what??
An RAAus CTA endorsement wouldn't do a thing for me, "bumble" there all the time with an ATPL, but would advantage many others. Think about it, a SPL can go solo in CTA with a few hours experience. But there is an old thread hashed out on this subject....
An RAAus CTA endorsement wouldn't do a thing for me, "bumble" there all the time with an ATPL, but would advantage many others. Think about it, a SPL can go solo in CTA with a few hours experience. But there is an old thread hashed out on this subject....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We probably don't need to go down that path MIHC, otherwise the usual suspect will join in and it will all end badly (thread closed).
We have probably explored this enough and discussed everything that needs discussing around the original question without heading down the RA v's GA path.
We have probably explored this enough and discussed everything that needs discussing around the original question without heading down the RA v's GA path.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to play with the "big boys" (for lack of a better description), get some proper training, get a transponder and go for it.
Oddly enough, were the wings longer and the aircraft registered as a motorglider, CTA would be A-OK (legally with far less training then the planned endo) - yet we don't hear about motorglider pilots causing carnage in the skies. Funny that.
(*)Proper training, as in training relevant for safe operations of CTA in an RAA aircraft. Requiring a license for aircraft I'm not going to use is like requiring me to get a Truck license in order to legally drive a motorbike on the highway. The end result is far more expense then necessary, which is what RAA is about avoiding in the first place!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
approval may be granted to train up to but no further than the RA pilot's cert.
The wording of the exemptions is clear as mud, every school does this and has done for years, yet CASA has never cracked down on it, clarified the exemption or changed the wording.
Sounds to me like CASA agrees with the schools' interpretation of the exemption rules.
I know that doesn't fit in your picture perfect world of "a safe sky is a sky with no RA-Aus pilots in it", but them's the facts...
SW3
About twelve different ME types including over 3000 hrs of teaching pilots how to do things like find their way around and through CTA/CTR.
I'm not against RA. It has it's place for people to enjoy flying without the major expense of VH registration. But it also has it's limitations and these need to be recognised.
I have seen some very good schools an attitudes amongst RA, but have also seen the other side of the coin. What i have a problem with is the near enough is good enough appearance of some pilots and the apparent argument that it's only RA, why do we have to bother with that?
If you choose to fly with a limited licence, you either accept those limitations, or get a higher licence. CTA was considered and rejected. Must have been a reason for it.
Any aviation has the potential to kill you if you f
ck it up and I will make no apologies for wanting to see as high a standard of training and flying as possible from anyone, whether they are CPL or RA.
Sorry, XXX, was more a reference to cost than anything else.
About twelve different ME types including over 3000 hrs of teaching pilots how to do things like find their way around and through CTA/CTR.
I'm not against RA. It has it's place for people to enjoy flying without the major expense of VH registration. But it also has it's limitations and these need to be recognised.
I have seen some very good schools an attitudes amongst RA, but have also seen the other side of the coin. What i have a problem with is the near enough is good enough appearance of some pilots and the apparent argument that it's only RA, why do we have to bother with that?
If you choose to fly with a limited licence, you either accept those limitations, or get a higher licence. CTA was considered and rejected. Must have been a reason for it.
Any aviation has the potential to kill you if you f
ck it up and I will make no apologies for wanting to see as high a standard of training and flying as possible from anyone, whether they are CPL or RA.Sorry, XXX, was more a reference to cost than anything else.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIHC I respect your position and your opinion so please don't assume any pro RAA comments come from non professional pilots wanting something for nothing. I've spent a long time in the industry as well going from small to big and still fly both so my opinion isn't from a lack of understanding. Trust me, GA is not immune to less than desirable piloting techniques and professionalism.
CTA is not some mystical airspace open to a select few. It's open sky after all. Learn the procedures and operate to them meticulously (one of my pet things) and everyone will be fine. I hear no difference in skill level at times between a 'weekend warrior' GA pilot and an RAA pilot, all of us can always do a better job and no one ever gets it perfect.
As for near enough is good enough, tarring all with one brush don't you think? It's only that way of one chooses so, GA or RAA. Irrespective of type, all training must be conducted properly, otherwise don't bother. I know of an RAA instructor having to fly out and find a lost Warrior on a Nav. After landing a lack of basic Nav skills was to blame. And GA training is flawless? From a 300 hour instructor just chasing hours? In my option the standard needs lifting, industry wide.
CTA is not some mystical airspace open to a select few. It's open sky after all. Learn the procedures and operate to them meticulously (one of my pet things) and everyone will be fine. I hear no difference in skill level at times between a 'weekend warrior' GA pilot and an RAA pilot, all of us can always do a better job and no one ever gets it perfect.
As for near enough is good enough, tarring all with one brush don't you think? It's only that way of one chooses so, GA or RAA. Irrespective of type, all training must be conducted properly, otherwise don't bother. I know of an RAA instructor having to fly out and find a lost Warrior on a Nav. After landing a lack of basic Nav skills was to blame. And GA training is flawless? From a 300 hour instructor just chasing hours? In my option the standard needs lifting, industry wide.
Give RAA CTA, give them up to <5700kg, give them multi engine, instrument ratings, NVFR, aerobatic.
Where do you draw the line? They're all just planes and types of flying.
Where do you draw the line? They're all just planes and types of flying.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give RAA CTA, give them up to <5700kg, give them multi engine, instrument ratings, NVFR, aerobatic.
OK, let me help:
- Aerobatic: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
- NVFR: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
- instrument ratings: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
- multi engine: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
- 600 - 5699 kg: only in certified, VH-rego aircraft, so need PPL to fly
- CTA: already allowed in RA-Aus aircraft if the pilot has the right training.
Spot it yet?
So where do we draw the line? I don't know, but the list you created to indicate impending doom makes no sense.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVFR, IFR, Multi is over the top. CTA and aerobatics is not. Be a bit practical for crying out loud.Flying in different airspace isn't a different facet of flying, it's just airspace and procedures.
SW3
I agree with you with respect to many GA pilots needing to lift their game and the standard of some instructors (both sides of the fence). I also stated it was the perception of some RA attitudes, not all. Could give some spectacular examples, but that's not going to help anyone.
Personally, I really don't want to see the outcome from someone trying aeros in some of the RA aircraft out there. Acutally, I've seen it being done already (both in unsuitable GA and RA aircraft) and it scares the bejeezus out of me.
Baswell,
That was how it was explained to me by two separate RA CFI aquaintances.
Maybe you could supply a reference from the RA docs. Surely, (again no Nelson jokes please) they can't be that ambiguous?
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be regulating themselves.
But you believe whatever makes you happy or feeds your inferiority complex.
Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?
I agree with you with respect to many GA pilots needing to lift their game and the standard of some instructors (both sides of the fence). I also stated it was the perception of some RA attitudes, not all. Could give some spectacular examples, but that's not going to help anyone.
Personally, I really don't want to see the outcome from someone trying aeros in some of the RA aircraft out there. Acutally, I've seen it being done already (both in unsuitable GA and RA aircraft) and it scares the bejeezus out of me.
Baswell,
That was how it was explained to me by two separate RA CFI aquaintances.
Maybe you could supply a reference from the RA docs. Surely, (again no Nelson jokes please) they can't be that ambiguous?
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be regulating themselves.
list you created to indicate impending doom
Your picture perfect world of a "a safe sky is a sky with no RA-Aus pilots in it"
Your picture perfect world of a "a safe sky is a sky with no RA-Aus pilots in it"
Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?
via VH-XXX; ...Owner maintenene is only permitted for aircraft not used for hire or reward. As I stated earlier, costs may be a bit less, but certainly not zero for labour...
via djpil; ...plenty of Limited and Experimental aerobatic aeroplanes...
Methinks there would be a lot more aerobatic comp pilots if there were a cheap standardised RAA type comp machine. Certainly something is needed to boost the aero comps. Perhaps single seat only to get around the medical requirements...
.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true in this country - plenty of Limited and Experimental aerobatic aeroplanes. In other countries LSA's also.
Although I am not advocating for it, I don't see the issue with aerobatics in RA-Aus. There are plenty of aircraft designed for aerobatics that will fit in the weight category. Rans S-9 and Onex come to mind.
Maybe you could supply a reference from the RA docs. Surely, (again no Nelson jokes please) they can't be that ambiguous?
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be
Seen plenty of infractions that you would expect CASA to be interested in, but am led to believe that RAAus are supposed to be
CASA EX06/10 - Exemption - solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated at Parafield Aerodrome
Aside, can a cri-cri (cricket) be flown under RA?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scary part about that exemption is that it has an expiry date. Would hate to run a business (and earn a living) based on an exemption.
With the experience here at PF, there were not very many pure-RA pilots going through, most used it as a cheaper way to do ab-initio and build some hours.
For schools to do that without exemption, all that would need to change is for the RA-Aus ops manual to say that CTA in an RA-Aus registered aircraft is allowed on an SPL if supervised by the GA FTF.
That would be a great compromise, actually. Use the lower cost RA aircraft for GA training at class D aircraft, but no exemption would be required to do so.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ymry
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...sn5oBhwDsUzMdg
No, the wing loading of the cri-cri is too high (55kg/m2).
Correct on that the Cri-Cri can not be RAAus, Incorrect about the two engines. RAAus are allowed any number or any type of engine they like under CAO 95.10 as stated in this post, above.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct on that the Cri-Cri can not be RAAus, Incorrect about the two engines. RAAus are allowed any number or any type of engine they like under CAO 95.10 as stated in this post, above.
