Part 61.500 (2) RA-Aus CTA approval?
Thread Starter
Part 61.500 (2) RA-Aus CTA approval?
Apologies if this question has already been answered in these wonderful forums, but 61.500(2) reads as if the RA-Aus has the ability to approve RA-Aus certified pilots to fly into controlled airspace.
Here it is
61.500 Grant of endorsement in recognition of other qualifications…
(2) An applicant for a controlled aerodrome endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if:...
(b) the applicant holds an approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation to pilot an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome...
My brain's defence mechanism is currently rejecting thequagmire beautifully crafted clauses of Part 61 and requires immunosuppressive advice.
If anyone can shed some light on this clause and perhaps the rest of 61.500 it would be most helpful.
Here it is
61.500 Grant of endorsement in recognition of other qualifications…
(2) An applicant for a controlled aerodrome endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if:...
(b) the applicant holds an approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation to pilot an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome...
My brain's defence mechanism is currently rejecting the
If anyone can shed some light on this clause and perhaps the rest of 61.500 it would be most helpful.
Unless I am mistaken, that sounds like the exemption for students training in Class D such as Moorabbin in an RA-Aus aircraft. My understanding is that it's for training only and only the approved schools operating there. The other point from memory is that you have to train with them to use it. You can't hire off the street with your existing certificate and get "endorsed."
Thread Starter
Unless I am mistaken, that sounds like the exemption for students training in Class D such as Moorabbin in an RA-Aus aircraft. My understanding is that it's for training only and only the approved schools operating there. The other point from memory is that you have to train with them to use it. You can't hire off the street with your existing certificate and get "endorsed."
I thought the LSA aeroplanes operating out of Moorabbin were VH registered and so the trainees are operating under the VH rules and will be issued with RPLs and PPLs??
Thread Starter
Unless I am mistaken, that sounds like the exemption for students training in Class D such as Moorabbin in an RA-Aus aircraft. My understanding is that it's for training only and only the approved schools operating there. The other point from memory is that you have to train with them to use it. You can't hire off the street with your existing certificate and get "endorsed."
In the previous millennium there was talk about getting rid of CAOs. So how come they are now writing new CAOs? CAO95.55 was dated January 2018. At this rate we're increasing the CAOs, not getting rid of them.
This is the greatest conjob going. Glider pilots operating on the basis of a certificate issued by the GFA and permitted to operate in controlled airspace and they are only required to self certify their medical. No GA PPL/CPL, Flight review or medical required. These glider operations can be seen on a daily basis in Class D at Camden. An RAAus pilot is required to jump through many more hoops (irrespective of whether they may have held a GA licence) while the tower is open. The minute the tower closes the RAAus restrictions are removed. Private Balloon operations are treated in the same manner as glider ops.
incidently, the GFA airspace endorsement isn’t class specific. You could be trained at Camden, jump in your motor glider and blast off into any controlled airspace in Australia. I don’t see too many incidents reported, so it obviously works. I cannot understand why RAAus pilots are being subjected to these overly restrictive conditions.
I am fed up dealing with CASA and want to fly my simple RAAus registered warbird but am expected to maintain a CASA medical and GA flight review to operate from places like Bankstown, Camden, Albury etc.
incidently, the GFA airspace endorsement isn’t class specific. You could be trained at Camden, jump in your motor glider and blast off into any controlled airspace in Australia. I don’t see too many incidents reported, so it obviously works. I cannot understand why RAAus pilots are being subjected to these overly restrictive conditions.
I am fed up dealing with CASA and want to fly my simple RAAus registered warbird but am expected to maintain a CASA medical and GA flight review to operate from places like Bankstown, Camden, Albury etc.
This is the greatest conjob going.
I cannot understand why RAAus pilots are being subjected to these overly restrictive conditions.
I am fed up dealing with CASA and want to fly my simple RAAus registered warbird but am expected to maintain a CASA medical and GA flight review to operate from places like Bankstown, Camden, Albury etc.
I cannot understand why RAAus pilots are being subjected to these overly restrictive conditions.
I am fed up dealing with CASA and want to fly my simple RAAus registered warbird but am expected to maintain a CASA medical and GA flight review to operate from places like Bankstown, Camden, Albury etc.
Yours is not to understand, yours is to comply!!
I am surprised "attempted understanding" is not a Strict Liability Criminal Offense, 50 penalty points.
There is an explanation ---- once CASA (or its predecessors) have a "power", mere logic or commonsense is not going to change it, or that it is completely unjustified and has no risk management (safety) support, no bureaucracy will relinquish power, once obtained, except in the face of overwhelming force.
With CASA waving the "safety" flag, that goes double, as we have just seen, the current Minister turned to quivering jelly once bureaucratic recommendations that changes to S9A of the Act was a "safety" issue.
GFA etc. have never had an airspace restriction, so CASA (or its predecessors) never had the opportunity to refuse a "relaxation of the restriction", only because there was no "original restriction" (a bit like original sin).
The "negotiations" with CASA for a (now) RAOz CTL qualification have been going on since at least 1996 --- brought to you by the CASA "Iron Ring".
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
Just to add to #6, there is a further serious inhibition to CASA (or any other department/authority/public servant) ever agreeing to any change.
If you always say no, you are fireproof. The status quo remains.
If you say yes, you have made that incredibly dangerous thing (for a public servant) ---- a decision.
Now, in broad terms, a decision can be right or wrong.
If it is right, you will get little or no credit, so what is the point of saying yes.
If it is "wrong" (and anything post the decision that can be linked to adversely to the decision will be) you will wear the consequences, including any possible personal or career liability.
So, NO!! is always the safe institutional or individual answer.
Over the years, from the days of DCA, through DoT, CAA to CASA, there have been some quite amazing examples of this principle at work, the interests of Australia or the aviation sector don't come into it, as we have just seen with the dumping of any moves to amend S9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Just to add to #6, there is a further serious inhibition to CASA (or any other department/authority/public servant) ever agreeing to any change.
If you always say no, you are fireproof. The status quo remains.
If you say yes, you have made that incredibly dangerous thing (for a public servant) ---- a decision.
Now, in broad terms, a decision can be right or wrong.
If it is right, you will get little or no credit, so what is the point of saying yes.
If it is "wrong" (and anything post the decision that can be linked to adversely to the decision will be) you will wear the consequences, including any possible personal or career liability.
So, NO!! is always the safe institutional or individual answer.
Over the years, from the days of DCA, through DoT, CAA to CASA, there have been some quite amazing examples of this principle at work, the interests of Australia or the aviation sector don't come into it, as we have just seen with the dumping of any moves to amend S9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
