RAAus head office.

[BurnieM]

Yes, group G was about 2 years too late to make a difference.

RAAus spent a lot of time doing group G paperwork/manuals and med class 5 took the main driver away from pilots.

 

Would really like to hear what RAAus are doing to drive the Controlled Airspace endorsement.

Waiting for CASA sounds hollow.

They are in the same city, drive 20 minutes to their office and talk to them, every day. Drive it.

 

Edited September 19 by BurnieM

[facthunter]

THAT was Part of the IDEA of Locating there initially.  Nev

[Spriteah]

RAAus elections - Have you voted?

Just reminder to vote. It literally takes 10 seconds.

Search your emails for "Vero Voting". Follow link and tick on two names.

 

I would like you to vote for me (Jim Tatlock) and also endorse James MacDonald.

 

Recently RAAus has had very serious criticism directed towards it from a Victorian Coroner. I believe at this stage around $500K of members money has been spent on legal fees in the last few years, this figure is likely to climb significantly.

 

If elected I will try to ensure RAAus is functioning well, risks are mitigated and try to build a better relationship with the regulators whilst holding onto our freedoms. RAAus has also been running at a deficit. When I was last on the board I help turn similar issues around, I am eager to try to contribute again to ensure RAAus remains financially stable and ethically run.

 

If you are an RAAus member please vote to have your say on the future of the organisation!

[T510]

6 hours ago, BurnieM said:

Yes, group G was about 2 years too late to make a difference.

RAAus spent a lot of time doing group G paperwork/manuals and med class 5 took the main driver away from pilots.

 

Would really like to hear what RAAus are doing to drive the Controlled Airspace endorsement.

Waiting for CASA sounds hollow.

They are in the same city, drive 20 minutes to their office and talk to them, every day. Drive it.

 

Waiting for CASA is a real thing, I have an approval request currently submitted and their current target processing time in the RPAS department is 300 business days

[BurnieM]

A group representing 10,000 pilots should be able to have a discussion with one of CASAs 800 staff at any time, particularly when they are doing work that really should be done by CASA.

 

The controlled airspace is only an issue because of Western Sydneys proposed opening in December 2026.

I estimate that the current instructors in Newcastle, Sydney metro and the Illawarra would take 2 years to train up pilots wanting this endorsement.

Yes, we already have a problem.

 

[facthunter]

You Certainly do in "that Part of the world". Nev

[skippydiesel]

56 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

A group representing 10,000 pilots should be able to have a discussion with one of CASAs 800 staff at any time, particularly when they are doing work that really should be done by CASA.

 

The controlled airspace is only an issue because of Western Sydneys proposed opening in December 2026.

I estimate that the current instructors in Newcastle, Sydney metro and the Illawarra would take 2 years to train up pilots wanting this endorsement.

Yes, we already have a problem.

 

Please expand on "The controlled airspace is only an issue because of Western Sydneys proposed opening in December 2026."

 

"I estimate that the current instructors in Newcastle, Sydney metro and the Illawarra would take 2 years to train up pilots wanting this endorsement"

 

Does this mean each pilot will tale two year to obtain a Controlled Airspace endorsement ?

OR

The number of instructors is such, that they will take two years to train all who want the endorsement?

😈

[BurnieM]

All Sydney metro airspace becomes group D (it is being described as D+) or C.

You will need to be on a VFR flight plan going north or south or anywhere in the Sydney basin or make a big detour out west.

 

I am guessing the controlled airspace endorsement will be 5? hours and

"The number of instructors is such, that they will take two years to train all who want the endorsement"

 

We are down to 14 months left if the airspace changes do not occur till December 2026. Most likely they will occur earlier.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I dint know what I have done with the Sydney Basin airspace changes, that I received however from aged /poor memory:

• Victor 1 remains as was/is
• There is a new VFR "corridor" from the vicinity of Campbelltown - Bankstown - Paramatta, connecting with the existing north/south corridors to to/from Patonga/ Brooklyn Bridge.
• There may be an "informal"  western N/S access over Warragamba Dam to/from Katoomba.

All of the above require the pilot to take increased risk ie the options for a survivable emergency landing are very much reduced.

 

Seems to me that this is not so diffrent from what we have today, in that VFR aircraft wishing to exit the Sydney basin to the West or North, are required to fly at ridiculously low levels over the city sprawl, sea or the expanse of the National Parks to the west.

 

The safe option is and remains, to exit via Mittagong area however this may lengthen your flight time by a significant amount.

 

My concern, flying out of The Oaks, is not exiting/entering the Sydney Basin but the possible increased aircraft congestion that may arise due to changes to the Bankstown/Camden training area being pushed south and shrinking. 

 

Seems to me, as a minimum safety standard for, ALL, aircraft operating within the Sydney Basin;

• The carriage of functional Transponders & two channel Transceivers, must be made mandator.
• The Oaks inbound reporting point to Camden, be relocated (south?) well away from the airfield, to reduce the existing , multiple, daily, unannounced overflying.
• All aircraft, operating below the Sydney (& future WS) CTR steps, be on the same frequency - at the moment there appears to be 5  possible combinations (Area / Camden / Bankstown / The Oaks / Wedderburn)

😈

[Thruster88]

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I dint know what I have done with the Sydney Basin airspace changes, that I received however from aged /poor memory:

• Victor 1 remains as was/is
• There is a new VFR "corridor" from the vicinity of Campbelltown - Bankstown - Paramatta, connecting with the existing north/south corridors to to/from Patonga/ Brooklyn Bridge.
• There may be an "informal"  western N/S access over Warragamba Dam to/from Katoomba.

All of the above require the pilot to take increased risk ie the options for a survivable emergency landing are very much reduced.

 

Seems to me that this is not so diffrent from what we have today, in that VFR aircraft wishing to exit the Sydney basin to the West or North, are required to fly at ridiculously low levels over the city sprawl, sea or the expanse of the National Parks to the west.

 

The safe option is and remains, to exit via Mittagong area however this may lengthen your flight time by a significant amount.

 

My concern, flying out of The Oaks, is not exiting/entering the Sydney Basin but the possible increased aircraft congestion that may arise due to changes to the Bankstown/Camden training area being pushed south and shrinking. 

 

Seems to me, as a minimum safety standard for, ALL, aircraft operating within the Sydney Basin;

• The carriage of functional Transponders & two channel Transceivers, must be made mandator.
• The Oaks inbound reporting point to Camden, be relocated (south?) well away from the airfield, to reduce the existing , multiple, daily, unannounced overflying.
• All aircraft, operating below the Sydney (& future WS) CTR steps, be on the same frequency - at the moment there appears to be 5  possible combinations (Area / Camden / Bankstown / The Oaks / Wedderburn)

😈

Agree with the adsb bit. To have all vfr octa aircraft in the Sydney basin on one frequency in the hope that those 10 or 20 or 30 aircraft will be able to arrange any kind of separation is ludicrous.   

[skippydiesel]

"To have all vfr octa aircraft in the Sydney basin on one frequency in the hope that those 10 or 20 or 30 aircraft will be able to arrange any kind of separation is ludicrous. "

 

The problem at the moment is that aircraft in close proximity often cant communicate;

• Single frequency radio that is not the same as the closing aircraft.
• Duel frequency radio,  may be listening on Area frequency, communicating on another that is diffrent to the closing aircraft.

Aircraft over The Oaks airfield can be Oaks in Circuit/Arriving Departing on CTAF 126.7 / Sydney Centre 124.55, Descending into/Climbing out from Camden on 120.1 / Sydney Centre 124.55. Seperation can  be scarily close and no ability for the aircraft to communicate. 

[skippydiesel]

I have been informed;

CASA will be visiting The Oaks, to discuss problems with aircraft transiting "our" ( below/at/just above circuit height) airspace without any radio calls.😈

[facthunter]

Sounds like a good Idea.  Nev

[KRviator]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I have been informed;

CASA will be visiting The Oaks, to discuss problems with aircraft transiting "our" ( below/at/just above circuit height) airspace without any radio calls.😈

No point visiting The Oaks - it's everyone else blasting through the circuit that's the problem... Go to Bankstown and Camden!

[Moneybox]

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I have been informed;

CASA will be visiting The Oaks, to discuss problems with aircraft transiting "our" ( below/at/just above circuit height) airspace without any radio calls.😈

Charge them a fee for using your airspace, that'll sort them out. 😅

[KRviator]

12 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

Charge them a fee for using your airspace, that'll sort them out. 😅

That was Victoria that tried that...

[coljones]

On 19/09/2025 at 1:18 PM, facthunter said:

THAT was Part of the IDEA of Locating there initially.  Nev

It appears that RAAus has a dispersed workforce

[Barrynel]

Yes and now they want to flog the flying schools with an extra fee every year to rectify the deficit from the court case 

[facthunter]

Well, it HAS to be covered somehow. The Flying schools are Not making squillions and never will.  The potential Liability is too High to Guarantee RAAus can cover it.  Nev

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Well, it HAS to be covered somehow. The Flying schools are Not making squillions and never will.  The potential Liability is too High to Guarantee RAAus can cover it.  Nev

That's what Publkic Liability Insurance is for and also

 

That's what Directors and Officers Liability is for.

 

I can't remember now, but if we go back to around 2010/12 as an Incorporated Association, it MAY be that we were indemnified under the ACT. For anyone planning to be in Recreational Aviation for a few years, it would be well worth doing the research, and it may be smart to fly back to RAA Inc.

[facthunter]

I understand they weren't, and therein lies the Problem. Professional Plots Have it in their work contracts, if they can organise it. Nev

[jackc]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That's what Publkic Liability Insurance is for and also

 

That's what Directors and Officers Liability is for.

 

I can't remember now, but if we go back to around 2010/12 as an Incorporated Association, it MAY be that we were indemnified under the ACT. For anyone planning to be in Recreational Aviation for a few years, it would be well worth doing the research, and it may be smart to fly back to RAA Inc.

RAA insurance public liability is only good for $1 million.

Some Councils  now require $20 million to use their airfields, on which you generally pay landing fees. 
So I have to ask, has anyone been asked to provide their insurance policy to gain permission to land at a council owned airstrip?

It’s a wonder Avdata are not involved in some of this, them keeping this Insurance information  on their database, so when you ask for permission to land somewhere, the Council can search your details to either approve or deny your rights to land at a particular airport?
 

[clouddancer]

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, jackc said:

RAA insurance public liability is only good for $1 million.

Some Councils  now require $20 million to use their airfields, on which you generally pay landing fees. 
So I have to ask, has anyone been asked to provide their insurance policy to gain permission to land at a council owned airstrip?

It’s a wonder Avdata are not involved in some of this, them keeping this Insurance information  on their database, so when you ask for permission to land somewhere, the Council can search your details to either approve or deny your rights to land at a particular airport?
 

It never  ceases to amaze me how many people just think they're covered by the RAA policy, and don't go any further in taking action to protect themselves.

 

It probably covers a medium injury to one person, but as of a few years ago, for a Quadriplegic the cost was about $13 million, and if you collided with multiple people the injuries and their legal fees would push a claim into the multi-millions. I'd suggest the C.ouncils are closer to the mark, and they have to pay out on footpath cracks, Swimming pools, water slides etc.

 

I've never seen a discussion on here actually outlining what RAA Ltd actually give the members other that this specific token $1 million.

 

The information Clouddancer provided indicates RAA are covered for $20 million, but is that just for the Company? (Usually lawyers just claim on everyone involved - you, the land owner/local council, RAA etc.)

 

It would be interesting to compare what the members are covered for now vs what they were covered for in RAA Inc by the requirements of the Incorporated Associations Act, ACT.

 

A bulk deal for 10,000 members vs 1 member is tiny because there are 10,000 people paying and maybe one or two having to pay out for liability every five years.

 

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

It never  ceases to amaze me how many people just think they're covered by the RAA policy, and don't go any further in taking action to protect themselves.

 

It probably covers a medium injury to one person, but as of a few years ago, for a Quadriplegic the cost was about $13 million, and if you collided with multiple people the injuries and their legal fees would push a claim into the multi-millions. I'd suggest the C.ouncils are closer to the mark, and they have to pay out on footpath cracks, Swimming pools, water slides etc.

 

I've never seen a discussion on here actually outlining what RAA Ltd actually give the members other that this specific token $1 million.

 

The information Clouddancer provided indicates RAA are covered for $20 million, but is that just for the Company? (Usually lawyers just claim on everyone involved - you, the land owner/local council, RAA etc.)

 

It would be interesting to compare what the members are covered for now vs what they were covered for in RAA Inc by the requirements of the Incorporated Associations Act, ACT.

 

A bulk deal for 10,000 members vs 1 member is tiny because there are 10,000 people paying and maybe one or two having to pay out for liability every five years.

 

It's not just raa. We members have the 20 mil p/l. I have asked the raa broker and he confirmed it.

The passenger limit is not enough but the passenger is flying at their own risk. That's why we have fly at own risk decals on the panel.