CASA will expand access to controlled airspace for sport and recreation pilots from 2025.

[turboplanner]

Something which might affect the finanical viability of CFA for some people is the currency requirement for three take offs and landings every 90 days.

[turboplanner]

.....which has to be entered in your log book.......

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

An instructor performing training duties relating to a CASR Part 61 must do so in a VH registered aeroplane and hold the appropriate GA quals. The same instructor cannot perform that training in an RAAus registered aeroplane as his GA quals do not allow them to do so. If the same instructor also held RAAus quals they could only deliver the training specified in the RAAus operations manual in an RAAus registered aeroplane. 
I happen to hold both GA and RAAus instructor ratings and assure you this is the case. 

I accept your word that this is in fact the regulations / bureaucratic nonsense (aircraft registration determines flight training)  BUT what are the reasons, if any, behind such an  illogical ruling.

 

I would like to revive my PPL currency (lapsed about 2 years ago).

My strong preference (economic/familiarity) would be to the flight review in my own (RAA registered) aircraft.

My Sonex has the potential to be GA registered and is compliant with entry to Controlled Airspace, having the necessary, recently checked, communication devises.

What practical reasons can their be for not using my own aircraft,  other than some bureaucratic "territory" (RAA v GA) ruling???? 😈

[skippydiesel]

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Something which might affect the finanical viability of CFA for some people is the currency requirement for three take offs and landings every 90 days.

Hi Turbs,

 

No idea what topic /point you are addressing here.

How about you use your well known legal interest,  to address the question of landing fees not being advertised.😈

 

[BurnieM]

A lot of the CASA / RAAus diferences were deliberately put in place mainly to make it easier on the RAAus side (with limitations). All of this was known at the time.

Now circumstances have changed and  people want other options.

 

A class 5 medical is straight forward.

 

You could move your registration to CASA experimental and then should have no problems getting your flight review done in your own plane. I do not know how much work this would be or how much it would cost but perhaps you could find out for us.

 

You would probably also need the SAAA course ($800-ish) to do maint.

 

All of these things are work arounds to harder options at time and money costs.

 

Lets not forget that there are still some people saying there should be no work arounds at all.

 

Edited Saturday at 12:36 AM by BurnieM

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Turbs,

 

No idea what topic /point you are addressing here.

How about you use your well known legal interest,  to address the question of landing fees not being advertised.😈

 

I'm addressing CTA and Currency for CTA.

I wouldn't write it of just because you don't know. Operations in CTA require you to maintain accurate tracks and identify specific ground markers and enter at specific places and make specificate calls, and understand what all the Airservices instructions (which are usually short and clipped assuming you're up to date etc.) so you need to be ahead of the aircraft without  being distracted by the equipment/controls etc. 

[facthunter]

And to thoroughly Know and comprehend Radio FAIL procedures, holding patterns and  standard rate descents.  Know your endurance at any time . ETA's must be within 2 Minutes. etc  It's more disciplined than what you will Have been used to..  Nev

[skippydiesel]

On 29/05/2026 at 11:06 PM, Roundsounds said:

An instructor performing training duties relating to a CASR Part 61 must do so in a VH registered aeroplane and hold the appropriate GA quals. The same instructor cannot perform that training in an RAAus registered aeroplane as his GA quals do not allow them to do so. If the same instructor also held RAAus quals they could only deliver the training specified in the RAAus operations manual in an RAAus registered aeroplane. 
I happen to hold both GA and RAAus instructor ratings and assure you this is the case. 

I tips- me- lid to you and others who advised on this ruling.

 

I have corresponded with CASA on this topic. They confirm your advice. In short;

 

According to the legislation/rule book:

• RAA aircraft are not aircraft, therefor can not be used for GA training.

Clearly this is total unadulterated bureaucratic rubbish - I asked for practical reason for this rule - CASA just repeated their reference to Part 61.

 

I wonder how this effects pilots who train in their own GA aircraft, transfer that aircraft & themselves, to RAA and then seek refresher training in the same aircraft , eg  to remain up to speed on their entry to CTA knowledge /skills (not currently available in RAA)??

Presumably they must hire a GA aircraft for the training (as I will have to do)

 

I also wonder how GA endorsements, can so readily be transferred /accepted by RAA, who don't actually oversee aircraft??

 

The whole thing is a Yes Minister tragedy of conflicting rules/regulations.😈

Edited 14 hours ago by skippydiesel

[BurnieM]

Yep you would need to do a PPL flight review in a CASA registered plane every 2 years to be allowed to traverse CTA in your RAAus registered plane.

 

On the plus side if you have a CASA flight review then RAAus will simply extend your BFR date without requiring a RAAus flight review.

 

As well as RAAus registered Bristells Learn2Fly Canberra also have a CASA registered Bristell.

Perhaps this is an option ?

 

Edited 12 hours ago by BurnieM

[walrus]

Skippydiesel: "

 

The whole thing is a Yes Minister tragedy of conflicting rules/regulations.😈

 

.....and it's taken you how long to discover this?

 

CASA has no intention of allowing RAA aircraft into GA airspace beyond a token one or two people who have the excessive amounts of  time and money that will be required.

 

And to Turboplanner and facthunter who seem to wish to portray  CTA operations as requiring the superhuman skills of a professional priesthood, I say BS.

 

Every new pilot at Moorabbin learns the lingo and YMMB and Melbourne area procedures very quickly - and that is for a "complicated" airport and airspace.  Our brethren in the US and UK seem to have no trouble either.

[facthunter]

That's a BS shot at Me walrus. It's impossible to now what you don't know by definition . When you've done it come back and we will talk about it. Turbo and I have different approaches to this game About 80% of my total Flying is was in CTA.. Nev

[clouddancer]

“CASA has no intention of allowing RAA aircraft into GA airspace beyond a token one or two people who have the excessive amounts of  time and money that will berequired”.

 

Actually, it won’t be CASA who are placing restrictions on access to CTA, rather it might be  Airservices Australia.

 

However, legally if the pilot and aircraft are compliant, no one can restrict access.

[skippydiesel]

I have my PPL - whats pissing me off is that I have 200 hrs plus, in my Sonex (RAA)  but wont be able to do my BFR in it, to stay current.

 

Adding to my frustration,  no one can give me anything but a Yes Minster style bureaucratic clap trap (Part 61) reason why not.

 

The only reason I wanted to keep my PPL current, is the changes to the Sydney Basin airspace - making the VFR lanes of entry/exit to the north, only accessible  for current CTR endorsed pilots to use.

 

Of course I can go to my local GA flying school, hire the cheapest GA aircraft  ($400/hr?) + instructor, do a few familiarisation flights (x hrs?) and do my BFR and medical - Jesus! how many dollars for so little real gaine?

OR

Be patient, wait for RAA to get its instructors up to CTA speed and revive my skills with them.- Will this happen in my lifetime??

OR

Forget the whole matter. Use the Tiger Country rout (via Lithgow) to the north.

 

😈

 

[BurnieM]

If you do a CASA AFR then your CTA access is current now.

When RAAus gets its act together most likely they which accept your CASA review and just give you RPC CTA.

 

 Victor 1 500 feet over the sea is another option.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by BurnieM

[walrus]

facthunter , I flew out of YMMB  in GA for ten years, CTA isn't hard, you just have to learn it like everything else.  Watch a few videos of light sport aircraft in the UK and USA - you can fly your homebuilt experimental - the exact same aircraft as available here, right around the Statue of Liberty!  - and that is without special training, $10,000 certified GPS, etc. UK videos show LSA aircraft navigating multiple CTA's just to get from one grass field to the next.

 

......and we have to crawl around like frightened mice...

[facthunter]

Yeah Moorabbin is a complex Place but you are in and out.. It's not like flying  where VFR cannot . Flying at 480Kts, if you are getting lost you are getting Lost Fast.  I flew in and out of Bankston for ages. Almost the same deal. VFR in simple Planes. Flying into Mascot from there requires a clearance and slot before takeoff, and if you stuff it up and send a Jumbo around you will be may be up for quite a  few dollars and Make the headlines and DO your Licence..Nev

[rodgerc]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

According to the legislation/rule book:

• RAA aircraft are not aircraft, therefor can not be used for GA training.

Ironically, there are precedents for “aircraft” that are not “aircraft”….

When the Shuttle passes the Karman Line, it ceases to be an “aircraft” and morphs into a “spacecraft”. 
 

Likewise, when a seaplane touches down on water it morphs into a “vessel”.

 

So maybe there’s an argument that an RA-Aus registered flying machine is actually an “enjoymentcraft”….which exponentially increases the likelihood that it will be taxed. 
 

 

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, BurnieM said:

If you do a CASA AFR then your CTA access is current now.

When RAAus gets its act together most likely they which accept your CASA review and just give you RPC CTA.

 

 Victor 1 500 feet over the sea is another option.

 

All True!

"If you do a CASA AFR then your CTA access is current now." 

BUT is the effort & cost now, for the occasional use, realy worth it starting to think not.

 

"Victor 1 500 feet over the sea is another option."

A bit of a toss up as to which rout ;

• Victor 1  with little time or options for a forced landing/ditching. V1 will get you to the Hunter (Southish) for a coffee at Cessnock or one of the other airfields.
• The Oaks - Lithgow over a  high, significant area of Tiger Country (but the option to go to 7500 ft)  will get you out to the West & North West
• If want to to go to the N Hunter or North to Armidale - more Tiger Country but still at much higher (safet?) altitudes.

I have flown Victor 1 many times in my Zephyr, terrific gliding range. My Sonex not so good. V1 a much more challenging rout in the Sonex - a heart stopper yet to be achieved.

 

I don't think Cessnock will be receiving too many RAA aircraft from Sydney, after the Lanes Entry/Exit go CTA and visa versa.

😈

 

[440032]

RAAus thingummyjigs are indeed aircraft:

 

Civil Aviation Act

3 Interpretation: 

aircraft means any machine or craft that can derive support in the
atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of
the air against the earth’s surface.

 

[skippydiesel]

38 minutes ago, rodgerc said:

Ironically, there are precedents for “aircraft” that are not “aircraft”….

When the Shuttle passes the Karman Line, it ceases to be an “aircraft” and morphs into a “spacecraft”. 
 

Likewise, when a seaplane touches down on water it morphs into a “vessel”.

 

So maybe there’s an argument that an RA-Aus registered flying machine is actually an “enjoymentcraft”….which exponentially increases the likelihood that it will be taxed. 
 

 

You make a string point - Not entirely analogous, to a small land plane with a particular registration number, subject to all the same physical conditions, as the same model of aircraft, with a diffrent registration.  The former apparently not an aircraft , the latter apparently is an aircraft. Crazy!!!

 

"....morphs into a “spacecraft........a “vessel”

 I would suggest the morphing/transition, is about  a change in the physical environment that the craft must operate in. The change in environment brings diffrent handling  & safety challenges.

 

😈