Jump to content

clouddancer

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by clouddancer

  1. clouddancer
    I’m hoping that RAAUS will automatically transfer PPL or above licenced pilots that fly RAAUS with the CTA qualification on our certificate. Automatically, no, but if you supply a copy of current CASA licence which permits access to CTA, with required Class 5 medical, and copy of your last AFR, probably.
  2. clouddancer
    Rotax recently published a Service Advisory about appropriate fluids for use in their engines, so I don’t really think this is inappropriate by RAAus. They have been tightening up on many areas of servicing, including an SB on lock wire use. The world is a very different place from the “good old days” of using non-specified fluids in engines.
  3. clouddancer
    No Skippy, you need to be corrected there. The converting pilot exam is an exam, then you complete a flight test, which is like a BFR. 😉
  4. clouddancer
    Johnsim, Why don’t you familiarise yourself with the RAAus Flight Operations Manual and read the requirements for yourself? As stated by others, it is currently 5 hours minimum in 600kg MTOW aircraft, but if you have logged flight time in a VH registered aircraft which may also be RAAus registered, you only need to demonstrate competence to a RAAus CFI. Same thing with navigation, demonstrate competency and have your PPL recognised, along with any endorsements that might include. HF was not a part of CASA PPL until 2008, so yes, might include a HF exam and a converting pilot exam to make sure you understand RAAus limitations.
  5. 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.
  6. clouddancer
    No, sadly, they will continue to operate under exemptions under Part 103 arrives, so access to controlled airspace will be under those same exemptions. RAAus aircraft will never be considered aeroplanes by CASA I suspect.
  7. clouddancer
    I think the answer you are looking for is based on the definition of an aeroplane in the Act and relevant regulations which apparently says CASA AFRs must be completed in an aeroplane registered by CASA, and as BrenDan said, RAAus aircraft operate under exemptions to many of these regulations and are therefore not aeroplanes.
  8. clouddancer
    RAAus cannot sell your data! But they advised members years ago, they would allow AvData to send bills to members. They used to forward the bills to the members, but admin staff spent all their time forwarding and it was costing the organisation and therefore members too much money.
  9. clouddancer
    I think these lawyerly terms and conditions are actually RAAus catching up to what the Australian Parachute Federation, the Sport Aviation Federation of Australia and Gliding Australia have been requiring of members for years. Flying is dangerous, leaping out of aircraft is dangerous, sign here please.
  10. clouddancer
    That is sadly well outdated, being pre Part 149, Part 103, pre-lots of good old days things.
  11. clouddancer
    En-Route Supplement Australia ( ERSA) - Gen -FIS - Inflight from either Airservices under Documents and Downloads or from OzRunways. This link will probably only work if you are logged into NAIPS https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/GUID_ersa-fac-2-9_27NOV2025.pdf Section 16.
  12. clouddancer
    Thank you, I couldn’t for the life of me remember the name of the wooden prop on the Gazelle and Skyfox aircraft
  13. clouddancer
    They don’t need to clear the air, the Tech Manual has already been quoted and is very clear.
  14. clouddancer
    Type certified is very different to LSA
  15. clouddancer
    Rotax engines have a calendar life as well as hours for TBO. As it was a factory built aircraft, the 912A in the Gazelle was only approved for use with a Woodcomp prop. Trying to change the factory approved prop on a Cessna requires a Supplemental Type Certificate, which is CASA speak for a RAAus MARAP. Staff at RAAus didn’t review the condition reports for compliance until a CASA audit which resulted in greater attention to this area. Gazelle aircraft are no longer factory supported, so MARAP is the only way to get legal changes made. it is not a RAAus problem, but they are trying to assist members to remain compliant using MARAP. if it wasn’t for MARAP, the aircraft would be grounded due to lack of Woodcomp props and Rotax 912A engines. Buyer beware (or seller, be aware)!
  16. clouddancer
    Hey ClintonB, while aviation is “inherently risky”, we can all take steps to reduce risk, and also need to remember the hundreds of thousands of hours safely flown in a year, privately and commercially. Taking a risk based look at our personal flying habits, not just saying, “it’ll be right”, using resources like instructors and other pilots we trust, can help us stay safe. Not accepting any dodgy aircraft maintenance, or taking shortcuts will also help.
  17. clouddancer
    Probably more to do with BFR in 3 axis, or weightshift microlight or powered parachute? If CASA accept flight reviews which don’t cover all your design feature endorsements it makes sense for RAAus.
  18. clouddancer
  19. clouddancer
    I am only making a minor point, with potentially major outcomes for aviation. she will be right mate 🤣😉
  20. clouddancer
    Certainly more likely to, if we all assume it is male 🤣
  21. clouddancer
    If it was a driverlesss taxi, it would be allowed to go, not him? 😉 “One pulled up near us and did a quick u turn as soon as the traffic allowed him too. Amazing to see.”
  22. clouddancer
    There is a difference in the RAAus syllabus about solo at a competency standard of 3, controlled conditions and direct supervision of the instructor, yes the time is logged by the student ss PIC, but the instructor is authorising the flight and supervising the student. Once the RPC or RPL is issued, the pilot is authorising and responsible for the entire flight, unless under training for a nav endorsement, where they revert back to being a student being authorised to fly beyond 25 nm. clear as mud?
  23. clouddancer
    Try the main page of the RAAus website and scroll down for a complete explanation of the policy and a link to the policy. https://raaus.com.au/news/member-benefit-raaus-members-liability-insurance/
  24. clouddancer
    It is essential for any RAAus member to understand that the CAOs (95.55 for three axis, 95.32 for weight shift and 95.10 for single seat), have been around for almost as long as RAAus has (or the AUF for those who remember that). CASA has always set the rules to operate an RAAus aircraft and while the organisation has spent many many hours, days and years arguing with CASA, in the end, the regulator (CASA) is the boss of Australian aviation, not RAAus. Expecting anything different after 40 + years is never going to happen. Read the rules, understand the rules, go flying following the rules and you can enjoy the privileges.
  25. clouddancer
    They are both correct, it is an either, or, kind of scenario. either the aircraft taking off had turned onto crosswind, or it is climbing straight ahead and is further along the runway and you can finish your landing roll. simples.
×
×
  • Create New...