– Steve Hitchen
Group G is proving harder to get up and running than anyone thought. The 760-kg category is one of the pillars of RAAus strategy for the future, and had CASA approval way back in February. And yet aircraft owners still aren't able to take advantage of this eight months later. Initially, RAAus said it wasn't ready and so pushed-back the implementation date of 25 March for an indeterminate time. Then CASA stepped in. A much-quoted "divergence of views" prompted, I believe, by an unrelated coronial inquiry, is the sticking point. As CASA pulls the strings of RAAus' Part 149 approval, we can expect the two views to re-converge in CASA's favour. I think this highlights a couple of things. 1. Administering aviation at any level is challenging. 2. CASA is not letting RAAus do anything they want as some within the GA community believe. Part 149 is a substantial burden on any ASAO; it has transformed RAAus into an organisation almost unrecognisable from the days of the AUF. ASAO approval brings freedoms and oversight in varying measures, so much so that some administrating organisations elected to forego Part 149 and stay operating under exemptions. That was never going to work for RAAus if they continued to push for Group G and their other pillar, access to controlled airspace. This issue is a reminder that RAAus is an administrator, not a regulator, and they still answer to CASA the way the rest of us do.
And speaking of access to CTA/R, it's not surprising to see that Maxine Milera at RAAus has expressed disappointment over CASA's demand for Class 5 medicals as a condition for RPC holders to use controlled airspace. I am surprised, however, that CASA will be asking for this as it could become the immoveable object that blocks all progress. RPC holders, as a generalisation, are happy not being on CASA's radar, and I have no doubt many will baulk at having to get an ARN in order to pass the Class 5 training; they'd gladly suffer staying in G as a trade-off. I get where CASA is coming from: they are a safety regulator and demanding Class 5 is, in their view, a risk mitigator. But through my logic-coloured glasses I see an alternative means of compliance emerging. If RAAus was to take the Class 5 learning material and integrate it into the Human Factors training, CASA may be in a position to accept that as a Class 5 equivalent. Newly-minted RPCs come off the production line with Class 5 capability already installed and awareness of medical conditions and their impacts on fitness to fly are embedded from the outset. RPCs might also actually take up the privilege of flying into controlled airspace.
Earlier this week, a Piper Twin Comanche completed the first official flight onto the runway at Western Sydney (Nancy-Bird Walton) International Airport. It was done to test the visibility of the lighting system. Is there anyone else out there that sees the irony in a GA plane being the first to land at WSA when GA won't be permitted into the airport once operational, and the very existence of WSA will do significant damage to GA in the Sydney basin? As this flight demonstrates, GA is a valuable part of aviation in Australia and brings capabilities that the airlines and other operators of heavy and corporate jets don't have. However, that has been put at risk by WSA and the work-around airspace design soon to be overlaid on Sydney. So, yes, it's a irony-laden situation that WSA can't get operational without GA input when GA stands to lose the most when the airport goes loud.
Australian Flying editor Kreisha Ballantyne has been looking after the website and News feed for the past four weeks whilst I have been wandering around the Balkans. I owe her a standing ovation for her work, which has enable me to get away and also do some snooping around Slovenian manufacturer Pipistrel at the same time. There's a great story emerging there, which I will elaborate on very soon.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch