Class E Airspace

[Ross]

Hi Crew

 

I think Paul has agood point here.

 

I do not see why we would have to have a different category for each RAA aircraft out there. We seem to have a confusing number already.

 

It seems not very sensible to assume that flying lessons and experience in one model of RAA aircraft will be equally applicable to all other models and brands despite the fact that relatively low performace aircraft are getting far more docile than their older cousins. Sometimes there are distinctive differences in flying behaviour or response to control inputs between two planes of the same model and manufacturer.

 

I thought the RAA had given up letting students teach themselves to fly.

 

The suggestion of getting an endorsement for each variant seems very sensible to me. I would have thought that was already a requirement.

 

Could Ian or somebody else enlighten me on this point.

 

I don't think anyone would try flying in an unfamiliar model of a GA aircraft or glider without being endorsed on that aircraft even if on some types thatmight only require an hours flying.

 

I still remember, as a low time pilot, the thrill and butterflies experienced when transiting from a low performance two seater glider to a "very slippery for us" (for that era)single seater fibreglass glider, the Club Libelle L/D 1 in 35 I think. We kept being told that we should learn in the old low performance gliders and eventually move to the higher performance machines as that would be the safest way to do it. I was never really convinced on that point having seen the ES52 Mark IV Kookaburra not make it around the circuit one day and having to landat what should have been early final or late base. We did not have a slippery two seater anyway. So we had to do the Kookaburra and Blanik first. There were other aircraft in later years.

 

The change in flying characteristics, position of things like fuel valves, flap handles or buttons, even the operation of differnt radios, flap lowering speeds, stall speeds, height loss in a full stall or incipient spin,spin recovery, fuel management, periodic maintenance especially for owners etc etc can all have a drastic effect on a pilot under pressure if he or she is not familiar with that particular aeroplane.

 

Regards Ross

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Ross

 

No such requirement for different RAA registered aircraft types as yet, except for the taildragger endorsement.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Admin]

Ross, Mike is right there isn't any "technical" rule that says once you have your tricycle undercarriage certificate you can not fly "legally" any RAA registered trycycle aircraft (excepting offcourse microlight trikes, powered chutes etc). The same goes for taildragger aircraft which as Mike says is a formal endorsement and represented on your Pilot Certificate.

 

BUT, and a big but here is not only for moral and safety reasons would you be extremely encouraged to obtain an endorsement for the aircraft type but the big thing is insurance. You will most probably find the biggest barrier from hopping straight into a jabiru, gazelle, CT, tecnam, Thruster, drifter etc etc etc and simply fly away is that you will not be covered by insurance unless you have been endorsed in that aircraft type.

 

I know there are some out there that don't carry insurance and that is their choice but I know my insurance will not allow anyone to fly my aircraft unless they have beenproperly endorsed in that type.

 

Hope this helps!

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Ian

 

And that non existent requirement is going to change real soon bet on it.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Ross]

Ian, Thanks for that.

 

Yes, it does seem rather incongruous that there is no formal requirement to get an endorsement. It may may have been inconvenient in the past but now that there are a lot more bodies out there it would seem logical to make it mandatory. Bo Doubt it would help the reputation of the organisation as well.

 

Regards

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Even in GA there's no requirement to get an endorsement on a specific aircraft. Your licence covers you for a single piston engine aircraft up to 5,700 with single engine and 6 passengers.

 

Gaining an endorsement is usually a matter of jumping in with your mate who flies it ok who sits in the right-seat and talks you through it. No instructor required.

 

It would be a wise move for the person next to you to be an instructor for insurance purposes.

 

This doesn't include twin, turbine, retracts or CSU however.

 

Clem

 

 

[Student Pilot]

This doesn't include twin, turbine, retracts or CSU however.

Clem

Single seat turbines it does.

 

 

[Guest babs1aus]

Well glad to hearE space has been ratified.

 

As usual training seems to keep comming up.

 

As minimal as it is most of it is to a high standard and It appears that most of the really bad habbits seem to come along later as people seem to just create new rules or simply are once a month or less top guns.

 

I agree with Micgrace that there is definitely a attitude of fast means hard to fly perhaps some of these people should attempt a long nav with a good wind component say 70 degrees in a 50 knot machine and no gps. For some reason people are are thinking about flight in the 2 dimensionsal on a map and forgetting it is in amoving environment.

 

The problems associated with getting there faster are only that you get there faster remember. We are not talking Speed of sound here we are talking in most cases double the speed. Prove the difficulties to yourself Plot a course on Paper(you know a flight Plan) 100nm wind offset of say 30 deg at 25 knot Then decide which would be the bigger challenge.

 

How many people have done a nav in there cloth and tube and sat on a calculated ground speed of a 100Knots (you need a speed rating)

 

Im sure the first crossing of the Atlantic they were saying.

 

<DIV align=center>"if only we could fly slower".