Tailwheel Skyfox CA25 too easy?

[Hongie]

Rpl/ppl here I come... I'm over this lol

 

 

[Camel]

I called the RAA about this and was told as Im not the builder... Im not allowed to do this ! Is this not correct ?

To my knowledge and I could be wrong, you can not do a tail wheel endorsement on this as you are not the builder but you can do type conversion in this and actually it does not have to be an instructor although recommended, BFR should also be able to be conducted in your own aircraft.

 

 

[aro]

CASA CAP on AFR'shttp://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/download/CAAPs/ops/,svFileName=5_81_1.pdf

12. What aircraft should I use?

 

12.1 The CARs clearly state that a flight review must be conducted in the aircraft in which the pilot had flown the most flight time during the last ten flights undertaken. In most circumstances this would probably represent the flying activities that the pilot generally conducts.

Unfortunately, the CARs don't actually say what the CAAP says they say:

 

CAR 5.81

 

(2) An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in:

 

(a) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and....

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Which means the instructor can approve using a different aircraft type. I don't see any limitations on the circumstances, some examples that come to mind (not referring to any specific aircraft) might be:

 

• the instructor doesn't want to use an amateur built aircraft
   
   
  
• the instructor's insurance doesn't cover the aircraft
   
   
  
• the instructor is not familiar with the aircraft type
   
   
  
• the aircraft doesn't allow the instructor to review the pilot to their satisfaction
   
   
  
• another aircraft would allow more advanced material to be covered etc.
   
   
  

 

 

I tried to find a reference in the RAA ops manual etc. about use of amateur built aircraft for instruction of the builder/owner, but I couldn't find anything referring to it. Can anyone point me to the actual rules covering this?

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Just got an email from Jack (topfun) confirming that the Skyfox is no longer available. I sent out a booking request just before you posted this info.Any idea where else (Perth +300km) I could learn to fly a taildragger without spending 400+$ per hour at Jandakot?

I don't think there is anywhere in WA to do an RAAUS tailwheel endo at the moment. I had a look around not too long ago and could only find the one at Bindoon. Can someone please put a Factory Highlander Superstol online so I can hire it

 

Edit: Just a thought, perhaps the Tecnam dealer in Geraldton? Not sure if they have a Tecnam taildragger demonstrator they are wiling to do training on? fair trip up that way though.

 

 

[Hongie]

I nearly purchased an amateur built taildragger a couple of weeks ago, thinking, and so was my instructor, that I could be instructed in it.. glad I didnt, as there are none online that I know of anywhere around here.

 

 

[facthunter]

The BFR or whatever it is now can be done in other than the most flown. Obviously single seat are a difficulty. It's flexible but I think the rule is out of consideration for the pilot but can be waived by agreement. I have a few times done it in a new type, obviously by agreement. You get the endorsement at the end of the check (if you pass)

 

Women ferry pilots flew planes during the war from a manual with comprehensive handling notes . Lancasters,mosquitoes spitfires etc and some were in damaged condition also with equipment stripped out of them. They make us look like pussycats.. You obviously need some familiarity with the speeds and where every control is, but that is all in the preparation. Don't forget instructors fly from both seats and that is a fair change of layout. ( Often everything is mirror imaged reversed on side by side seating) Nev

 

 

[bilby54]

Negative ! I called and spoke to them again and they confirmed 100% that as I'm not the builder. I'm not allowed to do any training, nor type endorsement in the my Highlander. How silly is THAT ! Surely, its the safest way to get me comfortable in my own plane.

Hi GF,

 

Not quite sure what you mean by type endorsement as RAA does not have them only tailwheel, nosewheel, etc.

 

It is quite legal to do cross country training in a 19 registered aircraft if you have a current pilot certificate and a performance endorsement suitable for that aircraft.

 

You can quite legally get a tailwheel endorsement in a Drifter and then fly what ever tailwheeler takes your fancy. The principles are still the same and if the instructor was up to scratch with how he teaches you then it should not be a big problem but my advice would be to go up with someone who has a bit of time in them first.

 

Do not be afraid of tailwheelers but be very respectful of them!

 

 

[Gforce]

Not afraid of them... :-)

 

But yeah.. your not allowed to do any training if your not the builder and Im not. Said this 3 times now.

 

 

[bilby54]

Not afraid of them... :-)But yeah.. your not allowed to do any training if your not the builder and Im not. Said this 3 times now.

GF, you are not allowed to do Ab-initio training in an aircraft that you did not build or was not factory built due to the liability issues with the 51% rule.

 

If you have a current Pilot Certificate then you are able to do endorsement training on whatever aircraft as it is not teaching you how to fly - talk to the ops manager or get legal opinion but it is quite legal. Most problems arise because people do not understand or accept the ops manual and want to over complicate everything.

 

We could not get 'endorsed' on every aircraft because most of the fleet is homebuilt or non certified

 

 

[M61A1]

Someone want to direct us to where is says you can't train in your own aircraft (as opposed to using your aircraft to train others for hire/reward)) this excerpt is directly from section 3.3 of the current tech manual online. note that it states "owner", not "builder".

 

1. Any aircraft that is currently, or has been at some time registered with the

 

AUF will be eligible for registration as an AUF Amateur Built Aircraft provided

 

the aircraft still meets the requirements of;

 

a. The aircraft was originally built by an individual for recreational and or

 

educational purposes and at least 51% of the construction was

 

completed by that person.

 

b. The maximum take off weight of the aircraft does not exceed 544 kg,

 

(614 kg Aircraft equipped for water operations) maximum stall speed

 

45 kts maximum two seats.

 

AUF TECHNICAL MANUAL SECTION 3.3.1 - 4

 

ISSUE 2 - MARCH 1996

 

11 September 2003

 

2. Any aircraft that does not comply with any particular design standard or

 

approval, will be eligible for registration as an Amateur built Aircraft, provided

 

that the aircraft was constructed by an individual, or group of individuals for

 

educational and or recreational purposes and at least 51% of the construction

 

was completed by those individual/s, and complies with the requirements as

 

set out in para 1.b.

 

3. Aircraft which comply with the requirements of Para 2. above will be eligible

 

for use for the purpose of training the owner for the issue of a pilot certificate.

 

 

[boingk]

Nice one M61A1.

 

- boingk

 

 

[aro]

I tried to find a reference in the RAA ops manual etc. about use of amateur built aircraft for instruction of the builder/owner, but I couldn't find anything referring to it. Can anyone point me to the actual rules covering this?

To answer my own question, I found the reference in CAO 95.55:

 

6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training.

 

This is not consistent with the GA experimental category, where only the owner can receive training (CAR 262AP):

 

(2) An experimental aircraft may be used for any of the following operations in support of an operation for which the special certificate of airworthiness was issued:

 

(g) for an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft--flying training given in the aircraft to its owner.

 

So (I think):

 

VH experimental, if you didn't build it you can be trained in it but can't maintain it

 

RAA amateur built, if you didn't build it you can maintain it, but can't be trained in it

 

 

 

[metalman]

Then when the new part 61 licensing come in, and this is the question I asked at the seminar and got a fumbled non answer, can a PPL train a pilot in his own home built VH regoed plane ( endorsements only ,no abinitio) for a tail wheel or aeros , and how about , as any RAA cert holder can convert to a RPL , will they be able to get endorsements in their own plane by a PPL holder, even if they both have RAA certain but the PPL isn't an RAA FI,,,,,the more they try to simplify this stuf the worse it gets

 

 

[facthunter]

Uncertain answers are nothing. Too many "authorities" give answers that cannot be trusted. Quoting them if they are wrong will not advance YOUR case. Some of these "duff' answers have come from CASA reps themselves.

 

One GIST I get from McCormicks statements is the HE wants to eliminate 'exemptions" I can't see this as being totally workable because many thing s just won't happen without them. I reckon as an example that you could not put on many air displays without granting some exemptions. You might get a weather aftermath similarly, Cyclone, floods, fires, where some rules have to be temporarily waived.. CLEAR language and rules of application ( time applied) and areas of responsibility being spelled out, is all needed. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

To answer my own question, I found the reference in CAO 95.55:6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training.

 

This is not consistent with the GA experimental category, where only the owner can receive training (CAR 262AP):

 

(2) An experimental aircraft may be used for any of the following operations in support of an operation for which the special certificate of airworthiness was issued:

 

(g) for an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft--flying training given in the aircraft to its owner.

 

So (I think):

 

VH experimental, if you didn't build it you can be trained in it but can't maintain it

 

RAA amateur built, if you didn't build it you can maintain it, but can't be trained in it

 

See post #35 cut and pasted directly from section 3.3 of the online tech manual.

[djpacro]

Then when the new part 61 licensing come in, and this is the question I asked at the seminar and got a fumbled non answer, can a PPL train a pilot ....s

you will still need an instructor rating and you can't be paid it!

[metalman]

you will still need an instructor rating and you can't be paid it!

That's the thing DP the guys at the so called info night couldn't answer the very straight forward questions, they reckon to instruct all that was needed was an approved PMI course and away you go ! Same when questioned about payment , just fumbled around and avoided a straight answer,,YES or NO was all that was needed , I can see a lot of changes as they realise its not very workable and clear as mud.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The facts are most of CASA don't even understand the new system, which is why you get the er maybe type answers. The new Part 61 euro based system was instigated by the previous administrator, (and prompted by the big kero burners). The current administrator didn't like it but it was too late by then.

 

As in the past in the country, it is, and will end up being a very bastardised half-arxxd system that we will have to stumble along with into the future. Simpler and easier to understand than the old system ???.......not a chance Jose !....Many engineers who have received their new license categories spend half their time now working out what they can, or cannot work on........It appears that our sport which has been very successfull under the exemptions in past years , will also suffer or be limited under the new system..........Maj....

 

 

[Guest TJWA]

Sadly DWF, after an impeccable total rebuild (storm damage whilst tied down) about 12 years ago, your old Skyfox has again bit the dust. Fell unto the strip fm about 20' on landing a couple of months ago at Bindoon (questionable wind shear blamed) with a student doing tail wheel conversion w/ an instructor. Fortunately no injuries but the little CA25 suffered un-economically repairable damage. No insurance and wreck subsequently bought by a scavenger so it's unlikely it will see the air again. Great little aircraft but, to repeat what everybody knows, it would quickly remind you on touch down if you weren't pedalling quick enough.

Hi, if that's Skyfox 55-3845 CA25 that aircraft is for sale at the moment at the Collie automotive wrecker for $6K. I heard it had a hard landing at Bindoon. It's pretty bent up underneath. Apparently the 912 has done 1480 hrs.

 

 

[Teckair]

You can quite legally get a tailwheel endorsement in a Drifter and then fly what ever tailwheeler takes your fancy.

True but I would not recommend it, you would not want to go from a drifter to a Skyfox and quite a few others.

 

 

[facthunter]

With a lot of tailwheel planes, recency is needed especially if the situation is a bit challenging. (Strip or weather) Having the endorsement covers the legal but not the real issues. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

True but I would not recommend it, you would not want to go from a drifter to a Skyfox and quite a few others.

Under CASR Part 61 you can't just jump into an aircraft in the class your licence allows you to fly (eg single engine aeroplane) with appropriate design feature endorsements. 61.385 the General Competency rule applies.

 

61.385 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences— general competency requirement

 

(1) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the class or type to which the aircraft belongs, including in all of the following areas: (a) operating the aircraft’s navigation and operating systems;

 

(b) conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures for the aircraft;

 

© applying operating limitations;

 

(d) weight and balance requirements;

 

(e) applying aircraft performance data, including take-off and landing performance data, for the aircraft.

 

So you need to be familiar with the operating procedures and handling characteristics of the particular aeroplane before launching. The rules don't say how you do this, a person with a broad range of type experience may be able to read up then go flying. Whereas a less experienced person might need some dual instruction. RAAus require training on all new types, even more restrictive than GA.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not sure I agree with your last line as a requirement although it would be prudent to do so. . Strictly speaking individual endorsements are not required.. Nev

 

 

[Riley]

Hi, if that's Skyfox 55-3845 CA25 that aircraft is for sale at the moment at the Collie automotive wrecker for $6K. I heard it had a hard landing at Bindoon. It's pretty bent up underneath. Apparently the 912 has done 1480 hrs.

55-3845 is the same Skyfox that pancaked at Bindoon a year or so back and which was immediately purchased by a scavenger for 5 grand. I was unaware that it had graduated to an automotive scrapyard in the interim but am having difficuties imagining what improvements have been effected to account for the additonal thousand dallars asking price.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I'm not sure I agree with your last line as a requirement although it would be prudent to do so. . Strictly speaking individual endorsements are not required.. Nev

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but.....

 

TYPE TRAINING (AEROPLANE)

 

18. An applicant undertaking training for a specific aeroplane type must:

 

(a) hold the appropriate aeroplane Group rating; and

 

(b) complete theory training to the satisfaction of an RA-Aus Examiner; and © undertake flight training to meet the competency requirements of Unit 1.11 of the RA-Aus Syllabus of Flight Training, in the type of aeroplane sought; and

 

(d) pass a flight check with an RA-Aus Examiner; or

 

(e) provide written proof to the Operations Manager of an appropriate recognised qualification.

 

I recall having a discussion with Op's about this when version 7 of the Op's Manual was being drafted. See section 2.05-9