Low level flight article in Sport Pilot

[facthunter]

Doesn't warn of rising terrain ahead. The picture does, but it's in the Database. Nev

 

 

[DWF]

Garmin 296 has terain warningSet to 500 and forget

 

Very handy !

So does the Garmin Aera500.

 

But the plaintive voice saying "terrain pull-up, terrain pull-up" is very annoying on final to land.

 

DWF

 

 

[facthunter]

Some others say "don't think, don't think" (I lithp a bit) Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

Teach-yourself just doesn't work with low level. I'm really stunned to read all the reasons why pilots feel they are different from others in respect of their skills at doing low level flight....safely. Folks, I have advice for you - no pilot is 'safe' at low level. If you've had the best training, and are both prudent and skilled, the risk increases the lower you fly. The risk increases the less you practise low level flying. And, the risk increases the more casually and arrogantly you approach low level flight. Thus, it's no surprise to me that so many RAAus and GA pilots are involved in low level incidents and accidents. Nothing has changed in 50 years! happy days,

 

 

[spacesailor]

Is this the Low Level they'r talking about!,

 

My avatar pic was taken while training at the Oaks SRFC.

 

The camerman was standing alongside the strip,

 

and if so, shouldent it be on my cirt.,

 

(if I had one)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The RAAus Ops Manager has "clarified" her initial statement that started this thread. Check her page in the latest Sport Pilot magazine. You can fly at 500 ft AGL if not over a built up area. Something I think we all knew anyway.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The RAAus Ops Manager has "clarified" her initial statement that started this thread. Check her page in the latest Sport Pilot magazine. You can fly at 500 ft AGL if not over a built up area. Something I think we all knew anyway.

But not below unless you and your aircraft meet the dispensation criteria including a requirement to engage in that particular low level flight.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Not sure what point you are trying to make Kaz. The ops manager originally said;

 

"The pilot had been operating just above the 500ft AGL minimum and didn't believe a Low Level endorsement was required (it was)"

 

 

She now says "Operations can confirm RA-Aus members can certainly operate to 500 ft AGL without a Low Level endorsement, as long as it's not over a closely settled or built up area"

 

She was wrong in the first instance when she added the "it was" phrase and that is what created the confusion that started this thread. While she says the original article "appeared to create some confusion" she doesn't say why she caused the confusion in the first place. A simple "I was wrong" or "it was a typo" would be nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Looking outside is a no brainer and you rightly emphasise it...

On the few occasions I have flown low-level "milk-run" routes both pilots have had their eyes on clipboards and NOT looking out the front. Heaven help the rec. pilot they don't notice.

 

 

[kasper]

Or the Ops manager can explain how the permission granted under the CAOs to fly under 500ft (take off landing etc) requires that you ALSO comply with teh Ops manual ... and the OPs manual (written by the OPs Manager one presumes) requires ALL pilots operating as pilot in comand to have a LL endorsmement for ops below 500ft .... and that DOES include take off and landing on the written words of the Ops manual ... we can wait for 6mths until the next revision of the OPs manual corrects that one. ;-)

 

 

[facthunter]

Usually those height restrictions relate to populous areas and "except in the process of taking off or landing." To suggest you need a low level endorsement for take off or landing is wrong. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

Suggest you read CAR 157 closely. If you look at all the exemptions, you'll see that the average pilot has quite a bit of 'wriggle room' in order to cope with special conditions. (including t/o and ldg) This, (in my opinion), over-rules anything that is written by any RAAO. RAAus Ops also have a requirement that anyone requiring a LL endorsement must have reason to use this endorsement - but this cannot over-rule the CAR 157 exemptions.

 

This has raised the question of using LL training to improve a pilots' skillset. My opinion is that a pilot well trained in LL is not going to immediately use this skill to 'hoon' about doing dumb LL stunts. RAAus probably need to consider the positives in LL training before making assumptions that every pilot is a probable criminal until proven innocent - we've got CASA to do that!

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

The same applies to IF training, where it can save your life but may encourage people to do it.. I couldn't believe I was not issued with a low level endorsement on request having done it (documented and signed off) when I was a GA instructor. I was informed there was no need for me to use it. ALL instructors should be trained in it as well as "unusual attitude recovery". There may be some pilots who are better than some instructors but there should be a seriously well designed level of training for instructors. specified as a minimum for them, and it should be above that required for the others. It IS expected that you will demonstrate a high standard as an instructor, but as I try to point out there is no extra exposure specified to more extensive flying skills.

 

For the "normal" pilot.. Once you have your certificate , you are not required to demonstrate any extra later on. as an ordinary pilot. Just remedial if you are dropping standard.(and someone notices). Nev

 

 

[kasper]

I never said anything about the CAR or CAO on requiring a LL endorement - I said the OPs Manual requires it.

 

If you follow through 95.10 for example you can see the exemtion to CAR157 penalty (3©) and you can see the permissions to operate 500ft for take-off and landing as specific exemptions (6.1(a) and 7.1) BUT the elephant in the room is actually up in CAO 95.10 5(d) and 5(e) where you have to operate in compliance with your certificate from RAA and in compliance with the operations manual as a general requirement.

 

Its this that makes the ops manual - which HAS NOT incorporated the exemtion from LL endorement for take off and landing - an issue. At best we are operating in breach of the requirements of the Ops Manual when acting as pilot in command below 500ft when taking off or landing. I never said it was not an ass of a conrstruction but the CAR on penalty and CAO 95.10 are not the problem, its our very own OPs Manual.

 

And Yes, its a long standing problem with the manual, it was there when I left OZ 12 years ago (and the ops manager had had it pointed out to him way back in 1995 by me) but to see it still there is just sad.

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree about the manual. It's supposed to reflect the law. Precautionary search and landing too would be an issue. You should only have to draw their attention to it and the wheels should start turning.Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

So! is it Official, my instructor put me at risk for every strip-run, precautionary landing search, and engine out on take off. As there was no LL cert back then?

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably saved your life by teaching you properly. IF there's no LL how can you have a problem? Once you list something you have to write rules around it. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

I agree about the manual. It's supposed to reflect the law. Precautionary search and landing too would be an issue. You should only have to draw their attention to it and the wheels should start turning.Nev

Hi Nev and All

 

The Manual at 9 should perhaps read (a) "or" (b), not "and". The take off and landing exemption is in 6 and 7 of the CAO. See CAO 95.10 for example.

 

However, if it is "or" the provisions of the CAO would allow flight below 500' over your own land without a LL endorsement.

 

RA seems to be acting to enforce LL provisions that are not proscribed by the CAO...curious either way.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Coop]

Flight at 500ft AGL is legal. Flight below that level isn't unless for taking off or landing, or for a specific purpose for which the pilot has the appropriate endorsement such as aerial agriculture or low-level aerobatics or some types of geosurvey work.

 

In my GA training, I was taught how to operate at low level if forced to do so by weather. This did not confer on me the ability to operate at such levels without appropriate training, it was for the purpose of giving me a little experience and to point out the more obvious dangers in case I ever needed to do so in an emergency. Dunno if they do this in the RA-Aus training syllabus.

 

Coop

 

 

[kaz3g]

Have a look at the CAO's and then compare with the Operations Manual. There is clearly an anomaly in the latter, anyway, but also consider how currently it's interpreted by Ops to override the CAO.

 

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L00617

 

The problem seems to be that the CAO is more liberal than the CAR's and RA is trying to narrow its effect.

 

Given the number of people who kill themselves flying needlessly at low levels, I can understand the reluctance, if not the poor drafting.

 

Kaz

 

 

[fly_tornado]

a LL endorsement won't cure bad judgement

 

 

[spacesailor]

Hence LL training at the start!.

 

Students can lean it as part of their training program, and if they get their cirt., they Dont need another endorsment!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[poteroo]

Hence LL training at the start!.Students can lean it as part of their training program, and if they get their cirt., they Dont need another endorsment!.

spacesailor

Exactly what I have recommended long since to CASA, and more recently to RAAus. happy days,

 

 

[Coop]

Yes, Kaz, I see your point. Significant violations of the KISS principle. But that's true of much of our regulations, RA_Aus or otherwise...

 

Coop

 

 

[facthunter]

Close to terrain is the risk. If you are close to terrain at higher altitudes it's even worse as your aircraft has little residual performance left.. A point to remember when flying up valleys or rising terrain. Nev