New Ops Manual now Available

[Louie]

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Operations-Manual-Issue-7.pdf

[Chird65]

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

 

 

[Louie]

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

Yep agreed. Link below.

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Summary-of-changes-Issue-7.pdf

 

 

[slb]

Two stroke endorsement 2(s) - does this mean everyone flying a 2-stroke now has to have a flight-test to get the endorsement? or would they get this automatically if they have been flying one for a while?

 

(Assuming that the Instructor has the endorsement himself)

 

 

[rhysmcc]

the FAQ, while doesn't state anything about the Two stroke endorsement, implies if you can fly it now, you can fly it under these new Ops.

 

It's a bit confusing that it comes into effect today, but you have 60 days to operate under either Ops Manuals depending on what Ops decide, not generally how regulation and procedure change is done.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Two stroke endorsement 2(s) - does this mean everyone flying a 2-stroke now has to have a flight-test to get the endorsement? or would they get this automatically if they have been flying one for a while? (Assuming that the Instructor has the endorsement himself)

You will have that endorsement having been flying the type.

I do not have any 2 stroke time so I would do an endorsement on the type that is fitted with a 2 stroke e.g. GR582 lightwing, Drifter or XAIR etc on completion of the required training.

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Finally approved by CASA without change, and presented by Jill Bailey today at the CFI conference in DUBBO....uploaded simultaneously onto the RAA website..

 

 

[robinsm]

Two stroke endorsement 2(s) - does this mean everyone flying a 2-stroke now has to have a flight-test to get the endorsement? or would they get this automatically if they have been flying one for a while? (Assuming that the Instructor has the endorsement himself)

2 stroke has always been there... had it on my cert for 7 years now...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I may have had reservations about the way it was put together - no NPRM - but the way the new manual has been released is a credit to Jill and the Board.

 

When I was on the Board the prevailing thought was that the new manual be printed and posted to all 10,000 of us. The cost of that would have been in the hundreds of thousands and I argued strongly against doing that.

 

Well done this Board for their overt common sense approach to distribution.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I may have had reservations about the way it was put together - no NPRM - but the way the new manual has been released is a credit to Jill and the Board.When I was on the Board the prevailing thought was that the new manual be printed and posted to all 10,000 of us. The cost of that would have been in the hundreds of thousands and I argued strongly against doing that.

 

Well done this Board for their overt common sense approach to distribution.

It would have been out a lot sooner Don...but you know what speed CASA moves at. I 'm thinking they were waiting and wanting the new administrator to approve it.....if that's the case we are in good shape !.........

 

 

[poteroo]

It would have been out a lot sooner Don...but you know what speed CASA moves at. I 'm thinking they were waiting and wanting the new administrator to approve it.....if that's the case we are in good shape !.........

With regular reviews and updates, and online availability - this Ops Manual should become the 'living' document most members will find instructive and informative.

 

Also at the Dubbo Conference but haven't caught up to you yet Ross.

 

regards, Ralph Burnett

 

 

[kasper]

As I am in the middle of registering an new 95.10 the ops man update hits me squarely in an odd way ... 4.09 from issue 6 is missing from issue 7.

 

4.09 was the ONLY requirement to ever display registration markings on the aircraft .. technically today we are not required to display them as there is nothing in the CAO or the Ops/Tech manuals requiring display of regn - naked flying allowed today. ;-)

 

But as I am just up to putting the allocated regn on the plane for its photos ahead of weighing I contacted tech ... the tech manual is in for an update so naked flying will soon be removed though for today feel free ;-)

 

But there are other inconsistencies int eh manual - look at the low level endorsment - it requires for PIC to operate an aircraft below 500ft you have to hold a LLE. No exception to this rule for take off and landing. Ops manager says not intended to operate that way and not intended to change this areas between issue 6 and 7 BUT the technical language of using AND between the compliance with CAOs and the LLE means we are all techinically breaching the Ops Manual when we take off

 

If you doubt this one take a look at one of the CAO eg 95.10 - they have to specifically provide the low level exception for take off landing to avoid this error - see 95.10 6.1 and 7.1 where 500ft rule is created and excepted for take off and landing.

 

Australia has been a land settled by european criminals - now all AUF pilots are on a technicality.

 

Wonder what the insurance company will think of this when the first claim comes in? Ever known an insurance company to not rely on the technical language to avoid paying up?

 

Shame the ops manual issue 7 was never released for comment - silly errors like this could have been avoided and not have to exist for 6mths till the first update to issue 7 is due.

 

 

[kasper]

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

Not all changes are in there - its very summary and when you read the whole thing there are changes that were untintended and others that are not disclosed eg regn number display removed from ops manual altogether

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

With regular reviews and updates, and online availability - this Ops Manual should become the 'living' document most members will find instructive and informative.Also at the Dubbo Conference but haven't caught up to you yet Ross.

regards, Ralph Burnett

Not at the DUBBO conference Ralph.. sorry ......Cheers, Ross

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As I am in the middle of registering an new 95.10 the ops man update hits me squarely in an odd way ... 4.09 from issue 6 is missing from issue 7.4.09 was the ONLY requirement to ever display registration markings on the aircraft .. technically today we are not required to display them as there is nothing in the CAO or the Ops/Tech manuals requiring display of regn - naked flying allowed today. ;-)

 

But as I am just up to putting the allocated regn on the plane for its photos ahead of weighing I contacted tech ... the tech manual is in for an update so naked flying will soon be removed though for today feel free ;-)

 

But there are other inconsistencies int eh manual - look at the low level endorsment - it requires for PIC to operate an aircraft below 500ft you have to hold a LLE. No exception to this rule for take off and landing. Ops manager says not intended to operate that way and not intended to change this areas between issue 6 and 7 BUT the technical language of using AND between the compliance with CAOs and the LLE means we are all techinically breaching the Ops Manual when we take off

 

If you doubt this one take a look at one of the CAO eg 95.10 - they have to specifically provide the low level exception for take off landing to avoid this error - see 95.10 6.1 and 7.1 where 500ft rule is created and excepted for take off and landing.

 

Australia has been a land settled by european criminals - now all AUF pilots are on a technicality.

 

Wonder what the insurance company will think of this when the first claim comes in? Ever known an insurance company to not rely on the technical language to avoid paying up?

 

Shame the ops manual issue 7 was never released for comment - silly errors like this could have been avoided and not have to exist for 6mths till the first update to issue 7 is due.

Kasper (and others)

 

If concerned about operating illegally then I would write to RAAus (either paper or email) and ask for a written response......Surely having achieved that, and the assurance that if you could do it under old version you can do it under new version, your well covered from an Insurance Company.

 

My Thoughts..........I cant imagine an insurance company expecting an owner of an airworthy aircraft and who has the necessary skills, licenses, recency and reviews to actually fly, to never use it to fly because we haven't discovered the technology yet that allows us to do so without transiting 0 to 500ft......

 

Andy

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper (and others)If concerned about operating illegally then I would write to RAAus (either paper or email) and ask for a written response......Surely having achieved that, and the assurance that if you could do it under old version you can do it under new version, your well covered from an Insurance Company.

 

My Thoughts..........I cant imagine an insurance company expecting an owner of an airworthy aircraft and who has the necessary skills, licenses, recency and reviews to actually fly, to never use it to fly because we haven't discovered the technology yet that allows us to do so without transiting 0 to 500ft......

 

Andy

Done the written and got the response and even a phone call - no NPRM meant that we did not SEE the draft before it was finalised so silly things will be in there that will weed out over time.

 

on a light note I agree entirely its a fun idea how to operate as PIC under 500ft ... though if I close my eyes and let the plane do the first and last 500 on its own I suppose I'm not acting as PIC and remain legal ... and to be fair a few of my takeoffs and landings over the years could be charaterised as only partly under control so reassurance can be had of my legality ... legal yes but safe? ;-)

 

 

[ave8rr]

Not all changes are in there - its very summary and when you read the whole thing there are changes that were untintended and others that are not disclosed eg regn number display removed from ops manual altogether

The displaying of Rego Numbers (what is to be required) will be in the new Tech Manual so I am informed.

Mike

 

 

[coljones]

It would have been out a lot sooner Don...but you know what speed CASA moves at. I 'm thinking they were waiting and wanting the new administrator to approve it.....if that's the case we are in good shape !.........

You have to stop using CASA as an excuse for the shortcomings of RAA. The RAA ship may be turning in the right direction but there are people out there, and inside CASA, who have long memories of the total incompetence of management at RAA who, while not waiting to pounce, are fearful of the day that they might have to say "Oh No, here we go again"

 

 

[JEM]

Where did the maintenance authorities L 1.2.3.4 go to?

 

Regards

 

 

[rankamateur]

The displaying of Rego Numbers (what is to be required) will be in the new Tech Manual so I am informed.Mike

But will it be changed into line with GA, no underwing numbers?

 

 

[ave8rr]

A

 

Where did the maintenance authorities L 1.2.3.4 go to?Regards

Anything to do with maint should be in the Tech Manual.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

My expectation is that GA are not required to have underwing ID and RA should not be regulated MORE than GA. So, logically at least, underwing numbers are now a thing of the past.

 

I would be extremely surprised if they were required by the new revision of the Tech Manual.

 

 

[rankamateur]

My expectation is that GA are not required to have underwing ID and RA should not be regulated MORE than GA. So, logically at least, underwing numbers are now a thing of the past.I would be extremely surprised if they were required by the new revision of the Tech Manual.

I sure hope you are right, I haven't bought my numbers yet and I wasn't looking forward to getting the air out from under all those extra rivets!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You have to stop using CASA as an excuse for the shortcomings of RAA. The RAA ship may be turning in the right direction but there are people out there, and inside CASA, who have long memories of the total incompetence of management at RAA who, while not waiting to pounce, are fearful of the day that they might have to say "Oh No, here we go again"

Col, for whatever reason it is a fact of life that responses from the CASA office take months not weeks....possibly because everything needs to pass through their legal dept. This can be very frustrating when trying to get things achieved. As a comparison the board can now make a decision within a 24 hr period, which has been demonstrated a couple of times this year as I recall one being the approval for hiring of the CEO..........which so far has been a very successfull decision.....

 

 

[DonRamsay]

To be fair to CASA, they have been looking for this revision from RA-Aus for several years and RA-Aus has been the major delay.

 

It is a great compliment to Ops Manager Jill (and her equally new team) in her short time in the job that she has brought this project to fruition quickly. The new system for review and update should also be applauded.