Beatups and silly things...

[Guest Fred Bear]

Admittedly not everyone wants to fly low, however as I said, it's often a requirement for some and can also be a lot of fun in the right kind of aircraft in the right situation with the appropriate experience!

Correct mate. Depending on a/c type as people have mentioned but in an Aerochute jumping fences and cattle at 1 or 2 feet real slow is stacks of fun!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

ah the airspace that no one else uses. to use it safely you must have the right machine.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

ah the airspace that no one else uses. to use it safely you must have the right machine.

Yes mate but at that altitude you really have to watch out for the remote control planes

 

 

[Guest browng]

If you read Brent's post, Para 6c says that you have to be in the process of either taking off or landing. If you are doing a beat up, neither applies, so you are only legal if you have the permission of the owner.David

 

Not quite David, have a closer look:"(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane must be flying:

 

(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and"

Am I missing something here? You blokes each seem to be saying the same thing, quite correctly, i.e. flight below 500' agl, even under the exemption, is not legal without permission of the land owner.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Can I just ask what is the definition of a "Beat Up". Is it the same as doing a low pass over a runway, which can be taken as part of normal circuit practice? Or is it flying low at high speed over an airfield in an arbitary direction?

 

 

[Guest browng]

Can I just ask what is the definition of a "Beat Up". Is it the same as doing a low pass over a runway, which can be taken as part of normal circuit practice? Or is it flying low at high speed over an airfield in an arbitary direction?

Technically a low pass over a runway is not an approved maneuver. It is ok if it is a 'go around' (aborted landing) or an 'orbit', but in the case of an orbit it would be to one side of the active runway not over it, usually the 'live' side, although this can vary with airfield procedure if parallel runways are in use. I have never heard of anybody ever having a problem with a low pass though, I always do at least one to get the 'feel' of a new type in ground effect before actually landing for the first time, (although I do call 'going around' when I do it). In the case of non-radio operations it would be damn difficult to differentiate between a low pass and a go-around, at least if the low pass was carried at a speed believable for a normal approach, so I guess speed is the main differentiator.

 

 

[Guest browng]

browngI believe that if you do your BFR, with a Dual rated instructor, both are covered. i.e. GA & RAA rating!

 

Safe Skies

 

Cheers Guy

Damn, I had a glimmer of hope that I was wrong there, but no, common sense it seems does not prevail, and I just phoned RAAus to confirm it. According to RAAus, the biennial must take place in an aircraft registered in the appropriate category for the rating.

 

EDIT -STOP PRESS Woohooo, ignore my post above, blueshed is correct. I just had a call back from RAAus, and Paul Middleton says that the original info given to me today by 'someone' at RAAus was wrong! It is indeed up to the discretion of the instructor to also sign off the RAAus logbook if the PPL biennial is carried out in a VH type. It doesn't work in reverse though, a dual rated instructor cannot sign off a PPL biennial carried out in an RAAus aircraft. So all we need now is an RAAus administered 'RPL' and even that should be possible, together with Pilot Cert holders being able to fly VH registered aircraft that meet the LSA criteria.

 

 

[hihosland]

BFR in RAA

 

in response to the PPL BFR in RAA registered aircraft I received this response from CASA

 

"To answer your second question, yes you can do an Aeroplane Flight Review with a GA instructor in any aeroplane recognised and/or registered provided that the school's AOC reflects flying training as part of its authorisation and there are provisions in the organisations Operations Manual to capture this activity, a matter for you to discuss with the CFI of the flying school.

 

 

 

I hope this helps, your sincerely

 

 

 

Olivier J.E Grandjean

 

Flying Operations Inspector

 

Personnel Licensing Education and Training

 

CANBERRA ACT "

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

From that I conclude that one could go from ab initio to full GA ticket without ever sitting in a VH registered aircraft provided that your instructor/examiner was licensed on both RAA and VH aircraft and was working for a school with the appropriate AOC..

 

David Hill

 

 

[Guest browng]

From that I conclude that one could go from ab initio to full GA ticket without ever sitting in a VH registered aircraft provided that your instructor/examiner was licensed on both RAA and VH aircraft and was working for a school with the appropriate AOC..

David Hill

If that is the case then the argument for scrapping the Pilot Certificate completely and replacing it with an RPL administered by RAAus is even stronger, it would seem the main requirements are already in place. In reality, the only differences between an RPL and a PPL should be the MTOW of the aircraft being flown and the stall speed, with an RPL going up to the LSA's 600kg and max stall of less than 45knots (a PPL is to 5700kg) That would mean that RAAus aircraft meeting the LSA criteria could be VH registered and still administered by RAAus. It would mean that an RPL holder would be able to fly a 599kg VH registered Cessna Skycatcher, but would not be able to fly a much more demanding 525kg Pitts S1, because of its 49knot stall speed. If they follow the FAA RPL/LSA combination closely, there are even exemptions available for certain types that exceed the 600kg limit, if they are considered suitable for an RPL holder in all other respects.

 

 

[Admin]

There are some good points and some very bad ones made in this thread. I believe the RA-Aus is about safe enjoyable and affordable flying and how safe it is depends mostly on the PIC. I further believe that the RA-Aus rely on peer pressure and mentoring in alot of ways to keep pilots under control. Secondly if someone wants to make a complaint, I am sure they will listen and act upon that complaint, but, they need the complaint to be in writing and specific. Sure they can try and do something about verbal annonymous complaints but unless they have something to back it up, its all hearsay and all they can do is let the "possible" offending pilots know that they are being watched so to speak and there actions have been noted. AS far as training etc for low level flying etc and doing their bit for us members, all I can say is watch this space, there are numerous changes about to occur and I can tell you that Low Level flying is one of the issues that are being addressed. If anyone wants clarification of any rules they should contact the relevant authorities wether it be RA-Aus or CASA. Furthermore I have not heard if they have recieved any other information regarding the operations at Mangalore and if anyone is willing to talk to them about it I believe they would be more than willing to listen, but if you ASSUME anything then as the saying goes, you are only going to make and ASS out of U and ME.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Definition of a beat up. 1 usually spontanious 2 usually poorly executed by low time pilots 3 usually fatal . see photos ask yourself how 3 people on the ground and/or pilot did not come to harm. high aspect wing does not fit low aspect car window even if it's wound down. beat ups. just don't do them.

 

a flyby low inspection ect is usually preplanned and correctly executed by flying straight and level at low airspeed with first notch of flap, power is applied at predetermined point airspeed increased and then climbout on runway heading. twas ow i was shown.

 

Darren ain't had no problem with R/Cs (have a look at the regs for the bigger ones;)) but when we flew at st,marys years ago there was a mx track built around the dam.;).

 

 

 

 

[Guest terry]

can somebody help out a novice, What the hell is a beat up

 

regards terry

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

OK Terry, the above photos are from an incident that i wittnessed some years ago now. I wrote an article for Pacific Flyer a while back based on this type of beat up. this senario consisted of a group of people at the end of runway outside stip perimeter. pilot took off to return home saw group on lift off and decided to "beat them up". let the speed build up then rolled off heading over top of car problem was he forgot to pull up before getting to the car. he managed to keep it from cartwheeling and did a circuit. A beat up is flying very low very fast and very close with a big pull up at the end. make sure to look back over your shoulder so you stall and complete the show by spinning in. The key ingreadiants seem to be to impress or scare those watching. do not do them ever!!

 

Uncle Ozzie

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Uncle Ozzie, ha ha mate re the r/c. A few weeks back I was at 1,500 over the model field there at Luddenham and I swear to you I thought it was a real Extra. It was some idiot r/c up my height so what does he do? Flies closer to have a better 'play' with my little Jabiru. A quick steep bank the other way on my part and I think he got the message. If I was in a rotary machine I would have landed down there and told him to you know what

 

 

[vk3auu]

At the present time Ultralights fly under exemptions but with the new Part 103 and 149 there will be NO exemptions. You will be flying under a new regime, so you had all better go and acquaint yourselves with the new regulations.

 

David

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

All the more reason to send them back to the table and rework a few things namely simple rules for simple aircraft.

 

Darren, familiar experience there years ago. also found them to be a problem paragliding on the northern beaches.

 

 

[ab0767]

Get the registration of the aircraft involved and submit an incident report to RAAUS. let the owner of the plane explain why he is letting a dickhead fly at 300ft. My grandfather told me that accidents are natures way of getting dickheads out of the gene pool - so don't be a dickhead. There is no need for confrontation, merely a need to let the powers that be handle the situation. REG 149 should allow this, so go on line and get it passed

 

 

[ab0767]

get the rego of the air craft and submit incidenmt report to RAAUS, and let the owner explain, keep it simple,. I replied to another question just getting used to the website, apologies to whatever I initialy replied to message is the same - rules are made for idiots and the rest of us MUST comply

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Exactly David! One needs to check what they are agreeing to first before voting!

 

With the faster machines and heavier weights comes the added responsibilities and a reduction in freedoms. The more freedom you ask for, the more you seemingly lose.

 

Lets hope that our new board can help us out and keep our freedoms.

 

BTW: The board has been 'inducted.' Lee became CEO and Michael became Ops manager. John Gardon became President again.

 

 

[Guest browng]

 

 

.......so you had all better go and acquaint yourselves with the new regulations.

 

 

David

An excellent suggestion, and I have just got my finger out and spent some time doing that. I have a few comments on Part 103;

 

1. It clearly states that,

 

"Minimum heights and distances

 

3.5.35 The rules applicable to general aviation aircraft for heights over built-up areas will in general be equally applicable to sport and recreational aircraft. However, in deference to the generally slower speeds at which they can be flown, the horizontal distance from which these heights are measured does not need to be the same 600 metres as for general aviation aircraft, and has been set at 300 metres for Part 103. This also provides a safe margin for a pilot to be able to glide clear of occupied areas in the event of engine failure.

 

 

 

3.5.37 In the case of aircraft taking-off or landing at a suitable aerodrome, including practising a “baulked approach” or premeditated “go-around”, either at an aerodrome or some other place where the owner or controlling authority for the land has given their consent, the general rules for minimum heights do not apply. This is consistent with the existing provisions in regulation 157 of CAR 1988 and existing exemptions from provisions in regulation 157 of CAR 1988 to allow small slow aircraft to be operated differently from other general aviation aircraft."

 

 

This seems like a common sense solution to me, although others may well see it as a curtailment of the 'right' to low-flying, but experience tells me that safe flight below 500' agl requires a level of training not included in the RAAus syllabus. It still allows legitimate operations on privately owned land, but defines what is legitimate as either a “baulked approach” or premeditated “go-around”, NOT a high speed beat up by a refugee from the shallow end of the gene pool.

 

2. Does anybody know what this is referring to? (my emphasis)

 

"3.5.23 Readers should also note that an approach has been made to CASA by a group of organisations and individuals who wish to administer certain aviation activities of a personal flying nature (including flying training) without the limitations on aircraft size that are contained in Part 103. Details of this proposal are still under development, but will be the subject of ongoing consultation through the processes developed by the SCC, including the issuing of NPRMs and related proposals. CASA expects that these proposals will be entirely separate from the development of CASR Part 103 through the present NPRM."

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest brentc]

That's probably referring to the attempt by the SAAA to create their own licence type some time ago.

 

I can see a large number of "premeditated go-arounds" going on in the future!

 

 

[Guest browng]

That's probably referring to the attempt by the SAAA to create their own licence type some time ago.

Thanks, you are correct it seems. I did some more poking around and found this outfit,

 

http://www.leisureflight.com.au/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

 

They are an alliance of; The Australian Warbirds Association, Royal Federation of Aero Clubs, and Sport Aircraft Association of Australia

 

A look at their site seems to indicate no activity between them and CASA since 2005, I also note that they want to self administer right up to the PPL limit of 5700kg!

 

This bit is interesting though,

 

" As far as possible we are now avoiding the use of the term “recreational”, despite its use in the regulations to describe valid GA operations, to remove any possibility that the motives of LFA can be misconstrued or misrepresented. Instead, we describe both the above modes as “private”."Ultralights should continue to be administered by Recreational Aviation Australia without interference from GA, and GA should be administered by GA organisations without interference from Recreational Aviation Australia.

 

 

 

[Flyer]

Uncle Ozzie, ha ha mate re the r/c. A few weeks back I was at 1,500 over the model field there at Luddenham and I swear to you I thought it was a real Extra. It was some idiot r/c up my height so what does he do? Flies closer to have a better 'play' with my little Jabiru. A quick steep bank the other way on my part and I think he got the message. If I was in a rotary machine I would have landed down there and told him to you know what

1500ft is fairly high for an R/C aircraft...even a giant scale aerobatics machine however it is not unusual to find a large scale model glider at this height (4-6m wingspan).

 

I dont think he would have been deliberately playing with you Darren...he probably s%*t himself as much as you did.

 

I fly r/c aircraft as well and we have no restriction on height at a model r/c field unless we are within 3 miles of an airport. Then we are restricted to 400' AGL otherwise we must just keep the model aircraft in sight and away from a populus area.

 

I have also seen some pilots do some incredibly stupid things around model aircraft fields as well. The worst I have seen was at our own field when a pilot, showing off to his passengers, proceeded to perform a very low pass down the middle of our airfield at max power in a PA28-XXX.

 

Yes he did get reported as he was well aware that the model field was active......

 

I suppose what I am trying to say here is that we all need to give each other space, appreciate what the other side is doing and try not to have a bingle.

 

I fly model aircraft and love the sport, I fly GA aircraft (mortgage and kids have slowed this one down) and love it and I have just joined the RA-Aus ranks and I'm going to love it.....

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[poteroo]

Low Level Endorsements?

 

Based on some of the opinions I've just read here, formalised LL training can't come soon enough to RAA.

 

CAR 157 applies to everyone, and it very much rules out high speed, low level passes over airports or over private property, regardless of 'permission'

 

Anyone caught operating illegally at low level should, as a mandatory part of their rehabilitation, be required to complete, and PASS, a formal course of low level training. Believe me, after doing this with a CASA/RAA approved CFI, (who'll probably be also ag rated in GA), they won't be back for more !

 

Despite being a biologist, I don't support Darwinian theory as it applies to thinning out the ranks of the rash because it more often than not kills a pax as well.

 

Instructors hear what's going on in the area. Maybe it's time to include some low level exposure in the BFR/AFR for those we know may be indulging?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Poteroo,

 

I think that you've hit the nail on the head. Thanks.

 

My question is: Why give these guys low level training? Why not give them a little holiday to put their feet up on the ground and contemplate their stupidity? It seems to me that by giving them a low level endorsement we just make them think that they can be stupid and survive it.

 

As an aside I heard about third hand (so usual caveats apply) that CASA has approved 4 new endorsements in the new ops manual: Low level, CTA, Retract and CSU.

 

Maybe someone from RAAus would care to tell us if my third hand gossip is true.

 

Regards

 

Mike