Changing planes

[facthunter]

I wouldn't be giving anyone an assurance that it would. You are not on final till you are on final. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, you should read the Jabiru limitation again because it can go into CTA but no over populated areas such as Bankstown.

I have read it and it makes no difference to the fact that I am drawing people to look at CAO 95.55

CASA 102/5 para 3 (2) is very clear - it is applying to CAO95.55 aircraft through a limitation addition applied to the engine

 

That is exactly what I have said - its failing to be able to comply with CAO95.55 on the Jab engine that is meaning you cant access the area.

 

The exact wording of the engine limitation is different from 'closely settled areas' from CAO 95.55 so the Jab engine limit had differential application to airspace with different surrounding areas eg Bankstown = no, Camden = Yes

 

But the main issue raised initially was not 'why can't a Jab fly into or out of Bankstown" but HOW can ANY RAA aircraft legally fly in or out ... and all those non-Jab RAA that can tick all the other boxes under 95.55 are able to do it because of the reasons I outlined and the rationale. And the actual legal structure of the Jab engine restriction is exactly as I outlined - through the failing of the engine to have no limitations meaning the CAO 95.55 requirements are not met for that engine heading to Bankstown ... but they can be met heading into Camden.

 

 

[aro]

A careful reading of CAO 95.55 suggests those who say the 1000ft/glide clear of closely settled area restriction applies during takeoff and landing are correct.

 

The takeoff and landing exception says:

 

An aeroplane ... may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing

 

It doesn't say

 

An aeroplane may be flown at a height of less than 1000 feet above ground level over a closely‑settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing

 

or

 

An aeroplane may be flown at a height from which it cannot glide clear of a closely-settled area if: the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing

 

Below 500 feet and over closely settled areas are completely different things. Also, 7.1.(b) specifically calls out 8.1 as an exception, whereas 7.1(h) does not.

 

So the 500 feet exemption seems to only apply if you are over an area where you can already fly at 500 feet, i.e. not a closely-settled area. The intent of CAO 95.55 clearly seems to have been that RAA aircraft will not be flown over closely settled areas below 1000 feet or where they cannot glide clear, full stop. The CTA section muddies the water a bit by also referring to closely settled areas, but I don't see that it overrides 7.1(h). I suspect it was added later without clearly understanding the implications of the other sections.

 

So how do people fly RAA aircraft in and out of airports which require flight over closely settled areas below 1000 feet? I guess it is like the rest of the aviation regulations - some parts are just ignored on the basis that everyone does it, and people then come to believe that it is permitted. It would be better to either clarify and enforce the regulations, or update them to reflect what people actually do - but CASA don't want to relax regulations, even if it only reflects current practice.

 

 

[DrZoos]

It would be better to either clarify and enforce the regulations, or update them to reflect what people actually do - but CASA don't want to relax regulations, even if it only reflects current practice.

Please dont go there....no matter how good your argument was CASA would shut the show down rather than relax regulations to be sensible and reflect reality

 

 

[facthunter]

It's there to whack you with when and if it suits them. The truth is If you fly an Aeroplane you can lose your house. Some people put all their money in their wife's name. That's scary too. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

It's probably time that someone who cares made inquiries with the sports aviation people at CASA to find out the definitive position.

 

It's interesting that there are a whole heap of related exemptions by way of CASA Legislative Instruments and no one has mentioned them to this point in the discussion. These allow the training operations using RAA aircraft that have been conducted from MBN and other controlled GA airports for a number of years. Each of these instruments also makes reference to the avoidance of built up areas from which the aircraft cannot glide at its operating height.

 

For example https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00616/77e6b368-67f7-43d4-95ca-2f69922e7533

 

Put your inquiry in writing. Get the answer in writing. Then you might have your honest and reasonable mistake defence if someone tries to ping you.

 

Kaz

 

 

[DrZoos]

It's probably time that someone who cares made inquiries with the sports aviation people at CASA to find out the definitive position.It's interesting that there are a whole heap of related exemptions by way of CASA Legislative Instruments and no one has mentioned them to this point in the discussion. These allow the training operations using RAA aircraft that have been conducted from MBN and other controlled GA airports for a number of years. Each of these instruments also makes reference to the avoidance of built up areas from which the aircraft cannot glide at its operating height.

 

For example https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00616/77e6b368-67f7-43d4-95ca-2f69922e7533

 

Put your inquiry in writing. Get the answer in writing. Then you might have your honest and reasonable mistake defence if someone tries to ping you.

 

Kaz

Kaz thats where several of my posts quote from...eg

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100072/cao_95_55.pdf

 

 

[aro]

It's interesting that there are a whole heap of related exemptions by way of CASA Legislative Instruments and no one has mentioned them to this point in the discussion.

Good point, I had forgotten about those. However they are generally pretty specific to a school etc. which means that just because you are allowed when using a school aircraft doesn't mean you are allowed when using your own aircraft. Just another trap when trying to learn the rules.

 

Kaz thats where several of my posts quote from...eghttps://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100072/cao_95_55.pdf

Interesting, looking at the list of exemptions it appears to replace CAO 95.55 completely, so maybe you don't have to comply with anything in CAO 95.55? The "glide clear" condition is still there, but the 1000 feet over built up/closely settled areas condition is not included. Although the exemption specifically applies to solo flight only, so maybe dual training flights still have to maintain 1000 feet over closely settled areas... what a mess.

 

Did they intend to exempt the operator and pilot from the entire CASR 1998 I wonder?

 

The operator and pilot are exempt from complying with CASR 1998 and the following provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988...

 

 

[DrZoos]

Good point, I had forgotten about those. However they are generally pretty specific to a school etc. which means that just because you are allowed when using a school aircraft doesn't mean you are allowed when using your own aircraft. Just another trap when trying to learn the rules.

 

Interesting, looking at the list of exemptions it appears to replace CAO 95.55 completely, so maybe you don't have to comply with anything in CAO 95.55? The "glide clear" condition is still there, but the 1000 feet over built up/closely settled areas condition is not included. Although the exemption specifically applies to solo flight only, so maybe dual training flights still have to maintain 1000 feet over closely settled areas... what a mess.

 

Did they intend to exempt the operator and pilot from the entire CASR 1998 I wonder?

 

The operator and pilot are exempt from complying with CASR 1998 and the following provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988...

ah lets resort to what someone said 50 posts ago and jsut say its a bloody disaster, and the fact no one understands it highlights the entire problem...Full time beuracrats making full time empires that part time pilots will never understand follow or want

 

 

[Contact Flying]

In fifty years and thousands of hours I have found U.S. manufactured light training airplanes to all fly very much the same. But there are certification requirements that have to be met. They basically have to fly like the already approved airplane to be approved. Those standards have been eased with really modern and light sport airplanes. Cub, Campion, Citabra, Taylorcraft, Cessna 120, 140, 150, 170, 172, 180,182,175, Cardinal, Cutlass, 210, Piper Pacer, Tri-Pacer, Colt, Cherokee, Pawnee, Comanche, Twin Comanche, Apache, Aztec, Stinson, Callair A5, A9A, A9B, Gruman Lark, AA1A, AA1B, Tiger, Air Tractor, Stearman, Baby Ace, Mooney, Beachcraft, and several homebuilt airplanes built to these standards, all fly very much the same. At least the controls work the same to the extent there are no surprises.

 

The Ercoupe, what Wolfgang Langewiesche calls the safety airplane is different. It won't stall, spin, or kill you quickly. It was very unsuccessful here. No macho. It also was a good airplane and easy to control.

 

I use the same approach in any of these airplanes. I use the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach. I explain the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach in "Safe Maneuvering Flight (Low Level) Techniques, which I have posted in this forum.

 

I use the same takeoff in any of these airplanes. I use the basic low ground effect takeoff, which I also explain in "Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques.

 

When I teach new students in simple trainer aircraft, I concentrate on manipulation of the controls to get the exact desired effect. V speeds and Pilot Operating Handbooks (Airplane Manuel) are more applicable to large aircraft (over 12,500 US pounds.) After teaching a new student to fly, I would turn him over to the professional instructors at the airport for preparation for the various flight tests. Our Practical Test Standards for the Private Pilot Flight Test is heavily reliant on numbers found on the various instruments on the panel. Those numbers on those instruments have very little to do with contact flying.