Proposed Utility Endorsement

[Happyflyer]

All good points you guys make. For me, the deadly hazard for low level flight is that the consequence of one mistake (which you can recover from at height) may kill you at low level. Many, many very good pilots have died while flying at low level. Sure, training lessens the risk compared to not training, but avoiding it lessens it a whole lot more (for me anyway).

 

Flying in balance/rudder control, bank angle, steep turns at low speed, loss of horizon etc are all things we should be practicing, and I do. However I can practice most of those things flying tailwheel and aerobatics above 3000 ft. Flight around the right sort of cloud below 3000ft is also great for co-ordination. Formation training also sharpens a lot of skills. If there is a genuine need for low flying, go for it. If you are a non professional pilot and want the skills associated with it with reduced risk, I think there are other ways where the consequences of a mistake may not be so deadly.

 

One other thing springs to mind. Is there a restriction on taking passengers when low level? I think non pilot passengers are probably unaware of the risk and should not be taken, just as you should not have passengers (other than instructors) when practicing emergencies. Cheers.

 

 

[jetjr]

low level accidents feature pretty highly.

 

Maybe the thinking is that RPC pilots are doing it without training (poorly), requiring extra training and endorsement makes it clear that extra skills are required

 

Not that long ago ALL RAA/AUF flights were forced to be done at fairly low level.

 

 

[M61A1]

A while ago the AUF "crash comics" used to feature a lot of engine failures, with most ending as "uneventful forced landing carried out". I could be wrong, but it appears that nowadays, a lot of engine failures result in fatalities or aircraft destroyed/significant damage. I have wondered if flying faster, higher and further has resulted in a loss of basic handling skills. Would we have so many base to final stall fatalities if LL handling was taught. Would some of our LL fatalities have occurred if they had been instructed and were aware of the hazards and competent, perhaps being aware may mean that they then choose not to.

 

 

[facthunter]

The assumption that IF you train/teach it, people will just go and do it is unproven. I challenge the assumption completely as the training done properly will EMPHASISE the RISKS and illustrate them PRACTICALLY where the student will come face to face with the situations where the untrained pilot will muck it up. People generally may have read somewhere that it is dangerous ,(but that always applies to OTHER pilots, doesn't it?) the same people think they can fly in clouds and "down" will always be easy to determine by the seat of your pants. You do it in GA, why not in RAAus where arguably the need is greater. Over the years I have noted accidents, often double fatals where I believe these skills are lacking.

 

Some landing accidents are set up by not having the skills needed to make a controlled approach safely. IF you do a level turn, you must increase POWER as you roll into it etc . Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A while ago the AUF "crash comics" used to feature a lot of engine failures, with most ending as "uneventful forced landing carried out". I could be wrong, but it appears that nowadays, a lot of engine failures result in fatalities or aircraft destroyed/significant damage. I have wondered if flying faster, higher and further has resulted in a loss of basic handling skills. Would we have so many base to final stall fatalities if LL handling was taught. Would some of our LL fatalities have occurred if they had been instructed and were aware of the hazards and competent, perhaps being aware may mean that they then choose not to.

You could argue the lack of spin training is the cause of many LOC accidents, we should have spin training added to the LL utility endorsement. Seems a natural fit.

 

 

[biggles]

Actually...the obvious obstacle hazards are, but it's the lesser known or appreciated hazards which trip people up. Losing airspeed in slow speed turns, flying steep turns instead of minimum radius turns, loss of horizon reference, and loss of SA per se will all contribute to an accident. The fact is ....... you don't know what you don't know!

 

happy days,

Agree Poteroo , but surely these manoeuvres /skills can be taught at a safe height . Many fatal accidents have occurred with an Instructor on board ...... Bob

 

 

[facthunter]

Except that at LL you won't be recovering from a spin if you let it get into it. It's all part of the mix though Ticking boxes isn't the answer. Train the Instructors to do it properly. Not using it as an opportunity to fly at the student's expense and show off, as some are wont to do, and put it back in the syllabus, for everyone. IF you are mustering do an extra assessment/extension, but don't deny it in the std syllabus.

 

Bob you don't get the "illusions " at height. (I know it was directed at Poteroo, ) You use dedicated low flying areas known to the school (familiar to the instructor)..Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

You could argue the lack of spin training is the cause of many LOC accidents, we should have spin training added to the LL utility endorsement. Seems a natural fit.

Ha ha, you won't have the altitude to get into a fully developed spin at LL, if you are really low, you'll drop a wing and cartwheel (when the tip hits the ground). That said, spin training would probably help pilots be more familiar with, and less fearful of departures from controlled flight. Recovery becomes routine/ instinctive rather than panic, that may save lives. It has been argued many times that spin training would be beneficial, but one of the problems we have is a lot of lightly built, slippery aircraft, that can easily be mishandled on spin recovery (assuming they are recoverable), causing structural failure.

I see the difference between normal flight and LL as a bit like the difference between driving on a highway with no traffic, and fast city driving with 6 lanes of traffic. You have to become more aware of what's going on around you and more precise in your handling as well as keeping ahead of the aircraft, terrain and navigation.

 

I'm no expert, these are just my opinions.

 

 

[M61A1]

No issues in training LL skills, just questioning the need to "qualify" a person to go do it for fun.

We are rec pilots, it's all fun. Why "qualify" for any of it?

 

 

[facthunter]

Train or have people get into strife. That is the question. Writing stuff on a certificate is not the aim surely? Is the extra complexity and paperwork actually achieving anything except turning away a lot of people? Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

Agree Poteroo , but surely these manoeuvres /skills can be taught at a safe height . Many fatal accidents have occurred with an Instructor on board ...... Bob

While I agree that the basics can be taught at height that in no way prepares you for the ground being close, before doing low level manoeuvres I would have said I was fairly good at all those skills and I was current but once close to the ground and not being used to that perspective it was amazing how amateurish my coordination became. It is something that needs to be experienced to believe and obviously with an instructor would be the safest. So for sure practice at height but even though they are exactly the same moves they are totally different at low level.

 

IMHO facthunter is right, I would say I'm less likely to fool around at ll than before I started the ll endo

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Another boy scout merit badge. Isn't there already a low level endo? What would this cover that the LL doesn't?

 

 

[jetjr]

Are many RAA aircraft ok for intentional spins?

 

If not how to train?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Go to your local aerobatic club and do them in a Citabria or such.

 

 

[jetjr]

With a RPC?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

you don't need any licence to go up with an instructor to do some spinning

 

 

[Roundsounds]

We are rec pilots, it's all fun. Why "qualify" for any of it?

I'm pretty sure a review of accident stats (GA and RAA) would prove a high rate of fatalities involve low flying - often including power lines or beat ups. Why promote a flying activity (LL endorsement) which is high risk and no benefit if conducted for other than commercial purposes? No argument against dual ops as part of flight training.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wonder if the board has had any advice with regards public liability insurance implications for this endorsement. Unlike the existing LL endorsement, this one seems orientated around using your RAA aircraft for work.

 

I'm surprised CASA has let them sign off on this.

 

 

[facthunter]

Something should be able to be arranged. You aren't doing it solo. It is about time we "Make it happen". Especially for instructors who haven't ever done them, or recovery from unusual attitudes. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm pretty sure a review of accident stats (GA and RAA) would prove a high rate of fatalities involve low flying - often including power lines or beat ups. Why promote a flying activity (LL endorsement) which is high risk and no benefit if conducted for other than commercial purposes? No argument against dual ops as part of flight training.

If you read what I posted from the beginning of this thread, I put my reasons forward. Basically, I disagree that having the training encourages low flying, but believe that there are times it may save your skin to be familiar with LL handling.

 

 

[M61A1]

I wonder if the board has had any advice with regards public liability insurance implications for this endorsement. Unlike the existing LL endorsement, this one seems orientated around using your RAA aircraft for work.I'm surprised CASA has let them sign off on this.

Given that the endorsement, as far as I can tell, is an extension of LL, why would it be used differently to the current situation? That is landowners, managing stock and property.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So where does the RAA stand legally and with its insurance company if an RAA pilot with a LL endorsements kills or injures a passenger in the course of doing their work? I also wonder if in the above situation if the RAA pilot if killed or injured will be coverd by their life insurance if they haven't got specific coverage.

 

Considering the RAA has just come off a bumper year of fatalities, this new direction seems to being tempting fate with CASA.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The board has considered and discussed more than one 'Rural endorsement' proposal presented to it by the operations manager. We have redirect Ops to go back to the drawing board more than once now and that is still the case currently.

 

A considerable amount of discussion was engaged in (with ops present) at the recent Bundaberg meeting and these can be referred to in the minutes available on the website.

 

We operate LL twice every time we fly.......and in my opinion a low level endorsement with suitable safety training would increase the ability of any pilot so choosing to do it. I would support it as raising a pilots overall skill and awareness level.

 

Board discussions on both a Proposed Rural endorsement and a Low Level endorsement is ongoing and the two are separate in nature. The current Ops manual does provide provision for a member to receive a LL endorsement from an appropriately certified instructor.

 

 

[facthunter]

My understanding is only if the person is going to do things like mustering. As an instructor who was already doing it under the CFI, in RAAus, I wanted MY existing GA background where I also taught it, and I had other experience of specialised LL training, Plus more training if required to have the LL on MY certificate to show I was qualified ( as an instructor) to be involved with it. This was refused. How does an instructor teach precautionary search and have the skills necessary to do a recovery and go around if required when the pupil gets it pear shaped on approach or initial take off? Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

IMO needing a 'genuine reason' to get a ll endo is rediculous and to say an instructor doesn't need it or shouldn't have it is criminal!