RAA and Aerobatics

[Barefootpilot]

There was a bit of thread drift here http://recreationalflying.com/forum/pitts-users-group/12495-aviat-news.html

 

So i thought I'd open it up for everyone to voice their thoughts about the RAA allowing aerobatics. Righto here we go again!

 

Adam.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

No...leave it to GA where it belongs

 

 

[BigPete]

Ditto :big_grin:

 

regards

 

 

[antzx6r]

I realize people don't want extra endorsements to make it more expensive for everyone, but if the extra expenses were limited to those with the endorsement, I can't see why this couldn't be implemented.

 

What makes GA more expensive? The medical? A little bit but a couple hundred every two years isn't that much. CASA fees? Not really, I think its actually cheaper isn't it. Predominantly, it's the aircraft costs isn't it?!? So if you still fly a Thruster, it's cheap as. If you fly a Millenium Master, it's not so cheap. And if you have an aero endorsement, your insurance will be more, you might need a medical(pointless tho they are), the aircraft will need more upkeep costs and the training will cost a bit more. I can't see how this will mean RAAO will have to up their costs That much. CASA didn't have too, and they look after everything up to QANTAS level.

 

For those that say if you want that, why not go to GA, well, I'm on my way that way, but... It is still recreational flying and I like the reletively low level of BS in RAA. It's like these forums. When the people feel something is needed, Ian listens and implements whatever the masses need. In casa, it has to go through various gov departments. It gets stalled because someones away on long service leave. It gets used as political leverage or for a personal vendeta against one of the back benchers. Then it gets put out to the general public for discussion(media have a field day). And finally, if it survives that, you end up getting something nothing like the origional proposal. RAA is much better. My ASIC only took a few weeks. And I stuffed up the original application.

 

Anyhow, I just cant see how it would be different from say a formation flying endorsement. Just with strict rules on what aircraft, where and whatever else is needed.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

I'm not a fan of medicals for regular flying, and there are so many flaws in the concept of a biennial medical examination that it's nearly impossible to justify.

 

However, at the risk of being contradictory, I don't think anyone with a good grasp of flight physiology could suggest that any regulatory regime should allow aerobatics by pilots who haven't been assessed in some way (at least once) for their suitability for high-g operations. And I don't mean self-certification.

 

I say this knowing that my view could prevent me from continuing to fly aero's at some time in the future.

 

 

[BLA82]

No...leave it to GA where it belongs

MMMMM well if that was the way we all thought RA would never exist. It would be one big body controlling us all. As I have said there seems to be alot of people for it and alot against it why doesn't the ones against it keep flying as they are and the ones for it go through all the training and get endorsed. Everybody should have equal rights

 

 

[Guest airsick]

No...leave it to GA where it belongs

I don't really care whether we get aeros or not but I am wondering - why does it belong in GA. Is it not recreational aviation?

 

Imagine if this was the blanket response to everything.

 

Over 60kts? Leave it to GA where it belongs.

 

Variable pitch prop? Leave it to GA where it belongs.

 

Retracts? Leave it to GA where it belongs.

 

Formation flying? Leave it to GA where it belongs.

 

Controlled airspace? Leave it to GA where it belongs.

 

...and so on

 

Isn't this view a bit myopic? It's no wonder flying is seen as the hobby of old farts that are stuck in their ways when we carry on like this. At least give a bit of reasoning as to why it doesn't belong instead of just blurting it out!

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Why stop at aerobatics ? Couldn't your argument Ben [bLA82] be just as easily used to allow Night VFR, IFR or more than 1 pax under RAAO operation ?

 

Operation under an RAAO gives us a great deal of freedom from bureaucratic oversight because those operations are limited in nature. If the scope of these operations is increased (in the manner this & other threads are currently discussing) we leave ourselves open to the argument that the bureaucratic oversight should also be increased. An increased range of RAAO operations inevitably means that there will be a decline in the volume of GA operations (we are already seeing this). As GA operations are overseen by CASA this means a reduction in their workload. What happens when a govt department (especially one which has to pay its own way) has a reduction in work ?

 

A) they happily all take voulantary redundancy because theres nothing for them to do ?

 

Or B) they start making finding areas which "require" new rules and oversight ?

 

Hence the fear is that such increased oversight (aka rules) would negatively impact on all of the people operating under the RAAO not just the ones who will do aerobatics, fly heavy aircraft or whatever).

 

A secondary argument is that the RAAO is likely to be resource challenged (apparently we can't even afford to include a proper accident report supplement in the magazine )

 

If for arguments sake it was necessary to employ an additional person to devise an aerobatics syllabus, train instructors, scrutinise endorsement applicants, verify which aircraft can be used etc etc etc - would it be fair that these costs are born by the whole membership when such a small number of people would benefit ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The AUF did trial aerobatics some time ago, however it was canned when an offender operated outside their excemption (too close to the ground), crashed and from memory died. The trial ceased immediately.

 

I heard some time ago that if someone bothered to submit a syllabus and training documentation and a plan on how to train everyone, the it would be seriously considered and possibly implemented. Put simply, someone needs to be bothered to raise it to the board level (for the record the new President is a fan or aerobatics) so you never know who might be barracking for you when it gets there.

 

The problem was that only a couple of years ago there was almost NIL aerobatic classed RA-Aus aircraft on the market except for single seaters, however that may change with 760kg's.

 

If GA types are eventually forced to go under RA-Aus as CASA ditches the bottom end of the market they will need to look more closely at it as this aspect of flying will be lost completely.

 

Aerobatics are one of those things where I would not like to (unlike some here) say NO way in RAA, however everyone has a choice about how, why and what type of flying they do and who am I or who are we to suggest otherwise?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

TThe problem was that only a couple of years ago there was almost NIL aerobatic classed RA-Aus aircraft on the market except for single seaters, however that may change with 760kg's.

I believe the Murphy Renegade is an exception but I can't think of any others off hand

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest brentc]

That would be right. To add to that the lack of 'factory build' aerobatic aircraft is limited also.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

As for aerobatics, I am not that bothered. However, I don't believe there is an endorsement for aerobatics as such for PPLs. The way I understand it, if you have your PPL you can take aerobatics training and if you master a maneuver enough for the instructor to sign it off in your log, then you can do that maneuver. If you only ever get shown and train barrel rolls, you can do that, but not any other aerobatic maneuvers.

 

To me this makes sense and if any is allowed into RA-Aus, it would probably be the same, which requires very little regulatory oversight.

 

 

[Yenn]

Maybe what we really need is a complete rethink on the registration of aircraft.

 

The obvious way to go would be for all recreational flying to be under the auspices of a recreational body and self administered, while CASA looked after all commercial flying.

 

That of course would mean some well heeled pilots with light twins or helicopters would be recreational and some commercial flyers would be in 150 Cessnas. Where would the training aircraft be?

 

If RAAus controlled aerobatics, night VFR and IFR, how would it affect the whole recreational scene? How would it affect us?

 

 

[poteroo]

Aeros is just another endorsement - nothing more, nothing less. Let's not treat it as some impossible dream.

 

In RAA we'd need approved aircraft, an agreed syllabus, and qualified instructors. The standards would be no different to GA, of necessity.

 

Insurance would be higher on these aircraft, and currency requirements would be stricter - due insurance and other liability. Instructor currency would have to be maintained just to be ready for a few aero flights - which may only be a minor part of the business.

 

All I can see is a list of prohibitive costs facing any flight school looking to get into aeros.

 

The business case for it is weak.

 

happy days,

 

 

[BLA82]

Instructor currency would have to be maintained just to be ready for a few aero flights - which may only be a minor part of the business.All I can see is a list of prohibitive costs facing any flight school looking to get into aeros.

 

The business case for it is weak.

 

happy days,

Poteroo,

 

Good point but what is the difference between RA-Aus flying schools and GA. It is still a small part of their business.

 

 

[djpacro]

Some comments on a variety of issues here:

 

REGULATORY

 

The existing regulation doesn't easily provide for aerobatics in the RAA unlike the draft Part 103 where there are specific rules.

 

I am not optimistic about the new suite of regulations including Parts 61, 91 & 103 etc ever being implemented however I firmly believe this would be the best way to go so I'm not inclined to take the pressure off CASA. In particular, the CASA intent to provide for parallel pathways will mean that I can stay with VH reg and enjoy the privileges only enjoyed now by RAA reg.

 

It is tempting to continue to weasle changes in by tinkering with the existing regulatory structure but it is well beyond time that CASA and the OLC finished their regulatory reform programme. The current set of regs overall is abysmal.

 

SAFETY CASE

 

We can learn a lot from the USA (compare their safety record with ours for a start) with their much larger population sample.

 

Their LSA permits aerobatics in appropriate airplanes and the medical requirements are similar to that of the RAA.

 

Who mentioned training? Neither the UK nor the USA have an aerobatic endorsement nor a regulation requiring aerobatic training. I'm not suggesting that the CASA rules be discarded on this. Plenty of capability within the RAA membership.

 

For the RAA to take on registration of 30-40 year old aeroplanes having 10,000 hours or so of time in service including aerobatics - - hey, that already carries with it the technical issues associated with aerobatic aeroplanes regardless of whether they fly aerobatics in future or not. Apparently the RAA has stated that there is no concern with maintenance.

 

RAA ORGANISATION

 

I'm a member so I get a say on the above.

 

It makes some sense for the RAA to take the word “recreation†out of their name and stick with a limited scope of activities. However it was the RAA which drove the current discussion paper to increase the weight for their aeroplanes which will result in an enormous increase in the number of RAA-registered aircraft quite capable of aerobatics.

 

As above, CASA should implement the new regulations and provide for parallel pathways. I'm happy to stay VH reg with CASA as some have suggested - I for one can do without being associated with an organisation which seems to condone open neglect of CASA regulations wrt flying grossly overweight.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

As for aerobatics, I am not that bothered. However, I don't believe there is an endorsement for aerobatics as such for PPLs. The way I understand it, if you have your PPL you can take aerobatics training and if you master a maneuver enough for the instructor to sign it off in your log, then you can do that maneuver. If you only ever get shown and train barrel rolls, you can do that, but not any other aerobatic maneuvers.

That is correct. "Acrobatic manouvres" is not an endorsement, it's just a log book entry for each manouvre that you've been trained in and considered competent for. Spins are a little different in that you still get a log book entry but you're restricted to spinning only in the specific aircraft type in which you've been trained and assessed.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

The reason I said no was that I'm concerned at the lack of a coherent training framework; I'm concerned at the lack of aerobatic-safe aircraft in our fleet; I'm concerned at the history of people dying in our sort of a/c when they indulge in aeros.

 

It is an added complexity for an organisation undergoing great change and needing to mature as an organisation just to cope with what it has on its plate already.

 

Perhaps at some time in the future - but not now.

 

We could of course all buy Skycatchers and indulge in cross controlled, power on spins. Which according to Cessna is what caused the "unrecoverable flat spin".

 

Having said all that many of the European ultralights are used for aeros. There are some great photos around of a Tecnam P92 coming over the top of a loop. Many of these aircraft are also regularly spun. Still I'm not a fan for RAAus.

 

If I was going to do aeros I'd rather revert to aeros in a glider - great fun and very instructive in terms of energy management.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I read that the Skycatcher that crashed was a non-conforming prototype model so they may have been performing some advanced testing or modifications.

 

RA-Aus would need to assess whether aerobatics would include an unacceptable risk and based on GA, it is not measurable, meaning that there is no greater risk of crashing when conducting aerobatics when appropriately trained and endorsed, if so, premiums would rise. In the GA world an insurance company doesn't care if you are engaged in aerobatics because it is assumed that you are appropriately licenced and trained for what you are attempting.

 

A safe aircraft is one that is flown within its' limitations by an appropriately trained and licenced pilot. This must be the premace of all operations for CASA and RA-Aus. There will always be a 'rat-bag' element who break the rules, however this cannot be included in any justification.

 

 

[djpacro]

We can learn a lot from the USA ...

Incidentally, the USA rules do not permit any changes to certified max weights in order to sneak a type into the LSA category.

(All of this discussion has helped me to finalise my own response to the DP on mass increase for the RAA. Thanks.)

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I find it hard to see why we keep referring to the standards in other countries and try to apply them selectively to Australia.

 

In the US you can fly at night under LSA but many people here are against that so surely the US standard isn't for us?

 

Back to the weight thing though, I think it is a bit of a crock really. Why not just limit it to up to two seats? You and one other person regardless of the aircraft. This will avoid future arguments about extending the weights yet again.

 

At the moment the RAA has prompted a review of the weight increase to 750kg. CASA has come back and said that it should be 760kg to include a couple more planes such as the C-152. Why not increase it to 800kg to include the Liberty? All of these weight limits are arbitrary and seemingly pointless.

 

What does it matter how much the plane weighs? A GA pilot with GFPT is allowed to take a passenger in anything up to 5700kg. To get this qualification the minimum experience is 20 hours. RAA pilots have to have a minimum of 20 hours so what is the difference? If the training is appropriate then why should it matter what aircraft you fly?

 

We already have endorsements for retracts, CSU, etc. so why not just bring it into line with GA and eliminate the confusion. You can then fly anything up to 5700kg as long as you hold the appropriate qualifications.

 

I would hazard a guess that it is more dangerous going from a Jabiru to a Thruster than it is going from a Jabiru to an XL-2. Despite this we seem to be okay with the Jab to Thruster arrangement assuming the person is qualified but not the Jab to XL-2. I'm confused!

 

Clearly safety isn't the concern here, there must be some other argument involved that I am missing.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I can definitely see your point, Airsick. After not 10 hours of training, I did some flying in an FA200 (only two approaches) and then a couple of hours (about 1 hour circuits) in a C172; both much heavier aircraft. The instructor said after we taxied the C172 back he'd be about ready to solo me in that one. Can't say it was much of a challenge to make the transition. For a fully trained HP-endorsed RA-Aus certificate holder I would imagine it even less so.

 

If a PPL wants to fly an RA-Aus registered J230 they need 5 hours to get used to a low-inertia ultralight. Make the same J230 VH registered and all you need to do is take up a CFI and satisfy them with some circuits you can fly the plane, right? That just doesn't make sense.

 

I too would be a big fan of splitting things up into commercial aviation and private "at your own peril" flying, with some reasonable seat, weight and performance limitations. (i.e.: if we allow two seats and no other limits, you could fly a Yak-52, which might not be the best idea after training in a Jab!)

 

 

[Guest airsick]

...with some reasonable seat, weight and performance limitations. (i.e.: if we allow two seats and no other limits, you could fly a Yak-52, which might not be the best idea after training in a Jab!)

It wouldn't be the best idea after training in a 172 either but you can do it (again, assuming you have retracts, csu, etc.). But this doesn't seem to be a problem in GA. How many guys do you see going from their 172 to a Yak without appropriate training? Most people who fly (I stress most) are sensible and would seek out some sort of conversion training before attempting this.

 

My way of thinking though is that if you did run out and get a Yak you still can't do joy flights with paying customers in it. This would fall under commercial flying and should be better regulated for the benefit of the uneducated, unsuspecting members of the public. So even if you were silly enough to just jump in and go it would still be at your own peril.

 

But it raises an interesting point. How long till someone asks for the weight limit to be 1500kg so they can fly their Yak. It is never ending. I think some sort of consistency wouldn't go astray.

 

As an aside I have flown a Yak and they are not a difficult aircraft to handle.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Actually you CAN fly at night in an LSA in Australia!

 

Hence the J230D NVFR model.

 

But only in GA LSA registration.

 

So in theory if RA had NVFR in the syllabus it *could* happen.

 

 

[facthunter]

AEROS & WEIGHTS.

 

I'm completely with airsick here. Limit the capacity to 2 (TWO) occupants, and we keep the liability at it's current level thereby.

 

A weight increase will permit the construction of stronger airframes, with more conventional materials. It has no real relevance to flying difficulty or safety, except to enable both to be improved, You get an increase in running costs sometimes with the fuel consumption aspects, which could be offset with cheaper engines,in some instances.

 

As for aerobatics, it should pay it's own extra costs (user pays),but of course it is voluntary, so no problem there. The presence of proper aerobatic capable trainers being available in the RAAus fleet, could hardly be a disadvantage, even if only used to develop the understanding of spins and recovery therefrom.

 

I would be far more apprehensive of RAAus pilots operating at night in our aircraft than a few doing aeros in appropriate planes. Nev...