shu77 Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I've seen some fantastic aeros in a tecnam Sierra on Youtube (and posted here I think) The FK Lightplanes FK-12 Biplane can also be used for 'Gentlemans' aerobatics according to their website. I very much wish we could get this added to the endorsement list
djpacro Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Apparently this flies very nicely: From http://www.acrolite.org/ Looked over the plans of a Corby Kestrel today - looks promising.
scre80 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Hi All, has there been any movement on this? I am looking to do a RA-Aus certificate but eventually would like to do an aero endorsement. From my reading, If I wanted to do Aero, would need to move over to RPL. Thanks
Happyflyer Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Hi All, has there been any movement on this? I am looking to do a RA-Aus certificate but eventually would like to do an aero endorsement.From my reading, If I wanted to do Aero, would need to move over to RPL. Thanks You are right, RPL plus aero endorsement it is. No movement at all and in the current CASA/RAAus climate there will be none.
scre80 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 At Lear it looks easy to move over to RPL now if that is what I wish to do so in the furure.
408059 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Not sure about the RPL and aero endorsement. I've been told by one senior CASA officer that you cannot do aerobatics with a RPL. I've sought clarification several times from CLARC and never got a response to that specific question. Cheers Steve 1
frank marriott Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Not listed as an endorsement in part 61? Division 61.G.2—Recreational pilot licence endorsements 61.485 Kinds of recreational pilot licence endorsements The following are recreational pilot licence endorsements: (a) a controlled aerodrome endorsement; (b) a controlled airspace endorsement; © a flight radio endorsement; (d) a recreational navigation endorsement.
djpacro Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 61.380: a holder of a pilot licence may conduct a flight activity if you hold that flight activity endorsement. RPL is a pilot licence. (Edited this bit to clarify) There are various types of endorsements - aerobatics is a flight activity endorsement per 61.1145. The prerequisite is an aeroplane category rating and a spinning flight activity endorsement. Spinning only requires an aeroplane category rating. You may only conduct spinning and aerobatics if you hold a Class 1 or 2 medical OR you have another aerobatic pilot with such medical in a control seat. 1
scre80 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Thanks djpacro, could not find those references. Finding it quite hard to read and find the relevant information.
frank marriott Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Thanks djpacro, could not find those references. Finding it quite hard to read and find the relevant information. You're not alone there - read something and think you have your head around it, only to find something elsewhere giving a different outcome, prime example is the quote by djpacro above. I obviously need to read the whole of the new part 61 and not just parts I think are relevant. I guess I'll just shut up as I am not interested in an RPL anyway.
scre80 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 the generic info on Part 61 is here: http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101440 If someone has a specific link, that would be great
facthunter Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I can only confirm that at the finalisation of the RPL (medical requirements) there was to be NO aerobatics permitted . If you wan to argue it is a licence and can have endorsements on it ,THAT (in respect of the medical) was ruled out. The rest of it is tick box or NO DEAL. If they have some record of you presenting to check a medical condition, you are not able to tick the box, and the default is the Class 1 or Class 2 medical where your individual situation can be argued (hopefully) . The RPL has failed to be what it set out to be. It has little to do with a "Drivers Licence Medical" which is what it set out to resemble. The fact you can Drive a CAR, Isn't any criteria. Are you doiug it legally, may be applicable at times. The medical requirements are laid out in STATE legislature I believe, and are relevant to the RAAus Certificate and I would suggest, are adequate for our purposes and not the medical that applied to service pilots back in the early days with fixed pitch props and the pilot out in the wind and PAX in the cabin.. I know of so many pilots who have died or collapsed a short time after doing a Class one medical. It's not been a great predictor of continued life Nev 2
scre80 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Is anyone able to point me to 61.380 or 61.1145. I am having trouble finding these on the casa website
Happyflyer Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Is anyone able to point me to 61.380 or 61.1145. I am having trouble finding these on the casa website http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C01095/Html/Volume_2#_Toc399230903 Open the above page and scroll down to the relevant parts. Cheers.
djpacro Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 You may only conduct spinning and aerobatics if you hold a Class 1 or 2 medical OR you have another aerobatic pilot with such medical in a control seat. I meant to include the reference - it is 61.1155.
scre80 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Thankyou for that. So my reading of this is, if you hold an RPL, have the correct Aero endorsement and a class 1 or 2 medical plus you are in the right aircraft and you are endorsed for that, then you are good to go!! 2
kasper Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I know this is not RAA but it does illustrate that a design to +- 6/3 G is no guarrantee ... just because you can does not mean you should ... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2015/cessna_525a_citation_cj2___n380cr_.cfm check out the picture in teh report of the wing innards 'after' the aircraft stalled, departing from controlled flight in a series of five 360° rolls to the right ...
facthunter Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 A plane should be specially constructed and inspected when being considered for aerobatics. Having high "G" figures for strength is a good start but not the full picture.Steady loads are not like flick maneuver loads on fuel tanks for example or twist loads on fuselages. The Murphy Renegade is allowed some aerobatics when GA registered.. When aircraft are aerobatted there are often reductions to structural component life. Aerobatic times should be logged as such. Additional inspections are mandated for those aircraft. Nev 1 1
AJS71 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Given the thread topic...what about the Jabiru LSA55? Having just under 40 hours on type, it's almost like doing aerobatics on approach and late final... Given all the doom and gloom re the mighty Jabs elsewhere on this forum, this is my attempt at some humorous banter. Incredibly successful attempt if I do say so myself! Cheers 2
facthunter Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 You must be comparing your attempts to mine, if you think you are incredibly successful. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now