What can RAA get for us ??

[Guest Maj Millard]

Would be interested in finding out what sort of usefull things our RAA could be chasing for us, from you, the individual members. I mean lately they've upped our Pub liability coverage amount..that's good, and could be real handy one day.

 

How about giving us more accident/crash data quicker, so we know what to watch out for ?.

 

Personally, I don't want to see them spend much more time and resources chasing more upper weight limits for our aircraft, I think that one's done and dusted for now.

 

How about concentrating on getting more young people in the cockpit and flying. Possibly a system where an experienced cross country pilot with a long track record, could be rated as a Nav rating instructor, to take new licensed pilots through thier advanced nav skills quicker, by mentoring them on actual cross country flights, in real conditions.

 

This is one area that often takes too long, at a point when the new pilot is often out of money. Cost could be split with the experienced pilot, who could pass on real hard-learned skills not in the RAA training sylibus, and also frees up instructors for more basic flying training. Seems to me that the instructors want it all, often at the detriment of the poor student ?.

 

CASA wants to give us finance for improving pilot and general safety, here's a chance. Just my thinking...lets hear your ideas and suggestions ???.................................................

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

I agree Maj..AOPA in the USA has been sponsoring the "Young Eagles" program for decades now, whereas I really don't know what the Aussie version really stands for, I was a member once and became quite disallusioned with the way it was run. Enough of that though. Locally, Airservices Australia hands out the odd sponsorship here and there as well as the Womens Pilots Association (great bunch of "Birds") and of course individual aeroclubs around the country. It would be a great thng to see the aviation community get together, especially the RAA getting behind such a program to encourage young people into aviation. I hope Lee is reading this and remember our discussions about this very thing when he was working with Howie many moons ago.:raise_eyebrow:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

It's the EAA that promote and foster Young Eagles In the USA. Harrison Ford has just retired as the chairman of the program ,Harrison took over from Chuck Yeager in 2004. Now 'Scully' Sullenberger and Jeff Skiles have stepped in as co- chairmen of "Young Eagles" The EAA launched Young Eagles in 1992 and by the 100th anniversary of mans first flight they had flown one million kids. Along with Young Eagles at Airventure you will also find a section called "Kids Venture" designed to introduce kids into the world of flying and building aircraft.

 

As for what i want from the RAAus is less of this persudo GA crap and a bit more of making ultralights a bit more affordable and accessable for the average person including young people. too much emphasise is being placed on these exspensive high tech parrots and less and less on what this sport was originally introduced for and that is getting people into the air with out the OVER BLOODY REGULATION that is being stuffed down our throat by control freaks. The US have their FAR103, even the United Kingdom has had some relaxation of control for the lighter end HGFA have their nano light regs. and i want my original 95:10 back.

 

As far as i'm concerned the RAAus don't do to much for me except take my cash and dictate to me what i can't do. over the last 35 years it has been one down hill slide with a succusion of people, boards and committees killing off my basic rights.

 

good timing with this thread Major.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I think RA-Aus has done really well to lobby CASA for a weight increase - it looks like we'll get 600kg even though we asked for 760kg. (Ask for more than you need, and get only part of that?) I heard whisperings at NatFly that there might be a possibility of getting easier finance to purchase aircraft - Lee mentioned it briefly. I would love to see this, and would hate to see any initial work on this go to waste - definitely worth lobbying for.

 

 

[Yenn]

We hear in these pages and elsewhere about the them and us mentality, with GA and RAAus. My opinion is that RAAus should look after all recreational flying, at least single engine flying. that would mean RAAus being responsible for the Cessna, Piper, Mooney etc planes that are used solely for pleasure. No hire or reward or shark spotting.

 

That should fit well with CASA and also suit a lot of current GA pilots, especially those that worry about their medicals. It would also mean that our organisation would live up to its name.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Sorry Ozzie, yes it is the EAA in the USA and not AOPA and as you rightly point out a very successful program. As for the modus operadai of the RAA, I would maintain that the RAA should represent and govern recreational flying in any one/two seat piston powered VFR (by day) aircraft OCTA, regardless of the certification level. afterall CASA still "big-brothers" the RAA operations as they do other stakeholders in aviation:stirring pot:.

 

 

[gregrobertson]

I may cop some critisism for this, but I would be very careful about any move to include GA type aircraft Cessna,Piper etc. into RA AUS. It open up a huge can of worms regarding maintenance of these aircraft, some of which are in excess of 50 years old, and have all the problems that go with this age of craft. I wouldn't mind betting that this is precicely the reason 750 kg was knocked back in the first place. I have to say I agree with MaJ Millard, keep it simple. The more complex, the heavier, faster the aircraft is, the more regulation is going to imping on our privilages. If you want to fly complex aircraft, if you want access to CTA, if you want to fly IFR or night VFR, get a PPL. If RA AUS persists with attempts to win privilages in these areas you will be all burdened with tighter regulations which most don't need or want.

 

Regards

 

Greg.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree with the Single engine thing and GA A/C, BUT. we will have the same problems too in the next few years. We need to be ahead of the game with maintenance. L1 and L2 training is a good first step.

 

Also those wishing to go "back to what it was originally", If you dont move fwd you will die. Some of the regulations we all complain about werte and are coming if we like them or not, its a factor of growing insize and exposure.

 

Having RAA, there at least talking with CASA maybe will slow it down. If we make some smart but hard moves fwd now it may lessen the rules later on someone else forces on us.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

We do not want, or need the older GA type aircraft under RAA. As gregrobertson said it would be a maintenance nightmare. I have worked as a GA maintainer for many years on these older aircraft, and even GA can't keep them going forever. I'm sure the GA maintenance side would gladly give them to us, just to get rid of them !.

 

If they did come our way, CASA would have two choices as far as maintenance is concerned:...

 

1. Require that owners still maintain them through GA maintainers = huge costs !

 

2. Require that our L1 & L2s retrain to a higher standard required for these type aircraft.

 

That would be totally impractical, and even if it were, they would no doubt take the opportunity to bring all our aircraft under the same maintenance umbrella = huge costs !

 

I suspect that one of the reasons we didn't get 760 was this potential maintenance nightmare with single -engine GA aircraft, It just got too hard for them, and they went onto easier things. I think it was a wise move for our future operating costs...............................

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

destinyflyer, Unfortunatly you make it sound so simplistic, which, if you had any direct hands on experience with the industry, you would know it isn't. And yes, in a nutshell, you are missing heaps !!!.............

 

One of the main reasons the GA maintenance industry has gone the way it has (IE; down), is the constant and ever changing requirements put on it by CASA. To name just a couple of the more recent one's:... All maintenance orgs must now conduct, and maintain, a system of in-house drug and alcohol testing to the Depts satisfaction, at their cost.= $s. All aircraft AD's must now be done to country of origin requirements = $s. All maint orgs must now maintain,and document, in-house safety programs, to the Depts satisfaction, and must be in line with fed and state safety requirements, at their cost. = $s. These latest requirements are of course on top of, the multitude of requirements already in place.

 

Most maintenance heads now spend so much of their time in the office, keeping up with required paperwork and amendments, that they have to employ additional people (if they can find them !), to actual do the work on the floor = $s. This just equates to continued additional costs to the aircraft owner, and results in employing less to do the work. It is a continous downward spiral, resulting in a lowering of maintenance quality, with less work actually being done. It would do for our sport, what chasing the CTA endorsement has done. Put us more in the spotlight, and bring more unwarrented attention and requirements, down upon our (now low cost) activity.

 

Yes there are some sevicing similarities, between our aircraft and GA, but that is where it stops. For instance if a maintenance shop takes over the regular servicing and maintenance of your aircraft, they will request the maintenance logbooks be supplied, and kept with them (a CASA requirement). The logbooks must of course only be the CASA approved ones, by the way = $s. They will also charge you for the time required to kept entrys up to date in that logbook (time is money when you've got huge overheads)= $s. They will almost certainly also require that you, (as L1 or even L2) do not touch, adjust, or alter YOUR aircraft between any maintenance events (can't use your L1 or L2 privelages any more) that has their signiture against it. (Duty of care and Liability on their part)

 

This would mean that if your aircraft at 1pm on a Sunday arvo has an engine problem, you would have to pay big time to get them out there, (fat chance !!) or, park it, and wait till Monday morning, or when they can fit you in. Unless of course you can get the aircraft to them, there will probabily be an additional charge, as it is a field visit, (needs CASA approval) and there's time involved to gather all the required gear needed, and load the truck, and Oh don't forget travel time and expense. = $s.

 

Most maintenance orgs would want to, and are required to, work on your aircraft in their fully approved maintenance facility (CASA requirement). Meaning you will get it back when they are ready, and not before. A field visit or event is ment for emergency repairs or AOG (aircraft on ground) type events only, not for your convienance.

 

Beleive my, stick to what we have now, it works, and it will continue to be a whole lot cheaper.......going with GA style maintenance would be the mother of all mine fields....................................................................:thumb_up:

 

 

[Tomo]

I think they are talking heavy GA, not the light GA Dexter...

 

I'm honestly happy at the moment the way it is, I can fly and look after an aircraft, (to a point) I'm having fun being able to just fly joy flights around the farms in a true recreational aircraft, out in the wind enjoying my privilege to be able to even fly. I then can fly a higher speed aircraft to most places in Australia, with somebody. And then if I want to go fancier and fly into bigger places, carrying more people, I will then go and show my log book hrs get a PPL/CPL with the required exams etc...

 

In my opinion if our RAA hrs account, then thats a pretty good privilege!

 

I think looking after the younger generation of new/and up an coming pilots is a greater thing to do than trying to get us more endorsements to put down on plastic. Would you not agree...?

 

 

[hihosland]

It would be horrendously complex, and ultimately expensive to allow the older GA aircraft onto the RAA register.

 

If we did go to the 760kg limit, ( I for one would vote against it ) then in my opinion it should be only for NEW aircraft designed and built with a view to being flown, operated and maintained within a recreational environment.

 

Davidh

 

 

[eastmeg2]

In response to Maj's original question and diverging from the repeated topic of 760kg.

 

As I understand it, in GA aircraft, 2 PPL students may fly together as co-pilots. Are there any conditions on this like CFI approval etc . . .

 

My question is, if that is an acceptable risk in GA, then why not in RAA, besides the obvious differences in maintenance requirements.

 

Our current CAO's state something like:

 

1. One may not pilot an aircraft unless: . . .

 

2. One may not carry a passenger unless . . .

 

The question is: Is a second student pilot or even a fully qualified pilot a passenger or a co-pilot?

 

We may refer to Mick Pooles statement earlier this year that there is no right hand seat endorsement, but does the Op's Manager's word count as gospel or must it be written somewhere in the CAO's that this is how we differ from GA operations? (Apologies to Mick) I don't think a verbal opinion of even the Op's Manager may necessarily stand up as concrete in court, (But it may be a very close approximation of concrete) if it's not documented accordingly (Writing it in the Mag doesn't count).

 

Trikes are in this too but may a bit more open to interpretation since Airborne's POH does not state whether the PIC must sit in the front or rear seat, only that Airborne trikes must only be flown solo from the front seat . . .

 

Bring it on . . .

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[facthunter]

Co-pilot.

 

The only time you would have a co-pilot is when the aircraft is operated with 2 crew in

 

accordance with the ops manual for that particular type. Where there are two command qualified pilots operating it must be clearly understood WHO is operating as PIC. You MUST be clear WHO is in command. This is one of many aspects to what you propose. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I think you will find that someone acting as a co pilot can only do so if the flight requires one. ie rpt ect or if the aircraft op manual states that one is required for that paticular aircraft and must be rated as such. other than that the guy in the right seat is either a passenger and unless rated for right seat cannot fly the aircraft or is an instructor. either way if a two pilot op, a though preflight brief as to who is the manipulating pilot must take place and included in this brief must be stated the phrases for handing over control for both normal flight and emergencies. IE if you are the FO (or co pilot) the brief will contain something like. FO states I will be the manipulating pilot for this take off i will add the power to takeoff setting then rotate the aircraft with both hands you will call the speeds and gaurd the power levers while i rotate you will call postive rate of climb and call climb speeds, in the event of a power failure (twin engine) i will continue the to fly the aircraft and commence the appropriate procedure until you call "taking over" and i will state "handing over" and you will state "i have control" i will then revert to FO and will follow the appropriate procedures. there are clear procedures for who is doing what and avoiding comments like"i thought you put the gear down" must be avoided at all costs.

 

A two pilot cockpit is a whole new ball game it requires precise training. do not attempt this if you have not been trained for it. flight deck managment is the professional term for it.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Hi Ozzie,

 

I'm pretty sure the way it was explained to me was that 2 student pilots could go up in a C152 together, though for all I know, much of what you have written and more might apply.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Two student pilots in anything sound like a bit of a recipe for danger to me ...... :run:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

A co pilot is one who is rated as such. you cannot 'log' co pilot time unless the aircraft and mission call for one. been there and aurgued that.

 

therefore a student is a student and that is that. If the GA licence is the same these days, for two students to fly together then one who is doing the flying must hold a 'Restricted' to carry a passenger. The other person would not be able to "exercise his student rating' as he is required to fly only with an instructor.

 

My interpretation of the rules as i remember them.

 

Major is right. I think it was around 89/ 90 when i was working at camden and one school holidays the place was over run with scouts and guides. sadly a few days into it two went missing, (teenage boy and girl) when flying together. this started a chain of events that claimed more lives when one of the search aircraft went in. i thnk the investigation found that the cashed aircraft was chasing another 150 when it hit the water, warragamba dam. if today, two students cannot be in the same aircraft without an instructor, this would be the reason.

 

to remember back on that crazy week one of the most amusing things i ever saw on an airport was 4 c150/2s meeting up at a taxy way intersection they all ended up having to shut down and push the aircraft out of each others way.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I don't know if this makes things much clearer -

 

CAR 1988 5.73 May an instructor permit a student to carry other students

 

while flying as pilot in command?

 

 

 

(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as

 

pilot in command of an aircraft in which another student pilot is a

 

member of the aircraft’s operating crew if each of the following

 

requirements is not satisfied:

 

(a) some part of the flight takes place outside the student pilot area

 

limit;

 

(b) the student pilot has flown at least 5 hours of cross-country flight

 

time as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for

 

the flight;

 

© the student pilot’s most recent cross-country flight as pilot in

 

command of an aircraft of the category used for the flight was

 

undertaken as the sole occupant of the aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

so the above requierments would put the student as a restricted PPL well into nav exercises. if that rating still exists in the GA training system.

 

so is this reveelant to what the thread is about.

 

how about the RAAus giving those who wish something that doesn't require twenty hrs to fly a scout. (Requested by Arthur W)

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Possibly a bit unrelated, but an interesting story anyway. When I was employed by a now-defunct large flying school at San Carlos airport, just South of San Francisco, as a mechanic, I decided wisely that this was the ideal time to grab a GA private license.

 

I chose one of the young instructors as my victim, (he still talkes to me !) and negotiated a great hourly deal on training from my boss. I had 400 UL hours at the time, and much against my instructors expectations, quickly progresssed, and was signed off as a student in 172s, together with a sign off into Class B airspace due to the extremly busy, and dangerous local airspace. This included no less than three international airports in close proximity, plus two or three active Naval and Air force bases, and many other smaller uncontrolled airports.

 

Literally I had thrown myself in at the deep end, and loved it. With a 10 aircraft training fleet, I was also managing to get a lot of free 'student' time on 'circut training flights', as if we were doing an oil change, the boss wanted the oil warmed up !. Another .5 Hr !.

 

Whilst still a student, and mainly flying C 152s as they were cheaper, my maintenance boss came over one morning and asked me if I could fly a propeller down to a prop overhaul shop to the South, in the 152. Wow, more free time, and just another interesting cross country really. Oh, and could you also drop into San Jose International Airport on the way, and drop off the prop Govenor at another overhaul shop !. Now I see why they gave me that Class B sign off !.

 

We managed to get the prop in, and securly strapped to the seat, (no small feat in a 152) and with the right maps on board, away I went.

 

Although my instructor observed the whole thing, and probabily knew it was illegal (students can't carry frieght around !) he didn't intervene, as he new full well I had the ability to do it, and that it would be great experience.

 

I departed Home base which was towered Class C, down to Palo Alto also towered Class C, they then handed me off to Moffett Naval Air Station, a towered active military base with P3 Orions and the occasional U2 launch !. It's a slow day for them, and I had to circut around for 5 mins whilst the controller made a fresh cup of coffee. All these airports are within 10-15 NM of each other by the way. He then clears me over the top, and passes me onto San Jose International, an active and busy Class A international Airport. There I am cleared to one of the three parallel strips, right next to a landing MD-80 !. I'm looking at the passengers in the windows, looking at my piddly 152, wondering what the hell I'm doing there, with the prop still strapped securely to the seat !. I then depart San Jose and head South to my destination of Reid Hillview airport, which is just your regular CTAF, and arrive safely. The return trip was made without dramas, direct on the same route, less the San Jose stop. I arrived safely back at home base with about 4 new hours of invaluable experience under my belt. The main point I am trying to make here folks, is that our student training system here has got to stop 'mollycudling' and dragging out our basic student training and licensing. By the time our poor basic PPL (restricted) recieves his hard won, and way too expensive license, he/she is probabily worn out, over flying, and bankrupt !. The Yanks realized years ago...make new pilots = sell aeroplanes = great for aviations' future generally. Only the RAAus in this country is turning out anywhere near the number of new pilots, we need for sustainable aviation. We need to further streamline it as best we can, and capitalize on it. Don't weigh it down with more unnecessary bullxxxx regulations, endorsements, or requirements, as CASA has consistantly done in the GA model...............................

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I've been tryin to get my partners grandson to go for a TIF and then follow up with a few lessons for a year or so now. even tho he is interested in aircraft, he just went out and bought a new beaut trail bike. asked him why he would spend his hard earned Macca wages on a bike when he could have started his RAAus ticket. he said that flying is too hard with the study and all the hours needed and limited to one hour a week or so. he can hop on the bike and blast thru the back fence and ride around acres and acres of bush tracks. no rego no licence no study, fuel is his only real outlay. with all his school study i can understand his answer.

 

Gotta make it easier and more attractive and more AFFORDABLE for the young ones and those who aren't cashed up like all you parrot jockeys. there are too many easier cheaper options with more bang for buck for flying to compete with these days.

 

hard to keep the passion when you have your hand in your wallet continuously and worrying if you are going to be tossed in the slammer for a minor stuff up. even i find it easier to go riding with him rather than get up at 5am to set up for a couple of hours of puddle jumping.

 

Good points you make Major. get them soloed put them in something cheap and safe and get them fying asap.

 

 

[farri]

Gotta make it easier and more attractive and more AFFORDABLE for the young ones and those who aren't cashed up like all you parrot jockey.

Having instructed a few young guys over the years,I couldn`t agree more and I do have ideas that I know would work, however, they would need changes to the training syllabus and the only changes to the syllabus that I`ve seen over the years have been to make it more difficult.

 

Frank.