10,000ft and over water casa approval

[Guest ozzie]

no cruising in the transition layer, so get your QNH right.

 

 

[GraemeK]

I thought up to 10,000ft on QNH was always available - but that FL110 (or even FL120) might not be available depending on QNH.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong ......

 

 

[facthunter]

Could be.

 

I'm not fresh on it to tell the truth. That is why I said look it up. I recall that some of the F/L's are not available. with some QNH's. IF we are going to be using these levels, it would be a good thing to get it right. At 33' per Mb you can get a lot of variation. Nev

 

 

[Relfy]

But is there an efficient altitude that we can cruise at with our mostly Jab and Rotax motors? At what heights does the motor performance deteriorate?

 

 

[ahlocks]

I'm not fresh on it to tell the truth.

Likewise, I didn't think I'd get to be going that high so I haven't swotted up on the nitty gritty.:ne_nau:

 

 

[GraemeK]

Yeah - I reckon by the time the Jab made it to 10,000 it'd be time to head back down again anyway - I'd guess the last 1000ft or so would take some time.

 

 

[facthunter]

Range and Efficiency/Altitude.

 

As you climb with a normally aspirated motor the output of the engine reduces, so eventually you will reach a height where you can climb NO MORE. You will be almost stalled so if you slow up you lose height, and if you speed up you also lose height. This is called absolute ceiling and it will be very much affected by Temperature , as well as height as it depends on DENSITY altitude, Consequently you can fly higher in winter.

 

Jets do much better at height with fuel efficiency, so they get up into the thin air, to get anywhere.

 

My Citabria POH (Plane is gone, I had a spare book) gives very little difference with altitude on the Cruise performance charts. The figures at 8,000' are slightly better than at 10,000', but there is very little in it The main variation is achieved with lower power settings, where the range (still air) improves from about 500Nm on high power to 880.Nm on low power. The endurance in Hours is even more astounding at 3.6 Hrs and 10.0 Hrs. under the same conditions. I would expect most other conventional aircraft to behave in the same way. If you have a headwind never fly at lower speeds. (works fine with a tailwind). Nev

 

 

[ahlocks]

I'll be happy just to be able to get high enough to get out of the summer bumps. :thumb_up:

 

I've had a quick peruse of the AIP and at first glance, it appears there is no limitation on 9500ft. The limitations do apply for flight above 10K. Could be wrong though...won't be the first time..

 

Here's a link - (section 1.7 and Sect. 2 if interested)

 

http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/enr/1_7_1-4.pdf

 

Cheers!

 

 

[GraemeK]

Here's a link

The hard copy AIP has a great diagram:

 

 

 

[Guest watto]

Yeah - I reckon by the time the Jab made it to 10,000 it'd be time to head back down again anyway - I'd guess the last 1000ft or so would take some time.

I did climb to 7500 on one trip due to rough weather and tiger country and it did not take the Jab that long to get there but the conditions were far improved to that at the lower level.

 

I have often found that the broken cloud level is smack in the main levels we normally cruise at and the reluctance to climb above due to regulatory requirements is a decision that our human factors deals with, now that decision will be an easy one to make!!!!! we will have that abolity to do this without having to gauge whether or not our situation justifies doing so and we can justify it, many people would rather struggle along dodging clouds that potentially cross that line. (Not for much longer):encore:

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Cameron, if you go VFR on top, (i can see a can of worms opening here).I would not do it this unless, i have already found out by ringing up/ or radio etc someone at your destination the airfield is clear of cloud, and b- i had a alternate airfield clear of cloud (i mean, not a little hole to sneak through)This is the rules i set for myself.Its not gospel.Also you must get a positive fix by visual reference to features shown on your chart not exceeding 30 minutes.

 

 

[ben87r]

so has this been confermed as my CFI hasnt herd anything about this at all and neither has any one i fly with

 

 

[Guest watto]

You canot go VFR above cloud that that is not broken and prevents navigation I believe no more than 30 minute intervals ( not 100% on that) but I would want to be seeing a lot more of the ground than that I can tell you, the cloud I was refering to is broken cloud that is scattered yet enough of it that it is a pain in the bottom, not thick sheet of cloud as that is then no longer VFR. lets just consider the ability to get to a smoother level without dodging scuds a bonus and put the scenario's and speculation aside for another time.

 

 

[Guest watto]

so has this been confermed as my CFI hasnt herd anything about this at all and neither has any one i fly with

This has been verbally confirmed by at least 2 RAA board members.

 

 

[pudestcon]

But, not actually in force yet - until CASA goes into print on the subject?

Agree!! "If it ain't written it ain't done".

 

Pud

 

 

[Guest spacewalker]

That's great news if true. I am looking forward to an official announcement soon.

 

MH

 

I was at a club meeting on the weekend and an RAA board member announced that the CASA ceo had announced that RAA has been approved for flight to 10,000ft without special circumstances and also that over water travel had been granted to the point where with the appropriate safety equipment a flight to NZ was permitted! this is exciting news and will add additional safety to distance flyers who wish to get above the rougher weather and terrain.The proposed reduction in RAA board members was also discussed.

 

Has anybody else heard the same?

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi Cameron, if you go VFR on top, (i can see a can of worms opening here).I would not do it this unless, i have already found out by ringing up/ or radio etc someone at your destination the airfield is clear of cloud, and b- i had a alternate airfield clear of cloud (i mean, not a little hole to sneak through)This is the rules i set for myself.Its not gospel.Also you must get a positive fix by visual reference to features shown on your chart not exceeding 30 minutes.

For flight over more than 4/8 you also need the "servicable flight and navigation instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 Appendix IV (IFR and Night VFR).

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi crezzi and watto, i wouldnt fly above cloud more than four/eights either,to scary, i just mentioned the max 30 minute rule for positive fixes, because unless changed, that is what i have read about and been taught.I should have mentioned a bit more i guess.

 

Crezzi- i didnt know that about cao 20.18, or i have forgotten about it.Thanks for the heads up.

 

 

[nong]

Thanks Relfy, I was unaware of that crossing. If you were going to do it it though it would be nice to be one of two planes in case things got ugly.

Speaking of Tasman crossings.......Ben Buckley went from the bottom corner of our mainland, non-stop to Haast ( NZ West coast, South Island ) in a lightwing. That was hard core because at 65-70 kts any unplanned for headwind is a disaster. I think Ben's machine was 582 powered. Am I right? Makes an island hop in a J230 a relative doddle, but still adventurous.

 

 

[nong]

I'm sure Ben would like a VC! "Councillor Ben Buckley VC" has a certain ring.

 

 

[Yenn]

A 582 powered lightwing to NZ must be well out of RAAus range. Allow 15 hours at 20l per hour equals 300l or 210kg. Doesn't look as if it will come in under 544kg total to me.

 

 

[Gibbo]

Yeah - I reckon by the time the Jab made it to 10,000 it'd be time to head back down again anyway - I'd guess the last 1000ft or so would take some time.

Can be done. :black_eye: With a big thermal under you.. Got bounced from 6500 to 10300' in a J170. The ride on the other side was interesting to say the least. -1700' pm @ 70kn and 3000rpm.