aro

Doesn't the RPL provide a simple process for CTA access already? The RAA pilot certificate is accepted as qualification for a RPL, so the process seems to be Apply for a RPL Do a RPL flight review Get the RPL CTA endorsement - which could quite realistically be done as part of the flight review. Then you can fly your RAA aircraft in CTA. What advantages would a specific RAA CTA endorsement give you?

That's not really true. There might be a few things that are permitted under basic class 2 that will not be allowed in normal class 2, but there are far more that make you ineligible for a basic class 2 but CASA will let you have a class 2 after appropriate investigations. Basic class 2 is not a medical for people who can't get a regular class 2. It is a simplified process (no DAME required) for people who don't need complex assessment. It's supposed to be easier and cheaper, but not really a lower standard. If you have anything complex, CASA want you to get a class 2 so they can keep an eye on you.

The SAAA is there to help people build, maintain and fly amateur built aircraft. I have been a member for many years, but you do not have to be a member to fly an experimental aircraft. Once an aircraft is registered and has the Experimental COA, it is a VH aircraft. You do not need to be a member of any association to keep it registered or fly it. That was one of the attractions of Experimental to me. If RAA screw things up badly all the members and aircraft could be grounded (see the registration debacle). If SAAA cease to exist, all the aircraft can continue flying regardless. People building an aircraft to fly in the RAA system would also benefit from SAAA membership. Building is the same regardless of the eventual registration, and SAAA can provide support and advice. (There have been numerous changes since 1998. I have a feeling that was about the time the current Experimental certificate came in so I don't know whether you would have built under Experimental rules or the old ABAA system, which was much more restrictive.)

Did you end up with a Basic Class 2 or a Class 2 medical? There are certainly circumstances where you are not eligible for a RAMPC or Basic Class 2, but you can get a Class 2. You have to see a DAME and perhaps do extra tests, but end up with a full Class 2 (which can also have conditions). That sounds more like the process you went through.

That doesn't sound like they intend that the medical standards will be prescribed in the ops manuals AFTER part 103 commences.

An interesting snippet in the CASA discussion paper on 760kg. It looks like the current RAA self certification medical is planned to be replaced by CASA administered medical certificates (RAMPC / Basic Class 2 etc). The relevant section: Medical requirements This proposal would apply the ASAO's current medical arrangements for pilots operating aircraft up to 600 kg, to 760 kg. Eventually, Part 103 of CASR (Sport and Recreational Aviation Operations) will consolidate the rules for private recreational operations including these medical requirements. Until the proposed Part 103 commences, the medical standards for Part 103 aircraft pilots including instructors will be prescribed in the respective ASAO's operational manuals approved by CASA. (Emphasis mine) My reading of this is: There will not be separate medical requirements for 600-760kg aircraft The RAA medical standards from the ops manual i.e. self declared fitness to drive a car will only apply until part 103 begins. Part 103 will apply the same medical standards to RAA pilots as for the CASA RPL. Under Part 103 you will need a CASA recognised medical certificate.

You probably should talk to the SAAA to get the details of what an Authorised Person would want to see. But I think that inspections etc. are recommended but not actually required fro issue of the certificate. The requirements for VH registration are actually much simpler than for RAA registration - RAA went and added a whole lot of requirements of their own that don't exist in the VH world. You would be applying for an experimental certificate for the purpose of CASR 21.191(g) operating an amateur‑built aircraft: that is an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation; And you are entitled to the certificate if: CASR 21.193 An applicant for an experimental certificate is entitled to the certificate if the applicant gives CASA, an authorised person or a relevant approved design organisation the following: (a) a statement, in a form and manner acceptable to CASA or the authorised person, setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used; (b) enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft; © upon inspection of the aircraft, any information reasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person or relevant approved design organisation to enable it to impose any conditions, including operational limitations, necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water; I don't know the current SAAA policy, but it seems it would be hard to deny you a certificate if the legislation says you are entitled. What they can do is set additional operational limitations if there are perceived issues with the build, aircraft design etc.

Why do you say that? As far as I can see, the only requirement for VH Experimental is that "the major portion ... has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation". No real requirement for documentation.

The risk to people on the ground from single engine piston in general is very low. If you look at the accidents, the risk to people on the ground comes from: military or ex military jets cargo jets private jets RPT jets turboprops In other words, size and speed make a big difference. Never the less, small aircraft flying over are the ones people worry about falling onto them, and those are the ones CASA focuses on. The biggest public risk is a Roulette crash at the F1 GP, a private jet ending up on the Tullamarine freeway or a 777 ending up in Keilor Park, but CASA's rules are based on public perception, not actual risk.

The latest video from Flightchops has an interesting look at this subject:

I suspect it really shows how much force can be generated by an impact at the wingtip - much greater than flight loads. One wingtip hits the ground, that wing folds upward and the other wing immediately falls downward. So I suspect the stiffness wasn't in the wing attachment, it was in the carry through which failed when the wing tip hit the ground. It's not really important whether the wings stay attached in a crash - you need the passenger compartment to stay intact. The lack of injuries to the occupants suggest that it did a good job in that respect.

That's just gobbledygook. Seriously: (1) A Part 103 aircraft is listed with a Part 103 ASAO for the purposes of this regulation if the aircraft is listed with the Part 103 ASAO in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation. Who is supposed to read that?

It's not about making you safer, it's about limiting the risk to the people around you. You can make your own decisions and choose your own risks, but limited speed and limited weight limits the kinetic energy available to cause damage. Back in the AUF days, exemptions were negotiated on the basis that the ultra-light weight of the aircraft meant that risk to others was insignificant. On that basis: You can fly without a CASA license You can do your own maintenance You don't need an aviation medical Aircraft don't need to be certified to the normal GA standards as long as the weight and stall speed were below specified limits. In the early AUF days the weight limit was 450kg. Then it was raised to 480kg. Then 544kg. Then 600kg. Now talk about 760kg, and campaigning for higher stall speed as well. When do you get to the point where the ultralight exemptions become unjustifiable? Already exemptions are being wound back, e.g. stricter licensing, stricter maintenance, stricter medical requirements. The CASA RPL is an additional danger for the RAA - at some point the differences with the RPL will become unjustifiable and requirements are likely to be merged. Don't be surprised if e.g. suddenly you need a RPL medical and LAME maintenance in return for higher weight limits. And I doubt that there will be sub-categories based on weight operating under RAA.

You're over thinking it. Speed is how fast you are travelling, not what the instruments say (just ask the police!) A legal reference to speed must be CAS - or probably more accurately TAS at sea level in a standard atmosphere.

There are something like 40 pages of statistical analysis in the report. This information is there. If you want to criticize the statistics, maybe it would be worth opening the report first?

How many fatal crashes would you need to see to consider it significant?

The most dangerous place is final approach when everyone funnels into 1 flight path in line with the runway. The closer you get to the runway the less variation there is in flight paths. The rest of the circuit is designed to allow you to locate other aircraft and plan separation, before you are on final approach. If you don't fly a standard circuit it makes it more dangerous, not less. CASA has decided that radios provide sufficient safety for straight in approaches and joining on base. That might be true, however straight in approaches are hard to slot into regular circuit traffic. In theory the aircraft on the straight in is supposed to give way, in practice the aircraft in the circuit are the only ones with practical ways to adjust the spacing.

You don't get to run the case, you hand it over to the insurance company. They don't want to bet their money on your experience. In our case (I assume typical for a relatively small case) I saw no evidence that the PI lawyers or the insurance company actually left their offices to investigate facts, it was all done by letters and phone calls. The PI lawyer wants the insurance company to look at the list and say "Can we refute ALL of those allegations? We're not sure, better not risk it, lets settle." It all changes of course for a large case like Turboplanner's of course, but they are the minority. In reality you probably don't have much to worry about because the PI lawyers would rather go after the council, because they almost certainly have a bigger insurance policy.

Do you think so? Lets write this up in the style of a personal injury lawyer. Remember they don't have to prove anything unless it goes to court, even then the standard is "balance of probabilities" i.e more likely than not it happened - much lower than the standard in e.g. a criminal trial. The PI lawyer doesn't want to go to court. They want to convince the insurance company that they also do not want to go to court, they would rather settle. So the PI lawyer builds a list as long as they can of points they would require the insurance company to argue against in court. The Defendant sprayed lubricant on the swing. The Plaintiff slipped and suffered injuries due to overspray of lubricant on the chains. As a result of the Defendants actions in applying lubricant to the swing, they owed a duty of care to users of the swing. The injuries to the Plainiff are a result of the negligence of the Defendant. Particulars of Negligence The Defendant: Performed maintenance on the swing without authorization Performed maintenance on the swing without adequate training Performed maintenance on the swing without adequate materials Failed to take adequate care when performing maintenance on the swing Used an unapproved lubricant on the swing Used spray lubricant on the swing resulting in overspray on the chains Failed to prevent overspray settling on the chains Failed to clean overspray off the chains Caused the swing to be in a dangerous condition Caused a danger to the Plaintiff Failed to warn the Plaintiff that the chains were slippery Failed to warn the Plaintiff that the swing was dangerous Allowed the Plaintiff to use the swing when it was in a dangerous condition Failed to notify the council that the swing was dangerous Failed to notify the council that the swing required maintenance etc.

I still have the claim, you prompted me to look it up. There is various stuff like failing to keep a lookout, failing to provide a ladder, unnecessarily exposing him to the risk of injury, permitting him to climb the flagpole, permitting him to put himself in a position of danger etc. Failing to warn him of the danger of climbing the flagpole is expressed with about 5 different wordings. There's nothing there that wouldn't apply to any organization with a flagpole. No-one instructed him to climb it or knew he was going to try. He was a volunteer. He tried Workcover first but they denied coverage. We were 3rd in line - he also tried the volunteer organization that referred him to us, but their insurance company also denied coverage. That's not true for out of court settlements. No-one has to prove anything. They just have to convince the insurance company that they would rather pay than argue in court - and that's not hard for small settlements. Small out of court settlements are actually good for insurance companies. They make their money from people buying policies, and a flow of small out of court settlements encourages claims, which encourages people to buy policies. If no-one sued, no-one would buy policies. It's the big multi-million dollar claims that insurance companies don't like. A steady, predictable flow of relatively small payouts is the fuel that powers insurance companies.

I think you have a very rose-tinted view of the public liability issue. The majority of cases wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom, and people are thinking more about Profit and Loss than Donoghue and Stevenson. We got sued a few years ago by a guy who climbed a flagpole, slipped, landed on an object which HE HAD PLACED at the bottom of the flagpole and broke his leg. The suit alleged that we were liable because we had: Failed to adequately train him not to climb the flagpole Failed to adequately supervise him and prevent him from climbing the flagpole Failed to maintain the flagpole in a condition where people would not fall from it and be injured + half a dozen more alleged failures It's hard to imagine this succeeding in court on the basis of Donoghue v Stevenson, but no-one wants to go to court. They just go backwards and forwards for a few months for appearances, then pay a settlement.

To correct myself: I went and read the source regulation, and there was a formatting problem in the paste in this thread. "the aircraft can land at, or take off from, the place safely having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take off (including the prevailing weather conditions)." isn't part of 2(a)(iv) it is a separate clause applying to all aerodromes. 2(a)(iv) authorizes anywhere that is suitable to land and take off an aircraft 2(b) says for certified, registered, defence aerodromes and places that are suitable (i.e. everywhere) you need to be able to do it safely. In any case this shouldn't be controversial, and I don't think there have been recent changes (except perhaps to numbering).

Of course it's how it operates in practice. 2(a)(iv) covers every operation at a location that is not a certified, registered or defence aerodrome. These operations are happening all the time, but CASA doesn't want to be involved in assessing every farmer's paddock that they want to use as an airstrip. The regulation says that the pilot must not use a location that is not a certified, registered or defence aerodrome unless it is suitable and safe. What is the argument with that? I recall covering this in theory classes 20+ years ago. The question was where can you take off and land, the answer was CASA has effectively authorized the whole of Australia for use as an aerodrome as long as it is safe to do so. If you have an accident e.g. put a wheel in a rabbit hole it would be strong evidence that the location was not safe so you have contravened the regulation. The safe and suitable clause in this regulation doesn't apply to certified or registered aerodromes, so if you put a wheel in a rabbit hole on a certified or registered aerodrome you have probably not contravened this regulation. The rule doesn't appear to have changed significantly, and I haven't heard anything about CASA prohibiting operations from locations other than certified and registered airfields, OR absolving the pilot of the responsibility to ensure it is safe.

That regulation is in fact very permissive. CASA is basically authorizing you to use ANYWHERE as an aerodrome, as long as it is suitable for landing and taking off aircraft and you can do it safely. it's hard to imagine how it could be less restrictive. Do you want to land in a paddock? Operate your helicopter out of your backyard? This is the rule that allows it - as long as you can do it safely. Of course, there may be other rules that apply - landowners permission, council, national park rules etc. but CASA are authorizing you to land where-ever you like.

More information about how accurately they flew the book figures would be useful. E.g from an online POH the C182 performance calculation is based on an initial climb at 58 KIAS. If you let the speed build past that it will use a lot of extra runway. Allowing the speed to build to 66 KIAS would account for at least 30% extra ground roll compared to 58 KIAS. (66/58 squared, which assumes constant acceleration. Real life is probably worse) Likewise the landing figures specify heavy braking. They said they used moderate braking which could easily account for 30%. Another thing to be aware of with braking - braking early when you are still going fast counts the most. Heavy braking when you have already slowed down doesn't make as much difference - the runway is already behind you. Having said that, the book figures are very short and most of us would be challenged to achieve them. 433 feet is 132 metres. Add 50% and you are still below 200m, which would make you stop and think in a 182 I reckon...