Jump to content

aro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    964

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by aro

  1. aro
    I think you are breaking the rule down incorrectly. You are not allowed to charge to carry goods. You are allowed to carry goods for free, unless they are the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft and you are transporting them with the intent of selling them. i.e. you can't run an airfreight business where you purchase stock, transport it and sell it as a private operation. You are allowed to carry someone else's trade goods for free - just not for hire or reward. The assumption is that that you would not make a business of that.
  2. aro
    Actually you are not permitted to do operations that are not Private Operations. It doesn't say anything about Commercial Operations. There is a general assumption that anything that is not Private is Commercial, and anything that is not Commercial is Private, but that causes problems in various areas. Particularly where you try to use CAR 206 to define Commercial and CAR 2(7) to define Private. There are areas of overlap, and probably areas that are not included by either.
  3. aro
    I'm far from a Pauline Hanson supporter, but CAR 2(7) also includes "the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" so maybe it would be legal if there was no payment for carrying her. Or under 2(7A) if she and Ashby shared the cost of the flight equally.
  4. aro
    RAA pilots are only allowed to fly for Private operations or training. Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d), which includes "the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft". I don't see "Recreational" included in any regulations, or an actual definition of "Recreational". "Recreational" was basically just a branding change from "Ultralight" anyway, not a basis for regulation. The reference to the ops manual seems to refer to the purpose of RAA being to "encourage" recreational aviation, which is has no bearing on what is and is not allowed.
  5. aro
    The reason I said it's misleading is your statement made it sound like RAAus write the rules for RAAus pilots, but there may be some rules overridden by CASR etc. That's not true - CASA write the rules for RAAus pilots as for everyone else. The RAAus rules are another layer on top of the CASA rules. RAAus pilots are required to comply with both.
  6. aro
    That's a slightly misleading way of putting it. CAA, CAR, CASR, CAO all apply to RAAus the same as GA, except where an exemption is granted i.e. the specific exemptions listed in CAO 95.55. In addition, you have the rules written by RAAus (Ops manual etc). They apply because operation according to those manuals is a condition of the exemptions in CAO 95.55.
  7. aro
    I shouldn't have picked on Jetjr specifically, it is a more general problem here as well as across all aviation. People will tell you what they think the rules are but they never actually look them up. I have literally been in the room when 3 flight instructors were unsure whether something was allowed under the regulations, they had a vote: "2-1, well that settles it, it is not allowed". Ridiculous. Jetjr's assertions are correct in at the high level of "not all RAA aircraft can access CTA" but not very useful if you want to know which aircraft can access CTA.
  8. aro
    I do tend to look up a regulation before I make a comment about what it says.
  9. aro
    Do you have a pilot certificate? You are supposed to know the regulations (at least where to find them). CAO 95.55 is the foundation of RAA existence and your ability to fly RAA registered aircraft on a RAA pilot certificate. It is very important.
  10. aro
    Interesting question. I am not sure what the current official recommendations are. When I was learning, I was taught the standard circuit join was "crosswind" at the departure end of the runway. Sometime after that the procedure was changed to "midfield crosswind" over the middle of the runway. It could have changed again. The advantage of joining over the departure end instead of the middle is that if you have an aircraft joining for 18 and another joining for 36, you have a full circuit to figure it out instead of figuring it out when you are head on at the circuit join...
  11. aro
    Appendix B in the report details the examination of the trim actuator. It seems they pretty thoroughly investigated this possibility. According to the timeline, the mayday calls were in the last 3.5 seconds before impact. I suspect the pilot had realized that the situation was unrecoverable. Overall the report seems pretty good to me. Generally there are multiple pieces of evidence listed for the conclusions, and it avoids speculation where there is no evidence. They were probably very careful, knowing it was likely to be scrutinized by the lawyers.
  12. aro
    Pretty much everything has more bacteria than a toilet, because toilets tend to have a lot of bacteria killing products used on them. Bacteria are everywhere. Interestingly, the old statement that there are 10 times more bacteria than human cells in our bodies seems to be incorrect - it seems more likely to be about the same number of bacterial and human cells.
  13. aro
    There's something seriously wrong with it now! I assume 5000 ft was a pre-planned decision height, they start much higher and if the aircraft wasn't recovered by that altitude they abandon it. If you're suggesting that's too high, what altitude would you suggest?
  14. aro
    There wasn't "an" old instrument, there were many - they seem to have been issued individually to flying schools. Many of them replaced the whole CAO 95.55 under which RAA operates with a new version. It would make it challenging for a student to learn the rules... https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01166 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01173 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00029 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00132 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00144 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00146 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00647 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00051 That's not all of them. CASA literally write a set of rules then modify them with dozens of alternate sets of rules that apply to specific operations.
  15. aro
    I was wondering whether an instrument actually exists yet, or whether they are saying they will allow schools to apply individually to have specific instruments written (presumably with associated costs).
  16. aro

    New fuel laws

    aro replied to jetjr's topic in Governing Bodies

    This is an interesting area. There was an article about ramp checks in the USA where they said the FAA are clearly not allowed to ask about anything that happened in the past in a ramp check, because that is an investigation not a check. Investigations require additional powers and the person being investigated has specific rights etc. You would hope the same applies here. Questions about fuel logs for a past flight etc. can clearly be used to establish whether you have broken the law. Do Australian pilots have rights in this area? The CASA ramp check checklists appear to be wish lists not necessarily based on the actual law. Of course, asserting your rights with CASA may also cause you difficulty...
  17. aro
    GA Experimental came along much later than the AUF.
  18. aro
    I was taught to do the run-ups on the tank to be used for takeoff, DO NOT CHANGE TANKS BETWEEN RUN-UP AND TAKEOFF. The theory is that the run-up proves the fuel supply is good. The pilot assessed it as a partial power loss, but it's pretty clear that it was complete when you look at where it ended up. It may have taken a few seconds to lose it all, but there is no way there was significant power being produced. The timeline isn't very clear., but the run-up is very close the runway and it doesn't suggest there was a delay at this point: "when the pilot informed ATC that he was ready to take-off, he was issued a takeoff clearance". I read it as 11:09 he was cleared to taxi to the run-up bay, he taxied there, did the run-up, then changed tanks which to me suggests much less than 4 minutes, probably less than 2 on the RH tank.
  19. aro
    I would not expect carby ice to allow enough power to get airborne normally, then suddenly limit power to the point where it won't continue flying. Looking at the map and the sequence of events in the report, it sounds like the pilot changed tanks very close to the time of taking off. My suspicion would be that there was some problem with tank selection, and the pilot found out how long it will fly on the fuel in the gascolator and fuel lines.
  20. aro
    It's important to remember that the basis of RAA is CAO 95.55. CAO 95.55 is an exemption from various civil aviation regulations. It exempts people from various airworthiness and maintenance standards, and most significantly the requirement to hold a pilots license, provided you comply with various conditions. Conditions include Private or flying training operations The pilot is a member of RAA and has a RAA pilot certificate (which is not a pilot license) The aircraft is registered with RAA The aircraft has a MTOW up to 600KG and stall speed of 45 knots or less. Compliance with the RAA Ops manual So the question really is: what types of flying should you be allowed to do without holding a pilot's license? If you want to do more than what is permitted, or you don't like the conditions applied, you can go down the path of getting a pilot's license - which is now easier than ever with the RPL transition. Which of the US, UK, Canada and NZ allow you to pilot an aircraft without a pilot's license?
  21. aro
    I first started flying in Drifters back in the AUF days. EFATO first action was taught as a firm push forwards that made you very light in the seat (probably wasn't 0G but felt like it!) to maintain airspeed. With the low speed, light weight and high drag airspeed disappeared very quickly after engine failure if you were slow to get the nose down. My understanding is that one of the early problems the AUF addressed was a high EFATO fatality rate in pilots who came from GA and were used to aircraft with much lower drag. They didn't get the nose down fast enough and stalled. This was the primary reason for the minimum 5 hours training to convert - to thoroughly cover these differences. Now RAA machines tend to be much faster and lower drag I suspect this is not covered very well anymore. I assume it was the origin of the low performance endorsement, which was one RAA specific endorsement that I was in favour of.
  22. aro
    Some funny numbers there... ('000) 243, 226, 211, 207, 379. 379 sounds fishy. 179 would fit the trend better and gives 2.23/100000 hours which is still the best in the table but also fits better with the other values.
  23. aro
    How are we supposed to know what you were told? People are "told" a lot of things that are not actually in the rules, because the person telling thinks it's a good idea. So if it's a rule, it is helpful to actually quote the rule rather than what someone told you - even if it was the ops manager. It seems more likely that the ops manual authors took the view that part of authorizing student solo would be evaluating the aircraft type, and that instructors were capable of using their own judgement. There may be instances where 2 types are very similar so additional training is not required. There would also be cases where the type is the same, but there are differences (e.g. equipment) that would require extra training. If an instructor can't be trusted to make the judgement they shouldn't be sending students solo IMHO. In this case, one news report said that the student had passed the test but needed additional hours. Maybe they were clocking up hours for the passenger endorsement?
  24. aro
    Maybe I've been lucky, but I would have said the average quality of RA instructors I have had is much higher than the GA instructors. I have never encountered a RA instructor with these minimum qualifications. The school where I did my PPL was terrible (it doesn't exist anymore). Schools that hire their own graduates as instructors end up terminally inbred. Instructors with very little real world experience, who have done a minimum of flying away from their home airport and are just building hours. The ATO owned the school, and for the flight test the instructors warned me: "He's a screamer, but don't worry, he does that to everyone." If I was a bit older and wiser I would probably have got out at the first landing, left him to take the aircraft home and complained to CASA. On the other hand most of the RA instructors I have flown with have come back to instructing after working elsewhere in aviation. Most or all have also had GA instruction qualifications, some as CFI of a GA school. Vastly more (and more varied) experience than the GA instructors I have had. Mostly they either got out of GA because they got sick of the CASA paperwork and expense, or instruct RA and GA side by side. Personally I think it is a warning sign if a school doesn't instruct both RA and GA. Even more of a warning if they badmouth RA.
  25. aro
    IMHO overtaking on finals means it's out of control and unsafe.
×
×
  • Create New...