aro

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...

As a rule, the airworthiness standards do not apply to EAB aircraft. No-one is going to certify your EAB aircraft is airworthy or meets any airworthiness standard. That is 100% up to the builder. You can build what you like, and power it with whatever you like. Then it is between you and your AP what restrictions need to be applied in the interests of public safety. For the original question, you definitely need to talk to the SAAA. They have people who are on top of all the details.

For a VH registered EAB aircraft, the details are in CAR 262AP: (4) A person must not operate an experimental aircraft over the built-up area of a city or town unless authorised to do so under subregulation (5). (5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water. As far as I know there are no specific requirements for engines etc. It is all down to the judgement of the Authorised Person whether it is permitted and what conditions and limitations are applied. If you are planning building and want the ability to fly over built up areas, it would be worthwhile to talk to the SAAA and an AP who could issue the authorisation, and see what they would consider disqualifying. Even if you have a certified engine there can be other reasons the authorisation might be denied, e.g. the particular aircraft design, build issues etc. But the earlier you talk to the AP about what they would require, the better.

I don't think that there is any intention is to do an evaluation of quality or to uncover fly-by-night or backyard operators. The intention seems to be solely to ensure that the kit meets the major portion (51%) rule. So it is intended to uncover operators who provide a kit that is too complete i.e. not enough work for the builder to meet the major portion rule for amateur built registration.

I'm fairly sure there isn't a fuel pressure gauge in the injected C172 I have flown. Fuel flow definitely, but not fuel pressure.

So what weight limit do you need to bring the stall speed down to 45kt so it is RAA eligible?

600 kg should bring it down to 49 by my calculation. 45 would require 510kg.

What's the stall speed? Isn't the maximum stall speed 45 kt for RAA?

The OP is flying in Switzerland, most of the replies relate to Australian procedures. Without being familiar with Swiss procedures it is hard to provide advice. I'm not sure that there is much else that could have been done - it sounds like one of those close encounters that are very rare but hard to avoid. Turning may or may not help - a turning aircraft is easier to see, but banking also creates a much larger profile for a collision.

Serves me right for trying to reply to 2 messages in one post rather than double posting. Only #1 was referring to your message. The rest was in reply to Turboplanner. My argument is with the assertion from Turboplanner that: I doubt that that information is in BAK because it is often not true. (You would know better than I what is in the BAK, I am happy to be corrected.) The full flap balloon over an obstacle is often (wrongly I think) taught as a way to get extra obstacle clearance over the POH/AFM technique. Either way I don't think using full flaps for obstacle clearance is good information to give to a student studying for BAK.

It was me who said that. I wasn't suggesting that you crashed, just that it wasn't a technique that should be taught in BAK. 70 feet is a big balloon. The technique was demonstrated to me when I did my PPL, from memory the typical balloon was 10-20 feet. It was supposedly a way to clear fences, not trees. You can't create energy from nowhere. The energy for a balloon comes from airspeed. Flaps may be useful if your airspeed is low enough that trading it for altitude puts you at risk of stalling. However in that case you only have energy available equivalent to the difference between stall speed with and without flaps, which isn't 70 feet worth in our aircraft. If you started at 100 knots and had 70 feet worth of balloon energy, the elevator should have been sufficient. If the flaps cause extra drag, you will end up with more energy at the top without them. However flaps might change the trim enough that the aircraft pitches up with less elevator input, giving the impression that the flaps produced the climb. Consider the situation in this thread: For maximum performance (recommended for high density altitude), he needed flaps 0 and 59 knots. Instead they had flaps 10 (flaps 10 recommended climb is 56 knots) and 65-70 knots and at the high density altitude they weren't climbing. Do you think dropping full flaps would have helped them over an obstacle? It might have given them 10 feet if they timed it right, but then they would have been sinking rapidly. As I said in that thread, know the configuration that gives best performance and the speed you have to fly to achieve it. You can put that in the BAK.

Every time I line up on the runway I rely on the theory of flight, I haven't been disappointed yet. If you feel you have discovered situations where the theory doesn't hold, people would be interested. Just pulling back at 100 knots and trading altitude for airspeed should give you about 200 feet by the time you're down to e.g. 70 knots. You can try this at altitude if you don't believe the theory. Setup for 100 knots straight and level, pull back into a climb without touching the power - by the time you are down to 70 knots you should have gained 200 feet.

Full flap would be unusual though? There is folklore that I have heard a number of times that the best way to clear an obstacle is to put in full flap as you fly towards it. Sure, the aircraft is initially likely to balloon. But what happens then? Maybe you climb away - depending on the airspeed and the aircraft, maybe even at a greater angle. But depending on the airspeed (e.g. too high) you could even sink again. So you really need to time the flap input. When it works, people are around to tell us. When it doesn't, maybe not... I hope this is technique is NOT actually being taught as part of BAK.

Sure, but I suspect that you would have made it over without flaps as well. It was the "slowest forward speed and maximum climb was full power and full flaps" bit I was querying. Particularly in a BAK thread. It's not generally true, and shouldn't be taught in BAK.

Pretty unlikely. Flaps add heaps of drag, to give a better angle of climb they would have to allow you to slow down more than they impacted your rate of climb e.g. 10% less climb but 20% reduction in stall speed would give you a better angle of climb. But it seems unlikely that flaps could reduce the stall speed enough without adding too much drag. The POH will have the answer, does it require flaps for best angle of climb? (Which is different to an obstacle clearance takeoff.) Flaps will certainly allow you to get off the ground sooner, if you are already flying they will not help you climb.

The solution seems simple, Avdata send the information to RAA who pass on the bill to the owners. Then RAA require outstanding landing charges to be paid before renewing aircraft registration. RAA could add a fee to cover costs - or Avdata might even discount their fee to account for sending one invoice a month instead of one for every aircraft.

Studies have shown that 9 out of 10 spreadsheets contain errors. If Avdata can correct errors in their bills, it is evidence that they are not heavily computerized. If you have ever tried to correct a billing error by the large telcos or utility companies it can be very difficult because the person on the phone can't change the computerized record. Sometimes I suspect there are policies of making errors that are small enough that the customer won't bother to go through the hassle of correcting them. A few dollars over a million customers adds up...

I agree about the weather, it looks like the rain caused a down draft which translated into a strong wind blowing away from the rain, the same direction they took off. This is probably a common danger if you're taking off to beat weather. I gave them the benefit of the doubt on the mixture, they said "mixture set" rather than rich, and it didn't look fully rich. The flap setting is a very important point. I looked up a C172M POH online and definitely flaps 0 would be appropriate, particularly at high altitude. I disagree about the speed though. Waiting for 65 knots to rotate or climbing at 65 knots would degrade performance. For a maximum performance takeoff the POH specifies Flaps 0 Climb speed 68 mph (59 knots) until obstacles are cleared. For a flaps 10 takeoff, 65 mph (56 knots) until obstacles are cleared. Flaps 10 gives you a lot of extra drag. Too fast as well gives you extra drag squared. (Obviously that is slow and could be a problem in gusty conditions like this. Gusty winds and a requirement for a maximum performance takeoff might be a good reason to stay on the ground.) Often during training a few extra knots are added for "safety" and comfort. That doesn't usually matter because we usually have performance to spare. However, it can be deadly if you really need that performance. If there is any doubt about takeoff performance, know what configuration gives you the best performance, and know what speeds to fly to get it. However, whatever the reasons for the problem, the abort decision was good. Problems can happen to anyone, and it would be easy to sit there in denial and wait for the aircraft to climb until it is too late. Takeoff accidents are statistically much more deadly than landing accidents.

In fact it clearly fits the classification of a private operation that can be conducted with a PPL: CAR 2 (7)(d)(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made. However, to me it appears that perhaps it should require an AOC: CAR 206 (1)(a)(vii) ambulance functions (or a purpose that is substantially similar). The issue seems to be that that gives Angel Flight more responsibility than they want to take on. They would rather that all responsibility rested on the pilot.

CAO 95.55 has the answer. The requirements for an active restricted area are the same as for other types of controlled airspace.

I don't have absolute faith in CASA - quite the opposite. I am saying that CASA do not always act according to the regulations, but if CASA say you must do X then (in practice) you must do X even if the regulations say something different - unless you want to take them on in court, which as you point out might not be a good idea. I am saying that (CASA permitting) we should be operating according to the regulations as written, not as interpreted according to unwritten principles behind them handed down through folklore.

I do carefully read what you write. The problem is that if you and I have different beliefs about the principle behind a regulation, how is that resolved? The principles behind each clause are not documented - we only have the regulations to work with. Commercial operators have problems in large part because they engage lawyers who come up with an interpretation to match what the operator wants (and mostly they want to reduce costs and avoid complying with inconvenient regulations). CASA also appear to frequently disregard the text of the regulations and instead work off an individual's opinion of what should or should not be allowed. As I have said before, in the end the only thing that matters is CASA's opinion, unless you are prepared to fight in court. However what we don't need is to make up additional rules, like RAA registered aircraft can only be used for Recreational Purposes.