aro

Presumably Bankstown had a tower keeping the big picture though, not to mention multiple runways and circuits. Seven aircraft OCTA on a single runway is pretty busy.

A common misconception that has even been stated in CASA presentations. The reality is that there is a long list of conditions that disqualify you for a RAMPC, but you can still get a class 2. But your main problem is that CASA Audit on your class 2 immediately disqualifies you from RAMPC.

You can also join the club of people with a class 2 who can't get a RAMPC.

Sure, but no-one would know they weren't there if you didn't need them anyway. So ignoring the rules is a risk you could take, but don't. Not really. If you test long enough on a big enough population of pilots you can gather statistics, at which point you can compare events in the stress lab vs. events in the air. 20 was a made up number, it might be 5 or 2, or you might surprise me and get a number less than 1. Probabilities still exist for rare events - they just become difficult to measure. You definitely need to know the probability of an event in the stress lab, and how much that test reduces the probability of an event in the air before you can justify the test. Here's a hypothetical: A patient comes to you and requests an angiogram. They do manual laboring, and the company doctor has created a policy that workers over 50 must have an angiogram because they don't want people to have a heart attack on the job. There are no indications they need it, but if they don't get the test they will lose their job. Do you do the test?

Is the risk low enough that you would go ahead with a test if for some reason the normal resuscitation equipment was not available, if the person looked fit and healthy? Or not that low? The CASA response would be valid if you knew 100% that the person would have subsequently had an event in flight. However, if someone had a cardiac event during a stress test, but the chances (making up numbers) of having an event in flight would have been only 5% and they were 95% likely to have the event in bed, gardening, walking to the shops or not at all, then CASA would be saying that it is better to have 20 cardiac events during CASA testing than to have 1 in flight. Private pilots typically spend less than 1% of the hours in a year in flight. If they are to have a cardiac event, odds are it won't be in flight. If there is any risk from a stress test, the probability might be that the stress tests will trigger multiple (maybe many) events for every in flight event you prevent. I'm not even sure whether it would be considered ethical for doctors to do these tests where not medically required, if the statistics were examined.

2.2.10 A pilot must advise ATC immediately if issued a clearance which requires the use of navigation aids not available to the aircraft, or the pilot is not qualified to use 4.1.2.1.f. The pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by means of radio navigation systems or any other means must indicate in the flight notification only those radio navigation aids with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is competent to use under CASR 61.385. ATC can issue clearances based on nav aids which have built in tolerances for separation. That assumes that the pilot is qualified to use those aids. If you are not qualified, you are not allowed to accept a clearance based on the aids because it might compromise separation. And, you are not allowed to put them in the flight notification because that is what ATC use to know what types of clearances they can issue. OCTA things are more relaxed because separation and navigation is your problem. The requirements for navigation under VFR are that you navigate by reference to ground or water and fix your position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes. How you determine e.g. which direction you fly is not specified. It could be compass, following roads, NDB, VOR, GPS, flying towards the sun... it doesn't matter as long as you are also using reference to ground or water and fixing your position using features on the chart at least every 30 minutes. If you use radio navigation aids the 30 minutes can be extended to 2 hours and the fix can be determined by radio aids as I referenced previously. However, the navigation and position fixing procedures are quite specific. In particular, when using GPS it must be an "approved area navigation system", which is not an Ipad or even (as I understand it) aviation specific portable GPS. So when using most GPS you are still required to "fix your position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes".

My memory from when I did the PPL test was that you were allowed to use navaids, but if you did you had to use them properly, i.e. not just tune it in and start following the needle. AIP ENR 1.1 has the specific requirements: 4.1.2 Flight under the VFR 4.1.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR: a. The pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water, or by using any of the methods specified in para 4.1.1, except that when operating at or below 2,000FT above the ground or water, the pilot in command must be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. ... e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals and by the methods prescribed in paras 4.1 and 4.1.5. paras 4.1 and 4.1.5: 4.1 Flight under the IFR 4.1.1 An aircraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by: a. an approved area navigation system that meets performance requirements of the intended airspace or route; or b. use of a radio navigation system or systems on routes where, after making allowance for possible tracking errors of ±9° from the last positive fix, the aircraft will come within the rated coverage of a radio aid which can be used to fix the position of the aircraft. 4.1.5 Position Fixing 4.1.5.1 A positive radio fix is one determined by: a. the passage of the aircraft over an NDB, VOR, TACAN, marker beacon or a DME site; or b. the intersection of two or more position lines which intersect with angles of not less than 45° and which are obtained from NDBs, VORs, localisers or DMEs in any combination. For the purpose of this paragraph, a position line must be within the rated coverage of the aid with the exception that if a fix is determined entirely by position lines from NDBs, the position lines must be within a range of 30NM from each of the NDBs; or c. GNSS meeting the equipment requirements of GEN 1.5 Section 2 So it doesn't seem to be prohibited, but the actual requirements to do it legally seem pretty strict. In particular, without an approved GNSS the routes you can fly are probably pretty limited - mostly direct from aid to aid, unless you want to get fancy and start doing intersecting position lines. Even that might be impractical given the small number of radio navaids these days. For practical purposes, VFR navigation is very much focused on navigation by visual reference to the ground.

My question was whether people who don't use paper charts are aware of the note. The text is "REMAIN NORTH OF RAILWAY LINE TO AVOID AEROBATIC AREA"

There are also text notes similar to the one for the coastal route- not just lines on the map. How many ipad users know the notes exist?

It's not just whether you can see the note, it's whether someone who doesn't know it's there will find it in their normal use of the map - preferably at the flight planning stage. There are other notes on that map too - what about the note about the aerobatic area, or the notes about flying east of the CTR and the north eastern VFR route?

Anyone can follow a GPS and end up at their destination. That's no great feat of navigation. The important questions are: Do you know where you are, or only where your device tells you you are? Do you know where you are going, or are you going where-ever the device tells you? Do you have enough awareness to recognize if your device is giving you bad information, sending you in the wrong direction (either due to device error or user error)? Do you know what airspace, terrain, airports etc. are around you, e.g. 20-50 miles either side of your track? Do you have enough awareness of where you are going to e.g. modify your track to avoid passing downwind of hills and mountains on a windy day? In other words, are you navigating or is the device? I have noticed that the Ipad screen is very small compared to a paper map. There is a lot of information on a paper map that is virtually impossible to get from an Ipad, simply because you can't see enough of the map at a large enough scale.

To cross over with another thread, that box with the recommended procedures only shows up in OzRunways if you zoom in so far that you can't actually see any useful features on the map. People who don't use paper maps may not be aware of it. My understanding of the proposal is it will have Eastbound at 1500, Westbound at 2000 and RPT at 2500.

It is part of the GBAS instrument approach for RWY 34 at Melbourne. I have heard details before. My opinion is they want to effectively close the light aircraft lane (CTA down to 1000' or lower) but can't push that one through. So instead they come up with a proposal that is basically within the rules but will be unworkable in practice. Then when they get too many TCAS RAs etc. for aircraft flying the approach they can't shut down the Melbourne approach, so are "forced" to NOTAM a restricted area closing the light aircraft lane. The proposal has YMML traffic (up to A380) at 2500', as I understand it turning onto final, with VFR traffic OCTA at 2000. At 2000 VFR is "clear of cloud" so your cloud base could be e.g. 2100 with the Melbourne traffic in cloud. (If an A380 passes 500' above you, I'm not sure whether you are better off seeing it or not seeing it!)

Presumably the bloke hanging out the door would be the one who was supposed to renew the insurance!

CASA publish a list, currently it is: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) Maintenance Procedures Course as approved by CASA or A CASR Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation that is approved by CASA to provide category licence training. You don't have to be a member of SAAA to be an AP. I doubt that t all APs are members of SAAA. You can also apply directly to CASA (and pay accordingly I presume). So there is some link to SAAA but the responsibility is more on the individual AP. Someone has to actually have the authority to issue the Special C of A. There are a couple of problems if you wanted to make the AP responsible for airworthiness: 1) There are no airworthiness standards for Experimental Amateur Built so there is nothing to evaluate against. 2) Even if there were, there is really no way to be sure there are no faults unless you were there during the building. That is why certified aircraft have a strict production process. The regulations actually say the AP must issue a certificate of airworthiness if the applicant is eligible. Eligibility does not include an assessment of airworthiness, however the AP can put conditions on the certificate. That really is the underlying principle of Experimental Amateur Built. If you don't like that arrangement, fly certified aircraft. That is a long standing concern with the AP process. However, I don't think insurance solves the problem, it tends to create juicier targets. Have you seen how quickly the PL lawyers move on to the next target if you don't have insurance? I think people tend to fight a lot harder to hold on to their own money, so unless you have a lot of money the lawyers would rather take on an insurance company. On the other hand anyone even peripherally involved covered by insurance is fair game - as your fire marshal found out (since he was sued, I am betting there was insurance coverage).

No, it means they administer the standards for the courses. They do not manage anything to do with actual maintenance in the field. The wording is murky because you are trying to see things that are not there. SAAA provide support for aircraft builders. A number of SAAA members are CASA Authorised Persons who can issue Experimental Certificates of Airworthiness. You do not have to be a member of SAAA to receive a certificate of airworthiness (or to be an Authorised Person). This is a service that is available commercially. However last I looked SAAA offered the service at a significant discount to people who have been members for a number of years. The Authorized Person does not make any determination about the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is solely the responsibility of the builder of the aircraft. Likewise maintenance standards are the responsibility of the owner and the person who signs the documentation.

There is a clue on that site: For every other organization it says "... administers". For SAAA it says "... provides support". SAAA don't actually administer anything.

There is certainly foreshortening, but that can't explain the view of one side of the aircraft then the other, or the changes of alignment of nosegear and main gear in relation to the observer. Using the gear you could probably work out exactly what angles were involved. It does look a bit exciting, it looks like the pilot tried to kick it straight for touchdown but got a bit enthusiastic and didn't account for the rotational inertia of wings and fuselage that size.

The problem is that the SAAA is like the RACV, in that it offers some benefits to membership but they have zero authority to enforce rules. GA Experimental is operating 100% under rules set and enforced by CASA. If the RACV decided to implement a safety management system and apply it to members they would have a similar problem. There is a suggestion that the SAAA will become an organization like RAA where people are required to be members. The claim (like the MPC) is that this is being driven by CASA, I have some doubt about that.

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like: When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations. If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities. Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval. The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

Yes, I suspect that is supposed to be hydrocarbon emissions i.e. partially burnt fuel and oil.

The problem is that the theory taught to pilots is simplified to the point of being wrong. It's OK for the intended purpose (flying an aircraft) but not so good as a basis for other theories e.g. how an aircraft really turns. Other examples are Newton/Bernoulli and pitch vs. power for airspeed on final - the arguments arise because what pilots are taught is oversimplified.

They illustrate that the elevator does not turn the aircraft, and is not required to turn the aircraft. Model or full size, the aerodynamics are the same. The elevator does allow us to turn without losing height or adding power, which is usually desirable.

That's not required to turn, e.g. you can have a single channel glider. The turn isn't balanced while you are applying rudder but when you neutralise it it should be quite well balanced due to the large amount of dihedral required to get the roll control from the rudder. The rudder initiates and ends the turn, but while the aircraft is banked it will continue to turn without rudder or elevator input.

Unfortunately, just because it comes from the FAA doesn't mean it is right. Someone seems to have decided that if it isn't the rudder then obviously it must be the elevator but that's not correct. Try a 15 degree banked turn and see how much control over the rate of turn you have with the elevator (assuming you have enough power to keep a constant speed). Single channel (rudder only) RC shows aircraft turn just fine without an elevator control. You need to increase the load factor to account for the bank - which means an increase in speed, either from a descent or increased power. That isn't always desirable or possible, so using the elevator we can increase the AOA to change the load factor. The (coordinated) turn is always from angling the lift vector to one side. In a steep turn it *looks* like the elevators "pull you around the turn" but it isn't actually true.