aro

I know, I was actually agreeing with your point. I was just pointing out that "newer" in this context doesn't have to be particularly new.

Newer meaning what - post WW2? It's a long time since most taildraggers needed wing walkers. Tiger Moths I guess if a wind is blowing and maybe Spitfires etc with narrow gear. I'm not sure what else. I have taxied no problems in a wind where I had problems putting the aircraft in the hangar - it kept weathervaning, until I figured out I needed to push it in backwards standing on the downwind side of the tail. If you want exciting taxiing in the wind, try a tricycle with castoring nose gear.

Actually, I am saying that a tailwheel is not significantly more difficult for a novice. Zibi is correct, learning in a tricycle tends to reinforce incorrect things to memory and muscle memory. Primarily, the expectation that the aircraft will look after itself after touchdown. A tricycle pilot learning to land tends to sigh with relief when the wheels touch, let the nosewheel down and relax. With a tailwheel you learn that you are still doing ~30-40 knots, still have airspeed and need to positively control the aircraft at that point. Which is a good idea in any aircraft. According to the Budd Davisson article, when Champs and Cherokees were used side by side the typical time to solo was 8 hours in both. I took about 12 hours to solo in a tailwheel. Would I have soloed sooner in a nosewheel aircraft? I doubt it. Budd Davisson also says that tailwheel conversions typically take about the same time as soloing from scratch. Since the initial 8 hours undoubtedly included more than just takeoffs and landings, it suggests that it takes more time to unlearn tricycle habits and muscle memory than it takes to learn to land a tailwheel from scratch. I am sure in your education and training skills you know the concept of primacy - the first way you learn something has a very strong effect, and is difficult to alter. Habits learned in a nosewheel aircraft are difficult to break. Tailwheels are slightly more challenging - the same as RAA aircraft can be slightly more challenging than a Warrior or C172. Nobody suggests you need to learn in an easier C172 before taking on an RAA aircraft. In the whole process of learning to land an aircraft, the tailwheel part is not the most difficult. I'm not saying everyone needs to fly tailwheel or whatever. All I am saying is, based on my observations, if you want to fly tailwheel, and have the opportunity to do your initial training in a tailwheel, it is worth taking that opportunity.

The OP has the choice of tricycle or tailwheel examples of the same aircraft type, and specifically asked "do you think it would be easier to convert from a drager to a tricycle or the other way around." My opinion is that it would be easier to learn the taildragger first (you don't have to unlearn tricycle habits) then convert to the nosewheel than vice versa. Converting from a tailwheel to a nosewheel version of the same aircraft type should be a non-event - even if you get to the point of doing circuits and decide a tailwheel is not for you.

You're assuming that it costs more to learn in a taildragger initially. I'm not sure that is the case (assuming that aircraft costs are similar - I'm not comparing a C152 to a Decathlon or something). Another great tailwheel article: http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182654-1.html?redirected=1 Note that most of the tailwheel guidelines are stuff you will learn as part of learning to fly anyway, without spending extra time. Most of the tailwheel specific stuff happens in the time you tend to switch off and relax in a tricycle - but still costs you $/min. If you learn in a taildragger, you spend a few extra minutes (that you would pay for anyway) learning per lesson, and you don't know the difference. If you learn in a tricycle, you have to go back and spend a whole lot of money on flying (which is no different taildragger to tricycle) to learn those little extras. Despite the RAA tricycle endorsement, there isn't a lot to learn going the other way. My main issues when switching to a nosewheel aircraft: - the instructor used to complain because I would ride the outside rudder pedal in a turn while taxying, he kept telling me to keep pushing the inside pedal. When I could feel the turn in my butt I was waiting for it to tighten like a taildragger, and holding some outside rudder in anticipation. - I was told I slowed down too much for turns when taxying, I should keep my speed up

According to many instructors who teach in tailwheels, in general it doesn't take longer to learn in a tailwheel aircraft than a nosewheel. I did my initial training and first solo in a tailwheel aircraft. The difficult bit is learning to land the aircraft, not the tailwheel. I suspect it is more difficult to learn to fly tailwheel after learning with a nosewheel than to simply start in a tailwheel, because you have to unlearn bad habits from the nosewheel. I think most of the people who claim tailwheels are difficult learned with a nosewheel and did a conversion later, or are just tailwheel pilots who like to grandstand. Some tailwheel aircraft are harder to land than others, but the same is true for nosewheel aircraft. Good tailwheel instructors can be hard to find. An instructor who does ab initio in a tailwheel is likely to be better than the average tailwheel instructor, so if you want to fly tailwheel it could be worth taking advantage of the opportunity. Ultimately, I suggest you learn in which ever aircraft you would rather fly. Personally, I would start in the tailwheel, and if you really find you are having trouble with the first few seconds after touchdown you can always change. One of my favourite articles about tailwheel training: http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleTailwheelTraining.html

But if RAA write their own rules that are more restrictive than CASA rules, CASA would quite reasonably expect them to operate by them.

I think one of the lies is that these rules are required by CASA. I think RAA (AUF) wrote the rules, CASA just expect RAA to follow the rules RAA wrote and said they would follow. Compare the registration markings required for GA aircraft to those required for RAA. If RAA changed their requirements to align with GA requirements, would CASA object? This is one reason when given the choice, I registered my aircraft VH experimental not RAA. Less rules and less bureaucracy under CASA, not more. I am not currently regretting that decision.

I was specifically talking about registration numbers/letters. As I said, I spent a few weeks annoying sign writers with questions about fonts, before someone who does them specifically for aviation told me as long as they are big enough and legible nobody will care. Nobody refers to the specifications in the regulations. Look at any newish GA aircraft (Cessna etc) and see whether their registration letters comply with the specifics of the regulations.

I'm not sure whether you are serious or trying to wind me up... According to the ops manual, the duty pilot has the authority to control and direct operations of recreational aircraft. How does this work e.g. if you have GA and RAA aircraft operating from the same field? What about if you flying in from elsewhere, and someone starts directing your operations over the radio? How will it work? As far as I know, the only people with the authority to control and direct aircraft operations are ATC. The duty pilot also has the authority to ground aircraft or pilots. What happens if in Teckair's case he grounded the aircraft - as a CFI he theoretically has this authority for all RAA aircraft that operate from the field. And if you consider it a public liability risk management measure, then presumably a CFI or duty pilot can be held responsible for all RAA operations that happen at their field, and could be held liable for failing to prevent some activity that resulted in an accident. Indeed, perhaps any RAA pilots could be held liable, if there was more than one aircraft operating and they failed to elect a duty pilot who otherwise would have had the responsibility and authority to control the activity? This seems to be a hangover from the days when aircraft would literally be flying from a field, below 500 feet and not crossing roads etc. In that case, it makes sense. In the current operations, no.

Why would this apply to RAA but not to GA e.g. Experimental?

When I was preparing to register my VH - experimental aircraft, I had to get registration markings made. The regulations were very specific about the characteristics of the font etc. that are required. I spent a few weeks talking to local signwriters trying to find someone who could make the registration letters in a font that complied with the regulations. Eventually I wised up and went to someone who regularly made markings for aircraft. They told me, don't worry about the font, as long as it's the required size and legible nobody will care, and the majority of new GA aircraft don't comply with the requirements for registration markings anyway. OK... sigh. It seems like in aviation you need to know which regulations you need to follow, and which to ignore. For those who say we must follow all the rules in the ops manual, when was the last time you elected a duty pilot, as required by the ops manual when more than one RAA aircraft operate from a field? When was the last time you reported to the duty pilot or CFI, as required when operating at a field that is not your home field? I don't think all these rules were required by CASA. I think that half the RAA rules were written by someone who liked rules for their own sake, but since that's what RAA said they would do, and CASA approved it (You want to elect duty pilots? CASA has no objection) CASA now expect RAA to follow the rules RAA created.

I would have thought what is required is that you would have to show that it was VH registered and had an applicable airworthiness certificate in its current configuration, and that it met the criteria to be transferred from VH to RAA registration. There are a number of aircraft transferred from VH reg - what standards do they normally have to show compliance with? Are you even allowed to make modifications to an aircraft transferred from VH registration e.g. change the propeller, even if it then matches the configuration of other RAA aircraft? I would have thought that sort of modification would have put it into the experimental category, rather than the absence of a modification. For example, presumably the performance information in the flight manual which came with it from VH reg becomes invalid. If you had an aircraft type that was originally certified for GA with a 80hp Rotax 912, but RAA LSA versions had the 100hp Rotax 912S, would you be required/allowed to change the engine in your aircraft match the LSA version, without becoming experimental? I know, logic doesn't always apply...

I would read the exemption to part 5 as allowing you to fly without the qualifications required by part 5 (PPl/CPL etc.), and therefore allowing you to fly with a RAA issued pilot certificate. It still seems that RAA is considered to be providing flying training, as CAO 95.55. 3.1(f) specifically allows advertising of flying training without an AOC. To me, 95.55. 3.1(f) suggests that there should be a matching exemption allowing the actual flying training to occur without an AOC. Perhaps there is an Instrument somewhere allowing it - oh dear, CAO 95.55 is already an Instrument, Instruments on Instruments perhaps. If you get the impression that I think the regulations are a mess, and that a pilot can't be expected to interpret them or use them to work out what is and is not allowed, you would be about right.

I agree. So, do RAA training facilities require an AOC, and if not, why not? (CAR 206 defines which operations require an AOC.)

To answer my own question, I found the reference in CAO 95.55: 6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training. This is not consistent with the GA experimental category, where only the owner can receive training (CAR 262AP): (2) An experimental aircraft may be used for any of the following operations in support of an operation for which the special certificate of airworthiness was issued: (g) for an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft--flying training given in the aircraft to its owner. So (I think): VH experimental, if you didn't build it you can be trained in it but can't maintain it RAA amateur built, if you didn't build it you can maintain it, but can't be trained in it

I'm not trying to argue for commercial operations in RAA, I'm just trying to read and understand the regulations. A court ruling is one way to gain understanding I suppose, but not a terribly efficient one. If I flew away for a weekend and was pinged for taking my laptop and mobile phone (tools of trade) and maybe even responding to an email or (horror) processing a sale while I was at my destination, I probably would challenge it in court. CAR 206 is confusing regarding RAA. Can you provide a reference as to why it applies/does not apply to RAA aircraft? And if it does apply, why are RAA allowed to perform flying trainig without an AOC? I found a reference in CAO 95.55 exempting RAA from CAR 210 requiring an AOC to advertise commercial operations, but not section 27 of the Act, requiring an AOC for the actual flying operations. The more I explore the regulations, the less they make sense, and the more convinced I am that aviation works on the basis that what everyone else does is allowed (until CASA decide something isn't!), anything else is forbidden.

On the face of it, PPL vs CPL doesn't seem to refer to CAR 206. PPL vs CPL refers to CAR 2(7)(d) which defines private operations. CAR 2(7)(d) also has a clause "(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);" (are private operations) which seems to be as wide a scope as your para (ix). However activities included in CAR 2(7)(d) also seem to be defined as commercial in CAR 206 therefore requiring an AOC. I'm not sure how RAA interact with AOCs - presumably there is an exemption from CAR 206 somewhere (or perhaps CAA 27(2) specifying the requirement for an AOC) at least for flying training purposes. Also, I don't know how private operations included in CAR 206 e.g. certain agricultural operations work in relation to AOCs. I suspect someone must have an AOC, but the pilot isn't required to have a CPL. There may not be anything similar in RAA, which might effectively prohibit operations included in CAR 206 in a roundabout way. However, I have heard of ultralights being used for agricultural work, so perhaps it is possible if someone has an AOC...

I don't think CAR 206 was ever intended to include tools of trade. If it does, the qualification "being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" seems bizarre, because it means taking borrowed tools is OK, but not your own. It seems more logical to interpret the intended meaning to be you can't e.g. use your aircraft to import crays from King Island for sale without an AOC. The qualification is still a bit odd however, because it seems to mean that you can't take something to someone and sell it to them, but you can deliver it after they have purchased it and ownership has transferred to them - it is no longer "property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft".

Addendum: On the topic of the original question, if we want to be able to fly recreationally, and we think that our recreational flying should be less strictly regulated than commercial flying then I don't think it is desirable to allow commercial operations in RAA. If we allow commercial operations, it seems that regulation of RAA must be stricter than if only private operations are allowed.

I'm not convinced that CAR 206 defines private operations at all. CAR 206 defines Commercial Purposes "For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act". Subsection 27(9) deals with the purposes for which an AOC is required - not the requirement for a commercial license. CAR 5.78 defines what a Private Pilot License allows you to do "to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or as co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in a private operation" with the note: "Paragraph (d) of subregulation 2(7) sets out the operations that are classed as private operations." It appears to me that paragraph (d) of CAR subregulation 2(7) defines private operations, not CAR 206. The assumption that private operations are operations that are not commercial seems incorrect. CAR 206 lists: (ii) aerial spotting; (iii) agricultural operations; (iv) aerial photography; as commercial operations. Subregulation 2(7) paragraph (d) lists (ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted; (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft; (iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted; as private operations. This seems to say that e.g. agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft are commercial operations that require an AOC, but can be performed with a private pilots license. It seems clear that an operation can be both commercial and private. Subregulation 2(7) paragraph (d) also lists (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft; as a private operation, which seems to mean that transportation of the owner of the aircraft is definitely a private operation. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on what the owner does at the destination, except that CAR 206 says that carriage of goods property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft for the purposes of trade requires an AOC. I don't know the definition of "goods for the purposes of trade", but it seems that it must be goods for sale, not just tools of trade. If CAR 206 includes tools of trade it would seem, for example, that a commercial pilot was forbidden from carrying a pilot's tools of trade without an AOC. Or if you assume a pilot is somehow exempt, what about a salesman carrying a mobile phone on a flying holiday? How far do you extend tools of trade? Do I need an AOC to check work email at my destination, if I carried my smartphone with me? Whether this is how CASA interprets these regulations I don't know, but that is how I read them. Ultimately, it is CASA's interpretation that matters, until you are prepared to pay a lawyer to go to court and challenge them.

Unfortunately, the CARs don't actually say what the CAAP says they say: CAR 5.81 (2) An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in: (a) an aeroplane: (i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and.... (Emphasis mine) Which means the instructor can approve using a different aircraft type. I don't see any limitations on the circumstances, some examples that come to mind (not referring to any specific aircraft) might be: the instructor doesn't want to use an amateur built aircraft the instructor's insurance doesn't cover the aircraft the instructor is not familiar with the aircraft type the aircraft doesn't allow the instructor to review the pilot to their satisfaction another aircraft would allow more advanced material to be covered etc. I tried to find a reference in the RAA ops manual etc. about use of amateur built aircraft for instruction of the builder/owner, but I couldn't find anything referring to it. Can anyone point me to the actual rules covering this?

Must, unless the person conducting the review approves otherwise... so it's actually pretty much at the instructors discretion.

Maybe it's my prejudices, but I suspect CASA would fight a case harder than an insurance company. I suspect CASA would be happy to fight in court, with as many taxpayer funded lawyers as required, whereas an insurance company would be more inclined to settle. I can imagine there could be difficulties suing the estate of somebody who has been dead 5 years. Your first battle might be finding an insurance company that would admit to covering liability for the case. If you were the lawyer, and had the choice to sue CASA, Barry Hempel's estate or the doctors, which do you think is most likely to deliver the best result for your client?

I suspect that the reason the doctors are being sued is not because they are any more responsible than CASA or Barry Hempel, but because they have insurance companies behind them who are perhaps more likely to settle.