Jump to content

djpacro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,903

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

 Content Type 

Everything posted by djpacro

  1. djpacro
    They did last year. "Last days to have your say on CASA’s performance The important new survey being conducted to benchmark the aviation community’s views about CASA closes on 18 December 2015. The online survey takes about 15 minutes to complete and covers CASA’s key performance areas. Views are sought on CASA’s performance in specific areas such as efficiency, responsiveness, accountability and timeliness. Questions cover how easy it is to comply with regulations, the development of new regulations, consistency of decision making and satisfaction with service delivery. Overall, the survey aims to determine the strengths and weaknesses of CASA’s relationship with the aviation community. Results will be used by CASA’s Board and management to improve CASA’s performance, build stronger working connections with the aviation community and lift service delivery. The survey is being conducted online by an independent market research organisation, all responses are held securely and participants can choose to be anonymous. This survey will be run every two years so CASA can measure changes in performance and interaction with the aviation community. The survey meets recommendation eight of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. Make sure your views are heard and complete the survey now."
  2. djpacro
    Individuals can't use that excuse so we must not accept it from the RAA, nor from CASA who are also way behind with their regulatory guidance information (eg out of date CAAPs).
  3. djpacro
    and offensive so more added to my ignore list.
  4. djpacro
    An interesting although outdated paper on collision avoidance at http://www.augc.on.net/docs/10532_Collision-Avoidance.pdf
  5. djpacro
  6. djpacro
    I have different thoughts after reading the report the pilot put the aeroplane in a situation such that loss of control was likely. analysis shows that it would've been fatal regardless of that deformation and they might've had longer lives if not for that.
  7. djpacro

    Aircraft being built

    djpacro replied to RJ601's topic in Brumby

    My airplane had a new PAI vertical card compass fitted in 2011 to replace the one fitted in 2007. It went U/S recently and the experts declined to fix it so I now have a std compass instead. Perhaps they don't like aerobatics.
  8. djpacro
    Draped along the wing as requested ... sorry not a blonde ...
  9. djpacro
    Nope, nil watchers and only the closest airplanes could be seen from the IAC building.
  10. djpacro
    50+ Pitts at Oshkosh last year in amongst the general public area - the area was packed especially on the Saturday and I didn't see anyone touching an aeroplane but many sitting very close in what little shade a Pitts provides.
  11. djpacro
    No clearance required to taxi from parking area to the runup bays. Fairly prominent signs alert you to where you need a clearance. So, taxi call at the runup bay.
  12. djpacro
    Some good data related to that here: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/fltrpts/lanc360/hq.htm Agreed, and Chris Furse was up there too.
  13. djpacro
    My small sample observations is that CASA people in the field don't care much about small cameras temporarily mounted internally yet the question often comes up and I have seen nothing in writing about it. If I get a verbal answer from CASA I always follow up with an email to confirm - sometimes I get nil response which tells me something. When/if they do put something in writing it logically can't conflict with EFB mounting per that CAAP. Perhaps one day they will see how the USA does stuff but I'm not holding mybreath.
  14. djpacro
    Nope, that CAAP is not about cameras but the rules about mods are very general so anything that applies to EFB mounting would logically apply to camera mounting.Still looking for a reference, such as https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c08.pdf Para 4.3.5 for example.
  15. djpacro
    Where's your reference for that?
  16. djpacro
    Suggest you read the bit about mounting EFBs in the CAAP then we might discuss. It says something about suction mounts and velcro etc not being airworthy so those EFBs must be stowed during takeoff and landing etc. It goes on to say that EFBs mounted to the aircraft structure require airworthiness approval. It doesn't say that you can mount sonething to structure with suction mounts and velcro etc without getting airworthiness approval does it? What constitutes structure? If mounted somewhere that is not structure is it exempt from having airworthiness approval? When we agree on what CASA says about EFBs we can extend that guidance to cameras and end up with nothing practical.
  17. djpacro
    You could put your money under your mattress .....
  18. djpacro
    I think you will find that it does actually meet the normal category spin recovery requirements. Although the FAA allowed that exemption because of the chute they did not have to show compliance however I saw that another country insisted on seeing the spin test results for certification there. I know a number of people who own Cirri (is that correct) and I agree with some of the prior comments - works very well for two of my friends.
  19. djpacro
    Temora.
  20. djpacro
    I am aware of at least one spin accident in a Tiger in the UK where the pilot walked away however I am also aware of quite a few local stall/spin accidents which were fatal. Happened upon this enlightening NZ report just now https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiXksOY4ZPKAhWkGKYKHXiyDCUQFghEMAc&url=https://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/ZK-BAR_Fatal.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGd5QFYUCc97WH5LkipHJ--1thbAQ&sig2=y1s6IHvrVyBKhrlc3GyAPQ&bvm=bv.110151844,d.dGY - see page 13 for a brief summary of Tiger accidents there. Or go to https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/fatal_accident_reports.htm for report 06/4477 on 23 May 2011.
  21. djpacro
    If you go to the FAA website you will see the current Mission https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/ This explains the aftermath of the ValueJet accident http://edition.cnn.com/US/9606/18/faa.valujet/ U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena.
  22. djpacro
    Not true since the ValueJet crash.
  23. djpacro
    What size are approach plates?
  24. djpacro
    There are absolutely no rules on EFBs which apply to private operations (apart from the general rules applying to change to an aircraft per Part 21).
  25. djpacro
    Just trying to keep you out of jail if ramp checked. Don't put it on Utube as CASA loves viewing - two of them inspected a friend's aeroplane after seeing a video from it.
×
×
  • Create New...