Roundsounds

Thank goodness, we should all feel so much safer now these new rules are in place. You’ll never see another Australian aircraft run out of fuel again. Much better to legislate than educate pilots. Particularly when the statistics show the incidence of fuel exhaustion have been steadily decreasing for the past 15 years and the bulk of incidents have involved commercial operators who have had mandated fuel reserves as part of their operations manual.

CAR 206 defines commercial purposes and applies to RAAus operations. Based on this information there should be no reason you cannot use an RAAus aircraft for the purposes you have described. CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))

I’ve got a Piper J3 Cub, no batteries to worry about.

That’s why the correct term is “periodic inspection”. It will in most cases occur at the earliest of 100 hours or 12 months. The only time this may vary would be in accordance with the manufacturers schedule.

Yes, it gives great peace of mind knowing this extensive testing has been done. I’ve done a lot of spin training in Chippies over the years. I always provide students with a copy of the TNS well before we fly. We then take some time to discuss the published entry, maintenance and recovery technique before flying and never enter a spin below 5000’ AGL. I’m amazed at the number of pilots and instructors who recite a spin revovery technique omitting any mention of throttle or aileron. When I mention throttle / aileron some respond with blank looks, other say of course I would make the appropriate adjustments. I was recently doing some Upset recovery training with a professional pilot who didn’t understand the concept of “unloading”. He was adamant you must pull back on the control column to un-stall when inverted as it lowered the nose relative to the horizon! He couldn’t get the concept that angle of attack is in no way related to pitch attitude relative to the horizon!

The spin strakes and wide chord rudder on the DHC-1 were proven to have next to no effect on the spin. DeHavilland produced a TNS (effectively an AD) providing operators with information on spinning the Chippy. This was produced not long after the aircraft was put on the Australian register and a few of them spun in. An Australian registered aircraft was extensively tested (VH-RSV, which was also registered as CBM, AFG, WAU and ZIT at various times in its life). Bottom line was, start at a safe height, use the manufacturers recovery technique and you’ll be safe.

A good friend and former work colleague of mine was killed in that accident. He was a very diligent commercial pilot under instruction. The problem with gliders preparing to takeoff being you cannot see directly behind and rely on hand signals from persons outside the cockpit and radio transmissions from other traffic to establish you are clear of traffic when launching. The pilot’s wife tells me the other glider’s radio was U/S and the signal given said all clear.

Accident investigation may be limited by financial constraints The data analysis and training are a matter of lack of expertise or willingness to accept offers of assistance from those with the exerpience.

The LSA POH seems to contain a different procedure...

There are a couple of fundamental flaws in the RAAus safety system: 1. Those responsible for the development of procedures, training syllabus and other facets related to producing a safe operating system are also the same people who investigate incidents. This has the potential to bias the investigation process / findings. I’m not suggesting any deliberate manipulation of findings, but they’re may be blind to the deficiencies in their systems. There needs to be an independent set of fresh eyes looking into incidents. 2. There is no apparent analysis of incident data, directing people to review the incident data base and come to their own conclusions as to how to they might avoid having the same issue is wrong. There is no need to publsh individual incident reports for all and sundry to see. Proper analysis of data will reveal problem areas in operations. This information can then be used to develop appropriate training to reduce incident rates. People don’t go flying with the intention of hurting themselves, it’s generally the result of a lack of awareness or poor skills - these can be corrected with proper training. I recently saw the logbook of a pilot who had just passed his RPC flight test. His whole 20 odd hours training consisted circuits according to the entries in his logbook! RAAus should publish a syllabus of training, at present there is a table of competencies but not a syllabus. Student need to be aware of what their training path looks like and be actively involved in planning it, this is a basic adult learning principle. A lot of information is hidden in a CFI portal. This should be shared with all pilots rather than the old “knowledge is power” approach, that went out years ago thank goodness.

Interesting recovery technique, but no doubt developed as the result of Flight testing. The method of only making any pitch input after rotation stops is unusual, given the design of the tail I would have thought a pitch down would assist in providing airflow over the rudder and may be required to stop the rotation.

I agree, I’m past trying to fix anything now too. I wouldn’t hold out too much hope with the various organisations. I met with one recently and sat listening to the war history for 2 hours. I couldn’t get a word in.

You’re a game person. They’ll accept your FR form as it doesn’t indicate whether it contained any training. Should someone start asking questions as the result of a licence holder you’ve conducted a Flight review with it may become a problem. They’ll get you on 141.015 1(1) (f), which says: (f) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review; I’ve spoken at length with Roger Crossthwaite on this subject and that’s the reg he’s quoted. Flight Review Information sheet

If you look back 25 years ago most country towns with an airport had a Flying School / Aero Club located there. These small schools have all but disappeared, mainly due to the complex and costly administrative processes introduced over the last 25 years. The Flight Crew Licencing reform (parts 61/141/142) is the final straw for these small outfits. These reforms were meant to be about ICAO harmonisation, if CASA had adopted ICAO there would have been a resurgence of the small outfits and likely an increase in pilot training numbers. Instead of harmonisation, CASA took the opportunity to introduce even more restrictive measures. Under ICAO, a Flight instructor can train pilots without the need for a Part 141 certificate and all of the administrative processes involved. The USA FAA and NZ CAA have adopted ICAO guidelines. Most Flying Clubs and small schools in the USA / NZ don’t hold Part 141 certificates. They simply own aeroplanes and teach people to fly following the rules already in place. When it comes time to issue a licence, the instructor contacts a Flight examiner who notifies the FAA or CAA, then conduct the Flight test. Under CASAs Part 61, I can take a pilot who learnt to fly in a Jabiru and endorse them to fly say a Harvard along with formation and aerobatic endorsements. I can issue the endorsements, send them on their way all without the need to hold a Part 141 certificate. But along comes the owner of a Harvard, Cessna 150 or any other type and I cannot complete their flight review if I provide any input unless I have a Part 141 certificate! The system is broken and nobody is able to fix it. On top of this we now see RAAus schools popping up to fill the void left by the GA flying schools / aero clubs. As well meaning as these people in RAAus schools are, they simply don’t meet the standard of the professional and experienced GA schools.

Downwind calls were introduced when secondary airports changed to GAAP procedures. (secondary airports were capitol city GA places like Bankstown, Archerfield, Moorabbin etc). Prior to the introduction of GAAP, aircraft routinely reported turning base with intentions at both controlled and non-controlled airports. The change to a downwind call suited ATC as it allowed them to better sequence aircraft. A base call is still a more appropriate routine circuit call than a downwind call at non-controlled airports. Routine downwind calls have crept in over the years as pilots trained under GAAP flew into non-controlled airports.

I would hope you would have sighted the aircraft well and truely before they broadcast their crosswind entry. Also knowing a standard crosswind entry is made between midfield and the DER you’d scan that airspace. I find too many RAAus pilots don’t know where to find rules, reg’s and official guidance material. There seems to be too much reliance on what they were taught, as opposed to what’s written. CASA have tried to make life easier for the sport pilot/PPL holder by producing the VFRG, I just don’t think too many read it.

The information is out there, it’s just a matter of keeping up to speed. The CAAP says to join between midfield and the departure end of the runway, I personally aim for the upwind threshold which satisfies the intent of the CAAP. Having said that, between midfield and the departure end of the runway is the correct procedure. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/182536/download?token=ev1DY9ng You’ll also find it in AIP and the VFRG Arrivals, departures and transits | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I’ve always joined crosswind over the upwind threshold, overflying the normal crosswind leg is unsafe. The CAAP simply states what has been taught for many years.

it’s time members of these organisation called for their management to work on a united front to achieve the best outcomes for the industry, rather than playing silly political games. Whether you’re an AOPA, SAAA, RAAus, GFA or any other Sport/GA group I’m sure we just want to go Flying with minimal fuss and cost without all of the political dramas. Whilst these individuals continue to poke each other in the chest CASA will continue to regulate us out of the air.

Surely not!?

Downunder, these pilots are who are annoying you are in fact doing the right thing. The standard circuit entry on crosswind is based on overflying the upwind threshold and that has been for the past 40 plus years I’ve been flying, instructing and testing in both GA and RAA. The broadcast of “joining crosswind” indicates you would be overflying the upwind threshold to join the circuit, the recent trend to state “joining midfield crosswind” is unnecessary. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/182536/download?token=ev1DY9ng To join crosswind any further upwind of the upwind threshold is unsafe, you may then be flying over an aircraft climbing to circuit height on the normal crosswind leg. Below is a link to the CASA CAAP on non-controlled aerodrome procedures.

I had in mind a group of members from each organisation who are feed up with this poor behaviour and management to call the meeting. They would run the meeting to ensure there is an acceptable outcome reached. This would then require regular follow up meetings to make sure things are kept on track. This could potentially stop the blame game as there are independent people there to witness the proceedings.

Agree re the lack of cooperation between these organisations. I reckon it’s time to arrange a meeting with the senior management of these organisations and have them work out how they can put their differences aside and develop a strategy to work together to try to undo the damage caused by their poor performance. Together they could have effected change to the unworkable rules CASA are introducing. Instead they are wading with each other and allowing CASA a free hand to do what they like. The most effective time to change the rules is during the development of them.

Having your CASA licence will make the RAAus transition a little easier.

Surely not!