Roundsounds
-
Posts
1,021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by Roundsounds
-
Not so, the recommendations in CAAP 166 have been developed over many years of experience and research into incidents. Making more than the recommended calls creates a situation whereby busy airports (or airports in close proximity using a common frequency) leads to over-transmissions and a lack of "airtime" to make necessary calls. It also makes flight training difficult - I stop talking to students when radio transmissions are made by other aircraft so both me and student can hear and react to them. More and more I'm hearing routine multiple unessessary calls being made by pilots. Unfortunately this is being taught by both GA and RAA.
-
Ask this CFI to educate you by showing you this regulation. It simply doesn't exist!! There's way too much quoting of regulations that don't exist by people who are supposed to know their stuff.
-
We need to get the various representative organisations to work together to sort out this ridiculous situation!
-
Why add 3 additional calls to those recommended in the CAAP in a publication intended to be educational to RAAus members? The table in the CAAP lists 6 calls, the author lists 8, having added "about to initiate takeoff" and "clear of runways" to the table and "mandatory base call" in the body of the article. Additional broadcasts are only required if there is a potential of conflict, but to routinely make additional calls is poor airmanship. It displays a lack of knowledge and/or disregard for safe practice recommendations.
-
The problem with asking, rather than referring to the official documents (CAAP 166 and AIP) being that you'll pick up people's personal preferences and lack of knowledge, resulting in the proliferation of incorrect practices. The latest radio guidance in the RAAus magazine is a classic case, the table of "radio procedures" is not as per CAAP 166 and mentions the "mandatory base call" (no such thing)
-
Absolutely nothing wrong with this operation, assuming there were no other aircraft in the circuit. Anyone else departing / arriving would make the appropriate calls which would alert the aircraft in the circuit and likely prompt further broadcasts from them. The growing trend for continuous radio babble is in fact reducing safety, not improving it. The regs and guidance regarding RT at non-towered airports is written the way it is deliberately. If there was a case / evidence for multiple calls / circuit or "as recommended" by the various "experts" teaching this poor behaviour CASA would mandate it.
-
Although I tend to agree and I have spent my entire working life working within / teaching these rules. They are a complete horses bum when you stand back and look at them objectively. As an exercise, try explaining the purpose of the various references, Act, CAR, CASR, CAO, CAAP, AC, AIP, ERSA etc to a non-aviator who is interested in learning to fly. Then explain where to find the airspace rules relating to a local flight for the holder of an RPL with Nav endorsement from a class D metro airport.
-
They'll tell you you'll a need transponder, GA licence, flight review and medical. Ask them why glider pilots don't need these (aside from the xpdr), yet RAA do.
-
You've been given all sorts of conflicting info', bottom line is Restricted Airspace is treated the same was as Class C. Your best way forward would be to contact your local CASA safety advisor and seek their guidance. Here's a link to the list of advisors: Aviation Safety Advisors (ASA) | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
-
The L1 training originally had 3 components, the first was to establish a level of knowledge regarding rights / responsibilities. That's in place. The second was to be education on the practical / hands on aspects of maintenance. The third was to assess the L1s ability to perform maintenance by way of inspecting completed work - at the time of a flight review would've made sense. Parts 2 and 3 were never put in place. Airspace - simply insist that all SAOs have the same privileges - including airspace. Gliders and private hot air balloon pilots do not require a GA licence or medical to access controlled airspace. Simply cut and paste the GFA controlled airspace syllabus - job done. No need to waste time and effort on jumping through CASA hoops. The airspace limitations go back to the 95.10 types like Skycraft Scouts etc and when there were no medical requirements at all.
-
This situation is particularly annoying when pilots of motor gliders don't require a GA licence and operate on a self certified medical in controlled airspace now!
-
It's in the AIP, it's about time RAAus pilots started learning how to read these documents - it's not that difficult! Try AIP ENR 5.3 and CAO 95.55, para 7.3 and some background info: Project OS 12/43 - Amendment to CAO 95.55 to clarify CASA's policy in regard to operations by RA-Aus pilots and RA-Aus aircraft in active military restricted areas | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
-
Restricted airspace is treated as Class C. The PRD section of the ERSA lists all P, R and D airspace, you can also gain info as to whether you can plan to transit it or not. There's still no guarantee that you'll get a clearance. If you're operating an RAAus registered aircraft you need to satisfy the requirements contained in the appropriate CAO (95.55 most likely) regarding the aircraft and pilot qual's. If you need any further info I suggest you seek guidance from a suitably qualified flight instructor, RAAus Ops manager of CASA safety advisor.
-
If only it was that simple Keith! As mentioned earlier, the standardisation finishes with a common numbering system and some guidelines. I can tell you CASA have made some really interesting rules in light of the ICAO guidelines under the FCL set. NONE of the RAAus registration or licencing will be recognised overseas, which is why CASA have created a Glider Pilot Licence as the GFA certificates are not recognised overseas. We will end up with a cross between a Camel and a Wombat using CASAs Racehorse design criteria.
-
Just need to keep in mind the same people who brought you Parts 61/141/142 will also deliver 103/149. They will cause problems for the industry, significant ones at that.
-
One of the things that gets up my nose is the requirement to conduct flight reviews under a Part 141/142 certificate holder. I know there's provision to do it independently, however if there is to be any training input you must do it under a certificate. No doubt there are work-arounds, but they never hold up in court. One of the sales pitches for Part 61 was the ability to conduct a range of flight training activities independently, including flight reviews. ICAO only require a training under certificate if you're doing multi-crew or integrated training, but CASA thought they knew better!! I cannot see a problem with abinitio training by appropriately rated instructors without the requirement to hold a Part 141 certificate. Independent Flight tests would sort out whether an appropriate standard was being achieved. As is the case in the USA.
-
A Spinning flight activity endorsement is now a pre-requisite for all new issue grade 3 flight instructor ratings. Maybe the only good thing to come with Part 61!
-
Smart pilots do RPL, basic aerobatics (which should include UA recoveries and spinning off various manoeuvres), then Nav training.
-
I'm not suggesting no radios, just stick to the recommended broadcasts for routine calls. The verbal diarrhoea people go on with does nothing to increase safety.
-
To quote your recovery technique: - opposite rudder - stick forward - wait - recover To be fair its commonly taught by poorly trained instructors, as their spin entry is often from straight and level flight with the power off. This entry is completely unrealistic and promotes incorrect recovery techniques. I find a shallow climbing turn with partial power is much more effective, I take control of the rudder whilst the student is directed to maintain a particular pitch attitude and bank angle whilst I'm gradually increasing bottom turn rudder. There are a few essential actions you must perform before opposite rudder etc: - close the throttle - neutralise the ailerons - identify the direction of rotation Also, you progressively apply elevator input to unstall the wings, this may require back stick if you're in an inverted spin. As soon as the rotation ceases you must centre the rudder, if you don't there's a chance of spinning in the opposite direction. These recovery actions are pretty much universal, but you must apply the recovery technique as described by the aircraft manufacturer. The Piper Tomohawk had a particular method of elevator input described in its AFM.
-
Good luck with that, in some aircraft you'd find yourself in an inverted spin with control inputs you've described. A docile old C172 will behave very differently with 4 POB and some baggage (ie CofG nearer the aft limit) Like I've said earlier - proper training required, seems like you've got just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
-
You don't pick up a wing with rudder, you simply prevent yaw with rudder and level the wings with coordinated use of aileron and rudder after the stall recovery. Picking up a wing with rudder can lead to a spin in the opposite direction.
-
If you're referring to my comments, you've obviously missed my point and not read them in full.
-
Don't get me started on circuit procedures!! I teach height, heading, spacing and speed as a work cycle in the circuit. If spacing from traffic ain't ok, adjust your speed or as a last resort widen the downwind or delay your base turn. Chucking a youie or orbiting in the circuit shows a complete disregard for regs and safety.
-
I don't have an issue with spin training, I've issued many spin and aerobatic endorsements and it'd be in my financial interests to make it mandatory. As I've said earlier it's about appropriate abinitio training to recognise the control inputs that lead up to a spin in the first place and avoiding a spin developing that will save lives. If you've got the skills to recover from an inadvertent spin entry at low level your skills and knowledge wouldn't have allowed you to spin in the first place.
