Roundsounds

(Edited by Mod) The procedures used at former GAAP airports are nothing like the standard class D procedures used at places like Albury or Tamworth. Why not simply stick with GAAP or adopt Class D? Camden has a tower operating 7 days/week with hardly any traffic, I don't understand why it cannot be G midweek and D weekends, save operators yet another fee.

None of this is about security, it's all about the so called security experts creating work for their industry. With modern technology there's no reason ASICs need expire, if someone holding one becomes a person of interest their ASIC status can be changed and scanners would track their movements / deny access to security sensitive areas.

has anyone tried to use their ASIC as a form of identification? Even CASA will not accept it. A complete waste of time, effort and money.

What is the justification? No doubt the Govt responded to calls for a review of the ASIC system, they contract a Security expert. The expert then finds numerous deficiencies in the system and "fixes" these deficiencies so his security company can screw the aviation industry further!!

Maybe a chat with the board, if no suitable response the maybe a chat with CASA? Without making it a threat, indicate your planned approach should no suitable response be forthcoming. The only long term solution to these problems is to establish the process I suggested in an earlier post. Don't lose sight that this is all about accountability, sound processes leading to improving safety. Increasing regulations and introducing restrictions does not improve safety. Effective education improves safety. Education may involve the written word, mass presentations, online training, 1:1 training, demonstrations and many other forms. There is little education being delivered by the organisation.

Given the requirement to have an effective Safety Management System their appetite means nothing. A concerted effort by a wise group of members could easily force this process to be adopted.

Any proposed changes to regulations should be safety based and risk assessed. I can hear the groans, but honestly the only way to beat the creep in regulations is to baffle the authors with their own red tape. Step 1 - ask why the change is necessary? Not someone's pet thing or gut instinct, hard and verified statistics which are made available for review. Step 2 - Identify affected parties and involve them in fixing the problem. Step 3 - complete a proper hazard identification process, risk assess the hazards, develop mitigators for any significant hazards, then review them looking for hazards they may create. Step 4 - plan the introduction of the changes - including training affected personnel and a post implementation review and refine/withdraw changes depending on the effectiveness. This is very roughly the process required by a sound SMS. At best the work involved might make the rule changers think twice before putting pen to paper, worse case it might actually produce some good outcomes. Simply changing or introducing rules does not improve safety! In other words, make them accountable and as a bonus bury them in their own BS.

Ian, I would strongly discourage using such a device. You need to find an instructor who speaks your language (ie learning style) and have them teach you how you can best consistently judge flare height. I won't let my students attempt landings until they can judge the correct flare height, flare, hold off and go-around. If you cannot master these skills, you will "thump it on" more often than not. I have students fly along the runway at flare height, this provides more than the few seconds experience you will gain by flaring, power off and thumping on. Don't attempt this without having a competent instructor with you!

The J3 MTOW is 554 kg, later models are over 600kg.

Yes, it is in Australia. If you read the ramp check info on the CASA website it's stated there. I’m a GA pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Classic Air likely to be conducting adventure flights in P40, Harvard, Ryan or Lockheed 12.

The advantage of crossing runways - if there's wind you can always find a crosswind.

Th Current training seems to place emphasis on playing with as many electronic gadgets you can fit into a cockpit, doing all procedures using written checklists, talking non stop on the radio and less on basic stick and rudder skills.

If the holder of a Pilots licence cannot handle a C172 in 10kts of crosswind, they should go and do a tailwheel endorsement including 3 point and wheeler crosswinds at the max for the type with a competent instructor. That will sort out their crosswind landings.

R/T or traffic congestion?

Most definitely Nev! The problems related to pilots being trained in GA to use checklists as "do lists" is so wrong. Comments like "I couldn't fly my Jabiru or Cessna 172 'cause I left my checklist at home" are frightening. Maintenance of situational awareness regarding aircraft config' cannot be done using checklists. As you have rightly stated, checklists are run following completion of a procedure from memory or flow or however done. Ongoing monitoring of systems status seems to be lacking too. I think the introduction of ECAM/EICAS like devices in light aircraft will further reduce SA.

Interesting article related to the subject of this thread, supported by interesting comments. http://m.aviationweek.com/blog/skyhawk-prang-lining-swiss-cheese-holes

Straight from the master's mouth!! Chuck Yeager's comment re angle of attack indicator: "it's a stupid instrument, if you don't know what your angle of attack is you shouldn't be flying"

CAO 95.4 regarding glider ops: (Glider equivalent to RAAus 95.55 and 95.32) Civil Aviation Order 95.4 - Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - Gliders, powered sailplanes & power-assisted sailplanes (12/12/2004) Note: no limitations on operations in controlled airspace, as opposed to those found in 95.55. If you go to the Gliding Aust website and look at their ops manual (page 25) it has some mention of CTA training, but certainly not a detailed syllabus as per the Part 61 MOS. http://doc.glidingaustralia.org/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=1198-gfa-operationalregulations-ops-0001&category_slug=mosp-part-2-operations&Itemid=101 I cannot understand why RAAus could not adopt an identical process to allow controlled airspace access.

Bruce, did you know you could legally operate a motor glider maintained by you, flown by you holding a certificate issued by Gliding Australia holding an airspace endorsement, on a self certified medical through the airspace you currently cannot fly through in your current aircraft? No GA licence, medical or flight review required. Seems like RAAus pilots are being treated unfairly, I believe there is a clause in the Civil Aviation Act stating there should not be any unfair limitations on the use of airspace. Privately operated balloons enjoy the same privileges as glider pilots with respect to CTA. Maybe some research and a well written letter might gain approval. CASA have previously issued an exemption to a pilot operate his RAAus registered aircraft, holding only RAAus qual's in CTA. A search of the CASA list of exemptions should find this exemption.

Camden - $550/month hangarage plus $16/tonne/day to use the airport plus similar fee per flight payable to Airservices when the tower is active.

It's certainly an improvement over the old Day VFR Syllabus, but there will be very few instructors with the skills to deliver the training as per the MOS. Additionally the same skills problem exists with instructor trainers and a lack of suitable aircraft to deliver the training.

The only problem with the increased use of EFIS in light aircraft being they foster a head down method of flying. EFIS has a place in aviation, particularly IMC op's. I fear we will see an increase in midair collisions / near misses.

Well said Nev! It'd also suggest very few low level stall/spin accidents occur with idle power, wings level and in balance - so why train it only in that config'? I think you've hit the nail on the head - a lot of instructors are wary of stalling.

I have operated and instructed in a large variety of aircraft types and assure you the majority require the master switch to be on for them to operate (the pre-flight inspection soon determines that). I hope my "blanket statement" concerning stall warning devices result in readers determining the situation in the various aircraft types they operate. I have a couple of hundred hours in a Beech D18S, the type could safely operate without any stall warning device as the pre-stall buffet is quite pronounced. Stall recovery training is no where near as important as learning the symptoms leading up to a stall, so recovery can be initiated before the stall. These symptoms/cues vary between aircraft types and include placement of the flight controls as they control angle of attack and slip/skid. To say aerobatics are of lesser value than the spin recovery training is an ill-informed take on aerobatics. You spend a significant portion of time at/near/beyond the critical angle in a number of manoeuvres. Spin recovery training is of little use to a pilot who unintentionally enters a spin at or below circuit height. A pilot who allows an aircraft to enter a spin in the circuit is unlikely to have the skills to recover before hitting the ground. Again, learning to recognise an impending spin and initiating recovery before it develops is far more important than spin recovery. I'm not saying stall warning devices are a bad thing, they are way down the list when it comes to avoiding an unintentional stall. If you consider the stall training delivered during abinitio training is adequate, you really should find a good instructor (current aerobatic pilot) to do further training in the types you operate and with the C of G in the range you would normally operate at. I appologise for ranting, but the stall / spin accident rate would reduce significantly if pilots received proper training.