Roundsounds

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.

Still firmly believe reliance upon stall warning devices to be dangerous. If your SA is poor enough to not know you're getting close to stalling you do need upskilling. Remember - Aviate, Navigate etc - nothing takes precedence over flying the aircraft. Of course the highest degree of risk would be when seriously loaded up during a forced landing and if you've secured the aircraft correctly most stall warnings will not function when you really need them. (ie: master switch OFF) The best way to develop your ability to detect in "impending stall" is to gain an aerobatic flight activity endorsement.... and use it.

If your sole means of avoiding a low altitude stall is an audible stall warning, I suggest you seek further stall awareness training.

Try placing the runway centreline under the middle of your seat, this will place the aircraft near enough to being on the centreline. You'll find a lot of pilots use the middle of the aircraft's nose on the centreline - this results in a significant offset.

What a load of crap on the part of the ATO. The B747-400 checklists have 3 items each on: - before takeoff - after takeoff - before landing The descent checklist has 4 and the approach has 1. The average "CASA approved" GA checklist would contain more than the entire B747-400 phase of flight checklists in its before takeoff checklist. These long do lists used in GA do nothing to improve safety.

There is a CASA Advisory Circular stating that written procedures are required, but written checklists may not be appropriate in single pilot ops. Watching pilots in Cessna 172s, Jabirus and similar types use "do lists" to start and perform before takeoff checks scares me. Learning procedures (supported by accepted NTS practices, flow patterns, by system groups or other memory joggers) provides pilots with much better situational awareness. Reading stories about pilots of simple aircraft not being able to fly as they misplaced their checklist is ludicrous. There's also a big misunderstanding in the difference between a procedure and a checklist. If you must have a checklist, it should only include items likely to severely embarrass or injure the pilot. Including items such as beacons, avionics and radio calls in "checklists" is wrong.

BTW, most GA light aircraft are exempt of the requirements of CAR 232: CASA EX38/2004 - Exemption from obtaining approval of flight check system

So, who uses written checklists in the event of an engine failure or fire?

Like I said, it's all ok until you're standing in court.

Of course the only time a definition will be tested is in a court room. I prefer to stay well clear of any grey areas having been a witness in court and seeing how things pan out. It seems the side with the largest bucket of money is usually correct!

I'd suggest you ask the CPL holder. If they say yes, they obviously don't know what the privileges of their licence permit. CAR 206 (commercial purposes) is a good place to start, you will also need to hold an AOC (this may change under the regulation reform program).

PARE? Power - idle Aileron - neutral Rudder - opposite to direction of rotation (assuming that had been identified) Elevator - as required (upright/inverted) Smoothly recover from the dive as soon as roars toon stops Maybe the word sounded ok, but wrong spelling? Not how I do it, but....

I don't use all three, I'm suggesting these are a few methods to help recall what needs be done. Any written checklist for simple singles would contain very little, before takeoff maybe something like: - flaps - trim - fuel

If you receive training, by definition it needs to be from an instructor operating under an FTF. Should the person receiving the "instruction" have an accident, the subsequent investigation could prove troublesome for the faux instructor and their trainee. Worst case the faux instructor could wind up in the Coroners Court explaining how they assessed the "trainee" as being competent to conduct the flight. Trying to use bush lawyer skills and saying you were just "coaching" the trainee won't cut it.

Interesting to see on one hand RAAus are concerned about R-LOC incidents and on the other new pilots are receiving minimal dual instruction. I'm not having a go at you Parkway, but it would be difficult to have exposure to a range of environmental conditions if you've only had 10ish hours dual instruction, let alone fully cover the syllabus.

So if you're not receiving dual or PIC why log the time?

Nev, I agree, but that's not what is being taught now. If you watch any of the multitude of videos being posted on social media of pilots under training they're using written "do-lists". As you say it has potential to reduce situational awareness. The governing bodies seem to be pushing this line. I find it's best to use a flow, system groups or pneumonic to accomplish the procedure, then review using a check list. That way you can jump from type to type without any issues.

The use and reliance on written checklists in simple single pilot aircraft seems to have gotten out of hand! The last thing a pilot should be doing in the circuit at a busy non-towered airport is going head down to read a dumb checklist! If a checklist is considered really necessary it should only contain things that will embarrass or kill you. I think there are a lot of flying schools using amplified operating procedures as checklists, pilots should learn the procedures using flow patterns or pneumonics. This article by John Lamming is excellent

I cannot understand how a person could reach a satisfactory RPC/RPL standard after 17 hours dual and 5 hours solo without previous aeronautical experience.

The flight review to validate an RPC to RPL conversion must be conducted under the CASR Part 61 reg's, it will therefore need to be conducted by an appropriately rated GA flight instructor in a VH registered aeroplane. This flight review will cover RAAus ops, provided it is completd in an aeroplane with a MTOW not exceeding 1500kg.

The result of no/poor change management processes. No formal review or sign off process, maybe a "hey mate, have a look and see what you think" but no structure.

Yep, just a cut and paste of the L1 course created a couple of years ago.

Try calling them 131757, ask for flight crew Licencing.

That's not my understanding, CASR 61.500 doesn't say it's a one off. Design feature and flight activity endorsements should also carry over.

You'll only need to do one, they'll carry across either way. Only shortfall with RPC will be lack of airspace endorsements, however these can be added if/when required.