Roundsounds

Gotta admire CASA's efforts. The video produced recently and distributed via social media talks about serious issues like carrying paper charts and re-registering ELTs every 2 years. The video cuts to a Cessna 180/185? landing whilst a Jabiru is parked on the runway - surely this would be a safety issue?

Totally agree! I'm a long term GA pilot, instructor, ATO and am now enjoying the freedom offered by RAAus. It would be a shame to lose the essence of what was established by the AUF. GA is terminal.

Given the tech manager has a GA LAME and SAAA background and has attended the EAA Airventure at Oshkosh representing RAAus, I wouldn't be surprised to see RAAus become a GA/SAAA lookalike.

I'd be very surprised if there's any change to MTOW or Airspace privileges within the next few years.

As far as CTA/CTR goes, gliders and hotair balloons already have access. RAAus should persue the line of equal access and not entertain the CASA requests for safety cases etc.

There's zero chance of an increase in MTOW before the tech manual is sorted out. It's so far out of date and irrelevant to current aircraft types operated under RAAus.

I'm with you Ian! For those who suggest it's ok for RPC holders to go flying without a passenger, would you identify what skills are considered acceptable to a lower standard than would be acceptable to carry pax?

Having grown up with the GA system as an instructor and ATO, I find the whole PAX endorsement odd. Why would RAAus not simply adopt the RPL syllabus, standards and privileges? These have been developed over many years with their roots in the RAAF pilot training scheme of the 1940's. It shouldn't be about GA versus RAAus, but about a well developed syllabus.

Hi RJW, have you started taking lessons as yet? If so your instructor should be able to assist in answering these questions.

Meaning my response didn't answer Ozfergie's questions?

I have found over the years it's best to have the person you intend to maintain the aircraft do any pre-purchase inspection or ACR. I'm assuming you're not going to maintain the aircraft yourself, at least not initially. They'd also be a good person to ask about the transponder. As far as payment, I would consider it a part of the purchase cost. Any findings may then be factored into an offer. Make sure the L2 is certain the aircraft configuration agrees with the log books and they are up to date. I recently looked at an aeroplane, half of the nice "extras" mentioned in the sales pitch weren't entered in the logbook and the last entry for any maintenance was made 4 years ago!!

The pics look like VH-BJE, if I recall correctly it operates joy flights there.

An interesting caution in an RV4 "Flight Manual". The underlining is how it was in the manual: "Vans aircraft does not consider spins to be a recreational aerobatic maneuver and does not recommend that they be casually undertaken in the aircraft."

There would be a couple of solutions to the silo effect: 1. Hand it all over to CASA or 2. Create a single RAAAO covering all forms of sport aviation. Neither of these are going to happen. Like it or not, there's always going to be some form of administration to licences / certificates / registration and with that goes a cost - hence membership fees. Although not ideal, the current systems are possibly the best compromise. What would be a good thing to see is a better cooperation between the various org's to make "sampling" their wares cheaper and easier.

Fair question, I reckon one of two reasons: 1. Tight on $ 2. Don't like the ways the organisation is run, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Neither being reasonable cases.

It's not that bad once you study the material and drawn some diagrams!

Yes, but if thrust reversers aren't available there's a penalty. We could go on for days going into the nitty gritty, why I suggested a simplified lay and version of the requirements.

I'm pretty sure this topic is about aircraft fitting into CAO 20.7.1B (larger multi-engine turbine powered aeroplanes) I don't think a Cessna 337 falls into that category?

I'm not sure who you spoke to in CASA, but the introduction of Part 61 wasn't handled too well when it comes to educating the CASA staff or the industry for that matter. 61.007 is about the applicability of the regulations from a Licencing perspective - eg requirement to hold a pilot licence, instrument rating etc is limited to registered aeroplanes. The Flight time definition is contained in 61.010 and it refers you onto further 61.xxx, but doesn't make reference to "registered aircraft". Therefore the requirement for a registered aircraft in the aeronautical experience needed for a the issue of a pilot licence is only made when it is required. (Integrated courses). Whoever you spoke to gave you incorrect advice, I suggest you contact CASA again but talk to a Safety Advisor (go to the CASA home page and search for your local Safety Advisor using the search function). Get them to email their response to you, it's interesting to see the different level of investigation that goes into an written versus spoken response! The Part 61 regulations differ for integrated and non-integrated courses, have a read of the references I quoted. This is further reinforced on the application form - integrated course section contains a note regarding the "registered aeroplane", whereas the non-integrated course doesn't. The 100 hours in permitted in RAAus registered aeroplanes is a hangover from the old CAR 5 reg's.

The VH bit, as I read it, only applies to integrated PPL / CPL aeroplane courses. Compare 61.590 and 61.610, the integrated CPL aeroplane class requires the flight time to be completed in a registered or recognised aeroplane (61.590(4)), whereas the non integrated does not have this requirement. (See 61.525+61.545 for PPL aeroplane) With reference to the RAAus membership requirement, pilots are exempt of certain regulations by the various CAOs (95.10, 95.32, 95.55). The CAOs also state these exemptions are subject to compliance with RAAus Operations and Technical manuals, if those manuals require you to be financial members that's what you need to do. These manuals provide an alternative means of complying with the exempt regulations.

Under what circumstances would an aircraft such as a B737 or A330 not make a successful takeoff and climb out (using manufacturer / operator approved procedures) having had an engine failure at/after V1?

"Not correct", really? When you say minimum control speed, I assume you mean VMCA as V1 has already taken VMCG into consideration. In fact the larger aeroplanes minimum V1 is often driven by VMCG. To quote the FAA definition: "V 1 —Critical engine failure speed or decision speed. Engine failure below this speed should result in an aborted takeoff; above this speed the takeoff run should be continued." What part of "continue the take-off and climb away" do you consider incorrect? I would consider continuing the takeoff to include: - acceleration - keeping the aeroplane on the runway to achieve VR - rotation at the correct rate to the appropriate target attitude - achieve / maintain V2 - V2+5, retract the landing gear - follow the prescribed one engine inoperative cleanup procedure - perform the engine malfunction procedure at an appropriate time during / after the cleanup baaed upon the nature of the failure. To answer Johnm's question of what happens between V1 and V2, see above dot points and no there is no phase whereby the aeroplane becomes "a metal tube that might plough into the ground". This assumption is based upon a single engine failure with all other systems operating normally.

Go to section 15, page 16 (labelled 15-16) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-6of7.pdf

This may be overly simplifying the situation, but basically appropriately certified aircraft: - Before V1 - you can stop within the available runway - At V1 - you can continue the takeoff and climb away Typical examples of these types are all RPT and IFR charter aeroplanes.