Roundsounds

Some careful thought needs to be had before stiring up CASA, I'm not saying don't do it but make sure RAAus has its house in order first. There's a matter of a very out-dated technical manual and lack of any formal maintainer training or assessment path to be considered. The tech manual, a legal document empowered under CAO 95.55 (for Jabiru type aircraft) says if you hold an RPC you are automatically blessed as an L1. I'd suggest this clause was written when the owner was the designer/builder/maintainer of the aircraft (95.10 style) and was appropriate for that situation. Building an airframe, then fitting a factory built engine doesn't mean you have the required skills to maintain the engine. You might be the best person to maintain the airframe, but maintenance of an engine requires a different set of skills. At present there is no way of determining whether anyone has that skill set or knowledge. CASA are already concerned about this situation, it's been an ongoing issue for many years. CASA could easily use data to relate Jabiru engine issues to untrained/assessed persons performing maintenance and subject RAAus to more grief. I'm pretty sure the engine manufacturer has been pushing this line for a while, it would be a very easy argument to build.

A couple of things I'd be interested to learn: - do the ATSB get data directly from the RAAus pilots involved in incidents or from RAAus? - if RAAus pilots report to both ATSB and RAAus, is there sufficient data to correlate the reports so they aren't counted twice? - have the failed engines been subject to strip-down and reports by independent qualified persons? - has there been analysis of engines maintained IAW manufacturer's recommendations versus other methods (including whether manufacturer's bulletins had been incorporated at the time of failure)? - what percentage of L2 / LAME maintained versus L1 maintained engines are failing?

My understanding is: Scenario 1 - do the IF / competency on the GA type. Apply to CASA with photo, security check, medical and English language assessment - RPL will be issued with all RAAus endorsements. Complete a flight review and you are ready to go. If operating through controlled airspace (CTA) or into controlled aerodrome (CTR) you'll also need appropriate endorsements. If you're flying from a CTR any flying you do during IF / competency should see you with a CTR endorsement. Scenario 2 - Apply to CASA with photo, security check, English language assessment and medical - RPL will be issued minus the Nav endorsement. (CASA don't have a pax endorsement). Do the dual flying required to become competent in the GA type and complete a flight review. (See comments in scenario 1 regarding CTA/CTR) You can now operate GA types within 25NM, you may complete the IF at you're own pace, once competent and having logged 2.0 hours (of which 1.0 hour can be in an approved simulator) you can apply to have the RPC Nav endorsement added to the RPL. If you have any doubts, give your local CASA aviation safety advisor a call. The NSW AV Safety Advisor, Teraya Miller, is a dual qualified RAAus / GA instructor and knows her stuff. https://www.casa.gov.au/education/standard-page/aviation-safety-advisors If you go to a GA school who says they don't recognise RAAus training, walk away and find one who does.

Yes, you can do the IF training before applying for the RPL.

Subject to a few items (security check, photo and medical - which you'll need for your PPL) you can send away a form and have an RPL turn up in the mail. You must then satisfactorily complete flight training to become competent in the GA type you choose to fly and complete a flight review. There's no reason why you can't do a bit of local flying while you gain the required IF time to have the Nav endorsement transferred. This will let you fly and spread the cost out over a few months.

That's correct, without the Nav endorsement you simply need to be competent in basic IF but you will need 2hours plus competency for the Nav. What are your plans for the RPL? If it's to allow you to operate an RAAus aircraft from CTR, you don't need the Nav, just CTR which you can do as part of prep for the flight review.

I was taught / teach in an upright spin to "progressively ease the stick forward until the rotation stops, then centre the rudder, level the wings and ease out of the dive". The Piper Tomahawk AFM says something like rapidly apply nose down elevator. The Yak 50/52 will quickly transition into an inverted spin if you maintain forward stick after rotation ceases. The moral of the story is to follow the manufacturers published recovery!

the last Cessna 172 I flew didn't have a choke, is this a new option?

An excellent document, thank you for sharing. The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly, aerobat and spin. You just need to follow the manufacturer's spin recovery technique and should be exposed to miss-handled manoeuvres during aerobatic training / checkout.

A couple of further thoughts: 1. I'm a firm believer that the name of an organisation is important. How would the average person on the street have any clue what RAA or RAAus or even the lengthy version was? A new name / logo would certainly help in promotion of the organisation. 2. Affordability - setting up a "syndicate kit" would make purchasing / maintaining an aircraft more achievable. Maybe RAA could seek input from syndicates as to what does / doesn't work in syndicates and put together a set of guidelines and written agreement members could use. It's not just the initial purchase cost, but the ongoing insurance, hangar etc which makes aircraft ownership difficult. Split it 5 ways and it's way more affordable and you have a bunch of like minded people to fly with.

Provided RAAus continue down the path of effective self regulation (self auditing, improvement and learning from past mistakes) I see a strong future for the organisation. GA will continue down the path of demise, CASR Part 61/141 will see to that. RAAus need to make the transition from GA as easy as possible, minimal / no exams and competency based along the lines of the RPL transition (ie issue an RPC, same endorsements as GA licence, type transition training based on competency and a flight review). There needs to be a greater emphasis on education rather than regulation, this needs to be guided by the safety stats once they can be analysed properly. This is an opportunity RAAus needs to grab and run with now. The technical side of things needs to be sorted before any increase in MTOW is considered. The Tech Manual is way out of date and not relevant to the modern types entering service. There's no objective assessment, recognition or training path for maintainers, this will stop the heavier aircraft being accepted. CASA has been seeking this for many years, they will have zero interest in weight increases until RAAus can demonstrate a proper system of maintenance. This system should accommodate the range of types operated, including the builders own schedule to the manufacturers requirements, there's not a one size fits all system and it will be difficult to create that without some members being adversely affected. So, the future of RAAus looks good provided it's managed properly.

NF, thanks for that. It's a sign of the times CASA having to publish a document to explain what's in the reg's! Why people don't just read the AIP etc is beyond me. By the omission of the [instructions] note in AIP ENR 12.3 the intent may be lost and pilots only reading the guide will embarrass themselves at places like Albury, Coffs etc. Nev, it surprises me that you'd do that? There are vertical tolerances factored into airspace design. You're best to fly the hemispherical levels rather than fly random vertical offsets.

AIP ENR 12.3.2 Note 2 says if the controller responds with your call sign (and perhaps instructions) you have established two way comm's and therefore may enter the class D airspace. It seems the old GAAP airport towers have modified the Class D procedures to match GAAP by simply acknowledging your "inbound" call and consider that a clearance. However the original Class D controllers continue to provide a traditional clearance before taxy or when inbound. It'd be easier for newbies (and instructors training students) to standardise class D procedures. Guys I trained at Albury would find Camden's procedures odd and vice versa.

NF, where are you quoting this shortened procedure from? AIP 12.3 still includes instructions as part of establishing comm's.

Lots of misleading ill-informed information being posted here. To answer the question about flying suitable RAA aircraft in "controlled airspace" you need to first establish the type of airspace. Class D, does not require a transponder, Class C does. A pilot operating the aircraft will be required a valid RPC (RAAus issued certificate) this allows them to pilot the RAAus rego aircraft and a minimum of a valid CASA issued RPL (valid includes a medical - minimum RAMPC and flight review) with appropriate airspace endorsements. (ie CTR, class D for class D, CTR class C for class C, CTA to transit Class C). There is no minimum IF hour requirement for an RPL, unless you want to add a cross country endorsement, you just need to meet the RPL standard. This can all be done relatively easily and without costing an arm and a leg. I recently guided one of my students through this process and assisted the GA school with their understanding of the requirements. If a GA school starts talking written exams and multiple hours of IF time to convert your RPC, walk away as they either don't understand the reg's or are trying to con you.

I had fun doing Rod's CPL training several years ago.

A real shame we can't do like the USA at air shows like Oshkosh - no barriers at all. The local WHS zealots will ensure we don't do that here, it's only a matter of time before attendees will be required to wear highvis vests, steel capped thongs and hearing protection!

I agree with facthunter, it sets an example for those not educated about prop's. I'd bet good money that you've had to ask parents to stop their children from playing with the prop on your model 12 at air shows/Flyinns where they have airside access.

There's something odd about that video, there's a person standing behind the right wing. He doesn't react at all to the engine firing and there's no acknowledgement between him and the pilot when the pilot goes to the cockpit. There also seems to be someone in the pilot seat?

The common theme seems to be receive proper training before handling propellors. The thread started with concerns over untrained people being positioned within striking distance of propellors for photography purposes. I totally agree this practice is dangerous, but it is self perpetuating - pics of people draped over props set the standard for others. I will not allow these types of pics to be taken, my preference is to have pax stand behind wing / strut for souvenir shots.

Hmmm, I can't say I recall the Hume Highway being so close to Goulburn aerodrome.

Propellors are like guns, when handled by persons with care, knowledge and proper training they are safe. I've been handling propellors, including hand starting for over 30 years without incident. I was trained properly and treat prop's with the due caution and respect they deserve. I pass on the knowledge and skills to my students, not all learn to hand start, but all learn how to handle a propellor safely.

Timely CASA article released today: http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/03/properly-clear-of-the-prop/

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-42d.pdf

Playing around with landing lights which are installed in close proximity to a carburettor full of fuel doesn't seem like a real good idea to me. It maybe worth running this by the aircraft manufacturer to see if they have already an approved LED alternative? Given the aircraft is an LSA certified type maintained in accordance with the manufacturers maintenance manual, anything other than approved components may invalidate insurance.