Roundsounds

By the sounds of it you're flogging a dead horse expecting a MTOW increase. Have you approached the relevant consumer affairs department regarding the importer selling you an article which is not capable of doing what it was sold to do? Maybe offload this aircraft and get one that will do the job you need it to do?

Agree! As a PPL holder, aero's and tailwheel experience will make you a safer pilot. In my opinion a PPL holder not regularly flying IFR is dangerous. If $ aren't too much of a hurdle, do tailwheel, aero's, formation then IFR.

I'd suggest tailwheel and aerobatics would be way more useful if you are flying for sport. Not to become an aerobatic comp pilot, but it just moves your personal limits out a bit further and makes you a safer more competent pilot.

Some pics here: https://www.facebook.com/Macarthurstormchasers/

The problem is, none of these measures were ever finalised. The only place they have legal standing is in the Tech Manual. As it stands now, all RPC holders are considered to be L1s. Until the Tech Manual is amended or an Airworthiness Notice issued, the current Tech Manual statement stands.

As stated earlier, the on-line component of the L1 training was phase 1 of a 3 phase program. The principle of phase 1 was to establish whether maintainers understood their responsibilities and could find very basic information in reference manuals. This was to be followed by a hands on phase - choice of attending a workshop or completing your aircrafts annual inspection under the guidance of a suitably qualified maintainer. The final phase spot checks, which were directed by the Qld Coroner's office and normal practice in any SMS. For whatever reason RAAus didnt proceed as planned and committed to do so with CASA.

Maybe during the re-write of the tech manual create two groups of maintenance practices? 1/ Want to do all of your own stuff without being trained or assessed- go for it but don't fly over innocent 3rd parties. Like the roots of AUF. 2/ Want to fly over 3rd parties / mix with commercial aircraft - maintain the aircraft in accordance with approved methods by suitably qualified people, as determined by RAAus.

Just like CASA has imposed on Jabiru powered aircraft? The online portion of the L1 course was simply the first component, it was intended a hands on component was to follow starting April '15 which obviously did not eventuate. The process was to be: - establish the knowledge of basic maintenance practices / responsibilities, then - hands on (assisted annual inspections / workshops) - assess the areas needing improvement then - produce courses focusing on those areas.

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!