Roundsounds

It might be time for some of you people to review CAR 166C and CAAP 166-1(3). In my experience there's way too many uneccessary calls being made on CTAF frequencies. The clear of runway and downwind calls being good examples, I put these down to GAAP/ClassD habits. The CAAP 166-1 recommended calls being: - taxying - entering runway - inbound - joining circuit - straight in approach - any time there is an imminent collision risk Keep a good lookout, just cause you don't hear another aircraft on the wireless doesn't mean there aren't any in the circuit with you!

CAO 95.4 doesn't place any limitations on operations in any class of airspace. The GFA operations manual only requires a controlled airspace endorsement for pilots operating powered sailplanes, appendix 6 of the GFA Operational Regulations refers. A standard Glider Pilot Certificate doesn't require any endorsement, apparently it's addressed under item 36 of the training syllabus - "Navigation and Airspace". Which as mentioned in earlier posts, there's no requirement for a glider pilot to hold any GA qualifications to operate in controlled airspace.

In my 35+ years operating from Camden I have seen many motor gliders operate from 06/24. When there was a Stemme based there it was almost SOP to use the sealed runways to avoid prop strikes. No aircraft at any of the old GAAP airports follow Class D procedures, they follow some locally created hybrid procedures. Albury, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth operate IAW the Class D procedures published in AIP. With reference to the comment regarding unsafe pilots being permitted to fly, I haven't seen the statistics to support your statement. Would you mind directing me to the location of these stat's?

If GFA and Balloon Federation certificate holders have controlled airspace access with self-certified medicals and no GA qual's I don't see why RAAus shouldn't be extended the same privileges. We would not be asking for any special treatment, just the same as equivalent RAAOs.

Based on the current approach being taken by RAAus to gaining airspace privileges, it's unlikely there will be any result for at least a couple of years.

The CTA stuff could be introduced within a month or so, if approached correctly. The matter of weight increases however is a different story. The tech area needs some serious tidying up (which I'm sure is well underway behind the scenes). The tech manual has no resemblance of what is actually taking place in the field. There needs to be a set of competencies developed for L1 and L2 qualifications (these are already available under the National Qualifications Framework - so would take little modification, if any, to adapt to the RAAus world). This would allow a objective assessment of applicants based on prior experience and for the right people to establish training courses for L1 / 2 applicants and keep CASA off our backs. In my opinion RAAus isn't in the business of training pilots or maintainers.

The matter of gaining airspace privileges for RAAus pilots should be at the top of the organisation's priorities. The number of pilots I speak to who are obtaining , or planning to obtain their RPL is growing rapidly. This means there's a risk of losing these members to GA, additionally CTR would allow FTFs to be established at Class D airports. The class D airports are located in areas of high population, this would provide a lower cost training option for prospective pilots and grow the RAAus membership.

A Balloon pilot holding a Private Pilot Certificate issued by the ABF can operate in controlled airspace subject to holding an endorsement on their Pilot Certificate (again no valid GA licence required).

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the GFA operate on the basis of a self certified medical for private flights. An amateur built glider or VH registered aircraft (hmm must look up balloons too!) don't have limitations on the airspace they operate in. RAAus pilots are suffering discrimination, it would be interesting to see the CASA response to this being pointed out to them.

The precedent of the GFA having CTA / CTR privileges should be used to amend CAO 95.55 and highlight the discriminatory application of restrictions. Citing the regulations of other ICAO compliant NAAs would also support the case. I don't see why the RPL MOS CTA/CTR competencies couldn't be used and I don't see any examination requirement under Part 61. (In fact, I don't see why RAAus doesn't adopt the RPL competencies for the three axis syllabus). As far as qualifying instructors, granting those holding / having held a GA FIR the ability to train and assess pilots and instructors would be the answer. I reckon I could put together a proposal within a week, it just needs the support of the appropriate people within RAAus.

I reckon this will feature in your annual visits to building 148 in a year or so. It's interesting the rear right slide didn't deploy for approx 15 secs after those on the right.

Yes, I'd be embarrassed if caught flying a Tomahawk too!

The various offshoots of the Aeronca Champ aka "Air knocker" are ideal abinitio trainers. They teach pilots what their feet and rudder pedals are meant to do and most are adequate aerobatic trainers. I think the value of tail wheel experience is lost on most future multi engine pilots. Tail wheel pilots have no hesitation in using full rudder during takeoff / landing if so required, in the event of an engine failure in a multi-engine aeroplane they will instinctively use whatever rudder is needed to keep the aeroplane straight.

In my opinion an instructor has no place teaching people to fly if they cannot effectively teach stall recovery involving a wing drop. If the aircraft being used aren't capable of performing such manoeuvres, then they are not suitable as a trainer. As far as spin training for pilots not interested in aerobatics they must be taught, at the very least, to recognise the symptoms of an impending stall / spin. The most common phase of flight I observe as leading to an unintentional spin entry being the turn from upwind to crosswind and from base to final. If an aircraft enters a spin at that point it's all over, so the ability to recover from a spin is of no use. The incorrect use of rudder in climbing / descending turns I see is staggering. The classic is the turn into final during a glide approach - the fear of over banking leads to turning using rudder and holding off bank with aileron - and I see so many people either totally unaware they're doing it or don't see a problem with it. Getting into the right aircraft with a suitably experienced and qualified instructor at a safe height will soon cure pilots of this habit - it only takes one demonstration to get the message home. I also firmly believe spin entry should be taught in a climbing turn - some power, out of balance with aileron input to hold off bank. Too many pilots will recite spin recovery as "opposite rudder and stick forward". The first two vital actions in the event of an unintentional spin entry to effect recovery (in fact all spin recoveries) are throttle closed, ailerons neutral, then you can think about identifying the direction of rotation, applying appropriate rudder input, then unstalling the wings (might involve back stick if inverted spinning). Rant over....

Be read elsewhere there is a company at YSBK operating RAAus and VH rego Foxbats with GA / RAAus flying school approvals. They should make the transition from the RPC to RPL pretty straight forward.

Appending CAOs to any manual is not a good practice, it's much better to make reference to them. You also need a proper tracking / reference system allowing the owner of the manual to address any changes to the references. The tech manual is an absolute dog's breakfast. I cannot see how any amateur built aeroplane can possible be maintained in accordance with the tech manual. Then any aircraft with a manufacturers maintenance schedule must be maintained IAW it. Instead it seems there's a mixture of CAO, CASR and manufacturers stuff

I'm not sure, but I hope CASA did audit their SOPs. To quote the Corner's comments regarding a recent gliding accident: "Nevertheless, perhaps they had become over-confident, complacent and reluctant to face the technological changes in the world which mock an old sport based on the winds and silence. The entire procedure depended on fairly amateur rules and traditions which were subject to human error at any time."

As far as using your own aircraft, that could be a different story. The school would need to be dual RAAus and GA with appropriately qualified instructors. If you already hold an RPC you might find doing the training under the RAAus system difficult to justify, as they don't have a CTA/CTR endorsement. However if you are training towards gaining an RPC from a Class D airport it becomes part of the RPC. The entire process is very messy and would need a bunch of lawyers to sort it out.

The CASRs (61.485, 490, 495) do not stipulate any minimum instructional flight time for CTA or CTR endorsements. MOS 2 lists the competencies for CTA and CTR endorsements and there is no flight test involved. The instructor issuing the endorsement must hold a Grade 1 or 2 training endorsement. Bottom line, provided the instructor is satisfied the pilot meets the competency standards they are able to issue the endorsement. To be exercising the instructor's grade 1 or 2 training endorsement they must be making the assessment in a VH registered aeroplane. So, in the case of the 24- and VH rego Foxbats, provided the assessment is completed in the VH rego machine, the instructor would be meeting the requirements of the reg's. As a side issue, 61.500 says if the RAAO issuing the RPC has issued a CTA / CTR endorsement it is recognised on the RPL. Maybe the CASA legislation authors were thinking ahead.

It's worth submitting a defect report, if the Tech manager considers it a safety issue he might raise an airworthiness notice. https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Defect-Report-November-2014_Fillable.pdf

My apologies, I had missed that detail.

As does the RAAus self certification.

When I last looked at the medical requirements on the GFA website they seemed to have the requirements as RAAus (minus the HF training / exam). That is, you self certify, if you're an instructor I recall there was a class 2 required? The motor gliders at Camden can come / go via either the glider or powered runways.

This certainly would be an adequate work around, but why is a workaround needed? I hold a CPLA, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating and CFI / ATO privileges. To set up a Part 141 flight training organisation I would spend 18 months and around $15K, whereas an RAAus FTF - 4 weeks and less than $500 would see me up and running. I could train RAAus pilots and issue their RPC at a Class D aerodrome, subject to obtaining a CASA exemption. Having gained their RPC they can no longer operate from the Class D aerodrome. However, if the same pilot obtains an ASIC, RAMPC or Class 2 medical, applies for and obtains an RPL from CASA I can do a flight review with the very same pilot I just trained and tested for an RPC, endorse them for Class D operations and off they go in the same RAAus registered aircraft they gained their RPC in! Across the paddock at Camden there are glider pilots, with cross country and passenger carrying privileges operating motorised gliders without holding any CASA issued medical or licence and no Class D airspace endorsement. Where is the safety related case for applying different standards to two similar RAAOs? Maybe Part 149 will address this?

As mentioned earlier, CTA privileges are already provided to RAAus students under an exemption at the old GAAP airports (now modified Class D). Gliding Australia (formerly the GFA) enjoy Class C and D access, their pilots operate on the same basis as RAAus- a certificate issued by their RAAO and a self assessed medical. Camden is a good example of this. A properly prepared submission to CASA, highlighting the discriminatory application of restrictions to airspace use, should see at least Class D access. I know an individual has already raised this with CASA resulting in it being referred to their legal office for consideration, but a lone voice is unlikely to make any ground. This would need a higher profile push to succeed.