peter51

Here in the response from the pilot’s union. Dear Members, As you will have seen on Monday, Qantas announced the employment of Simulator Instructors into the Qantas Group and pilots into QantasLink. AIPA has released the following points to the press and will continue to object to this abuse of the Temporary Skills Shortage (TSS) visas: 1. Successive Governments since 2011 have been aware of the impending pilot shortage noting a Senate Recommendation to the then Gillard Government, “that the Government require the Productivity Commission or another suitable body to undertake a review of the current and future supply of pilots in Australia, with particular reference to the general aviation and cadet training pathways, and HECS HELP and VET FEE-HELP arrangements.” 2. Every airline and aviation business in Australia would be aware of warnings of impending pilot shortages widely published by the aircraft manufacturers and ICAO. 3. If there is a real shortage, about which AIPA has serious doubts, it has come about because the aviation employers have sat on their hands and done nothing to address the impending supply-side problem. Collectively, they have made aviation a relatively unattractive career. 4. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge, has stated: “The Labour Agreement programme is designed to enable approved business to sponsor skilled overseas workers when there is a demonstrated need that cannot be met in the Australian labour market and standard skilled visa programs are not available.” AIPA contends that Qantas’ own submission which stated: “Although there are suitable candidates within Australia (and we are currently recruiting) there are not enough candidates to meet our immediate and expected needs and flying standards”; is little more than a smoke screen to ensure Qantas is not subject to supply-side wage pressure. 5. AIPA considers this TSS visa approach by Qantas to be an abuse of process, designed to substitute Commonwealth benefits as inducements to employ people on terms and conditions that apparently have otherwise proved to be unattractive and inadequate to Australian pilots. 6. AIPA calls on the Department of Home Affairs to produce the evidence used to assess the purported skill shortage. In the absence of contrary evidence, AIPA rejects the assertion that there are insufficient numbers of capable Australian candidates. 7. Government policy strongly states the need to make genuine efforts to recruit Australians in the occupations and at the locations covered by the proposed labour agreement during the previous 12 month period. The evidence required by the Department to satisfy Labour Market Testing does not appear to include any demonstration that the terms and conditions on offer are competitive. Qantas are offering starting salaries of $65k to pilots expected to spend up to $150k for their training. The average salary for a bus driver is $69,717 per year in Sydney. 8. Australia must guard against the experience in the United States where pay rates prevented pilots residing in their city of employment. This was highlighted by the 2009 crash of a Colgan Air Q400 (Continental 3407) near Buffalo, N.Y. It was reported the 24-year-old copilot’s cross-country commute from the Seattle-area home she shared with her family to her Newark Airport home base that morning was a contributing factor to the accident. Her annual salary at the time was $16,000 a year and this led to a U.S. Senate inquiry and major changes to operator rules. 9. In a world market that has pilot supply issues, the question will be why Qantas needs Sim Instructors to carry out the duties currently performed by Training Captains and what will be the quality of candidates for both Pilots and Sim Instructors at the rates being offered. 10. Furthermore, AIPA questions whether Qantas has sufficient resources and commitment to ensure that the foreign pilots are sufficiently trained in the complexities of Australia’s new regulations to ensure that they can impart the required knowledge to future pilot candidates. AIPA’s Press Release went out on Monday and you may have seen some of the follow up articles.

Whilst it all sounds complicated and difficult - I can assure you that it is pretty easy and straight forward. Even single engine landings in 100m vis manually flown via the HUD is not too difficult after a bit of practice. Bit off topic but - There are dozens of more difficult manoeuvres carried out by GA drivers in the bush, Aeromedical helo crews picking up the pieces of accidents, military helo pilots inserting SAS boys or picking up our wounded in some god forsaken spot in Afghanistan etc etc. We shouldnt forget all those others flying tough missions in much more exacting and dangerous missions out there in the real world.

I can help with this one. I am a 737 Captain with QANTAS. Firstly the ground installation must support low vis ops. This requires mandatory standards of ILS, ground lighting and transmissometers. Transmissometers are devices that operate in pairs to measure lateral visibility accurately at the threshold, mid, and end segments of the runway. Generally only airports with high end ILS systems have these as they are required to support the low vis ops - now installed in Perth only recently. The ground systems are categorised from CAT 1 through to CAT IIIIb. Perth has recently been upgraded to CAT IIIb standards and supports Autoland with no minima and 75m visibility. Crew and aircraft have to be certified to make such approaches.The aircraft must still carry fuel for an alternate with fog and all its systems that support autoland must be serviceable - as must the ground systems. See the chart below. The various minma and required visibility are tabulated at the bottom of this chart. To utilise the lower minima the crews have to be highly trained over several Simulator sessions and given recurrent training and testing regularly every 6 months. CASA and other authorities dictate all the training requirements. Some operators may not have authority to use the lowest minima and some overseas low cost carriers may have only been given the minimum training - when you buy a ticket these days you really do get what you pay for. Of course they will say they are just as well trained as anyone else. We can use the 737 as an example. It only has a 2 axis autopilot - no rudder control on rollout - Boeing has only certified it to Autoland in CATII conditions. However QANTAS 737 aircraft have additional capabilty to land in worse conditions than CAT II - a Head Up Display which allows manually flown approach and landing to CAT IIIa minima. That means you need to see a few approach/threshold lights through the HUD at 50 feet above the ground before deciding to manually flare via flare cue in the HUD. More modern aircraft like the A330 have all the bells and whistles and can Autoland at the lowest minma CatIIIb. The pilot does not have to see anything at the minima callout to continue the Autoland in this case - however it is against the law to continue an approach below 1000 feet if the transmissometers are continuously reporting visibility below that published on the chart - unless you are out of fuel and options. So if ANY operating transmissomers were reporting below 75m then by law you would need to divert. So if you are travelling to destinations with a CATIIIa or b installation that suffer from fog in Australia - book on an Airbus i.e.Perth. However if the ILS ground installation is a standard ILS setup but has a Special Authorisation minmin E.G. Canberra, then go on a QANTAS 737 as we can go lower than all the other operators using our HUD. If you have any other questions Id be happy to answer. [ATTACH]36712[/ATTACH]

Regarding using AVGAS in the rotax - I recently visited Ole who builds the hornet inTaree. He stated that there is no problem running the rotax on AVGAS provided you use the correct oil and adhere to a particular oil/ filter change interval. Apparently the lead can find its way into the gearbox and accumulates in such a way that damage can occur. He explained it very precisely but I have forgotten the exact details. His aircraft are are an extremely considered design that combines performance, endurance, high level of safety due to the structure, landing gear strength, control power, aerodynamic excellence, and dozens of other important attention to design details for a very safe rugged off airport machine.Unfortuately, I couldn’t get to fly it - but I will return in a few months and very much look forward to it.

Thanks everyone for the great info. I would be very interested in taking up your offer on the kitfox and hornet demos.

Thanks for your replies. Take the example of operating out of Cooktown to explore within 100NM radius - maybe outlanding for several days on a beach or station strip with prior permission etc. You can fill up there on AVGAS using a credit card and then fly out to remote areas as required - easy to fill - however landing fees appply etc. However, if you had a ROTAX powerplant and were trying to maximise your use of MOGAS, then you would be comitted to getting a lift into town with collapsible bladders. Cooktown airport is a fair way into town. This would be unworkable if your aircraft carried a lot of fuel. So in this case you would be better off with an engine that used AVGAS. For this sort of mission I think ease of refuelling would be important - or have I overlooked something.

Hi everyone, Im new to the forum and intend to build a STOL aircraft for extended remote area operations. For those that already venture into remote areas - how do go about refuelling if you require MOGAS for your Rotax powered aircraft? I imagine it would be easier if the aircraft I was comtemplating building ran on AVGAS. Is this assumption correct? Im not concerned about the cost of fuel - just the ease and time it takes to refuel at a remote town/ airfield. My intended operation would be spoking out from a remote township for a few weeks at a time. Thanks for any ideas and advice.

Thanks for the welcome. The Savanah is a great aircraft - Control harmony in the other 2 just felt better for me - particularly the Foxbat - highly subjective of course. Tail volume does look a little light on in the Savanah - compared to AAK hornet for example - which I have not flown yet. I have a friend with a Savanah and he can really put it on the spot. My first question about operating in remote areas on MOGAS is about to be posted

Hi all, I have flown a few aircraft in RAA category - savanah, sling and foxbat - handling qualities of the foxbat and sling were very good. I currently fly the 737-800 and I am an ex military helo pilot/ instructor. I still fly GA as an instructor with air force cadets and I thoroughly enjoy flying light aircraft. Looking to build a STOL aircraft soon for extended bush trips - hope to fly the AAK hornet ASAP. I have visited the factory at Taree several years ago ago and was very impressed with the engineering of this aircraft - unforetuneatly I still had 3 kids on my hands at that time - they have now flown the coop. I will need some sage advice and so I have joined this forum for that purpose. Peter