poteroo

My proposal to include more LL in the syllabus has been on the Ops Mgrs' table for some time. So too is my recommendation to remove the pedantic ' must-have-a-reason' for an LL endorsement: thus allowing pilots to undertake the LL as skills training, (=SAFETY). What better SAFETY activity can we have in RAAus? The LL endo would also be acceptable as a BFR. happy days,

But, regardless of whether the current policy in Ops is to discourage LL endorsements by requiring a 'reason', you can seek LL training from an approved instructor. This will improve your skills, as discussed, and it will be logged in your logbook: but you won't have the LL endorsement as such. If we're thinking 'safety' then pilots shouldn't be discouraged from doing some genuine LL training: the official recognition is far less important. happy days,

I can only agree with this: in my 53 years in aviation there has always been under-reporting of incidents and non-fatal accidents. It's no different to road accidents where there are high numbers of unreported accidents. It's probable that if all incidents & accidents with road vehicles were 'reported', collated, interpreted and published - there would be a better targeted road safety program. The emphasis on speed and alcohol in isolation just doesn't cut it. In aviation, it's not that anyone has devised a new way to have an accident in 100 years. The common causes are well known. HF is included in the syllabus. CFIs impart 'safety' to students, and to hiring pilots: but you can only 'lead-the-horse-to water'. No CFI is able to identify the pilot likely to have a brain snap. We can, however, probably detect the impetuous, the over-confidants, the anti-authoritarians, and the less cautious: but there is nowhere in the aviation reporting structure, (in student files, review reports or in direct-to-Operations forms), where we can commit these observations to paper. Indeed, if we were to do this, (due FOI), we'd be pilloried from pillar-to-post by the aggrieved or offended pilot - probably have civil action taken against us - and all for what? Most of the extra 'safety' programs being thrown at us will 'fail', (accidents will continue), because human nature has not really changed. I can clearly remember an incident in PNG during 1961, where a twin engine freighter disappeared in the Kokoda Gap area - and has never been found. The accident reports mentioned terms such as 'over-confident, impetuous, and low experience' - but if senior and supervising pilots and staff thought this - why didn't they do anything? The answer is - there isn't any quantitative criteria to identify these human traits, and the majority of senior pilots/instructors would not claim to hold any real skills in this field. I don't think that much has changed. There have been plenty of fatal accidents in this vicinity since then. happy days,

According to what I've heard - that is not the case. The property lease costs them $1 per annum,(a peppercorn rental), I'm told. Students head for Perth on the weekend, in the instructors wake, because Merredin isn't exactly a hub of social activity. I'd be guessing, but it's likely the accommodation providors buy in bulk, in Perth. That was a local opinion I picked up on. When they began the school, a deal was struck with the Merredin Aero Club to provide an instructor on weekends to allow club members to train there when things were quiet. I remember there were some reported problems with this deal, and unsure if it still exists. Unless you really need to go there - overfly as high as you can!

A Grob trainer landed heavily at Merredin on 20/9/2016, causing substantial damage. Solo pilot was uninjured. Weather conditions reported as a gusty N wind at 8.30am. Runway was presumably 35, which runs uphill to the N. Having operated into this location both before and after CSFS setup there, I can vouch for very turbulent conditions on the 35 approach in a strongish N wind. Not surprised that a student upset has occurred. I think there have been several mishaps at Merredin which go largely unreported. Just as a reminder to all pilots - Merredin is leased exclusively by China Southern Flying School and prior permission is required to land there. Details are in ERSA. Traffic is noted as 'high density training'. Beware!!

A follow-up on this accident: I have since helped the pilot back 'onto-the-horse' (so to speak) by flying some dual with him in the Albany Aero Clubs RV9A. He was a little shakey the 1st session, but has settled, and I'll get him off solo the next decent weather day. And yes, he is going to purchase another aircraft when everything is settled and he can think clearly. The aircraft is a total write off. What's worse: some low life stole the headsets and other items from the cockpit of the wreckage on the 1st night after. So WA pilots - if you are offered, or hear of, anything aviation cheap for cash - please question the source. As to the cause of the accident - well, as usual, it appears to have been multi-factored. Engine overheating, faltering, drop in power and all happening at 2500amsl. Land is around 600-700ft here - so not a lot of time to get lined up on anything sizeable. Due our ongoing winter rains, many paddocks are veritable lakes and so the choices were further limited. In the end, the aircraft clipped trees on approach to a cutoff section of sealed highway. It landed inverted on the engine and roll bar. It was just fortunate that it was slightly nose down or the impact would have been on the occupants. Lucky, lucky people. Could it have been done better? Of course - like all matters aviation, there are usually things that you learn about emergency responses. With some 16 VANS RV's resident is our immediate area, we are all looking to learn from this accident and it will sharpen up our procedures no end. Alls well that ends well. Happy Days,

I thought it would be illuminating, yet somewhat disappointing, to tell you all about my recent learning experience. Some 25 years ago, I sought advice from the head FOI of Western Region in regards to conducting low level training of GA pilots under CAO 29.10 in preparation for them going on to learn mustering or survey, sometimes ag. I, and others, was told that because we held ag ratings plus LL experience, plus a G1 instructor rating: that we could proceed with LL training without further 'training' or paperwork. This we all did, and so, over the years, accumulated a stack of training completions, (59 in my case). This totalled 330 hrs flight time. I also clocked up LL time doing LL animal surveys, photography and inspections for a total LL time of 600+ hrs. Then, the feared CASA rewrite of Part 61 appeared. LL becomes a 'rating' so sorry, you're not an ATO/FE so can't do the tests. Whats more - sorry, we can't find any record of your 'approval' to even teach LL. You are in deep sh..! Despite my legally binding logbook entries: no, your logbook can't be used in support, (it could be fraudulent!). But, my logbook could well be incriminating because it accurately documents your illegal activities. By this time you will no doubt be wondering whether I'm penning this from HM 'Hilton'. Well, it all resulted in an impasse. As you know, CASA requires a certified copy of every rating, endorsement or other qualification in your old CAR 5 records/logbooks - in order for it to be installed in your new Part 61 licence. As they say: a verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on: and so it was with my LL training approval. So, I decided to invest in some upskilling with a local FE/ATO who has already converted all his tickets over to Part 61. I took my RV9A out for a warmup and flew to his base near Bunbury. Then, we did a briefing/discussion of 2.5 hrs on LL training, followed by a flight of 1.0 hrs in a C172 to checkout my techniques at low level in the hills east of Bunbury. We used tighter standards than in the Part 61 M-O-S, where they interestingly state that for professional LL flight we need +/- 100 ft in steep turns..... @ 150 ft agl? omg, we'd all be dead with those being followed!! I passed the requirements, signed the paperwork and headed home. It was instructive, and I picked up some points on managing the training, and how to keep unassailable student records. It was a good session and I appreciate the time he took with my 'training endorsement'. Total cost 1 day and about $1000.00 in all. Then we had all sorts of delays while the correct Part 61 forms were located. Nothing is simple in Part 61: in fact, it's an absolute nightmare from an instructors viewpoint. Then, off they went to CASA. All of the above was over 6 weeks ago, and, not unexpectedly, nothing has happened. In the meantime, I'm turning GA pilots away because I don't have the paperwork. However, my RAAus LL instructing approval remains valid....I hope! In the overall scheme of things, I guess that whether an old instructor is allowed to teach a minor interest endorsement cum rating, isn't all that important. However, it just illustrates the complete schemozzle that Part 61 has become. As noted author/airline Capt Byron Bailey has recently stated: why didn't we just adopt the US FAA Part 61, or even the Kiwi Part 61 which is even shorter. What is it about Australia that we have to re-invent the wheel in aviation. Its not as if the US isn't running a somewhat larger fleet of aircraft than Australia, (read about 20:1),and have most of the major manufacturers located there and using the FAR's. The combination of lengthy and prescriptive legislation, strict liability for infringements, and a multitude of endorsements, ratings, approvals, exemptions and legislative instruments is strangling 'general' aviation. In the meantime another year has passed for me and I'm now 76 years young. cheers and happy days. Spring is here at last!

Very sensible SDQDI. When I owned my Cub, C170, and C180 - landing diagonally was SOP - even at Jandakot. Every knot of crosswind that you cutoff by operating diagonally is another knot of headwind that you now have to your advantage. My current Brumby will only manage 12 kts x/w according to the POH, but it will land in <75m if you turn it into a 15-20kt wind. On sealed runways - just select a track so as to not take out any lights!!

NO-haven't seen the movie. YES - read the book plus dozens of reviews From an instructing viewpoint: the crew procedures were a great example for anyone faced with a total power loss: 1. they kept it flying and adopted best glide speed asap 2. they almost immediately turned toward the 'clearest' area 3. they made a conservative decision not to extend the glide 4. they avoided any chance of collision with buildings, towers, boats 5. they 'flew' the aircraft right to a fully controlled touchdown They got all the fundamental stuff right in a very short time. This was a very public display of excellent flying and airmanship. But to all of the GA and RAAus pilots in Australia who have successfully saved their bird and skins after a total power loss.........congratulations: you are in Sullys' class too. happy days,

There were likely several factors contributing to this accident. Possibly the instructor wasn't contributing to the scan/lookout that should have been happening in the DA40. All to often we're pointing out runway cues, and flying 'numbers' when doing circuits. Not only should instructors continually urge the student to scan,(particularly ahead of the wing in the direction of turn), but they need to be conducting their own high/low scan in parallel. Instructors, (of all pilots), should be aware that other pilots can pop up in all sorts of unlikely locations when joining circuits, and that in faster types they'll often be late with position calls. The elderly Bonanza pilot might have suffered from some of the problems alluded to by onetrack, but its also possible that he missed any calls from the DA40, (hearing loss), and he joined circuit at a position where he couldn't see other traffic: an overhead 'join' at 1500 agl really makes sense in faster types. It's not as if you can't quickly decelerate a Bonanza and get down into a leg of the circuit. Similarly, there's no need to be rocking down late downwind and base at 120KIAS - just because the Bo has high maximum extension speeds for both gear and flap. 90KIAS is safer in all respects. Not just the elderly suffer from careless flying syndrome. Quite a few years back now, (and Nev would recall this), 2 CASA pilots in a Bonanza, taking off at Tocumwal, hit a glider on final from the opposite direction with catastrophic results for all. In that case you had 2 pairs of commercially experienced eyes and ears - yet it happened. Familiarity breeds contempt as the saying goes. With pilots, it's been said that 300hrs and 1000hrs are high risk stages of a career: perhaps retirement is as well? In my book, it's less about the physical impediments in elderly people, but more to do with their mental attitude and longstanding flight discipline standards.[]

We could reduce this inadvertent VFR into non-VMC weather by exposing student pilots to rainy, low cloud days before they head off on longer distance cross country flights. Having a low time pilot fly around rainshowers while pointing out visibility distances and partial horizons is very useful. Same with flying toward a bank of cloud and demonstrating how to miss going into it by controlling rate-of-descent and speed so that a safe turn is possible before it turns into non-VMC. I think it helps pilots to be shown just what 3nm, 2nm, and 1nm visibility looks like, how it's negotiated and how to make a safe turn to avoid going too far into it. Until instructors begin to teach more of these life-saving aspects: more pilots are going to find themselves in non-VMC weather and at great risk of losing control. happy days,

Agree wholeheartedly. When CASAs' version of Part 61 takes 600 odd pages of gobbledegook, plus the same again of the M-O-S, and enumerates some 30 +/- strict liability penalties vs the FAA Part 61 of 130 pages or so - there is an obvious problem. The NZ CAA had no problem with creating their own Part 61 of 30 pages less than the US. The CASA Part 61 is simply a mess. It has cost we instructors untold time and money to negotiate, and yet, more 'corrective' Instruments continue to flow from the Regulator. We have no idea what the legislation will say, much less mean, next week. My US PPL is a credit card - same as my RAAus. My old CAR 5 licence was 12 pages. My new Part 61 licence is 20 pages and too large to fit in my pocket. So, I risk a strict liability offence of 50 penalty units @ $180 each, by not carrying it at all times. That says it all!

CEO of CASA is the classic poisoned chalice. The organisation has been allowed free rein for so many years that it has developed its' very own culture, which has proven impossible to erase by simply giving lucrative early retirement to a few heads of section. CASA is on autopilot and the GPS NAV mode is frozen! I'm disappointed that Mark Skidmore has quit so early. He did respond to an email from me regards Part 61, and I know he read another email regards suggested fixes. I believe he knew that the whole process had been cocked up: but was trying to juggle 27 balls without upsetting the apple cart. I wish him well, and hope that he now rejoins AOPA, and that we see him around the flyins. As to his successor: Lets hope that he/she has good managerial skills gained in private enterprise rather than the public service. And has some civilian flying experience, though I don't see this as important as the business experience. happy days,

Hear,Hear! It therefore surprises me that RAAus see the route to improving our safety record as being via employing several 'safety officers' who may be dedicated to creating a 'culture-of-safety' but have no credibility in 'aviation'. Given the Presidents' assertion that, 'people are resistant to change': how does he expect positive change when it's being driven by spending lots of money - but is 'top down'? Of course pilots are resistant to preaching from the lofty heights of Canberra. Just how will RAAus change this 'resistance-to-change' ?. A culture is best developed from the grassroots up. Therefore, it is really the role of the flying schools to imbue their trainees with sound, practical, common sense safety learning. Wasn't it Goebbels who, (infamously), said - 'give me one generation of children and I will change society'. You have to start at the source. I've seen 50+ years of CASA produced 'safety' messages which have absolutely no influence on the accident rates. RAAus is continuing down the same path and it is not, ever, going to create the desired outcome. It does find favour with our regulator because RAAus can point to the number of staff and program costs - just as the regulator can. Of course, the regulator never accepts blame for anything, so RAAus is likely going to wear the approbrium for the failure of this latest effort. What neither can do is point to positive safety outcomes. Too hard! Spend the safety budget where it has a chance of working.

In any Canberra office - that's not a problem! happy days,

Many years back, a raffle was organised in Melbourne with a 1980 model Cessna 172N, (rego VH-PRZ), as the prize. I have no details as to how it was organised, who, when or where. You might be able to trace the registration back via CASA and locate the original owner. Perhaps one of our senior instructors in the Melbourne area might remember this...DG? happy days,

It actually is detectable if you lift each wing in turn, against the sun or good light. If the cap is off - there will be a stream of vapour back of flaps. It happened to me in PNG where I succumbed to rushing things in face of weather deterioration - but after 15 mins, I began to think about my procedures - had a look for a vapour trail as above - Shock! Horror! - landed and replaced cap. Lesson learned. happy daysd

It would be fair to say that Sport Pilot isn't as well read by the membership since going online, but is it being read 'online' by non-members? CEO - care to comment? If RAAus is reaching many more non-members via them reading our SP online - then it's at least achieving its' intention of being good advertising. If, as I suspect, it's being read less by current RAAus members - then it loses its' value as an information source for members. Whether members should then receive more emailed info from ops and tech is another question. Either way, these employees have to prepare stuff. Perhaps the other question is - do they contribute sufficient to maintain members awareness of changes, and members education on aviation? Despite the media/press doom & gloom over the economy - it seems a lot of aircraft,(GA & RAAus), are changing hands. How these sales contacts are initiated is unknown to me, but several sales that I'm aware of have been purely 'word-of-mouth' and within state. happy days,

For the best all-round combination of strength, safety,speed, STOL, economy and comfort - you just can't beat a VANS RV6/6A, RV7/7A,RV9/9A,RV12,RV14 series. I've flown and instructed in them all except the 14. I'm biased because that's been my own choice, (RV6-1996, RV9A-2008), but they now number some 9000 flying and most of the 'experimental' bugs have long since been rectified - look at how short the AD and SB listing is. If you buy or build something 'unusual', it will likely become more difficult to maintain, and later on, to sell - because of its' 'orphan' status. The same argument can be run for cars and boats I guess. happy days,

When you can count the rivets and check the other aircraft over for corrosion spots! happy days,

My take on this bit of unhelpful advice from ATSB is that it just might be in the 'order' that CASA perceive is important? (Do they still talk after Norfolk Is??). CASA have made a big deal of low level in Part 61 - upgrading it from a 'course-of-training' under CAO 29.10, to a full blown Rating which requires instructors to hold the appropriate 'training endorsement' and the test and renewals must be done by a LL rated ATO/Flight Examiner. All wildly overkill of course. If they had actually thought before drafting - they'd have revised the syllabus and upskilled it well above what it had been. They chose not to. What we look like getting is a prohibitively costly LL course, no instructors to offer it, and less pilots actually seeking LL training for safety reasons. My written advice to CASA has been - change your ridiculous Part 61 LL rating to a flight activity endorsement along with formation and aerobatics. Make LL training more accessible, and perhaps include some in the PPL course itself. All of this activity in the absence of any safety case - because the accident data just don't support the 'official' view that Aussie pilots are flying low and creating great danger to themselves. Neither do the data support any indication of lack of competency at LL by instructors - or those pilots who have undertaken LL training. It also ignores the fact that most of the miscreants had never done LL training, had a scant regard for competency training, and were of a nature to break every rule in the book - including low flying. No amount of tightening up on the LL course will stop these people from doing whatever they feel like. Survival of the 'fittest' is a very real concept. So, having vented my frustrations with CASA's tinkering with training where the course wasn't 'broke', I will cease. happy days,

Agreed - clubs are the cheaper route. Being 'not-for-profit' allows a club to avoid quite a few costs, and is a real help when negotiating charges with local governments over landing fees and hangarage charges. But, lets also understand that the club needs to hold a flying school 'licence' or 'approval, plus have all the 'physicals' required by RAAus to be such. It can't be done out of a garden shed these days. The generous and philanthropic instructors need to pay for their own Class 2 medicals, plus their own BFR's, plus their own insurances. By my calculations, a nfp club should be able to offer its' members flying at least $40/hr cheaper than a privately owned school. On the other hand, the mercenaries running a privately owned flying school are slugged full tote odds by everyone in the supply chain. Insurances, maintenance, landing fees, hangarage........ all the usual suspects take a chunk out of the income. My guess is that many privately owned flying schools are owned and operated at around a break-even figure. And, they do so because the owner is prepared to not seek anywhere near a commercial return-on-capital, and instructs pretty much for the love of it. In my own case, I charge $220/hr, GST inclusive for dual, and $165/hr wet for solo hire. This gets you a brand new, very well equipped Brumby high wing, operated off a full security RPT served airport. There is no charge for landing fees, pre and post briefings, nor short lecture sessions. You pay your bill in arrears.......... (sometimes very much so, but.....). And as well, you get a reasonably well qualified instructor. Club school v's private school is an apples v oranges argument. happy days,

Agree...and I train using everything that's available. Flight plan by paper map/track/fcst/whizwheel, then do it on iPad, then insert the basic plan into the fixed GPS in the aircraft. Have student connect iPad to aircraft power plug, also carry standby charge-up battery for iPad and phone. The iPad and the aircraft GPS are used to demonstrate 1:60 error, also to check GS and ETA calcs done by whizwheel. Better to be multi-skilled than one dimensional! happy days,

It's not worth the risk to shut down an engine anywhere low and not overhead the airstrip by several 1000 ft, (in the complete absence of any other traffic, no stock or wildlife on the strip, and no wind changes evident). As for restarts - my experience has been that engines usually die for a reason, and fiddling about with a restart as part of your 'vital actions' is just wasting valuable time that you should be employing to select a better landing area and positioning so as to be 99% sure you'll make it. To be doing it on final is foolhardy to say the least! I'm not inclined to do engine off sequences for the fundamental reason that once you begin this demonstration - you are narrowing down your options = increasing risk. (see Barry Schiff v3) If I can't sufficiently train someone to glide with the engine at idle, then I shouldn't be doing instruction. An experienced instructor can pull power at a position where they can see it will require a really accurate glide at best L/D to make it. I'm less worried about whether the pilot can glide without engine or noise - because the requirement is exactly the same = best L/D and direct to the best choice of emergency landing area. Frankly, most pilots spend too much time dithering about with so called 'vital actions' instead of aviating & navigating to a landing area. happy days,

A fixed pitch RV spoils a pilot outrageously. They are so clean, and decelerate so slowly that you have several options. With RV's I teach accelerating through 100 KIAS before beginning any climb. This doesn't take long and we are usually about 150-200 ft by then. From that position, you have choices. More - if you are 350 agl as in the vid. More again if you have reached 110 KIAS. You can position yourself for an off airport landing if there are plenty of good options, OR, try to make a 180. I know, I know - this is a bad example for low experience pilots. Bear with me. As a demonstration, I close my eyes, have student pull power to idle as we pass 100 KIAS - count for 3 seconds to simulate 'response' lag - open eyes - decide which way to turn - then roll into a 40-45 aob and hold the nose down to keep speed to no lower than 80-85 KIAS. This gets you around 180 deg very quickly, and it usually results in you being even a bit high to land down wind. Of course you are going to be turning close to obstacles, and terrain, and need to stay focussed. You'll have a lot of earth and but a little sky in the windscreen. Some low level experience helps. Barry Schiff has written on this EFATO manoeuvre in his excellent books and article is US publications. And he's a reputable airman - something of a living legend in fact. There was a vid posted on pprune a few years back showing someone doing this very thing at Caboolture in an RV if memory serves me. happy days,