poteroo

What Relevance is the above Info to RAAus ? Sorry folks - should have included my take on this. There is a fast decreasing number of LL qualified instructors, (with training approvals), in GA. This Instrument will allow for younger GA instructors, including those holding FE/ATO approvals, to receive training from the older brigade not far from retirement. Now, in RAAus, it happens that an instructor doesn't need any special training approval, so once they have a low level endorsement - they can train, test and check any RAAus pilot on LL ops. As I see it, CASA isn't likely to allow this difference to exist for much longer. The risks are exactly the same - GA or RAAus. I've long held that all instructors should be LL qualified - otherwise how can you effectively train in forced landings, precautionary search & landing, low level circuits and low level navigation? Because there are likely to be many less LL 'training' qualified instructors moving out of GA into RAAus, it's likely that there will be less RAAus instructors able to teach LL in years to come. Time for some upskilling in our ranks? happy days,

You're giving them far too much credit for events. Bureaucratic, arbitrary, arrogant, despotic, irresolute, and confused they may well appear, at times, but Machiavellian is not really the way I'd describe them. Admittedly, the very fact that we face the use of strict liability in the regulation of aviation is, in itself, an undemocratic interpretation of law. It confers upon the regulator a 'power' which the traffic police would envy. happy days,

Yes, this is what I have annually. It detected a Left Ventricle Branch Block in 2013, which my DAME believed was due to a 'cholesterol plaque' - due my higher bad cholesterol level and generally highish total ch levels. I was also just on 5.5 BSL - the bottom end of caution range for type 2 diabetes. So, onto the statins, (40mg) plus 1 aspirin daily. Have added to that with stricter diet, (5:2 fasting), plus an hour on the bike every day, (burn at least 600-800 Cals). Seems to be working as everything is way down and tests looking better each run. Kyle is right - don't let things get away in respect of your health because it's damned hard to recover it. happy days,

Instrument N0 289/14 Issued 24/12/2014 CASA have issued an approval for all CAR V / CAO 29.10 low level approved instructors to continue their activities for 18 months while the CASR Part 61 mess is sorted out in practice. This instrument gives us the capacity to train and test under the Part 61 Manual-of-Standards - as if we were Flight Examiners or ATO's. I initiated this action via a letter last July, along with discussions with our WA FOI's. It's a sensible temporary solution to the impasse' we faced with the requirement for only an FE to conduct rating tests and renewals. Not often one receives good news from CASA on the last working day but in this case I must congratulate them on a sensible and workable solution. happy days,

Short answer is YES.

Yes, new diagnostic technology will continue to raise the bar for any type of medical. Fact of life. Stress ECG's now involve a lot more than even 5 years ago. After doing Class 1 renewals since age 60, (14 years), I've found that there's a need to be well organised with your 'extra' specialist tests and visits. Get referrals from your DAME and begin these tests up to 3 months prior to your medical expiry date. This should allow your DAME to have everything on his desk at time of medical, allowing for the whole bundle to be forwarded electronically along with the medical review and...............most importantly - your credit card details so that CASA can extract their fee for service before the service is provided. happy days,

DR, I take your point, but if we relied on pollies to be skilled in the discipline for which they have responsibility - we'd really be stuffed! In theory, the Minister relies on his/her Department to provide them with unbiased advice. In the past, this has apparently worked ok....well, notwithstanding in Yes Minister! MP's all contribute to decisions on the national economy - yet few have any tertiary qualifications in economics or commerce. Some of the best performers in Canberra, (eg, Senators Xenophon, Heffernan), seem to be very effective and are not necessarily trained in every discipline known. happy days,

When I read the title of this thread - it occurred to me that there would be some outrageous promotion of certain FTF's - but very little on the real costs/economics of the entire learning experience. What I'd hoped to see were real numbers being used, along with pertinent details of the aircraft, season, weather encountered, traffic density, and less on the 'good guys' warm and fuzzy stuff. The numbers begin to mean something if we are told that the training was completed in 2,3 weeks + we flew every day + it was winter and cool and clear every day + same instructor every flight + airstrip had choice of 2/4/6 runways + traffic was neg/light/mod/heavy + theory was already done/not done. I'm sure you get the pic. It's the total flying and 'aviation' experience, at the end of your achieving PC + PAX + XC which will determine your future flying success. I'm unconvinced that completing a PC, XC in just on/or under the minimum time is a great measure of a pilots' future success anyway. Perhaps they are more skilled, and perhaps they did pass a valid and comprehensive competency test - but that is only part of what makes for a safe pilot. happy days,

I've met Susan Ley on a couple of occasions, and can tell you that she is a strong supporter of our general and recreational aviation industry. I've no doubt that she has influence already, but as a Cabinet Minister, her opinions will no definitely count on a range of subjects. She is on her way up the ladder in this government. On the same subject, the MHR for Mallee, Andrew Broad, is also a current pilot and aircraft owner who is always receptive of any comment on aviation matters. happy days,

Ref: 'Australian Pilot' AOPA Dec-Jan 2015 AOPA members will have already read this article by Dr Liddell, who was head of CASA Avmed from 1988-1997. Dr Liddell has real life aviation experience as ATPL on jet RPT, and as medical director of RFDS WA. He is well placed to comment upon the industry wide concerns with CASA Avmeds' recent approach to medical renewals for 'recreational' pilots. I have taken the liberty to quote his last 2 paragraphs: 'The micromanagement of every recreational pilot with type 2 diabetes has driven many of them out of the industry, increased the costs of regulation with extra staff and resources to pore over the submitted daily blood sugar results,(which have already been checked by the DAME), and achieved nothing for aviation safety. Like the rest of the population who trust their doctors, CASA needs to trust its' medical examiners, and stop wasting funds on over-regulation of private pilots. If they diverted the savings into teaching pilots about airmanship and sound decision making, only then might there be a positive effect on aviation safety' Now I agree with all of what he wrote, and more. If you don't think this applies to you - then think again. If you seek a RPL at anytime - it will. If you cannot meet the DL medical, (and many, many older pilots will not), - then you go straight to Class 2 - and that's when the fun begins. And so too does the cost of your ,(by now, annual), medicals. I'm sure that it's only 'medicals' which is creating such an increase in enquiries about converting from GA to RAAus. happy days,

I think this thread has a more specific agenda, and is soon going to get a little too close-to-the-bone. Mods take note! You only need to look into consumer complaints on a broader scale to see that there are many sharp practices in the retail world. Aviation is but a small part of that. In the tourism industry there is a saying: if a customer has a good experience - they tell a friend, but if they suffer a bad experience - they tell 9 others. happy days,

Back in the good old days of GA, you 'self-endorsed' by reading the AFM/POH, then with a few words of wisdom from your CP/CFI or SP - you fired it up and 'felt' your way into the air. Every ag aircraft presented a new challenge, but I can't remember anyone losing sleep over it. I'll be surprised if there are not many forms of 'self-endorsement' used within RAAus from hereon in. Any experienced instructor should be capable of doing it, and safely too. Any experienced instructor should be able to formulate a training plan for any new 'type' soon after they fly it themselves. Have faith. We mustn't become overly prescriptive just because of a fear of litigation. happy days,

A goodly dose of common sense should prevent the sky falling in. Give your CFI some credit for their experience. I agree that it perhaps could have been framed better, but we have to work with it for the time being. If a pilot rolls up to our FTF and wants to fly my 3-axis, 4-stroke,high wing,100kt LSA - naturally I'll check their card, then go through their logbook. No card or logbook = no start. I'll be looking for their experience on similar types. Is it substantial, how recent, and under what circumstances? In any case, my insurer expects that I will evaluate their competency to fly the aircraft. For my own peace-of-mind, I'll also be quietly assessing their attitude and airmanship - because without being convinced that I have a responsible pilot - they can be better than Matt Hall......but they won't be PIC of our aircraft. happy days,

Yes, non compliance with that particular Reg might have been the one that sealed their fate, but, consider what transpired before this. Aircraft signed off 'unsafe' control locks, time & duty hours waaaay over by 10pm, unlit country strip, passengers who'd been at the pub for some time, pilot probably didn't have dinner, and probably more. Charter flying can be a pressure operation - but when things turn to......!

Agree with Nev here - but we're all human, and sometimes the situations can over-ride our training. I do remember a G3 instructor taking off, (at an international airport complete with Tower), with a 'non-approved' control lock, (a bent nail), still in a C182. He successfully used power and trim to reland the 182 and only after shutting down did he discover the control 'lock'. Needless to say, he had his ticket lifted immediately and I never heard of him again. At worst - he lived to fly again. The 2nd, and sadder story, was about a charter flight in a Baron to a country airport in WA. The pax returned very late,and the pilot,angry and apprehensive, prepared the Baron for takeoff in the dark. Now the Barons normally had the plastic throttle 'locks' connected to wires which threaded through a control column locking pin. Both had to be removed together. Unfortunately, in this Baron, the wires were not connected to the column lock pin - so both needed to be removed separately. In his haste, the pilot left the control lock pin still in place - started up the already pre-runup engines - rolled straight out onto the runway - and took off. The aircraft struck the ground a mile or so off the end of the runway and killed all 5 on board. This incident was featured in the old Aviation Safety Digest. There are several points in the pre-takeoff procedures where a pilot should realise the control locks are still in. The best time is to remove, and stow, them as part of the pre-startup checks.

Agree. The Va for negative is actually your Vs x sq rt of -ve LF. The positive Va is, by example, ( if Vs = 50, so Va = 50 x 1.95 = 98). So in most +3.8 x -1.9 LF aircraft the Va would be considerably lower for negative LF, eg 50 x 1.40 = 70. How does this translate to an aerobatic aircraft - probably is understandable because of their higher LF's? Then add in the rolling forces..... doesn't bear thinking about! happy days,

Ian, I think this forum is really important for learning stuff about aviation. For that reason, the broader the range of knowledge that's presented - the better it will be for aviation. Therefore, you need an 'entry' for interested people to join each forum - and it need not be some already acquired possession such as knowledge or an aircraft, or a licence, certificate etc. The gatekeeper to each 'forum' should be keeping in mind that inclusiveness is probably more important than exclusion - even though that might allow some disruptive souls aboard. happy days,

Exactly what I have recommended long since to CASA, and more recently to RAAus. happy days,

Suggest you read CAR 157 closely. If you look at all the exemptions, you'll see that the average pilot has quite a bit of 'wriggle room' in order to cope with special conditions. (including t/o and ldg) This, (in my opinion), over-rules anything that is written by any RAAO. RAAus Ops also have a requirement that anyone requiring a LL endorsement must have reason to use this endorsement - but this cannot over-rule the CAR 157 exemptions. This has raised the question of using LL training to improve a pilots' skillset. My opinion is that a pilot well trained in LL is not going to immediately use this skill to 'hoon' about doing dumb LL stunts. RAAus probably need to consider the positives in LL training before making assumptions that every pilot is a probable criminal until proven innocent - we've got CASA to do that! happy days,

An 'instructors' section in a publicly available magazine does not make any sense to me. Instructors should be discussing technique and technical stuff on a forum where RAAus Operations is well and truly leading the discussions. There will always be differing approaches to instructing any facet of flying training, but, in my opinion, this should be conducted 'privately'. Now, before you all disagree with me, think about how your disparaging comments must affect low time pilots and student pilots. It can only reduce their faith that an instructor has any clue at all. Frankly, it's a dumb idea to have Prof Avius providing a public target. Indirectly, it doesn't really do credit to RAAus Ops. Save the paper, and publish stuff from well qualified people not necessarily inside RAAus. I believe you should have some confidence that RAAus trained instructors are improving due to more robust initial training, and a requirement for higher flying experience - now 100 hrs PIC instead of 75. But, why stop there? Why don't we level the playing field with instructor training - and set a bar exactly the same as GA? ie, min 150 hrs or maybe even 200 hrs, plus 30 hrs dual training in the course. This is the same as GA, and the only difference that I'd suggest is that we ditch the 20 hrs 'mutual' practice that is part of the GA 50 hrs 'instructing' course. If you have more TT, then you should be able to fly the aircraft skilfully enough to be a good demo instructor. This might even gain CASA acceptance and 'recognition' of RAAus instructors into GA - subject to competency of course. happy days,

Certainly agree with comments about operations on sealed surfaces. LP fatties are great on rough and soft ground - but be very careful when braking with them in a taildragger. If you are using a wheeler - make it 'tail low' so that there's less pivot over the mains as you put the anchors out. If you are going to consistently operate larger LP tyres off seal - pump them up several psi higher so that less rubber is gripping. You'll find that there is a pressure at which the aircraft will handle with less drama. Next best step is to ignore the seal and just land on the grass outside the lights. Who'll ever see it, and much less care? happy days,

Maybe SAAA calculated it correctly by relocating to Narromine? Dubbo is just up the road, and there's a steady stream of RPT into there. happy days,

Sure were! But we need to understand that CASA is part of the Federal bureaucracy, and as such, it must continue to expand. ('work' expands to fill the available time!) So, every project will require more staff. Every rewrite will be a peculiarly 'Australian' piece of regulation - because the air here is different from elsewhere. CASA's fundamental culture demands that successful rules and regulations employed in the USA - be ignored completely. After all, what would the Yanks know about aviation? If you want an example of stuffing up a proven US piece of legislation - go no further than CASR Part 61. It's a nightmare for flying schools. Unless the new Board grows some cojones, and lays down the rules from day 1 - the whiteants will continue to rule in Fort Fumble. Heads must roll. The organisation needs to be directed to actually 'foster' aviation - not destroy it. I don't know that this current, (or the alternative), government, has the will to do what the industry desperately needs. Does it really matter to them? Hell no -as long as that heavy metal with red tails keeps flying - she'll be right. happy days,

I think it was. My experience is that it's easier to not engage the LHS lock correctly on tip up canopies because they need to be clicked firmly into 'lock'. Slider canopies are easier to spot in the 'unlocked' position because it's directly overhead. My understanding is that the tip up canopy will rise quite alarmingly if unlatched in cruise, whereas the slider is pushed aft - creating draft and pressure waves but is less likely to tear off. It seems more likely that loose contents would exit suddenly from an unsecured tipup than in a slider - but that's just opinion. Doesn't account for the oil though. Perhaps the oil preceeded the canopy disengagement? Was the canopy accidentally opened or intentionally so as to see 'around' the oil on the windscreen? A lot of questions.

A logical response from the Regulator, which will probably elicit documented responses from owners who have suffered engine failures and operational emergencies which had not been reported to either RAAus or ATSB, but perhaps to the manufacturer. It's possible that these engine issues far outnumber those reported via standard channels. We may never know these numbers, but the manufacturer will likely be persuaded to negotiate, fully and frankly, on the issue. Without this Regulatory action, it's possible that the matter would continue to drag on, and on, and on........ happy days,