poteroo

Yes, as a callow 23 yo, I learned on C180's and C185's. They could be very difficult with a big load and a quartering wind! happy days,

I remember speaking with a CFI from Albury, in the early 1990's - who had purchased a Pacer to do ab initio training. It was of interest to me because I'd bought a C170A in 1991, and had been pestered by a Jandakot flying school to put it online there for the same purpose. Ab initio training!! He was in the process of selling it, or otherwise removing it from the flightline because Albury only had the single runway, and they'd experienced a number of 'runway excursions' in the Pacer. Might have been the same machine as yours? There was another Pacer in Victoria which was purchased by an ex RPT Captain, but it was damaged during his conversion training due to the young instructor 'assuming' the Captain didn't really need any advice. I think this would have been around 2000-2003? Clearly, they will 'bite' if mishandled. happy days,

Another try to increase the size of this clip from yesterdays Australian regards how Honda were able to 'massage' the accident statistics to the extent that they only reported 39% of them to the US Regulator. A good reason why an industry body should collate sensitive data and not rely on those with a massive vested interest to do it. happy days,

When you read this, (39% of accidents reported), you'll understand my scepticism of manufacturers running surveys. happy days,

Probably not. Some have a lower stalling speed in the landing configuration and so, if flown according to the POH, would in theory have a lower impact force in the event of a touchdown accident. Aircraft such as Foxbats, Savannahs come to mind as lower approach speed types. If you are instructed competently, and operate whichever type you fly, to the numbers in its' POH - you are going to be as 'safe' as is possible. I'd suggest you don't 'think' about which type or make is 'safest'. When you look at accident statistics, the number attributable to mechanical failure is far outweighed by 'pilot error' No aircraft can out-think an unprepared, ham-fisted pilot. happy days,

Thanks for posting these references. Puts a new light on the subject. When I learned in the 60's, there wasn't much understanding of Va, Vb - other than that they were numbers you should keep in mind when navigating around big Cb, or in a developed standing wave over mountains. Certainly didn't appreciate the very wide window of Va that exists in good load carrying aircraft. Even the old C172 has a Va 'range' of approx. 89 to 103 kts. Because RAAus types don't have quite the same load carrying ability - their Va range is closer. I have been amazed that there is such a poor understanding of Va. Many BFR candidates state that they can fly with impunity at normal cruise ' as long as they are not in the yellow arc'. Now that's waaaay above Va in most aircraft - often by 20-30 kts. These new presentations pose questions for recovery techniques from a developing spiral. Reducing power will be the 1st step - as currently taught. Once up near Va - it's definitely unsafe to try to roll out of the turn plus ease out of the dive - using both aileron and elevator together. And, it would require that only sufficient rudder is used to balance the aileron input. So - for me, more emphasis now on sequential control input when speed is increasing near or over Va. Over the years, the emphasis has been on not exceeding Va when in moderate turbulence. Most pilots will reduce to at or just under Va if things get bouncy - but even this now appears to have been too high. The advice given to use 1.6 - 1.7 x Vs seems prudent. In really rough air, I've used an IAS half-way between the calculated Va, (for the aircraft current weight), and Vs. If your hypothetical aircraft has a Va of 100 and Vs of 50, then 75 is a safe number to hold because you are splitting the difference between stalling and airframe damage. If the aircraft was near empty, Va might be 90, but the Vs might be 45 - so the mid point is 67.5 It's probably time for instructors to carefully check through their aircrafts' POH and do some calculations to determine Va at different gross weights - maybe even placard them near the ASI? happy days,

Luckily for our schools - we have access to a number of areas and farm strips where it is legal and safe to take a PFL, and PS&L right down to flare. (approved LL training area, instructor LL approved). I cannot see how placing a limit of 500ft agl on these exercises is going to really teach the student much. In fact, it's the last part of the approach that 'makes or breaks' things. Unless the student can 'see' that they are really going to make it into their intended location, (or they're not), then what have we taught them? happy days,

This CTA issue would require a well developed case to both the Minister and CASA. It might be prudent to develop it by taking 1 or 2 CTA's as test cases and see whether RAAus aircraft are able to operate within the operational guidelines required. Any stuff ups - and it's off. RAAus would need to demonstrate that a 'safe' CTA TRANSIT LANE could be developed through each contentious CTA. These 'routes' might be possibly structured so that they are easily entered via a clear cut VFR point, perhaps identified by a strobelight, but definitely as a GPS waypoint. They may be multi-leg, and might require flight at between 500ft agl and 1000 ft agl - depending on what's underneath. If the 'safe' aspect is sufficient - it may well allow passage along the transit route while only monitoring a COM frequency, and with a transponder + mode C set to 1200. It seems to me that RAAus should be approaching this from the viewpoint that a PC could achieve the above without a full CTA endorsement. Thus, if such transit lanes were to be established, it removes the need for the pilot to hold a 'licence' to use the lanes because they are in fact not in CTA. It's really just a variation on the current VFR lanes-of-entry. happy days,

I'd say that CAR 228 clearly 'authorises' an instructor to direct a student pilot, (the person undergoing the TIF and who has signed a temporary membership of RAAus form), to handle the controls of a suitably equipped and registered RAAus aircraft for the purpose of understanding their uses and limitations. The person experiencing the TIF is not a passenger but is an informed member of the flight crew. As such, RAAus is well and truly acting within the scope of the Regulations. happy days,

Correct. I was at Dubbo, and there was no mention of this 'Jabiru engine' action by any of the 3 CASA people to whom I spoke on the Thursday morning, and I definitely did not pick up on any scuttlebutt to that effect from any of the other CFI's present. They had clearly been deliberating on the matter for some time though, and it seems that safety was paramount in their thinking. The timing was probably deliberate so as to avoid a scene at the conference. happy days,

That was my original position - keep it quiet for pretty much the 'good of the industry...don't want the public alarmed' I sold in 2013 when the prices were reasonable - hate to think of what the resale market would be now. Anyway, as now it appears that Jabiru are intent on fighting this into the ditches, I have given CASA a detailed account of my experiences with operating a J160. They may make, what they choose, from it - but it's high time for everyone to come out from your foxholes and provide the regulator with your real experiences with Jabiru engines. (regardless of whether you've suffered in-flight failures...just how much extra maintenance has been required). It's my opinion that we, and our administrators, have been far too protective in our attitudes. happy days,

Same here. When I advised her that I'd happily sold the aircraft a year ago, because of 2 engines and 2 total failures in 730 TT - the tone changed and she decided that it would serve no purpose if I did their 'survey'. Methinks the 'survey' will be very much skewed towards successes rather than failures. happy days,

Agree. 'If you think safety is costly - try having an accident' happy days

Not what I heard at the CFI Conference in Dubbo. There are many, and varied, reasons that people own FTF's, or are unpaid CFI's at FTF's, or cross-hire aircraft to FTF's. I do it because I love to fly, I wish to stay mentally and physically active, and it allows me to transfer skills to the next generation. I won't expand on this because it will only create thread drift - perhaps another thread at a later date? happy days,

Correct - Perception IS Reality And this explains the recent strike on Angel Flight, the unworkable decision on multicom and area frequencies, the unworkable new rules for low level testing and currency in CASR Part 61, and the tightening up of the medical standards for RPL. happy days,

Just back in WA after several days in the 'eastern' states. Used my IO-360 powered RV9A and power settings to give me a TAS of 140 for long range planning. This requires a 50-53% power setup, ROP on the EGT because I don't yet have GAMI's fitted, and a fuel burn of 27-30 LPH. Longest leg of whole trip was 3.3 hrs - which is stretching my own endurance! Albany - refuel Esperance - refuel Border Village - Port Lincoln on 8th November.Did the entire trip @ 9500 ft and varying tailwinds from 10 to 33 kts. Flight time 6.7 hrs. On 10th November, did Lincoln to Dubbo via Kadina-Wentworth, then a stop at Hillston for a break - OCTA but mostly 7500 or 9500 for time of 4.7 hrs. On 13th Dubbo to Cowra took only 0.7 hrs. Then on 15th Cowra to Moree in very hot conditions (1.9 hrs) - Moree reached 43.5 later that day. On 17th - Moree to Broken Hill @ approx. 500 agl and 145 KTAS gave me roughly the same GS, by avoiding the big wind penalty at any altitude over 2000. Then Broken Hill to Ceduna at 1500-2000 ft to avoid those westerlies and after Ceduna picked up a tailwind at 1000 ft out to Nullarbor,(watch the holes on the taxiway here). for a sleep. TT 7.4 hrs flying. Then on 18th - in the air early because it was looking stormy.....threaded through 3 separate troughlines that day requiring some detours and slower flying,(at or less than Va), to avoid the nasty cells. Keeping below 1000 agl allowed for +15 kts helpful air. Just to be sure of reaching Esperance, I dropped into Caiguna and put an extra 40L in. Strip very wet up the centre - be careful at this location! But all the help ended at Esperance with a NW wind changing things. Refuelled in Esperance and dodged TS all the way back to Albany (4.7hrs for the day). TT for trip 26.3 hrs flight time off the airswitch. By judicious choice of altitudes, and delaying my return day by one, I was able to pretty much fly the trip on a 'nil wind' basis using 140 KTAS for the OzRunways flight planning off the iPad. Climbing to 9500 is quite painless in the RV9A, but flying low creates a few bumps that require being firmly belted in with the 4 point harness. And, tiedown the loose gear in back too! Provided you avoid towns and dwellings, 500 agl is more than useful if the upper winds are on the nose. Attended RAAus CFI conference in Dubbo 11th - 13th November - useful, possibly needed tighter scheduling and a few more hours work time. Then, down to Cowra for a look at Brumby progress...slow I'm sad to say, but maybe by Christmas. In Moree I had a good look around my mates' extensive farms up toward Mungindi. Great soil...all it needs is water from time to time. Not much of that this year, and it's nearly too late for summer crop sowing as well. Much as I hate to brag, the WA wheatbelt has far more reliable winter rainfall which allows us to grow fair crops on very light sands....every year. Sorry this trip wasn't in an RAAus type, but the principles discussed are just as applicable. happy days,

Teach-yourself just doesn't work with low level. I'm really stunned to read all the reasons why pilots feel they are different from others in respect of their skills at doing low level flight....safely. Folks, I have advice for you - no pilot is 'safe' at low level. If you've had the best training, and are both prudent and skilled, the risk increases the lower you fly. The risk increases the less you practise low level flying. And, the risk increases the more casually and arrogantly you approach low level flight. Thus, it's no surprise to me that so many RAAus and GA pilots are involved in low level incidents and accidents. Nothing has changed in 50 years! happy days,

Why should the existing long suffering members subsidise your rejoin costs? If you don't like the service -walk away, but don't expect us to fund your patronising rejoin.

That's because so many are 'unreported' - for many and various reasons. The smart people sold a few years ago because this disaster has been many years in the making. Now the chickens are coming home to roost!

Are you sure of your facts? There was a forced landing on a beach in NSW recently involving a Brumby B610 fitted with a Lycoming 0-233, (not the 0-235 as used in many GA types), using Champion electronic ignition - which was the probable cause of the engine stoppage.

All very well to wail about future potential losses. Spare a thought for those flying schools and individual owners who have experienced real and documentable losses from a very bad run with Jabs and have been continually fobbed off by the manufacturer. There are 2 sides to this issue. happy days,

With regular reviews and updates, and online availability - this Ops Manual should become the 'living' document most members will find instructive and informative. Also at the Dubbo Conference but haven't caught up to you yet Ross. regards, Ralph Burnett

If it's the bare 10 hrs - then unlikely it will be recognised. I'd be thinking that you'd need to have done around 15 hrs in the nav endorsement to reach a recognition level for most GA schools. (remember, these are navs that the school has signed off on - whereas the hrs that you subsequently do by yourself do not have the same authenticity. (sorry, but that's reality). We have always used the exact same nav syllabus and routes as the joint GA school. So, our RAAus pilots have done everything short of the PPL test flight and there will be no problems with their recognition. Also, there's the issue of just what 3-axis aircraft was used. If it was 100 KTAS unit, then your hours can be taken to be 'equivalent' to a GA aircraft such as a Warrior or Cessna 172. Other posters have it right - go to a joint GA/RAAus school if you want recognition. In any case, the changeover to Part 61 Licences is a paper nightmare. You need photocopies of every endorsement or qualification out of your logbook, (radio too) - to accompany your application for RPL. Then there's the English Proficiency test by the GA Flight Examiner/CFI. You should already have an ARN off the CASA website. And your medical as well. There will be a few difficulties with these RAAus - GA RPL conversions, until everyone settles down.