poteroo

CASA 'recognise' the RAAus Cross-Country endorsement, (12hrs), as being equivalent to the GA cross-country endorsement for the RPL. The RAAus endo is transferred straight across. However, at the GA schools I'm familiar with, the RPL cross-country training takes more like 18 hrs, and it covers more subject matter too. So, it appears to me that CASA have been quite 'generous' in allowing this recognition. I'd say that it is less to do with the diligence of the RAAus instructor, and more to do with what can be taught and absorbed in a 12 hr endorsement. I find it difficult to adequately cover the RAAus endorsement in the minimum 12 hrs. From within the ranks at RAAus I'm hearing that it's too long, and therefore too expensive, but honestly, if you are flying about Oz in an aircraft equivalent to a 95-110 kt GA type - then you need good cross-country training. As to just how much modern technology is allowed into the training: that is up to the RAAus and its' instructors. I teach the old and new together so that when doing the paperwork we are cross-checking from one method to the other. Same in the air, where I like to see combination being used. Pilot will always have a back-up that way.

From what I read in Sport Pilot, anything over 600kg is going to require higher instructor training, which I read as being applicable also to maintenance. CFIs haven't heard a single word about this, so it comes somewhat as a surprise read. Can't see that there won't be a LAME requirement for ex-certified aircraft, (but on the RAAus register), because of the treatment of instructing. In any event, aircraft manufacturers will likely have to re-write their POHs for any higher weights, and this will probably involve flight testing of W & B - which will cost $$. My guess is that they won't be rushing into it. happy days,

Like they re-wrote CASR Part 61 - OMG, we are in trouble if that happens!!

When I did my initial night flying for CPL in 1964/5, you were instructed in both no landing lights, and then with landing lights. I found the 'with lights' to be harder than the without, but this was in a C172 and the lights were in the port wing, creating a sideways light onto the cowls and panel. The C182 that I owned for 12 years had the lights in the front engine cowling and that was good because there was no light over the screen. One problem was that the plug connection for the lights had to be undone for cowl removal as in maintenance, and it was very important to check that it was plugged back in before departing the workshop. Had one fright when it wasn't plugged in, but it was at Geraldton which had good runway lights. Pilot should check lights before night flights!! For 'landing lights' to be of real value to you in event of an unplanned night landing - they need to be pretty strong or you just wouldn't have enough time to manoeuvre for the softest arrival. I don't think my Brumbys' front strut mounted LED landing light would be adequate for that, but it isn't going to be tested! There was a local legend over here who ran out of noise one night, and on the glide, he was explaining the necessary procedures to some very apprehensive passengers. A passenger relating the story many years on explained......' I'll turn on the landing lights, but if I don't like what I see - I'll turn them off' I think this story has had many iterations but it usually raises a smile or two. Btw, they landed in a wheat paddock without a scratch.

RAAus aircraft with a MTOW over 600 kg, and below 760 kg, to be categorised as 'Class G' which requires changes to the minimum hours that instructors require. There are several other changes for instructors in here as well. (Sport Pilot July p24) The question that flows from this is - will there be changes to RPC training/hours as well, or will an RPC cover everything up to 760, and later, to 1500kg ?

The thought of a precautionary onto a gravel road is worrying because it might well have been into the late afternoon sun for an into wind landing. Better to go to a prepared one. A few station strips en route, (Cundimurka, and Stuart Ck, and there's a public one at Maree). From William Ck to Cundimurka is 52nm and on direct track to Leigh Ck, and a diversion from there to Maree, (following the old line) is another 52nm. Given they left William Ck at 1600, then they could easily have been at Cundimurka at 1640, and Maree by 1720. That would have been comfortable for the day, given there's both accom and fuel there, and reportedly they had been there only the previous night - so were familiar with Maree. It almost always takes longer to fly a trip than the basic flight plan allows. Delays in refuelling, delays in loading, traffic holdups, and then perhaps reducing speed to conserve fuel. Headwinds are always stronger than forecast, while tailwinds are always lower than the forecast. Why? It's the way of the weather, and we just need to adjust to it.

On the shrivelled plum site, local refueller says aircraft overhead around last light or just after, ie, 1755-1805, so it then spent another 15-20 mins circling in attempt to get lights on, which was achieved by 2nd aircraft, which landed safely. For it to arrive at 1755, after having departed Milliam Creek at 1600 - that calculates out to a TT of 1:55, or, an average ground speed of 78 kts. On the wx of the day, it seems most unlikely that they had a 20kt headwind component - making a 'sightseeing' diversion over Maree man or lakes a possibility. However, it has been commented that both aircraft were in a hurry to leave William Creek, so on that basis, I doubt they made any diversions at all and flew the direct track to Leigh Creek. Knowing they were shaving last light, it is likely that they pushed the power in, and flew at 75-85% power all the way for a TAS of 100+ kts. This should have had them arrive around 1730, which would have been around time of sunset, but with plenty of light, and a 25 min margin to last light. But, the report is that they arrived somewhere around 1800 - so there is an unexplained flight time gap there. Was departure time really 1600, or 1615, or even later? Did they fly direct, or did they fly the 'I follow railway' track via Maree? Did they use a higher TAS en route? On another subject - the manifestly inadequate CASA / RAAus ' 10 minute before last light rule' Who thought that up? Most of us were taught to use 30 mins for flight planning, and to ensure this was maintained en route. Even with this margin, many of us have had close shaves. How can you do this - well, push the throttle in, change altitudes for better gs and if all this fails.....divert while you have choices. I submit that both CASA & RAAus needs to follow their 'on paper' myriad of 'safety' rules and make 30 mins before last light mandatory for flight planning, as it's eminently sensible and it is likely to save lives. A sad event but we need to get a better rule in place to mitigate against miscalculations.

Patair bought 2 of them in the late 60's and they were good for the short and rough strips, and shorter distances - but the economics didn't add up for longer trips, eg, 250nm or 2 hrs flying. The local punters were highly impressed with the ability of the Porter to 'back' into a parking spot. But most pilots preferred 2 engines in PNG, and that explains the popularity of the fabulous DHC 6 twin Otter. Even the missionaries, who were notably gung ho back-in-the-day, now operate the twotter. All good things come to an end. happy days, att: selection of turbines in PNG today: L to R, Porter, Twotter, Kodiak and PAC-750

Mountain flying anywhere in the world is definitely not for the faint of heart. The Rockies and high country of western USA, the Andean plateau of South America, PNG, and the South Island of NZ all qualify. Our Great Divide and it's leeside rotors is merely a training trip. The introduction of turbine engines has certainly helped, but when you are caught in descending airflow at 1500-2000 fpm - you need a lot of HP! Pilot training is a major factor in their relatively 'safe' operations: it includes much, much, more than a simple 'mountain' flying course. She is a real professional and yet modest with it. happy days,

!st solo was some years back, but it's fixed in my flying memories like it was yesterday. My Logbook #1 is now a bit scruffy and the glue binding is giving way, but it's still readable. Actually wish that I'd added more details into it, but everything was rather formalised and 'service' like in the early 60's. Todays' student pilots with mobile phone cameras and Go-Pro videos are so lucky to be able to share it with family and friends. My initial dual flight on 31/3/1963, was with former RAF fighter pilot Frank Woodfall,(dec), and it was in the very 1st Cessna 150 to arrive in Queensland, at Archerfield. Very basic it was too - one of the original straight backer models - registered VH-AWQ. I then did 10 dual sessions, over more or less consecutive weekends, with 4 different instructors - not recommended: but then the customer wasn't considered right in those days. I was sent solo by CFI John Young on 26/6/1963 with the TT of 9:30 hrs. It was winter, and there was the usual cold SW-W breeze blowing which proved very handy in landing the 150 using our then standard glide approach with full flap on final = rather steep approach! It all went to plan and next I was parked, and a happy CFI was shaking my hand. I now know that it's not because of your solo - but because you didn't damage the aircraft, or upset the skygods in the tower! It was, in those days, the time where VHF radio was just coming into service. Up to then, we would taxy along the perimeter, takeoff when it was visually clear, fly the circuit watching the other traffic, and upon observing a green light from the tower - we landed to the right hand side of preceeding aircraft. Once radio became the norm, we then needed a takeoff and landing clearance, tho' I can't recall us using any other calls. Non-radio aircraft continued operating there for several years, and it was always a challenge to identify who was who in the circuit. We rejoined overhead at 1500' after calling at 5nm inbound - at a visual checkpoint. In 1963, there were very few suburbs as far out as AF, and most of our training was over open farms to the SE and S. There were plenty of large, open paddocks with a few cows grazing so we were never short of somewhere to drop in if the noise stopped. Not the case anymore. Strange that my actual 1st solo wasn't all that memorable. My initial tailwheel endorsement on a Cessna 180, with a TT of only 69 hrs was far more so. If I was to divide the cost per hour by the number of bounces, skips, hops, twists and side excursions - each 'landing' was really quite cheap. Far too much aeroplane for my level of experience! However, I finally beat the beast and flew many many hrs on C185s - see pic happy days,

I don't think he is the Jim Davis from South Africa, who is so well known as an instructor and author. Rather, he is the chairman of directors of REX, one of our most visible regional airlines. I'm sure he presents well for the airline sector, but possibly isn't all that knowledgeable about smaller aircraft operations. RAAus has a seat at the table, (our chairman, Michael Monck), and we are probably lucky to have achieved this. happy days,

Back in the 50s & 60s, when the early ag aircraft, (non WW2 era), such as the C180 with an Continental 0-470, and the PA-25 Piper Pawnee with a Lycoming 0-540, entered service in the industry, there were many accidents due ice. Superphosphate 'spreading' was the main game in those times, and aggies began their working day by doing their DI in the dark, and becoming airborne as soon as one could see enough. Conditions were cool to cold, humid or nearly foggy, engines were coldsoaked, and sometimes wings were lightly ice contaminated. Fuel injection of the Continentals, eg, the IO-470, the IO-520, and the Lycoming IO-540, reduced the carby ice problem - not the airframe accumulation which remains a real winter hazard for us all. I was a proud owner of both a C180 and a C182 with Continental 0-470 engines, over a 20 year period, followed by a C170 with an Continental 0-300 engine for 13 years. Over this time, we flew approx. 250-300 hrs pa, most of which began with a 1st light take-off, and lots of flight in showery wx. Carb icing was always a threat, and never more so than when we began to use 'Mogas' - in the last century it was as 'Super'. It definitely created more carby ice. I'm unsure whether we could assume the same for 95/98 PULP. My Jabiru experience of 700 odd hrs was also one of really being alert to carby ice. We are in a cool, humid location. With my J160, it proved necessary to rewrite my pre-takeoff checklist to place the engine run-up last thing to do, with a minimum 20 secs of carb heat application, (and looking for signs of 'melting' ice). After essentially clearing out any ice, the requirement was to takeoff asap. That certainly reduced the threat for us. Wherever there is a long taxy required, beware of ice buildup, and re-run the engine checks before takeoff using a long carby heat time. I have noticed a lack of appreciation of carby ice accumulation during taxy, and an unwillingness to place the runup immediately pre-takeoff: a lot of inflexibility in our GA & RAAus instructor ranks? Just a few thoughts.... happy days,

A Meeka FTF when FTFs are closing down allover WA?? I think they mean 'Geraldton', and even then, only 1 school has survived there. happy days,

Too true! Avdata is one of the many 'middlemen' companies who are inserting themselves between the real user and the landlord. It adds at least 40% to the bill - AFAIK. But, we are Aussies, and Aussies hate the 'user pays' concept, especially when it comes to small amounts. Which is why we baulk at small charges and avoid any voluntary payment system at airports. Rather akin to our hatred of the 'gratuities' economy so beloved by the USA: and never more so than where the 'gratuity' = tip), is actually added to your bill as a matter of course, but you are then invited to tip in cash if you think the service was good! Outrageous you say? Not wrong. We had to drag our airport owner into the current millennia some years back by recommending an annual landing fee for locals, vs daily for itinerants. It took them some time to do the sums on recovery costs for a recalcitrant pilot, who might stretch repayment of $11.00 through 3 months worth of reminders and recovery threats. For those of us who are active more than 16-17 days per year - a single annual invoice is far, far preferable. We operate an RAAus flying school, and our airport landlord classes us as a 'commercial' entity, and so the Brumby is billed for around $700 for annual landing fees. Our hangar lease costs $10/m2, which in our case sets us back $3300 just for starters. Then, under the airport 'conditions of use' manifesto, we need $20m of insurance cover - which aint cheap! So, our Brumby requires around $3500 worth of annual insurance, or, about $20+/hr of training. The landing fees pale into insignificance when you consider the punitive insurance we incur ($700/200 = $3.50/hr). In hindsight, perhaps 20 years ago we should have leased a paddock several miles out, and set up there. However, all of our students expect to fly off the city airport, and they expect not just a nice aircraft, but reasonable school comforts as well. Overheads continue to rise, and that makes it near impossible to operate an FTF at under $200/hr. It occurs to me that none of our organisations is actually capable of, or seriously has intent, in dealing with this landing fee issue. Every airport, and every landlord, is a different situation and it really comes back to ourselves, (or our local groups), to negotiate for the best 'local' arrangements.Dealing direct with them puts our faces to the issue, and does help achieve more useful outcomes. It will always involve compromise, as local politics is a factor. Increasing the pilot numbers, the aircraft numbers, the local activities, and creating a positive profile with ratepayers will all assist us to get a better deal. happy days,

Common sense should eventually prevail on this landing charge matter: 1. If you knowingly land at a location which has a published charge - shut up and pay up! You 'ate-the-steak' 2. If AVDATA are the billing entity - more fool the airport owner, because it will be costing them at least 40% - but you still owe for the service, however little wear & tear you claim your Bugsmasher Mk 2 is causing. 3. If you didn't touchdown, ie, 'land', then you don't owe anyone for a landing charge. That you flew 10 circuits with go-rounds isn't the issue for the airport owner because they do not control the airspace. (they more often than not, think they do). If the airport is private - then you risk being accused of noise or similar matters, but not on a public one if you fly within the rules as stated in ERSA. 4. RAAus are very likely 'horsetrading' over airport charges in order to gain other non-related permissions from the regulator - IMHO. The arguments over privacy seem pedantic and bloody minded. We voted the Board in - all 700/9800 of us! If you choose not to vote, (even not to join RAAus), then you've lost the high moral ground on this subject. happy days,

I'm at a loss to understand this. Both previous accidents were due just to inflight forces - but this one was due solely to pre-existing damage from an earlier pilots' mismanagement? Please explain.

I'm informed that it is 40% BTW, if you believe that Avdata, or any airport owner, have billed you for ops that you didn't do - then simply photograph your M/R, or logbook, to show that neither you nor the aircraft were the identified party. Never had it disputed. happy days,

There was an STC approval for an electric aileron trim adjustment back in the 80s, and there were a few fitted to Cessnas in Australia. Can't see it offered anymore and it may well have been discontinued due product liability issues. In any case, if the aircraft is rigged accurately, and then flown in balance, fuel should be used evenly from both tanks = the aircraft continues to fly 'wings level' Flap re-adjustment might be a better approach than aileron trim tabs? happy days,

I'm sure Mr Nagy needs to look into the ATSB files again! The Albany 210 crash involved a wing separation as did the Darwin 210 crash in TS conditions. If I remember correctly, there was an extensive discussion after both of these about the 210 being flown in rough air at way over its' Va speed. There are also more than a few accidents on the US NTSB records involving 210s and structural failure. Low level ops are more than likely to involve hours of continuous exposure to turbulence, often at IAS over or very near the Va speed. I'd be very apprehensive about flying a high hours, &/or, a 60s model 210 these days, especially on survey work - but I guess we become more risk averse with age.

A company that I flew with in a hilly island to our north had a very comforting, (but unwritten), policy of the LAME having to be on the test flight on every aircraft they signed off on. This especially applied to major repairs on, or replacement of, an engine on a remote strip - usually under the cover of a tarpaulin. One memorable occasion was the 1st flight with a replacement engine in a Cessna 185 off Naoro, (a 412m strip on the Kokoda track): LAME didn't breathe until we were past 1000ft agl!! Another occasion was with a repaired C185 off Wanigela, (on the N coast NE of Port Moresby): LAME held his breath for 30 mins while we climbed high enough to get through the Owen Stanley Range. happy days,

For an ATPL to overlook 'select fullest tank' in the pre-landing checks is surprising as its in the 'Before Landing' checklist. The Bonanza was probably configured for final with full flap & gear down, with prop in fine pitch and that allows for a very rapid height loss just by pulling power to idle. No need for fancy stuff like slipping. But, loss of power in that config. means a very rapid height loss in the Bo and pilot might not have had time to select the other tank plus the AUX fuel pump to HI. If I remember rightly, the AUX fuel pump isn't on the pre-landing checklist. The other critical feature in the Bo is that the fuel tank selector must be placed precisely into the 'detent' because there is simply no fuel if not so. You need to practise this tank selection at altitude during the endorsement, because doing it for the 1st time on final may not end well. happy days,

All good advice above. Because RAAus flying and endorsements are 'recognised' by CASA for conversion to the RPL, it's wise to do your cross-country endorsement in RAAus - before shifting to the GA side. It's not smart to short-cut your navigation training and do just the bare minimums, (12hrs), as required in RAAus. I suggest you should have done at least 2, better 3-4 solo navex under RAAus and have around 20+ hrs total navigation before RPL. It also helps if your RAAus training is 'heavy' on attitude flying, and that you can actually fly with reference to instruments only, (limited or full panel), before RPL. happy days,

Our CEO needs to desist from commenting upon operational matters. That's why we employ an Operations Manager. happy days,

The high accident rates we see under the category of 'runway-loss of control' (R-LOC), can be linked into these other low level accidents which are associated with LL manoeuvring for operational reasons or for show. I believe it can be traced back to student pilots not really being pushed sufficiently to maintain balance through flight phases where speeds are low and angles of bank are changing and high. We teach students to input controls in an order, eg for turns it's aileron>rudder>elevator>power. That's ok for the very initial stuff, but we should be trying to teach closely co-ordinated inputs, at a very early stage, such that we don't need to experience aileron drag, or slip, or speed loss before 'correcting.' I know that many instructors are not happy to 'pause' a students' training while the skill of balanced flying is practised, but it can be done by simply doing 5 minutes of concentrated manoeuvring during each lesson - perhaps at beginning or completion. Try the students ability to roll 30 deg L or R, then reverse the turn, then reverse the turn and so on. It should involve constantly needing to vary rudder pressures to keep with the aileron inputs. If doing it at low speeds, then power must be increased as the control inputs begin, and reduced on roll out. Elevator inputs as required to maintain altitude. Do these exercises above 1000ft for starters, then reduce to 500 agl so that there is a bit more reality in the work. Having some scenery in view creates the pressure needed to test the students skills. When a student can confidently manoeuvre the aircraft without 'fishtailing' it all over the sky, then they will be able to recover from those ubiquitous 'wind gusts' that cause so many R-LOC accidents. It also arms the student with the ability and confidence to 'fly' the aircraft to a safe arrival - rather than reverting to a state of 'fatalistic resignation' and losing it completely. The aircraft doesn't 'know' that it is flying at 50KIAS and 200 AGL - only the pilot knows that. A student with good basic slow flying skills will become a safe qualified pilot and far less likely to lose control of their aircraft near the ground. But back to subject of mustering. None of the above will train a pilot to go out and do operational low flying where 2 jobs are being done together. That takes a lot more skill and maturity, and needs to be learned from a skilled instructor / pilot.

A most unwise statement on someones' part. In GA, yes, you do need both a LL rating plus a mustering endo, (on that rating), in order to muster even your own stock. Many don't bother with all this of course. With RAAus, it's called stock spotting, and is covered in the RAAus 'utility' endorsement. The older, wiser GA mustering pilots do not fly at 15ft and pull 3G in every turn - rather, they use power judiciously, keep 150 ft under them, keep the ball centered, and if stock prove recalcitrant, they call in the motorbikes. happy days,