winsor68 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Received my last (as a current Member for now) Ra-Aus magazine today... Page 45 has an article from the Operations Team about HP and LP endorsements... It seems that there are plans underway to "fix" the High Performance/Low Performance Certification System... To quote... "Essentially, what is proposed is a list of aircraft categorized into LP or HP for those aircraft which 'blur' the line." Aircraft specifically mentioned as those "fitted with higher performance engines" are Foxbat, Savanah and Eurofox... So... If you learnt to fly on any of these aircraft chances are that you will soon have a new category on your license of LP to replace your no longer valid HP endorsement... Can of worms now open.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Lp aircraft upto 79 kn. hp 80 and above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 Lp aircraft upto 79kn. hp 80 and above Not for much longer Doug according to the article from the Operations Team... I agree with what they say in that landing characteristics are the more important factor... What worries me is the financial cost to flying schools and members from this change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 OMG..head ...Desk.....Lets complicate it MORE than GA..Sweet idea. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 They are proposing that the Savannah is a LP aircraft...yeah right mine cruises at 87 kts at 5000 rpm at 5600 it is 97 kts just because it can stall at 26 kts they want to put it in LP What a Krock of you know what I have already had a "discussion" with Zane about it he tells me they are "working on a formula" hahahha yeah right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ive got a formula..Ready?... LP/HP- LP/HP= Problem solved...Chuck it out, its useless and only muddys the waters. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Oh brother!! Shows just how silly the individual endorsements really are...... I wonder where in the tech manual it names individual aircraft? Next it will be an endorsement for every different aircraft type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 In GA ive flown aircraft with cruise speeds that range from 65 kts, up to 200 kts, and they go a sh!tload faster than that..And CASA have no such 'endorsement".. 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 The reason why this was brought about is as follows, Joe Blow learns to fly in a Jabiru, Tecnam etc and then goes out and buys a Thruster. Joe thinks as he has learnt in a HP plane a simple thing like a Thruster will be a walk in the park after what he has been flying. Joe can't find a instructor who has a LP endorsement but that really does not matter as he has learnt in a superior machine anyway. Joe fires up his new Thruster to go flying, he can't believe what a mongrel of a thing it is to hold straight on take off but it has the big motor and is in the air fairly quickly. He flies around for about 10 minutes and everything seems OK. Next step the landing Joe throttles back and descends using the throttle to regulate his descent rate, so far so good. As he comes over the fence at 50 feet on final Joe reduces the power to idle....... The next thing Joe knows he is sitting in a pile of scrap aluminium on the ground and he has no feeling from the waist down. This what has happened in the past and is what gave ultralights a bad name in the early years. Mainly GA pilots trying to fly ultralights in the same way they would fly a Cessna or Piper type and we have some who think they can just float down to the ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 He'd also need a tail wheel, and 2 stroke endorsement. So by attempting to fly the thruster without the endorsement old mate was flying illegally And should have known better;) 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 He'd also need a tail wheel, and 2 stroke endorsement. So by attempting to fly the thruster without the endorsement old mate was flying illegally And should have known better;) Yep quite true the HP / LP thing is sus, but that is the reasoning as to why it was brought in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Yep quite true the HP / LP thing is sus, but that is the reasoning as to why it was brought in. HP/LP endorsements aside, methinks it's the Darwinian theory of gene pool reduction of 'dumb ass' category. Any qualified pilot (GA - RA) who climbs into an unfamiliar machine without first either a check flight or both querying and having made himself aware of it's operating characteristics is obviously beyond protection by any statutes or regulations. No matter what's embossed on a bit of plastic card, it isn't gonna govern either how capable one is in managing a flying machine at 79kts/hr or how incapable in the same machine at 80kts. "Please Sir, it's bollocks" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's not the intention that is faulty its the implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 HP/LP endorsements aside, methinks it's the Darwinian theory of gene pool reduction of 'dumb ass' category. Any qualified pilot (GA - RA) who climbs into an unfamiliar machine without first either a check flight or both querying and having made himself aware of it's operating characteristics is obviously beyond protection by any statutes or regulations. No matter what's embossed on a bit of plastic card, it isn't gonna govern either how capable one is in managing a flying machine at 79kts/hr or how incapable in the same machine at 80kts. "Please Sir, it's bollocks" I was once offered to take a plane for a fly "She'll be right it's almost the same as the Jabiru, no problems". They couldnt understand why I went looking for an instructor with experience on type to help me learn how to fly it. Regardless, couldnt find an instructor, didnt fly it. I remember the first time I flew a Sportstar - my instructor assisted with my first two landings - imagine if I was on my own, probably would have ended up... well... not in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 The HP / LP endorsement has nothing to do with landing the aircraft as it has to do with the cruise speed being above or below 80 knots. The approach speeds for most of the so called modern style of aircraft are very similar - not talking about Thrusters here. It should have been High Drag / Low Drag if an endorsement was really necessary Still cannot find a list of aircraft in the Ops or Tech manual and wonder how many people have really had trouble with a change in cruise speed from 75 to 100 knots?? An approach speed change from 60 to 40 knots does cause problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 You are right bilby. The real difference has no direct relation to cruisespeed. It is to do with high drag low weight (Low inertia )planes Vs more normal ones that have a glide ratio of over say 7 to 1 and don't lose all airspeed as soon as the fan stops, requiring quick action with a fair amount of forward stick. A thorough briefing prior to flight will cover this engine loss situation and normally the student will easily do it well. The other problems are related to climbing turns and steep turns and how little surplus power is available to do one without losing height. In fact any proper "steep" turn will see the pilot needing to consider a height loss to preserve airspeed. A power off steep turn is inevitably accompanied by a large nose down attitude to preserve a safe speed, which may seem extreme compared to the more "normal" aircraft, till the pilot gets used to it. These low inertia aircraft do require some getting used to, but differentiating them on speed doesn't add up. They should be "listed" and require a recency, or a flight with an instructor in lieu. Common sense (as has been alluded to by some previous posters) is not to fly anything that you would consider "different" or unfamiliar to you regarding flying characteristics, without some sort of preparation. The more total experience on varied aircraft you have the more adaptive you become and often a briefing would be adequate, but if there is any doubt go flying with someone who should be an instructor, but some non instructors have been permitted to do endorsements (I believe). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 They have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 They used to. I can't state what the current situation is. They had to meet particular standards and the authority is/was issued individually. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Facthunter. Thats the word "inertia" That is the difference. I have flown a Thruster after flying lightwing and Skyfox, after GA. The Lightwing doesn't prepare you for the Thruster. My first flight was with the owner alongside me when I did a trial flight prior to buying. He was scared stiff when I 3 pointed it, but no problems. I hadn't come across Tony Hayes in those days. After about 250 hours in the thruster I test flew my Corby and I can't think of anything much different. What you need is the ability to work out what the differences will be and then go and do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I would imagine they would be chalk and cheese. I have a friend with a corby and VW. and have seen them being built. with a jab like yours. Goes well.. Tony Hayes and I corresponded regularly. I enjoyed the way he approached things and the Thruster was his baby. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Yenn is right, You have earned the pilot certificate, which means your not a total dumbshit, and you should have the nouce to work out what a different aircraft needs. Talking with somebody who has flown the type never gos amiss though, and goes in the column of stacking the cards in your favor. Authorities in this country have problems letting people exercise the privilages of their rating, they want to micro-manage everything hence HP-LP endorsements and the such. I predict the whole endorsement set-up is a big con job anyway. Like value adding to your license . I reckon one day they'll decide to charge an extra 'levy' for each endorsement, and before you know it we'll be paying $300 a year for the privilage of exercising our privilages !!!..................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Definitely has everything to do with drag and inertia.... The C170 I was flying a while back could still be flying at 30kts when trying to land... but a lot of inertia and energy to keep you moving. Drifter/Thruster/T-bird, all those really high drag, light weight aircraft will run out of oomph real fast, surprises many people when they're just getting acquainted. Anyone one of you thruster or drifter drivers could easily jump in a C210 and do a pretty reasonable job of taking off and landing it I reckon - once you get over the fact approach speed is just about VNE on the other! But get a C210 pilot in a drifter or thruster and you'll have a higher chance of a bent plane, and or ego... Savannah's, Foxbat's, etc... aren't LP in my opinion... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 M Ive got a formula..Ready?... LP/HP- LP/HP= Problem solved...Chuck it out, its useless and only muddys the waters. Motz <sarcy on> Come on, be reasonable there have literally been thousands of pilots killed as a result of finding themselves travelling at 85kts when they only have an endorsement for up to 79kts, and we all know that cruise is the most dangerous time for a pilot!! <sarcy off> Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Andy I would question your above statement. I for one do not know that cruise is the most dangerous time and I have never heard of anyone being endorsed for a max speed. It seems you are just trying to muddy the waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Yeah Andy would you cut it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now