RAA and Aerobatics

[Guest airsick]

A weight increase will permit the construction of stronger airframes, with more conventional materials. It has no real relevance to flying difficulty or safety, except to enable both to be improved

Safety seems to be a secondary motivation for this increase. I was discussing this with someone the other day who told me a mate of theirs purchased an aircraft and opted to go without the BRS system due to weight constraints. I can't recall the aircraft they were purchasing but in Europe it was certified to a much higher weight limit than the 544kg they could get here. So essentially they sacrificed a piece of safety equipment in order to remain compliant with the regs. Conversely I know of others who simply flaunt the regs and carry the extra weight knowing their aircraft is designed for it and thus safe. Either situation is not ideal so allowing us to fly the aircraft as the designer intended would, in my opinion, have a positive impact on safety by allowing the inclusion of BRSs, first aid and survival kits, etc.

 

I would be far more apprehensive of RAAus pilots operating at night in our aircraft than a few doing aeros in appropriate planes.

Again, with the right training and a suitably equipped aircraft how is flying at night any more dangerous than flying inverted? It all comes down to training and the right aircraft. As Brent said, if you know what you are doing then you are no less safe - this applies at night and upside down.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Airsick you raise another good point about being able to jump from a Jab (plastic fantastic) into a Drifter or Thruster (rag and tube high drag low inertia) at the moment. I do believe there was a push to add an extra endorsment into the RAA licence for High Drag low Inertia aircraft but I don't know what happened to it. Does anyone know? I think Tony (TOSG) was following it???

 

To me this IS a safety thing (both aero's and weight) I just don't believe we have the systems in place to safely allow allow both of these to happen at the moment but maybe in a couple of years?

 

How about we allow aero's but the pilot needs a medical plus the training and the plane needs to be maintained by a L2...oh hang on thats GA!!!!

 

Adam.

 

 

[BigPete]

Well I think one things for sure :big_grin: - the bigger we (RAAus) get, and the more diversified (higher weights, aerobatics, fly at night, etc) we get, the more it's going to cost. :ah_oh:

 

Are we all prepared to pay for each other (as we currently do) when the cost goes thru the roof? As it is, I'm amazed at what we get for so little. Maybe we should be paying more anyway

 

There's a lot of good comment so far, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too. :thumb_up:

 

RAAus - the "new" GA

 

regards

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

No Adam, I do not follow up on much of anything these days – just keep myself to my own area of Thrusters and historic/heritage preservation.

 

 

I do understand that there are new ‘endorsements’ amongst which they divide low energy from high energy machines. Not too sure about that because when I recently renewed my RAAus membership I spent a couple of hours claiming the new endorsements via scanned log book entries, supporting information, type lists etc (about 3 pages of it) and just got my original endorsements back – plus a form where I had to find, and pay for, some examiner to presumably do some form of (unspecified) checking and sign me off on the basis of his/her opinion that is unsupported by any stated requirements in writing.

 

 

When I queried this and that was I illegal, I got an email back saying no I was not and it was early days yet and things have to settle down – but if RAAus could be of help then just ask. I thought that I had asked!

 

 

So I now have an RAAus pilot’s certificate that actually means that I cannot fly anything if taken to an ultimate legal test and an email saying that effectively I can fly anything!

 

 

There are a lot of parallels there with this thread on “aerobaticsâ€. My mind drifts back about 30 years to the gliding club at Gawler. They went through a ‘craze’ on aerobatics that was primarily driven by GA pilots who wanted their fun ‘on the cheap’ yet wanted their lead sled GA machines for going places.

 

 

That club was well heeled at the time and had superior soaring machines laying around hardly utilised (I spent two hours washing one that I wanted to fly that had not flown for two months despite the peak soaring season).

 

 

All they had to do was a fleet utilisation analysis, flog off the unviable machines and buy a dedicated aerobatic glider and they could go for their lives. That was not good enough! Such machines like the Salto and Lo100 are not great soaring machines and they wanted the performance of long span floppy winged high performance soarers and be able to turn them inside out as well!

 

 

I see a parallel here in this aerobatic thread. Everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Aviation can be very specific in terms of hardware and the availability of hardware backed by training then dictates regulation.

 

 

Aerobatics themselves? A lot of crap in my opinion. Spinning is classed as an aerobatic manoeuvre yet has been taken from flying training. In my book spinning is an essential part of pilot training for flight safety reasons – particularly with aerobatics. You lose it going over the top of a roll off the top loop and your will doubtless be spinning very quickly and very enthusiastically. Ok so you are trained for it as part of aerobatics.

 

 

What about the turkeys who feel they are up to it without training and lose it? Or aerobat an aircraft insufficiently stressed for it and break it up? So they should have got training! Great, but their deaths pull down and discredit our entire movement and invade the freedoms our entire membership – maybe to extinction because we are getting plenty of ‘benign’ accidents these days anyway and we are increasingly flying over built up areas.

 

 

I can understand people ‘wanting’ but trying to put wants into practice is a different matter and make it work over a huge variety of skills, experience and knowledge of a growing membership that depends on the central integrity of its parent body to exist.

 

 

My summation is that if what was once AUF and is now RAAus did not have the insight to install even approaching adequate support infrastructure for those early and very simple machines that AUF came into being for – then how can the movement possibly withstand the moves into the more exotic endorsements (or weight increases and added complexity that heavier weights bring) with a membership that believes that it only has to give lip service to regulation while knowing it can do what it wants out of the supposed public gaze?

 

 

Tony

 

 

[facthunter]

NIGHT VMC

 

Airsick, I just don't believe that night VMC is safe, no matter how well you have been trained for it, when you consider the engines that we use, our electrical systems etc they would need a lot of updating. A PIFR, is the minimum training that would apply to safely conduct flights at night, as far as I am concerned, also, as I consider the concept of visual flight at night to be flawed. I don't believe that I am alone in this belief either, amongst people with a fair amount of night-flying experience. Nev...

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I would have to agree there Nev. I have often treated night flying as a more limited form of full instrument flying. There are some very similar things that you have to be aware of in terms of situational awareness, spatial disorientation and so forth. On this point I agree.

 

In terms of engines and what not I have to disagree. I think a well maintained aircraft in RA is just as reliable as a well maintained aircraft in GA. There are certain requirements that are in place before an RA aircraft can fly into CTA/CTR some of which seem to be aimed at reliability. There is no reason the definition of a suitably equipped couldn't include similar aspects.

 

Some of the aircraft we currently fly can already be flown at night if registered as VH. I haven't heard of these falling out of the sky on a regular basis!

 

 

[antzx6r]

Ok... define GA. It gets thrown around here like its very nature is evil.

 

How about we allow aero's but the pilot needs a medical plus the training and the plane needs to be maintained by a L2...oh hang on thats GA!!!!

A medical and L2 maintainence are both 'user pays' expences. No impact on anyone else. Besides, those things arn't bad things.

Things change, grow, evolve... This is a good thing! Without it we would be hidden away in the outback somewhere, below 300agl, in rag and tub death traps(no regulation) slowly dying off with CFIT (or uncontrolled! not trained). We are evolving into the recreational side of aviation. We are no longer ultralight. That's just part of what we are about. If you want to be an ultralight organization, start a club. "Self regulation" is bigger than that. What we will never be is commercial. THAT is GA!

 

:hittinghead:

 

 

[IanR]

A PIFR, is the minimum training that would apply to safely conduct flights at night, as far as I am concerned, also, as I consider the concept of visual flight at night to be flawed. I don't believe that I am alone in this belief either, amongst people with a fair amount of night-flying experience. Nev...

I agree completely Nev. In fact the NVFR was called Class (4?) Instrument Rating at one stage ! I have certainly been in situations where while legally VFR at night, there was absolutely no reference outside so had to rely solely on instruments ! (and yes I was instrument rated)

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi Guys,

 

Most things are possible, but not all at once. When we take on something we have to do it well (as the rest are watching) with the resources we have available. We don't have access to deep taxpayer pockets like CASA. In years to come we will have more of these privileges you have been discussing.

 

Years ago we did have a trial of ultralight aerobatics. Unfortunately we had a very serious accident and the trial was stopped. (As stated previously by Brentc) That is not to say we can not have another go at it in the future. There are ultralight type planes that do legal aerobatics by being GA registered. eg Wayne Fisher's Drifter.

 

As time goes on we will get more and more privileges. It wasn't that long ago we were not allowed to teach in dual seat aircraft, fly above 300 ft or fly across a road. I think we have come a long way in a very short time.

 

Cheers,

 

John McK

 

 

[facthunter]

Progress.

 

Very true John. We have come a long way and for once we may end up with the best scene in the world. Better slow and thorough than fast and Dodgey. Nev..

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Interestingly with regard to NVFR, I've had this discussion before elsewhere. It would be a difficult job to find a fatality from a NVFR flight in Australia in a single engine GA registered Privately operated (under PPL) aircraft. (of course there are no single engine piston aircraft operated commercially at night - that's twin territory)

 

You might find that there haven't been any for a long long time!

 

Why? Because NVFR flights are usually conducted by qualified pilots who are appropraitely experienced and the flights are usually planned properly.

 

Is flying at night dangerous. Not necessarily.

 

Unless you're in a Jab as a general rule of thumb, generally engines rarely just 'stop' mid flight. If the flight is appropriately planned in terms of fuel etc, then it's even more less likely.

 

BTW - Same goes for helicopters. No single engine choppers at night commercially. This raises the point of how the traffic watch choppers operate at night in Mel / Syd. You'd think this was a commercial op, but because it's a private company only a PPL is required and no twin is requried because it's not commercial. Tricky! So these poor souls are zooming around at night in a single engine chopper putting their lives at risk, just to give you traffic updates!

 

 

[dlps73]

Unless you're in a Jab

How did you get away with that?

 

Cheers..........Doug

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

It would be a difficult job to find a fatality from a NVFR flight in Australia in a single engine GA registered Privately operated (under PPL) aircraft

brentc, theres been a couple. The last one that I recall was a Moonie up Mackay? way. Chap did his normal fly-over of his coastle house (alert wife to get him from airport) and lost it over the pitch black water aparently.

 

The low numbers of prangs are probably a reflection of the low number of SE piston aircraft out at night. After 9pm or so, its normaly fairly quite re private SE piston flights.

 

So these poor souls are zooming around at night in a single engine chopper putting their lives at risk

Over the city lights theres minimal increased risk. In the U.S. they dont even require an AH, etc for private heli NGT ops. Here in OZ we require the AH etc to be NGT legal.

 

I have often treated night flying as a more limited form of full instrument flying. There are some very similar things that you have to be aware of in terms of situational awareness, spatial disorientation and so forth.

Agree there airsick - IMHO, if done properly, NGT ops can be as safe as day flying.

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Maybe we could bring in just one little ruel that says Tecnam Sierra's can do barrel rolls. Cloudsuck would be very happy!

 

 

[farri]

Aerobatics,To be or not to be?

 

My two cents worth,

 

Aircraft have improved greatly since the begining of the AUF and we`ve been able to fly at a more realistic altitude for a long time now,safe enough to do aerobatics by pilots who are endorsed to do so,in aircraft built to the standard required.

 

The AUF/RAA has been evolving into something completly different to what it was originally intended to be and it will continue to do so,so why not embrace this catogary also?.

 

I personaly, do not believe in holding back those who are capable simply because there are those who are not capable.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Admin]

Maybe we could bring in just one little ruel that says Tecnam Sierra's can do barrel rolls. Cloudsuck would be very happy!

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Can't find the Mooney details Michael, please post them.

 

Missing the point about the Chopper - the single engine is a loophole, it could just as easily be over a remote area versus City and still legal.

 

PS: Little birdie told me that we are close to 5,000 limit being lifted. There's a rumour that this might come with the CTA endorsement BEFORE 103 comes along!

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I'll have to have a look-for re the Mooney prang.

 

Theres plenty of SE NGT helly ops out bush - keeping frosts off grape vines is one.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Had a quik look-see and found this -

 

Mooney at Roma -

 

Fatal

 

The pilot in command ... had no night flying experience and had not undergone any training towards the issue of an instrument rating.

 

Roma QLD 1997

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1996/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199602526.pdf

 

Cessna 182R -

 

Fatal

 

Findings

 

1. The pilot was correctly qualified and endorsed to perform a night flight under visual flight rules, but his night flying experience level was low.

 

2. The pilot did not hold an instrument rating.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1995/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199503369.pdf

 

This is an interesting one -

 

Piper, PA-28R-200,

 

Fatal, 3 dead

 

The pilot-in-command held valid instructor and command instrument ratings. The pilot under instruction was undertaking NGT VFR training as a qualification towards obtaining a commercial licence. He had previously completed some basic instrument flight training.

 

The investigation was unable to determine with any certainty the significant factors associated with this occurrence

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199401771.PDF

 

 

[ahlocks]

.....

PS: Little birdie told me that we are close to 5,000 limit being lifted. There's a rumour that this might come with the CTA endorsement BEFORE 103 comes along!

And that will put this little black duck into airborne nirvana!

 

To be able to get high enough to get out of the bumps and bangs of summer (without feeling guilty) and to be able to get into YMAY or even YSCB if the mood takes me.

 

Please be nice to the little birdie for me! :big_grin:

 

Hey Cloudsuck! How well does the sierra barrel roll? :devil: