aro

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Do you accept that the Instructor is;

• the senior pilot, to the student?
• has Command authority over the student? The student must follow the Instructors direction? Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval?

You have some quasi-military ideas going on here. The instructor is usually more experienced, but senior is the wrong word.

"The student must follow the Instructors direction?" No. When they are in the aircraft, the instructor as PIC has the authority that they have over any other passenger, to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Other than that there is no "must" about following directions.

"Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval"

The instructor needs to authorize the flight. That is different to command, e.g. the instructor cannot command the student to take off.

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Command , in its self does not require the Instructor be in a position to physically or even via radio control the student, only that he/she has line authority over the student.

Somewhere along the line you have missed the point, the student can not legally fly (no matter how skilled), without the permission of the Instructor (PIC).

Line authority? No such thing in a civilian flying school. More complex in the military, where a student might be higher rank than the instructor so the student does have line authority, and line authority and PIC must obviously be 2 different things.

34 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

"Command" is a far more powerful word than control;

You are pulling in every possible meaning of command, rather than what it means in this specific context.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

The fact remains the Instructor is PIC & there can not be two PIC's. That the Instructor is not physically in the aircraft is not relevant

It is relevant - the instructor cannot be PIC if they are not in the aircraft! It is in the definition of PIC, quoted previously in this thread from both CASA and RAAus (and FAA) - you just don't like it. "Command" refers to command of the aircraft, not people.

I did my first solo in an aircraft without a radio not that long ago (1990s). When the rules were developed, that would have been common. They're not going to change the definition of PIC just because sometimes the student is within sight of the instructor and radio is available. There are many more situations where the instructor isn't in a position to be any use. Solo circuits, where they are not going to stand out in the weather for an hour to watch you. Area solo and solo cross countries where you are well away from where the instructor could be able to "command" anything.

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As CASA has not accommodated the role/responsibilities of Instructor, in this particular ruling, I respectfully suggest  CASA is at best best introducing a grey area

There's no grey area. You just think the law should be different. The instructor is not in the aircraft. The person flying the aircraft has final responsibility for its safety.

Let's take a scenario:

A student takes off on their first solo. While they're on downwind, another aircraft lands gear up and blocks the runway. The instructor looks at where the aircraft stopped, and tells the student over the radio they can land over the top of the disabled aircraft in the remaining runway. The student points out they have 3 hours fuel and plenty of daylight and would rather circle the airfield and see if the runway can be cleared.

Who is responsible for the decision of what to do?

Answer: the pilot in the aircraft. No question. They are pilot in command and responsible for the safety of the aircraft. They can take the instructors advice, but they make the final decision.

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

From the the original question/statement by  BrendAn,  I understood that the student is being required to sign a Flight School document, agreeing to pay the excess component, of any insurance claim, that may be made as a consequence of their use of a training aircraft. 

Yes. If the student signs that document (probably incorporated into signing out the aircraft) they are bound by the terms and conditions. There isn't really an argument that they shouldn't be because they are a student.

Whether the terms and conditions are fair is a different argument. There are many contracts that we would argue are not fair.

39 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

In my view (clearly at odds with CASA) the student is in control , not Command.

CASA make the rules. CASA say they are in command and have authority and responsibility to make decisions for the safety of the aircraft.

42 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

CASA has been inconsistent with its use of PIC

CASA are clear. You are muddying the waters because you think the rules should be different.

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I am not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps you can rephrase.

😈

 

You understand the idea that you have a contract with the insurance company saying that they will pay (according to various terms and conditions). Why do you think you can't have a contract with the student? It doesn't matter whether they are trained or not - it is the contract that matters.

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I strongly suspect that, if it ever came to court,  coercing a student pilot into paying the excess for damage to/by an aircraft, is likly to fail in whole or part, depending on the experince of the student. It makes no sense at all that on the one hand the student is subject to the direction (control) of an Instructor & on the other hand is liable for damage - this is a contradiction that would see such a case fail.

Why does the insurance company pay when they were not even present? Because you have a contract saying they will pay.

What you say might be correct, if there is no contract and you try to sue them for negligence.

But there is almost certainly a contract (terms and conditions, and a signature accepting them) which spells it out. Then all that matters is who the contract says will pay.

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

It should be remembered that a PIC has the authority to overrule any direction that he /she feels is not in the best interest of the continued safe operation of the aircraft - does this mean that the student can, at their own discretion, now ignore the direction of the Instructor?

If they are solo, yes they can override the direction of the instructor if necessary for the safety of the aircraft, and there is an expectation that they will do that if required. They are in command of the aircraft. The instructor sets the circumstances where that happens, and gradually widens it as they gain experience.

The reason you have minimum solo time is to give the student experience in command.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Commend status, with its privileges and responsibilities, is only available to licensed pilots.

You keep quoting imaginary laws.

djpacro quoted the actual, real regulation that says that a student is pilot in command when flying solo. Like it or not, they are in command of the aircraft.

Or the definition from RAAus:

Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time

The instructor has made the judgement that they are ready for command when they send the pilot solo. The circumstances might be limited (whether first solo through to solo cross countries) but it is still command time.

But PIC isn't necessarily relevant for insurance purposes anyway. For insurance, what matters is the terms and conditions you signed up to. Which is why it's a good idea to check them before you hire/fly.

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As previously stated in Australia you can not sign away the your rights or the responsibilities of the service provider.

The first step is what does the contract you have signed/accepted say? In theory, the student could be liable for everything regardless of who is PIC. An example where that might be likely is if the student owns the aircraft.

You might have rights you can't sign away (consult a lawyer on that one), but to enforce them might require suing the instructor. As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that.

4 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

Brendan the shield is best earthed at the tx/rx module.  The antenna end shield is best isolated from the  chassis of the aircraft.  If the shield is earthed at both ends you will get an earth loop current in the shield, this loop current will radiate inside the aircraft and interfere with most devices.  It is also recommended to  check that an accidental earth is not happening at the antenna and a solid earth exists at the rx/tx module. 

Isn't the antenna cable coax with the shield attached to the BNC connector at each end? So the shield ends up attached to the antenna and ground plane at the antenna end, and the radio at the radio end?

22 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

No one else has mentioned the high current/Earth X possibility.

All the more reason to go with a more recent VR, that specifically claims compatibility with LiFePo4 battery's😈

Rotax do allow Lithium batteries and even sell them under the Rotax brand - so in theory it should be OK.

But Rotax specify max 22 amps from the regulator, and the batteries list charging current as 5-15A recommended 60A max so I'm not sure how that works together.

Is there something that reduces charging current to keep the maximum load under 22 amps?

16 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Back to what I am hoping for - some experince /insight into the alternative VR's on the market.

 

If the failures are being discussed on the Rotax forum, that's probably where you will find opinions on the alternatives. If there are few people here who have failures, no-one is likely to be able to make a comparison.

One thing I have heard is that high load isn't good for the Rotax regulators. One of the characteristics of the EarthX batteries is a high initial charging current, which seems like it might overload the regulator.

46 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

My aircraft was registered under " AUF " without problems . 95-10-1103 .

RAA was audited , then I was told , " when attempting to get " final inspection " .

out of specification  for 95- 10 category.  

Couldn't you drop the 95.10 registration and register it under 95.55 e.g. change to 19-1103? What was the obstacle?

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

No standards, no oversight, make your own decisions, at your own risk...............doesn't sound like the CASA I know.

Join the SAAA and learn?

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 In this case the structure isn't going to be redesigned, tested and rebuilt to GA standards

The standards you refer to don't exist for GA experimental. They are a figment of your imagination.

22 minutes ago, jackc said:

When it comes to Aviation, I have never seen such a disorganised bureaucracy amongst so many organisations, with their fingers in the aviation regulatory pie.

A large part of the problem is that so many people make up rules that they think ought to exist, rather than refer to the actual rules.

I'm not actually sure why this Hummelbird can't be registered under 95.55 instead of 95.10.

Amateur built?

Less than 600kg?

Stall speed less than 45 knots?

Why does it need to be 95.10?

4 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

so what do they do when buiding a kit or plans built ac. i thought they had inspections for each stage . i would not want to fly in one that hadn't.

Inspections are recommended and there is builder support to help it happen, but it's not required.

The airworthiness is 100% the responsibility of the builder and later operator. If you wouldn't trust the builder to build an airworthy aircraft, don't fly in it.

SAAA are not in the business of assessing airworthiness, otherwise they would get dragged into court to justify why they didn't reject particular aircraft.

10 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

someone has to do an inspection to provide a coa.

The SAAA Authorised Person does the inspection. But they do not inspect for airworthiness, despite the certificate name. They will inspect for documentation, passenger warning, EXPERIMENTAL placard etc.

The special certificate of airworthiness does not in fact certify that the aircraft is airworthy.

24 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

No individual approved person is going to pass an aircraft that are not airworthy.

They are not supposed to assess airworthiness, so it's hard to see how they could reject it?

8 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

section 3   deals with inspections and explains wing loading requirements.

 

That's for ABAA aircraft, which is different to Experimental. I'd be surprised if anyone is going ABAA anymore. It's a lot more restrictive.

40 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

SAAA very explicitly DO NOT assess the airworthiness of the aircraft. Only the eligibility, paperwork etc.

Airworthiness is up to CASA, and CASA do not set airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. Neither do SAAA.

You're Mr Public Liability - if SAAA start assessing airworthiness and rejecting aircraft they deem as unsafe, someone is going come along after an accident and say they should have rejected the aircraft involved. Much safer to just handle the paperwork and let CASA determine the airworthiness standards or lack thereof.

14 hours ago, turboplanner said:

it's best for the person involved to be contacting the organization responsible for registration

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia.

SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA.

So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

an owner pays for any mistakes in the aircraft specification or design, and pays the full cost of maintanance, annuals etc. where by a hiring regime/aircraft on the flight line you may be paying for only 100th of those costs.

That's an owning vs. renting comparison, not RAA vs GA.

I fly GA because with a GA license, RAA just seemed to add a layer of bureaucracy on top of what CASA already provide.

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Just looking at the statistics for Moorabbin, a helicopter down on the Moorabbin field would be 1 per 2.9 million movements You can adjust the 1 to more if you can remember more.

Over what period?

A quick search on the ATSB website showed 10 helicopter investigations at Moorabbin, so you have to be pretty selective on the timeframe to come up  with only 1.

1 hour ago, johnm said:

no disrespect BUT they would have had ground crew operating those pads ............... it would not take much ? for a ground radio to advise of movements  (perhaps there was - don't know)

There was a ground crew, and they did indicate to the pilot that the airspace was clear behind them (the helicopters took off backwards then turned around, is my understanding). The report concludes that the second helicopter was too far away to be visible when they checked.