aro

CASA in their guidance material are quite explicit that if you do not meet the requirements unconditionally, you must apply to a DAME for a Class 2 medical. Here is the CASA Instrument that allows the Basic Class 2 - I don't see any scope for a DAME to assess using different medical standards: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00980 However, It is possible that there is additional material that I haven't found. It is possible that CASA have an arrangement with DAMEs where they can issue a Basic Class 2 based on different standards - it wouldn't be the first time CASA publish one set of rules but work off a different set. It is possible that the doctor (as I alluded to in point 2) has fudged the certification based on their assessment that you are safe, and under Basic Class 2 they don't have to supply the medical information to CASA. If this is the case they would probably rather you didn't advertise the fact on the internet. I can only work off the information CASA publish, and according to that information you must meet the standards unconditionally or apply for a normal Class 2.

There are many people with a Class 2 medical that will not meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. The Basic Class 2 requires that you unconditionally meet the medical standards for an commercial driver's license. It's a strict enough standard that they had to write in exceptions for glasses and hearing aids. If you don't qualify for a normal Class 2, you almost certainly don't meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. If you can't get as Basic Class 2, you might still be able to get a regular Class 2. The Basic Class 2 has 2 advantages: If you are basically healthy, it is quicker and easier than a Class 2. The Basic Class 2 is certified by the doctor, without referring information to CASA. As I understand it if the doctor says you meet the standard CASA don't second guess them. So it might be easier to find a doctor who will fudge things a bit or not look too deeply at the requirements.

What does a RA pilot need to do to access CTA? Isn't it as simple as: Fill in a form applying for a RPL Do a RPL flight review, which can incorporate the CTA endorsement and double as a RAA flight review As a bonus you get to fly heavier aircraft. It's not good for RAA as an organization, but for pilots wanting CTA and heavier aircraft I don't understand what more that they want. What are you asking for on top of that?

Someone, earlier in the thread started talking about vehicles climbing hills... Tell that to the people running aircraft with Wankel engines e.g. https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/soundings-1-180969512/ On the subject of props, they had to limit the power because their prop was only good for 500HP: https://woelfle-engineering.com/we/Wankel_Rotary_Time_to_Climb_World_Record_Presentation_Paul_Lamar.pdf If you have a gearbox, you can have whatever torque you like. But you only have a set amount of power. A gearbox is never 100% efficient, it can only reduce the power available...

Whether the units are derived is irrelevant. Energy is one of the fundamental building blocks of physics, but the units are derived. Are you proposing the laws of thermodynamics should be rewritten in reference to kg, m and s because they are SI units?

No, power is a fundamental concept in physics: the rate at which work is done. A rocket engine produces power (but no torque), a jet engine produces power, a man walking up stairs produces power. Your calculations are just specialized examples to calculate the power of an internal combustion engine. It takes power for a vehicle to climb a hill. You can calculate the power required, and it doesn't matter whether it comes from an internal combustion engine, a rocket engine, or 4 guys pushing the car. 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 75kg 1 metre in 1 second. or if you prefer imperial 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 550lb 1 foot in 1 second.

Take RPM out and you also get zero. You need non zero values for both torque and rpm, i.e. power.

Only because at the same RPM it has higher power. In other words, it is power that determines how fast you climb the hill, not torque.

"Equal gearing" - referring to gearing shows you are talking about power. Equal gearing means equal RPM, and at equal RPM power scales linearly with torque. A Rotax 912S is quoted at 128NM of torque. On a bicycle, I can produce approximately 140NM of torque. RPM and therefore power are ridiculously low of course - there's no prospect of me powering a pedal powered aircraft. A GSXR600 motorbike has only 70NM of torque. I can guarantee it will climb a hill better than me on a bicycle, despite having only 1/2 the torque. Torque alone tells you nothing, torque and RPM together give you power. Power is in fact defined by how fast you can raise a weight e.g. climb a hill. 1 (metric) horsepower is the power required to raise 75 kg 1 metre in 1 second. So climbing a hill faster requires more power, by definition.

Rotax allow 100 hours between oil changes. If you do 1.0 VDO flights including 0.1 on the ground at both the start and end (which seems to be fairly common flight school pattern) your 100 hours airswitch is 125 hours engine running time. Is 25 hours on the ground "hours on end"? Lots of people I suspect, because as I understand it, the rules say that is what you must do. No, the engine isn't going to become a block of molten metal. But you need to decide how much you care about following the maintenance schedule. If you want to follow it, it makes sense to use the method it specifies to record time.

I would have thought that whoever developed the maintenance schedule should define how the intervals are measured. Rotax definitely specify their engine hours include any time the engine is running - not just flying time. It looks like Lycoming specify "engine operating hours" which to me also suggests any time the engine is running. Are you suggesting that an engine that spends lengthy times idling on the ground should have less frequent oil changes? Most people would say the opposite. Rotax engines probably have most stress on the gearbox at idle. Time spent in cruise should be when the engine is at its optimum temperature, oil pressure etc. and experiencing least wear. CASA in their infinite wisdom might have their own definition of time, but that is not necessarily a good idea.

The problem with the strength argument is designers don't use the extra weight to add strength, they use extra weight to go faster and carry more. The AUF/RAA went from 450kg to 500kg to 600kg. 150kg would add a lot of strength, but I bet most of it has been used for extra speed (thinner wings, no struts etc. mean the structure must be heavier for the same strength) and more payload. That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want? Would you rather crash a 600kg Jabiru or a 815kg RV-7? I would certainly choose to crash in my 544kg aircraft with its steel tube cockpit rather than the 815kg RV-7. The RV-7 has many advantages over my aircraft, I don't think a more crashworthy structure is one of them.

How much VFR flying have you done in CTA? It's not as hard as you make out. I suspect most of your CTA work might have been IFR? I was a passenger in a balloon that landed at Essendon. It was interesting to see the process - transponder, airways clearance etc. No NOTAM as fas as I am aware - I don't think they could predict where they were going to go far enough in advance.

I did. Some people believe that with enough training we can all improve our skills enough to eliminate accidents. That approach regularly fails. Yesterday we had Australia's most skilled footballers playing in the Grand Final. No-one doubts their skill, they do plenty of practice, but still their skills occasionally let them down and they miss easy kicks etc. No matter how skilled you are, the risk of a skill error is always there. There are areas of aviation where they refuse to rely solely on skill to avoid accidents. They have rules and procedures to keep away from the areas where skill becomes critical. Those areas of aviation tend to be the safest areas by far. I have no objection to stalling an aircraft, but I only want to do it when I have planned it. The idea of a defined minimum maneuvering speed, to stay away from the area where skill becomes important is interesting.

Va is a maximum maneuvering speed not minimum. You didn't watch the video - the difference between maneuvering speed as used by GA (Va) and maneuvering speed used by airlines is the first thing they discuss. The point of the video is that in GA we can calculate a minimum maneuvering speed, and make sure we do not go below that speed except in very specific circumstances e.g. final approach. Then whether or not you "know" when you are about to stall becomes irrelevant because you do not fly close to the stall.

Melbourne has CTA LL of 8500 outside of 30 miles (mostly). I don't know why Adelaide has 4500 to 36 miles. I doubt it's an international thing because if you look at e.g. Dallas in the USA (quite busy), it looks like its airspace only extends to 30 miles.

Doesn't the RPL provide a simple process for CTA access already? The RAA pilot certificate is accepted as qualification for a RPL, so the process seems to be Apply for a RPL Do a RPL flight review Get the RPL CTA endorsement - which could quite realistically be done as part of the flight review. Then you can fly your RAA aircraft in CTA. What advantages would a specific RAA CTA endorsement give you?

That's not really true. There might be a few things that are permitted under basic class 2 that will not be allowed in normal class 2, but there are far more that make you ineligible for a basic class 2 but CASA will let you have a class 2 after appropriate investigations. Basic class 2 is not a medical for people who can't get a regular class 2. It is a simplified process (no DAME required) for people who don't need complex assessment. It's supposed to be easier and cheaper, but not really a lower standard. If you have anything complex, CASA want you to get a class 2 so they can keep an eye on you.

The SAAA is there to help people build, maintain and fly amateur built aircraft. I have been a member for many years, but you do not have to be a member to fly an experimental aircraft. Once an aircraft is registered and has the Experimental COA, it is a VH aircraft. You do not need to be a member of any association to keep it registered or fly it. That was one of the attractions of Experimental to me. If RAA screw things up badly all the members and aircraft could be grounded (see the registration debacle). If SAAA cease to exist, all the aircraft can continue flying regardless. People building an aircraft to fly in the RAA system would also benefit from SAAA membership. Building is the same regardless of the eventual registration, and SAAA can provide support and advice. (There have been numerous changes since 1998. I have a feeling that was about the time the current Experimental certificate came in so I don't know whether you would have built under Experimental rules or the old ABAA system, which was much more restrictive.)

Did you end up with a Basic Class 2 or a Class 2 medical? There are certainly circumstances where you are not eligible for a RAMPC or Basic Class 2, but you can get a Class 2. You have to see a DAME and perhaps do extra tests, but end up with a full Class 2 (which can also have conditions). That sounds more like the process you went through.

That doesn't sound like they intend that the medical standards will be prescribed in the ops manuals AFTER part 103 commences.

An interesting snippet in the CASA discussion paper on 760kg. It looks like the current RAA self certification medical is planned to be replaced by CASA administered medical certificates (RAMPC / Basic Class 2 etc). The relevant section: Medical requirements This proposal would apply the ASAO's current medical arrangements for pilots operating aircraft up to 600 kg, to 760 kg. Eventually, Part 103 of CASR (Sport and Recreational Aviation Operations) will consolidate the rules for private recreational operations including these medical requirements. Until the proposed Part 103 commences, the medical standards for Part 103 aircraft pilots including instructors will be prescribed in the respective ASAO's operational manuals approved by CASA. (Emphasis mine) My reading of this is: There will not be separate medical requirements for 600-760kg aircraft The RAA medical standards from the ops manual i.e. self declared fitness to drive a car will only apply until part 103 begins. Part 103 will apply the same medical standards to RAA pilots as for the CASA RPL. Under Part 103 you will need a CASA recognised medical certificate.

You probably should talk to the SAAA to get the details of what an Authorised Person would want to see. But I think that inspections etc. are recommended but not actually required fro issue of the certificate. The requirements for VH registration are actually much simpler than for RAA registration - RAA went and added a whole lot of requirements of their own that don't exist in the VH world. You would be applying for an experimental certificate for the purpose of CASR 21.191(g) operating an amateur‑built aircraft: that is an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation; And you are entitled to the certificate if: CASR 21.193 An applicant for an experimental certificate is entitled to the certificate if the applicant gives CASA, an authorised person or a relevant approved design organisation the following: (a) a statement, in a form and manner acceptable to CASA or the authorised person, setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used; (b) enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft; © upon inspection of the aircraft, any information reasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person or relevant approved design organisation to enable it to impose any conditions, including operational limitations, necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water; I don't know the current SAAA policy, but it seems it would be hard to deny you a certificate if the legislation says you are entitled. What they can do is set additional operational limitations if there are perceived issues with the build, aircraft design etc.

Why do you say that? As far as I can see, the only requirement for VH Experimental is that "the major portion ... has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation". No real requirement for documentation.

The risk to people on the ground from single engine piston in general is very low. If you look at the accidents, the risk to people on the ground comes from: military or ex military jets cargo jets private jets RPT jets turboprops In other words, size and speed make a big difference. Never the less, small aircraft flying over are the ones people worry about falling onto them, and those are the ones CASA focuses on. The biggest public risk is a Roulette crash at the F1 GP, a private jet ending up on the Tullamarine freeway or a 777 ending up in Keilor Park, but CASA's rules are based on public perception, not actual risk.