aro

I do tend to look up a regulation before I make a comment about what it says.

Do you have a pilot certificate? You are supposed to know the regulations (at least where to find them). CAO 95.55 is the foundation of RAA existence and your ability to fly RAA registered aircraft on a RAA pilot certificate. It is very important.

Interesting question. I am not sure what the current official recommendations are. When I was learning, I was taught the standard circuit join was "crosswind" at the departure end of the runway. Sometime after that the procedure was changed to "midfield crosswind" over the middle of the runway. It could have changed again. The advantage of joining over the departure end instead of the middle is that if you have an aircraft joining for 18 and another joining for 36, you have a full circuit to figure it out instead of figuring it out when you are head on at the circuit join...

Appendix B in the report details the examination of the trim actuator. It seems they pretty thoroughly investigated this possibility. According to the timeline, the mayday calls were in the last 3.5 seconds before impact. I suspect the pilot had realized that the situation was unrecoverable. Overall the report seems pretty good to me. Generally there are multiple pieces of evidence listed for the conclusions, and it avoids speculation where there is no evidence. They were probably very careful, knowing it was likely to be scrutinized by the lawyers.

Pretty much everything has more bacteria than a toilet, because toilets tend to have a lot of bacteria killing products used on them. Bacteria are everywhere. Interestingly, the old statement that there are 10 times more bacteria than human cells in our bodies seems to be incorrect - it seems more likely to be about the same number of bacterial and human cells.

There's something seriously wrong with it now! I assume 5000 ft was a pre-planned decision height, they start much higher and if the aircraft wasn't recovered by that altitude they abandon it. If you're suggesting that's too high, what altitude would you suggest?

There wasn't "an" old instrument, there were many - they seem to have been issued individually to flying schools. Many of them replaced the whole CAO 95.55 under which RAA operates with a new version. It would make it challenging for a student to learn the rules... https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01166 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01173 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00029 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00132 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00144 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00146 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00647 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00051 That's not all of them. CASA literally write a set of rules then modify them with dozens of alternate sets of rules that apply to specific operations.

I was wondering whether an instrument actually exists yet, or whether they are saying they will allow schools to apply individually to have specific instruments written (presumably with associated costs).

This is an interesting area. There was an article about ramp checks in the USA where they said the FAA are clearly not allowed to ask about anything that happened in the past in a ramp check, because that is an investigation not a check. Investigations require additional powers and the person being investigated has specific rights etc. You would hope the same applies here. Questions about fuel logs for a past flight etc. can clearly be used to establish whether you have broken the law. Do Australian pilots have rights in this area? The CASA ramp check checklists appear to be wish lists not necessarily based on the actual law. Of course, asserting your rights with CASA may also cause you difficulty...

GA Experimental came along much later than the AUF.

I was taught to do the run-ups on the tank to be used for takeoff, DO NOT CHANGE TANKS BETWEEN RUN-UP AND TAKEOFF. The theory is that the run-up proves the fuel supply is good. The pilot assessed it as a partial power loss, but it's pretty clear that it was complete when you look at where it ended up. It may have taken a few seconds to lose it all, but there is no way there was significant power being produced. The timeline isn't very clear., but the run-up is very close the runway and it doesn't suggest there was a delay at this point: "when the pilot informed ATC that he was ready to take-off, he was issued a takeoff clearance". I read it as 11:09 he was cleared to taxi to the run-up bay, he taxied there, did the run-up, then changed tanks which to me suggests much less than 4 minutes, probably less than 2 on the RH tank.

I would not expect carby ice to allow enough power to get airborne normally, then suddenly limit power to the point where it won't continue flying. Looking at the map and the sequence of events in the report, it sounds like the pilot changed tanks very close to the time of taking off. My suspicion would be that there was some problem with tank selection, and the pilot found out how long it will fly on the fuel in the gascolator and fuel lines.

It's important to remember that the basis of RAA is CAO 95.55. CAO 95.55 is an exemption from various civil aviation regulations. It exempts people from various airworthiness and maintenance standards, and most significantly the requirement to hold a pilots license, provided you comply with various conditions. Conditions include Private or flying training operations The pilot is a member of RAA and has a RAA pilot certificate (which is not a pilot license) The aircraft is registered with RAA The aircraft has a MTOW up to 600KG and stall speed of 45 knots or less. Compliance with the RAA Ops manual So the question really is: what types of flying should you be allowed to do without holding a pilot's license? If you want to do more than what is permitted, or you don't like the conditions applied, you can go down the path of getting a pilot's license - which is now easier than ever with the RPL transition. Which of the US, UK, Canada and NZ allow you to pilot an aircraft without a pilot's license?

I first started flying in Drifters back in the AUF days. EFATO first action was taught as a firm push forwards that made you very light in the seat (probably wasn't 0G but felt like it!) to maintain airspeed. With the low speed, light weight and high drag airspeed disappeared very quickly after engine failure if you were slow to get the nose down. My understanding is that one of the early problems the AUF addressed was a high EFATO fatality rate in pilots who came from GA and were used to aircraft with much lower drag. They didn't get the nose down fast enough and stalled. This was the primary reason for the minimum 5 hours training to convert - to thoroughly cover these differences. Now RAA machines tend to be much faster and lower drag I suspect this is not covered very well anymore. I assume it was the origin of the low performance endorsement, which was one RAA specific endorsement that I was in favour of.

Some funny numbers there... ('000) 243, 226, 211, 207, 379. 379 sounds fishy. 179 would fit the trend better and gives 2.23/100000 hours which is still the best in the table but also fits better with the other values.

How are we supposed to know what you were told? People are "told" a lot of things that are not actually in the rules, because the person telling thinks it's a good idea. So if it's a rule, it is helpful to actually quote the rule rather than what someone told you - even if it was the ops manager. It seems more likely that the ops manual authors took the view that part of authorizing student solo would be evaluating the aircraft type, and that instructors were capable of using their own judgement. There may be instances where 2 types are very similar so additional training is not required. There would also be cases where the type is the same, but there are differences (e.g. equipment) that would require extra training. If an instructor can't be trusted to make the judgement they shouldn't be sending students solo IMHO. In this case, one news report said that the student had passed the test but needed additional hours. Maybe they were clocking up hours for the passenger endorsement?

Maybe I've been lucky, but I would have said the average quality of RA instructors I have had is much higher than the GA instructors. I have never encountered a RA instructor with these minimum qualifications. The school where I did my PPL was terrible (it doesn't exist anymore). Schools that hire their own graduates as instructors end up terminally inbred. Instructors with very little real world experience, who have done a minimum of flying away from their home airport and are just building hours. The ATO owned the school, and for the flight test the instructors warned me: "He's a screamer, but don't worry, he does that to everyone." If I was a bit older and wiser I would probably have got out at the first landing, left him to take the aircraft home and complained to CASA. On the other hand most of the RA instructors I have flown with have come back to instructing after working elsewhere in aviation. Most or all have also had GA instruction qualifications, some as CFI of a GA school. Vastly more (and more varied) experience than the GA instructors I have had. Mostly they either got out of GA because they got sick of the CASA paperwork and expense, or instruct RA and GA side by side. Personally I think it is a warning sign if a school doesn't instruct both RA and GA. Even more of a warning if they badmouth RA.

IMHO overtaking on finals means it's out of control and unsafe.

Presumably Bankstown had a tower keeping the big picture though, not to mention multiple runways and circuits. Seven aircraft OCTA on a single runway is pretty busy.

A common misconception that has even been stated in CASA presentations. The reality is that there is a long list of conditions that disqualify you for a RAMPC, but you can still get a class 2. But your main problem is that CASA Audit on your class 2 immediately disqualifies you from RAMPC.

You can also join the club of people with a class 2 who can't get a RAMPC.

Sure, but no-one would know they weren't there if you didn't need them anyway. So ignoring the rules is a risk you could take, but don't. Not really. If you test long enough on a big enough population of pilots you can gather statistics, at which point you can compare events in the stress lab vs. events in the air. 20 was a made up number, it might be 5 or 2, or you might surprise me and get a number less than 1. Probabilities still exist for rare events - they just become difficult to measure. You definitely need to know the probability of an event in the stress lab, and how much that test reduces the probability of an event in the air before you can justify the test. Here's a hypothetical: A patient comes to you and requests an angiogram. They do manual laboring, and the company doctor has created a policy that workers over 50 must have an angiogram because they don't want people to have a heart attack on the job. There are no indications they need it, but if they don't get the test they will lose their job. Do you do the test?

Is the risk low enough that you would go ahead with a test if for some reason the normal resuscitation equipment was not available, if the person looked fit and healthy? Or not that low? The CASA response would be valid if you knew 100% that the person would have subsequently had an event in flight. However, if someone had a cardiac event during a stress test, but the chances (making up numbers) of having an event in flight would have been only 5% and they were 95% likely to have the event in bed, gardening, walking to the shops or not at all, then CASA would be saying that it is better to have 20 cardiac events during CASA testing than to have 1 in flight. Private pilots typically spend less than 1% of the hours in a year in flight. If they are to have a cardiac event, odds are it won't be in flight. If there is any risk from a stress test, the probability might be that the stress tests will trigger multiple (maybe many) events for every in flight event you prevent. I'm not even sure whether it would be considered ethical for doctors to do these tests where not medically required, if the statistics were examined.

2.2.10 A pilot must advise ATC immediately if issued a clearance which requires the use of navigation aids not available to the aircraft, or the pilot is not qualified to use 4.1.2.1.f. The pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by means of radio navigation systems or any other means must indicate in the flight notification only those radio navigation aids with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is competent to use under CASR 61.385. ATC can issue clearances based on nav aids which have built in tolerances for separation. That assumes that the pilot is qualified to use those aids. If you are not qualified, you are not allowed to accept a clearance based on the aids because it might compromise separation. And, you are not allowed to put them in the flight notification because that is what ATC use to know what types of clearances they can issue. OCTA things are more relaxed because separation and navigation is your problem. The requirements for navigation under VFR are that you navigate by reference to ground or water and fix your position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes. How you determine e.g. which direction you fly is not specified. It could be compass, following roads, NDB, VOR, GPS, flying towards the sun... it doesn't matter as long as you are also using reference to ground or water and fixing your position using features on the chart at least every 30 minutes. If you use radio navigation aids the 30 minutes can be extended to 2 hours and the fix can be determined by radio aids as I referenced previously. However, the navigation and position fixing procedures are quite specific. In particular, when using GPS it must be an "approved area navigation system", which is not an Ipad or even (as I understand it) aviation specific portable GPS. So when using most GPS you are still required to "fix your position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes".

My memory from when I did the PPL test was that you were allowed to use navaids, but if you did you had to use them properly, i.e. not just tune it in and start following the needle. AIP ENR 1.1 has the specific requirements: 4.1.2 Flight under the VFR 4.1.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR: a. The pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water, or by using any of the methods specified in para 4.1.1, except that when operating at or below 2,000FT above the ground or water, the pilot in command must be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. ... e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals and by the methods prescribed in paras 4.1 and 4.1.5. paras 4.1 and 4.1.5: 4.1 Flight under the IFR 4.1.1 An aircraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by: a. an approved area navigation system that meets performance requirements of the intended airspace or route; or b. use of a radio navigation system or systems on routes where, after making allowance for possible tracking errors of ±9° from the last positive fix, the aircraft will come within the rated coverage of a radio aid which can be used to fix the position of the aircraft. 4.1.5 Position Fixing 4.1.5.1 A positive radio fix is one determined by: a. the passage of the aircraft over an NDB, VOR, TACAN, marker beacon or a DME site; or b. the intersection of two or more position lines which intersect with angles of not less than 45° and which are obtained from NDBs, VORs, localisers or DMEs in any combination. For the purpose of this paragraph, a position line must be within the rated coverage of the aid with the exception that if a fix is determined entirely by position lines from NDBs, the position lines must be within a range of 30NM from each of the NDBs; or c. GNSS meeting the equipment requirements of GEN 1.5 Section 2 So it doesn't seem to be prohibited, but the actual requirements to do it legally seem pretty strict. In particular, without an approved GNSS the routes you can fly are probably pretty limited - mostly direct from aid to aid, unless you want to get fancy and start doing intersecting position lines. Even that might be impractical given the small number of radio navaids these days. For practical purposes, VFR navigation is very much focused on navigation by visual reference to the ground.