aro

There is a big difference between see and avoid enroute and in the circuit. The circuit is designed so you can see other traffic. They are in predictable places so you know where to look. Most flights I end up sharing the circuit with other traffic. I know you can see aircraft at circuit distances. It's not a tiny dot in the distance. No-one would claim I have superhuman eyesight - for a start I wear glasses that make everything 10% smaller (minification) so if you're not wearing glasses for short sightedness you have a 10% advantage on me. (One of the traps with traffic displays is you start looking for an aircraft when it might be 5 or more miles away, when it really is a tiny dot in the distance or invisible. But circuit distances are generally less than 2 miles.) This is pre-solo level stuff (pre area solo for joining the circuit). Seriously, if you have trouble, go out and do circuits with other aircraft. Follow the aircraft in front and learn where to look for them and how to keep track of them. Don't be the guy they warn the students about in the clubroom because he cuts everyone off and has no idea where other aircraft are.

Yes, that's the way to do it. ADSB is great away from the airport, and when you have other aircraft inbound. In the circuit you should know where to look - although it can take a few seconds to spot someone e.g. on base against ground clutter. Joining, I usually overfly at 1500 (or 2000) because it gives a birds eye view to assess traffic, and you can do a faster or slower descent to fit in.

Behind or above you or below you can be impossible to see. Circuit procedures are designed to give you a chance to see and sequence while random variations in flight paths are working for you. The closer you get to the runway, the less variation there is and the more probability there is of a collision. IFR aircraft fly routes, altitudes and waypoints much more accurately so there is a higher probability of collisions away from the airport. That is why IFR need ATC separation (and why Australia's IFR in G is crazy...) It's also the problem with straight in approaches - the extended centreline puts aircraft close together before they have had a good opportunity to see each other.

Sorry to be that grumpy guy, but what is it about "visual" in visual flight rules, or "see" in (alerted) see and and avoid that people don't understand? We fly a circuit so that aircraft are in predictable positions so you can see them. If you take off or do a touch and go and there is an aircraft on crosswind, and you then have a conflict on base you have cut them off. It's your job to see them and maintain separation. It doesn't matter if they do a larger circuit than you'd like - you still need to see them and maintain separation. If there is an aircraft on downwind and you want to join the circuit, you need to see it to make sure you are clear. If you can't see it, you need to wait until you can or make sure they are clear e.g. they report turning base. You can't just continue on and hope for the best. If there is a conflict on downwind or base, you cut them off. If you only heard them turn base, you still need to see them on base/final to be sure of separation for your own base and final. Seeing other aircraft in the circuit is a skill that needs to be learnt and practised. Go out and do some circuits with other aircraft, and learn where to look and what they look like. Accurate height is important so you are looking for other aircraft against the sky rather than ground clutter. If you still can't spot other aircraft in the circuit, maybe you need to assess whether your eyesight is good enough for flying. I know some people keep driving even after they are legally blind - I'm sure there are also people flying whose eyesight isn't what it once was. Harsh truth - sorry. This is what worries me about the discussions of traffic displays - people talking about using them as a substitute for looking for and seeing other traffic in the circuit.

The biggest problem is you have to run the prop and engine at the same speed. To fast for a prop (even if you like the sound of the tips approaching the sound barrier it's not efficient) and slower than ideal for an engine. So the engine has to be bigger to run at that slow speed, and therefore heavier. Attempts to save weight can compromise reliability. Another problem is that the crankshaft is susceptible to damage with the propeller bolted directly to the end. Have a look at Lycoming's guidance for when a tear-down is required. Any damage requiring repair of the propeller, whether the engine was running or not... Yes, the propeller acts as a flywheel, but it's a very springy flywheel and springy flywheels are probably not ideal either. With the propeller bolted rigidly to the crankcase the whole system is a spring, from the tips of the propeller through to the other end of the crankshaft. The engine designer has to consider the vibration, but can't know the exact characteristics of all propellers that might be used. I think the important length measurement for a crankshaft is the zig-zag length through all journals - not just a straight line from front to back of the engine. I'm not sure how a flat motor crankshaft compares to others, but the 2 pistons at 180 degrees looks like it creates a very long section of crankshaft between main journals - especially in an engine with a long stroke. Simple? Definitely. Good? I'm not so sure. It looks more like it's cheap and adequate rather than good. Even when these engines were designed they knew how to build better.

Who has had more crank problems? Rotax or Lycoming? Lycoming cranks are long and bendy, and bolting a propeller directly to the end was a terrible idea.

A few seconds is equal to a few hundred metres, because we are always moving. But it can be more. I have ADSB traffic from a Stratux plus the internet traffic on my ipad. Initially it tends to show both, until it figures out which internet traffic corresponds to ADSB traffic. There is frequently up to a mile difference in the displayed positions between traffic from the internet and the ADSB receiver (internet behind... usually). My understanding is ADSB frequencies are easily blocked by aircraft structure, so depending on antenna position if there's an aircraft below you (especially low wing) you might not receive it's ADSB. So when an aircraft turns base and descends, you might stop receiving its ADSB. In that case the ipad displays the last received position - for up to a minute I think. High end ADSB installations have an antenna on both top and bottom of the aircraft for this reason. ADSB as installed in GA aircraft is designed for air-ground not air-air.

Anywhere between a few seconds and about a minute, at which point traffic disappears. At 90 knots, 5 second latency is a position error of over 200m - for each aircraft. Traffic displays are always showing you the situation from a time in the past. In this collision, each aircraft would have seen the other aircraft as behind them on a traffic display - not a collision course. How far behind? That depends, it's impossible to know. The only time you can be sure is if you are passing behind displayed traffic. Even then it becomes difficult if the other aircraft e.g. turns. I use a traffic display, they're great, but the most important skill is knowing when you need to be looking out the window and managing separation visually. Anything closer than about 1 mile, you need to separate visually and should be worried if you can't see them.

Cirrus probably does have ADSB and traffic information.

If it's the same model propeller I wouldn't expect a form would be required. You're just replacing a worn out part, same deal as changing a tyre.

Most of it rubbish. For all you post on public liability you don't seem to understand it, or its relationship with legislation. Have you actually studied any legal subjects at Uni, or even high school level?

I'm not sure about the exact regulations, but my understanding is that the warbird joy flights are classed as adventure flights, and are basically commercial operations in aircraft that are not certified to civilian/commercial standards. Edit: https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/adventure-flight-safety

That's not true - you still have the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person would expect a higher level of safety from commercial operations where you roll up and buy a ticket than from a private pilot with EXPERIMENTAL on the side of the aircraft, the standards are different. But public liability is common law, i.e. the law that exists when government hasn't legislated to cover it. Governments recognize that public liability is inefficient, and you can't just let people do what they want and sort it out by suing each other. Public liability doesn't help the 17 year old on the submarine, and can't meaningfully penalize Stockton Rush either. So governments pass legislation to try to prevent things from happening. Lo and behold, we DO have different standards in the legislation for experimental, commercial, adventure flights etc...

The submarine is an interesting example - freedom, sure, but should the freedom to build your own submarine extend to the freedom to charge passengers 250K and carry a 17 year old? I think commercial operations do need more regulation, less freedom because paying passengers do not generally have the knowledge they need for an informed decision. This is basically the equivalent of Experimental vs. commercial operations - with some interesting grey areas, e.g. where do adventure flights fit in the freedom vs regulation range?

I have in fact built and flown an aircraft and been a member of SAAA for 20 odd years. Builders will generally tell you their aircraft are built to higher standards than commercial aircraft - that may or may not be true. The regulations say that if you provide the required documentation, CASA or an AP must issue an experimental certificate. Documentation includes enough information to allow restrictions to be applied if required for safety of others, but not an assessment of acceptable standards by CASA or the AP. In reality it is very difficult to assess many of the critical parts of a build anyway. If e.g. SAAA had the power to assess a build and deny a certificate, someone they approved could come back after an accident and say that the SAAA are partly responsible because they should have performed a better assessment and denied the certificate. If the regulations say they must issue the certificate, they can't be blamed for following the regulation and issuing the certificate. All responsibility rests on the builder, as is intended.

CASA already has a class for aircraft of uncertain construction: Amateur Built Experimental. CASA do not set any airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. It is 100% the responsibility of the builder. If these FAR 103 aircraft qualify as amateur built, they are eligible for VH registration. RAA amateur built is similar, although I think they have some extra inspections - probably because they don't have in house lawyers telling them to stay away and avoid potential responsibility. VH registration is hardly onerous, so the only things FAR 103 really offers are: - flying without a license - commercially built aircraft rather than amateur built Some form of licensing and training seem like a good idea to me. I still think you could get most of what you want through a tweak of RAA rules, e.g. 95.10 eligibility simply based on weight etc. rather than approval of specific aircraft. The ops manual already has provision for single seat BFR.

It's 24 knots max stall to 55 knots at full power straight and level. That's a reasonably wide range, equivalent to 44 knots stall and 100 knots max speed in percentage terms. If you want to go somewhere you are looking at the wrong category - FAR 103 is about getting in the air, and little else. 5 gallons maximum fuel and 55 knots at full power isn't really a travelling machine...

If you have all that it's not FAR 103 equivalent. FAR 103: - No license - No registration with any organization - No airworthiness standards That's the whole point. Personally, I think training and licensing are a good idea, but if you want to talk FAR 103 equivalents... Duplicating 95.10 under another organization would be a different approach, but I think it would be easier to get it going again under the RAA umbrella.

Oh FFS, The "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) provides a way of exploring the Code of Federal Regulations as it exists today and at points in time back to January 2017." If you read further, they say it's not real-time, but "generally the eCFR is current within two business days" What do you want - something personally signed and dated by President Biden? Just because CASA re-write things every 3 years doesn't mean that is how it has to be done. Large parts of Australian aviation operate under instruments and exemptions, so I doubt there would be difficulty if CASA actually wanted to do it. They could take CAO 95.10 and delete the conditions that refer to RAA and you would be basically there. Or they could create a new CAO copied from CAO 95.10, change the weight etc. to reflect FAR 103 and delete the stuff about RAA. If we didn't have all these exemptions to regulations via the current instruments I would be doubtful. But this is how CASA operate all the time. It's how RAA exists. It would be nothing unusual.

Circling back to FAR 103, the AC 103-7 says basically the same thing: There are a number of elements contained in 103.1 which make up the definition of the "ultralight vehicle." If you fail to meet any one of the elements, you may not operate under part 103. Any operations without meeting all of the elements are subject to all aircraft certification, pilot certification, equipment requirements, and aircraft operating rules applicable to the particular operation. So basically there is no such thing as violating a single FAR 103 condition e.g. being overweight. If you violate a single condition, ALL the exemptions are void. I suspect, legally, the same applies to CAO 95.55.

Sort of... there is nowhere that specifies either/or CASA or RAA. The CASRs say that an aircraft must be registered, and a pilot must have a pilot license. CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from those regulations, among others, subject to a long list of conditions. Some of those conditions are: The pilot must be a member of RAA The pilot must have a RAA pilot certificate The aircraft must be registered with RAA This has some strange consequences. By my reading: There's no offence or penalty related to flying without a RAA license. If you fly a RAA aircraft without a RAA license, the offence is flying without a (CASA) license. Along with that you are also flying an unregistered aircraft, because you haven't met the exemption conditions in CAO 95.55. Plus all the other CASRs listed in CAO 95.55 that you might have violated. If you DO have a PPL but don't have a RAA certificate, you are not flying without a license. But you are now flying an unregistered aircraft because you haven't met the conditions in CAO 95.55. If you have a RAA certificate and are flying a RAA registered aircraft, you can technically still be charged with flying an unregistered aircraft and without a license if you don't meet other conditions in CAO 95.55. It seems unlikely that they would do that, but since there are no penalties specified related to the conditions in 95.55 (i.e. operating according to the RAA ops manual etc.) I think that is what they would have to fall back on, if they wanted to charge you with something. So technically, if you violate any rule in the RAA Ops manual, you might be flying an unregistered aircraft without a license (strict liability offences of course).

Current FAR part 103: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103 Current AC103-7: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22640

95.10 MTOW is 300kg. FAR 103 empty weight limit is 115kg. Add 14 kg for fuel (max 5 gallons) and the FAR 103 limits would allow a 170kg pilot before you hit the 95.10 MTOW - if you can meet the stall speed limit.

We are comparing to FAR 103 here, so 24 knots stall speed and 254 pound (115 kg) empty weight. The 95-10 wing loading limit might be generous in comparison.

Is it being a member of RAA that you are objecting to? If 95.10 under RAA was an option, what are the disadvantages compared to FAR 103? As far as I can see: 1) RAA would require pilot training 2) RAA have various other rules - BFRs etc. 3) 95.10 kits need to be approved in writing by RAA. Pilot training doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. The biggest obstacle might be #3, RAA might not be inclined to approve kits. But that sounds like a hangover from before the Experimental rules were introduced in Australia. It might be feasible to align 95.10 builder requirements with GA experimental and/or RAA experimental requirements.