aro

16mm2 is pretty small - about 5mm in diameter. I can't imagine anyone using cable smaller than that for the starter?

Why do you exclude an emergency situation? That's exactly the situation where it's most likely to happen. Any normal situation you would go around rather than slip or dive at the top of the white arc. If you have an engine failure & are high and fast with a limited landing area - that is when you will have to make the choice. Easy to say all bets are off and do whatever is necessary, but if you exceed Vfe and one flap pushrod gives up the ghost all bets really will be off. Better to sideslip and have elevator buffet or pitch instability than asymmetric flaps at 85+ knots is my theory.

You missed the continuation: Your quote only applies to pre-1972 aircraft. Even then, given a choice of a possible uncomfortable pitch down and bending the airframe I would risk a slip. Weight makes a big difference in that type of maneuver. I suspect it wouldn't be at all difficult to exceed flap limits in a later model 172 with only 30 degree flaps when fully loaded. There are also many aircraft with low flap limits so it's not a good habit to teach without some consideration for the specific model.

I would think there is a requirement for a period after the notice of meeting where members can provide their resolutions. The assumption should be that before the notice of meeting is sent out the members are unaware of the meeting - and so cannot be expected to provide resolutions. Otherwise, you need a notice of a notice of meeting, with a defined period for resolutions to be provided before the notice of meeting is sent out. The intent of the constitution seems to be to allow members to notify resolutions after the member receives the notice - which makes sense. That doesn't seem to be the procedure being followed according to the response copied above.

If you're on the ground I don't see what the problem is? The nature of our flying means that sometimes weather means you don't go...

There is a distinct difference. "In the execution of all maneuvers, avoid abrupt use of controls" applies always, but doesn't prohibit abrupt use of controls. People do use controls abruptly from time to time, it's OK if the speed isn't excessive, but yes it should be avoided. "Abrupt use of the controls is prohibited above 98 knots" prohibits abrupt use of controls above manoeuvring speed. The distinction between above and below manoeuvring speed is obviously very important. It's not just an academic discussion when referring to flaps: C172 VFE is 85 knots "Do not exceed this speed with flaps down" (10-30 degrees) - i.e. prohibited Avoid slips with flaps - avoid, not prohibited. If you are too high in a forced landing and need to lose height, you might be making a choice between slipping with flaps out and exceeding VFE. The difference is important - "avoid" means it is not expected to damage the aircraft, whereas exceeding VFE could cause structural damage or failure. If you treat both as equally prohibited people are likely to pick the wrong answer and just push forward past VFE. In any case, how do you do a crosswind landing without a slip? The crosswind landing section refers to using flaps during sideslips with full rudder deflection, so it obviously is permitted.

Avoid is very different to "not permitted". e.g. "When flying in the outback, avoid flying during the hottest part of the day." or in the context of a 172 POH: "Abrupt use of the controls is prohibited above 98 knots" and "In the execution of all maneuvers, avoid abrupt use of controls"

There is? The only one I can find is when operating on L/R tanks with low fuel levels, but that is not unique to the 172. In fact it's more of an issue with low wings without the BOTH setting. Actually I can't find a limitation in any of the POHs I have looked at (admittedly not pre-1972). "Avoid" doesn't count as a limitation.

I don't have access to the member section* - I didn't realize they were secret members-only business. * I am an ex member, I learnt to fly with the AUF, but I let my membership lapse after frustration with the RAA bureaucracy. Apart form your medical, once you have your PPL CASA are actually much simpler to deal with than RAA.

It is quite possible to ask yourself those questions without specific rules. Now, it's more like: 1. Is it similar config? ... in the opinion of RAA 2. Will the wing fly similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA 3. Are the controls similar? ... in the opinion of RAA 4. Does it handle similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA 5. Vne/Va/Vs similar ? ... in the opinion of RAA Not so easy to answer. Is there a link to the RAAP - I'm interested to read it but I can't seem to find it online.

Who would actually do these inspections? In these days where LAMEs won't issue a maintenance release for a C152 with an on-condition engine without a couple of paragraphs of disclaimers, they're not going to certify an inspection of someone else's amateur built aircraft. Nor would I. It's a wise builder who has someone else look at their work. It's a wise inspector who makes sure their name doesn't appear on any paperwork relating to the work. You only have to look at this thread to see that people expect that these inspections increase safety by catching mistakes and preventing shoddy workmanship. It's a small step from there to liability if mistakes or shoddy workmanship are alleged after an accident. It doesn't matter how much you say you are not certifying airworthiness - if you have the inspection, it is likely to create a duty of care. It would be worth looking at the requirements for Amateur Built Experimental in GA and removing anything not also required for GA. AB-E has been carefully designed so that ALL airworthiness issues lead back to the builder and no-one else (OK, and maybe the kit manufacturer, it's hard to get them off the hook.) Even the final inspection is about paperwork, no-one apart from the builder is putting their name to anything certifying airworthiness or build standards. This RAA manual seems to be rooted in the pre AB-E days of ABAA. It even references ABAA, even though that went out almost 20 years ago. RAA never really caught up with the improvements with AB-E, now it seems they are going backwards. CASA also seem to want to roll back a lot of AB-E, but it is happening a lot more slowly with CASA than RAA.

They do identify it... read the report, or even the bit I quoted. It's clear. If you want an actual callsign... I suspect there are protocols about not identifying aircraft that were not involved in the actual incident. Their radio calls were significant which is why they are mentioned.

Aircraft 2 was identified as a RPT inbound to King Island, but only the 2 aircraft involved in the incident were identified by call sign. From the report: the crew of a regular public transport (RPT) aircraft (’Aircraft 2’) also broadcast on the CTAF. The crew advised that they were at 30 NM inbound to King Island and on descent through FL 115.3 The pilot of RZP responded to this broadcast, and reported RZP’s position and their intentions. After a brief radio discussion, the pilot of RZP agreed to advise the crew of Aircraft 2 when RZP was close to the northern coast of the island (Figure 1). The crew of Aircraft 2 had temporarily stopped their descent at 6,500 ft until they could confirm that they had safely passed RZP Seems clear. The aircraft are identified in the order they made the first significant radio calls. Aircraft 1 = the Cessna RZP. Aircraft 2 = RPT inbound. Aircraft 3 = Second RPT inbound MYI. Incident was between Aircraft 1 and Aircraft 3. Reading the report again, there seems to be a lot of "Where are you?" type calls going on even between the 2 RPT. To me it suggests a problem with self arranged separation with more than 2 aircraft. With all the calls going on across 2 different frequencies, MYI never actually found out what RZP was doing (even though they told ATC they had the information - they didn't know about the calls they didn't hear because they were transmitting). They didn't hear the reported level. They did choose to stop the descent, unfortunately it was at 5300 when RZP was climbing to 5500.

I don't think the Cessna pilot did anything wrong. They seemed to make all the calls you could ask for on the radio. The main problem was the RPT missed hearing some calls despite having 2 radios, presumably while they were making their own calls on CTAF. There seems to be 2 main problems: 1) The RPT made an assumption about where the Cessna would be (below the layer of clouds) 2) ATC assumed the RPT would hear all the Cessna's radio calls. "Traffic is Cessna 150 RZP reported climbing to 5500" would be better than "Did you hear the call from RZP?" You really need to know what they said before you know if you heard it. It appears that they didn't hear the call ATC was referring to, only other calls.

More taxpayer funds are put into road freight, it is just better hidden. Fundamentally, the problem is that the when the cost of road and rail is compared infrastructure cost is excluded for road and included for rail. The fact that everybody drives cars makes it easy to hide the cost of building and maintaining roads suitable for trucks in the general roads budget.

Reportedly, about 99% of damage to roads is caused by trucks. Plus the roads are much more expensive to build due to truck requirements. The estimated damage to roads rises as the 4th power of weight i.e. double the weight causes 16x the damage. A single truck causes as much damage as several thousand cars. Source: Loads | Pavement Interactive Note: That site appears to be selling road construction and design related software, NOT some raging Greenie or rail fanatic site. Another study suggests that for lower strength pavement damage is the 6th power of weight i.e. double the weight causes 64 times the damage. It's pretty well accepted in economics that transport by truck is massively subsidised by taxpayers and the cost paid by truck operators is nothing like the true cost.

Instructors should check they are covered by their insurance if there is an accident due to the engine shutdown, e.g. if the engine does not restart.

And I have $100 that says that if this happens, medical requirements for RAA will be aligned with the RPL, which means that all those who currently can't get a class 2 will be forced out. (I am aware of many pilots with a class 2 that don't qualify for a DL medical, but I am not aware of any conditions that disqualify you from a class 2 where you could still get a drivers license medical. A DAME might know more.)

Except that the DL medical is stricter than a class 2.

None of the items I listed require endorsements in GA, and there are only a few aircraft that require type ratings - it would be pretty rare for your day VFR PPL to encounter one. Some aircraft owners might require training if you rent, but that is different to regulation. At the time AFR details didn't need to be notified to CASA, just entered in the logbook (this has now changed with Part 61). Not my point - my point is that these are all "regulations" that apply to RAA over and above what applies to GA pilots. Sure some of them might be a good idea, (although the HF exam had questions about SCUBA diving that I think were dangerously out of date) it doesn't change the fact that they do not apply to GA. You said: did you mean to add "unless the RAA hierarchy decide it's a good idea"?

That went out the window in RAA many years ago. High performance, low performance, 2 stroke, nosewheel endorsements... I was denied my certificate renewal a few years back because I hadn't provided details of my AFR, then I needed to sit the additional human factors exam. All additional regulations. Meanwhile I continued flying happily on my PPL. I fly GA not RAA because the constantly changing requirements in RAA became too annoying. The only issue I have in GA is the medical requirement. Say what you like about CASA, at least they introduce changes much more slowly and with much more consultation (or at least publicity) than RAA. It would be interesting to compare the inspection etc. requirements for amateur built GA to amateur built RAA.

I heard about the incident, but I'm not convinced by the diagnosis. How do weak springs cause the rudder to jam to one side? My suspicion is something more along the lines of a badly adjusted bellcrank going over centre - although that also requires something to initially move the rudder. If the rudder moved without pilot input there is something going on aerodynamically...

I know what the reg requires, but the question is whether I need to demonstrate that I did comply, or whether CASA need to prove that did not comply. Does the right to avoid self incrimination apply in Australia? Does it apply to Civil Aviation Regulations? If I get ramp checked and I know I have broken every rule in the book, exactly how much information am I required to provide to CASA - knowing it can all be used to prosecute me? If I have attempted to follow every rule, but it is possible I made an error and information I supply could be used to prosecute me, how much information am I required to provide? CASA reassuringly tell us that ramp checks are about education, but there is no actual guarantee. It is education, until they find something that they want to prosecute, at which point all the information you provided can be used against you. Asking where you came from, how much fuel you carried etc. is fundamentally an investigation to see whether you have broken the law. CASA are trying to say that they can gather all the evidence before they decide to launch an investigation. I'm not sure that it is wise to go along with that. This is probably not an argument that you want to have during an actual ramp check. It would be much better to have the ramp check guidance material reflect the information you are actually legally required to provide, rather than a CASA wish list. (The bit of that regulation that really raises my eyebrows is: in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient... a court must... take into account... any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA A court MUST take into account any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA... and this is a strict liability offence.)

Do the regs require that I can demonstrate it, or just that I have sufficient fuel? There is information that CASA has the power to demand, like license, maintenance release, log books etc. Other stuff I think they still have to prove an offence has been committed, and I don't have to provide information to help them. The law requires that I obey the speed limit, but as far as I know the police can't turn up and ask where I left from, at what time and require me to demonstrate that I obeyed the speed limit on the journey. CASA's rules may be different, but I'm hoping it's actually only the ramp check guidelines not the actual legislation. The article I linked to is clear about that in the situation in the USA: If the FAA ask about anything that happened in the past, e.g. a flight that previously happened it becomes an investigation not a ramp check, and protections against self incrimination apply. However I fear that in Australia any resistance to CASA e.g. not disclosing where you came from (Is there any regulation that requires you to provide that information to CASA?) would be viewed as uncooperative, and things would go downhill from there...

The question is whether you need to prove you haven't committed an infringement, or whether CASA need to prove that you have. It's a whole lot easier for CASA if they convince you that you have to 'fess up as soon as you are asked. When the police pull you over they may ask how fast you were travelling, but you don't have to tell them. However if you do it can make it a whole lot easier to prosecute you e.g. if they didn't actually get a reading on your speed. For those who think they always fly by the rules so have nothing to worry about: how many people weigh every passenger? For our size aircraft we are supposed to use actual passenger weights for W&B - how do you do that without weighing every passenger? I don't see any exemption for when it's obvious that the aircraft would be within weight and CG limits, allowing you to estimate your passenger weight if they don't look overweight etc. (If it's there I'm happy to be corrected and learn something.) That would be getting pretty technical for 2 people in a 172, but not necessarily for a 152 or smaller. Or if you just flew 55 miles without calculating fuel for an alternate... how much information do you want to volunteer to CASA? An interesting look at the situation in the USA is at: http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Legal-Issues-for-Pilots-221888-1.html The upshot seems to be that (in the USA) you are not required to provide information that might incriminate you, and the FAA are reasonably aware of that fact.