Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

aro

Members
  • Content Count

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

aro last won the day on December 18 2017

aro had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

340 Excellent

About aro

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    C172
  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. aro

    Stalls

    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.
  6. aro

    Stalls

    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.)
  10. 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; (c) 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. aro

    Stalls

    The latest video from Flightchops has an interesting look at this subject:
  14. I suspect it really shows how much force can be generated by an impact at the wingtip - much greater than flight loads. One wingtip hits the ground, that wing folds upward and the other wing immediately falls downward. So I suspect the stiffness wasn't in the wing attachment, it was in the carry through which failed when the wing tip hit the ground. It's not really important whether the wings stay attached in a crash - you need the passenger compartment to stay intact. The lack of injuries to the occupants suggest that it did a good job in that respect.
  15. It's not about making you safer, it's about limiting the risk to the people around you. You can make your own decisions and choose your own risks, but limited speed and limited weight limits the kinetic energy available to cause damage. Back in the AUF days, exemptions were negotiated on the basis that the ultra-light weight of the aircraft meant that risk to others was insignificant. On that basis: You can fly without a CASA license You can do your own maintenance You don't need an aviation medical Aircraft don't need to be certified to the normal GA standards as long as the weight and stall speed were below specified limits. In the early AUF days the weight limit was 450kg. Then it was raised to 480kg. Then 544kg. Then 600kg. Now talk about 760kg, and campaigning for higher stall speed as well. When do you get to the point where the ultralight exemptions become unjustifiable? Already exemptions are being wound back, e.g. stricter licensing, stricter maintenance, stricter medical requirements. The CASA RPL is an additional danger for the RAA - at some point the differences with the RPL will become unjustifiable and requirements are likely to be merged. Don't be surprised if e.g. suddenly you need a RPL medical and LAME maintenance in return for higher weight limits. And I doubt that there will be sub-categories based on weight operating under RAA.
×
×
  • Create New...