REastwood

The Operations manual stipulates that a GA Flight review conducted in an aircraft with 1500kg MTOW or less is acceptable for a RA-Aus flight review. The CASR's stipulate that a AFR, Check, test etc. is a Flight Review. There is no distinction in the RA-Aus Ops manual or the CASA rules between a Check, Test or AFR being a Flight Review. HOWEVER - the Operations Team at RA-Aus like to enforce their "Policy" which has no basis in the rules. So it can be a bit of hit and miss as to what they will accept on the day.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions regarding IFR flying, flying in IMC and the differences between IFR & VFR. Obviously flying in Australia is different to the UK, so my comments are limited to Australian flying where our freezing levels tend to be much higher most of the time. There are three phases of IFR; 1) Planning, 2) En-route flying & 3) Approach. Most people associate "IFR" with the en-route part and flying in IMC (i.e. clouds). When you train for your Command Instrument Rating you spend maybe 40% on planning, 40% on approaches and 20% on en-route. The reason being that the planning and approach phases are the most difficult, while the en-route is comparatively straight forward. In planning a very useful acronym is "ACVWPPLS" - Alternates Can Very Well PProve Life Savers - or Aids, Cloud, Visibility, Wind, Probable/Provisional, Lights & Storms. Each and every IFR flight you look at all the factors, even if it is a nice day - this is something a lot of VFR pilots forget to do, the number of VFR pilots I ask who are about to fly hundreds of miles as to wether they need an alternate or not and they reply "VFR pilots don't need alternates!", but if the cloud is forecast more than scattered below 1500' and 8km visibility then an alternate is required (see AIP ENR1.1 58.2.1 & 58.2.13). The approach phase is the one that you need to keep current, there is a heavy workload that involves integrating the navigation/tracking, the vertical profile and communication. But in real life you rarely fly to the minimum height in a light aircraft, mainly due to the fact that if the cloud/visibility is below the alternate minima any alternate aerodrome where the weather is above the alternate is often too far away so you end up waiting BEFORE you take off until things improve. It is at the approach phase though, if you are in IMC, and you are bouncing around, tracking out on an NDB approach, trying to maintain the correct altitude (no more than 100' above and zero below), keep an eye on the clock as you time the outbound leg, and possibly communicate with other traffic is when, if not ahead of everything, things can get ugly quickly. The En-route side of things is the easiest, IMC or not. It does depend a lot on just what type of flying you are used to. If you have spent many years "flying by the seat of your pants" then your natural instincts are to look out the window and go by feel when things are becoming stressful. If on the other hand you mainly do longish trips, maintaining a set course and altitude often checking your instruments that you are on track/correct altitude etc. then flying in IMC in an aircraft approved for IFR is relatively simple. Even when you are in solid IMC and bouncing around the hardest thing usually is changing frequency! You learn to not spend too much time doing one thing - you keep your head in the cockpit, no matter what tantalising glimpses of the ground far below might tempt you, and you fly on the instruments (all of the instruments - not just the AH), not what you feel! So, as I have a Cessna 172, that does not have anti-icing, or a storm scope, or weather radar that does not mean I shouldn't fly IFR, it means that when I plan, I plan accordingly - so no thunderstorms en-route, Freezing level 1000' above planned altitude, and I will not plan through severe turbulence. BUT I still get to go 95% of the time when I want, where I want compared to maybe 70% if VFR only, though it's not so much about the "Getting There" or "Getting Home", for me it is the whole package, the discipline of planning and flying, the SARWATCH, the contact with ATC, i.e. the additional safety. Richard.

How to construct a conspiracy... 1. Take an event for which there is limited or hard to access information (Moon landing, MH370, Twin towers) 2. Take a single image or piece of information released to the public (photo of an astronaut with no visible stars in background, Satellite data, Construction details of the towers) 3. Make one small assumption that sounds logical (no stars in background therefore not in space, data missing therefore a landing took place, towers can't collapse therefore explosives used) 4. construct a detailed logical argument based on that one assumption, i.e. if THIS is true then all the rest of it must be true as well. The trick to dispelling a conspiracy is to locate the assumption and refute it. The reason there are no stars in the background is because of .......

So, as long as there is no intention to hurt another then having a "bit of fun" is OK? So the guy who decides to do a few burn-outs in the street and a few drags up and down the road (not hurting anyone - but against the law) loses control and slams into a house, killing an occupant in the house (as happened in SA). So what, people die all the time, he had no intention of killing anybody - oh well that's life! But one innocent persons life is over, several others are affected for the rest of their life, not to mention the cost (oh it's OK, the house is insured - but the premiums go up so they still have to pay!) all because one person wanted the freedom to do what he wanted. You speak of rights, does one person have the right to take away the rights of another person? If I have the right to peace and quite does someone else have the right to take that away from me? For tens of thousands of years humans have lived in a society, from small groups up to millions of people. When ever you live in a society you sacrifice your freedoms for the benefits that society provides. Some societies expect a lot of sacrifice, some not as much - but all require some. If you are not prepared to make the sacrifice then you must leave society, and all that it provides, or be punished by the laws of that society. If you choose to leave then remember society, and it's people, indirectly provide your clothes, food, transport, shelter etc. Transport yourself to a deserted island with nothing- nothing manufactured, bought etc, and start from scratch - then you can be free to do what you want. For those who think flying & driving is a right - think again. If they were basic human rights, or even social rights then why do we have a licence? In Australia we most likely have the right to apply for a licence but certainly do not have the right to fly without one, and when we do get a licence we certainly do not have the right to fly however we want, we must abide by the rules as dictated by society otherwise the licence will be taken from us, i.e. the privilege to fly will be revoked. If you don't like this societies rules then try and find one more to your liking, maybe they will let you live there, but I can guarantee they will still have rules and regulations.

Be careful! Whilst the RAAus Ops Manual is quite clear on the subject, and the CASA regs on what constitutes a Flight Review is also quite clear, unfortunately it is solely based upon the opinion of the Operations Manager as to wether they accept it or not, and even though the various board members know of the issue they seem very reluctant to do anything about it.

All depends. A Lycoming O-320-E2D in a high wing aircraft (like Cessna) require you pay $300 to Petersens for their STC (piece of paper, some stickers and a little metal band), place stickers next to fuel cap saying you can run on MOGAS 91 RON. Place little metal strip over oil filler pipe as identification that you have MOGAS STC, have LAME sign log book then enjoy trouble free flying!

As the operator of a private airfield that doesn't subscribe to AvData and is used by various flying schools for training I can say that on average only 30% of people coming here get Prior Permission (despite PPR in the ERSA) and of the 70% that don't, 20% will do a touch and go without a by-your-leave or thank you, and will often ignore you when you call on the unicom to ask for details, and of that 20% one third will be RA-Aus which equates (on average) to about 300 per year. If we choose not to charge because of the time and effort to chase the money then all that happens is the people doing the right thing end up paying more to cover costs. The only other option is to pass the account to RA-Aus for forwarding to the owner/operator. If RA-Aus will no longer provide this service then our only option is to charge each person that doesn't get prior permission with Trespass and pass details to the Police, which of course is a lot of time and effort both on our part and the Police. The cheapest, easiest option is to ban all RA-Aus aircraft not stationed here. It is unfortunate that a small number of people who do the wrong thing ends up punishing a lot of people who do the right thing but other than having big net cannons on the sides of the runways to catch the offending pilots (which is probably illegal) I cannot think of another way that is fair to all who do pay to use the airfield.

True up to a point, even though an Instrument Renewal (Command or Private) is an acceptable Flight Review RA-Aus will not accept this a a Flight Review, even though this "policy" is not found in the operations manual or in any regulation.

Some of the IFR waypoints do correspond with physical locations (i.e. SWELL is Salt Creek in SA), others are set distances from Major points like MICRO which is 90 DME from Adelaide. It is often a good idea to use an ERC-L chart when planning and noting any of the IFR waypoints that are along your track, a) because IFR aircraft track via these points so you can improve your situational awareness as well as listen to the FIA frequency given on the chart, and b) if you have to talk to ATC you can say you are 5 miles south MICRO instead of 5 miles south of Mount Loggie. A PCA chart should always be used in conjunction with an ARFOR, the BOM specifically relate their information to points on the PCA so it is very difficult to accurately plan a trip without one. You really need to use all the appropriate charts, starting with the PCA, the WAC and the ERC charts (as the ERC will also give you restricted and danger areas not shown on the WAC and outside of the VNC or VTC), then moving to the VNC and the VTC as required. About the only charts not used for VFR would be the ERC-H and the TAC charts. Since OzRunways and AvPlan this has become a lot cheaper and easier to manage.

This is another case of the Operations "Team" thinking that they are the sole interpreters of the operations manual and corresponding regulations. They think that their policy is the law, despite what the regulations actually say, or what the operations manual says. I have previously written to the board pointing out this arrogance in relation to a similar matter, but nothing has been done in writing despite the fact that those board members I spoke to agreed with my reasoning. When will the Operations "Team" start standing up for the members rather than trying to limit what we are allowed to do according to the regulations?

I think one of the problems that occur with any regulatory authority is where the enforcers (FOI's, Officers, Inspectors etc) will enforce an opinion or policy upon an individual or business that is a personal interpretation of the law. It is up to RA-Aus to know the rules and regulations and make sure they are followed, but RA-Aus must also stand up to the regulator when they try to enforce something that is additional or different to the regulations. The relationship should be conducted on a professional and equal level. If someone from CASA starts making demands for some action or policy that is in addition to the regulations, RA-Aus needs to stand up to them and say "No!". In the past it appears that the Board and Management team have been sub-serviant to CASA, and the operations team are making "policies" beyond, and more prescriptive, than the regulations require, possibly at the behest of CASA officials. If RA-Aus is to continue, then it must become a Professional, knowledgeable, forceful organisation. It must work with CASA but not be bullied or brow-beaten by them. It must work for the members, not the regulator. It must do what is best for the members within the regulatory framework, and therefore it must understand the regulations. It must lobby politicians, use the media and present to the world as a coherent, sensible organisation. It must act quickly against it's members that do not uphold the standard, and foster those that do. Can the current system (Board members, elected staff, management) do this? Or will RA-Aus just become another arm of CASA, with the ensuing issues, problems and personalities for which they are currently under the spotlight?

You have 3 1/2 hours, use it all! Have your ERC charts, DAPS, AIP, ERSA, CAO's and relevant CAR's & CASR's lined up on the desk in front of you. The most important thing to remember is where to look things up! Two of the answers will be so close that you need to get the exact reference from the docs to make sure you select the right answer. Go through each of the choices given and eliminate those that are obviously wrong, then look up the info and again eliminate the incorrect answer, you should hopefully be left with only one choice which is the "correct" answer (I say "correct" because I reckon with a couple of the questions all the answers were wrong, but I selected the least incorrect!). If you finish before the end of the 3.5 hours, go back and double check the tricky ones. Then submit, hold your breath and hopefully walk out with a smile!

Ok, here is a twist on the above (it maybe slightly off topic but related...). I have both a PPL and RA-Aus Certificate. The rules say that if I do a Flight Review in a GA Aircraft then that is accepted as a flight review for a high performance RA-Aus aircraft. The Civil Aviation Rules state that a test or renewal of a licence is considered a Flight Review. So, I go and get a Command Instrument Rating, upon passing the test I have been considered to have also conducted a flight review. I send in a copy of my log book showing the successful passing of a CIR test only to be informed by RA-Aus Operations that a Command Instrument Rating renewal or test doesn't count as a Flight Review for RA-Aus as it is "not appropriate". So (and this is the link to this thread) CASA will allow me to fly a VH registered Jabiru, tecnam etc. in Day VFR and consider my licence up to date if I have done a CIR renewal or test but RA-Aus will not, because somehow RA-Aus flying is different to GA flying. Paraphrasing Mriya's post above, I have the qualifications (both PPL and RA-Aus certificate) to fly both a VH registered and a RA-Aus registered HP Aircraft, but according to the Ops team I may have the skill to fly a VH registered Jabiru but not the skill to fly an RA-Aus one!

I'm suspect Mixture (red), Pitch (Blue), Undercarriage (Green Lights).

Actually, I didn't see that, just tried it myself and it works! Well there you go! But rankamateur, you still have to have a dig and say it was an excuse! What about giving people the benefit of the doubt?

If the quotes and report is correct, then that sounds exactly like what happened to me in our J230 (except for the abandoned airfield). Run rough for 5-10 seconds, then complete failure with engine locked. I am very interested to find out what the cause was in this case as we were never told what happened to ours. Ours was picked up from the site and sent directly to Jabiru in Bundaberg by the insurance company. Jabiru refused to tell us what the cause was.

Captain states that SAJ's contributions are now devalued and are trite & Shallow. Facthunter states that if not followed by an explanation, then it is abuse (and SAJ's post was not followed by an explanation). My point was that the "Funny" icon could have been clicked by mistake, both you and captain assumed it wasn't and therefor thought badly of SAJ. Of course my last comment was a generalisation and was more rhetorical than accusatory.

Or, as the "Funny" icon is right next to the "like" icon, it is entirely possible that a slip of the mouse was the issue and it appears you cannot undo the selection. Why do people always assume the worst of others?

Obviously you did not comprehend my analogy, I was making the point that IF RAAus went down, for whatever reason, as long as "correct governance" was followed you would be happy. While I, and I suspect many others, would be upset that someone didn't take extraordinary action to fix the problem. The point I was trying to make was one the Dafydd made re: Parkinson's Law and the pettiness of politics/administration, maybe another analogy might help... You are standing on a railway track with a time table in your hand, you are safe in the knowledge that no train will come because the timetable says so. As you hear a distant rumble on the tracks you check the timetable again, read the Transport Authorities constitution, ring a few other people to get their opinion and put in a call to the Transport Authority board members. By this time the train is only a few seconds away. Suddenly someone grabs you and pulls you off the track as the train speeds by. You dust yourself off then loudly berate the person who grabbed you for not following procedure, not informing you of their decision to grab you and proceed to press charges of assault. Obviously the train should not have been on the track, something went wrong, but that does not stop the situation from being real. It is really annoying when people in meetings and on boards miss the point entirely and "discuss, comment and debate" ad nauseam and do not act, sometimes with whatever is required, to avoid disaster. So again I see the main piece of information that has not been verified one way or another is "how much time did RAAus have?". Another question may be "Did the board give their full support to the President and do they still, or have they reneged?" Yep, certainly is a C172, does that mean if a fly a GA aircraft I can't be a member of RAAus? Does the fact I also have a PPL with a CIR mean I am not worthy or simply not able to fly a Recreational Aircraft? Do you think that everybody with a PPL or higher should get out of RAAus? What I have done is support those elected members who are there to ensure that my flying privileges are maintained. Maybe if there were more board members/government/councillors fighting for the people and their rights and privileges and actually doing something rather than busting their gut to rein in perceived or real excesses and disrespect for constitutions and other acts of political point scoring we would all be in a better place. Regards, Richard Eastwood (I use my real name because I believe in what I say and do not hide from the fact)

All I can see is an image of AlphaRomeo jumping up and down in glee yelling "I was right, I was right!" As the smoking reck of RAAus lies around his feet. Two quotes comes to mind; "Hindsight is a wonderful thing" and "If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem". Politics and ideologies are both good past-times but rarely solve problems (usually they cause them). There are still more problems, so we try and find the best solution we can in the time given. The first question I would have is "what is our time frame?" Some seem to think that CASA will never really act, some seem to think Armageddon is tomorrow, what is the truth? Is it time to act, or is it time to minutely dissect every word spoken and every decision made?

Don't be too certain of that, I did the same thing and I was told that my Flight Review was not valid, yet it conformed to both the Operations Manual 2.07-4 and CAR 5.81(5)(a)). Apparently it is their policy to only accept some types of Flight Review. So it is a bit of a lottery if you do a GA flight review for the renewal of a PPL then then may or may not accept it despite what the regulations say.

Maybe the board was informed that Ed was going to take action, maybe Ed made it clear to them what needed to be done, maybe Ed was sick of all the procrastination and whinging, maybe CASA was about to stop payment of the $60,000 immediately, maybe Ed could have done it differently, maybe if we were all in the same position, with the same knowledge and same desire to get thing fixed we would make the same decision. Then again maybe not. I'm not a board member or the President nor am I usually on the end of emotional tirades from people who were not there. I know I am not prepared, nor am I in a position, to become a board member or President, so I do not feel I can comment one way or another as to whether the action taken was right or wrong. All I can say is that it was a bold decision and process and time will tell if it was the right way to go about it.

Ok, as per formula with fuel @$2.00 and oil = Cessna 172 30l/hr 110knots & 4 seats = $0.14/nm/seat. My actual costs as per the formula (run on mogas) and 3 seats = $0.10/nm/seat.

Are you sure?... http://knitting.about.com/od/knittingsafety/a/knittingrsi.htm Or can you imagine this... "43 Year old seriously injured during knitting accident. Today a man was left with serious eye injuries whilst taking part in the "Dangerous Recreational Activity" of knitting. The needles, which did not meet current regulations, have been seized by KASA (Knitting And Sewing Authority) and are awaiting a Coroners report. It is unclear at this time what exactly happened but a witness declared, "he was knitting close to last light and it looked like he was holding the needles incorrectly!". Authorities will be looking into training methods for recreational knitters."

No, they're chemtrails, releasing mind controlling chemicals at high altitude for maximum dispersion. Ha! Had ya going for a second!!!