Jaba-who

Do what you like. Follow whatever rule you like. doesnt change reality.

APM wrote “Are you serious, running on reserve is running on empty, if done routinely, only a matter of time before you get a surprise. and how could you get a black mark for following the law? Black mark would be for pilots that fail to give “Mayday Fuel”.” For a start it’s not running in empty it’s running on currently more than 45 minutes ( soon to be 30 minutes ) of fuel in the tank. If you are commercial it’s another 15% of flight time fuel plus if there was an inter or tempo in the weather forecast another 30 mins or 60 mins fuel. If you are landing with 5 minutes fuel I’d say sure make a call ( though probably Pan is more appropriate) But this rule says if even if you are going to land with 29 minutes of fuel you have to call Mayday. In fact the wording of the of the rule is that even before you get to your reserve -as soon as you CALCULATE that you will cut into your reserve prior to landing then if you can’t land elsewhere ( still with your reserve intact) you have to call mayday. Therefore with potentially way more than reserve you have to call mayday. The biggest issue is not the safety it’s the likelihood that CASA will then take punitive action against the pilot. CASA has a reputation of persecuting pilots for minimal or even no wrongdoing.

So if your calculations said you COULD make your destination safely but someone arbitrarily said to you "I have suddenly decided to call the time frame fuel you have left unsafe for no better reason than I can so you must call Mayday" and so you'd do it and then have black marks against you or lose your licence because you did. would you see the problem then?

No don't wait. On another thread on this forum there has been a statement that current word is that CASA have quietly cancelled the expected due date without new one to replace it. Can't vouch for any of the accuracy if it but .... If you hold off there are two likely scenarios. 1. No basic class 2 eventuates. You are left without a medical for prolonged period waiting and then going and getting the new one and the delay of delivery of it etc. 2. It does come out and all the initially mooted exemptions and restrictions that they originally said would be added to the Ausroads standard medical are in place and and you can't get the medical and you have to back and try to get a standard class 2. So you're without a medical again fir protracted period. You have to understand that there is no actual relaxation of the medical standard - CASA has never said there is going to be. There has never been any statement saying that if you can no longer pass the Class 2 that we are introducing a lower standard so you can keep flying. They have said you can pass a test based on the Ausroads commercial medical. They then assume that everyone will just assume it's a lower standard. Which if you go through the standard line by line ( the pages for doctors I mean where it actually tells you what the standard is) it is actually not that much different from a class 2. There's a couple of very specific narrow medical states that you could be able to get it provided your medical condition is well controlled and stable - but if you work at it these now apply to the class 2 with effort and cost. BUT the kicker is they said there will be restrictions as they feel appropriate to aviation. It's these kickers which may belt you back to needing to go to CASA for a standard class 2. They have always said this is a administrative thing. If you are fit to pass the test you can get your GP ( if he is willing) to give you the licence instead of a DAME. But frequency of exams, same cost to see the doctor. Probably a small cost difference for the CASA part but that's about the only gain. i wouldn't hold on. Buff yourself up and get your class 2.

Yes you are completely correct on both counts. If you have an RAAus pilot cert and a GA licence you can still fly an RAAus registered aircraft into CTA but as soon as you lose the medical it's like you don't have the GA licence anymore. So yes you'd lose CTA access. And mega-yes on your second. It has been CASAs modus operandi at least since I've been involved in aviation (1990s). Every apparent softening of rules has been quietly countered in some back-page change that has nullified the primary rule. Sometimes it's taken years but it happened.

And I wouldn’t hold your breath about the situation actually changing. If if you read the email carefully and if you keep in mind what CASA has already done with experimental GA then this reads: Firstly it says we “may” do things. This has to be interpreted as “we may not”. Secondly CASA has a history of saying things that can be interpreted many ways and in the final promulgation when they remove the ambiguity it’s been the most draconian way that has been presented. Third the undercurrent has been constantly that any changes will be made to keep their perception of safety as the arbitor of change, which is basically saying that any stated change will be offset by some other change to mitigate the perceived risk they have of the first change. The introduction of maintenance procedures courses is stated in the email. It likely that any change will follow the already happening GA experimental pattern. Since I built my Jab 430 in this category in 2007 I have seen the rules for builder maintenance tighten from essentially if you built more than 51% ( minimally defined what constitutes 51%) then multi step restriction additions so that now even if you build it you can’t work on any part of it you didn’t build yourself. You have to do a clerical course on filling in CASA Paperwork. You have do a special course on weight and balance to do your own W&B. I am am confident that that will be what CASA adds into the RAAus mix when any weight limits are increased. Back to my way past early statement - “Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it! “

Not necessarily. If you have had the money to own a GA aircraft with LAME maintenance and the only reason you are quitting is because of the medical it won’t be an issue that you can’t do your own maintenance. Lots of pilots don’t want to do their own maintenance.

Oh it’s big all right. The RAMPC is a “waste of space” medical. Most people who could not get a normal class 2 are unable to get a RAMPC. And conversely if you can get a RAMPC you are pretty much eligible for a normal class 2. There are several factors. There are exclusions which are very broad and the presence of which makes you ineligible for the RAMPC. Once you are deemed ineligible there is no avenue of appeal. Effectively the exclusions essentially turn the RAMPC into a standard Class 2. Except that with a Class 2 there are allowable exceptions and if you are cut out by some factors you can appeal. For some if you can show stability or good medical control you can get a pass. This is usually not possible with a RAMPC even with exactly the same good control. Since this is what they have done for the RAMPC there is no reason to believe they will do anything different with the basic class 2. They originally have said there will be the extra limitations ( though I admit they have gone quiet about them) and I can not see they would make them any less stringent for the basic class 2.

Nope private motor vehicle licence. Cut and paste below from the casa page for doctors to advise in requirements: “The Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate is based on a modified unconditional driver’s licence medical certificate for a private motor vehicle.”

The general working benefit is said to be that a person who owns a 152 etc and loses their GA medical currently may say “ “I’m too old to learn to fly a new aircraft and I can’t get a medical. Bugger it, I’ll hang up my headset and take up lawn bowls”. Another pilot who is lost to aviation. But if they could convert to RAAus with its lower medical requirements they may keep on flying for a while or even years.

I personally would not consider a field as a safe place to conduct an alternate landing unless I had been on the ground and inspected it, had the farmers permission and knew that at that time there were no wires, ditches, cattle pads/paths etc or livestock in the field. Sure I’d use it for a true forced landing but not an elective landing. There are far too many things that can go wrong. I can just see my insurer refusing to cover a crash during an outlanding that happened when there is a perfectly useable airstrip 5 minutes away but I land in a stubble and rock filled field ( even if it looked OK from at altitude) because I only had 29 minutes fuel on board.

Well I agree the rule you have quoted says that but in the CASA explanatory webpage they state: Here is the text - From 8 November 2018, all pilots must conduct in-flight fuel management, including in-flight fuel quantity checks at regular intervals. When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining. If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions. In some instances, it may not even be an aerodrome but could be a field. However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel. End. In this they specifically state “this may be a field.” In other words they intend for you to land ANYWHERE ( at what you consider safely) before you reach your reserve fuel, even an out landing rather than carry on flying into your reserve. And only if that is not possible then you make a mayday call and continue to wherever you can while cutting into your reserve ( ?? illegally).

Yep. The strict liability side of aviation laws makes it all worse. We have the reserves in case of unexpected delays due to unforecasted winds or weather. So if those eventuate and you have to cut into your reserves you are guilty of the crime of using those reserves and you can not claim mitigating circumstances or defence of failure of another party ( weather bureau) who supplied you with inaccurate information upon which the reserves were calculated. Under the act because strict liability exists you are guilty and your sentence will be just the same as if you willfully took off with insufficient fuel.

Well maybe, maybe not. In the first two public releases CASA made, they emphatically stated the medical would be based on the Ausroads commercial licence BUT would also have additional limitations that they felt were appropriate to aviation. You are probably aware that that there is already a private drivers licence medical (the RAMPC) which is based on the private drivers licence BUT with additional limitations felt appropriate to aviation. The RAMPC was hailed as the saviour of private pilots who could not pass the class 2 medical. We all know what that achieved! Nothing. Basically the extra limitations have made it so that if you can't hold a standard class 2 you really can't get a RAMPC either. That is where the problem lies with the Basic Class 2. CASA has gone quiet on the extra limitations. This is a typical bureaucratic manipulation. You mention the factors that will render something unworkable right at the beginning but play it down. Then you stop mentioning it so that the stakeholders don't complain or protest them. Then while the background is quiet you make the laws and even ask for input ( usually by asking for input by a very-soon-to-arrive date so no one has a chance to put in submissions. - but they can say they consulted widely. ) Then they publish them. Any complaints then will be met with "Sorry you are too late now. We told you right from the start these limitations would be in place and no one objected!" And they will trot out those initial press releases to support their position. The only time you can believe CASA is going to do something is when it's done and finished and you can actually read the rules in black and white.

Andrew, thats not how I read it. They are not saying if you can't find a safe place to land make a mayday call - if you are about to make an unsafe landing - which I agree would be a reasonable use of mayday. They are actually saying make a mayday call because your fuel will be low at your landing location regardless of whether it is safe or not. It is the fuel state which requires you to call mayday. The way I read this - which of course could be wrong but how I read it is: If you calculate that you will land with less less than the required reserve at your planned then you must divert and land at a safe place ( which could be a field). AND when you land AT THAT NEW PLACE you must have more than 30 minutes fuel. If this is possible you don't need to make any mayday call just divert and make normal calls at that new landing place. IF however you can not find a safe place to land such that you will land with 30 minutes of fuel THEN you must make the MAYDAY calls but then you can just carry on to land at your original destination IF you able to reach it. ( I assume they imply if you can't reach it you would divert to somewhere you can reach anyway ) There is no further requiremnt written to do anything different, nor is there any requiremnt to make multiple mayday calls or apparently other other calls to specifically advise anybody after that initial MAYDAY call. So if you have 29 minutes of fuel left and you are 5 minutes to your destination make the call and mumble and speak quietly and hope no one hears you.

If you enter CTA and then announce a low fuel state - at present they will ask you about it and generally expidite your landing. From 8 November they will probably have to hit the report button. These days the ATC guys are required to hit the report generation button when anything goes amiss and if they don’t and they get found out that they haven’t then they get into trouble. But after 8 Nov they will ping you for the fuel issue and also ping you for not calling Mayday. So I’d guess guys going in and of CTA will be forced to do it. Back to to the rest of us dicking around in the weeds - different story.

My apologies. I didn’t really mean to sound as if I objected to us discussing it. I was really meaning that I find it so annoying that CASA make a single rule that affects one sector significantly more negatively than another.

But we aren’t talking about how the law affects jets or airlines. It’s about how it affects us. This is a recreational forum and this one size fits all law achieves nothing for us.

Not quite. In the tropics the dry season is late autumn/early summer. Starts about August but recent years doesn’t kick in till October November. November onwards we used to get afternoon thunderstorms but it’s become later and later. Now It’s dry till often January and more recently February. Then the wet season kicks in. All this is a bit variable but that’s what we have had now for maybe a decade or more. Coastal tropics in Australia we get trade winds starting in mid winter to August and they frequently bring south easterly stream rain. July it usually rains in the last half and can set in for a couple of weeks. Usually coincides with our show week here in Cairns.

CASA seems to believe it’s mandate is to confuse people. Everything from their using their website, to being able to follow their rules to even the naming of different licences. It seems like calling one licence the recreational pilot certificate and one the recreational pilot licence was crazy and creates huge amount of confusion in prospective pilots trying to work out what they need.

I’ve solved both. I made my dash on telescopic arms so it slides out and tilts forward so you sit upright and work over it. The only issue then is having enough wire length to allow to do so. And as for labelling I use my laptop and a printer to print the label in size 8 font and (as others have suggested ) I then use clear heat shrink. I acquired an old laser printer so it prints clear crisp text no matter how small and doesn’t fade. Uses very little toner so it lasts forever. I always label both ends of every wire no matter how short. Dont need codes or record of what colours mean what. Label says what is.

A couple of years ago we did a ten day safari with each day being about one to three legs. (We did them yearly from about 2000 to 2016) I was at the time in debate with a number of our group of old and bolds who were all convinced that compass and clock and forecast winds was the only way to navigate because gps can be wrong you can lose signal and batteries go flat etc. ( I agree but I was flying with 6 GPS devices so in reality the arguments were a bit moot) anyway we decided to look at the accuracy of our flying as a comparison. What I found was that for the entire ten days the forecast winds had a significant error at least once per leg 100% of the safari. Not a single leg had correct forecasted wind for the entire leg. Using compass and clock every leg had some degree of nav error and they drifted a bit depending on the error. But on some legs they had large drift off track. On the other hand those of using GPS (and yes some GPS in the group failed for short periods but due to multiple GPS devices per aircraft no pilot was without GPS cover st any time) - not a single GPS aircraft was more than half a mile off track and none were geographically embarrassed for the whole safari. I came away with the feeling that we are in a new age and just like we no longer have to have a back up sextant that multiple GPS devices and EFBs are actually safer than clock and compass and winds that we proved were wrong every time we flew.

It was a regulation for GA. I don’t know about RAAus. Private ops had to have 45 mind reserve and commercial ops had to have 45 mins plus a variable reserve ( I don’t recall exactly what the variable requirement is as I’m not commercial) then on top of that if the destination airport has an INTER weather forecast then need 30 mins extra and if a TEMPO then you need and extra 60 minutes reserve. The diffrence now is that once you reach your reserve you have to tell the world about it by calling Mayday! Before this you could just quietly use your reserve knowing that you had it for a reason.

I’ve never heard of it all. Its not in any aviation laws I have read.

I have to disagree on some of your agreement with the new rule . In our sphere of influence we are NOT adopting unusual attitudes. These rules do NOT apply to only aircraft at risk, to pilots conducting operations where this is a risk and do NOT only apply to sutuations of an aircraft having imminent fuel exhaustion. They apply to perfectly safe situations as well. They kick in as soon as you fly straight and level, sedate flying and you suddenly have only 29 minutes 59 seconds of fuel remaining. There is no consideration of any other factor that may or may not actually produce any dangerous situation. The vast majority of situations where pilots will now be required to make emergency calls will have NO, absolutely NO, risk of danger. They will be the situation of edging into a reserve in situations exactly what the reserve is supposed to be for - the marginal increase in fuel use due to factors like unforecasted headwinds where the reserve will get you home without problem, because that’s why it’s there.