dutchroll

I thought the initial post was pretty clear.

 

Both individuals and self-regulating groups must take responsibility for their actions, or it will eventually be forced upon them by Government regulators and they will cease to exist as such.

 

 

.....when they sit on a threshold. . . and then begin to carry out their pre takeoff and runup checks....

Well that's just bloody appalling airmanship. The same principle applies at uncontrolled fields as it does at controlled fields. You do not enter an active runway unless you are actually ready to takeoff and your engine runup (where required) and checks are complete. These blokes need their heads knocked together, honestly.

 

 

Guys,We cannot rely on some CASA rep's opinion or perception of the rule....

Correct. The rule says what it says. It's a recommendation for non-AOC holders (ie, private pilots). The CASA guys however are quite right in saying that if the iPad fails you are then in breach of the regs because you have no aeronautical reference documents, but there is no possible way they can justify failing a private pilot on a ramp check solely on the basis they have no backup. How often, after all, does anyone carry a backup to paper charts?

 

What is the difference with an iPad? To me, almost nothing. iPads can fail, sure, but it's pretty bloody unusual, and it's almost never something which can't be resolved by re-booting. More likely they can run out of power, but this is a contingency which the private pilot must mitigate for or have alternatives, and what fool takes off with his iPad on 20% charge and his only source of aeronautical charts? As I've experienced previously, paper charts can literally fly out the window. Unlikely, yes, but possible, and has happened more than once!

 

The bottom line is that it's an individual decision and you must make sure, one way or another, that you don't screw up and get left with no charts!

 

 

I'm befuddled by the CASA attitude (there is nothing new in that statement).

 

If the screen size is a "recommendation", and the over-riding factor is that the charts have to be viewable on a "similar" scale to the paper originals without "excessive" (an entirely subjective term) scrolling, then how on earth can a CASA rep arbitrarily decide that any particular given tablet is OK or not?

 

An iPad clearly would be. An iPad mini - perhaps OK too. An iPhone - well I guess that would obviously be too small (but remember we're talking about the law as it applies to AOC holders here, not private pilots).

 

If CASA want to decide what is actually OK and what isn't with a view to nailing people on a cross for violations, then they are going to have to specify more than "recommendations".

 

 

Yes I would agree with your original first sentence. I was just confused by the second.

 

 

Qantas is now using the iPad as the primary-means instrument approach chart, enroute chart, airfield diagram, and operations manual reference in the Airbus, B747, B767, and B737. The paper charts and publications are being progressively removed from Qantas aircraft (with the exception of a single stowed away backup copy). They will also soon move to iPad flight planning, weather and notams (which is currently being trialled and having the bugs ironed out). The only bit of paper in the cockpit will eventually be the flight plan log, to comply with current CARs.

 

The iPad is fine!

 

....oh, sorry, and the only other bit of paper will be the empty peanut packets behind the seats.

 

 

I dont think on a ramp check you you get pinned for using a ipad mini at all. We are talking RAA here NOT RTP which the casa regs are actually aimed at

You mean CAR 233 is not really aimed at RAA pilots and/or their aircraft?

 

 

In any case, for non-AOC holders (ie your average private pilot) it's a good thing. And I very nearly fell off my chair when I saw that CASA was moving with the times and technology.

 

I'm off to Sun N Fun in a couple of weeks, so I guess I need to explore iPad holders in the exhibitor hangars!

 

 

YennYou have the right attitude however you are also probably better prepared/capable given that you fly the Corby - what worries me are those who haven't flown anything other than GA or airlines, IMO they are, generally, not ready for the handling & performance characteristics of a 'sport' aircraft.

A sizeable chunk of airline guys, including myself, have flown smaller aircraft which are any combo of "a handful", "unforgiving", "tricky" and various other adjectives. Flying relatively docile and predictable airline aircraft is, quite frankly, a very pleasant change.

 

 

This is confirmed on the CASA website.

 

"OzRunways is an authorised vendor of electronic documentation under CAR 233(1)(h)."

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101203

 

I hope the significance won't be lost on people! Although a backup is not mandatory if you're not an AOC holder, it would be wise to have one (btw, a second electronic copy on your smartphone, which OzRunways allows under their user licence, satisfies this requirement).

 

 

I'm no RA-Aus basher, but from the stats I put up earlier, there is only a 1.5% chance that the difference in fatality rates between comparable GA activites and RA-Aus is due to normal, random variation. It is more than appearing to be a problem.

Yeah I agree. Plus, I would've though with the level of pride and care one would expect with building and operating your own aircraft as compared to some of the junk out there in GA (the last GA twin I hired I told the operators I would never touch it again), it should be no problem achieving an accident rate equal to or less than GA. But that isn't the case at the moment.

 

 

While I don't think Sunfish's hasty generalisation and somewhat inflammatory statement about shallow ends of gene pools was particularly helpful, I do understand (I think) what he is saying. At least some aspects of it anyway.

 

The recreational aviation scene appears to have a problem if one is to objectively look at the stats, even allowing for margins of error. They're finding similar results in the USA and the recent NTSB survey uncovered data which shows the experimental/amateur built scene has a disproportionate accident and fatality rate in the aviation industry overall. This in turn has attracted FAA attention.

 

If the RAA and whatever other outfits want to govern this scene over here don't sit up and take notice (I'm not saying they're ignoring it, but if they don't take sufficient action), similar will happen over here, and the regulators will perk up. Then you will find life getting uncomfortable. These are just the facts of life as they stand at the moment. If the industry wants to be free (-er) of regulatory and oversight burdens, self-regulate, and exercise freedoms not available to the big commercial guys, then it is going to have to do something about the stats, or the decision making process will eventually be taken out of its hands. That principal doesn't just apply to RAA officialdom, but it also applies down through the ranks of RAA members. It's not easy to tell a guy he's being a danger to himself and everyone else, but sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind. It's like Biggest Loser. They need a giant slap across the face and to be forced to stand there in front of a mirror. "Yes mate. That's you. You better believe it....."

 

To be fair, we do get guys with attitude and/or capability problems in the commercial world too, but there are a myriad of systems in place which can generally filter these blokes out. These systems include simulators, a checking regime, and even the humble copilot (I know at least one occasion in a certain major airline where they've taken over control of a big jet to execute a go-around - I've spoken to the guy who actually did it!). Obviously it's not practical to institute these big systems in the recreational scene, so other ways need to be devised and encouraged (or even enforced).

 

Also I'm not a big fan of comparing it to car accidents (there are over 1 billion vehicles on the road around the world). Any utter moron can get a drivers licence. I see evidence of that every time I go out.

 

 

dutchroll,..... So if I do a Wallaby clearing run down our airstrip (a required manouver for a safe landing I can assure you !) I am in breach of a safety regulation ??

No, in my opinion. If a low pass to get the roos off the strip is necessary to land, then it is necessary to do that in order to land. Perfectly reasonable.

 

Stupid unnecessary, and unflexable rules like the ones you describe..........

CAR 157 is a rule which prohibits unauthorised low flying below 500ft, except under necessary circumstances like weather avoidance, landing, go-arounds, mustering, ag flying, displays, low flying training, helicopter operations, etc. You simply cannot be serious when you say that it is "stupid", "unnecessary", and "inflexible". If you want to test this in court, go ahead and roll the dice. I'm sure the Magistrate will be impressed after the litany of low-flying accidents over many decades is described to them.

 

.....is why this country remains in a backward slide to the rest of the world !

Ahem......that statement is more than a little melodramatic. Virtually all other civilised countries have similar civil aviation rules. Somalia doesn't, if I recall. It's possible Sierra Leone doesn't either (though it does have a Ministry of Transport). Perhaps we are in a backwards slide compared to those countries?

 

 

Nah, not necessary. I love airshow flypasts and for all I know it might be part of their approved display (it often is). Though calling for a "missed approach".... that's lame. Call it what it is, or call it nothing at all. There are eyewitnesses and probably video anyway! They're going to look someone straight in the eye and say "oh yeah that's a standard missed approach, didn't you hear me on the radio?" Jeepers....

 

I'm not going to run crying to CASA (heck I don't even like CASA!), but I start getting disturbed when people don't understand the rules they're busting. Even more so if busting them becomes ho-hum routine.

 

 

So what's the minimum height for a Go-around? I have had ATC tell me to go around just after I have started the landing flare. They saw a dog running across the runway that I didn't. Was this illegal? Should I have landed as I was below a certain height above the runway?

Come on. Read the CAR. Here's the link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html

 

 

Remember.....It was an Airshow!!

If you look back through the posts I think you'll find they were talking about an event the day before at a private airstrip. What someone does at an approved airshow display is a different thing. That also applies if it was a practice routine for that display, but as soon as your display or practice routine is finished, you're bound by the same rules as everyone else.

I don't want to offend friends and relatives, but there is no subtle way of putting it. It's a breach of CARs (the way it was described). I'd personally find it somewhat disturbing to have to get on a pilot forum and explain to people what CAR 157 means.

 

Don't misconstrue this though - I'm not saying this had any bearing on the accident at all. I'm not even saying it was necessarily "unsafe". However the point was raised by another poster and he was carpeted for it. The gist of what the poster was getting at was quite correct. I'm sorry to have to say that, but that is the reality.

 

Even amateur pilots still need to know the rules.

 

 

So from your profile im guessing it was either something you did in a 767 or the Pitts....... Im guessing it wasnt the former.... Dont see too many of those while watching and waiting at mascot......

No it was something I did in my military life in a military aircraft, but in a civilian environment at the time. Had I done the same thing in a civilian aircraft (thus being required to adhere to the CARs), I would most likely have lost my licence. It wasn't dangerous as such, but it was foolish and hot-headed. A long time ago!

I escaped with a relatively light military punishment after some lobbying from my immediate superiors. However the guy who convened the formal investigation originally wanted to pretty much cut my balls off.

 

Just to clarify, it's called unauthorised low flying, and it doesn't matter where you do it. It's still unauthorised. I realise it happens a lot, but I'm just pointing out that people who are going to bust the rules should at least know which rules they're busting.

 

 

So whats wrong with a fast pass down the runway in a replica Spitfire at 50' for chris sake. (post #37) It was his runway I'm sure, and I don't recall seeing any rule that says you have to land. Maybe as PIC he decided to fly through, and not land. Exercising his privilages no doubt. It's moments and sounds like that which make aviation, good on him I say !..............Maj..

You will find that this is a breach of CARs unless it's part of an approved display sequence and/or you have the appropriate low flying approvals. Sorry. (and ask me how I know)

It doesn't matter a hoot whose runway or land you're flying over. It is relevant what configuration the aircraft is in when you're doing it. The only reason I still have a licence is because I was in the military at the time and thus not technically bound by CARs, however the formal military investigation covered all of this stuff quite extensively.

 

 

One lousy mistake......

 

 

Brings back memories of RAAF Combat Survival course! That was an excellent course, if rather physically and psychologically unpleasant.

 

For those who aren't aware, the golden order of survival priorities tried and tested through the decades and drummed into us until our ears bled were:

 

1) Protection (ie, from severe weather, if applicable)

 

2) Location (ie, detection and rescue)

 

3) Water

 

4) Food

 

If you're going to make a survival pack, you'll want to allocate space and weight according to these priorities. Exposure to severe elements can reduce survival time to 3 hours. But if you take immediate protection steps, then work on priority #2 so someone finds you, it all becomes a moot point. Food is by far the least important, and it's a common myth among many people that they immediately need to start looking for food. As a very rough guide, you'll survive 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water.

 

The #1 location aid is a 406 MHz ELB with GPS. Set this off and literally within minutes RCC Canberra will have your precise location to within 120m. 121.5 transmitters are no longer detected by satellite. 406 transmitters without GPS need orbiting satellite passes to fix the position, and this could take 1 to 5 hours depending on your location.

 

 

Yeah it's very hard to point out to some people that there is a massive chasm of difference between "being relaxed and comfortable about your flying" and "having a very casual attitude towards your flying" They're not the same thing.

 

 

28 years in aviation and I occasionally get despondent. It doesn't even matter how old or experienced you are, ultimately. It's an attitude thing. I like to leave it to others to compare their manhood......

 

 

I have been thinking about this one re cutting mags, etc. To be honest if I was in the same situation I would land with the engine still running - gives you the extra options for keeping wheel off as long as possible. Once down then off and out !!

I agree. No need to switch off a perfectly good engine until you're absolutely certain that you have no use for it anymore, unless it's burning. You could perhaps argue that he should've switched it off a little sooner than he did, but that's all well and good to say while you're fighting to keep the plane under control on the runway!

 

 

There is most certainly enough traffic going into Brisbane to require holding. I can 100% guarantee you that ATC is NOT holding you for 50 minutes because they feel like it, they are doing it because it is a necessity unfortunately.

What ticks me off is when there is 20 minutes holding on the notam, and at top of climb you get told there'll be 40 minutes of holding (happened to us the other day).

Professionalism dictates that I don't get on the radio and exclaim "are you f****ng kidding me?" But you can be assured that's what I'm thinking.

 

Then you have yesterday: "lose 11 minutes, go min speed". OK no probs we can do that. Then not 20nm from the field "Go max speed, we're going to cut you in!"

 

Once again, the desired response is "are you f****ng kidding me?" (that's a recipe for an unstable approach in a big jet, you have to be right on top of it if you accept ridiculously late changes like that).

 

Then the usual into Brisbane, where no-one will tell you what holding you have until the FMC is prompting "RESET MCP ALT" because you've reached descent point. And you STILL don't know how much holding you're going to get! Far out! Once again: "are you f****ng kidding me?"

 

//rant over.

 

 

Been the regular "victim" of this whilst in the "office" for a while now.

 

BN holding is getting quite absurd. We're at the stage where we are getting 50 minutes notam holding requirement, but throwing on well over an hour of holding fuel "just in case". We're finding out that you simply cannot trust ATC to accurately give you a holding time or expectation, right up until you leave the pattern.

 

It's just ludicrous. And it's happening in PH, SY and ML too. The other day on climbout from melbourne with the required 20 mins holding for sydney plus a bit, ATC suddenly call up with a "Hazard Alert - 40 minutes holding now required for sydney"! Well that's just frickin' great isn't it? Tell me on climbout. Sure, I'll just plug into the airborne tanker we have orbiting up here and everything will be right. We had 2 or 3 737s divert to canberra on a single day because of it.

 

You try to run an efficient airline operation using the best information you have, and ATC just stick a giant pole up your backside at the last minute, with no warning. In the last few months it has just gotten out of control (pun intended).