djpacro

Aviation Security[/url]

.... though that may change if GKN in Melbourne start recruiting again ...

Page 66 of http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/tips-advice/key-reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf (3.5 MB) refers to what ozzie said with one difference - take it back to 1000-1200 rpm for shutdown.

So, where does this leave the earlier statement that

As at today: ....... There are currently four Cessna 150's on the RAAus books and they come in at 598kg

So, where does this leave the earlier statement that

As at today: ....... There are currently four Cessna 150's on the RAAus books and they come in at 598kg

Seems to me that the Cessna can only be made to fit current rules for RAA reg if it becomes an LSA (therefore 600 kg) but it can't get the Special CofA for LSA (as that is the responsibility of the manufacturer) so its gotta then become Experimental LSA and I don't see how it could even get into that category. Is that correct? Anyone like to explain the rules to me wrt RAA registration of Cessnas with one seat removed?

Incidentally, my notes of empty equipped weights of various 150's range from 505 to 513.6 kg. Aerobats range from 513.6 to 521.5 kg.

Sole 152 Aerobat in my little black book is 543.9 kg.

Seems to me that the Cessna can only be made to fit current rules for RAA reg if it becomes an LSA (therefore 600 kg) but it can't get the Special CofA for LSA (as that is the responsibility of the manufacturer) so its gotta then become Experimental LSA and I don't see how it could even get into that category. Is that correct? Anyone like to explain the rules to me wrt RAA registration of Cessnas with one seat removed?

Incidentally, my notes of empty equipped weights of various 150's range from 505 to 513.6 kg. Aerobats range from 513.6 to 521.5 kg.

Sole 152 Aerobat in my little black book is 543.9 kg.

I fly tailwheels not because I prefer tailwheels but because the aeroplanes that I choose to fly for other reasons happen to have tailwheels.

The designer chose to fit a tailwheel landing gear to save some weight and drag in the knowledge that those who would buy those aeroplanes would see it as an appropriate trade-off. In the case of the Yak 52 I'd also add that the trike version looks ungainly whereas the T/W version simply looks elegant. Others might choose the T/W configuration for rough fields - not too many places that I wouldn't go in a Husky with tundra gear.

Thanks motzartmerv, my apologies, you were right. Just spoke to Pip again briefly, who in the meantime must've doubted his own recollection as he phoned his colleague about the incident. That person had tried to alert him at the time. I won't make any excuses for him, he shouldn't have done it. If you knew Pip you'd understand how sincere he is wrt regrets.

Perhaps more later.

Pip would be horrified if anything he did or didn't do had such consequences.

I just spoke to him on the phone and he said that he always starts after turning his aeroplane side-on to the crowd line and did so at Nowra.

Motzartmerv, was it really Pip or some-one else in a similar aeroplane?

I wonder how an S-1C with the small engine would go. The flat-bottom wing has a much lower stall speed and a light one may scrape in.

An S-1C is a lot cheaper than $50k.

US$7700 to disassemble, pack and ship from an Eastern state just to get it to Melbourne. Plus the hassle as mentioned.

I'd been told to allow A$20K overall and it will not be far off.

Stefan, if you haven't got any answers yet, send me a PM and I'll try to put you in touch with a friend of mine from the UK recently immigrated here as an aero engineer and in a similar situation. He flies at Bacchus Marsh and had a look at Sportstars at Moorabbin.

What company do you work for?

Who's there already Lindsay?

For those few who are interested, we'll post progressive scores on the NSW Chapter website.

http://nsw.aerobatics.asn.au

Good one, H.

And that video of your flight over Olinda - next time orbit a tad to the west for a better view of my house (although not esential as we're on Google street view).

Ian, if Kyneton is acceptable, I might be able to introduce you to a hangar-owner with enough room. That's if the Gazelle doesn't mind sleeping with aerobatic aeroplanes (they're not in the hangar yet but soon will be).

We can learn a lot from the USA ...

(All of this discussion has helped me to finalise my own response to the DP on mass increase for the RAA. Thanks.)

Some comments on a variety of issues here:

REGULATORY

The existing regulation doesn't easily provide for aerobatics in the RAA unlike the draft Part 103 where there are specific rules.

I am not optimistic about the new suite of regulations including Parts 61, 91 & 103 etc ever being implemented however I firmly believe this would be the best way to go so I'm not inclined to take the pressure off CASA. In particular, the CASA intent to provide for parallel pathways will mean that I can stay with VH reg and enjoy the privileges only enjoyed now by RAA reg.

It is tempting to continue to weasle changes in by tinkering with the existing regulatory structure but it is well beyond time that CASA and the OLC finished their regulatory reform programme. The current set of regs overall is abysmal.

SAFETY CASE

We can learn a lot from the USA (compare their safety record with ours for a start) with their much larger population sample.

Their LSA permits aerobatics in appropriate airplanes and the medical requirements are similar to that of the RAA.

Who mentioned training? Neither the UK nor the USA have an aerobatic endorsement nor a regulation requiring aerobatic training. I'm not suggesting that the CASA rules be discarded on this. Plenty of capability within the RAA membership.

For the RAA to take on registration of 30-40 year old aeroplanes having 10,000 hours or so of time in service including aerobatics - - hey, that already carries with it the technical issues associated with aerobatic aeroplanes regardless of whether they fly aerobatics in future or not. Apparently the RAA has stated that there is no concern with maintenance.

RAA ORGANISATION

I'm a member so I get a say on the above.

It makes some sense for the RAA to take the word “recreation†out of their name and stick with a limited scope of activities. However it was the RAA which drove the current discussion paper to increase the weight for their aeroplanes which will result in an enormous increase in the number of RAA-registered aircraft quite capable of aerobatics.

As above, CASA should implement the new regulations and provide for parallel pathways. I'm happy to stay VH reg with CASA as some have suggested - I for one can do without being associated with an organisation which seems to condone open neglect of CASA regulations wrt flying grossly overweight.

In the discussion paper for the mass increase to 760 kg, RA-Aus states no concern with maintenance of types like the Cessna 150. I'd be very surprised if any LAME considered that a Cessna 150 Aerobat was more challenging than a straight one.

We're not discussing Pitts etc in this context.

Even if RA-Aus based that comment on no aerobatic ops in RAA they must've considered a 10,000 hr Aerobat being transferred over. All that history is just as important, if not more important, than what the aeroplane does today.

I'm with nong.

The USA allows aerobatics with their LSA rules inc similar medical requirements.

We certainly have the knowledge and instructors.

My current view is that if RA-Aus does not allow aerobatics with the mass increase then I'd oppose the RA-Aus proposal.

The new SB on the flop tube.

The old SB on the flop tube (degradation of the Aeroquip 601 hose) is now superseded but everyone should have done that anyway. This was an inspection and replace if necessary plus subsequent regular inspections.

The current issue is specific to Stratoflex hoses manufactured within the last 5 years however the SB requires replacement of all hoses in all model Pitts. Doesn't make sense to replace something un-necessarily especially as it is not an easy job. However this problem can arise with old hoses so regular inspection is essential - no life specified for these hoses but I'd replace at the same time as the engine hoses.

Easy enough for a pilot to check for a stiff tube and one which does not rest on the bottom of the tank. Apart from not supplying fuel when inverted it will also significantly increase unusable fuel in upright flight.

Yenn's recent post in another forum about a cowboy reminded me of an Australian specific AD about fuel tank caps. Now that CASA is reviewing these AD's and the cowboy has gone perhaps this AD will also go.

(I trust that this thread will not get hijacked like the other one - beats me what a Pitts User's Group has to do with aerobatics in the RAA)

Just saw this new forum (thanks Ian) and couldn't resist kicking it off!

Just saw this forum and couldn't resist kicking it off! A timely change (thanks Ian) as the aerobatic "season" in the SE corner of the country is just starting.

One of the good things to come out of CASA in recent years is CAAP 155-1 - Aerobatics which is available at http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/155_1.pdf (270 kb file)

Lots of useful information and good advice there. It is essential reading for all aerobatic pilots and one of the basic references for anyone just learning.

Its not perfect as it had a number of contributors and some disagreement on the content. It owes a lot to the FAA AC 91-61 and we were unable to really do much about anything from that document that we disagreed with. I had a go at trying to change AC 91-61 but was unable to attract much interest.

Just got an email from the save essendon airport group so will sign the petition soon.

An update on RVAC's RAA ops in their latest magazine at http://www.rvac.com.au/news/PlaneTalkSpring08