djpacro

In the runup bay this morning - ITK on my right and OIS on my left.

Worth checking the definition of built-up area (or whatever term they specifically use) that CASA uses.

How much built-up area may one fly over at 1,000 ft, unable to glide clear, before it is considered that one is "landing" as distinct from cruising towards an airport where one intends to land?I wonder how many pilots know what built-up area is?

I think you'll find that Part 61 reviews don't have the same requirements as CAR 5...

I always take the law literally but sometimes I ask your advice.Per the old CAR it was permissible to undertake the review in a single seater and there was provision for a different aircraft to be used.

Only when the laces are too long for my shoes.

Very good article in AOPAA's Australian Pilot magazine this month by Rob Knight.

At least one maintenance organisation near Melbourne can take containers direct for customs inspection on-site and then assemble your airplane, issue CofA etc. The FAA has an Advisory Circular on exporting aircraft. Talk to the person you have lined up here for the CofA - generally, you do not need an Export CofA (which requires a very recent Annual Inspection) from the USA.

Unless they also increase Young's Modulus as it is of limited use.

Ultralights?? Where does it say that this forum or this thread is just about ultralights?

From memory, generally, Vne is 90% of demonstrated design dive speed. Flutter speed to be proven to be above demonstrated Vd by a further margin - so, with Vd specified in EAS then it has to be shown at high altitude to get the highest TAS. Flutter may not be critical, could be tailplane balancing/manoeuvre or gust loads or wing gust loads etc. Flutter can also appear well below Vd yet have no flutter approaching Vne. Best not to assume what is limiting. I'd trust the numbers and the inherent margins in the flight manual of an airplane certified to FAR 23. One or two others I have seen to be wishful thinking wrt demonstrated margins.

Interesting.I've seen people do a simple calculation like that incorrectly e.g. use figures in IAS rather than EAS. The airworthiness requirements generally specify that as a minimum value of Va. i.e. the designer is free to choose a higher Va however it then could be difficult to comply with structural loading requirements. I've seen at least one aircraft where it seems to me that the structural loadings required at Vd (a margin above Vne) were ignored. I guess that is what can happen with self-certification especially where those signing the certification themselves do not have any responsibility to or delegation from the airworthiness authority and are being paid by the person wanting the certification. That's OK, the market will sort itself out (eventually) when people see what they are getting or not getting for their money.

Nope.

Many CPL's did the night rating along the way but wasn't required to get a CPL.

I don't see where the 2 hrs IF requirement is - neither for transition from RAA nor training FA from scratch for an RPL (I know it was there for the old GFPT).

Broome

Similar one currently for sale, looks neat. http://www.raa.asn.au/market/ad.php?id=4665 As for the aerobatics, just my opinion, in an RAA airplane but that type is aerobatic, perhaps no Class 2 medical however good history with self-certified medicals doing aerobatics in the USA and probably trained in aerobatics therefore no real safety issue BUT at that low level it is a vastly different matter with an expected short life.

yep, and the same medical

I suppose we should let people get back to the topic, happy to continue the discussion elsewhere. (Who was the ASTA rep: John, Terry or Tiz? Do you know Dan Sigl? I happeneded to run into him at Oshkosh.) On topic: The USA FAA mandates upset recovery training for all jet transport pilots. I see some local courses labelled upset recovery however they are really just GA extreme unusual attitude recovery exercises.

nope, that was dropped after the Valuejet accident many years ago

Tailplane mods were not held pending the Dolphin Air case which had diddly squat to do with tailplane structure. Dolphin Air really had very little, if anything, to do with the US Customs Nomad ops. Army Nomads had nil accidents due tail failures. An Army Nomad in 2009?? Detailed ADF Nomad history at http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/3a18.htm Comprehensive history of every Nomad at http://www.cnapg.net/nomad.htm

OK, two but the factory experimental one (tab flutter) I hadn't counted in that context.

one