David Isaac

Folks, I am currently on holiday in Alaska, Washington State and BC Canada, bloody great place to be. I wanted to share some brief experiences with you all.

 

I went to the Boeing Centre yesterday in Everett Washington State, I did the 'Future of Flight' tour. There was one very impressive line up of brand new 787s and the number under current production was staggering, the model is not due for release until next year and Boeing are under full production. Boeing stated they have orders for 800 of them, the biggest ever pre-release order for a new model aircraft in Boeings history.

 

The brand new 747-8 is also something to see and a notable absence is any wing-let; very interesting. It is 18 feet longer (more bums on seats) and faster and as such may threaten the efficiency of the A380, time will tell. Apparently the -8 signifies that it shares some of the 787 technologies.

 

There was also a lot of info on the new GE Genex turbine which Qantas is fitting to its new 787s. The engine has composite bypass blades and housing, 10% less components and a two piece assembly such that the bypass unit is separate to the combustor / propulsor unit and can be exchanged out as separate assemblies. The GE engine also has revised fuel handling and it is claimed it uses 2% less bang water than any other competitor (that could be $millions savings over the service life of the engine if proven operationally correct).

 

 

 

But for me the best time was in Anchorage Alaska on Lake Hood smack in the middle of the city ... I walked around dribbling for a few hours (no it is not an old age problem )....I have never seen so many float-planes in all my life, there were multiples of every imaginable type, some of the most beautiful old C180s, C185s, C182s,C206s, Cubs of every variant (beautiful condition, some with rifle holders on the struts), Citabrias, Maules, Taylorcraft, Otters (single and twins), Caravans and of course my old favourite the Beaver. Many of them were moored adjacent to a little privately owned shed with all the spare gear inside. There were some truly magnificent models of aircraft and some I have not heard of like a Robertson (looks like a Cessna). I was told by a local it costs $30 per month for a spot on the lake shore but there is a 12 year wait list....God bless America.....wouldn't happen here, they would regulate the ass out of it and then charge like wounded bulls for the privilege, we could take some lessons at least from the Yanks surely???

 

 

 

Lake Hood is said to be the biggest float plane base in the world and the amazing thing is, it is adjacent to Anchorage International airport. Float planes are taking off and under their flight path you see MD11s etc taxiing down the Anchorage main taxiway, incredible sight (wouldn't happen in Oz, we are too regulated to allow such irresponsible nonsense). There were multiple commercial maintenance organizations around the lake.

 

 

 

By way of minor trivia, I was told the lake freezes to six foot depth in winter and the planes are hauled out and winterized and some are fitted with skis for operation off the frozen lake, how about that.....

 

 

 

Then there were the bush plane variants with the huge tyres ....seriously without any exaggeration the bush planes were lined up by the 100s. Yes there is also a short bitumen runway adjacent to the lake as well; short being the operative word, after all they are all STOL bush planes. Then there was a compound lined up with rows of floats, 100s of them stacked three high on a racking system (good place to by a set of second hand floats). I could have easily stayed there all day, except I was given a time limit ...damn, damn, damn. I am going to go back there one day and buy a nice old C180 float plane and fly it back to Australia ( I wish)....

 

 

 

While we were in Anchorage Alaska the US Airforce put on an impressive display with Raptors, just for a bit of variety.

 

 

 

I am in Vancouver at the moment going to try and find someone with a float plane who will take me for a ride, by that I mean a flight .... wish me luck.

 

I’ll upload some photos when I get home end of the month.

 

Nice to be able to keep in touch with the forum while away….hmmm, not what my wife says though……

 

David

 

 

"RRAus instructors insisting on 5 hours for a PPL to RAA HP conversion" are wrong to the extent that the ops manual doesn't mandate a minimum hours. They are however entirely justified as they can choose to specify however much training they like (para 2d). Personally I think it would be better if it were skills based rather than hours based.

John thanks, this is very interesting.

 

Paragraph 2 d. applies to GA GFPT or higher, so that includes PPL, CPL etc and the conversion can be done by assessment as you say and that is specifically High performance. So a GA PPL can do a conversion by assessment to RAA Pilot certificate with no mandatory hour requirement, but this conversion is for high performance only.

 

Paragraph 2 c. allows a GA PPL or higher to alternatively do a conversion in Low Performance aircraft, but in this case it is not done by assessment, but by a mandatory 5 hour minimum and one hour minimum of that 5 being solo. Interestingly this provision excludes a GA GFPT license holder.

 

Yes I agree it should all be competency based and in some cases that could simply be a hour dual and in some cases the individual may be so out of currency that they need more than 5 hours. One assumes that the words "such dual training in a high performance recreational aircraft as is deemed necessary by the CFI" in Paragraph 2 d., would be based on competency not some arbitrary figure. To both our points it should be competency based like any other endorsement.

 

Piper J-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] quotes a 65kt cruise speed & my observations of them at YCAB would seem to support this. I can cruise one of my trikes at 80kts but I don't think that this would really qualify it as requiring a HP endorsement ! I'm not 100% sure but I believe they are classed as LP by RAAus

You are right about the J3 it certainly is LP; when I think of Piper Cubs I think of the PA-18 Super Cub (magic little aeroplane) lot faster than the J3.

 

David

 

 

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with HP endorsement, the amount of training is at the discretion of the CFI.

Yes, but the only place in the Ops manual that may take that provision for PPL to RAA without an LP endorsement is potentially Section 2.07 Paragraph 1 e., where a PPL holder need only demonstrate to a CFI his competencey. High Performance is assumed for PPL so a PPL automatically has a HP endorsement. You cannot use the provisions of Paragraph 2 for conversion to RAA pilot certificate for just a HP endorsement.

 

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with LP endorsement, the amount of training is at the CFI discretion but they must have at least 5 hours total & 1 solo in a low performance recreational aircraft. It doesn't matter whether the LP aircraft was actually RAAus or GA registered provided it could have been on RAAus rego.

I agree, however, there is quite a problem with the wording in the Ops manual. If you take the literal wording, of the Aeronautical Experience provisions of Paragraph 2, I would argue that there is no provision for a PPL using his PPL qualifications to convert to RAA Pilot Certificate unless he converts using the provisions of Paragraph 2 c. which is low Performance. And that is the only provision that requires the 5 hour figure. As there is no need to prove HP with PPL, HP is assumed.

 

Ie for a PPL holder with 5 hours in a GA registered Piper Cub (for example), the conversion to RAAus with LP endorsement would simply be at CFI discretion (no minimum).

Yes except I would argue that a Piper Cub is HP it cruises in excess of 80 Knots, we can't have it both ways, can we?

 

PS I think the examples of aircraft mentioned in the Ops manual are a bit confusing since, although the Jabiru could be GA or RAAus rego, I don't think it qualifies as a LP aircraft ?

I agree. The note to Paragraph 2 c. is contradictory. So to my point in the earlier post that RAA instructors are insisting on 5 hours for a PPL to RAA HP conversion is not supported by the RAA ops manual, have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

 

David

 

 

Actually you don't need at least 5 hours training to convert from GA to RA, you need at least 5 hours flying by assessment. That could be as little as say 1 hour dual conversion to a Jab (depending on competency) and then go solo in the Jab for 4 hours obviously under a Instructors assessment. The arbitrary 5 hours is largely BS in my view, I can typically do a conversion from one GA type to another of significant difference in 2 hours or less, so why should conversion from GA to RA be any different to any other GA conversion.

Above is my first post, however, after reading the references in the RAA Ops Manual that John (Crezzi) put up, I do not believe that what I have been told by many regarding converting from GA PPL to RAA pilot certificate is correct.

 

Section 2.13 states that a GA PPL holder who wishes to convert to an RAA Pilot certificate shall: a. be a financial member of RA-Aus, b. hold a valid RA-Aus Student Pilot certificate, and c. meet experience requirements of Sections 2.06 and 2.07 of this manual.

 

Section 2.06 is what you must meet to obtain a Student Pilot certificate.

 

Section 2.07. Aeronautical experience Paragraph 2 © states: if holding a PPL or higher licence, have completed such dual training in a low performance recreational aircraft as is deemed necessary by a CFI and, in any case shall not have less than 5 hours flying experience in a low performance recreational aircraft which shall include a minimum of one hours solo....

 

Then there is a Note which states: For the purpose of paragraph c. above, experience in GA aircraft may be counted towards the 5 hours (up to the full amount), provided the experience was gained in a recreational aircraft type which may be registered on either the RA-Aus or VH register, e.g. Jabiru, Gazelle, Skyfox, Lightwing as recognised by the RA-Aus Operations Manager or their delegate.

 

You will note that Paragraph 2 c. specifically refers to 'Low Performance' which means that doing 5 hours in a Jab does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 c. yet that is what many RA-Aus instructors are doing to convert GA PPL holders. Then to add confusion to the matter, the note states that if you have been flying a VH registered Jab or other types, that can fully meet the 5 hour requirements (up to the full amount). ..... What the??? So does that mean the hours that I have flown in Drifters back in the 80s that were not VH registered at the time could partially or fully meet the 5 hour requirements because Drifters are capable of being VH registered.

 

So you CFIs out there, what is your take on that one please?

 

David

 

 

........A 3-axis pilot with both LP and HP endorsements is covered by 2.07 5 e(1) - the BFR is done in the type in which most hours of the last 10 flights were flown. At least thats how I interpret it ! John

Hi John, I have printed that section so that it is easier to cross reference and believe you are correct. That would make more sense because that is the same requirement in the CARs for PPL. That is good, I think we have clarified that only one AFR is required for RAA if you hold both LP and HP endorsements in the 3 axis control group.

 

David

 

 

Reg 5.81, extracts below.[/url]

Yes thanks David that does clear it up from the CASA side.

 

I was under the impression that a GA instructor could do a GA review and if he was also an RAAus instructor an RAAus review, so you get two for the price of one and vice versa of course.

Yenn as John (Crezzi) pointed out it is very clear in our Ops Manual Section 2.07 .5 i, that a PPL or higher AFR is a suitable substitute for a high Peformance only RAA AFR, thanks John.

 

However according to CASA Regulation 5.81, as DJP has pointed out, that the reciprocal of an RAA AFR being a substitute for a GA AFR would only apply if the instructor was a GA instructor operating under an AOC, not sure about the aircraft type but it appears an RAA aircraft may be suitable, is that how you read it David (DJP)?

 

It is also now evident from reading further where John pointed me that if you hold RAA HP and LP ratings that you need separate AFRs for each rating. Is that how you read it John?

 

David

 

 

Guys and Gals,

 

I thought I might take this topic out of the 'CASA not Biased' thread to keep the other thread on topic.

 

The Wolf posted: "I was told by the school i intended to convert my license with, that a BFR in an RA registered plane will count as your BFR for your PPL. But a BFR in a VH registered plane wont count for your RA license."

 

To me that defies logic, at the least a PPL AFR should be valid for RAA High Performance, although I would contend AFRs should be reciprocal for RA and GA. Recently I was also told that if you have a RAA Low Performance rating you also need a Low Performance AFR. That would mean you may need two RA AFRs, one for HP and one for LP??? Can anyone clarify that please.

 

Apparently for some obscure reason CASA decided that BFRs (Biannual Flight Reviews) are now to be called AFRs (Aeroplane Flight Reviews), along with HFRs (Helicopter Flight Reviews) etc etc...... For what common sense reasons did they change that ....I cannot imagine. What was wrong with saying BFR for the type. Sometimes I think we change for changes sake....

 

Basscheffers contributed by saying: "A BFR in an RA-Aus aircraft only counts for PPL if said aircraft could be registered VH also. It would be logical the other way around too; do your BFR in a C172 and it won't count for RA-Aus, for the same reason you need at least 5 hours training to get your RA if you have your PPL. But I would assume a BFR in a VH-SportStar would count the same as in a Sporty with numbers on the side."

 

Actually you don't need at least 5 hours training to convert from GA to RA, you need at least 5 hours flying by assessment. That could be as little as say 1 hour dual conversion to a Jab (depending on competency) and then go solo in the Jab for 4 hours obviously under a Instructors assessment. The arbitrary 5 hours is largely BS in my view, I can typically do a conversion from one GA type to another of significant difference in 2 hours or less, so why should conversion from GA to RA be any different to any other GA conversion.

 

The AFR is all about assessing competency at the time of the review, and whether you did the review in a Citabria and then flew Jabs, or did the review in a RA Lightning and then flew say an Auster, the ironies of both should be obvious. When we do the AFR we only do it in the aircraft of our choice, we don't do an AFR in every aircraft we are endorsed to fly, and the differences in performance between the type endorsements can be significant.

 

What is the legal position on this one, can anyone contribute with the 'good oil' please?

 

David

 

 

Yeh, I know what you mean Daz, its really an Eastern state of OZ (sorry all you great Kiwis).

 

As a matter of trivia and completely off subject; did you know that the Australian Constitution has provision to govern New Zealand and that New Zealand does not have a constitution.

 

Back on subject: Travel to NZ is so cheap these days and accommodation is cheaper than Melbourne and given the 27% dollar difference at the moment it is fantastic value.

 

David

 

 

Hi Folks,

 

Is anyone traveling to the Tauranga City Airshow in NZ on 6 and 7 February. I will be in NZ for business that week and have already booked tickets to the airshow.

 

Looks like it will be one hell of a show ... it is the first one for Tauranga and planned to be held every two years.

 

How many of you Kiwis will be there?

 

Any other Aussies planning on attending?

 

Check out the link Tauranga City Airshow

 

David

 

 

Thanks very much mechfx, I was hoping to get a second hand one somewhere even though that price is reasonable given the current exchange rate.

 

David.

 

 

Can anyone help me with locating an electric starter assembly for the Rotax 447?

 

David

 

 

Ozzie,

 

Do you know of any reason why I could not put the Rotax 447 on top of the main fuselage spa like was done with the Mustang in the photo you sent me? Would the slight difference in the trust centreline have any adverse affect on the AC performance? Would I need any sort of RAA approval to carry out such a mod? It would certainly improve pilot visibility and is mechanically very simple to achieve.

 

Regards,

 

David

 

 

Happy to send photos Tony, I will email you separately.

 

David

 

 

It came from Evans Head, the owner had retired and had the aircraft in storage for 7 years. He originally purchased and operated it in Adelaide, purchased it from the SG Curtis, prior to that it was owned by Phil Robertson. The original owner was Ted Gordon. The rego is 10-1285.

 

David

 

 

Ozzie,

 

You are a history marvel. Did you know Gil Sweetman when he owned that Mustang? He took it to NZ and later sold it, I even flew it in NZ a couple of times when I visited him in a small town called Fielding near Palmerston North.

 

Interesting mods. I have attached a couple of shots of the Javelin, you can clearly see they are a beefed up Mustang with a glass pod in front. I suspect a little heavier than the Mustang with the extra tubes. That would explain a 20 knot stall as opposed to the 16 knot stall of the original Mustang.

 

David

 

 

Hi Pud,

 

You say marginal, but only in the sense that the speed envelope was tight and that you needed a lot of rudder otherwise the ailerons were useless. High lift single surface wing but with high drag meant they were slow and safe, however, gusty weather was not ideal. In any engine failure you could almost land in an average backyard if you knew what you were doing and in the worst case if you had to land in trees or rough terrain you could slow your impact speed to less than 18 knots and you still had the engine in front of you to take the impact. Falling off a trail bike is far worse. Also at 30 knots full power and a 45 degree angle of bank you could turn it on a dime between trees 50 feet above the ground and then roll level and land (a bit naughty but great fun in the bush).

 

They were also unspinable, I tried every way possible to spin the Mustang ( I am GA aerobatic qualified), it was incredibly stable....it didn't even really stall, it just entered a high sink rate. If you pulled it up to the vertical quickly with full power and then cut the power you could get a brief whip stall, but it was flying again within a 30 foot sink. If you made a real bad mistake, you would be unlikely to suffer much more than injury to your ego....that is a lot more than you can say for some of the slippery machines out there today. I knew Frank Bailey the designer personally and his priority was for the safety of novice learner pilots.

 

I used to call the Mustang an aerial trail bike.

 

David

 

 

Hi Pudeston,

 

Man did that photo bring back memories. The one I did a lot of flying in was based at the old army strip near Mittagong. In those days (1985 or maybe earlier) the strip had one Cessna based there with a couple of ultralights. If this strip is the one I drove past last year, it is now redeveloped into a full aerodrome with hangars.

 

The Mustang I flew ended up in NZ it was owned at the time by Gil Sweetman now living in Forster and flying out of Taree. From memory the bloody thing stalled at around 16 knots and would take off in about 25 to 30 metres with the 50 HP Robin that was on it.

 

Regards,

 

David.

 

 

Ozzie,

 

By way of further comment, it sounds like you have been around similar times to me if you know Frank and Steve Cohen's history that well. I remember watching guys like Ron Wheeler (Scout) flying their machines in the late 1970s out west of Sydney somewhere. I flew ultralights quite a bit back in 1985 to 1987, then stayed mainly with GA playing occasionally with an early Maxair Drifter. Both the Mustang and the Drifter I flew ended up in New Zealand.

 

Out of curiosity, the original owner of my Javelin was Ted Gordon who also wrote the Pilot handling notes for the aircraft. Did you know him and know if he is till around?

 

Regards,

 

 

Hi Ozzie,

 

Thanks very much for the info. Back in 1985 I met Steve Cohen and Frank Bailey and came to know Frank quite well. You have confirmed what I was trying to recall. I did a lot of flying in one of Frank's Mustangs and took a lot of video footage in those days which I showed Frank on many ocasions. I thought Lee Wakelend built the Mustang based on Frank's design and I was convinced the Javelin I have just purchased was Frank's design as well . I have read Frank's book and know his design principles to recognise many Frank Bailey features such as the rudder extending below the elevators to give good rudder response in the stall. Was the company Flight 95 Australia Pty Ltd Lee Wakeland's company? Do you happen to know when the Javelins were first built as they certainly weren't around in the days I flew the Mustang?

 

Regards,

 

David

 

 

Peter,

 

What year did you have your Mustang? Did you ever meet Frank Bailey the designer? Do you remember who was building the kits and selling them? The name Lee Wakeland rings a bell with me, I have a vague recollection he was associated with Frank Bailey and if Lee was the Javelin designer it would make sense. What can you recall about these times.

 

David

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for that info. I used to fly a Mustang as well back in 1985, they were designed by Frank Bailey, Frank died about 5 years ago. I was actually looking for a Mustang when I cam across the Javelin. Looking at the javelin, it is just a more refined Mustang with tubes for strut bracing instead of King poles and wires. There is a javelin and a Mustang in the Holbrook ultralight Museum, is it p[ossible it was yours? I will contact Phil.

 

regards,

 

David

 

 

Hi Folks,

 

I have just purchased a Javelin Ultralight in remarkable condition given its age. I am looking to find some history on the type. I was hoping someone who has been around a while would know of the type and who the designer was. I was told the designer was Lee Wakeland, does anyone know him or where I can contact him.

 

They are a rag and tube machine, single surface wing strut braced, tail wheel config. They look a bit like a Thruster, single seat obviously. This one was 10-1285 when first registed in July 1995. Previous owners were a Mr P Robertson, then Mr SG Curtis does anyone know them that could put me in contact with them.

 

I am actually looking for manufacturers data on the machine. Can anyone help me?

 

Regards,

 

David Isaac

 

 

Hi Folks,

 

I have just joined; I have had a long interest in Ultralights and minimum aircraft and recently decided I needed to get legal to fly these machines.

 

I am one of those GA pilots, been flying since I was 17 years old and that was a long time ago. My favourites are taildraggers and I am endorsed on Citabria (real fun to fly), C180 (nice aeroplane), C185 (real balls on two wheels) and Auster J1B (real handful in a crosswind).

 

Back in the 80s I met a real nice old guy by the name of Frank Bailey, some of you may know him, he was an associate of Steve Cohen at the time. Frank designed a minimum aircraft called the Mustang and I spent many hours flying it out of the old Mittagong airstrip. Later I spent quite a few hours flying a drifter. Does anyone know what happenned to Frank? He would possibly be in his late 70s by now. Are there any Mustangs still flying? I am actually looking for a real minimum aircraft like a Mustang for my rural property at Ingleba near Walcha.

 

The problem was I was technically never legal even though GA endorsed for tail wheel, CSU, retractable and aerobatics. Since I want to get back into recreational aircraft I thought it time to really get involved and do whatever is involved in a conversion.

 

So here is to meeting a few of you over the next few years.

 

David