David Isaac

And it appears they keep moving the goal posts on the criteria for further medical investigation to do just that Nev.

 

 

Still haven't received my magazine and I am now travelling interstate for a week. Certainly doesn't leave much time to get the ballot paper in.

 

 

Or depending on the height in my Auster, a big pull then a big push then a big roll upright and a flare .....

 

 

This is what came straight to mind when I learned that my brand new still in the box Rotax engine must have it's carb floats replaced with ones that float in petrol before it is put into service. There is general fit for purpose legislation in Australian consumers law and there is no way that floats that absorb fuel are fit for purpose in a float bowl.

Agreed, but they must have originally thought they were OK and have subsequently become aware the floats are faulty. hence the Ad notice.

 

 

Its called instinct pmc.

 

 

I had always believed there was a shared IP arrangement.

 

 

David, your assuming the facts CASA acted on are true, they arent and this is why every one should be concerned.There equal evidence that rotax and other makes are worse depending on the analysis.

Id have thought Jabiru would be good to insure, lots of them, easily and cheaply repaired and very tough. Despite engine problems they have an excellent record for safety.

How do draw any conclusion on what I assume from what I posted? For the record I DO NOT accept that CASA acted on factual information, but I do know some Jabiru engines have known problems and that Stiff knew about it and in my opinion failed to act in a timely manner. What I did say was that because the CASA put the problem under the spot light, it would be almost inevitable that insurers would respond ... and they have.

 

 

Recived notice today Assett Insure wont continue covering Jabiru aircraft due to engine reliability problems........even if they dont have Jab enginesThey are pretty major company behind many brokers in aviation.

Shows how deep this situation can bite

This was always going to be the risk that Jabiru must have been aware of. If the aircraft become un-insurable, that will be the end of training in Jabiru Aircraft and that factor alone may bring about the demise of the brand.

I do wonder how the risk assessment has been carried out by the insurers ... certainly CASA's action put the brand squarely under the spot light.

 

This is all attributable to consequence; a consequence of a lack of action early enough on Jabiru's part. Something Mr. Stiff should have taken action on when the mechanical issues started years ago. Instead, sadly it appears the consequences have landed on all Jabiru owners.

 

We can only hope the insurable risk factors can be reduced to insurer satisfaction real soon.

 

The loss of the Jabiru brand does not serve any of us well.

 

 

Thanks Nev,

 

Yes Garfly, in our GA training we were trained to know in-advance power/trim settings that you know will get you close to a level pitch attitude and the best glide etc. We were supposed to be able to revert to those on instinct. The big problem with VFR pilots in VMC is their hands on the yoke and over controlling in the panic of the moment. If the aircraft is trimmed, it will fly relatively stable with small rudder inputs because it is dynamically stable in that configuration.

 

I guess with our RAA aircraft we have a range of instruments from rag & Tube with just an ASI to glass panels more sophisticated that the old GA ACs. Give me steam gauges any day, I still like the fancy stuff but I want the steam backup. The AHI & T&B are ideal minimum instruments even for an open cockpit Rag & Tube; they may save your life one day.

 

 

Great range of videos. The 1957 one particularly interesting given that method is NOT taught as far as I am aware. I like it though because it simplifies the turn method. The 180 degree turn in cloud concept assumes the VFR pilot is calm and able to make the rate one turn while he has his hands on the stick or yoke and possibly in significant turbulence, and that is unlikely and he is more likely to over control in IMC.

 

I am NOT proud to say that I did it once in C182 between Coonabarabran and Dubbo in the 80s; declared an emergency and lived to tell the story. Id be interested to here Facthunter's opinion on the 1957 video, possibly taught when he learned to fly. I actually like the method.

 

What about the opinions of other commercial pilots on here ... your thoughts on the old method???

 

 

Hang ten, I thought she ran out of fuel. No sign of fuel at the crash site.

I read that as well FT. Doesn't change much, but might have been the fatal blow in the heat of the moment.

 

 

Hi Mike,Is that in RAAus; I was always under the belief the MTOW for single seat aircraft was 300kg? and I can't find anything in the regs to say otherwise?

Blackhawk, the 300 Kg MTOW applies to CAO 95-10 single place ultralights and is still current.

 

 

Hang on, I thought she ran out of fuel?

Whether she ran out of fuel or not, she spun in. That is obvious from the spinning shadow in the video and witness accounts. How stable is the Cirrus in slow flight?

 

 

Either way, terribly tragic outcome and the video gives a very clear perspective of the impact forces involved when impacting the ground from a spin. Death would have been instant from multiple traumas. I would wager this video will be used in training about the consequences of spins at low altitude.

 

 

Yep, need a class 2 medical.

Thanks DJP, that explains the answer I originally received.

 

 

BUT ... Do you need a class 2 med. for aerobatics? If so it isn't the standard RPL is it, because you do NOT need a class 2 med. for a RPL. I was originally told you could NOT do aerobatics on an RPL at a CASA seminar.

 

 

.......nope, RPL is all that is required (under the old rules a GFPT could get an aerobatic endorsement too).

Well there ya go. That will require a few ops manual changes.

 

 

I don't believe an aero endorsement is available with RPL. You need a PPL minimum

 

 

So what happens to the RAA when a bunch of Christen Eagle II, Pitts S2Bs, Acro Sport 2 and Skybolts end up RAA registered?

They won't be able to aerobat them anymore so why would they come over to the dark side.

 

 

Yeah, I noticed the same entomology confusion as well LOL.

 

 

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"!In a free country, flying is a right not a privilege. That is a concept that is still not widely appreciated at CASA. They feel they are in the business of granting privileges and have absolute discretion in granting their privileges. In some ways it could be said that they are correct in that all power in Australia derives from sycophantic acceptance of a foreign-born, foreign-resident, pommy, hereditary, theocratic despot - "The Crown". The "Crown" is the reference for the grant of privileges, licences certain behaviours, and bestows certain honours and titles. Roll on the revolutions and the Republic of Australia!

 

Personally, I prefer to think of Australia from 1901 onwards as a free country of free men. We may still have an anarchistic, largely irrelevant back story but let's try and forget about that.

 

If you subscribe to ours being a free society, we are born free to do anything. Since 1901, our legislators have been beavering away restricting freedoms in the interests of the general good of peace, order and good government. One of our freedoms has incurred an incredible amount of restriction by legislation and the attendant orders and regulations - civil aviation.

 

Point is (you knew there was going to be one eventually, didn't you?) that when RAAus goes to CASA it does not beg on a bended knee for a privilege, it goes demanding the removal of an unreasonable restriction on our freedoms. We must all think that way or else we succumb to the CASA model of grant of privilege.

 

Alan,

 

Up to 750kg, I can't see much changing as, e.g. the EASA CS-VLA standard is very like LSA but with one difference: 750 kg MTOW. I see that as a very sensible improvement on LSA because aircraft can be stronger, cheaper (no need for exotics like Carbon Fibre) and carry a respectable amount of fuel. Above 750 kg many things will need to be different to below 600 kg.

 

Perhaps the best way for me to answer this is to put my Nostradamus hat on.

 

I foresee a very different model arising over time from the current approach that dates back to day one of aviation. RA and non-commercial GA should be merged. The rump of GA left when you take away the commercial GA is a pain in the, well, rump to CASA and a pain that I think they would like to see somebody else take on. There may be some aspects like IFR that may remain totally CASA but just about everything else below 5,700 kg that does not involve commerce could be termed in ordinary English aviation for the purpose of recreation - i.e. "Recreational Aviation". What that will look like in time is anyone's guess. My guess is that there may be one or a couple of organisations like RAAus that compete for "membership". All aircraft below 5,700 kg would be administered by those two organisations. It could end up looking a bit like Holden Vs Ford for admin.

 

And then CASA could concentrate on the big stuff and the airlines and leave us to enjoy our recreation.

 

I would see all basic pilots trained to a common level with skill and aircraft types endorsements as extensions from the basic pilot qualification (whether it's called "licence" or "certificate").

 

This is neither too sensible to be likely nor pie-in-the-sky. There are some sound reasons why CASA and governments will head this way in future. In our lifetime? Maybe - depends how hard we push.

 

Don

God how I love it when you get on a rant, it makes my heart smile. LOL

 

 

correct me if I'm wronglast centuary about 1990 when there was a argument about ultralights lights landing in paddocks that they should use airstrips and it was said at he time that they did not need airstrips as any smooth paddock would do

I have seen it written some where that an ultralight aircraft does not have to use an approved ALA

 

on the proviso that it is safe to do so

 

I have a gut feeling that old that is old members at Holbrook will or can enlighten us on this subject neil

Neil,

How are you mate. ALAs as such are NOT approved, they are just dimensional guidelines published by CASA for a proposed Aircraft Landing Area. They used to be called ''Authorised Landing Areas'; back then they were not specifically 'Authorised' as such, they were deemed authorised if they met the dimensional requirements for the aircraft using them. For example an ALA that met the performance requirements for my Auster would NOT be long enough for a standard Cessna 172.

 

Any flat land (grass paddock or gravel or roadway for that matter) or piece of waterway can meet the requirements. Basically an ALA for a low performance Ultralight would typically be very short, but it should meet the clearance requirements spelled out in the CASA guidelines. We are NOT exempt everything and we are certainly NOT exempt duty of care or operational responsibility.

 

Most of the old GA tail wheelers were designed to land in paddocks. The old Austers only needed 150m and they used to land them in French paddocks during the war.

 

 

Hi mate.

 

But David the ALA guidelines have 900m long 150m wide approach and departure mouth either end (assuming its not a 1 way strip because <insert name of deity of choice> forbid there is more than 2% slope on the actual runway) ... now my trikes ALL only need 150m to takeoff or land over a 50ft obstacle and if I am dropping a single seat thruster in its about the same ... so if I was looking at the ALA for 150m of runway I need to have 1.95km of clear approach/runway/departure.

The sky is pretty clear mate hard not to get 900m of clear sky and the guide is what it is; designed for any aircraft.

 

 

The ALA guidelines are not required any more for the simple reason that they are fundamentally not able to be used in 99% of properties unless you are doing Ag ops.

Not sure where you draw the conclusion 'not required'. They are a guide for pilots and a conservative one at that. BTW you are allowed variation on the 2%. We all know we don't need the clearances required if we are skilled, but its the old "we gotta have something as a guide to get you on as a duty of care ...." thing. You know like if you prang and someone gets hurts, the old "how did you consider your operation was safe if you landed into a strip that did NOT meet the minimum recommended safety guidelines..." and having to answer that one and not look like you breached a duty of care to a passenger. But you would know how fickle the law and litigious process is.

 

And I am fortunate in that I neither value nor insure my airframes - I built them and they are considered by me to have no value so the loss of one is my problem alone - the only insurance I have to worry about is the third party and any claim there is not going to be about operating from my paddock but running into a cow or horse in some elses paddock.

Yep your are, probably not the case for many on here though. My insurance has always asked me ... do I only land on ALAs ...? Answer yes, because any paddock I purposely land on would meet the ALA guidelines of course!

Like most have said - talk to your neighbors but you really need to look at the Local Environment Plan for your council and look at your zoning.eg Uralla here allows with consent Airstrips in land zones RU1 - Primary Production ... definition of "Airstrip" requires an established runway ... which explains why I do not have a runway but a paddock I can take off and land into from any direction I like ... I have not established a distinct runway and just operate from a flat paddock therefore I do not have a runway and am not operating an Airstrip so no council issues ... and my neighbors do not mind so all well and good.

 

But if I wanted to mark out a distinct runway with side and end markers I would fall foul of the definition of an Airstrip and would need to apply to council ... and if I did that then I am sure some 'bright spark' would drag out the CASA ALA definition and show that approval should not be given ... even though the CASA ALA definition is no longer a requirement.

 

Play nice, know the rules and keep neighbors happy.

I agree that your relationship with your neighbours is key before you start using any landing area.

Seems a lot of confusion on the ALA definitions. Any flat paddock that meets the dimensions spelled out in the CASA ALA guidelines for the performance requirements for your aircraft can be a legitimate ALA. The CASA ALA guidelines may well be just guidelines, but if your landing area does NOT meet the ALA dimensions for your aircraft and you have an accident ... good luck with your insurance. Clearly that does not necessarily apply to Ag pilots who are typically trained in a specialised area that we are NOT. The ALA dimensions are there for a safety margin reasons including all the obstacle free approach and departure splays. Just sticking some markers on a paddock to define the landing area does NOT turn an ALA into an airport, but an ALA always has a component part called the landing strip. Seems Uralla's definition of an airstrip would perhaps include all ALAs, except maybe an argument on what is 'established'.

 

It gets interesting when you don't need approval to put a driveway or road across your property for access or running your property, so why should you need approval for the piece of grass you use as a landing strip in the middle of your paddock?????

 

 

That is a very good looking Box ... Id love one of those at the right price.