Roundsounds

The best primary training aeroplane around today is the ACA Citabria.

The current standard of flight training is appalling, particularly around recognition of an impending stall and recovery. I use scenario based events to train and assess pilots during stall sequences. Pre solo the scenarios include recognising and recovering from impending and developed stalls in climbing turns, descending turns, balloon during the flare and bounced landing. Teaching stall recovery wings level, 1G is next to useless.

Being fully stalled at touchdown is a falacy! The only aeroplane I’ve flown that comes anywhere near stalled on touchdown is a 3 point landing in a Tiger Moth.

You do realise the ADSB returns are based on pressure height? The QNH at 3pm was 1007, therefore you need to take approx 180’ off the ADSB pressure height return to get an altitude.

Reported as a a first solo and a C172 that’s been at Camden from new.

Obviously the A-320 had the ADSB turned off. The driver of the ute had no chance

It’s good to see the Head of Safety reporting lines now reflect best practice.

Are you sure none of the operating crew had appropriate experience? Even the best of professional teams come together on occasions.

Stalls / spins are just another manoeuvre, you need to be competent at recognising the onset and recovering before they develop. You also need to be competent at recovering from developed stalls / spins. Again I reinforce the need not to fear these manoeuvres, but respect them. At no time did I insult your instructor, my comment was a general one around how stall / spin training is conducted today and supported by accident stats.

If any type of stall scares the hell out of you, you need to find a competent instructor to help you get over the fear. Takeoff and landing are far more risky manoeuvres than stalls at a safe height. I reckon the fear of stalling rubs off from instructors who also have a fear of stalling / spinning.

I was taught to add 500’ to the highest terrain 5NM either side of the planned track as a rule of thumb LSALT. This helps in go / no go decision making if the weather deteriorates. The sole reliance on devices for planning reduces familiarisation with route terrain.

You’re quite correct regarding the limit of 250KIAS below 10,000’. A heavy jet on departure may need to exceed 250 to fly with flaps retracted and ATC can approve the exceedance. ATC may also approve high speed ops below 10,000 if requested by the crew.

There seems to be an increase in mid air collisions in Australia. The most recent event cannot be treated the same as the other events due to the formation aspect. It seems as new technology emerges, so do the number of airprox events. I suspect pilots have lost / not being taught situational awareness skills.

ATC Recording

Many possible causes… https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/occurrence-briefs/2018/aviation/ab-2018-124

Stall warnings systems in many light aircraft are inaccurate, are misunderstood and relied upon way too heavily.

QNH is part of an aeronautical code covering QAA - QNZ. Similar Q codes are used in military and nautical functions. Here’s a link for your reference.

I’m keen to see the airspace model. I reckon Camden will see a 2000’ Class C step overhead. I base this on the steps around KSA. Bankstown will be severely affected and kill any practical abinitio flight training.

A requirement for RAAus ops, but not GFA or Hot Air Balloon pilots in Class C or D.

Yes, very limited indeed. Exemptions are issued to individual schools and audited on a regular basis. The exemptions require renewal along with the going fee, quite different to the GFA and Balloon Federation certificate holders. Probably logical when RAA (AUF) airplanes resembled flying clotheslines, cruised at 25 knots and were fitted with Victa Lawnmower engines.

The RAA schools operating at Class C or D hold exemptions allowing students to solo. Once the pilot has gained their RPC they can no longer operate in CTA, more CASA logic in place.

It sure does, but you must keep your Part 61 PPL medical and AFR current to exercise the privileges on an RAA RPC in controlled airspace. CASA argue you need the medical and AFR to be safe to operate in controlled airspace. However, glider and balloon pilots can operate in controlled airspace without any CASA issued medical or Part 61 quals. Camden is a classic example of glider ops in controlled airspace without the need to hold a PPL or medical (aside from a self certified one), these ops include motor gliders. A pilot holding only RAA quals can happily operate from Camden when the tower is closed, but not when it’s active. That implies it’s safer to operate when the tower is shut?

That’s easily fixed, stop auditing.

The GFA have pilots flying quite sophisticated motorised gliders, these aircraft are flown into controlled airspace by pilots holding self certified medicals. The precedent has been set, RAAus should have used the GFA example for both increased MTOW and CTA access. The Grob 109 and Super Xiamango have an MTOW of 850kg.

Second lesson and doing circuits?