Jump to content

Roundsounds

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,032

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Roundsounds

  1. Roundsounds
    I stand by my statement.
  2. Roundsounds
    That's a maintenance requirement, not equipment.
  3. Roundsounds
    Yes they are, an aerodrome operating as both Class D and G have the same equipment requirements. Maybe you could educate me as to the specific differences?
  4. Roundsounds
    Yes, I've read the "GFA" syllabus and it's not very detailed. I'm a GA Grade 1 (was an ATO) and an RAAus Senior Instructor, I train in both systems and apply the same standard to both. I fail to see why pilots I train in an aeroplane with numbers instead of letters cannot fly in the airspace or at least the aerodrome they learnt to fly at. Here's a copy of the detailed Gliding Australia Flight Training Syllabus for controlled airspace straight from their manual of standards: 2. Flight training and Radio Requirements (Circle applicable class of airspace) (a) Departure Procedures D/C (b) Circuit Operations. D/C © ArrivalProcedures. D/C (d) Transit Procedures. D/C
  5. Roundsounds
    Not according to the Civil Aviation Act.
  6. Roundsounds
    Temora, the Aviation Museum is worth a visit. Moruya and Merimbula are very scenic.
  7. Roundsounds
    The equipment requirements for Class D / G areodromes are the same. An RAAus pilot trained at a Class D aerodrome is only permitted to fly as PIC until they gain their RPC. The only way they can operate as PIC of an RAAus registered aeroplane on their RPC is to obtain an RPL, maintain a GA flight review and RAMPC or higher medical, why impose these restrictions? The standard of RT from both RAAus and GA operators could do with improvement, particularly in G airspace. The trend seems to be constant talk, several inbound calls, every leg of the circuit, taxiing, entering the runway, starting the takeoff roll, exiting the runway. Put 6 or so aircraft in the circuit and there's no airtime to make the recommended calls.
  8. Roundsounds
    The current approach is very unlikely to see a suitable result. CASA will expect a class 2 medical or RAMPC and a whole lot of unreasonable training. The precedent has been set - simply apply the same limitations as those imposed on the glider and balloon pilots. Amend CAO 95.10/95.55, the limitations imposed are a hangover from the AUF when they were operating Skycraft Scouts etc. At the very least RAAus should ask why the difference in regulations between RAAOs. For example: a Sinus registered by Gliding Australia can be flown by a pilot into class C and D airspace / airports holding only a Gliding Certificate and self certified medical. The pilot of the same aircraft registered under RAAus needs to hold a GA licence, current flight review and medical in addition to their RAAus pilot certificate to operate into controlled airspace / airports. Why the difference??!!
  9. Roundsounds
    They also said the RAAus training officer had been working for the organisation for 8 months, well she actually started 20 months ago. Airspace approval is a no brainer - RAAus insist on the same privileges as gliders and private hot air balloon operators. (ie- no requirement to hold a GA licence and have self certified medical - as per RAAus ops). The Civil Aviation Act requires the authority to treat all airspace users without discrimination. The airspace restrictions make no sense anyway, an aircraft / pilot who cannot operate from a controlled aerodrome can operate at the same aerodrome the minute the tower closes. Does this mean Class G airspace is safer than C or D?
  10. Roundsounds
    Don't hold your breath waiting...
  11. Roundsounds
    CASR Part 103 will require the organisation to have an effective SMS, which would include analysis of data and an appropriate response to the findings. I too work with an organisation with an effective SMS and see the benefit of it. Improving safety is all about education and not regulation. It seems to me we are heading well down the path of regulation, not education. We have had a Training Officer employed since Feb 2016 (16 months on my count to June 2017 - unlike the presentation by the management last week stating 8 months). I haven't seen much training material published as yet, so far two items relating to maintenance and none to flying.
  12. Roundsounds
    I'll happily do the analysis, it's not rocket science to do a high level review. As someone else has indicated attributing the cause to "Human Factors" is not detailed enough - was it decision making, comms or maybe a deficient skill? The new instructor manual does not link the stall recovery to bounce or mislanding recovery. I'm sure these incidents are frequent, yet we don't train them properly - it's all about lowering the nose then applying power! Hardly think that's appropriate at 20' AGL!
  13. Roundsounds
    It would be of great value to review the data and identify the most common accidents and the causes. Based on the findings of this review create training programmes to address the issues. These training programmes could be a multi facet approach: - include in flight reviews for say a 2 year term - incorporate into abinitio / conversion training - appropriate online material (eg: fact sheets, case studies, videos) Providing a whole lot of incident reports online is not likely to improve safety outcomes.
  14. Roundsounds
    Ditto
  15. Roundsounds
    There are J3s at Luskintyre, Scone, Dubbo, Rylestone, Camden and Temora. Champs at Temora and Wangaratta.
  16. Roundsounds
    My dad taught Nick to fly at Camden NSW when Nick was living in the Sydney northern beaches. I remember him quite well, I was only a kid at the time.
  17. Roundsounds
    The 747-400 doesn't have a stick pusher
  18. Roundsounds
    My comment was very much tongue in cheek.
  19. Roundsounds
    Any day now........
  20. Roundsounds
    Gotta love the MT prop' on the Husky - 6 years between overhaul at $8K a go on the three blade version.
  21. Roundsounds
    When you've got the ops and tech managers investigating accidents, attending coronial enquiries and developing new rules they simply do not have the time to attend to FTF inspections. The accident investigation process should be dealt with by an independent organisation, this would free these people up to promote the sport and address what is likely the cause of a high percentage of the accidents - flight training. Under a proper Safety Managment System you cannot have the people responsible for a department investigation incidents which may have been caused in part by the dept they head.
  22. Roundsounds
    In my opinion hours have no place in flight training, competency is the name of the game. The number of hours to obtain the required level of competency will vary depending upon a lot of factors, including, but not limited to: - Aircraft type - Instructor(s) - Weather - Student's ability and application - Student's background - Frequency of lessons - Location I'm not supporting schools who might try and rip off students, but I also don't support training to a minimum number of hours.
  23. Roundsounds
    I would suggest this would be about as successful as it has been in the education system and would in fact result in a deterioration of standards. Prospective students will go for the minimum hours option. I reckon a proper syllabus (not just a list of competencies currently referred to as the syllabus) supported by online long briefings would go a long way to improving standards. The briefings old improve both the instructor and students knowledge of various sequences. The instructor would then present a short briefing addressing the type / locations specific items. The incident management system could be used to identify areas requiring improvement, which could then be addressed by inclusion in the syllabus and / or flight reviews.
  24. Roundsounds
    a bit of thread drift, but still relevant I feel. Yesterday I was waiting at a GA flying school for someone to return from a flight. I got chatting to a young student who was preparing for a Navex into class C airspace as part of his PPL, his instructor was running about 2 hours late and he had a few questions he wanted to ask before they departed. His instructor turned up, introduced himself and asked the student what was scheduled for them today, student duly explained. Instructor said "OK, I'll just sign us out, meet you in the aeroplane in 5 mins". Off they went, no discussion or briefing, my guess would be the best part of $1200 exercise with less than an optimum outcome. This is a school with a good reputation!
  25. Roundsounds
    I think there's way too much "briefing" on the run. Trying to explain to a student even the most basic concepts while airborne, with them flying the aeroplane, is stupid. A recent video I watched included the student asking the instructor what sequences they would be flying during this flight when approaching the holding point, all a bit disorganised. The instructor made some of the RT and used incorrect terminology, funnily enough the student used the same incorrect RT. The "on the fly" briefing consisted of fly by mouth rather than any explanation or demonstration of what was being "taught" - ie turn now (which resulted in just that, no lookout at all!), reduce power, set this speed, rather than discuss the new sequence on the ground, then demonstrate it to the student, then allow them to practice and provide feedback (brief, demonstrate, direct and monitor)
×
×
  • Create New...