Roundsounds

Fair question, I reckon one of two reasons: 1. Tight on $ 2. Don't like the ways the organisation is run, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. Neither being reasonable cases.

It's not that bad once you study the material and drawn some diagrams!

Yes, but if thrust reversers aren't available there's a penalty. We could go on for days going into the nitty gritty, why I suggested a simplified lay and version of the requirements.

I'm pretty sure this topic is about aircraft fitting into CAO 20.7.1B (larger multi-engine turbine powered aeroplanes) I don't think a Cessna 337 falls into that category?

I'm not sure who you spoke to in CASA, but the introduction of Part 61 wasn't handled too well when it comes to educating the CASA staff or the industry for that matter. 61.007 is about the applicability of the regulations from a Licencing perspective - eg requirement to hold a pilot licence, instrument rating etc is limited to registered aeroplanes. The Flight time definition is contained in 61.010 and it refers you onto further 61.xxx, but doesn't make reference to "registered aircraft". Therefore the requirement for a registered aircraft in the aeronautical experience needed for a the issue of a pilot licence is only made when it is required. (Integrated courses). Whoever you spoke to gave you incorrect advice, I suggest you contact CASA again but talk to a Safety Advisor (go to the CASA home page and search for your local Safety Advisor using the search function). Get them to email their response to you, it's interesting to see the different level of investigation that goes into an written versus spoken response! The Part 61 regulations differ for integrated and non-integrated courses, have a read of the references I quoted. This is further reinforced on the application form - integrated course section contains a note regarding the "registered aeroplane", whereas the non-integrated course doesn't. The 100 hours in permitted in RAAus registered aeroplanes is a hangover from the old CAR 5 reg's.

The VH bit, as I read it, only applies to integrated PPL / CPL aeroplane courses. Compare 61.590 and 61.610, the integrated CPL aeroplane class requires the flight time to be completed in a registered or recognised aeroplane (61.590(4)), whereas the non integrated does not have this requirement. (See 61.525+61.545 for PPL aeroplane) With reference to the RAAus membership requirement, pilots are exempt of certain regulations by the various CAOs (95.10, 95.32, 95.55). The CAOs also state these exemptions are subject to compliance with RAAus Operations and Technical manuals, if those manuals require you to be financial members that's what you need to do. These manuals provide an alternative means of complying with the exempt regulations.

Under what circumstances would an aircraft such as a B737 or A330 not make a successful takeoff and climb out (using manufacturer / operator approved procedures) having had an engine failure at/after V1?

"Not correct", really? When you say minimum control speed, I assume you mean VMCA as V1 has already taken VMCG into consideration. In fact the larger aeroplanes minimum V1 is often driven by VMCG. To quote the FAA definition: "V 1 —Critical engine failure speed or decision speed. Engine failure below this speed should result in an aborted takeoff; above this speed the takeoff run should be continued." What part of "continue the take-off and climb away" do you consider incorrect? I would consider continuing the takeoff to include: - acceleration - keeping the aeroplane on the runway to achieve VR - rotation at the correct rate to the appropriate target attitude - achieve / maintain V2 - V2+5, retract the landing gear - follow the prescribed one engine inoperative cleanup procedure - perform the engine malfunction procedure at an appropriate time during / after the cleanup baaed upon the nature of the failure. To answer Johnm's question of what happens between V1 and V2, see above dot points and no there is no phase whereby the aeroplane becomes "a metal tube that might plough into the ground". This assumption is based upon a single engine failure with all other systems operating normally.

Go to section 15, page 16 (labelled 15-16) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-6of7.pdf

This may be overly simplifying the situation, but basically appropriately certified aircraft: - Before V1 - you can stop within the available runway - At V1 - you can continue the takeoff and climb away Typical examples of these types are all RPT and IFR charter aeroplanes.

I'm not sure how far this went, but there's a reference to an aviation association on page 17. http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/ftweb/pdfs/About_us/Have_your_say/Improving_governance_within_incorporated_associations_discussion_paper.pdf

From my observations Airservices Australia need focus more on delivering "services" and less on "control". I cannot help but think the vectoring practices around capital city airports is about job security and the ATS belief that pilots are idiots trying to run into each other. Surely arriving / departing aircraft can be separated laterally via correctly designed SIDs and STARs? Sydney airspace will be interesting in about 9 years time, when Badgey's Creek is operational.

Maybe you're missing the point, I acknowledge skydiving operations are currently classified as private, however private operators don't have the same competing "commercial considerations". You certainly cannot compare an 8 hour sector in a jet (who is only required to carry 30mins as their fixed reserve)with a Pitts S2A doing a local aerobatic sortie overhead an ALA or a Yak 52 flying to Temora on an 8/8ths blue sky day being mandated to carry 45mins fixed reserve!

The flexibility offered under the existing CAR 234 arrangements work well. There statistical evidence of private operators experiencing fuel exhaustion shows a progressive decline, so why change the rules? To keep some administrator who doesn't fly employed?

Try and get hold of Nigel at Ultimate Aero, Boonah. http://www.scenicrim.qld.gov.au/business-news/-/asset_publisher/WGOaUaxRM97P/blog/aviation-veteran-is-flying-high-in-boonah

So if you're say 5 minutes into your 45mins, what's the point in declaring a mayday? Mayday is grave and imminent danger, Pan is urgency. Surely unless you're about to run out of fuel a pan would suffice, if any call is required at all. I can just imagine "Pitts XYZ taxying for airdisplay overhead, mayday mayday mayday fuel, lining up runway 23"

I feel you're missing the point dutchy, there are plenty of aircraft operating safely without carrying 45mins FR. These proposed changes will make their operations illegal. This whole episode is political and in response to charter / aerial work operators not following their own policies. Commercial operators are required to have a fuel policy stated in their op's manuals, whereas private operators do not. The last 2 ATSB reports (each covering 10 year periods) state the rates of fuel exhaustion have significantly reduced and attribute this to pilot education campaigns. Fuel system mismanagement incidents are higher than exhaustion and have higher injury / fatality rates - mandating fixed reserves will have zero effect on fixing this problem. What I'm saying is bugger off and leave private operators alone! I'm sure some operators of aircraft similar to yours could easily identify increased risks in performing displays due to performance penalties associated with the requirement to carry a fixed reserve of 45 minutes in top of their planned display / contingency requirements.

Find a flying instructor who will actually sit down with you and brief you properly. This includes not only what to say and to whom, but where to find this information. If your instructor isn't doing this it's because they're lazy or don't know the answers themselves. Either way, find a new instructor and don't hold back on telling why you're changing if asked.

Yarrawonga Chronicle Facebook pages says: "Emergency services are at the scene of a serious aircraft accident near the Yarrawonga Airport on Cahill's Road. Very few details are available at this stage. More to follow." https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/31085779/two-dead-in-light-plane-crash-in-victoria/

Under the current CAR 234 private operators simply need to carry enough fuel to safely complete the flight, so if you run out of fuel its all your fault - even if you carried the reserves under CAAP 234. If the CAR 234 changes come in, you can run out of fuel and provided you had the appropriate reserves on departure, you may not be a fault. There's simply no safety basis for the changes and have not followed CASA's own change policy.

This is worth a read, the summary on page 2 sums it up (4th page of the document). Mandating 45min fixed reserves for private flights won't stop people mis-managing fuel systems, which caused most problems and injuries/fatalities 2001-2010. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4115276/ar-2011-112_no5.pdf

This "regulation reform" needs to be rejected outright. Private operators have had a significant decrease in the rate of fuel exhaustion events over the past 20 years, it seems the CASA education campaign around fuel planning has achieved what it set out to achieve. Commercial operators are currently required to have an approved fuel policy in their operations manual, so the changes have no effect on them. These proposed changes are completely window dressing and have zero safety basis to them. There will be a significant number of RAAus types either rendered useless or they will be operating illegally, as will a number of antique and Warbird types. I urge everyone to respond to this proposed rule change and ask to see the actual safety basis of the changes. (Actual safety issue, not some emotive crap).

I'm pretty sure the stock CJ6s I've flown were fitted with a metal prop. The M14P powered versions may have a wooden fan though.

Thank you Camel, yes I am an active pilot member and have recruited 3 new members this year with another 4 who will join once they have purchased their syndicate aircraft. Maybe you could identify the titles of the programs sent out to CFIs over the past 12 months and how they related to findings from analysis of safety data? I cannot see how automatically sharing incident data with ATSB helps improve the RAAus accident record? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of collecting and analysing incident data? It's primary purpose should be to identify safety trends, good or bad and use the findings to develop training packages to address the identified issues. If you read HF material distributed to members, you will see it cites many HF related hazards, but does not tell you how to mitigate them. Telling pilots and maintainers about potential pitfalls without methods of avoiding them cannot be described as education. I work for a company with a mature and highly effective SMS and can tell you the RAAus system is reactive, rather than proactive. These are the facts.

Oscar, the organisation has employed a dedicated and very capable Safety Manager for at least 2 years. Aside from "Clear Prop" I have not seen any safety related educational programs come out of RAAus. The most effective way to improve the organisations safety record is by education, not legislation. RAAus might not have any legal powers to correct technical issues, but they certainly have a responsibility to be proactive and to work with the manufacturers and regulators to address identified issues. The crux of problem being the incident recording system doesn't allow reporting to identify these issues.