Roundsounds

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.

RAAus should have an incident recording system in place which allows it to produce reports based on selected fields. This type of system allows the Safety Manager to be proactive in taking appropriate action to address safety related issues. These issues might relate to a range of areas such as aircraft operations, maintenance or reliability. If such a system were in place the whole Jabiru engine problem and high fatality rate might look very different. A wealth of incident data has been collected, there's no method of accessing it in place. As an organisation RAAus must be able to take corrective action in relation to safety issues without CASA stepping in.

A highly experienced aviator too.

By the sounds of it you're flogging a dead horse expecting a MTOW increase. Have you approached the relevant consumer affairs department regarding the importer selling you an article which is not capable of doing what it was sold to do? Maybe offload this aircraft and get one that will do the job you need it to do?

Agree! As a PPL holder, aero's and tailwheel experience will make you a safer pilot. In my opinion a PPL holder not regularly flying IFR is dangerous. If $ aren't too much of a hurdle, do tailwheel, aero's, formation then IFR.

I'd suggest tailwheel and aerobatics would be way more useful if you are flying for sport. Not to become an aerobatic comp pilot, but it just moves your personal limits out a bit further and makes you a safer more competent pilot.

Some pics here: https://www.facebook.com/Macarthurstormchasers/

The problem is, none of these measures were ever finalised. The only place they have legal standing is in the Tech Manual. As it stands now, all RPC holders are considered to be L1s. Until the Tech Manual is amended or an Airworthiness Notice issued, the current Tech Manual statement stands.

As stated earlier, the on-line component of the L1 training was phase 1 of a 3 phase program. The principle of phase 1 was to establish whether maintainers understood their responsibilities and could find very basic information in reference manuals. This was to be followed by a hands on phase - choice of attending a workshop or completing your aircrafts annual inspection under the guidance of a suitably qualified maintainer. The final phase spot checks, which were directed by the Qld Coroner's office and normal practice in any SMS. For whatever reason RAAus didnt proceed as planned and committed to do so with CASA.

Maybe during the re-write of the tech manual create two groups of maintenance practices? 1/ Want to do all of your own stuff without being trained or assessed- go for it but don't fly over innocent 3rd parties. Like the roots of AUF. 2/ Want to fly over 3rd parties / mix with commercial aircraft - maintain the aircraft in accordance with approved methods by suitably qualified people, as determined by RAAus.

Just like CASA has imposed on Jabiru powered aircraft? The online portion of the L1 course was simply the first component, it was intended a hands on component was to follow starting April '15 which obviously did not eventuate. The process was to be: - establish the knowledge of basic maintenance practices / responsibilities, then - hands on (assisted annual inspections / workshops) - assess the areas needing improvement then - produce courses focusing on those areas.

Some careful thought needs to be had before stiring up CASA, I'm not saying don't do it but make sure RAAus has its house in order first. There's a matter of a very out-dated technical manual and lack of any formal maintainer training or assessment path to be considered. The tech manual, a legal document empowered under CAO 95.55 (for Jabiru type aircraft) says if you hold an RPC you are automatically blessed as an L1. I'd suggest this clause was written when the owner was the designer/builder/maintainer of the aircraft (95.10 style) and was appropriate for that situation. Building an airframe, then fitting a factory built engine doesn't mean you have the required skills to maintain the engine. You might be the best person to maintain the airframe, but maintenance of an engine requires a different set of skills. At present there is no way of determining whether anyone has that skill set or knowledge. CASA are already concerned about this situation, it's been an ongoing issue for many years. CASA could easily use data to relate Jabiru engine issues to untrained/assessed persons performing maintenance and subject RAAus to more grief. I'm pretty sure the engine manufacturer has been pushing this line for a while, it would be a very easy argument to build.

A couple of things I'd be interested to learn: - do the ATSB get data directly from the RAAus pilots involved in incidents or from RAAus? - if RAAus pilots report to both ATSB and RAAus, is there sufficient data to correlate the reports so they aren't counted twice? - have the failed engines been subject to strip-down and reports by independent qualified persons? - has there been analysis of engines maintained IAW manufacturer's recommendations versus other methods (including whether manufacturer's bulletins had been incorporated at the time of failure)? - what percentage of L2 / LAME maintained versus L1 maintained engines are failing?

My understanding is: Scenario 1 - do the IF / competency on the GA type. Apply to CASA with photo, security check, medical and English language assessment - RPL will be issued with all RAAus endorsements. Complete a flight review and you are ready to go. If operating through controlled airspace (CTA) or into controlled aerodrome (CTR) you'll also need appropriate endorsements. If you're flying from a CTR any flying you do during IF / competency should see you with a CTR endorsement. Scenario 2 - Apply to CASA with photo, security check, English language assessment and medical - RPL will be issued minus the Nav endorsement. (CASA don't have a pax endorsement). Do the dual flying required to become competent in the GA type and complete a flight review. (See comments in scenario 1 regarding CTA/CTR) You can now operate GA types within 25NM, you may complete the IF at you're own pace, once competent and having logged 2.0 hours (of which 1.0 hour can be in an approved simulator) you can apply to have the RPC Nav endorsement added to the RPL. If you have any doubts, give your local CASA aviation safety advisor a call. The NSW AV Safety Advisor, Teraya Miller, is a dual qualified RAAus / GA instructor and knows her stuff. https://www.casa.gov.au/education/standard-page/aviation-safety-advisors If you go to a GA school who says they don't recognise RAAus training, walk away and find one who does.