Roundsounds

Both the Australian Gliding and Balloon Federations have controlled airspace privileges now, using only a self certified medical. They have never been restricted in their operations in CTA/CTR. The question should be - " why are RAAus operations restricted?"

I'm pretty sure a review of accident stats (GA and RAA) would prove a high rate of fatalities involve low flying - often including power lines or beat ups. Why promote a flying activity (LL endorsement) which is high risk and no benefit if conducted for other than commercial purposes? No argument against dual ops as part of flight training.

No issues in training LL skills, just questioning the need to "qualify" a person to go do it for fun.

Where and when does an RAAus LL endorsement allow a pilot to fly at low level?

I would strongly oppose the continuation of low level operations for anyone other than those requiring a LL endorsement. LL for pure "fun" has proven to be deadly....... repeatedly. Unless you're flying up a valley there are very few obstructions that reach 500'AGL, if they do they are usually easy to spot. For a person who uses the qualification for day to day operations (farmers etc), they remain current and often know the land like the back of their hand.

Seems like a few people on here should review CAAP 166-1(3). Some of the content in the link provided by DrZoos is out of date, particularly the radio broadcast recommendations - way too many. CAAP166-1 provides the current view on RT at NCTL aerodromes.

ATSB report on a fatal collision on the runway at Hoxton Park several years ago: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/aair/aair199900970.aspx

I think there might be some information missing in this story. How long does it take to backtrack 2/3 of the way down a runway? Given the aircraft called entering the circuit, wouldn't there be sufficient time to complete the backtrack and depart? If I heard someone calling to say they were backtracking on runway xx, I wouldn't necessarily acknowledge the call, unless it was worded such that a response was required. As a side issue, I have noticed an increasing number of pilots entering and backtracking along a runway before they have completed their pre-takeoff checks, then hold on the threshold whilst they complete them - often in the lined up position!

CAR 162 (5) says an aircraft on the ground or water must give way to an aircraft landing. If you were backtracking at say 10 knots, you were covering about 330 metres/minute, given a circuit takes about 3 minutes to complete from the beginning of downwind it must be a very long runway! Clearing the runway means you are outside of the runway strip, not just off the sealed section (ie outside the white gable markers). I find people's understanding of this is pretty poor, leagally you cannot land if another aircraft simply pulls off onto the grass but remains inside the white cones / gables. The exception being where a flight strip is designated for use by gliders, appropriately marked and stated in the ERSA or NOTAM (Temora is an example). It's situations like this that make RAA pilots look bad in to the GA fraternity. I'm not necessarily saying two light aircraft cannot safely operate by holding on the grass flight strip whilst another lands or takes off, but it's not legal.

The Telegraph has reported a light aeroplane has made a forced landing in a paddock near Camden at Brownlow Hill. Nil / minor injuries and seems to be a Liberty XL-2 VH-CZS, grapevine says control system issues.

That method, in my opinion, is a hairy chested macho thing and has no place in aviation from a human factors perspective. Sure it's worked ok for many years, but I'd rather let the nerves settle in with me in the aeroplane than with me standing at the side of the runway. I've always given notice to the student, along the lines of "well I reckon you're getting near solo standard, how do you feel about it?" or "if you can repeat that standard next time I reckon you could go solo, what do you think?"

Rod did an outstanding job, everyone survived and only one minor injury from memory. Rod's decision to ditch the aeroplane rather than persist with an assymetric condition which may not have had as favourable an outcome took quick thinking and decisive action.

Like Nev says, everyone else will be using a pressure sensitive (barometric) altimeter. For VFR operations that's all you need, too many gadgets can provide too much information and become a distraction.

Might be worth suggesting to your instructor that you'd like to start the next phase of training? (Steep turns, advanced stalling, PFL, IF etc.) I've done this many times over the years with students if there are delays to solo op's. I've noted an increase in confidence and competency with most students I've done this with.

It sounds like it's going to greatly improve things!

Hmmm, there proof reeder misseded this won in the E-male.... "If there are errors or omissions, simply update the details. You will be able to update most details. Where there are errors or omissions please use the contact form on the website to let us know so we can fix any errors or omissions for you."

The "plan" with the last L1 trial included a practical component, it was to take place once the level of legal / theory knowledge was established. The "trial" was intended to find out if any further theory training was needed, based on the pass rate there would not be any further theory needed. There were 2 practical streams proposed, one for a pilot already maintaining their aircraft, which involved fronting up to their next flight review with aircraft and maintenance records to a suitably qualified CFI/L2 for an assessment. If all was in order, L1 blessing given, if not then remedial training / fix aircraft, then blessing. The other stream was for new aircraft owners and involved a "workshop" run by persons capable and willing to deliver basic skills and assessment of competency. These could be held all around the country by non RAAus staff. But for some reason this path was not followed. They way I see it, maintaining an aircraft is like flying one. The person doing the flying or fixing needs a range of skills to do the job safely and legally. RAAus could use online methods to train and assess the theory and legal stuff (like the various pilot exams it sets), but not the practical. There needs to be a network of maintenance training facilities (MTF) like FTFs. These could be attached to FTFs, if they have suitably qualified trainers and assessors, or perhaps you approach a local LAME and do some work experience with their shop and have a list of tasks signed off by them.

The NTSB create some great short videos, here's one relevant to most aircraft types:

Just had another browse of the Clear Mind booklet. It would have been nice to provide some link between the "10 Tips for a successful flight" and the HF material listed in the syllabus. Rather than just pointing out the possible errors you might make, link them to the use of checklists, decision making processes, threat and error management etc. I also noticed the booklet isn't dated, have a version number or provide a point of contact to report any errors or mistakes.

Hopefully the CASA MOS Schedule 2 CTA and CTR competency standards will be adopted. Same story for "lost procedures". Seems like an inefficient use of resources to develop a set of competency standards when there are a set out there. Particularly when they've been developed over many years by a bunch of experienced people. Here are the competency standards found in MOS 2 regarding the lost procedure: NAV.6 – Perform lost procedure (a) acknowledge positional uncertainty in a timely manner; (b) configure aircraft for range and endurance as required; © apply recognised method to re-establish aircraft position; (d) fix position; (e) use radio to request assistance, if applicable; (f) plan a timely precautionary search and landing if unable to complete flight safely to suitable aerodrome. There are plenty of commercially produced pilot training manuals which put meaning to / describe what each of the points mean to a trainee pilot / instructor.

Thanks Sue, I thought the minimum hours might have aligned with the RPL. Only minimum hours being 5 hours solo cross country and meet the competency standards and 2 hours of simulated instrument flight. Given there seems to be a desire for RAAus to take over the administration of the RPL from CASA, I thought any changes would be to align the RAAus 3 axis class syllabus with that issued by CASA.

Has anyone seen the new training syllabus previewed at the CFI conference at Bundaberg? Didn't see any mention of it on the agenda.

The CAR 157 exemption makes sense for 95.10 aircraft, but why not just satisfy CAR 157 for 95.55 types? Not too sure about 95.32?

The title of the CAAP is a hint, CAAP 5.81 is based on CAR 5.81 which ain't no more. It's hard to believe, but CASA hasn't updated the CAAP to reflect the Part 61 stuff. For example, it's now acceptable to complete an AFR in a MEA class aeroplane and it covers your SEA class.