Roundsounds

Appending CAOs to any manual is not a good practice, it's much better to make reference to them. You also need a proper tracking / reference system allowing the owner of the manual to address any changes to the references. The tech manual is an absolute dog's breakfast. I cannot see how any amateur built aeroplane can possible be maintained in accordance with the tech manual. Then any aircraft with a manufacturers maintenance schedule must be maintained IAW it. Instead it seems there's a mixture of CAO, CASR and manufacturers stuff

I'm not sure, but I hope CASA did audit their SOPs. To quote the Corner's comments regarding a recent gliding accident: "Nevertheless, perhaps they had become over-confident, complacent and reluctant to face the technological changes in the world which mock an old sport based on the winds and silence. The entire procedure depended on fairly amateur rules and traditions which were subject to human error at any time."

As far as using your own aircraft, that could be a different story. The school would need to be dual RAAus and GA with appropriately qualified instructors. If you already hold an RPC you might find doing the training under the RAAus system difficult to justify, as they don't have a CTA/CTR endorsement. However if you are training towards gaining an RPC from a Class D airport it becomes part of the RPC. The entire process is very messy and would need a bunch of lawyers to sort it out.

The CASRs (61.485, 490, 495) do not stipulate any minimum instructional flight time for CTA or CTR endorsements. MOS 2 lists the competencies for CTA and CTR endorsements and there is no flight test involved. The instructor issuing the endorsement must hold a Grade 1 or 2 training endorsement. Bottom line, provided the instructor is satisfied the pilot meets the competency standards they are able to issue the endorsement. To be exercising the instructor's grade 1 or 2 training endorsement they must be making the assessment in a VH registered aeroplane. So, in the case of the 24- and VH rego Foxbats, provided the assessment is completed in the VH rego machine, the instructor would be meeting the requirements of the reg's. As a side issue, 61.500 says if the RAAO issuing the RPC has issued a CTA / CTR endorsement it is recognised on the RPL. Maybe the CASA legislation authors were thinking ahead.

It's worth submitting a defect report, if the Tech manager considers it a safety issue he might raise an airworthiness notice. https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Defect-Report-November-2014_Fillable.pdf

My apologies, I had missed that detail.

As does the RAAus self certification.

When I last looked at the medical requirements on the GFA website they seemed to have the requirements as RAAus (minus the HF training / exam). That is, you self certify, if you're an instructor I recall there was a class 2 required? The motor gliders at Camden can come / go via either the glider or powered runways.

This certainly would be an adequate work around, but why is a workaround needed? I hold a CPLA, Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating and CFI / ATO privileges. To set up a Part 141 flight training organisation I would spend 18 months and around $15K, whereas an RAAus FTF - 4 weeks and less than $500 would see me up and running. I could train RAAus pilots and issue their RPC at a Class D aerodrome, subject to obtaining a CASA exemption. Having gained their RPC they can no longer operate from the Class D aerodrome. However, if the same pilot obtains an ASIC, RAMPC or Class 2 medical, applies for and obtains an RPL from CASA I can do a flight review with the very same pilot I just trained and tested for an RPC, endorse them for Class D operations and off they go in the same RAAus registered aircraft they gained their RPC in! Across the paddock at Camden there are glider pilots, with cross country and passenger carrying privileges operating motorised gliders without holding any CASA issued medical or licence and no Class D airspace endorsement. Where is the safety related case for applying different standards to two similar RAAOs? Maybe Part 149 will address this?

As mentioned earlier, CTA privileges are already provided to RAAus students under an exemption at the old GAAP airports (now modified Class D). Gliding Australia (formerly the GFA) enjoy Class C and D access, their pilots operate on the same basis as RAAus- a certificate issued by their RAAO and a self assessed medical. Camden is a good example of this. A properly prepared submission to CASA, highlighting the discriminatory application of restrictions to airspace use, should see at least Class D access. I know an individual has already raised this with CASA resulting in it being referred to their legal office for consideration, but a lone voice is unlikely to make any ground. This would need a higher profile push to succeed.

Ok, I now see how "Type" is being interpreted. The application of type is inconsistent throughout the manual. Some can be interpreted as aircraft with similar handling characteristics, stall speed, configuration etc. however there are other references to Type which are specific to a particular manufacturer and model. Try doing a word search of the .pdf and you'll see what I mean. The FAA define type as follows: Type: (1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a specific make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications thereto that do not change its handling or flight characteristics. Examples include: DC–7, 1049, and F–27; and (2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means those aircraft which are similar in design. Examples include: DC–7 and DC–7C; 1049G and 1049H; and F–27 and F–27F. (3) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft engines means those engines which are similar in design. For example, JT8D and JT8D–7 are engines of the same type, and JT9D–3A and JT9D–7 are engines of the same type.

You could, but why go to the expense? The Sydney basin only has The Oaks available for FTFs, should The Oaks become unavailable where would RAAus aircraft operate near Sydney? Wedderburn is not friendly from a terrain perspective and they don't allow any commercial ops there. Camden is class D, an FTF can operate from there with a load of restrictions, but as soon as the pilot gains their RPC they are no longer allowed to fly solo without going the RPL route. By contrast, the gliding clubs operate in class D at Camden without the same restrictions imposed on RAAus pilots. The gliding guys have a certificate (not a licence) and self certify medicals - ie the same as RAAus pilots. In fact, an RAAus pilot can join Gliding Australia and do a powered glider conversion with Gliding Australia's equivalent to an FTF, then fly solo / carry pax in a motor glider at Camden in Class D without needing a class 2 medical, GA licence and ARF.

Camel, the final Answer from the FAQs you quoted mentions "recommendation for Type Training". I don't read the ops manual as saying this is a recommendation, rather being a requirement. I would suggest a Type is a type (eg Jabiru J170, Skyfox Gazelle etc) not a class, group or fitted equipment (eg high performance, two stroke, glass cockpit, spoilers etc.)

Don, if you want a hand to put forward a submission I'd be happy to assist.

There is provision to make a written submission to the Ops Mgr for approval to fly a type without an endorsement: (e) provide written proof to the Operations Manager of an appropriate recognised qualification.

I had a discussion with Ops when ver 7 was still in draft suggesting they go the GA way, but the intent is training on each aircraft type. eg If you learn in a Jabiru and now want to fly a Technam Sierra - you need an "endorsement" irrespective of your experience. This change is the result of several accidents involving early / first flights on a new type and reportedly involved pilots with little and lots of experience. The sooner the incident database is up and running the better, cause you'll be able to prove / disprove these assumptions.

Are you saying CASA is denying RAAus RPC holders access to class D airspace on the basis of them being "cowboys"? I would have said it is a legacy of the days of Skycraft Scouts etc and the incompatibility of mixing with GA aircraft. Existing rules allow an RAAus pilot to come and go from airports like Albury, mixing with RPT, when the Tower is closed but not when it's open. How does that stack up from a safety perspective, which is CASA's purpose in life.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but..... TYPE TRAINING (AEROPLANE) 18. An applicant undertaking training for a specific aeroplane type must: (a) hold the appropriate aeroplane Group rating; and (b) complete theory training to the satisfaction of an RA-Aus Examiner; and © undertake flight training to meet the competency requirements of Unit 1.11 of the RA-Aus Syllabus of Flight Training, in the type of aeroplane sought; and (d) pass a flight check with an RA-Aus Examiner; or (e) provide written proof to the Operations Manager of an appropriate recognised qualification. I recall having a discussion with Op's about this when version 7 of the Op's Manual was being drafted. See section 2.05-9

Under CASR Part 61 you can't just jump into an aircraft in the class your licence allows you to fly (eg single engine aeroplane) with appropriate design feature endorsements. 61.385 the General Competency rule applies. 61.385 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences— general competency requirement (1) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the class or type to which the aircraft belongs, including in all of the following areas: (a) operating the aircraft’s navigation and operating systems; (b) conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures for the aircraft; © applying operating limitations; (d) weight and balance requirements; (e) applying aircraft performance data, including take-off and landing performance data, for the aircraft. So you need to be familiar with the operating procedures and handling characteristics of the particular aeroplane before launching. The rules don't say how you do this, a person with a broad range of type experience may be able to read up then go flying. Whereas a less experienced person might need some dual instruction. RAAus require training on all new types, even more restrictive than GA.

I know this thread is old, but thought I'd fire it up again. Has anyone considered there is another RAAO who's pilot are permitted to operate in controlled airspace, both D and C. Their pilots hold a certificate issued by the RAAO, they self certify their medical and operate in class D regularly, without the same restrictions as RAAus, from Camden - no GA licence or class 2 medical. The RAAO is Gliding Australia (Gliding Federation of Australia), an interesting double standard.

Sadly, probably using the road as a ground reference line.

Instructors over do the "airspeed with elevator" etc thing. An aircrafts performance is determined by power and attitude. Performance includes airspeed, rate of climb or descent and I'd suggest rate of turn too. You need to assess your energy state before making corrections to the approach. Without trying to get too technical, the aircraft has potential energy (height) and kinetic energy (airspeed). You need to assess both factors before you make any corrections. For example, you might be high and slow. So the standard thing would be reduce power to fix high, lower the nose to fix slow - before you know what's going on you're now too low. The better fix would've been to think, ok I'm high but slow - so if I lower the nose to regain airspeed, I'll also fix being too high. There are also a few "armchair flying" exercises I could suggest which might help you get your head around this, the other key is to have a structured scan or work cycle. Flying is a bit like juggling, focus too long on one ball and you'll drop the others.

Instructors over do the "airspeed with elevator" etc thing. An aircrafts performance is determined by power and attitude. Performance includes airspeed, rate of climb or descent and I'd suggest rate of turn too. You need to assess your energy state before making corrections to the approach. Without trying to get too technical, the aircraft has potential energy (height) and kinetic energy (airspeed). You need to assess both factors before you make any corrections. For example, you might be high and slow. So the standard thing would be reduce power to fix high, lower the nose to fix slow - before you know what's going on you're now too low. The better fix would've been to think, ok I'm high but slow - so if I lower the nose to regain airspeed, I'll also fix being too high. There are also a few "armchair flying" exercises I could suggest which might help you get your head around this, the other key is to have a structured scan or work cycle. Flying is a bit like juggling, focus too long on one ball and you'll drop the others.

I'd suggest completing the RPC with a school who train to a standard equivalent / higher than the RPL. Conversion to the RPL should be pretty straight forward. To boost membership by attracting more GA pilots to convert to RAAus the minimum of 5 hours in an RAAus type should be removed for 3 axis and based on competency (a flight review). Should the FR reveal any shortcomings (eg need to develop EFATO skills on low inertia aircraft) then provide whatever training is required. There's nothing to stop the existing 5 hours requirement to be accrued on a couple of Navs, which does little to prove competency.

I'd suggest completing the RPC with a school who train to a standard equivalent / higher than the RPL. Conversion to the RPL should be pretty straight forward. To boost membership by attracting more GA pilots to convert to RAAus the minimum of 5 hours in an RAAus type should be removed for 3 axis and based on competency (a flight review). Should the FR reveal any shortcomings (eg need to develop EFATO skills on low inertia aircraft) then provide whatever training is required. There's nothing to stop the existing 5 hours requirement to be accrued on a couple of Navs, which does little to prove competency.