Roundsounds

I also use a kneepad when on cross country flights, but always remove it for takeoff and landing. If you review the video at 6:42 you'll see what I mean. He can use full right aileron, provided the control column is full forward. I'm not criticising the guy, just pointing out traps. Control checks include "full and free movement, correct response" With regards to do lists, by all means use them but you should go back and run the check list. I've seen numerous events where critical a item in a procedure was missed as the line was jumped, by going back through the same list when you think it's complete, you will reduce the chances of an error. I use a pneumonic for my before takeoff checks, followed by the written checklist.

A few observations made watching the video: - Too many distracting gadgets (iPad, ADSB receiver on glare shield, knee pad) - Knee pad limited control wheel movement, not good if landing with a right crosswind. - Checklist used as do list (do checks from memory, then use the checklist to make sure you didn't miss anything, which why they're called "check" lists) - Too much chatter between pilots, which led to missing aircraft on RWY 27 calls. - Aircraft on final 27 didn't respond to the line-up call of aircraft entering 32 So much for radio calls preventing traffic conflicts, lots and lots of talking but the good old lookout saved the day!

To put this into perspective, 5 aircraft doing circuits (average 6 minutes per circuit) all giving 3 calls per circuit at say 7 seconds per call. 360 seconds of radio time to accomodate 15 calls totalling 105 seconds. This leaves 17 seconds between calls to allow taxying, inbound, joining and overfly calls. A base call is all that is needed when flying circuits, it's up to pilots to maintain situational awareness (mental picture of traffic) and to not become reliant on radio calls to keep tabs on traffic. Downwind calls came into effect when GAAP were developed, as the call suited ATC for sequencing purposes. The old Secondary Airport procedures had traffic making base calls, which worked well. (Secondary Airport procedures were in effect before GAAP / Class D)

The only way the communication issue can be identified is by submitting incident reports for each event. CASA / ATSB cannot act on the matter in any other way, they need the statistics. So, if you have an incident involving communication issues raise an ASIR: http://www.atsb.gov.au/mandatory/asair.aspx

I'm not too sure about the right turn at 500' being acceptable? Try reading CAR166A or AIP ENR 1.1-71 para 43.1. Basically it says you must depart by extending a leg of the circuit, if turning opposite the normal circuit direction you should be 3 miles from the departure end of the runway. CAAP 166-1 is worth reading, it also spells this out and the recommended radio procedures for non-controlled aerodromes.

I get Ada's point, an instructor should know that basic stuff. By all means suggest something more conservative with justification, but at least know the answer.

The answer is actually in AIP- AIP ENR 1.2, Visual Flight Rules: 1.1.2 Unless the pilot in command is authorised under CASR Part 61 to conduct a flight under the IFR or at night under the VFR and the aircraft is appropriately equipped for flight at night or under the IFR, a VFR flight must not: be conducted at night; and depart from an aerodrome unless the ETA for the destination (or alternate) is at least 10 minutes before last light allowing for any required holding. Or in the VFRG, pretty basic and simple rule. http://www.vfrg.com.au/operations/general-information/visual-flight-rules/

The speed differences between most GA singles and RAAus aircraft in the circuit is insignificant. Flying an appropriate sized circuit and approach for the speed of the aircraft will overcome most of the issues caused by differences, any remaining issues are dealt with by ATS. After all that's ATS's purpose in life, to stop aircraft from bumping into each other and facilitating an expeditious flow of air traffic.

Perhaps, rather than insist on PPL theory, introduce some form of on-line training targeting theory issues specific to RAAus type aircraft? The suggestion of an on-line format is to create standardised training, allows remote pre-study for prospective instructors without the need to cram when attending an instructor approved school. Additionally, this allows students and RPC holders the ability to improve / refresh their knowledge. The content could initially be driven by findings from incident data - eg stall/spin or weather related decision making practices. Instructor trainees could be required to pass a written exam prior to commencing their instructor training to establish they have a sound knowledge of RAAus aircraft type BAK and Human Factors principles.

Nev, the pure gliders do as you state for comps, however motor glider pilots operate as though they have a PPL. For example at Camden (Class D), motor glider operations are permitted on a self certified medical, no GA quals and have a controlled airspace endorsement issued by the GFA. The pure glider operators also self certify medicals, but aren't required to hold an airspace endorsement. Private balloon pilots also operate from Camden, again no GA quals or CASA medical. Glaring double standards, I dare say the RAAus airspace limitations are a legacy from the days of ops not above 300', unreliable power plants, single seat aircraft and self taught pilots.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but.... how is it GFA and Ballooning Certificate holders are permitted to operate in CTA, but not RAAus? If RAAus were granted the ability to operate in at least Class D, that would open the sport up to our larger / capital city folk and potentially give RAAus a larger membership, voice and viability.

While I'm on my high horse.... You can teach spin awareness without spinning an aeroplane, just like you can teach ditching without actually ditching. A series of discussions during training with appropriate demonstrations / guided and monitored practice of scenarios leading to a stall / spin conducted at a safe height can be done - like I do. This subject could be the target of an on-line training package (video / fact sheets). Under CASR Part 61 all new Grade 3 instructors are required to hold a spinning endorsement. No reason why some sort of GA training for RAAus instructors couldn't be completed in say a C150/2, Citabria, Tiger Moth or GA registered Cub or Champ - similar handling to most 3 axis RAAus training aeroplanes. Then instructors would at least know what a spin entry looks like.

Could agree more, an inadvertent spin from anywhere in the circuit will not be recoverable by a pilot capable of entering such a spin! Early recognition of the tell-tale signs of a spin (stick position / unbalanced flight / holding off bank) is far more important than spin recovery and its achievable in any RAAus registered aeroplane.

Here is a current example of poor training: I recently finished training a young guy to fly. As part of his training we stalled the aeroplane with power on, off, clean, landing configuration, turning and induced wing drops (I'm also a GA instructor and teach aerobatics, so am comfortable to train correct stall recognition and recovery within the limits of RAAus aircraft). Having gained his pilot certificate at an FTF a fair distance from his home town he decided to get checked out in a local FTF aircraft. During the upper air sequence he was to demonstrate a stall recovery, he tells me the instructor almost wet himself at the suggestion of stalling the aeroplane in a turn! The FTF insists on glide approaches, but don't allow slipping but use s-turns to lose height. When asked why glide approaches in a Rotax 912 powered aeroplane was considered necessary he was told the earlier "Ultralight" aircraft had two stroke engines which were prone to stopping, so every approach is a glide approach and have carried on this practice. A couple of points here: 1. The operator insists on doing low level turns on final approach to lose height, yet doesn't teach or practice stall recovery in turns. 2. The operator's reasoning for glide approaches in a modern 4 stroke powered aeroplane is like teaching Cirrus SR22 pilots to do glide approaches because that's what was done in Tiger Moths. I'm quite sure there are poor practices in GA too, but from my observations some instructors can't put training of certain sequences into context. I don't know what the answer is?

1. Establish an incident database so the common causes, aircraft type, pilot profile etc can be determined. 2. Create educational material targeting the common topics determined from the incident data base. The material would be in the form of on-line video and fact sheets. 3. Make the common causes of incidents discussion points during flight reviews.

It might be time for some of you people to review CAR 166C and CAAP 166-1(3). In my experience there's way too many uneccessary calls being made on CTAF frequencies. The clear of runway and downwind calls being good examples, I put these down to GAAP/ClassD habits. The CAAP 166-1 recommended calls being: - taxying - entering runway - inbound - joining circuit - straight in approach - any time there is an imminent collision risk Keep a good lookout, just cause you don't hear another aircraft on the wireless doesn't mean there aren't any in the circuit with you!

CAO 95.4 doesn't place any limitations on operations in any class of airspace. The GFA operations manual only requires a controlled airspace endorsement for pilots operating powered sailplanes, appendix 6 of the GFA Operational Regulations refers. A standard Glider Pilot Certificate doesn't require any endorsement, apparently it's addressed under item 36 of the training syllabus - "Navigation and Airspace". Which as mentioned in earlier posts, there's no requirement for a glider pilot to hold any GA qualifications to operate in controlled airspace.

In my 35+ years operating from Camden I have seen many motor gliders operate from 06/24. When there was a Stemme based there it was almost SOP to use the sealed runways to avoid prop strikes. No aircraft at any of the old GAAP airports follow Class D procedures, they follow some locally created hybrid procedures. Albury, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth operate IAW the Class D procedures published in AIP. With reference to the comment regarding unsafe pilots being permitted to fly, I haven't seen the statistics to support your statement. Would you mind directing me to the location of these stat's?

If GFA and Balloon Federation certificate holders have controlled airspace access with self-certified medicals and no GA qual's I don't see why RAAus shouldn't be extended the same privileges. We would not be asking for any special treatment, just the same as equivalent RAAOs.

Based on the current approach being taken by RAAus to gaining airspace privileges, it's unlikely there will be any result for at least a couple of years.

The CTA stuff could be introduced within a month or so, if approached correctly. The matter of weight increases however is a different story. The tech area needs some serious tidying up (which I'm sure is well underway behind the scenes). The tech manual has no resemblance of what is actually taking place in the field. There needs to be a set of competencies developed for L1 and L2 qualifications (these are already available under the National Qualifications Framework - so would take little modification, if any, to adapt to the RAAus world). This would allow a objective assessment of applicants based on prior experience and for the right people to establish training courses for L1 / 2 applicants and keep CASA off our backs. In my opinion RAAus isn't in the business of training pilots or maintainers.

The matter of gaining airspace privileges for RAAus pilots should be at the top of the organisation's priorities. The number of pilots I speak to who are obtaining , or planning to obtain their RPL is growing rapidly. This means there's a risk of losing these members to GA, additionally CTR would allow FTFs to be established at Class D airports. The class D airports are located in areas of high population, this would provide a lower cost training option for prospective pilots and grow the RAAus membership.

A Balloon pilot holding a Private Pilot Certificate issued by the ABF can operate in controlled airspace subject to holding an endorsement on their Pilot Certificate (again no valid GA licence required).

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the GFA operate on the basis of a self certified medical for private flights. An amateur built glider or VH registered aircraft (hmm must look up balloons too!) don't have limitations on the airspace they operate in. RAAus pilots are suffering discrimination, it would be interesting to see the CASA response to this being pointed out to them.

The precedent of the GFA having CTA / CTR privileges should be used to amend CAO 95.55 and highlight the discriminatory application of restrictions. Citing the regulations of other ICAO compliant NAAs would also support the case. I don't see why the RPL MOS CTA/CTR competencies couldn't be used and I don't see any examination requirement under Part 61. (In fact, I don't see why RAAus doesn't adopt the RPL competencies for the three axis syllabus). As far as qualifying instructors, granting those holding / having held a GA FIR the ability to train and assess pilots and instructors would be the answer. I reckon I could put together a proposal within a week, it just needs the support of the appropriate people within RAAus.