Roundsounds

It doesn't need to be that difficult or costly and you can do it in phases. An RA-Aus Pilot Certificate holder can obtain an RPL then complete the Flight Review in a type they are familiar with, OCTA and use a Recreational Aviation medical (RAMPC). Be prepared for the flight review and it should be too extensive if you're up to standard: http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_81_1.pdf Don't let people con you, a grade 1 or 2 instructor can complete flight reviews in their own right, so you don't need to go through a school. You only need a school to complete flight training towards gaining a licence or rating. Endorsements and flight reviews are not considered to be flight training. The initial exercise shouldn't cost more than an hours dual plus the CASA fee and medical (which isn't a bad thing anyway). Further down the track you can add airspace and check-outs on other types, if you want to carry more than 1 passenger (aircraft limited to 1500kg Max takeoff weight - Cessna 182, Piper Arrow fit in easily), do the class 2 and away you go.

I would suggest the Flight Review requirement under Part 61 must be performed by a suitably rated flight instructor who holds a Part 61 qualification. A GA. Instructor cannot exercise their Part 61 privileges in an RA registered aircraft.

I agree and gaining simulated partial / complete engine failure experience in a variety of different aircraft types will improve your ability to handle real failures.

Head in the clouds. I have had several complete and many partial engine failures in my flying career and in my earlier instructing days did shut engines down. I stopped doing that after two different aircraft were found to have cracked cylinders, both in aircraft we regularly shut down engines for practice glide approaches. As far as difference in sound / feel I address that when briefing the student and reinforce it during simulations in-flight. Once your FTF has its SMS in place I'm sure you could run the exercise through a risks assessment process and decide from there whether you do or don't shut down in flight. BTW I recently trained and tested a guy who's subsequently had 2 engine complete engine failures and both he and his aeroplane are still flying.

I don't understand the desire to shut down engines in flight, single or multi. The difference in an engine at idle versus one windmilling or stopped makes so little difference the associated risks just aren't worth taking, not to mention the damage it does to air-cooled engines. I'm all for simulating engine failures and believe partial failures aren't trained well enough. A partial failure can be more difficult to deal with in some ways as the decision to use available power or close the throttle and land needs to be made. I've seen some very interesting responses to these scenarios during flight tests and flight reviews.

Congratulations, did my first solo 8000 odd hours and 36 years ago and can still remember the great feeling!

I I think you'll find 61.1230 says it's an offence not to tell CASA about the flight review if it's not being conducted under a 141/142 organisation. If conducted under a 141/142 organisation they hold the responsibility to report the AFR to CASA. CASR 61.1220 requires the instructor to notify CASA of a flight review and maintain records of such. The key is in the title of the reg'. 61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator Time will tell if things are better or worse, I reckon it's down to how the industry accepts the new regs.

Reference Part 61.... The holder of an RAAus pilot certificate can produce their qual's to CASA and will be issued with a CASA RPL. Before they can exercise the privileges of the RPL they must complete a Flight Review with an appropriately qualified GA instructor and hold a medical certificate. They will be limited to MTOW of 1500kg and 4 PoB (if they hold a Class 2 or higher medical or 2 PoB if they go the "car licence" medical) cross country rating carries over and airspace endorsements can be added. With class 2 medical can do aeros endorsement. No IFR or NVFR allowed, further upgrade to a full PPLA shouldn't involve too much effort by ethical flying schools, assuming the RAA instruction was of a reasonable standard. Re PPL instructors, they can deliver instruction for things other than gaining a licence or rating for topics in which they have demonstrated proficiency. That leaves things such as design features, formation and aerobatics. Under Part 61 appropriately qualified instructors will be permitted to undertake flight reviews independently (ie they don't need to operate under an AOC) This is all covered in CASR Part 61 and the relevant MOSs, it will be easier than the current regs once you get used to the layout, I found starting with the list of contents made things a bit easier. In summary, things will be better under Part 61!

Another good reference regarding Rules and Regs is the Day VFR Syllabus. Section 3, Theoretical Knowledge describes what CASA expects a GA pilot with Quals equal to an RAA pilot certificate to know. Alternatively pick up a theory manual produced by Bob Tait, ATC or Dyson-Holland and review the Flight Rules section. It's probably more appropriate than trying to digest the CAR, CASR etc. would also be worth reviewing the various exemptions RAA operate under, there are links to them under the Safety tab on the RAA site. Then I would be asking your flight instructor why they didn't get you to do this in the first place!! http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fcl/download/vfrasfull.pdf

Just a couple of points: A procedure provides a systematic way of preparing the aircraft for a phase of flight or dealing with a fault or failure. eg before take off or engine fire. These are most effectively performed from memory. A checklist should be completed after the procedure has been performed to ensure no steps were missed. Think of procedure as a do list and a checklist to check you did do.

KAtoomba NSW ? YKAT

I find it interesting to read many RAAus pilots seem to be under the impression the CASA rules and regs only apply to GA pilots. Aside from those mentioned in a couple of exemptions, most of the CASA rules and regs apply to all aviators.

I know of a guy lives in CB and keeps his aircraft at Adaminiby.

I would suggest you don't do any further solo until you've sorted out this apprehension of slow flight. You need to be able to fly the aircraft happily in all phases of flight by setting appropriate power and attitude combinations, then verify airspeed by reference to the ASI. Perhaps you are doing this subconsciously and the ASI is misreading? Should the ASI be misreading you must be able to confidently identify the error, then safely fly an approach and landing. With all of my students, I cover the ASI and altimeter and have them fly circuits (once they are near solo standard). This helps develop confidence in their ability to fly by power + attitude and eyeball circuit / final turn heights without blind abeyance of instruments which may be in error. A bug up the pitot or some water in the static system can lead to all sorts of errors in the ASI and/or Altimeter.

CAAP 5.81, page 15 logging of flight time states a flight review is to be logged as dual. The only time this may change is if it conducted as a proficiency check as part of a commercial operation in such cases ICUS may be appropriate. The only exception to this would be under para 7.5, which allows a flight review to be completed in a single place aeroplane being observed by an appropriately qualified person on the ground. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_81_1.pdf

Yes GG: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_07_1.html

This subject is probably an ideal topic to run through a risk assessment process (a process experienced aviators do continuously without being conscious of it) Considerations could include: - Effect on an engine life subjected to in flight shutdowns as opposed to operating at idle - difference in glide performance with engine at idle versus shutdown (a few knots of breeze would likely have a greater effect) - risk of accident when committed to an engine out approach and landing - training value if instructor is required to provide verbal input or take over in over/undershoot with engine shutdown versus letting the situation develop knowing power is available at idle.

I am a relative new comer to RAAus, however have a reasonable amount of experience in GA. The assumption you can jump from one GA single engined aircraft type into another without some form of instruction is not always correct. It will depend upon your previous experience as to how you transition between aircraft types, I would think a similar approach could be used in the RAAus world. CAO 40.1.0, para 4 - "Authority Given by class endorsements" (a GA PPL holder will generally be issued a class endorsement to operate piston engine aircraft with a max takeoff weight below 5700kg, to which you can add design features such as retractable undercarriage, tailwheel, etc) Para 4 reads: 4.4 The holder of a class endorsement must not fly as pilot in command or co‑pilot of any aeroplane included in the class unless he or she: (a) is familiar with the systems, the normal and emergency flight manoeuvres and aircraft performance, the flight planning procedures, the weight and balance requirements and the practical application of take-off and landing charts of the aeroplane to be flown; and (b) has sufficient recent experience or training in the aeroplane type, or in a comparable type, to safely complete the proposed flight; and © if an aeroplane in that class has a special design feature, holds a special design feature endorsement referred to in paragraph 5.1 for that design feature. Note The owner and operator of an aeroplane included in a class of aeroplane should: (a) ensure that a person who proposes to fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of the aeroplane complies with subparagraph 4.4 (a); and (b) where necessary, require the person to provide evidence of recent experience or training in the aeroplane type or in a comparable aeroplane type; and © if the aeroplane has a special design feature, ensure that the person holds a special design feature endorsement for that design feature. Once you have experience on several types the "comparable type" clause may cover you. Becoming familiar with handling, systems etc may be a matter of reading a manual or talking to someone with experience on type. I've flown several single seat GA types and that's the method I used.

The delay in Part 61 as the result of this review has greatest negative impact on the RAAus / GA end of town. We have Phillip Reiss representing us via AOPA and can submit our own submissions via the following link: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr