K-man

Maybe that's a flaw in RPC training (not including IF), clearly CASA believe it's required for VH aircraft. How much of the $3000 was spent "learning" a new aircraft type? It's still my opinion that RA should do away with the RPC and work on transferring all members to RPL, keeping the exceptions for operating UL aircraft and medical requirements.

I don't have an issue with the IF training. I have said elsewhere that I think it should be a requirement for RA if you are flying cross country. I hadn't even considered that before I read the requirement.

Learning the new aircraft was 2 hours, so about $650 from memory.

 

I have to disagree with your thoughts on doing away with the RPC. If we want to keep recreational flying affordable we should be working towards making the RPC as good or better than the RPL. We all share the same airspace so we all should be competent. It used to annoy the crap out of me when some PPLs used to suggest my certificate was second rate. I had my RPC because it was sufficient for my needs, not because I wasn't good enough to earn a PPL. I still think that we should have the opportunity to have the CTA and CTX endorsements under RAA.

 

 

Roger that...sort of what i was alluding too...however at the time i was doing it CASA itself was extremely unclear about exactly what was expected...So I am happily waiting for some pioneers to make a clearer conversion trail for me..

 

I actually have been granted the RPL, but funnily , I have no medical, no flight test, no instrument time and no English test done....

 

Its a piece of paper not worth anything except the processing fee....

Actually, that is what was originally meant to happen. For RA pilots we were meant to apply for and receive our RPL. To use it was a whole lot more. You do need a valid medical. Then you need to do a flight review in a GA aircraft. The English language test is just crazy, having to interpret some guy impersonating a foreign pilot who is attempting to speak English.

Then it gets more confusing. I have flown our aircraft (RA) all around Australia with my RPC without any instrument flying but with my RPL to fly the same aircraft around Australia, I have to do 2 hours instrument flying to activate the Nav endorsement. How does that work when all endorsements were meant to carry over?

 

The simple 'apply for the RPL then undertake a flight review' ended up costing me more than $3,000 (including CTA and CTX).

 

 

Not trying to gloat (especially for people with long trips just to get to a strip), but I just walk out the back door, up to my hangar, and when ready just taxi out onto Taree Airport and go.Compared to others, I guess I can't complain about the grass runway next to my hangar continually being closed...

[ATTACH=full]36895[/ATTACH]

 

My place is the blue roofed house and hangar in foreground.

Hmm! They're only little crosses. Who's going to notice a little plane?

(just kidding)

 

 

It is a Sonex.

 

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/lethbridge-plane-crash-man-dead-after-heavy-landing/story-fnjuhovy-1227433595983

 

 

I'm not sure Australians have a particular aversion to rules. but they have proven they don't always trust their so called " superiors" to be good enough to let things pass unchallenged where required. You earn respect rather than demand it because of rank or whatever.This is one of the reasons we have/had one of the best air safety records in the world.. It won't last because there is a concerted effort to eliminate the bearer of bad news , rather than the cause of the bad news itself..Nev

Well, for starters, over 42% of the population have used illicit drugs. Of course there's nothing wrong with that. We all know that drugs don't cause harm to most people so no problem there. And of course speed limits are for the guidance of wise men and obedience of fools. Speeding isn't an issue for people who know how to drive properly. How many people have a criminal history? That comes from breaking rules. Drinking and driving? Driving unlicensed? I'd say a big percentage of Australians have quite an aversion to 'rules'.

Now, how much does that translate to flying? I would hope that pilots have a totally different attitude but like most of us, I have seen my share of cowboys. Maybe we do have a good overall safety record but if that is true why is this thread in existence? 35 deaths in 30 months! I don't think it is acceptable and I think we will see a massive knee jerk reaction if it continues. That could find all of us using our legs instead of our wings if the action against Jabiru is any measure.

 

 

If I might be so bold Sir,. . . I have flown in several countries, and have encountered that attitude, so I do not think it is fair to attribute this particular condition to Australian Pilots alone. . . . From what I have seen, heard about and read,. . .It seems to be prevalent everywhere, mainly where "New" or otherwise fairly inexperienced and YOUNG pilots are involved.

Phil, my observation was not aimed specifically at Australian pilots. It was aimed at Australians in general where we have a reputation for being just a little lax when it comes to rules.

I was surmising that a small number of Aussie pilots might carry that attitude into the air where they may well be putting theirs hands up to receive a 'Darwin Award' in recognition of their aeronautical feats.

 

 

Geoff, I just hope that if I ever have a similar experience, I have the same presence of mind that you demonstrated. Well done.

 

 

Australians are not particularly renown for obeying the rules. It would be interesting to go through the coronial reports to see the actual cause of the crashes. Then you could see whether there were issues with aircraft or issues with pilots. My bet is at least 95% would be pilot error.

 

I went looking at press reports and found this to do with one of the crashes. The pilot had his licence for about two months but a friend described him as a 'good pilot'. He hit powerlines after flying low over a friends house. What 'good pilot' does that?

 

I don't think there is much you can do to convince young bulletproof guys that they are not bulletproof. We have the 'human factors' course, but really, what does it achieve apart from trying to point out to people that things go pear shape very quickly if you aren't on top of your game?

 

The adage of the old pilots or bold pilots but no old, bold pilots is particularly apt. I don't see flying as such to be terribly risky. I think it is most likely people flying outside the envelope are responsible for most of the incidents.

 

 

I reckon wearing trousers is far more dangerous than flying. So many people found dead wearing pants.

 

 

The 2hours instrument flying is only for the Nav Endorsement and the English Prof for the Radio Endorsement. Both worthwhile endorsements to have but not actually required for a RPL.Personally I sent the paperwork for just the RPL and got my endorsements signed off during my flight review.

Technically true but this thread is about converting your RPC to the RPL. In converting all your RA endorsements originally they were simply to be recognised. Now that has changed and you have to do the extra work to enjoy the same privileges. So much for a straight conversion of RPC to RPL.

But following on from that. How can anyone sign off your cross country endorsement on your flight review if you haven't got the two hours of instrument flying? The way I read it, you can either transfer your RA endosements across with the additional training or you have to undertake the entire endorsement process from scratch to add to the RPL. That would mean redoing all your cross country time. So yes, you don't need the 2 hours up front but, unless someone is fudging your application, that will cost you an extra 5 hours flying.

 

The only additional endorsements I want is CTA and CTX. That will end up taking 3 or 4 hours. Altogether this conversion will have taken me about 10 flying hours.

 

 

To get the RPL all you need to do is fill out a few forms and send it off to CASA. You'll need to do a flight review before you can use the licence, this might take a few hours/lessons with a new instructor or aircraft. Any endorsements could be done at the same time as the review (assuming you're at the standard for them to be issued, and meet the required hours).

Unfortunately not the case.

Wasn't my experience. Send in paperwork and go to the doctor. Pretty simple. More complex if you have to change planes to do a flight test, but most Ga planes are easier to fly than Ra.

Again, unfortunately, not this simple.Just revisiting these posts because CASA moved the goal posts. Initially the deal was RA pilots could simply apply for a RPL. The catch is that before you can apply for the RPL you need the medical and the ASIC (or application) and before you can use the RPL you have to undertake a flight review in a GA aircraft. Most RA pilots have never flown a GA aircraft so it can be a bit of a steep learning curve there. Then when you get the paperwork there is a little sting in the tail. In applying for your RPL you have to declare your flying hours, including at least two hours instrument flying. Most RA pilots will not have done that as it is not a requirement for RA. Another little bite is the 'English Language' test where you have to demonstrate that you can understand foreign pilots attempting to speak English, and pay for that privilege. No mention was ever made of that in the past.

 

Applying for an ASIC is best done through CASA as the application alone is sufficient in the RPL application process. I made the mistake of applying through RAA and had to wait a month for the actual ASIC to arrive so I could include a copy of the issued ASIC.

 

I am now into my fifth week of waiting to obtain my RPL paperwork back from CASA. I feel sorry for those poor buggers. They must be totally run off their feet. Fortunately I have no pressing need as I can continue to fly on my RA licence.

 

 

You then take your RA-Aus pilot certificate with passenger, radio and navigation endorsement and ask for an RPL. You will have all the flight experience already except you will need to do 2 hours of instrument flight in a VH-XXX registered plane and whatever training is necessary to be proficient in controlled airspace procedures. You also need a medical. You can then fly anywhere in Australia with passengers in a VH-XXX or 24-XXXX aircraft (weight restrictions and aircraft type restrictions apply).

I would be interested to see where you got this information. There is nothing in writing I could find that says this and Casa confirmed to me that this isn't the case. I also checked it with RAA. In the absence of information to the contrary you can do your under the hood training in any aircraft as long as the instructor is certified to supervise that training. RAA doesn't have instrument flying so RA instructors cannot sign off on instruments, but there are many instructors who are rated for both RA and GA. One of those instructors can sign you off in an RA aircraft. Same goes for controlled airspace. To be signed off for the RPL controlled airspace and airport endorsements you need to fly a GA aircraft into and out of controlled airspace but if you are flying in and out training you can fly an RAA aircraft. I think the committee that designed the RPL were descendants of the guys who designed the camel. There's a lot about it that just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

Nice aircraft but with me and my wife and enough gear for a weekend away there is no room for any fuel. Another weekend stuck at home.

 

 

There is a significant price advantage to doing an RA certificate first. You can get almost all your hours out of the way and get your Nav endorsement in an RA aircraft. Not even a medical or ASIC required to that point. Once you have your RA certificate you have to fly two hours with a GA instructor 'under the hood', i.e. on instruments, then get into a GA aircraft to be signed off for for your RPL. You now need to pass an English language test, have your medical, apply for the ASIC and post the lot off to CASA. If you did the GA part at Moorabbin you would probably also have your controlled airspace and controlled airport boxes ticked as well. I reckon there's anything up to $3000 or more saving there depending on how much they are charging for different aircraft.

 

 

If you are new to flying and doing circuits with the instructor, he may be going to train you on this to avoid hitting you with a million things at once.

If you're past that and have been doing cross countries, particularly solo cross countries and haven't yet been trained, speak to your instructor asap.

Yep, got the Flight Manual thank you. New to it? Hmm! Well as to hours, my wife (ppl) and I have probably got about 700 hours on it and been round Australia 4 or 5 times. Still learning though.

 

 

Interesting to apply the foregoing discussion to 2 seater light aircraft. We have two storage areas behind the seats. We can have up to 20 kg in the first area and 15 kg in the rear. Pilot and passenger are very close to COG. As long as we are under MTOW and observe those weight limits I don't see how we can be outside W&B parameters. I haven't heard of anyone doing specific calculations.

 

 

Ticked another one off the bucket list last week when I flew with another club member in his Alpi Pioneer 200 - we took off from Rangiora and headed straight for Mount Cook - reached it in about an hour, climbing steadily all the way, and then did a circuit around the top - its 12,300 ft and we were at 13,125 - fantastic views with snow in all directions. Plenty of landing areas if necessary (glaciers etc) but not sure how you would ever get the plane out again! We then landed at Okarito Lagoon on the West Coast (400m grass strip - bent like a banana!) , had a cup of coffee, then flew home through the Whitcombe Pass. 3.5 hours flight in total, 58 litres of fuel used. Fantastic flight and the Alpi handled it with ease. Strangely enough, I don't often see any mention of Alpi's in Oz - did they not take off there?!!!! They are a terrific x-country machine and can handle short grass strips too - not many aircraft have both capabilities.

Hey! I have a 300 and love it! Plenty of Pioneers in Aus. We used to have Alpi flyways until a few years ago. In fact we flew around the North Island with a group of NZ owners about 8 years back.

 

 

I did something today I have been wanting to do for years. I did a Melbourne city orbit. Now Melbourne is nowhere near as spectacular as Sydney but it is a fantastic sight. Flying over Docklands, looking along the Yarra, past Eureka tower, Albert Park Lake, around the city to the MCG, looking down on St Pats and the Exhibition Building. Wow! What a privilege to be able to get permission to take this flight.

 

I can't wait to do it again.

 

 

Needing a lot of rudder doesn't concern me. Aircraft need varying amounts of rudder on takeoff and even more to keep them tracking down the runway in a crosswind.The comment was that he had "absolutely no rudder authority" after rotate. None. Nada. Zilch.

Perhaps I should have said "insufficient rudder authority to maintain runway direction".

K ManI've never flown the 160 (so I may be totally off the mark) but I do have a lot of hours in the 230. One thing I have found is that the sooner I have the nose wheel off the ground the better directional control you have in all conditions during takeoff. I believe this is due to the design of the nose wheel steering and the very short arm on the steering linkage and the rudder is obviously the correct size for the design, the more speed you gain the less input is required. Yes this will slightly increase your takeoff distance but not to any significant amount.

 

I'm certainly happy to be contradicted by people who know more about aerodynamics than me but this technique works for me and I do take off in xwinds at limit on a regular basis.

 

Aldo

I've never flown the 230 but I understand it to be a lot more stable. But having said that, I have witnessed an extremely scary takeoff of a 230 in strong crosswind. Again, it was a pilot with low hours on that aircraft. Once you know what might happen you fly accordingly. All I was suggesting is that some of these things be taught in basic training or at least discussed.

 

 

If that's correct, that aircraft design should be thrown in the bin.

Perhaps you haven't spent much time in lighter aircraft. I trained in a 160 Jab and you need a lot of right rudder to keep straight on take off, even in no wind. Add a bit of cross wind from the left and it significantly reduces rudder authority. Cross wind from the right is much more user friendly.

Lots of strips you can fly into and land in strong wind only to find it difficult to taxi off at right angles to the apron due to that wind. I'm surprised you never noticed that in the Pitts.

 

It's nothing to do with design, unless you mean we shouldn't have a fin on the back and it's not about flying in unsafe conditions because unexpected wind gusts can catch you out at any time. The reason I mentioned it was to point out that if you rotate too soon you haven't got sufficient flying speed and you may be weather cocked. Keeping the nose down until you have more speed helps in those conditions. With a strong gross wind component I would prefer to take off with a slight tail wind if it means keeping the cross wind on the right.

 

 

Are we missing the forest for the tree here or what?If the RAA wishes to improve safety and I assume they do, then putting something on the website and expecting it to be read, understood and assimilated into our daily flight practice- just does not cut it.

 

Did all pilots who are licensed receive this in writing?

 

Did all members receive this in writing?

 

Without going looking for the actual document on a website- how were pilots meant to know it even existed before actually knowing it must be considered in flying operations?

 

It is all fine to write documents but they actually have to have meaning in the real world and be assimilated to the target audience.

 

Otherwise they are actually worse than doing nothing. Unless of course it is a exercise in box ticking to cover someones butt, that bears no relation to its intended purpose.

 

The bibles we need like the ops manual are what should be referenced not some verbose unintelligible motherhood statements that could be in any OH&S (WH&S) manual.

 

This should be about pilot safety not safety for lawyers.

 

IF the organisation wishes to only have a safety presence online, they can only expect to change safety in a virtual world. We live in the real world, real people, real aircraft, real physics and real pain/death.

 

I await a stream of electrons improving my safety .

In fairness, the document does read that it is more for the organisation than the individual members. It is saying that RAA will do everything in its power to promote and improve safety. Like others here, I was querying just how effective it could be. What I was pointing out was that, realistically, we alone are responsible for our own safety and the safety of others around us. RAA cannot be responsible for our safety.

 

 

Very probably the same as the amount of landings! If you're going to practice xwind landings I would assume there would be a xwind on takeoff.That said I think limit xwind take offs are more difficult than limit xwind landings

Well no. You can land one day with no wind and take off the next in totally different weather. We had a trip to Barwon Heads a few years back where the wind was straight up the strip when we landed. After lunch it was gusting across the strip. We don't get many cross winds here anyway and when we do we are often protected by trees close to the ground. So where you have a relatively benign takeoff you can come in with a cross wind. As I said, I didn't have any cross wind take offs in training. The first major cross wind takeoff I had saw me taking off over the side fence. That taught me a number of lessons, not the least being how to wash my pants. But seriously, I learned a lot from that first hairy takeoff. I was just very lucky that first time as I had absolutely no rudder authority once I rotated. It would have been a lot better if I had some instruction first in what to expect.

 

 

Hope it's not against rules to link to another forum but these guys are talking about the AvMap unit.

 

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=104364

 

I haven't seen it but it looks similar to the Dynon 10A that I have. If it's anything like the Dynon it will be a great addition to your panel.

 

 

Just saw the report of the crash at Tyagarah. That strip reminds me of the strip at Agnes Water and I'm sure there are many more like it where the strip is protected from the wind by trees but you can have a strong crosswind above.

 

I experienced nothing like that in my training but fortunately there were a few experienced pilots with me when I flew out of Agnes. They advised to stay in ground effect below tree height as long as possible to build up speed before climbing and to be ready for the wind gust. That's the sort of training that might seem just like good sense but isn't actually taught. We practise cross wind landings but how much practise is there for cross wind take-offs?