Dafydd Llewellyn

See http://www.glidingaustralia.org/GFA-Ops/pilottraining.html The training syllabus for the Glider Pilot Certificate is in the Appendixes to GFA MOSP 2. The link is in the above reference.

The GFA has a Manual of Standard Procedures, in two parts - Ops and airworthiness. Both are subject to CASA scrutiny. Not that dissimilar to the RAA, on the surface. However the GFA operates under delegated authority from CASA, whereas the RAA does not. Certain specified officers in GFA have prescribed authority under the regulations, and are therefore "agents of CASA" in applying that authority. They do not use that authority lightly. The Glider Inspectors who perform the annual inspection and issue maintenance releases do not do so lightly either; these positions carry legal responsibility. The wording of the MOSP has to be acceptable to CASA before it will renew the GFA Instrument of Delegation. So the GFA, whilst having some exemptions in CAO 95.4, still retains the mechanism of the Certificate of Airworthiness and the Maintenance Release against a prescribed annual inspection. However it uses a different set of procedures to those prescribed in CARs 4 & 4A, to issue them. It requires tight control of aircraft weight & balance, and loading - after all, in a glider, the pilot is the noseweight. It has an active system of keeping track of those things; and it keeps auditable records. The GFA Board is mainly involved in the "promotional" aspects, and of course in keeping GFA solvent. Gliding activities are more focussed on competition flying, and flying training. Gliding can be effectively controlled by peer pressure, via the club system, because the clubs have a monopoly on the means of launching - apart from motor gliders; but one must be a member of a club to hold GFA membership, and the rating required to operate a motor-glider independently must come via the club CFI. The system is somewhat parochial as a consequence; but by and large it works adequately. GFA has also been overhauling its procedures to bring them into line with the new regulations, and to prepare the GFA for CASR Part 149; the MOSP is undergoing substantial change. So the principal difference between GFA and RAA is that the GFA recognises the need to modify its procedures in order to function; i.e. it re-designs itself as necessary, as an ongoing process; whereas RAA seems incapable of comprehending any necessity to do likewise. The GFA Technical Officers are NOT a primary means whereby GFA earns its income; their function is to comply with the requirements laid down in the MOSP, which is wholly designed around safety. It earns its income from membership fees and from the issue of annual inspection paperwork; when a glider comes due for its annual (and also for additional inspections at ten year intervals) it owner must purchase from GFA the inspection schedule, which comes with all the Airworthiness Directives applicable to the type. That must be filled out and signed-off by the Glider Inspector, and scanned and returned (in electronic form) to GFA, along with a scan of the Maintenance Release. The GFA is an association of State associations; each State Association has its regional technical officers for both operations and airworthiness, and by this breakdown, those technical officers can move around in their respective areas and keep an eye on what is going on. The Technical Officers have an annual get-together to ensure consistency of standards, etc, and this also results in fine-tuning of the MOSP. So the GFA MOSP is a living document by which people conduct their day to day flying activities; it's not a piece of paper you have to have in a drawer somewhere to keep the regulator out of your hair. The culture is not one of jackboots & whips; it's very laid-back - but it's one of observance, not of ignorance. Peer pressure is not such an effective mechanism for RAA, because one can operate quite independently. So one can in GA. But in GA, people do not try to pretend that the regulations do not exist, whereas in RAA that seems to be the case more often than not. The original set-up of the AUF / GFA of dispensing with airworthiness certificates and maintenance releases, and instead trying to tie all that to an annual registration (like a motor vehicle) is the root cause of a lot of the RAA's problems, in my view; motor vehicles are just about 100% compliant with the Australian Design Rules. Cars do not have any real equivalent to Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives. The RAA has to deal with a broad spectrum ranging from scratch-designed homebuilts through all stages to factory-built Type-Certificated aircraft. By contrast, the majority of gliders are Type-Certificated factory-built aircraft, with extensive maintenance manuals. So there are significant differences between the GFA world and the RAA World; and therefore the modus operandi must also differ. However the GFA system works pretty well, whereas the RAA one needs major surgery. It's in danger of bleeding to death before the operation, because the necessary repairs go a lot deeper than seems to be generally understood. The RAA system DOES need major change - and it isn't happening, as far as I can see.

I have experienced an elevator circuit failure for real - and landed it (Jabiru) safely. David Eyre landed the prototype Seabird Seeker safely after an aileron circuit failure that left him with no aileron control. A correctly designed fixed-wing aircraft can survive such failures. Yes, I've flown in helicopters - and even flown one briefly. Had a little bit to do with the Victa gyroplane, too. The Bell 206 is a remarkable example. A helicopter is roughly three times as costly to own & operate as a fixed-wing aircraft of similar disposable load. No, for a similar level of design effort, a helicopter is NOT as safe as a fixed wing aircraft; it's an order of magnitude more complex to design for an equivalent level of safety. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because of the principles involved; helicopters fly in spite of them. But helicopters can do things that fixed-wing aircraft cannot - and vice-versa. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The correct term is "Idiot - resistant"

A GPS-based traffic overlay on a moving map IS a form of alerted see-and-avoid - with much more accurate position reporting - and I'd expect the velocity vector of the traffic to be shown as well, so you get some indication of where it's going to be in the next half-minute of so. It will filter out traffic that is not relevant, so you do not have to listen to a lot of irrelevant traffic advisories, to sort out which ones are important. There's a lot less traffic out there now, than there was 20 years ago. Used correctly, it's an aid to visual detection and avoidance, NOT something to keep people's eyes inside.

This thread is becoming repetitive; it's going over ground that has been plowed many times before. I will watch to see what dedicated and knowledgeable individuals like Trevor Bange can achieve in the environment of a Board, whose overall makeup is such that I have very little confidence in its collective ability. I hope - but do not expect - that I will be agreeably surprised. I can imagine very little so frustrating as being a member of such a disparate group; anybody with real ability would, I expect, find it a soul-destroying experience. I also imagine I am not the only one to take that view of the RAA management structure. The Associations Acts, so far as I have experienced them, seem to be designed around something like a football club - i.e. a sporting activity that everybody understands in depth, and for which there is not a complex set of highly technical constraints embedded in legislation. Jet Jr talks of employing specialist management to work under the elected Board. This arrangement is almost inescapable given the constraints of the various Associations Acts, from what I have seen of them. However, it is not in the least likely to be an attractive employment scenario for any really competent specialist; RAA is very fortunate just now to have the services of Darren Barnfield; the simple fact is that a truly competent specialist will not for long tolerate being muddled about by an elected Board whose collective wisdom is far inferior to his own. Just now, one would suppose that the situation is such that the Board is almost certainly not likely to interfere with Darren whilst he tries to sort out the mess; but once he does so and it starts to run again, how long to you suppose it will be before "strategic goals" become active interference? The simple fact is, that an elected Board of fundamentally non-expert people, trying to steer technical experts who are mainly employed to perform a boring repetetive task, whose principal function is the earning of revenue, not the promotion of efficiency or safety, is not a recipe for a successful organisation. The RAA TM has authority solely under the RAA exemptions; this makes him a powerless puppet of the Board. By contrast, the GFA Technical managers have delegated authority under the Civil Aviation Regulations. Their authority has the weight of law behind it. This is why you need to change the RAA. Because it will not work in the long term.

All perfectly true; but I can't afford one.

That's my experience, also. The thing that worries me the most when I'm flying a slow aircraft, is being run-down from astern by some drongo who is not keeping an adequate lookout, because he's flying something fast and is behind the aircraft. That's exactly what happened in the infamous San Diego collision.

It's the one you don't see that will get you; and of course the well-known fact that an aircraft on a collision course with you does not move in your field of view - which defeats one of the major mechanisms by which we see a threat - movement. What an effective traffic overlay will do (or what a FLARM does) is - it shows you where to look. The problem with radio as the principal tool (on instruments or in controlled airspace) is that one's "audio" channel takes up too big a proportion of one's attention - and it's a single channel with an abysmal data rate. A traffic overlay on a moving map display is a much more effective way to transfer data. It will also show you the "hun in the sun" that you otherwise would not see.

FV has made an eminently sensible suggestion; however I suspect that when one scratches any deeper than the immediate surface, in the "regulatory" area, what one will find is another layer of questions - and not much in the way of meaningful answers. For example, in the area of ongoing airworthiness, both the RAA Technical manual - as I recall it - and the Civil Aviation Regulations - state that the ultimate responsibility for airworthiness rests with the aircraft owner. So far, so good. Beyond that point, the CARS go into very explicit detail as to what CASA requires; but those regulations are in Sections 4 and 4A of the CARS, from which RAA aircraft are exempt. Those exemptions are made under the condition that the aircraft are maintained in accordance with the RAA Technical manual. So, one must look to the RAA manual in regard to those aspects that are covered by exemption; and to the Regulations in regard to those matters from which RAA aircraft are not exempt. For example, what does the RAA TM require in regard to periodic inspections? How does this compare with (a) CARS Parts 4 & 4A? How does it compare with (b) what other recreational aviation bodies - e.g. the GFA - require in this area? What should RAA do to monitor that what its manual specifies is in fact carried out? What does RAA actually do in this regard? What records should be kept, to allow this to be audited? What records are in fact kept? In regard to aircraft weight and balance, this comes under CAR 235 and CAO 100.7 - and RAA aircraft are NOT exempt from these requirements. What should RAA do to monitor that what these regulations require is in fact carried out? What does RAA actually do in this regard? What records should be kept, to allow this to be audited? What records are in fact kept? What are CASA's views on RAA's responsibility in regard to such matters - and many more, in this area? I cannot answer these questions - and I suspect very few RAA members even wish to understand the questions. But they need to be asked, and answered, before one can design a structure to deal with the issues that arise. My personal perception - which may be incorrect - is that RAA - and the AUF before it - has always sought to avoid any responsibility in these areas. Is this valid - and if so, is it satisfactory? I very much prefer the way the GFA approaches these matters. These are NOT matters that one can brush aside as being the responsibility of the Technical Manager; unless the requirements are explicitly defined, how can he "manage" them? Precisely what is required of an L2 in regard to periodic maintenance? How does RAA monitor this? Are the instructions in the RAA Technical Manual sufficiently explicit? Are they being correctly applied? These responsibilities do not stop at Fyshwick or wherever; they involve every aircraft owner and every L2.

WAAS - as I understand it - is a form of differential GPS and it allows a much less costly GPS receiver to be used for ADSB-out. Because the U.S.A. has implemented a WAAS system, those lower-cost GPS receivers are allowable there. In Australia, you cannot transmit ADSB-out unless you have an approved RAIM GPS to provide the position data to the required accuracy/reliability. (Would one of the experts in this area please enlarge on this?) Whether that accuracy is actually needed is a separate issue; it's REQUIRED, needed or not. The FLARM system uses a low-cost GPS, I assume on the basis that it's a short-range system and works (I assume) on the assumption that any GPS error will probably affect all GPS receivers in the vicinity equally. My brief experience of it in gliders showed that it worked very well. It may not provide sufficient warning in faster aircraft. The future of the FLARM system is a matter for conjecture; it's available right now at low cost - and the gliding world has adopted it, so if you want to see any gliders, you'll need a FLARM. One can only suppose it will be rendered obsolete by ads-b in due course, but the simple fact is that the rapid adoption of ads-b has been obstructed by top-heavy bureaucracy.

Also, the USA has WAAS - and a WAAS GPS for ADSB is now available under $US 3000 . But Australia does not have WAAS, so we're stuck with the high-cost GPS requirement.

No, I did not say it won't work; what I said was that the job should design the structure, not vice-versa. What you propose may well work - but it's starting at the wrong end.

See http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/casadata/cota/download/va515.pdf

Small correction - the J160C is NOT built under the Light Sports Aircraft rule; it's a type-certificated aircraft.

50 lawyers (50 lawyers at the bottom of Sydney Harbour = a damn good start). But it will only show those aircraft that have ADSB out - and the cost of the GPS unit required for that is still prohibitive.

Precisely.

Not relevant to VFR, OCTA - which is by definition, what RAA pilots are confined to unless they have a PPL. In this day & age, it's stupid not to have a transponder, unless you're operating a 95.10 machine in the back of beyond.

I would also observe that it is pretty futile designing a structure, unless you have first defined what it has to do. First, make a list of the tasks that the RAA has to perform, and put a priority against the items in the list. From what I have seen on this Forum, very few of the contributors appear to have any real idea of what should be on that list, or what the priorities ought to be. Once you have the list sorted out, THEN you can start to design a structure to perform those functions.

Not being a member, I have no opinion to express; however I would point out that it is essential that at least several of the members of the management group have an extensive and current knowledge of the Civil Aviation Regulations. RAA operates in the field of aviation; knowledge of that field is essential.

The only other system of which I am aware is FLARM - which is mandatory for participation in gliding competitions, and is fast becoming universal amongst the gliding fraternity world-wide. But like anything else, it relies on everybody else having one, and all of them being serviceable. If you sit on the ground and listen to the aircraft radio traffic, you will gradually get a mental picture of the air being full of flying metal, missing each other by metres. Fortunately, the truth is not like that (mostly) - the atmosphere is quite a large volume and you rarely see another aircraft, except in the circuit area. ADSB will eventually paint the traffic as an overlay on everybody's moving map; but it's early days yet; people like OZRUNWAYS etc are just thinking about it now, and it won't be anything like universal for at least another decade - and even then, there will be the odd aircraft that isn't transmitting. So you have to keep your eyes open, and learn how to scan properly - which is not as simple as it seems. As a glider tug pilot, operating in the vicinity of gliders all the time, I learned to look for the shadows on the ground if the sun was bright and high in the sky. You find your own shadow and watch for any others near it. Doesn't work much above 1500 feet, though. The radio is useful in the vicinity of a circuit area, and also near choke points, like Brooklyn Bridge on the Sydney northern lane, or any VFR reporting point near controlled airspace. Not much use in the middle of nowhere, however, and I've had a couple of close encounters where you simply would not expect to see another aircraft - so there's no substitute for keeping your eyes out of the cockpit.

The normal situation in GA is that the organisation doing the job would need to assemble a package of "Approved data" (See CAR 2A) that fully covered the job - AND the aircraft Flight Manual would also need to cover the alternative engine version. You do come across this situation with some Cessnas; the TCDS sometimes lists alternative engines. Then you have to go to the Parts Catalog and make sure every part of the engine installation plus any relevant placards, is correct for the new engine. The change may or may not warrant re-weighing. Unless all this is covered, it is necessary to get an approval. In the past, lots of changes of this sort were approved under CAR 35; the extent to which they can be approved under CASR 21M will depend on whether or not the mod. is considered "Major" - but if it's listed in the TCDS, I would not expect it to be considered "major" - but I'm not current on CASA policy in this regard.

Yes - Mike Munninger made possibly the best of the VW conversions, and it was just barely adequate for the Skyfox CA 21. I'm not sure what he did to solve the cylinder barrel spacing - possibly used the "Transporter" engine case. It was not a collection of after-market parts, I understand. But noise certification reared its ugly head, so 3600 RPM gave too much tip speed on a propeller of sufficient diameter to give good prop efficiency at low speeds.

I installed the first Honeywell Lasernav INS sold outside the U.S.A. (serial No 15) into the CSIRO F27, VH-CAT, in about 1982. It navigated the aircraft from Tamworth to Sydney - without an Air Data System, i.e. totally by dead reckoning - with a final error of about 50 yards. (we started from a surveyed reference point at Tamworth, and used the aerodrome reference point at KSA as the basis for determining the error. That was the very first ring-laser-gyro INS. It cost $185,000 in 1982; it was roughly 500 mm x 300 MM x 150 mm and weighed about 25 Kg. Nowadays you can purchase miniaturised GPS-updated INS packages like this - and they can also be used to keep a "virtual reality" moving-map image aligned with the horizon. Not quite as accurate as the Lasernav, I expect.

Dead right, Nev. It ain't one. No automotive conversion has the double front main bearing that you find in a Lycoming or Continental (or Jabiru) in order to carry the gyroscopic loads without feeding them back into the front crankweb & crankpin. Car engines are mostly NOT built for continuous operation at full throttle - and I defy anybody to hold a motorbike with an 80 HP or larger engine at full throttle for a minute. let alone continuously. You can replace the crankshaft, the barrels, the pistons, the heads, etc etc on a VW - but the fact is, the cylinder centres are too closely spaced to allow good cooling between the barrels; and it hasn't the right main bearing setup to carry a propeller. Horses for courses. A car engine needs a reduction gearbox to be practical in an aircraft - ask Terry Kronk about the reliability of reduction drives for Chev engines . . .