DonRamsay

I flew around the Coffs CTA going to and from Evans Head in January last. There is as you say plenty of Tiger Country West of Coffs CTA and another good reason for RAAus to get at least transit of CTA. However, you can get 9,500 ft close to Coffs and could glide into YCFS from there if the noise stopped.

I seem to remember that this thread was about an MTOW increase for RAAus pilots to (eventually) have the same limit for the RPL and RPC. Implicit in that is how heavier aircraft will be maintained. As always, the discussion has meandered a bit but usefully I think and with interest. The simple fact is that the change of any regulation will always involve the execution of a full-on risk management exercise. The exercise will attempt to identify all risks that could eventuate with the change and the probability of such risks presenting as incidents and the measures that can be put in place to safely allow the change of regulation to be implemented. RAAus is at a very advanced stage in this process and CASA has been kept involved in the development of the submission. Not sure if you can ever say "when" in this sort of change but I am prepared to speculate that it will happen and within a reasonable period of time. I may be overly optimistic but I would not be surprised if it was in place before the end of 2016.

If there is a Bolly 3 blade, carbon composite, prop approved for Jabiru it should be better than pretty well any wooden prop.

You really know how to rub it in!!!!!! Yes, that photo

Nev, Some good sense in what you write here. Seems to me there are two factors. First one is pilots taking risks they know are risks like flying in marginal VMC which at any moment could become IMC. Then there are pilots taking risks that they don't know they are taking which is more the base turn stall/spin. One thing we are sure of is that there are things that our pilots just don't know will kill them and there are things they know might and still run the risk. Both would once be written off as "Pilot Error". It horrifies me that, in the past I've made poor decisions like pushing the limits on my personal minima, usually prompted by "get there itis". I now have a siren that goes off in my brain when I realise I am not enjoying a particular flight. Usually, the only reason I don't enjoy a flight is because it is harder work than I'm comfortable with. In which case I remind myself that this is "Recreational Aviation" and if I'm not having fun, then I shouldn't be aviating. "Doing" HF again is not the plan as recognising that it is our biggest risk and dwarfs the risks of aircraft construction and maintenance. It is the area where priority effort is to go into education and training - not regulation and passing tests. I didn't think that much of HF when I did it as part of my Pilot Certificate. I didn't even agree with some of the official answers. But I do believe it is the one area where the investment of effort will pay off the biggest return. Don

RS, Both the Managers and the Board recognise Human Factors as the biggest contributing factor to unsafe acts. It is a much bigger factor than all other factors combined. Very substantial RAAus resources are being directed to this area but I regret to say that it is early days yet. All I can do is assure you that it is the prime direction for improving our regrettable safety record and ask that you join the conversation at RAAus by directly communicating your thoughts to the CEO and the Ops Manager. Any improvements or areas ripe for improvement that you can suggest will be appreciated and will contribute to improvements in that area.

Incidentally, in Post #7 it was pointed out that the submission to CASA was to be by 30 June 2016. Over the time V4 has been under development there has been considerable discussion with CASA on the contents. It is not a process whereby RAAus writes the Tech Manual and goes once to CASA for final approval. There is a level of iteration involved between the Tech Manager, L2/L4s, the CEO, the Board and CASA. This does not make Darren's job any easier but we end up with the best manual that can be produced by those who participate in the process. When making comments, please have some consideration for the monumental effort that has gone into V4 by Darren over the last couple of years.

OK, can somebody explain to me why people here always think the worst has already happened and we just don't know about it yet because the Board is hiding it from us? What incredible pessimism! FYI, the Tech Manual has not yet been finally approved by the Board but probably will be in the next few days. The current Board is totally opposed to more regulation for the sake of it and for anything that looks like making RAAus into GA light. Discussions with CASA chiefs and even the Deputy Prime Minister have stressed the point that safety comes from knowledge and skills not regulation. Education and training impart knowledge and skills whereas endless, double-dutch regulations just distract a person from acquiring knowledge and skills that can save lives and from taking responsibility for their flying. The persuasion of RAAus is less regulation not more. We are not there yet and while Ver 4 of the TechManual is a quantum leap ahead of its predecessor (V3) I would argue that 4.1 will be better and feature less detail regulation than V4. The RAAP (like a CAAP but recreational) process was invented to allow Regulations to say what has to be achieved e.g. don't run out of fuel and crash, whereas, the RAAP will provide advice on ways you might achieve that objective. Essentially, how you achieve an objective should be up to you as PIC not written down in endless regulation legalese. In some situations you might decide that 1.5 hours reserve is required because of uncertain/changeable weather and alternate airports being considerable distance apart or the fog might last an hour longer than predicted. In other circumstances when there are lots of handy alternate airports and weather is clear, 30 minutes might be ample reserve fuel. A hard coded Regulation that says you must land with 45 mins in the tank is just plain stupid by comparison.

A safer crossing of the range (less to no Tiger Country) might be to go up over Casino to the Gold Coast and fly through Cunningham's Gap (near Boonah). The Gap can be a bit tricky for winds and low cloud but on a good day it is a doddle compared with the crossing you are planning. I'm keen to get to Longreach myself and get THAT photo. Don

If my prediction comes true there will be no GA v RA and your training and resultant flying skill will determine what you can do in the air. That's as it should be. Don

Well, if you can do aerobatics in a Pitts with an RPL you'll be able to do them with a RPC - that's fair isn't it? Obviously you'd need to have been trained and qualified to do aeros. As long as you're doing it for fun and not for reward because that would be commercial. You can't do aeros with an RPC at the moment mostly because the aircraft below 600kg are not strong enough.

In the short term, the most likely imports will be the SAAA, RVs etc. rather than clagged C150s. I am very keen to convert my Sling to VLA (as it is registered in Europe) and get the option to fly up to its design MTOW. That will allow me to carry 2 pob with full tanks in an aircraft that is more strongly built than your average LSA. And it stalls at 39 KIAS @ 600kg and 44 KIAS at 700kg - what's wrong with that? There are advantages of putting another 50 kg of metal into an LSA. You should see the nose gear on a Sling - massive with a huge coil over shock construction.

Ranting, one of my favourite things to do.

Not that much of a challenge really. All it takes is education, training and demonstrated competence rather than endless general rules and regulations.

SQDI is of course correct that RAAus Incorporated (unchanged) is still the controlling body of Recreational Aviation in Australia. But why ask here in the idle hope that one of those "clever characters who have their fingers on the pulse" might answer and might actually be correct rather than being just "so close to the exact truth" rather than ask RAAus and get not close to but the "exact truth". Some might of course jump to the conclusion that you are insinuating that RAAus is up to something just not telling us. But they'd be wrong wouldn't they Keith? In fact, the current Constitution requires that all Board Resolutions are published to the Members within 7 days of the resolution being passed by the Board. This Board has never failed to do that and it is a bit late in the day to start playing up now. What was the meeting with CASA about Keith? Don

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"! In a free country, flying is a right not a privilege. That is a concept that is still not widely appreciated at CASA. They feel they are in the business of granting privileges and have absolute discretion in granting their privileges. In some ways it could be said that they are correct in that all power in Australia derives from sycophantic acceptance of a foreign-born, foreign-resident, pommy, hereditary, theocratic despot - "The Crown". The "Crown" is the reference for the grant of privileges, licences certain behaviours, and bestows certain honours and titles. Roll on the revolutions and the Republic of Australia! Personally, I prefer to think of Australia from 1901 onwards as a free country of free men. We may still have an anarchistic, largely irrelevant back story but let's try and forget about that. If you subscribe to ours being a free society, we are born free to do anything. Since 1901, our legislators have been beavering away restricting freedoms in the interests of the general good of peace, order and good government. One of our freedoms has incurred an incredible amount of restriction by legislation and the attendant orders and regulations - civil aviation. Point is (you knew there was going to be one eventually, didn't you?) that when RAAus goes to CASA it does not beg on a bended knee for a privilege, it goes demanding the removal of an unreasonable restriction on our freedoms. We must all think that way or else we succumb to the CASA model of grant of privilege. Alan, Up to 750kg, I can't see much changing as, e.g. the EASA CS-VLA standard is very like LSA but with one difference: 750 kg MTOW. I see that as a very sensible improvement on LSA because aircraft can be stronger, cheaper (no need for exotics like Carbon Fibre) and carry a respectable amount of fuel. Above 750 kg many things will need to be different to below 600 kg. Perhaps the best way for me to answer this is to put my Nostradamus hat on. I foresee a very different model arising over time from the current approach that dates back to day one of aviation. RA and non-commercial GA should be merged. The rump of GA left when you take away the commercial GA is a pain in the, well, rump to CASA and a pain that I think they would like to see somebody else take on. There may be some aspects like IFR that may remain totally CASA but just about everything else below 5,700 kg that does not involve commerce could be termed in ordinary English aviation for the purpose of recreation - i.e. "Recreational Aviation". What that will look like in time is anyone's guess. My guess is that there may be one or a couple of organisations like RAAus that compete for "membership". All aircraft below 5,700 kg would be administered by those two organisations. It could end up looking a bit like Holden Vs Ford for admin. And then CASA could concentrate on the big stuff and the airlines and leave us to enjoy our recreation. I would see all basic pilots trained to a common level with skill and aircraft types endorsements as extensions from the basic pilot qualification (whether it's called "licence" or "certificate"). This is neither too sensible to be likely nor pie-in-the-sky. There are some sound reasons why CASA and governments will head this way in future. In our lifetime? Maybe - depends how hard we push. Don

Short answer is yes, yes but . . . . Going to 750 kg is not much of an issue. It will allow RA aircraft to be built stronger with cheaper materials and better fuel capacity. It would not require a change to the 45 KIAS stall in the landing config. and we are still talking about 2 pob, day VFR, and owner maintenance. Adoption of a standard like the EASA CS-VLA will make it easier for many especially aircraft like J230 and Sling 2 if their manufacturer agree. Moving to 1,500 kg MTOW is a whole different situation for everything including but not limited to stall speeds. More on that will come later from RAAus.

RAAus will make a submission to CASA by 30 June for an increase in the MTOW of aircraft that Recreational Pilot Certificate holders can fly up to the same limit as Recreational Pilot Licence holders can fly. They are after all, according to CASA, "equivalent". That limit is 1,500 kg. The increase will be phased in over time to allow RAAus to get its house in order to handle the potential influx of heavier and some older aircraft. So, initially the easy step up to 750kg. Lee Ungermann when he was CEO of RAAus authored an application to CASA to get the RAAus number up to iirc 760 kg. I am told it was very close to approval when McCormick stepped in and killed off everything. There is another thread on here about this topic - something to do with RV3 and RV4 aircraft on the RAAus register. Do a search . . .

I don't know, how many are there FT? There are some.

I imagine that there is more tax on mogas than avgas. And the mogas tax goes partly to pay for roads that aircraft (mostly) do not use. Mining Companies get the diesel fuel excise rebated for vehicles that do not operate on public roads. We should get the same deal by CASA funding RAA-us so that it has to charge members only for insurance and the magazine.

I use the Calendar on the iPad to set the "appointment".

Done

It's on my checklist for cross country flights to test my EPIRB before starting the engine. (Why an EPIRB not a PLB? Accident of purchase (doh!). But the EPIRB does look like it would be stronger in every way.)

The Sport Pilot "experiment" in the USA has lead the FAA to accept the reality that a medical like our Class II is not necessary for non-commercial pilots. The proposal to have a "possess a car licence" medical to fly non-commercially is in the US Congress with every chance of success. Similarly, in the UK the move their is to remove the Class II equivalent medical from non-commercial aviation. I've been hearing this argument for the last 7 years but have seen no evidence that, e.g., getting the increase from 540 kg to 600 kg has in any way disadvantaged people who fly 95.10 I remain baffled by why people think that, e.g. getting access to CTA (for those who want it) would affect those that have no use for it. p.s. SDQDI - will you be at the fly-in at YQDI on Sat 11th June? If so, do say g'day. Don

We need to remember there are two aspects to the 750kg. First is the pilot - that's easy, just change the words/numbers from 600kg to 750kg. There is no stall rating on the pilot. There may be a requirement to transition and prove capability to handle a heavier aircraft of course. Next is the aircraft registration with RAAus at 750 kg. I haven't heard any talk of what stall speed would be acceptable. A 45knot stall for a 750 kg aircraft is both readily achievable and, to my way of thinking, desirable for "Sport Pilots". But, if it is not a requirement for the RPL why should it be a requirement for the RPC? If you look at the Euro (EASA) CS-VLA standard it looks very, very similar to LSA except the MTOW number is 750kg instead of 600 kg. For aircraft like mine that are being registered in Europe at 750kg as VLA then it is very easy for RAAus/CASA to see the aircraft reclassified by the manufacturer as VLA at 750 kg MTOW and 45 knot stall in the landing config remains as that is the VLA standard.