Nobody

The RAAus position on medical certification is nothing new and I can understand AOPA being upset at it. AOPA and SAAA have been trying to get CASA to relax the medical standard while RAAus have been arguing that the current situation should not be relaxed, if it was they would lose members.

I posed about it nearly a year ago here:

So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

The other push comes from RAAus the organisation itself(as distinct from the membership). It needs to maintain (or grow) its membership to build the empire. The aging member population will mean that unless something is done, in 5 years there will be fewer members than there are today. By increasing the MTOW(to 1500kg) and CTA it can try to get the other 15,000 or so private pilots to be members and grow its empire further. This leads the perverse situation where RAAus, in their submission to CASA, argued that the RAMPS medial requirements should not be relaxed or amended. If pilots were able to fly without being screwed by Avmed they wouldn't need to be members of RAAus...

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raau...ion-standards-discussion-paper-march-2017.pdf

Perhaps this it the kind of thing RAAus should be fighting for.

If they have any spare time after they are done registering trademarks....

The density of air is 1.2kg/m3. A jabiru doesn't seem too upset by the impact...

Have you ever noticed that the glider pilots clean the dead bugs of their wings after every day....

The dead bug guts give a noticeable decrease in performance on a sleek high performance glider.

USA home owners associations have EXTREMELY large powers available to them under most state laws allowing what to Australians would be ridiculous levels of control.In Australia all air parks I’ve heard of are sold freehold - if you buy freehold the planning laws are not up to your neighbours - unless you’re in a rotten council - so your hangar house and aircraft are not subject to control by neighbours just distain and ridicule

The US versions tend to have rules about how big the hangar can be, usually only enough for one aircraft and require that a house is completed and lived in. They are trying to make a community that people want to live in rather than cheap hangar space. Look at the sheer number of Airparks over there and the few empty lots in them, they seem to be popular.

LLooks to me like clever use of photoshop to produce an 'artists impression' for a development application from a developers perspective and not so much as from an aviators perspective.

Google Maps

OK so 500 hours a year at $200.00 per hour x 10 years is a million dollars less the 500k costs plus the 20k you just got. $520,000.00 is not a bad return over that time frame after all costs including wages are taken in to account. This logic hardly applies to spending 7 billion with no financial return.

A defence spending decision has a cost but it almost always has no financial return but that doesn't mean that working out the total cost over a life cycle is illogical.

PS I had included the $20k sale at the end is working out the $500k total cost, so the return is $500k not $520k...

NOTE: I Am not defending the decision to buy the drones, just trying to explain why the cost seems so high.

There was a time when the government would buy things and allocate the capital cost to this years budget but then the ongoing running costs came out of a future budget. Now governments like to announce capital spending, it gets them headlines and news stories. It is much less interesting to announce ongoing funding. Also there is a tendency for the defence department itself to want shiny new toys and to not prioritise the maintenance and funding of existing assets. You can have the silly situation where you have shiny new aircraft but not the money to put fuel in them.

To get around this it is now generally accepted that you tally the total cost of an item over its entire life including the operating costs, staffing, spares and facility upgrades required to host it. These ongoing costs are often much more than the initial costs, especially if the item has a long life, with upgrades along the way.

It might be worth explaining with an example. Imagine that you run a little flight school, you currently have one aircraft but are very busy and want to expand. You could go a buy a new Jabiru for about $80k but what would be the full cost to your business?

Well you expect it to fly about 500 hours per year and have a useful life of about 10 years. In that time you will have to do 50 “hundred hourly” inspections (@ $500 each), likely need 1 new engine (@$20k allowing removal and refit) and say 2 top overhauls @ $5k. The total maintenance cost is $55k. You will also need to put fuel in it at 20l/hr (or 100k litres=~$200k)

To insure it for use in a flight school will be about $2k per year or $20k total, a new hangar space another $1500 per year…

You are busy flying the current jabiru you own. To accommodate the new aircraft you will need to employ a casual flight instructor and you know from experience that about 60% of the time will be dual with the remaining time solo. A casual flight instructor gets $50 per hour so over the 10 years you will spend another $150k.

At the end of 10 years you hope to be able to sell the aircraft with a time expired engine for about $20k…. The total cost of the Jabiru over its life is $500k, a lot more than the $80k capital cost. This analysis above is very much simplified and doesn’t include inflation or financing costs.

The same logic applies to these drones. The longer the life and more complex a project is the less the capital cost will be as a proportion of the total.

Jabba,

What did I say that was not correct? I mentioned that the good samaritan has to act in "Good Faith" and so I think we are in agreement....

I can tell you now that if a non essential services bystander intervenes in any accident and is deemed to have contributed to the victims injuries he or she better have a bloody good lawyer. Doesn't matter if it's aviation, automotive or bushwalking

Have a read here:

https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/good-samaritan-legislation-and-scope-of-practice/

Statistically of all the doctors who could use the capability of having the approval and are now instantly in a position to go and get the approval you're right,  it is "not very few". ,  it as actually almost zero! But thats of all doctors who could go get the qualification for anything from frequent to minimal need. 

 

According to the discussions on the Facebook page of doctors who fly and do medicals etc. and a reasonable need or use for it  ( those of us in the know) it's only about 10% of doctors who could use it.

 

That is actually have a sufficient clientele base who do need aviation  medicals ( DAMES, GPs with a sizeable pilot patient load etc  (who have not got DAME qualifications and want to do medicals etc) who have taken up the qualification. 

 

Whether that amount will increase remains to be seen. I suspect As soon as the first law suite happens for a wrongful clearance being given there will be a mass exodus. 

Jabba-who I am not sure I follow your post. There are 2 changes to the medical system under way. The first allows for a DAME to issue a class 2 medical on the spot rather than just sending the report to CASA who would then take weeks (or months to review) and then they would issue it. This has come into effect.   The advantage of the this is that it should lead to simpler and faster medicals for people who want a full class 2 medical. The liability for the doctor shouldn't be any greater than under the old system as they are acting as CASAs representatives. To be able to do it the doctors have to undergo some online training and are now listed as DAME 2 on the CASA website. I posted the listing of doctors who have done this extra training to show that many of the DAMEs can now issue a class 2 on the spot if you meet the requirements.

The second change that is still coming is the introduction of a basic med medical to replace the RAMPC. Not a lot is know about this change. It could be great or not. The idea is that GP is able to issue some form of certification to allow (limited) flight privileges. I suspect that this is what the the doctors on the facebook group you mention are talking about.

Well the discussion that is going on on the Australian flying doctors Facebook page is that very few doctors have taken up the option. 

https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/aviation-medicine/search-medical-examiner-or-eye-examiner/delegated-dame2

While the list isn't as long as the DAME list it is a bit if an exaggeration to say it is "very few"

The change that allows the doctor to issue the certificate straight away has come into force. The doctors have to do some online training to do it but many have. I know because mine has. It means that the doctors decides if you meet the standard and not CASA and if you pass you have the certificate there and then. The changes that allow for a reduced medical standard have not yet come into affect(if ever)

Australia copied the USA on this. Just look at other more pro active countries that have legislation to prevent these ridiculous multi million dollar lawsuits.

Actually Australia didn't copy the USA on this, it made up its own home grown nanny state bul$hit.... When the lawsuits in USA killed off General Aviation they passed laws to make it harder to sue to revitalise the sector. Piper and Cessna still make small aircraft to this day. Generally in the USA there is much less fear of litigation and certainly little need for large amounts of insurance for everyday activities....

About 18 years ago I helped an RV6 builder with his test flight program and when I looked at the weights they were 505Kg  empty and 726kg  gross giving 221 Kg useful load. Fuel was 140 litres so take  101 Kg off and you have a nice single seat aircraft plus baggage and 3.75 hours fuel. If you ever see two large people get out of an RV6 chances are they took off overweight unless it has an O-320 and a wooden fixed pitch prop.

The RV6 has a gross weight of 1650lbs=750kg. Most have an empty weight about 1050lbs=477kg with full paint, interior, CS prop and IO. Some will be heavier some lighter. That gives 272kg as the useful load so 2, 90kg guys could have nearly 4 hours of fuel. Not quite as bad as above.

I googled airline safety a few years ago and the concensus was that KLM was the safest airline. Waste of time asking google, or maybe they were only looking at safety after the 500 plus KLM disaster.

As the investment adds say "past performance may not reflect future performance". When an organisation has a big incident it may be enough to bring lasting change to the organisation. The lack of an incident, or a series of small ones may in fact be representative of an impending problem.

To Ian, if your mate does fly with a chinese airline tell him not to get the "western" meal. The "local" meal is a much better alternative....

Go to website below and download the aeroelectric connection book. Its a very good read about wiring up an aircraft.

http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html

Edit add link

It would also depend a bit on the aircraft. For instance a Pitts special might meet the RAAus weight limit but if registered with RAAus the aerobatic restrictions means it isn't really that useful. The value if registered GA would be higher. 

Something like a savannah with only Day VFR instruments can do everything in RAAus it can do in GA but RAAus has the advantage in that owners who buy an aircraft can do their own maintenance. The value under RAAus should be higher...

Well, as so often happens - something is talked about on a forum. Never seen a problem before myself. Then next time I go flying the same problem jumps me!  Only this time a bit more scary. In fact probably the scariest thing to happen to me for a long time. 

 

Now  got to talk to jabiru about what sort of inspections or potential damage the aileron has ( as well as replace the cable). 

Jabba-who, It sounds like you has a lucky escape, if the flutter had become divergent then the outcome could have been much worse.

Can you please report this through the appropriate channels (either RAAus or CASA, rego dependant)  so that others might be altered to the possibility of an issue.

Dont recall but maybe is ok due to being an LSA originally. Maybe its not OKAlso im not sure anyone is checkong or even knows this regulation too well

 

There was some discussion here and its something to do with maintenance, as owners, not just builders, can maintain in RAA

 

VH experimental can and so can LSA and certified RAA. There is a permit RAA tech team can issue to allow 19 acess.

 

Just another flaw in CTA access over regulation

The rules and requirements are spelt out in the CASA exemption that applies to RAAus Aircraft. It was discusses recently in the forum here.

The key section from the exemption is below. The bit I have bolded and underlined is what the RAAus technical people should be able to issue.

  7.3     A person must not operate a relevant aeroplane in Class A, C or D airspace, or an active restricted area, unless all of the following conditions are complied with:

(a)   the aeroplane:

             (i)  is certificated to the design standards mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016; or

            (ii)  meets the criteria stated in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a), or regulation 21.186, of CASR; or

           (iii)  is approved under regulation 262AP of CAR in relation to flights over closely-settled areas;

(b)   the aeroplane is fitted with an engine:

             (i)  of a type mentioned in paragraph 6.1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 (also known as section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders), as in force on 31 May 2016, or of a type that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in a relevant aeroplane; and

            (ii)  that is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

©   the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

(d)   the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating:

             (i)  issued under Part 61 of CASR; and

            (ii)  that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

(e)   the aeroplane’s pilot has a valid flight review for the aeroplane’s class rating, under Part 61 of CASR;

(f)    if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted to the aeroplane — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

Someone will know the full inside story but I suspect that the relationship between the 2 organisation was a bit strained in the lead up to and after last years event. The fence between the SAAA area and the main part event last year was part of the problem and was debated endlessly on this website. 

In the threads on this site there are always 2 strong opinions. Some suggest that there should be a spectacular event near a big population centre to showcase flying to the

general public. = Airventure @ Cessnock. Others think that there should be a free event that caters to existing pilots and allows them to mingle with like minded individuals and enjoy the social side of flying = Ausfly @ Narromine. Support the events and hopefully both can grow into something great!

I received an email from the SAAA this afternoon about Ausfly, happening at Narromine, 18 to 21st of October 2018. Posting in case others who don't get the SAAA emails might be interested in going. Details at the link below:

https://saaa.asn.au/2018/05/15/announcing-ausfly-2018-narromine-airport-18th-21st-october-2018/

A few more pictures... .

Icom have been having a new model "coming in a few months" for 3 or 4 years now that is compliant with the newer Australian rules. You have to wonder though if it is really worth it for them. They would be lucky to sell more than a few hundred a year and while they can still sell to the old ones because of the exemption why would they bother. They effectively have a monopoly already...

Sorry if there is already a thead going but thought I would post some pics from today. The weather was awesome, with clear blue skies, virtually no breeze and a comfortable temp of 22 degrees which is not too hot and not too cold. Heaps and heaps of people.....

Although this one is clearly an airshow aimed at the masses there was a pretty good turn out form the industry/associations. Diamond had their new big twin and the sling guys had an aircraft or two and were mobbed most of the day. AOPA were there with their bus and simulators and the SAAA turned out a few aircraft, two rv-10s and Rv-7 and a lancair today. I didn't see RAAus but there was lots to see so perhaps they were there somewhere.....

The flying displays were pretty good... Something about the TBM avenger makes it photograph well...