Happyflyer

Anyone having trouble getting access to the L1 on-line learning site? A week ago I tried to have a look at what it is all about, but the username and password sent to me wouldn't work. Assuming I had stuffed up I requested another password, which also didn't work. Next step:- I sent an email to RaAus with their automated password message attached and requested help. As of today there has been no reply to my email. My current train of thought is that I made an honest attempt to use their imposed system (which I consider to be a slap in the face for a 19 builder who previously held an L2 rating), so I will just wait for the reply and carry on regardless doing what I have always done - even if past the required date next year. Any thoughts?

I did the L1 on line learning a week ago with no problem. Like you I didn't learn a lot and I think your prior experience should have meant you should not have had to do it. Newbies wanting to maintain their aircraft may get a lot more out of it. If I was you I would ask for an exemption or ring up so you can log in and do it. Don't give the insurance company a way out if you ever have to claim.

 

 

Oh I forgot , you will need to lodge a flight plan flying at any flight level.

Plenty of class G airspace over 10,000 ft and I was also unaware of any requirement to lodge a plan. Do you have a reference?

 

 

Thanks frank, that's what I thought, so how high can you go?

You are not allowed in class A (IFR only) so that starts around 18,000 ft near major airports.

 

 

He would have been ok if only he had been wearing a hi vis vest with "clear prop, clear mind" written on it.

 

 

From FAA webpage Mission Nothing saying they have to promote aviation here.

 

Our Mission

 

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

 

Our Vision

 

We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

 

Our Values

 

•Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.

 

•Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.

 

•Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.

 

•People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.

 

•Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.

 

 

When planes and parachutes mix too closely.

 

 

 

Looks very legit. Thanks for that.I'd be very interested in hearing from any pilot who has recently completed a tailwheel, constant speed, formation, or low level endorsement in an RAAus rego aircraft - and then had the RAAus endorsement sent to CASA on 61-DF or 61-FA paperwork for inclusion on their new Part 61 RPL, PPL or even CPL. happy days,

I didn't use 61-3DF because it asked for a GA aircraft rego number and I wanted to see if I could do it without using a GA aircraft. CASA don't have a dedicated form to transfer edorsements from RPC to RPL except the initial application for RPL from RPL, form 61-1RE. Might be worth writing to them to ask the correct approach if you are going to do a few of them.

 

 

That is indeed interesting. Frankly, I can't see why it shouldn't be interchangeable. However, it might require your instructor be GA instructor rated with the same design feature endorsement. Was he?

I submitted form 61-1RE to add a TW endorsement that I had on my RAAus pilot certificate to my RPL. I did not do any tailwheel training in a GA aircraft to get the endorsement initially. I sent a copy of the letter that comes with the RPC which shows the various endorsements and had it signed as a true copy by a GA instructor. He also signed form 61-1RE and yes he held a TW endorsement but really he was just signing that I met the requirements for the endorsement by having the corresponding endorsement on my RAAus certificate so it could go on my RPL (which automatically goes on the PPL and CPL). I included a letter to CASA saying I wanted the endorsement transferred to my RPL in accordance with Part 61.480 paragraph 3© and to call me if they wanted more info. A month or two later it was on my CASA licence, I ordered a reprint and hey presto job done.

 

 

clear as mud - from the current Tech Manual:"SECTION 11.1 MAINTENANCE POLICY Under a grandfather clause all members who are maintaining their own RAAus registered aircraft have until 01/02/2017 to complete the L1 maintenance authority assessment. After 01/02/2017 members who have not completed the L1 assessment cannot continue to sign for maintenance performed on their own aircraft. (Does not apply for members completing line maintenance only)"

So basically you are going GA if you do not do the online test - you can do line maintenance with your pilot certificate but do not lift a spanner to change spark plus for do anything else ...

 

Oh and I suggest that you do not read further through the sections of the Tech Manual following that if you are liable to fits of rage or high blood pressure ... it starts calling out CASA Schedule 5 maintenance schedules for all aircraft without a specific maintenance schedule - and that would be applied to all the old 95.10s out there as well.

 

Maybe there is a small market for someone like me with old school rag and tube to set up a consultancy writing all the required documents for RAAus registered aircraft to AVOID all the GA crap that's coming down the pipeline ... after all if you HAVE an airframe specific schedule you do not have to use the sledge hammer overkill RAAus have as their default position ...

Just so you don't give the wrong impression about line maintenance, the facts are that you can indeed lift a spanner to change your spark plug. List of line maintenance items from the tech manual shown below (Section 12.7).

• Removal or installation of landing gear tyres

 

• Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres

 

• Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings

 

• Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins

 

• Replacement of side windows

 

• Replacement of seats

 

• Repairs to upholstery or decorative furnishings inside

 

the cockpit

 

• Replacement of seat belts or harnesses

 

• Replacement or repair of signs and markings

 

• Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses and lights

 

• Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs

 

• Replacement of batteries

 

• Changing oil filters or air filters

 

• Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel

 

• Lubrication of components

 

• Replenishment of hydraulic fluid

 

• Application of preservative or protective materials

 

• Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks

 

• Carrying out a duplicate inspection of a flight control system

 

that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified

 

or replaced

 

• Carrying out a daily inspection on an aircraft

 

You can do any of the above tasks without doing the L1 online course.

 

 

Perhaps the Lightwing pilot should have made his rego number invisible like the drifter before posting publicly.

 

 

Don't think I have heard of a "design feature endorsement" for RAAus, what is that exactly?David

Design feature endorsements include tailwheel, CSU, retractable undercarriage, floats etc.

 

 

I have always had a separate RAAus certificate and a PPL/CPL. On Sep 1st 2014 an RPL was automatically added to my CASA licence. Last year I got a design feature endorsement on my RAAus certificate. I notified CASA and had it added to my RPL/PPL/CPL. No questions asked by CASA.

 

 

That depends on who you talk to! They've both got 4 stroke engines, high wing, tricycle undercarriage and similar performance. I've had some senior people tell me they are considered the same type!

I spoke to the ops manager about it and I assume she has the final word. That's not to say an experience pilot with many different types will need to do any more than read the poh and familiarise themselves with the layout before flying. A new pilot should definitely fly with an instructor when changing from Jab to P92 or vice versa in my opinion.

 

 

So the RAAP says fly with an experienced pilot before you fly as PIC, if you're not flying as PIC I cannot see how you can log PIC. The only other option would be dual, you are therefore receiving instruction and the "experienced pilot" would need to be an instructor. To me this RAAP creates more confusion. The rest of the aviation world defines an aircraft type as one having s type designator. eg: jabiru J160, Technam P92, whereas it seems RAAus could consider these as the same type and something like a Drifter as a different type?

I see what you mean, yes could be worded better. RAAus do not consider J160 and P92 the same type and recommend type famil training. I for one think that it is good the PIC can exercise some judgment on how much type training he or she needs. We are not totally wrapped in cotton wool yet. You can't have an instructor for every scenario. Example, flying a single seat aircraft, wanting to be the first to fly your own creation etc, you do what you can, prepare and then do it. Orville and Wilbur did!

 

 

So, if you're flying the aircraft with someone else and not PIC how do you log the flight time?

As pilot in command I would suspect. Nothing stops the pilot in command taking advice. Example, flying the same aircraft you usually fly but with an all glass cockpit for the first time. Read up on it, play with it on the ground and then go for a fly with someone who has more experience with the setup. Obviously if you normally fly a Jab and want to fly an RV you would take an instructor. You have to do what a normal person would consider reasonable.

Or you could go for a fly with an experienced pilot and observe. You can't log this yourself but it sure goes into your experience bank.

 

 

RAAus have published “RAAP 1 - 2016 Type Transition Guidance” which is available from the member portal once signed in. It gives good commonsense advise on how to prepare yourself for a new type. It is not limited to training by an instructor. The following is from the first part of the RAAP, refer to the RAAP for further guidance.

 

All responsibility for ensuring safe operation of an

 

aircraft sits squarely on the shoulders of the pilot in

 

command. By creating a conversation about aircraft

 

types and transitioning to a new aircraft type, RAAus

 

is raising awareness of the potential difficulties facing

 

pilots when flying an unfamiliar aircraft for the first

 

time.

 

RAAus data indicates lack of familiarity with an aircraft

 

is a causal factor in a significant proportion of crashes

 

and near misses. Insurance and liability issues

 

potentially exist should pilots operate an aircraft with

 

which they are unfamiliar without undertaking

 

appropriate transition training.

 

Pilots should make use of all available resources to

 

ensure they are well prepared before flying an

 

unfamiliar aircraft as pilot in command.

 

Recommended actions include:

 

• Read and understand the Pilots Operating

 

Handbook for the aircraft;

 

• Seek advice and assistance from experienced

 

instructors or other pilots experienced with the type;

 

• Ensure you understand how the aircraft differs from

 

aircraft you have flown before;

 

• Ensure you know how to use all the knobs, buttons,

 

levers, dials, etc. before take off;

 

• If necessary, have someone experienced with the

 

type fly with you before you fly the aircraft as PIC.

 

 

From CASA:

 

Can I use my RPL to fly in another country?

 

The RPL is not an International Civil Aviation Organization licence and is not recognised by other countries. To fly in another country you need to get approval from that country’s aviation authority.

 

 

I had a look on the APF web site and the only thing I could find about medical conditions was on their application of member ship form CL8 which has a Disclosure of Medical Condition section (see below). It goes info a fair bit more detail than the RAAus medical declaration and is much more specific but there is nothing in there that worries me. It may make insurers happy and could keep insurance costs down. Perhaps RAAus could have given a bit more detail in their statement to keep conspiracy theorists' blood pressure down.

 

(i) Disclosure of Medical Conditions – You warrant that you:

 

(i) are and must continue to be medically and physically fit and able to undertake and participate in the Parachuting Activities;

 

(ii) are not a danger to yourself or to the health and safety of others;

 

(iii) have not at any time suffered any blackout, seizure, convulsion, fainting or dizzy spells; and

 

(iv) are not presently receiving treatment for any condition, illness, disorder or injury which would render it unsafe for you to take part in parachuting or flying including undertaking the Parachuting Activities.

 

You acknowledge that you must, and you agree that you will, disclose any pre-existing medical or other condition that may affect the risk that either you or any other person will suffer injury, loss or damage. You acknowledge that the APF and the Providers rely on information provided by you and that all such information is accurate and complete. You agree to report any accidents, injuries, loss or damage you suffer during any Parachuting Activities to the APF and the Providers before you leave any relevant venue.

 

 

I had a look on the APF web site and the only thing I could find about medical conditions was on their application of member ship form CL8 which has a Disclosure of Medical Condition section (see below). It goes info a fair bit more detail than the RAAus medical declaration and is much more specific but there is nothing in there that worries me. It may make insurers happy and could keep insurance costs down. Perhaps RAAus could have given a bit more detail in their statement to keep conspiracy theorists' blood pressure down.

 

(i) Disclosure of Medical Conditions – You warrant that you:

 

(i) are and must continue to be medically and physically fit and able to undertake and participate in the Parachuting Activities;

 

(ii) are not a danger to yourself or to the health and safety of others;

 

(iii) have not at any time suffered any blackout, seizure, convulsion, fainting or dizzy spells; and

 

(iv) are not presently receiving treatment for any condition, illness, disorder or injury which would render it unsafe for you to take part in parachuting or flying including undertaking the Parachuting Activities.

 

You acknowledge that you must, and you agree that you will, disclose any pre-existing medical or other condition that may affect the risk that either you or any other person will suffer injury, loss or damage. You acknowledge that the APF and the Providers rely on information provided by you and that all such information is accurate and complete. You agree to report any accidents, injuries, loss or damage you suffer during any Parachuting Activities to the APF and the Providers before you leave any relevant venue.

 

 

basic question, I know. I go to NAIPS, log in, get an area briefing, cut and paste it into the plain English converter, and it only gives me weather until 12.30 am tomorrow, even tho' I typed 24 hrs validity into NAIPS. I changed that to 48 hrs but no joy. How do I get the weather forecast for 10am tomorrow?thanks

You can only get the one area forecast. If you want a further forecast just look at the general BOM weather for the general trend. Major airports have extended TAF forecasts that you can use if you are flying near one. I suggest you check the aviation forecast every day without the plain English converter. Use the knowledge centre on the BOM site to make sense of it and in a couple of weeks you will be able to read them easily. Cheers

 

 

CAAP 166-1 is CASAs interpretation on the ive way legislation including straight in approaches. I have pasted the relevant paragraph below. To me it's clear the the SIA pilot must give way to all cct traffic at all times.

 

6.7 Straight-in approaches

 

6.7.1 Straight-in approaches are not a recommended standard procedure. However, Regulation 166B of CAR does not preclude pilots from conducting straight-in approaches provided certain conditions are met. Pilots who choose to adopt a straight-in approach should only do so when it does not disrupt, or conflict with, the flow of circuit traffic. Paragraph 166 (2) (b) of CAR requires a pilot conducting a straight-in approach to give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern. Nonetheless, pilots conforming to the circuit pattern – particularly on the base leg – should continue to check for traffic entering along the final approach path.

 

 

I disagree that a SIA has right of way after calling 3 mile final. The requirement to give way to all traffic in the circuit is a stand alone statement in the regs in my opinion and not dependant on where he is.

 

 

Luckily my aircraft has something called an air speed indicator to overcome this phenomenon.

 

 

A bit early to link a take off with a slight down wind with the incident isn't it? Downwind take off will mean it takes longer to get in the air and climb angle will be less. If he got airborne and was climbing at the normal airspeed the wind direction becomes irrelevant unless he failed to clear an obstacle.

 

 

I was monitoring an air band receiver all weekend and whilst busy, it did not seem to me that there was not room for other aircraft to transmit. What did strike me however was how bad some of the radios were. I have to admire the Unicom operator who seemed to understand no matter how poor the transmission quality. I do agree with Kenny and Hans about the aero-commander twin which did the straight in approach. I feel that was a mistake at a fly-in although it was, I believe perfectly legal and whilst there was a Unicom operator it is not a controlled airfield and the operator could not instruct the pilot to fly a circuit although he probably should have 'recommended' it. All in all I felt the pilots behaved well and politely and I hope it will happen again next year.

The straight in approach may have been perfectly legal, but only until he failed to give way to the traffic on base.