Happyflyer

Lots of questions here to. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&ID=F21E6BC1-0354-4214-958E-E4BE3C73FBDD

$US260,000 today is about $AU345,000 plus GST is $AU379,500. You would not get change from $400,000 after shipping costs even if you could certify it in Australia. They must have had a bit of clout in the US to get the weight exemption but I will be surprised if any other country makes the exception for one manufacturer.

Not sure this one failed until it hit the power lines.

This will give the CASA legal department plenty to keep them busy.

This aircraft was about the only one you couldn't go up close to and touch at Oshkosh. Roped off and surrounded by minders. The whole ICON show was a lot of media froth and bubble. The marketing department must be the largest part of the company. There are a lot of nice toys out there for half the money they are asking for this.

Thanks. I agree part 61 is and was a shemozzle. CASA themselves don't understand it very well. We just try to use the confusion to our gain. Just keep asking until you get the answer you want!

Looks like CASA have caught up with the culprit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518527/Man-crashed-paraglider-tree-near-Kuttabul-Hotel-pub-Queensland-Big-Boar-competition-face-criminal-charges.html

CASA stated the whole of part 61 applies to the VH aircraft due to 61.007 but have said half the 200 hr requirement for CPL (other than the integrated courses) can be done in an RAAus aircraft.

In my interaction with CASA re using RAAus time towards Commercial Licence they have replied that they do not consider RAAus aeroplanes to be "registered" aircraft as required by 61.007. Their definition of registered (not defined in part 61 but there may be a definition elsewhere in CAOs) is that it must be on the "VH" register. Therefore I think they would have the opinion that a PPL would not be legally able to fly a RAAus aircraft without a pilot certificate. All to be tested in court of course by someone stubborn and rich enough. 61.007 Application of Part 61 (1) This Part applies to flight in a registered (my bold and underlining) aircraft of any of the following categories: (a) aeroplane; (b) helicopter; © powered‑lift aircraft; (d) gyroplane; (e) airship

This bloke should have done some of your training!

Come on Bruce, is it the story making you sick or the slant being put on it by this thread? If he had just manipulated the controls the penalty is 25 points, not jail. If he had done this wouldn't the pilot in charge also be in trouble? Perhaps we need just a bit more information before condemning the prosecutors.

Reported crosswind was up to 35 knots in gusts. The pilot stated both go arounds were as a result of wind shear.

What a great service this gentleman has done for all of us by posting his mishap. The slower the aircraft we fly the more important the wind direction is. A thirty knot landing speed with ten knots tailwind mean landing at forty knots as opposed to a twenty knot landing speed into wind. That is a huge difference in landing distanced required and potential damage and injury. Because we almost always land into wind, and are used to the sight picture this presents, we will always be much too high if we stuff up the wind direction in an emergency, then of course we lower the nose to get into our paddock and speed increases. We have very good forecasts. I try to be aware of the general ground wind forecast when I am flying. That can be updated enroute by the visual signs others here have pointed out, but at least if you have the forecast you have an early idea of which direction to land in. Trying to figure out the wind after an engine failure with the mind in overdrive is always going to be so much more difficult. With a new, untried aircraft especially, why fly low if you don't have to? Height AGL equals time. Time to think and time to cover distance.

It does sound like a commercial operation. Wonder why it was in a RAAus aircraft. Video will no doubt shed some light. Lets hope RAAus get an initial report out soon like they did with the Katoomba crash.

Police saying RAAus investigators involved.

TV news showed power lines very close to the crash site. If the glider has hit power lines it could explain why it ended up in the vineyard.

Thanks. So he was found guilty. Penalty might be poor but it doesn't show that CAO's and the ops manual are illegal.

You said he got a slap on the wrist. I know what he did. I don't know what he was charged with or what he was found guilty of and what his penalty was. I can't find that on google, maybe I'm just hopeless on the computer. You said you know so could you please tell me?

What was he found guilty of and what was the penalty?

We have had this argument before, here and in the Sport Pilot magazine. Still haven't seen any of the proponents brave enough to advertise a flight in contravention of CAO's to CASA and RAAus and actually do it.

Are you sure? The law is Civil Aviation Order 95.55 ( and others). This requires aircraft operating under this order to be RAAus registered. The CAO stands apart from the Ops Manual. "1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that: (a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and (b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and © has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and (d) is registered with the RAA; and (e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2."

Send the CASA boss an email. Might kick start the process. He has responded to others around here who have emailed him. [email protected]

Yeah, isn't satire wonderful when well done. The thing that can catch you out on downwind turns are optical illusions if you look at the ground too much especially if it is a low level circuit. This, combined with the fact that most small aircraft have no more power in reserve and are flying slowly can get you into trouble, even more so if the wind is gusty.

I tried to explain the down wind turn myth to a student once but he wasn't having a bar of it. Someone came in and said the wind at 4000 ft was 35 knots but it was smooth as silk up there. I had a bit of time for this student so we took a Decathlon up. Sure enough it was smooth as silk and the GPS confirmed 35 knots of wind from the west. We then cranked over into a very steep, level, continuous turn, circle after circle, much steeper and much more G than anyone would ever pull in a downwind turn. The GPS speed was up and down like a yo yo but much to his surprise the airspeed indicator was steady as a rock. Try it sometime. Sometimes it's better to show reality rather than explain it.

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/last-word-downwind-turns-really