Jim McDowall

How many ATPL pilots collapse (and maybe die) within the time span of their medical currency? And their test is more often and stringent to class 2. Whilst there are 70+ years old pilots flying 737/747/ various Airbuses in our airspace I have serious doubts about the reality that Avmed are inhabiting. Without impugning the capacity of those who are in their 8th decade, those of us who are approaching that space know that our friends are dying around us, or do not have the capacities that they once had. I have a friend who passed his Class 2 medical, drove home and had a massive coronary - hasn't flown as PIC since. Similar stories abound. There have been a number of studies which have shown that the whole aviation medical certification system (around the world) is poorly rooted in science. The whole medical issue goes back to the armed forces where medicals were used to pigeon hole people to plug the manpower needs of the day i.e. not eveyone got to be a pilot.

Firstly, it is not a "basic med". It is a provision that permits the holder of a specified drivers licence to legally fly. Basic med is a term for FAA licences which is a totally different approach unrelated to drivers licences. I did not mean that there was an equivalence in the NZ driver licence required compared to RAAus, merely that the regulatory approach was similar.

The NZ DL9 drivers licence is issued by the NZ Traffic Authority on the back of certificate issued by a medical practitioner. The NZ Civil Aviation Rules Part 61, Amendment 17 only requires a person to HOLD an appropriate DL9 drivers licence. In other words it is truly a drivers licence medical similar to the RAAus drivers licence medical declaration. The CASA "drivers licence" medical cerificate is issued by CASA following a report prepared by a GP. Th doctor does not issue a "certificate" within the meaning of the regs. In fact, the issuance of a recreational aviation medical practitioner's certificate (RAMPC) by CASA is really a mis-description as it is really just a medical certificate issued by CASA on the back of a report by a doctor who is not a DAME.

People, The devil is always in the detail. The NZ Civil Aviation Rules Part 61, Amendment 17 says: 61.35 Medical requirement (a) A person who holds a pilot licence must not exercise the privileges of the licence unless— .............. (ia) in the case of a private pilot licence, holds a current medical certificate issued in accordance with section 44(1) of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 that is applicable for a class 2, 3, 4 or 5 driver licence with passenger endorsement which – (A) was issued within the previous 5 years; or (B) if the person is 40 years of age or older, was issued within the previous 2 years; Section 44(1) of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 is clear: 44 Medical certificates (1) A person who is required by this rule to produce a medical certificate to any person must— (a) obtain, from a person who is a member of 1 or more of the class or classes of health practitioner qualified to issue the certificate, a certificate that states whether the person is medically fit to drive under the applicable class of licence or type of endorsement, having regard to the document issued by the Agency entitled Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive: A Guide for Health Practitioners; and (b) pay the appropriate fee (if any) specified in or assessed in accordance with regulations made under the Act. So it is clear that it is the examining doctor who issuesthe certificate IS NOT NZCAA Avmed. Implicit in the legislation, is the presumption that such a certificate will be available for inspection by NZCAA if required, in the same was as we in Australia must carry our valid medical certificates.

As I understand it NZ PPL's are accepted in Oz. Also as I understand the CASA RPL is not acceptable elsewhere in the world. So the challenge for CASA will be whether to subdivide NZ PPL's on the basis of the medical used or simply admit NZ PPL in total, which means that NZ pilots with basically the same licencing basis as a CASA RPL can jump into a Beechcraft Baron with 5 passengers and tour around Australia at upto 25,000 feet, in and out of controlled aerodromes. Given the various treaties with NZ, CASA will have to move carefully.

Friday afternoon, what do you think?

Gliders are VH registered and to fly/own a glider you need to be a member of the GFA and submit yourself to their "ministrations" which have seen the gliding movement shrink to the point where in a few years time demographics will see its functional demise. Instead of getting annual aircraft registration fees, the GFA has a system of annual "Form 2" inspections which requires you to purchase a "Form 2" document pack from them. RAAus derives considerable income from annual registration fees. Inclusion on the Australian Aircraft Register denotes nothing other than the aircraft is registered. Remember registration is dealt with by Part 47 of CASR and RAAus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's. Many other jurisdictions register recreational aircraft and sometimes signify them by using numbers instead of letters eg VH-4321. If RAAus aircraft are on the Register they (RAAus) will need to replace the income generated from registration fees.

The Jabiru Technical Manual JTM01-10 issued in January this year says on page 42: 5.1 Service Interval Tolerance • A tolerance of plus or minus 3 hours is allowable on all service intervals set within this manual The Inspection /service chart begins on page 44 and detsils the required inspections etc. for 100, 200 and annual inspections. There may be aditional requirements in the engine maintenance manual.

Was this a development of Jim Bede's ill-fated jet project?

Don't you like them anymore?Try something with a future - the demographics of gliding clubs indicates that gliding will cease to exist in its current form in 5-10 years

Detailed history of Port Pirie RAAF WW2 at: http://www.saam.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SAAM-Profiles-RAAF-Port-Pirie-History-v.-MM-15Apr2017.pdf

J160 has a type certificate. Had not thought about stall speed - thanks for the heads up RF

Is any one aware of any attempts or otherwise to increase the MTOW of of the Jabiru 160 series aircraft to 600kg either by STC or the RAAus MARAP process?

Figures from 230 POH Note figures are for paved surface at MTOW, 100' at 24 degrees C. Performance can degrade quickly at higher airstrips in the heat. Google "Koch chart" for an interactive nomagraph to calculate performance at various heights and temps.

The November 2020 issue of EAA Sport Pilot had an excellent article on this subject which in summary is that if your glide angle is less than your climb angle dont even think about turning back. The article referenced FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-83J para A.11.4: A.11.4 Return to Field/Engine Failure on Takeoff. Flight instructors should demonstrate and teach trainees when and how to make a safe 180-degree turnback to the field after an engine failure. Instructors should also train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to make an emergency 180-degree turnback to the field after a failure unless altitude, best glide requirements, and pilot skill allow for a safe return. This emergency procedure training should occur at a safe altitude and should only be taught as a simulated engine-out exercise. A critical part of conducting this training is for the flight instructor to be fully aware of the need for diligence, the need to perform this maneuver properly, and the need to avoid any potential for an accelerated stall in the turn. (emphasis added)

Have a look at https://www.aircraftinstruments.eu/ . Just installed a 2 cylinder unit in my Hummel Ultracruiser and a mate has one in his Jabiru powered Thatcher CX5. Great after sales service.

These are the same people who do not vote in RAA elections and say, I just want to go flying. At a wider community level the lack of education about civics and how our system of government works has created a population of compliant subjugates who "just want to get on with their lives". Unless a cause (really an event like a march) is popular on social media, however loopy, it is not likely to rise to the top of mind in the ruling classes (not just the elected ones). Bottom line is it takes time and persistence to develop relationships with pollies to the extent that they MAY take up your cause and most people don't even know who their elected representatives are.

That may be true if a piece was on 4 corners the night before or there is some policy platform they and to prosecute but the reality is that most acts of parliament and regulations originate from the un-elected public service who convince pollies that this act/regulation is the right thing to do generally to give them more control or make their job easier or simply make more jobs thus increasing their argument for a pay rise. I cant recall but I think the ASIC card arose from regulations not an Act of parliament so it really didn't suffer the scrutiny of parliament at the time and most of the incumbents were not in parliament at the time plus it does not affect them or the majority of their constituents (as if they mattered!).

There is a requirement that regulation be evidence based. Someone needs to demonstrate the effectiveness or otherwise of the regulatory requirement. We all know that the security services think that more regulatory hurdles may prevent attacks but in the end Parliament needs to be reminded that just because no aviation based attack has happened doesn't mean that the regulation has done its job. The evidence actually is opposite as the baggage handlers at Sydney all must have had ASIC cards but some of them were involved in all sorts of stuff that if the issuing system was doing its job you would have thought they would not have been approved for an ASIC. Just like the gun thing - only law abiding citizens suffered - illegal weapons still get used in shootings country-wide. The real lesson is that the Connellan Airways tragedy can still occur as not all aircraft are kept on public strips or ASIC required airports.

Does anyone know if there has been any review of the system and its effectiveness? Or is it not a "priority issue" for a government who trumpets their attach on excessive or ineffective regulation?

What a great idea - KISS in action

From Australian Flying September/October 2018: A leaked e-mail from within CASA and a statement to Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) members has all but confirmed that RAAus will get an increase in the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) for aircraft they are permitted to administer. The CASA e-mail stated that although RAAus requested a new weight of 1500 kg, CASA was proposing an initial increase to 760 kg. Self explanatory really

The question was " when is the 760kg limit coming into law". If it is that CASA proposed the higher limit they must have done so with the benefit of some research and internal navel gazing. Personally I don't care either way but what pisses me off is a bunch of bureaucrats who wave a carrot, set up the hoops, watch the performance and then run dead. It has taken over 12 months and still there is no Part 149 approval in the RAA headquarters. The exposition is losing currency by the day and we paid a huge price ($$$$) for it. All this after over two decades of pissing around with faux consultation. Any other sphere of Government activity this snails pace of "regulatory reform" would see Ministers and senior bureaucrats getting the DCM. Every Budget produces changes in big spending areas like health, aged care and social security and the requisite regulations are introduced and acted upon poste haste. This is not about ICAO - our certificates are not valid outside of Australia ( ICAO is an arm of the United Nations - a specialized agency charged with coordinating international air travel) . This is not about risk aversion - the studies must have been done before start and at the very least should have been done. Public servants do not make decisions like this alone - they expertly diffuse the risk. And lastly it is not about liability. Not one case in this area has found CASA liable and the courts have defined recreational aviation as an activity where you are presumed to know the risks. In any event CASA can simply deny liability legislatively as they have done for experimental category aircraft which make up a considerable slice of the GA fleet. And CASA seems to be flying a much different course to the rest of the world in GA regulation. It really says something when the regulation behemoth that is EASA can show more desire than CASA for genuine regulatory reform to foster GA and can propose changes, consult and introduce new regulations in the time a CASA committee takes to order coffee.

Public servants have been known to use "consultation" as a mechanism to avoid change. CASA's approach to consultation is variable depending upon the target audience and CASA's real desire for change. For example, the way that they have responded to the demands of the big players in the drone industry (Google, Amazon etc) has been frighteningly quick (on their time scale). So if Dr Smart Aleck and his cronies can do it for Bill Gates, Bezos and co. in whole new arena of aviation regulation, why can't they shift the goal posts in a long standing, known quantity sector like recreational aviation? I suspect there are no chances for high paying post retirement jobs in recreational aviation or international kudos as "innovators". Recreational aviation is not alone when it comes to this self absorbed regulator. Just look at the way they messed up on Parts 61, 66 and 91.

Glaciers move faster than CASA