Icarus

Im assuming he was erring on the side of caution. How many pilots would dare to ask the overweight female passenger what she weighs!!!!  I would think even though pilots should not exceed MTOW it does happen.

If  760kg MTOW  is exceeded then you are into the 1.5x safety factor.  at 700kg MTOW overload you obviously are still well outside 1.5 x factor.  So no sneaking over in SA. or in experimental class here when you have C of A at 760 kg

The south Africans love their Jabbies. If you go to AV com to the jabiru section you will find the love.

If you go to Jabiru website and you tube you will see videos of structural testing.

I have heard they do get off the ground at 800kg

edit .  sorry about the lines! showed up after posting!!??

You would expect if the aircraft is approved to 760KG in another country, they would have already carried out all the required testing for 760kg certification.Jabiru must have structurally tested the J430 at 760kg (or higher)? I wonder why casa didn't certify the J430 to 760kg (under VH) here in Australia

I Asked Mr Stiff about this on the ph about a year or more ago .

The enquiry from me was " If I was to build a j430 and wanted 760kg could I get a letter stating the aircraft is rated for that MTOW"

"This letter would be to show the inspector at experimental certification time  that the designer approves of the MTOW:."

His answer was "yes, no problem with that"

Remebering an experimental aircraft can have the MTOW set by the builder. The letter would be to set the inspectors mind at ease that the aircraft is safe at the MTOW.

Rod told me the aircraft was designed for 760kg with a 1.5x safety factor. He set 700kg for Australia to leave 10% safety margin for the overloading pilots ! [ If I remember correctly]

Once the aircraft is certified for a MTOW I reckon it would take a mountain of paperwork to Get CASA to increase it. Needs to be done at initial ceritfication I would think.

This conversation was had after I saw the MTOW of the South African Jabs and sent an email to them asking if there was any mods th get the 760kg. They then sent my enquiry to jabiru Australia, whom then Rang me.

Hope this helps any future builders.

SECTION 4.08

REPORTING IMMEDIATE AND ROUTINE REPORTABLE MATTERS

GENERAL

Recreational aeroplanes and associated ground or flight operations are required to comply with the reporting requirements of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI) and the Transport Safety Investigation (TSI) Regulations 2003.

DEFINITIONS

The definitions of Immediate Reportable Matters and Routine Reportable Matters are defined in RAAP 2 -2016 Reporting Requirements.

For RAAus purposes an Immediate Reportable Matter (IRM) was previously defined as an Accident, and a Routine Reportable Matter (RRM) was previously defined as an Incident.

NOTIFICATIONS

Notification of an IRM must be made as soon as practicable, and in writing within 72 hours, whereas an RRM must be notified in writing within 72 hours of the occurrence.

RAAus members will fulfil their written obligations under the TSI Act by submitting an online report via the RAAus website using the online Occurrence Management System (OMS).

A report submitted via the OMS on the RAAus website will automatically be forwarded to the ATSB and fulfil the obligation for written notification of the IRM or RRM.

As responsible persons, the pilot in command, the owner, the operator and the hirer (as applicable) must each ensure that their IRM and RRM reporting requirements are fulfilled within 72 hours of the occurrence.

Note: A responsible person need not submit a report if they have reasonable grounds to believe another responsible person has already reported the occurrence.

Further detail about IRM and RRM follow up and investigation processes, along with analysis and information sharing is provided in RAAP 2 – 2016 Reporting Requirements

Got a set of Nesmith plans from the US; should be here this week.Thanks to the members for their input.

 

Cheers

Many hours of enjoyment to you sir.

while on legalities .

If I wanted to put my tools of trade into my RAA or GA experimental aeroplane , and fly out to old mate out back .

Do some plastering and not deduct the cost of the flight for tax purposes , would this be legal?

I believe that you cannot use the aircraft for reward , but can you use it to get you to a place where you get the "reward"

Gee that's amazing. the guy who new almost exactly where it went down also being an aviator didn't seem to get the message to the search people in a timely manor, something odd there! Hope they get to the bottom of this investigation soon, not knowing is worse than knowing:-(*

Also remember this is all second and third hand info .

no facts here , only relayed story.

Any part could be incorrect.

Looks like Icarus could probably clear it up with a short statement.

This is hearsay at best .

The witness who saw the plane go down looked up as he heard the engine cut. he watched the plane bank right travelling from the south .

it clipped the top of a tree then disappeared behind a hill. He saw exactly where it went down but the search was everywhere else!

Young bloke on a horse decided to look where the plane was seen to hit the tree top. Found it in a few hours.

I believe this witness is an aviator and aviation teacher.

No mention this time of broken wing

It may be possible the engine was cut on purpose in prepp for emergeny landing due to partial wing failure.[this is pure speculation on my part]

There is a recently cleared dirt road right under where the plane was seen to hit the tree top

Not many long flat paddocks in the area below

looks to me like he might have been trying for that road but was too high on final

Its on a very steep hill ,would be difficult to land on I think

There is a CTA step up where the bloke was flying. from 4500ft to 8500 ft from memory.

That's all I have heard. again second and third hand info.

Old Mate was found about 9am at limpinwood on a property next door to my Mothers .

Apparently a witness who saw the plane go down teaches Aviation at TAFE . So hopefully RAA etc can get a good idea of what happened from him.

.He was probably having a whole lotta fun before the bad bit

I wonder if he would have liked this:

Flying West...

I hope there's a place, way up in the sky,

Where pilots can go, when they have to die.

A place where a guy could buy a cold beer

For a friend and a comrade whose memory is dear.

A place where no doctor or lawyer could tread,

Nor a management -type would e'er be caught dead!

Just a quaint little place, kind of dark, full of smoke,

Where they like to sing loud, and love a good joke!

The kind of a place where a lady could go,

And feel safe and secure by the men she would know.

There MUST be a place where old pilots go, when

Their wings become weary, when their airspeed gets low;

Where the whiskey is old, and the women are young,

And songs about flying and dying are sung.

Where you'd see all the fellows who'd "flown west" before,

And they'd call out your name, as you came thru the door,

Who would buy you a drink, if the thirst should be bad,

And relate to the others, "He was quite a good lad!"

And then thru the mist you'd spot an old guy

You had not seen for years, though he'd taught YOU to fly,

He'd nod his old head, and grin ear to ear,

And say, "Welcome, my son, I'm pleased you are here!

For this is the place where true flyers come,

When the battles are over, and the wars have been won;

We've come here at last, to be safe and afar,

From the government clerk, and the management czar,

Politicians and lawyers, the Feds and the noise,

Where all Hours are Happy, and these good ol' boys,

Can relax with a 'cool one', and a well deserved rest.."

"This is Heaven, my son: You've passed your last check!"

Prob best to contact Murbah Aero club. 02 6672 3235. As far as I'm aware all hangars are full. but someone may be able to shuffle something around for a few days.

eagle air flight school may be able to help 0413 025 178 Michael from memory , lost his card.

Is the drome serviceable again? Last photo I saw it looked like a float plane only drome!

I seamed to have left the h off the end of Murwillumbah. Sorry about that.

At least its not too cold here . Hopefully old mate will be found in the morning OK

Gday Blackhawk

The Cougar is basically a copy of the Wittman Tailwind. Some differences are the cougar has folding wings and no flaps to help facilitate the folding wings.

The landing gear on the tailwind is different to the cougar as the Tailwind gear was patented by Steve wittman. The cougar gear was prone to breaking the fuselage due to tourque forces in inadequately re inforced structure. Also the cougar plans are said to be woefully inadequate and many builders ended up buying tailwind plans.

There are now separate plans that can be bought for full aluminium wet wings for the tailwind , and a lot of mods from the original that are now being used .

You should try the Yahoo Tailwind group. Active forum with many builders and plenty of help and advice.

I would like to build something like this with a jabiru 3300 turbo efi and Liquid cooled heads aprox 160hp. I reckon it would be good for 230Mph TAS at 10000 ft flat out

That's about 200knots or 370kph.

Just be aware that the stall speed at 600kg would be around 55 60mph which is 48 -57 knots so may stall a little high for RAA Reg . Again the guys in the tailwind forum can answer stall speed questions etc.

You will need to join the group to ask questions , takes about 24 hours to be accepted

Yahoo! Groups

From the tech Manual:

3.3 LEVEL TWO (L2) Maintenance Authority

3.3.1 L2 may be applied for via TECH FORM 015 – L2 APPLICATION and may be issued on the basis of qualifications and experience of the applicant. L2 privileges are valid for two years and are subject to renewal via TECH FORM 012 – LEVEL 2 re-appointment. In order to renew these privileges, an L2 must conduct at least two annual or 100 hourly inspections within two years. This may be considered for variation on a case-by-case basis, upon application to the Technical Manager.

A LAME is issued with a perpetual L2, subject to continued validity of the LAME Licence. No L2 renewal is required.

Looks like they want the L2 to do 2 annual inspections in 2 years.

The Form 12 asks for the details of these 2 inspections [owner , type ,rego , private etc] and the usual name address etc

Ok. Thats even better. Thanks Ian

My plan is this:

Do RAA and get certificate min 25 hours

Then do navigation endorsement , RPL conversion in GA aircraft. at the same time. min 5 hours for RPL nav ...including 2 hours instruments

This way you get RAA cert, Nav endorsement, RPL licence, conversion from RAA , instrument time.

I believe you need to do 5 hours minimum in GA plane to convert from RAA. I figure might be able to do navs and conversion at the same time

A few snippets from the discussion paper of interest:.......[bold is from the discussion paper]

The implementation of the ‘accredited medical conclusion’ in this sector as cited in the ICAO manual is not defined. This may be appropriate given the different risks involved in this sector, as reflected in the current licensing and administrative arrangements that apply. However, CASA has received approaches from the recreational sector to allow pilots to have greater access to controlled airspace and to increase the maximum take-off weight of aircraft able to be operated in that sector to 1500 kg maximum take-off weight. CASA is considering these proposals but may also need to weigh up the aeromedical consequences of such an expansion and its possible consequences for other airspace users and third parties not associated with the operation of the aircraft

There is inconsistency between the different approaches to medical certification in Australia. Both the medical standards and the flying privileges are different. For example, pilots who are refused a class 2 medical certificate often still fly RA-Aus registered aircraft. There have been several recent medically related fatalities in the latter group. The processes in place in this sector that follow the reporting of a safety-relevant condition to a doctor may need further clarification. The ICAO manual of aviation medicine describes what should happen in these circumstances, as follows:

Does anybody know of the incidents cited above?

CASA will like this one:

In the USA, the US Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has argued that:

An equivalent level of safety regarding aeromedical factors exists between those operations that currently require a medical certificate and those operations that do not currently require a medical certificate (sport aviation).

 There is an extremely low incidence of medically related accidents across both factions, supporting the conclusion that a medical certificate may not always be required in order to maintain a lower incidence of medically related aviation accidents.

 Seven years of statistical evidence to support the petition with an AOPA Air Safety Institute study of light sport aircraft accidents from 2004–2011 claiming there have been no accidents attributable to pilot medical deficiency.

The US Aerospace Medical Association has contested this claim advising the FAA that data was extracted for 1084 individuals involved in fatal accidents from January 2011 to April 2014. Subjects included 68 sport pilots flying legally without a medical certificate and 403 pilots flying with an FAA Third class medical certificate. Moderate to severe medical hazards identified by autopsy were found in 25% of medically certified pilots but in 60% of uncertified pilots.3

One would then have to ask , did the medical conditions cause the accidents ,or were merely present as would be expected from a lower class medical?

The UK changes were supported by statistical analysis of relevant medical risks correlated to the age distribution spread of PPL holders to determine the probability of an inflight incapacitation. The assessment assumed an average of 30 hours flight per pilot annually. The UK assessment bases many of its assertions on a premise which supports the outcome, namely, the assumption that people who feel unwell will not fly. The probability of an incapacitating medical event occurring during the stress of aviation is equal to the probability it will occur during any other activity including sleeping, and the assumption of 30 hours flying per year as the average flying rate of a PPL holder.

The risk assessment also identifies a very low accident rate attributed to medical incapacitation however this accident rate occurs within an environment where more stringent entry control medical conditions are in effect.

More courses /exams anyone?

Pilot training and education

Relaxation of the existing requirements will rely more heavily on the integrity and professionalism of the pilot ensuring that they are medically fit for the planned activity.

Deregulation of medical certification requirements for the general and sport/recreational aviation sectors may need to be supported by extensive pilot education and training. As the UK position is the most liberal amongst the jurisdictions, pilot education would seem to be a requirement to support such a system; however, it is not mandated as such. In the USA, the proposal is for pilots to undertake an online, free of charge, FAA developed medical education course within the two years prior to application. As part of the successful completion of the course, a declaration is required by the pilot certifying compliance to the medical requirement.

Can anybody confirm how these numbers were calculated.

Advice from the industry is that there have been only 3–4 cases of medical incapacitation in over 450,000 landings by RA-Aus members, although it is not clear on what basis this claim is made

If the AOPA want to push this through , they better have some good arguments and numbers. they better have all their ducks in a row because it looks like CASA has done their homework . I don't think the argument " the UK has done it " will wash with CASA here.

They seem to think the UK research was designed to fit the desired outcome.

I support the Uk or NZ model , simply because there is no evidence to say there is more accidents per anything ,with a drivers equivalent self certifiying model.

CASA will probably argue that under reporting is the reason , although they do state that RAA reporting has increased 10 fold recently, So maybe they are starting to trust RAA and RAA pilots more!!!!!!!!!!!!! did I just type that!?

Flame resistant overalls are on.

Like this?

My recommendation is to support the AOPA proposal which is closely aligned with the UK CAA medical rule brought in last August. Basically you make a declaration ONCE before age 70 that you are not restricted from driving ordinary private motor vehicle and every three years thereafter. The onus on you is to report if and when you would be unable to make this declaration at any time

Firstly you are not correct with the correlations of medical to licence

RAMPC for ppl I was not aware of

And thirdly that's not what ALL our representative bodies are trying to get brought in.

Are they trying to get self certification for all lic classes to and including PPL?

While I believe the current minimums are fine ,I also believe that self certification would be better.

so the belief that only class 2 medical or above can go into CTA is not correct).

RPL 1 pax = Rampc [remembering access to CTA which is usually over built up areas and mixing with RPT]

I think everyone except casa disagrees with you

That is not good, and I can see why from that why people would not agree with the requirement.

So what does everybody want? if everybody disagrees with the current system.

Self certification all the way to and including PPL?

Does anybody know how many pilot incapacitation accident have occurred in RAA over the last say 10 years?Would be a good measure to see if the current drivers lic equivalent is working. ie nobody on the ground has been killed by RAA pilot incapacitated

Advice from the industry is that there have been only 3–4 cases of medical incapacitation in over 450,000 landings by RA-Aus members, although it is not clear on what basis this claim is made

I feel the medical requirement at the moment are fine.

RPC = Drivers lic equivalent

RPL 1 pax = Rampc [remembering access to CTA which is usually over built up areas and mixing with RPT]

RPL more than 1 pax = class 2

PPL = class 2

Do I have these right?

it seems to be more the process ,ie burecratic red tape and BS that is the problem.

Perhaps PPL and RPL with 2+ pax could be RAMPC, but some say this is harder than class 2?

Thanks Aplund. I am assuming this study was of pilots who have a class2 medical or higher. Interesting airliners was the most represented in icap incidents with the highest medical standards! No percentage given!

10 fatal accidents with most being from heart attack. All single pilot aircraft . They say the risk of a fatal accident increases with the pilot having a heart attack!!

Would be interesting to line up RAA numbers with these.

Interesting acute gastro 1st,, cabin fumes/ smoke second

Does anybody know how many pilot incapacitation accident have occurred in RAA over the last say 10 years?

Would be a good measure to see if the current drivers lic equivalent is working. ie nobody on the ground has been killed by RAA pilot incapacitated

Has RAA a similar letter. I would hope so. This issue will affect RAA the most if CASA is allowed to have their way. Seems like the rest of the world is going one way while CASA goes the other .

Have a look at the link provided above. there is a discussion paper at the bottom of the page.

Here is the discussion paper:

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/176936/download?token=0N0PnquK

Looks like they want Drivers lic equivalent with 12 extra CASA requirements

ie RAMPC

Here are the options CASA are considering. You have till the 30th of March to put your 2bobs worth to CASA

Review of medical certification standards | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Options

There are six options that may be considered for future consultation, although further options will be considered on the basis of responses to this discussion paper.

The options are:

• continuing the existing medical certification requirements and arrangements (status quo)
   
   
  
• re-assessing risk tolerances which inform medical certifications standards in the context of industry and community expectations
   
   
  
• examining and streamlining medical certification practices across the various certification standards, including the approach to assessing incapacitation risk
   
   
  
• aligning certification standards across the sport and recreational sectors by revising the recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate to make it both more accessible to pilots and more widely applicable
   
   
  
• developing a new medical certificate for the sport and recreational sectors which considers overseas approaches with elements of self-certification
   
   
  
• mitigating the risks of any changes by applying operational restrictions.
   
   
  

Look at the sneaky wording of point 4. "to make it more accessible and more widely applicable'

in other words we want RAA RPC to need RAMPC.

They are red hot aren't they?