ian00798

You still can do that. It will cost you about $3k per year for the privilege, but you can do it.

That’s the point of part 91 isn’t it? To get rid of this ridiculous system of contradictory rules that no 2 people read the same way, and a series of documents that are impossible to follow.

Well I mean Kingsford smith did at one point have Bill Taylor climbing all over the Southern Cross to do an inflight oil transfer..

I will concede you are correct there. However others have also correctly pointed out that as per definitions in the Civil Aviation Act an RA aircraft is an Australian registered aircraft. Hence CAO 20.16 would apply. I always used to think there was a definition that said an Australian registered aircraft was an aircraft on the Australian civil register, and then a recognised aircraft was that of a foreign state, or that of another body such as the GFA or UFA. However that definition seems to have gone and a recognised aircraft is now only that on a recognised foreign aircraft register or that of a foreign state.

So under this logic RA aircraft don’t need to follow CAO 20.18? I guess we can save a few dollars by skipping those pesky minimum day VFR instruments. Or how about CAO 20.11? Guess I can skip hiring that life raft for my next trip to Lord Howe. And life jackets are for those GA wimps really...

As you quite validly pointed out, it is made under CAR 208 (1) and CAR 235 (7). And also as you validly pointed out, CAO 95.55 exempts RA AUS pilots from complying with CAR 208. However given CAR 208 (1) covers operating crew, it isn’t at all relevant to carriage of passengers. What you fail to mention is that RA AUS isn’t exempt from CAR 235 (7) to which CAO 20.16.3 also references. Given CAR 235 (7) references the loading of passengers it’s far more relevant to this discussion. Now in reality I don’t think it’s reasonable for your normal person to read a CAO and figure out what gets its power from CAR 208 and what gets its power from CAR 235, and given an RA AUS pilot is required to adhere to CAR 235 then they effectively have to comply with all of CAO 20.16.3. The civil aviation act describes So ultimately KRAviator is correct. Also your forgetting that the wording in CAO 95.55 is that RA AUS aircraft are exempted from following those regulations. Exempted being the critical word. Exempt means not obliged to follow, not that you can’t follow. So your assertion that you cannot go by the regulation is just totally wrong. Now the ultimate question would be why on earth are the rules so complex and contradictory that there is so much grey.

I generally leave 3 lines between each month, I go for the compromise between neatness and maximising capacity. Each to their own really and do what makes you happy, I’m just a slight bit OCD and value that neatness and everything being in order for the logbook. At the end of the day you could satisfy the casa requirement by writing your flight hours on a series of napkins and binding them together.

I like logten pro for my IPad. Has a lot of useful functions and can be printed out in the same format as the ATC logbook

It’s about triple the size of the normal logbook, and it cost about $60 when I got it 10 years ago

Looks hard to find now. I used to use the professional logbook but just recently transferred the info across to the normal logbook. Trust me, the professional logbook is more irritating than its worth.

An RA senior instructor doesn’t take that much time to get, they only need to hold an instructor rating and then do 75 hours of instruction. A GA instructor with similar privileges would be grade 2, and that requires at least 200 hours of instruction. Frankly for your first 100 hours instructing your learning at least as much as the student is, possibly more. Even after that there is a lot to learn.

Frankly the standard is far less variable in GA than RA. Might have something to do with the person issuing the licence being a representative of CASA and having actually gone through training to assess their suitability to conduct flight tests as well as the fact that they generally have several thousand hours (generally more like 10 000 hours), not the minimum 250 needed for an RA CFI endorsement.

I don’t entirely agree with you on this one Ben which is pretty rare, I generally see eye to eye with you. RA can and quite often does count towards GA flight time for issue of a CPL, although only certain parts of it count. As for how big a step up the transition from RA to GA is, I think that depends on where you did your training. My biggest criticism of RA is the standard is just so variable. Some people are trained to a point I argue doesn’t even meet the RA competency standards, some are trained every bit as well as their GA counterparts (particularly at dual GA/RA schools). At the end of the day, CPL is competency based. The hours stated are minimums, some people will get the qualification near the minimums, others will take a lot more.

Pretty much exactly correct, although the ATPL hours are: 1500tt 1400 hours as pilot (ie you can count 100 hours flight engineer) 750 hours aeroplane, with at least either 500 hours ICUS or 250 hours command of which 70 hours must be PIC and the rest can be ICUS 200 hours XC 100 hours XC PIC/ICUS 100 hours night other than dual 75 IF of which 45 must be in the aircraft, the remainder can be approved sim. As stated, captain has to be an ATPL holder for RPT, FO can be a CPL holder however they would need multi crew cooperation course, instrument rating and an appropriate type rating.

The news article said nothing of him making two wheels up landings. It merely said there was a similar incident (different pilot) that was being investigated despite the fact this one wasn’t being investigated. It was pointing out the inconsistency in what the ATSB does and does not investigate.

I love how we supposedly have a pilot with a history of making wheels up landings just because some people on here said that is the case. I really hope some of the people on here never have to serve on a jury in their lives.

Jaba, I don’t think anyone has even conclusively shown he had a second gear up landing yet, it’s all been speculation and stuff people heard from a friend of a friend etc

So your solution to not wanting to throw more mud at the pilot is to throw more mud at the pilot? Can I suggest if you have to use the words “I think” when suggesting the other wheels up landing was this pilots fault then that’s what is known as an unfounded accusation.....

And now the minor holes in the Swiss cheese are lining up. Turns out the bloke is human and capable of error, not an incompetent reckless maverick

And as per what happyflyer said, that report in no way implies that he was involved in the other wheels up landing, it is pointing out the appearance of impropriety that a possibly similar incident was investigated while this one wasn’t.

Still far from a horror show even if it was two. Once again, far more interested in the why rather than lynching the guy. There have been many of but for the grace of god moments in my flying career, but they are also good opportunities to learn.

My opinion on the Pel-Air crash is far outside the scope of this discussion and I haven’t had the chance to read the updated report, so I am refraining from quoting on that one. As I have said before, it is definitely not the finest moment in this pilots career, but going out like a lynch mob to attack the pilot for what was a genuine error is over the top. The media is sensationalising the mobile phone aspect, as of yet we don’t know why he was using the phone. There could have been a valid operational reason. I’m sure he does his checks, this time he made an error. The first wheels up doesn’t count, it was a mechanical malfunction, so he has one wheels up landing in 9000 hours. Not ideal, but not a horror show either.

Well frankly I suspect he would be offended by what your posting about him, however you seem to give very little consideration to that. Who I work for is irrelevant, I am commenting on my own behalf and in no way representing my employer. Have you got any evidence he used a friend to stop an investigation? Or is this another unfounded hearsay? I’m sure he has a great deal of regard for checking, however he made what is called an error. It turns out that in 9000 hours of flying you will make some of them. Yes I would have exactly the same attitude if it was a fully loaded 747. As a matter of fact an Ansett crew did something like that at Sydney. Rather than attacking the person it makes much more sense to investigate the why and work on more effective defenses.

Well I’m struggling to see the nose wheel failing to come down was his fault, but hey, guess we might as well blame everything on him. Frankly I don’t think much of a PPL holder who most likely hasn’t spent a lot of time flying anything complex slagging off a very experienced pilot. All I can say is I hope you don’t have a human factors endorsement on your pilot certificate, as your clearly aren’t at the required standard. And I hope for your sake when you make a mistake people are more just and fair than you are to your fellow aviators. And for the record, I would much rather fly with him rather than be one of your students.

I’m glad camel is so flawless and immune to error, for most people we are susceptible to many human factors that can cause routine checks to be missed. For many thousands of landings this guy has got the gear down correctly. Undoubtedly this was not his finest night flying, but rather than hanging him in the town square as camel wants to I would suggest we actually all try and learn from the mistake and try not to make it ourselves. Camel, do you have a personal problem with this guy? You are going after him very viciously with absolutely no knowledge of the actual facts of the incident. Everybody on this forum likes to complain how viciously CASA goes after people but there are people on here who make CASA look gentle and forgiving.