ian00798

Nathan c plenty of pilots flying now with no casa medical with no difference in health related incidents compared to those with casa medical.

Have you got some evidence to back that up or is that just your opinion?

 

If you think about a private pilot doing 50 hrs a year, say 1 hr/ wk that works out to be 0.59% of his/her time actually flying, very low risk if you ask me.

But your in an environment which is considerably harsher than most environments, with some conditions that are known to trigger or exacerbate medical conditions. Have you actually calculated the risk? Otherwise there is no point asking you, because it is meaningless. I would be absolutely certain that avmed makes a risk calculation on every decision it makes, because they may have to explain the decision in a court of law, and saying "very low risk if you ask me" probably won't help them avoid a stay at one of her majesty's fine institutions.

 

 

Ian you did say to the extreme...but here we are not that case 99% of us here are in that 10 to 50 hrs a year in a small aircraft usually taking a pax and thats all....not a aluminium tube with 200 pax on board. I am sure everyone would agree to tougher testing for those commercial pilots. This Recreational flying not commercial flying. The 2 are two very different scenarios

The people on the ground who get hit by the aforementioned recreational aircraft may not feel the same way. 600kg doing 180km/h is not an insignificant amount of energy. And even RA AUS has a medical standard that may disqualify people from flying an aircraft. When casa issues a class 2 they cant assume your just flying a Cessna with 2 passengers onboard, they have to assume your are flying what the medical allows you to fly, which even on a PPL is nearly everything. I know of a metroliner that is flown quite often by a PPL holder, and if you honestly think that should be flown by someone who hypothetically may not have seen a doctor in decades then that is insane. Casa tried to come up with something reasonable with the RAMPC for people who don't fly bigger aircraft, and quite frankly it is reasonable. If your GP isn't confident you can safely fly an aircraft then it goes to aviation specific doctors who can then make the judgement call. Frankly if it was up to me I would introduce the same standard for RA aircraft.

 

 

WEll you cant fly according to CASA on their modified Ausroads medical if you have had stents or bypasses. But seems if you pay enough money to the right hands they will give you a class 2...sounds like double standards to me

Rather than double standards it sounds to me more like they have had a medical professional investigate the case in more detail for the class 2 than for the RAMPC. For all the speculation and opinion on this forum, I suspect none of the people commenting actually have any medical background and therefore are doing nothing but speculating based on their very biased opinions. I don't think AVMED do everything right, but im certain there need to be medical standards in aviation. Let's take it to the extreme, how comfortable would anyone on this forum actually be flying on an airliner with a flight crew that hasn't been subjected to medical scrutiny? Yet in the airliner if a pilot becomes incapacitated there is another pilot to back them up, so if anything it is more critical in smaller aircraft.

 

 

Yes...it probably does but that's a lot faster than 1.3 x Vs (47) = 61 knots and no doubt makes for a much longer landing roll.Kaz

Your in a glide approach, should be flying best glide which is your best lift to drag ratio and that is 70 knots as per the POH. Flying a glide approach at 60 knots in a tomahawk will damn near kill you if you get unlucky. The rest of the speed will wash off in the flare after the glide. Remember, better going off the end of the field at 20 knots than going in upside down short of the field

 

 

Kaz. I have only flown the Tomohawk once and did my usual glide approach, actually it was a simulated engine failure. No problems, but I can't remember the speed, only that it flared nicely and landed just about where I wanted it to.

If you fly it at 70 knots until the flare it does just fine. It's a T tail so the prop wash has significantly less effect on it than most aircraft.

 

 

So if you need a clearance to enter, and RAAus are not permitted to seek clearances* as we do not have a CTA Endo, just how are you planning on getting said clearance?

100% correct, and I'm starting to feel like this is going to go around in circles, because no rule book can beat a total pig headed unwillingness to look facts in the face.

 

No such rule.

I'm pretty sure a civil aviation order counts as a rule, I mean that's generally what the word order means in that context, it's not a civil aviation suggestion....

 

 

There is no such thing as a controlled airspace endorsement for RAA

Exactly, so perhaps you should stay out or get an RPL and do it legally. Perhaps you can use your logic though and go for a burn through pine gap? Let me know how you go keeping your pilots certificate when your out of jail.

 

 

So exactly which words in ENR 1.4 section 5 spell it out in black and white? I can't see anything in there."will receive a service equivalent to that of Class C" does not mean it is class C."Will receive a service equivalent to that of" does not mean "is". In fact, it pretty much confirms "is not", otherwise it would not need to be specified.

Most, and by most I mean all, normal people would interpret that equivalent to means it requires the same procedures and qualifications as operating in civil class c airspace. I mean for gods sake, if you look at the chart for Amberley it's even marked as class C!

 

Perhaps instead of making up our own rules and creatively interpreting AIP to support stupidity we should just try following the rules? Although from half the people on here I would almost settle for just knowing they exist and where to find them.......

 

 

Without wanting to sound like a smartasre - what is so hard to understand about the AIP reference provided?

Where is the super triple like button when you need it

 

 

FML, does anybody actually read the AIP?

Stop asking yourself that one or you will become KRaziator in no time, trust me.

 

 

Here's how I do a diversion:

 

Always divert from a known point, preferably a very obvious feature. Then I use the acronym TELFAR

 

T - Track. Don't forget to convert from grid to magnetic

 

E - ETI. Figure out your ETI, don't forget to account for known winds.

 

L - LSALT. Only needed for an IFR diversion

 

F - Fuel. How much do you have? How much do you need? Remember you still need to have your reserves intact

 

A - Altitude and airspace. Fly a hemispheric level. Check for things like CTA and restricted areas on your divert route.

 

R - Radio call. Give the details to Brisbane/Melbourne centre. Amend your SARTIME if needed.

 

 

In an ideal world the magistrate would laugh them out of court and order any costs against someone dumb enough to build a house there, but I'm pretty sure I'd just end up disappointed.It's hard to believe sometimes that we evolved as far as we have. If our ancestors were dumb enough to camp next to the giant carnivores, they got eaten and others learned not to do it, but now we reward them.

We are 100% in agreement on this, but sadly we live in a less than ideal world. I think the people that bought near places like caloundra got the usual sale pitch from the developers, yeah there's an airport there but it only has a couple of light aircraft fly each day and it's scheduled to be closed down in a couple of years anyway..... basically the usual. As you can see I have become a bit jaded with the beuracracy of this country

 

 

I'd be very interested to know who they would sue should a loaded Air Tractor plough through after an engine out on takeoff.

Anyone and everyone they thought they could win against. The pilot, the aircraft operator, air tractor, the aerodrome operator, Pratt and Whitney, the person that hired the air tractor, I'm sure they could think of others too.

 

 

I walked down the footpath at the side of the road today, oh my god, 300 cars almost killed me!

How many had you had to drink then?? Remember the footpath is the grey bit, not the black bit

 

 

That's how the cycle goes. Airport built in prime real estate location, so they develop all around the airport with morons who buy with the piano keys practically in their back yard then complain about aircraft noise and safety hazards so the airport disappears. I don't know if their will be a Caloundra airport a decade from now.

 

 

I would like to know what the parameters are for my little Zodiac to stall if I inadvertently turn too steeply and slowly on final. It seems to me that it would not be that hard to push the pedal over to increase the turn and inadvertently find myself skidding in a steep turn at too low a speed and at too low an altitude. I dont know how my aircraft would behave in that scenario, and I don't want to find out unless I am safely conducting stalls at an appropriate height. Some aircraft will turn upside down in a skidding stall. I heard recently a Mustang pilot say that the Mustang takes 9000 ft to recover from a stall spin.

There is a very simple way to avoid a spin, and that is don't increase the angle of attack beyond the critical angle. If you don't stall then you can't spin, and this is all too do with stick position. If you have a lot of bank with crossed controls and that stick coming back well aft you may be approaching the last seconds of your life.

 

 

Yes but students don't have the ability to know everything at once so you have to give them some things to work with

 

 

We have a standing instruction for students that any more than 30 and it's time to go around and try again. Having said that, it's not the bank angle that is the issue, it's the corresponding pulling back the stick and increasing the angle of attack while then crossing the controls with opposite rudder that is the issue.

 

Facthunter, I can tell you right now that a 172 has a bite in particular manoeuvres that very few people know about, so even the benign ones will bite hard.

 

While mandatory spin training would be fantastic, I suspect economics comes into it a bit. A lot of the RA aircraft aren't even guaranteed to be able to recover from a spin and aren't certified for it, although I suspect most probably would be recoverable. Frankly I think every pilot should be aeros endorsed, then you actually understand how an aircraft behaves on the limit, but once again economics wins there. But that is the reason the military teaches aerobatics to its pilots, not because they want them to have a lot of fun, but they need people who understand what the aircraft behaves like in all areas of the flight envelope.

 

 

Geoff, I was require to complete spin training many years ago as part of the UK syllabus for a Private license; and again here in Australia for an Aerobatic endorsement. The argument for and against has raged for as long as I have been a pilot and probably even longer. The real, IMO. advantage for the training is to recognize the onset of a spin. Cross controls turning final when low and slow is the classic condition and you would be lucky to survive if it is allowed to develop.

You just won't survive it on the base/final turn. It will give way very rapidly and with a surprisingly low nose attitude and you will probably hit the ground before you know what even happened.

 

 

No worries mate, nobody in this business knows everything, and it got you back in the books to solidify a previous concept and then at the time learn something new, all in all a win I would say.

 

 

It's not necessarily a IFR related question from the OP, it was a question about OzRunways. In VFR, you can have LSALT's at 860ft AGL. Sometimes necessary when navigating around restricted and controlled airspace

Then that isn't an LSALT, that's just operating your aircraft in accordance with CAR157. Given that AIP specifically states that the lowest LSALT in Australian airspace is 1500ft I think it is reasonable to say that 860ft can not be considered an LSALT. I really strongly recommend giving AIP GEN page 18 a read, it outlines this pretty clearly by AIP standards

 

 

It could be 860 feet, as the minimum 1000 feet applies to flight over built up areas, in rural areas the minimum is 500 feet

When developing an IFR LSALT as this thread is about you have to be a minimum of 1000ft above any obstacles (except during an instrument approach) so the 500 ft rule does not apply, that is regarding low flying not LSALT

 

 

Since it is legally possible for there to be an unmarked structure up to 299' you normally add 1000' to the highest structure OR 1300' to the highest terrain....whichever is higher...

Actually it could be 360 feet tall, hence add 1360 feet to get LSALT. Unless the highest point in the area happens to already be a structure of greater than 360 feet, in which case you just add 1000 feet.

 

 

It is said that one cannot rely on the skid ball to identify direction of rotation.Does that also apply to electronic skid indicators?

Correct. If I recall correctly the spin recovery bold face check list we used in the military was

 

Power Idle

 

Turn needle-identify direction of spin

 

Ailerons-centralise

 

Rudder-full opposite to turn needle

 

Elevator- centrally forward sufficient to unstall the wings

 

When rotation has ceased

 

Recover from dive

 

Post loss of control checks.

 

Notice that we are using the turn needle, not the balance ball. When you start doing things like multi engine training you will realise at times the balance ball lies, it's only really valid in the normal flight envelope of the aircraft and I suspect it would be true even with an electronic ball as the accelerometer would still be aligned similar to the ball in a mechanical instrument.

 

 

I am spin trained and endorsed, but frankly could use a refresher. That's why it scares me when people say they want to just go and try this kind of thing with out any training, you would be truly shocked at what seemingly insignificant things can make a spin unrecoverable.