Ada Elle

I read this as "Unusual Attitude Safety" is a culture, and thought it was going to be about aerobatic pilots and HASELL checks.

This is not a hypothetical. It is very real, and pertains to many people here.

The FlySafe tutorials say:

Generally a factory-built aeroplane must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area and the minimum height is 1 000 feet above ground level. 'Suitable landing area' means an area in which an aeroplane can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

Even so, it is unlikely that, if it came to a judicial test, a recreational aircraft would be legally be able to operate from, or enter, most Class D CTRs as the 'lanes of entry' to such airfields usually involve overflight of closely-settled areas, and overlying Class C airspace may severely limit available altitude (and thus gliding distance) in such lanes.

(a) from which the aircraft can glide clear of all populous areas to a suitable forced-landing area;and

(b) that is at least 1 000 feet above ground level, except to the minimum extent necessary for the aircraft to safely climb after take-off or safely descend for a landing.

 

NoteParagraph (a), together with the definition of populous area, has the effect of prohibiting Jabiru-powered aircraft from departing from or landing at various places, including but not limited to Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin Airports.

There are clearly RAAus aircraft using the lane of entry and Bankstown. CASA has said that it is impossible to glide clear of Bankstown.

Are these aircraft operating illegally, or does 95.55 not mean what people here think it means?

Who wants to call CASA, get a clarification, and possibly get RAAus aircraft banned from Sydney altogether?

Then you can tell Ultralights that he has been illegally flying from Bankstown.

So.

You're all claiming that CAO 95.55 says (in effect) that:

you must remain clear of built up areas unless

you can glide clear AND

you remain above 1000' except when taking off and landing

It's as if casa actually meant to write

The pilot in command of a Jabiru-powered aircraft is only permitted to operate the aircraft over a populous area at a height:

(a) from which the aircraft can glide clear of all populous areas to a suitable forced-landing area;and

 

(b) that is at least 1 000 feet above ground level, except to the minimum extent necessary for the aircraft to safely climb after take-off or safely descend for a landing.

However, in the same CASA document (the Jabiru instrument), it says that this bans such aircraft from Bankstown, Archerfield, and Moorabbin.

So, I ask again, what is the correct interpretation of 95.55? Can you fly over populous areas at greater than 1000' if you cannot glide clear?

The section 8.1 exemption is for the general restriction on flying at under 500'. It is not an exemption to 7.1.

8.1 says that you're allowed to fly below 500ft for the purposes of takeoff and landing.

7.1 says that you're not allowed to fly below 1000' in closely settled areas, in LSAs etc, unless you can glide free.

Otherwise, by your interpretation, you are never allowed to fly in a closely settled area unless you are more than 1000'; so how do you land at say YWOL? There is no exemption to 7.1 for takeoff and landing, so how do do your crosswind and base legs?

CAR157 has an exemption for takeoff and landing. CAO 95.55 has no such exemption. Thus, by DrZoos' interpretation, you are never allowed to land at an airport in a built-up area.

On the other hand, the penalties for breaking the low-flying laws are different: if you fly under 1000' over a built up area in a GA aircraft, you are liable for a 5k fine; if you do it in an RA aircraft you're liable for 2 years in the clink.

On the gripping hand, if you can glide free (for example, if you're in a Pipistrel Sinus) the CAO seems to say that you can fly between 500 and 1000 agl with impunity, unlike if the same aircraft is registered VH.

In latitude, a second of arc is 100'; a thousandth of a degree is 111m. There's a factor of 3-4 difference. This might matter for bombing hospitals in afghanistan, for example.

I think you're incorrect, otherwise you could never land.

Also, when I was a wee lass, I studied a bit of logic, and I was taught that NOT (A AND B) was equivalent to (NOT A) OR (NOT B).

My now more considered take on this is that the CAR157 exceptions (stress of weather, takeoff/landing, low level flying rating, etc) do not apply to built-up areas unless you can glide free. So you must do engine-failure-safe circuits over built up areas.

CAR 5.81 (which is obsolete) also says: 'unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case'

My email from CASA says that they're running about eight weeks behind on new Part 61 licenses. I don't know what the lag time on a Part 5 to Part 61 conversion is.

I have an aviation law question (about CAO 95.55): it says

the aeroplane must not be flown over a built-up area at a height:

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of all dwellings, buildings and

persons within the built-up area; and

(ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

Does this AND mean that you do not need to be able to glide clear if you are above 1000 feet? In other words, is this just the requirement from CAR 157?

They're supremely slippery, and very easy to go close to Vne on. Also, Pipistrel expresses Vne as a TAS, not as an IAS; the incident was in the vicinity of Mt Kanin (8500ft) and there may have been some mountain wave in play as well (I know that the Pipistrel I fly experiences lift like the gliders I fly). So any power on maneuvering could easily have exceeded Vne.

(consider that the 147kt IAS is above Vne at 8500ft.)

I suspect you could easily hit 200kt TAS in any sort of dive, not necessarily a spiral one. Even if you only did a dive at 150IAS (ie above Vne at 8500ft) to get out of cloud, the pullup out of the dive would be well and truly above Va or Vb.

They're a delightful aircraft to fly, but energy management is necessary, especially in the circuit.

I wonder if the pilot deployed the airbrakes in the dive.

If RAA, remain below the steps, but get up to at least 5000 feet - or maybe higher - to get you over the ranges.

When on the coast, it is up to you at which height you fly.

 

There are rules about which direction and what altitude but from memory they are more for commercial and/or controlled airspace ops. "Way out there..." it is nice to fly these levels, but NOT compulsory.

The rules about hemispherical cruising levels are compulsory above 5000, and recommended below 5000. (I haven't worked out what to do if ground is above 4500 and cloud base below 6000.)

Better to have it lose an engine before your flight than during your flight!

I found the J230 to be much nicer, and definitely more similar to a Warrior, than the J170. J170 has fairly anaemic climb.

Where are you training out of?

I might have to start flying from the right hand seat; all gliders are right hand stick, left hand aerobrake/everything else.

You've obviously never been to Wedderburn airport.

This may be a stupid question, but when CAR162 (give way to aircraft on your right) and CAR166B (give way to aircraft in the circuit) come into conflict, which takes precedence? Similarly, I'm not sure where the give way provisions of CAAP166 when joining on base interact with the requirement to give way to aircraft on your right.

The VFRG and CAR suggest that you should be stable by 3nm, or 900', despite the company policies, with 'only minor adjustments'.

Unless they also increase Young's Modulus as it is of limited use.

(My metallurgy experience is limited, but I understand that alloying +- heat treatment tends not to increase Young's modulus, only UTS.)

The fact that they call it 'flexible' suggests that the modulus is not improved.

CAR166B requires that all maneuvering be done by 3nm from the threshold; some people might take that to mean that the aircraft is configured into the landing configuration and coming in at approach speed from 3nm onwards.

On a 3.3 degree slope, 3nm is 1000ft, so should be around the same time in as a similar aircraft turning base. Also, should be quite visible to any aircraft on late downwind.

Anyhow, it seems I opened a can of worms with my original question - but I stand by my statement that the turning base call and the 3nm final call make for a good sequencing point, and thus the base call is probably the most important in-circuit call.

(the way I fly is that if I haven't turned base before someone calls 3nm, I extend downwind until I've seen them and can put enough time after them to land safely; whereas if I've called turning base first, I go first, since to do anything else would usually involve going around for another circuit. also, that go around might be up to $50 in a rental plane - not much compared to an RPT going around, but I'm never going to see it again. if the RPT could offer me money for that slot I'd probably take it.)

Actually what it means is that I can design and build stuff without exotic materials, use automotive engines, and build in crash worthiness and durability. If I'm not carting passengers around, or flying over populated areas or CTA, why does it's weight matter? (within reason).

if you want to go back to <400ft and not crossing a property boundary...

(is 550kg a problematic limit for single seaters?)

I just think you really need to get everything you can out of the 80.....

Nope.

My question then becomes: on a plane with full span flaperons, what limits Vfe? The flaperon structure can obviously take full deflection at up to Va, so it shouldn't be air loads on the flaps.

Also, why isn't flutter a consideration in Vfe, but it is in Vne?

(my understanding is that IAS reflects a pressure, and TAS reflects a kinetic energy. so for energy based calculations such as altitude gained in a zoom climb, TAS gives more accurate results. but I don't know what actually limits Vfe)

So when we were all very young, we learned that Vs0 is expressed in terms of IAS, as are most Vspeeds, except for Vne which is a TAS.

The question arises, is Vfe like Vne, and thus should it be expressed as a TAS?

If Vfe is a TAS, and Vs0 is IAS, is there a situation where the 1.3Vs leads to an approach speed greater than Vfe, and so you cannot extend flaps? (hot, high, heavy)

In that situation, should you approach at 1.3Vs1 and redo your runway required calculations for that approach speed?

Do you need a certified engine? I thought the 912UL was 'approved' but not 'certified'

You should know the rules ! The straight in approach rule is clear about straight in intention and calling and not disrupting circuit traffic look it up ! I always let RPT have right of way as a courtesy not to let them get pissed with ultralights, it's called airmanship ! Existing circuit traffic has right of way and straight in approach must only do if possible and not disrupt circuit traffic !

(I do straight ins if the AFRU answers, the ATIS tells me that I have favourable winds from my approach direction, and nobody else calls before my 3 mile final).

All good except most CFI/testing officers have approval to issue level 6. Unsurprisingly for CASA this doesn't automatically mean they can give out level 4. Some CFI's will just make the system work and have a listen for a bit and give you level 6. Some will go by the book as requried by CASA ( and who can blame them ) and make you listen to the tape and also recored your responces. As others have said it's all a load of rubbish and the people who shouldn't get throught still do anyway.

It's like being able to say someone has flawless unaccented English is pretty easy; but to rate the thickness of their accent on a scale of 1-10 is really hard.