Ada Elle

I think our discussion in the Spitfire thread gives good reason for homebuilt experimentals not getting into CTA. I agree - the centralisation of AvMed is a serious problem. However, that's the thing that should be fixed, as opposed to completely watering down the medical standards.

61.195 and 61.495 don't say this. Said person would have to be both an RA/GA instructor, of course, but: - what stops you from receiving instruction for an RPL Nav Endorsement in an RAA aircraft? - what is different between the Nav endorsement and controlled airspace?

Is there a problem, in a dual RA/GA school, with doing the training portions of the RPL in your own aircraft? (other than the actual instrument flight portions) Secondly, there shouldn't be a flight test for the RPL. Thirdly, you don't necessarily need to go into controlled airspace on the flight review. The flight review may test navigation etc, but nothing stops you from getting your controlled airspace endorsement after flight review. An instructor needs to sign that you have received training on form 61-1RE. Fourthly, most schools charge a lot more for training in your own aircraft than for training in one of theirs. At the GA school I've been training at (which has a PiperSport) I wouldn't be able to hire an aircraft and ask to be trained in it cheaper than training in the PiperSport. So, without taking any shortcuts, you could (in Sydney): - have 1 hour in a sim - fly for 1.5 hours in a VH registered Jabiru, Foxbat, or PiperSport (available at YSBK/YSCN) - fly for 1.5 hours in an AFR - then go to a combined RA/GA school and ask to do CTA/CTX in your own aircraft (say at YMND). Not RPL medical. The drivers license standard for RAAus/GFA/etc. Under the drivers license standard, you're allowed to drive two weeks after a heart attack. The CASA standard is six months. A long time ago I looked after a flight instructor with a broken toe. He asked me how long to be grounded for. At this stage I had very little experience with aviation, so I said for him to ask his DAME; the DAME called me, and we agreed upon 'until it was healed', which is usually 4 weeks. That's twice as long, for a broken toe, as someone who has had a heart attack in the RAA system. Why is the cost of a DAME medical exorbitant? You're asking a highly trained professional to use their professional judgment.

How does a continuous meeting meet the notice requirements of 18(iv) and 18(v) of the constitution (48 hours notice, no other business other than that in the notice) and the quorum requirements? How do you define who is 'present' in a continuous meeting? Secondly, how does an electronic meeting meet the spirit of By-Law 5 (observers at meetings)? Thirdly, how has the board / secretary complied with the requirements of 14B(ii)? I see no such notice on the members only area of the website. Am I blind?

No need for BAK. Class 2 medical for >1 PAX. Training requirements are 2 hours instrument, and AFR. Need 5 hours solo XC.

As a general principle of good governance, though, should it not be: no decisions without meetings no meetings without minutes no secret meetings without justification

Who would do the CTA training, testing, and endorsement? A bare minimum RPL should run at <$1k (2.5 hours of dual flight time + AFR). If you fly a type which is VH-registrable there are no familiarisation costs. The trips to CTA for endorsement purposes may be fairly expensive, depending on where you are. Basically, I don't see how RAAus training, by equivalently qualified instructors (ie CPLs, ideally CPLs who teach CPLs) would be much cheaper than getting an RPL. As for the medical issue: I think that the private drivers license medical standard is potentially too lax, especially in CTA where you might be causing millions of dollars of delays by calling a medical mayday in certain spots. I also know that I've advised patients not to drive, and they have driven anyhow. I think what we need is a DAME administered third class medical, with clear standards.

If only RAAus were to do similar things instead of silly surveys...

because controlled airspace often covers the desirable low ground - see at YSNW and YWLM. Nothing wrong with tracking over the top of aerodromes at right angles to the single runway.

The club structure of GFA weeds out cowboys. Much harder to do stupid things without getting a talking to.

Thanks. I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but in a few years I might.

Why do you need a license to sit in the right seat, if the person in the left seat is appropriately endorsed (PAX, maybe HP) and has the appropriate type ratings?

If we are going to agree that speed doesn't contribute to stall, then why does the drag there matter? I don't want a dissertation. I want to understand.

O'Sullivan wrote that he was the builder The particular category of registration was for the education and recreation of the builder O'Sullivan gained financial advantage from this deception This preceded, temporally, Uscinski's death. Not claiming post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it looks bad. Either O'Sullivan constructed >=51%, in which case he was entitled to register the aircraft in his name as the builder, but would be hard pressed to show that he did it for recreation/education, or Uscinski constructed >=51%, in which case O'Sullivan made a fraudulent declaration for financial advantage. Yes, I'm a member. I wouldn't be this vocal if I weren't. I am a professional. If you want to be in a self-regulating profession with privileges (and I am), you have to have effective disciplinary procedures internally or else people will impose them from the outside. I view certain other "professionals" as quacks because they're not willing to clean up their profession and get rid of the cowboys (I'm looking at you, chiropractors who manipulate children). Although the original incident was from 2010, it seems that there are multiple outstanding issues from the coroner's report which have not been addressed. O'Sullivan took short-cuts with the test flying process and flat-out lied to RAAus regarding multiple parts of the registration process. Unless you are saying that he had no duty of care to his purchaser, he was negligent, and his negligence was associated with an untimely death.

It is a defense to a strict liability law that you considered the risk of breaking the law, and had valid justification for your belief that you were not breaking the law. So he can say that he wasn't aware of the true weight, because he was entitled to rely on the weight from the LAME/L2 when re-weighing. 95.55 says that experimental aircraft are for the education and recreation of the constructor, who must build the major part. The coroner's report says that O'Sullivan declared that he was the builder. A guy who owns an aircraft plant saying that he built a kit that he sells for his own recreation and education is a bit rich! Letting cowboys flout the law without consequence doesn't speak very highly of your organisation.

My original question was about stall stick position. To quote the excellent djpacro (whose book was next to the cash register at the moorabbin pilot shop - very tempting...) at http://www.ozaeros.net//stalling/stalling.htm and we know that planes don't stall at a speed, they stall at an AoA. so why, for the same stick position (fully back) do I seem to get a different AoA at the same CoG? (as experienced by the stall behaviour - mush vs drop).

I don't know - I can imagine myself in Uscinski's place, but not in O'Sullivan's place. If I were O'Sullivan I'd be distraught that I'd sold someone something that killed them. I think that if I hire a plane I should be able to rely on the placarded weights, and the placarded CoG limits. If someone's willing to lie to the regulator about that, what else about the plane are they willing to lie about? Are you saying that if I accidentally fly an aircraft that's 200kg heavier than advertised, I have no place being in the cockpit? The only way any of this works is commercial honesty. Seriously - a used car dealership that sold someone a known unroadworthy car should get done for negligence and fraud if the car kills people.

Wollongong. This is not me (watch from 1:40 onwards) but it's what it looked like coming in from the north. Perhaps next time traffic is good for a straight in I'll try to recreate the same video from a little plane (except I don't dare to go where the PAPI is 4 red!)

Nev - thanks, but I know that. My question was, in the same plane/CoG/configuration, why the docility of the stall depended on the pitch attitude just before attempting to stall. From S&L: hold the nose in S&L attitude, stick fully back, mush at about 40 From 10 degrees nose up: hold the nose there, stick fully back, sharp-ish nose drop (10 degrees up to about 5 degrees down) when the ASI reads below 40

A certified aircraft would have had fore and aft CoG limits established as part of a test flying program, and after the ballast was moved either the CoG of the empty plane should have been re-measured/re-calculated and/or the plane re-test flown if it was out of its previously established limits. I didn't say unflyable, I said unairworthy. An aft CoG will move the stall stick position forwards, for example. If you fly as PIC an aircraft with its W&Bs out of approved envelope, you're flying an unairworthy aircraft. Too slow and too shallow an approach angle might be a GA thing - 1.3 VSo and 3 degree approach path. I know that many RA instructors will suggest approaching at 2.0 Vso or higher, and 6 degree (or more - I was taught to dive bomb the runway!) approach path. The aircraft can't have been built 51% by Dr Uscinski; it was originally registered by Mr O'Sullivan and who: Essentially - if I bought a 19-rego aircraft off someone else, and it was not as described, and I had a non-fatal but disabling crash - I would be very unhappy! (you don't know what weight O'Sullivan told Uscinski, and how accurate it was, given that the test flying hours weren't done and were lied about!) The regulations serve to protect pilots and the public. You can talk about minimising bureaucracy all you like, but if you don't rid the organisation of this type of operator no wonder RAA has been described on pprune as "the association of last resort for the pilots at the bottom of the food chain - the shallow end of the Gene pool".

It seems, though, according to https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/pilots/download/carburettor_icing_chart.pdf, that you are more likely to get icing with a dew point of 3 and 60% humidity that a dew point of 23 and 80% humidity. Why is it so?

Ok, I'm now confused. Why is icing more likely at moderately high humidities than at very high humidity? Also, a high dew point does not lead to icing, at least according to the CASA charts. Peak carb icing probability is with dewpoints of -3 to 16C, with the shape of the curve suggesting (but without clear evidence demonstrating) a peak at around 7C.

It wasn't a gradual drop, though, more of a break - and I could hold the nose up without power down to about 40 knots, then it dropped about 15 degrees. With the stick in the same position from level flight, power off, I couldn't get it to drop the nose at all. This aircraft has a stabilator with an anti-servo trim tab (like a Cherokee). Next time I'm in a Warrior I'll have to see if it behaves like this as well. I remember the Warrior mushing in the stall, too.

It was a FlySynthesis Texan. Why do you think that a power-on or accelerated stall was at all involved? Both times I attempted to stall the plane without power. In one situation I started with the nose level, and attempted to keep it there while the power was cut. It did not stall aerodynamically (nose drop). In the other situation, I started with the nose about 10 degrees high, and attempted to keep it there while the power was cut. It did drop the nose. In both situations the stick was back into my guts. Stick position roughly corresponds to AoA, given CoG/flaps/etc. So why did it still in one scenario and not in the other? The only thing I can think of is that the elevator is not as effective in one situation, and can't get the plane into a stalling AoA.