frank marriott

Don't know about the 2200 specifically but both pumps are nominally rated at 60 lts/hr on a 3300 and can be checked giving above 50 (engine driven pump at idle). I would be surprised if they are not the same, but may well be. Have done next to no maintenance on a 2200.

Bruce I have done it and the previous online one as well. I have now qualified 3 different times!! in the last 8yrs since joining RAA. I comply, just don't "agree" with approach of "I think this is great and we we will make everyone do it again" It seems like Govt. employees thinking up ideas for another paragraph on their resume with no real interest in the results - and it is not even govt.

Yep, recalculate LSAL en route, e.g. After passing a spot height.

First L1 course I did was run by the RAA,(& sponsored by CASA) one day @ $100 per head with about 20 participants. No complaint about that BUT it is not recognised by RAA. Even spoke to the Barnfield about it and his reply was "we have no records". When I informed him that I was in possession of a certificate issued by RAA he was still not interested. - Everyone has to do this online course! So I am sceptical (I believe justifiably so) about anything having any effective life with the current approach.

Ben your studies are more recent then mine, but as I recall it (on CHTR at least) to file IFR you had to be able to maintain LSAL on one engine. But I wouldn't put money on it - may well have been company policy, or commen sence. The important point is what is required NOW, and I would defer to your current knowledge.

This L1 crap is all smoke & mirrors. Where is the demonstrated safety issue supported by crash statistics to justify all this envolvement to fix this perceived non existing problem. This last one is the 3rd L1 course I have completed (the first one run by RAA cost $100) and not learn't one useful thing relating to maintaining my aircraft. Interestingly the previous courses issued a certificate to show your participation - the latest nothing? The crash stats that I have looked at appear to have a constant obvious stand out thread - pilot error. Various flying schools have their own standards, which varies considerably across the board. I would suggest monitoring/auditing of outputs would produce surprising results. Naturally this will not happen sitting in Canberra beating on ones own chest. (Maybe influenced by the approach where the ops and tech managers have their own private incomes/business and RAA is a second income). The real problems have NOTHING to do with owners doing their own maintenance for PVT operations. There are some L2s about that I wouldn't trust near my aitcraft with a screwdriver in their hand - this unfortunately refelects adversely on the competent operators. I would suggest that flying schools not complying with the ops manual and some L2s getting paid for unprofessional work would be the first place to start to address the unacceptable crash stats. Making more rules/restrictions & exams will achieve nothing - there is already sufficient rules - just being,in many cases, ignored. Naturally you have to get out of Canberra to find out - Even regional representatives to keep an eye out (oh! that's right the current mob just spent thousands to get rid of that idea). I don't see any constructive approach to address anything REAL. All I see is PR rubbish and fiddling with things e.g. L1 authorisation, with NO interest in what is happening around the country. There are more pressing issues then a CTA endorsement for a RPC which should it be approved will still only be used by a minority (other then those that already have a part 61 licence so don't count).

etc etcNo I don't agree - federal authority on federal property located within their state - but not related to flying so I'll leave this arguement alone.

Neil If you use the principle of "speed to height" then in the event of an engine failure at cruise speed, converting to best glide would result in an altitude gain before commencing your glide - the gain varying on the excess speed above glide speed in the particular aircraft obviously.

Try Emerald, Townsville, Longreach, Birdsville. Some places are just crazy. Needed to produce ASIC to get fuel at Birdsville! Hervey Bay can be difficult, your experience there is contrary to mine.

Some people forget, or choose to forget, that increased regulation is being pushed by a couple in RA!!!!! Including a 12mothly medical from 75 - although was successfully challenged or at least deferred. We need to look inwardly as well as at CASA !

Phil I wouldn't say very experienced on type but do have about 15hrs on one. No actual engine failure experienced but during the endorsement had "simulated" rear engine failure on take off. Couldn't achieve a climb rate, wheels down. With the slow & draggy undercarriage system it was treated like a SE retract. Only simulated zero thrust and not feathered so possibly better in a real situation, and the one I was flying was old and tired. Rear engine the critical one. Front engine feathered in flight and flew quite happily. No recollection of anything dramatic in the pitch control.

No. Avgas OR Mogas min 95RON as per POH. Personally I use Avgas for better quality control and availability at airports but many use mogas quite happily.

Bruce I don't know enough about the setup to make any informed opinion at this stage. Once their approvals are through I will look in detail. A "quick" read of some stuff indicated a fresh CoA every two years with a processing fee of $220. That approach I would not agree with - if maintained to appropriate standard this is over regulation. Seems everybody wants to get into the OVER regulate state of mind?

You can be rest assured that there are two individuals within RAA hell bent on increasing restrictions. One just on an ego trip and the other one, as suspected by many/some, probably aiming at a CASA position with an ex RAA employee. With the current investigations into CASA in relation to a NQ incident in the news may well result in a change, or at least delay, in the the proceedings until the dust settles.

I think people are getting confused about the W&B exam. The course and exam is for builders or if you modify the weight of an aircraft. It has already been (or should have been) done by the manufacturer/builder or a qualified person with limits listed in your flight manual. The other W&B is the simple calculation from the P charts/loading charts which every pilot should be familiar with. No need to do the course unless you are building or modifying.

Hi, Darren

Interesting mate, I did it some time ago and there was NO results sheet at that time only a reply giving your result and an offer to do it again (even though the result was a pass). Maybe something has changed but with no feedback from RAA we are only guessing - I am aware of one member (who passed) and has been trying unsuccessfully to find out which questions he got wrong - I didn't bother, but totally unacceptable at least IMO.

That is interesting as I haven't heard of anybody else being able to get that info - I would be interested to hear where you found that?

A Google of 1770 flights is informative/interesting depending on you view of CHTR flights.

Yenn, I wouldn't assume anything myself, with the current approach. The ELAAA approach I only read recently, and completely disagree with it (and a $220 fee) - I haven't had a chance yet, but will certainly raise the matter with Keith in due course.

Exactly! The opposing input on some of the new ops and tech manual has been effectively removed by the new "mini" board as designed. It is now up to members to regain control or shut-up and cop what what a couple of people believe. Simply put - members choise!

Bit of tongue in cheek there mate but you get the intent of the post.

Remember ATC are not the "air police" - you can file IFR if you like and they will accept it as you being compliant - if you are not, then CASA is the authority you may have to deal with - same with registration details/aircraft TSOed equipment etc. (obviously if you are given a clearance that you are not able to comply with you may well draw attention to yourself)

Short answer you can "hold" a part 61 licence but to exercise the privileges of it you must A) comply with the relevant medical requirements B) comply with the AFR requirements The only reason I still complete a CASA medical and GA AFR is for CTA access.

Col You need a "current" part 61 licence, which includes medical and CASA AFR.