poteroo

Very interesting numbers. Congratulations - obviously you didn't lose faith that it would finally get finished. Really interested in your Basic Empty Weight, and your propeller settings, also your 65% and 75% cruise performance at say, 3000, 6000, 9000. I'd be really hesitant to have an iS engine in a trainer as it appears there are a few complexities. The simpler the better for students! Ours is a workhorse in the flying school. Delivered March 2015 - now has 330 hrs VDO, but 260 or so actual 'air' hours as determined by an airswitch - which is similar times to the GPS which actuates at 30 KIAS each way. We rarely get to fly it on decent legs as even cross country training doesn't get very high - especially here where coastal cloud and rain is a major feature. My personal transport is still an RV9A, (while I still can hold a medical). happy days,

Mea culpa. I was wrong about the FAA's mission details. Sorry everyone. I have completely misunderstood CASAs decisions as well, and shall henceforth keep my unfair and uninformed comments out of public forums. happy days,

They do not have any charter to enhance or promote aviation per se - and that's the defining line with CASA. Sure, they have the responsibility for aviation safety, but unlike the FAA, they are not obliged to promote aviation in their charter. And that is really why we have so much difficulty with CASA.

So as to demonstrate that you have received 'training' sufficient to be able to then safely fly the aircraft as PIC. It won't be from an instructor, (doesn't need to be in many instances), so you record the flight details but don't log the times.

You can't. That's not to prevent you from logging the flight, via an entry showing all the aircraft & flight details, including an entry in 'details' to effect ; observed operation of system x, y, z, or, observed/experienced unusual attitude recoveries. and so on. I think this would carry weight insofar as your obligations are concerned. You cannot always obtain an instructor with experience on certain less built experimentals. In any case, many of them don't have fully functioning dual controls - making it impossible for legal dual instruction.

50 years actually. The operational solution is in the pilots hands - make sure there are (approved), 'locking' stop pins at front and aft ends of the rails - or don't fly the aircraft. As well, your LAME should be over the AD/SB for seat rail hole wear, and the replacement requirements.

It has long been so. And it will not change until the strict liability provisions are removed from the CASRs; allowing industry to be treated equitably under the law of the land, just as other Australians are.

You mean from RPC to RPL?

Looks very legit. Thanks for that. I'd be very interested in hearing from any pilot who has recently completed a tailwheel, constant speed, formation, or low level endorsement in an RAAus rego aircraft - and then had the RAAus endorsement sent to CASA on 61-DF or 61-FA paperwork for inclusion on their new Part 61 RPL, PPL or even CPL. happy days,

The response time is the thing. If you are flying in marginal visibility, (often why you are at lower level), then the slower your groundspeed - the more time you have to decide on direction and height. Also, your radius of turn is less, meaning you can manoeuvre in a smaller 'clear' space. Hitting terrain, wires or aerials is a real risk and safely flying at slower speeds is my recommendation. Better that you don't have to look at a single instrument; and have attained a level of flying 'feel' that allows you to fly the aircraft in balance with both eyes and 100% of brain focused on the scenery.

That is indeed interesting. Frankly, I can't see why it shouldn't be interchangeable. However, it might require your instructor be GA instructor rated with the same design feature endorsement. Was he?

I think RAAus could learn something from VANS' approach. What continues to defy logic is that pilots really do believe that you 'can teach yourself to low fly'. In addition, it's a common belief that the faster you do low fly - the safer it is because the 'energy' will save you. happy days,

Hey! What would I know anyway. Just speculating. Anyway Bexrb, how are things going in Chengdu? Didn't I hear that you are about to get direct Australia flights soon? happy days,

AFAIK, they have been completing high wing Brumbys out of the Cowra factory, (for confirmed order customers), right up to the present. I don't think that's any secret. Of course, the numbers would understandably be confidential. These would probably all be 100% Aussie built airframes. We're very happy with ours. It's run over 320 hrs now and is a pleasure to instruct in. happy days,

Regardless of how hard you hold aileron into wind, if there's a sudden change in direction and speed - the Cub wing can lift alarmingly.(It's full over into wind 100% of the time for me!). Have had a few adrenaline moments even with the heavier Super Cub model. Pilot seems very experienced overall so was probably confident in those conditions. Plain bad luck to bust a fuel line, but lucky to get out ok. Always had misgivings about plastic line fuel gauges inside the cockpit - but whether these were ruptured, or that occurred in the engine bay we don't know yet. happy days,

61.385 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences-general competency requirement (1) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 manual of Standards for the class or type to which the aircraft belongs, including in all of the following areas: (a) operating the aircrafts' navigation and operating systems; (b) conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures for the aircraft; © applying operating limitations; (d) weight and balance requirements; (e) applying aircraft performance data, including take-off and landing performance data for the aircraft. (1A) Subregulation (1B) applies if the holder of a pilot licence also holds an operational rating or endorsement (1B) The holder is authorised to exercise the privileges of his or her pilot licence in an activity in an aircraft under the rating or endorsement only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft in the activity to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards (if any) for: (a) the class or type to which the aircraft belongs; and (b) the activity. (2) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft that has an operative airborne collision avoidance system only if the holder is competent in the use of an airborne collision avoidance system to the standards mentioned in Part 61 Manual of Standards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been some discussion under the heading of 'training aircraft' in another thread on this site. I thought this whole subject of what constitutes 'competency' and how a pilot can be assured of being competent, is worth further discussion. We all understand that aircraft come in all shapes and sizes, and they also end up being quite different from each other according to how they have been equipped. In other words, their flying characteristics may be different, and their avionics may be significantly different, and there may be other fittings specific to the one aircraft. Now, putting aside what CASA are saying here for a few seconds, in our increasingly litigious society we must take care to satisy our obligations not to harm or injure anyone or their property. We can only achieve this by operating our equipment safely. Generally speaking, we can obtain training to assist us with this aim, but we then must take care to maintain our competency to fly the aircraft. (the 90 day rule, 61.395, partly covers this). How we obtain this 'competency' appears to be worth discussion. If it is done through what the law,(including CASA), consider an acceptable source, and it is documented, then the pilot is reasonably covered. Mu understanding is that having an instructors signoff is prudent. Now, if the training is done via a flying school, then perhaps the recording of the training in their daily flying sheet, and in any flight record sheet held in the aircraft, would be enough. In my own operation, I record GA training under 61.385 in special sheets which are then filed in my records as an independent GA instructor. RAAus details are recorded on the daily flight record sheets as there is sufficient space for this. Of course, an instructor needs to be humble in assessing their own competency. If you have litte or no time on the type or operation - don't do it! I've seen far too many bingles where the skygod wasn't up to the task and failed the 61.385 test themselves. (tailwheel currency is a common cause). In the end, the pilot must meet the competency criteria. Your mates might be a help, but they are not going to 'signoff' on you. Usually, another skilled pilot, who might offer advice, and even fly with you (maybe not with you in LH seat tho?), won't put pen to paper either. Why would they? You may only be asking about equipment in the aircraft. In which case, an instructor probably isn't necessary. But once you bring in flying competency, I think you need someone who is trained to assess that competency. It's our job. happy days,

Part 149 is CASAs' preferred option for administration of RAAus and similar bodies. Unfortunately, their proposal is, unsurprisingly, heavily weighted towards them holding the reins of power ever more tightly. The era of strict liability is not over, and if we think that CASA is softening its' approach to 'little aircraft' - then think again. I've carefully read the RAAus response, and I believe it is sufficiently constructive, whilst indicating that RAAus isn't about to roll over and have its' tummy tickled. The major issue is in the CASA reference to its' Manual-of-Standards, (MOS). Other MOS that I've seen are written in such a prescriptive format that they become almost laughably impossible or impractical. (Part 61 is hilarious in parts! You wonder what they were on!). Key Proposal 2 from RAAus indicates that RAAus is concerned as to the value of an MOS. A not unanticipated clause in the NPRM allows for CASA to terminate any agreement with RAAus for a number of reasons. As is their wont, CASA play the 'safety' card whenever they want to belabour the industry with their big stick, and they have it included in the Part 149 proposal. Essentially, it allows CASA, pretty much on the slightest whim, to suspend RAAus from any further activity. (their famous Friday afternoon fax at 16:55 telling you to cease operations under a show cause excuse). Good to see we are awake to this, (Key proposal 6), and, whilst conceding their ultimate power in the game, we are stating a requirement for meaningful consultation prior to any decision. Thats' the extent of my reading of the RAAus response, and I must say that I'm pleased we are now committing our concerns to paper before the event. happy days,

To recap on the getting ready for your Cross-Country Endorsement: 1. Learn how to really use your 'whiz-wheel', be it a slider or a circular. You should be able to convert ARFORs into flight plans, do 1/60 calcs, work out x/winds for any location, work out groundspeeds, work out fuel burn,range,endurance, and, multiply and divide. When you can do this one-handed.....you're ready to go fly. PS: I still have the Jeppy CR-3 that I purchased in 1963, and used in every exam since then. You should be able to make that thing brew your cuppa en route! Ever noticed a circular object in an old RPT Captains' pocket - it's probably his original Jeppy CR2! 2. I also encourage students to have their own iPad and a subscription to OzRunways or Avplan. Cheaper than paper in the end. When you can run up a flightplan in 10 mins, you're getting there. You should also be able to source airfield info, radar info, diversion info all using one hand in a bouncing aircraft. 3. If the aircraft has an in panel or mounted GPS in it - students should be able to transfer a flight plan into this and cross-check back to (1) and (2). They should study the POH for the unit, and be able to use the most important functions in flight. If it's in the aircraft - you should know how to use it. When you are really 'on top' of the navigation 'aids' I've listed above, then you'll be ahead of the learning curve for x/c endo. Most students are pushing things uphill with their cross-country learning - because they underestimate the value of equipment familiarity/dexterity. happy learning,

Welcome Vlad. Quarantine is that way because we're an island without a lot of the pests and diseases that plague other continents. Be sure to freight it through a good agent who is qualified to do all the paperwork. It will need a USDA certificate to say it's been cleaned out and down. Our guys can be very picky so get this part right. Also, you need to consider that your 9A will require 're-building' once it's out of the seatainer and to ensure that it is then returnable to the FAA register - it may require a signoff by someone holding a US A&P licence. Avoid trying to put it onto the Australian register for such a short time because it will cost you 'an arm & a leg'. Check this move out on the casa website I've given below. Then, you will need to 'convert' your US pilot licence to a temporary Aussie one. Check this on www.casa.gov.au and be prepared to do an air legislation test plus a BFR. Then, closer to getting here, you need to start planning your routes. The 'outback' here is sparsely inhabited, and it's a long way between fuel stops. You get plenty of helpful advice off this forum. cheers,

If you do, remember that you either won't have a rear seat, or if you do, it will have no / or only partial controls. Even a GA registered model usually has no rear seat rudder pedals. No fully functioning dual controls = no dual instruction allowable in the aircraft. Get your tailwheel endo on something else, and then at BFR time - look for an instructor who is prepared to signoff on a 'single seat' review. Many won't, and for good reason. cheers,

Describes my experience perfectly. Good ophthalmologist did cataracts in both eyes in same week: inserted lens which gave me perfect distance and vg closein, (except in poor light &/or, when tired.). I can now read the paper without glasses, and fly without needing them either. I've found no problem with in cockpit reading of either analog or digital presentations: can read all the stuff on a Dynon EFIS..... cross cockpit! Best bit of surgery I've ever had done - more inconvenience than pain. happy days,

We have had 2 RV9A's built with the Jab 8 cylinder, and both have since been re-engine with either an 0-320 or a 0-360 Lycoming EXP version. I understand that they are now both in use in crayfishing boats. I helped with the Phase 1 flyoffs for both. Yes, once you got them running - nice and smooth. But 180HP.....not at sane RPMs anyway. Managing temperature was an issue, as was the ignition system. Wooden props and rain? Couple of unscheduled paddock landings - which probably never made it to ATSB much less RAAus! Perhaps these engines could have been refined and a fit found for them in EXP aircraft: but it seems to me that they were quietly abandoned. As van Grunsven, (the MAN), has said on many occasions 'the best alternative engine for our RV's is a Lycoming' happy days,

I agree. Whilst we may have fewer aircraft and pilots in the wild West, we're now facing nil 'local' representation on the new Board. Given that the CEO and President made quite a hash of their visit in early 2016: RAAus have some fences to mend, and bridges to rebuild, with their western members. happy days,

John is a very, very experienced glider and power pilot; which explains the successful outcome. It will be interesting to learn whether it happened during a thermalling phase, or during a straight cross country sector. Lots of wedgetails over the entire WA wheatbelt so beware. Don't go under them. The other bird hazard this year is the flocks of large 'wading' type birds, (Ibis?) which are in the highest density I've ever seen in southern WA, especially within 30nm of the southern coast. We are using our strobes + landing lights in the circuit at many south coast locations. happy days,

My proposal to include more LL in the syllabus has been on the Ops Mgrs' table for some time. So too is my recommendation to remove the pedantic ' must-have-a-reason' for an LL endorsement: thus allowing pilots to undertake the LL as skills training, (=SAFETY). What better SAFETY activity can we have in RAAus? The LL endo would also be acceptable as a BFR. happy days,