poteroo

The last thing that needs to be happening on a test flight, especially a first flight, is for the 'experienced' pilot to be conducting 'instruction' of the inexperienced builder pilot. And this is what's likely to happen, despite all the best intentions. Creates a most unnecessary distraction and that's not smart. Not a good safety approach at all. After several flights, and the 'experienced' pilot has sorted out the flight characteristics, and established all systems are safe - then is the time for the 'inexperienced' owner/builder/pilot to be included. happy days,

I've gone direct to CASA again. Yes, I've been an AOPA member since 1963, (#6150), but they have much bigger fish to fry than an obscure section of Part 61. I'm also a longstanding SAAA member - but they have imploded and are not about to be tackling CASA because they want CASA to approve their instructing proposals. I'm also RAAus - but Part 61 doesn't directly affect our instructing approvals. Talking to some ATO's just now - they have very little info on their status and are still very worried about their PI cover. Yenn - yes, the frequency mess is entirely of CASA's making. Sheer logic says that 126.7 should always be the default frequency for all airports, airstrips or farm strips which do not have their own discrete frequency. IFR traffic on descent should then be able to call on 126.7 passing 5000 ft inbound to any strip and expect that they'll have time to obtain a response from all of the radio equipped traffic in that general area. I believe it's a dumb direction from CASA, and creates a safety issue - when none existed before. They need to leave well enough alone! But, as you are aware, the regulator is never wrong! happy days,

Contrary to what the spin doctors say in this CASA newsletter - they do not have sensible and consistent answers to many questions! And, yes - it is going to cost much, much more for multi-rated pilots to remain legally current. Further, in my particular case - it has been impossible to provide low level instruction or testing until CASA either approve me as both an instructor of LL and an examiner for LL. Being a rating now, instead of a course-of-training, makes a big difference in the required approvals that an instructor must hold. CASA have not upgraded those of us who have been doing this LL work, some for 25 years or more. The worrying aspect of all this, is, that instructors who have previously held an ATO approval, will now transition to Flight Examiner,(FE)....but provide their own PI insurance. These PE's will be able to examine on whatever rating or endorsement they currently hold - regardless of their experience in that subject. Those who never held the ATO approval look like being excluded from LL instructing, (despite holding an ag rating plus lots of LL time). Beats me! And yes, I have obtained FOI opinion, (you'd better ask Canberra mate), and that's not been useful. If they don't know - how the hell are we expected to continue running a flight school and get it right? Yes, I have long since applied for 'continuation' approval from Canberra - but so far - nothing. Dare I say that they never looked at the implementation too closely? The M-o-S for the LL rating does not differ much from the old CAR V, CAO 29.10 advice on LL....... yet the LL has been raised to a rating with 6 monthly requirements on currency. The 'extras' in the rating appear to be in the amount of briefing and awareness components - which all add to safety. However, we always covered much, much more than what CAO 29.10 required and in my opinion, we exceed the minimums for the proposed LL Rating. My gripe is only about a small part of Part 61. When raised at CASA meetings and in flight school one-on-one meetings with CASA, we have been unable to obtain satisfactory answers. It appears that there are many others of the same opinion. So, CASA - your spin doctors may convince the media and some gullible and ignorant politicians - but the industry remains frustrated with your inability to provide adequate guidance on your Part 61 rules. It isn't simple - and neither are we. You just have to look in the mirror occasionally! happy days,

The example given was unfortunate in that the message has been lost in the comment. Given that the base-to-final turn is a major location for stall/spin accidents, and, this turn is meant to be completed before 500ft agl, then perhaps the author was making a valid point. Give Ops a break! During training, a student should not only be taken through the safe execution of this turn, but also through 360 degree orbits left or right at any point in the circuit, but particularly on base and final legs. This could mean making the orbit below 500ft agl, and with half or full flap extended. It's a fairly demanding manoeuvre. Good low level instruction will ensure that pilots don't 'lose it' during these flight phases. As is one previous poster, I'm very much in favour of low level manoeuvring being part and parcel of all pilot training. It's necessarily a pre-requisite for a realistic practice forced landing, and for a precautionary search and landing exercise. Being trained in low level goes a long way to reducing the stress of marginal visibility. Because a trained pilot adopts the right configuration, and maximises their visibility - they have time to think through any weather or operational problem. It's not about training pilots to conduct low level beatups and other aerial hooning. It's more than likely that pilots who have received low level training will avoid the hooning. It's been my practice for many years to use the BFR as a check of a pilots' knowledge of low level handling. Most haven't a clue - fly too fast - out of balance - poor lookout and so on. A few minutes spent on low level essentials during a BFR, can, I'm sure, have a positive influence on all pilots. Finally, I can't think of why instructors would use low level training as a money making exercise. It takes about 1-1.5 hrs of briefing for every hour flown. And, each hours flying low level is much more fatiguing that upper air training. Get real you sceptics - there are easier ways to turn a flying dollar. happy days,

glad that this has been raised. When you angle into the wind, not only do you reduce the crosswind component - you also increase the headwind = less distance to stop. it needs practice. happy days,

It's likely to be a very busy CTAF during that week. Almost certainly will be a NOTAM on procedures. Reportedly we'll have 16 RAAF here, plus quite a few RPT F50 and F100 will be operating. Note that we now have AWIS available on 122.125 - 1 second press on mic to activate. BYO tiedown ropes - there are permanent steel cables on the GA parking area. cheers,

AFAIK, (given we are all trying to understand how it will work, and what CASA really mean in some of the convoluted stuff), your RAAus BAK is 'recognised' under Part 61 as being equivalent to the GA BAK. Which means that your RPL is issued on this basis after a flight review. What you do in respect of later, (CTA), endorsements on your RPL is not dependant on the 'recognition' of your RAAus qualifications,eg: radio, nav, pax, theory. You must undertake theory on CTA before the actual flight training - which is logical - but AFAIK there is no 'set' exam on this.

Correct. What was called an ATO,(Approved Testing Officer), was a delegation from CASA to most GA CFI's, and they could test for initial issue of PPL,CPL or IF, IR. Under Part 61 they will become a Flight Examiner. To gain your RPL, (assuming you hold a PC under RAAus), you must do a review with a FE - not just any GA instructor. Your endorsements under your RPL can then be done by any GA instructor who holds those endorsements or ratings. All GA instructors hold all CTA, navigation approvals so this broadens out your options for training once you have your initial RPL issued. Probably the most RAAus 'friendly' GA flying schools are those where the two are combined, or are back-to-back operations. But, many more GA schools will have to face the reality that, a far larger proportion of ab initio training will probably be conducted by RAAus schools. On the subject of medicals - I strongly advise you to do your Class 2 medical because there are many possible tripwires in the Drivers Licence Aviation medical. This then covers your onwards movement to full PPL. happy days,

Great - we need support to resist this. The problem is that this affected and pretentious speech habit is more infectious than a virus! Instructors are not immune to it! cheers,

No question about it - 'safety' is the new employment opportunity. Get your kids to do one of the many 'management' degrees available - and get into HR. Aviation and industry is being swamped by it all - your school must have an SMS, be audited for DAMP, your students have to study TEM and HF. You no longer preflight - these days it's risk assessment. Yup, it's a brave new world!

One example of 'RPT-speak' that my students try to emulate is speaking in the 3rd person....eg Foxtrot November Delta rolls runway 14........................ we mere lighties say 'rolling' or 'is rolling' Foxtrot November Delta joins downwind runway 32....... we try to get our students to say 'joining' or 'is joining' Without being too anal about it - why does the language seem to change with the tonnage of the aircraft? happy days,

I wish. Cannot tell a lie - the avatar is one of the many US formation teams. Will use our local team when we reach a better standard. happy days,

Last count we had 17 flying, 3 under construction, and a couple local pilots seriously considering purchasing. There are also 4 RV's located at JT which are often down - owners have property here. There are several in Esperance and 2 over in Boyup Brook. We have 15 formation qualified RV pilots operating from here. Albany also has 3 Grade 1 instructors who are formation and RV qualified. Our longer term goal is a diamond 16 - best we've done so far is 10 in one formation. happy days,

Checkout pprune for the video of the accident, plus many comments following. happy days,

When you get it through Phase 1, come down to Albany for a trip and I'll swap you a fly in your RV12 for time in both my RV9A and RV6. Both have 180 HP and will open your eyes to RV performance. If you time it right, we could all be going out for some formation practice and you'd be welcome to hitch a ride to see how larger formations work. cheers,

What was incorrect?

Barry Foster in a side-by-side Pawnee - does ag ratings as well.

Refer to Tailwheel Endo in Student Pilot section of this site. I'll bet this Stearman driver had more than 1 hr of dual in his logbook. One lapse in concentration and your taildragger is away! Sad that it happened to such a great aircraft.

I've conducted a massive number of t/w endorsements since starting them in C180's back in 1969. I can confidently tell you that only 1 person ever flew well enough for me to send him for solo circuits after 1 hr dual. (he had over 8000 hrs of mustering in a C172, and he knew how to fly in balance). Please don't think of your t/w training in terms of how cheaply it can be achieved. You need to be exposed to every possible scenario while in dual flying, especially the crosswind handling, and the how/when/where and why of 'wheel' landings. A groundloop accident can happen so quickly. Repairing your aircraft is going to cost heaps more than the extra dollars you'll pay to get a comprehensive t/w endorsement. happy days,

G'day Rod. Just a query about linking your 912iS into the MGL EFIS/EMS. Rotax have not indicated anywhere that the iS model can be linked through any EMS other than their own - which looks a bit of 'unfriendly' gear. In any case, with any new bit of gear, it's often tempting fate by becoming the test pilot and that's why I kept away from the iS and the Dynon Skyview as a combo. Maybe on the next aircraft. Also see you are going for an autopilot and bigger tyres - all of which add weight to your BEW. If you are a lightweight like myself - that's probably ok, but if you are 100kg and also have a heavy co-pilot - you might find yourself cutting fuel load down. Just a caution because a couple of the Brumby high wings with Lycomings have been loaded to the gunnels with stuff and have only a low fuel uplift. It would pay you to talk to Paul or Phil, and try to get all the weights for all the 610's already completed - plus what's inside them. happy days,

You have raised some valid points, and thanks for your support. Training and awareness improves safety. As to the 'public performers' - well, a few immediate suspensions plus the requirement to complete a LL course, with an irascible old instructor, might discourage the testosterone. CASA did at one time, (Western Office),require any Gr 1 or 2 GA instructor to have held an ag rating - before being allowed to train pilots for the low level 'endorsement'. Recently, I've heard that this training has actually been conducted by instructors who have never been near an ag operation....which beggars belief. This, probably due to the scarcity of people holding both qualifications. This likely to create some angst under Part 61 because it will no longer be sufficient to just hold an ag or LL qualification - you will have to become a Flight Examiner, (previously an ATO). It's unlikely that many instructors will want to go through this tortuous pathway. For RAAus it presents no such problem - because under RAAus - there are no 'ratings', and all endorsements can be freely taught by any Senior Instructor who holds the qualification themselves. However, there is a world of difference between having qualified yourself, and being able to competently and safely teach it. RAAus should really include 2-3 hrs of LL in its' instructor courses, over and above my suggested 2 hrs in the PC training. As other SI's and CFI's reach their BFR dates, I believe they should then be proficiency checked by a PE so as to upgrade the entire instructor numbers within 3-4 years. Who then checks the PE? OMG..... how now? happy days,

I believe this won't be repeated. The reason that a recreational pilot undergoes LL training is to improve their skills and therefore become a safer pilot. The safety case is compelling. In GA, it may lead on into mustering, or survey, or into a full blown ag rating and so is being done for commercial reasons. happy days,

References: Subpart 61 Q Low Level Ratings Manual of Standards Part 61 Unit 2.5.1 CAO 29.10 CAR 157 What was previously a course of training preparatory to on the job training for mustering or low level survey - is now to be a full blown rating in GA. It may eventually have some carryover effects to the RAAus low level endorsement. What it confirms is that CASA are concerned about low level accidents, and believe this upgrading of the LL training is the best approach toward reducing this accident trend. I do not subscribe to this thinking. The pilots who undertake low level training will emerge much the wiser for the experience. They do now, and I'd be surprised if they were the culprits in the many senseless LL accidents. The pilots who believe they personally don't need any such training, that it's a conspiracy to extract more money from poor pilots, and that they won't ever have to fly low - will never undertake the training anyway. That's why the accidents will continue. I believe that some low level training, at least 2 hrs of it, should be included in the body of the RPC and RPL training. If done vigorously enough, this will impress upon most pilots the higher risks they run at lower levels. It would possibly increase the numbers who later completed a higher level of LL training. What do you think?

He's now in Kununurra, WA. BTW - he's 90 years young! The Brumby is 24-8103, which is Brumbys' testbed aircraft and used for training through Cowra Aero Club. Many of us have had a test flight in it. Hope he passes through here. happy days,

The statement that there are 3x more 'partials' to 'total' engine failures has rung bells here. Memo to FTF: increase emphasis on 'partial' power loss situations. happy days,