facthunter Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Doesn't warn of rising terrain ahead. The picture does, but it's in the Database. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Garmin 296 has terain warningSet to 500 and forget Very handy ! So does the Garmin Aera500. But the plaintive voice saying "terrain pull-up, terrain pull-up" is very annoying on final to land. DWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Some others say "don't think, don't think" (I lithp a bit) Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Teach-yourself just doesn't work with low level. I'm really stunned to read all the reasons why pilots feel they are different from others in respect of their skills at doing low level flight....safely. Folks, I have advice for you - no pilot is 'safe' at low level. If you've had the best training, and are both prudent and skilled, the risk increases the lower you fly. The risk increases the less you practise low level flying. And, the risk increases the more casually and arrogantly you approach low level flight. Thus, it's no surprise to me that so many RAAus and GA pilots are involved in low level incidents and accidents. Nothing has changed in 50 years! happy days, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 Is this the Low Level they'r talking about!, My avatar pic was taken while training at the Oaks SRFC. The camerman was standing alongside the strip, and if so, shouldent it be on my cirt., (if I had one) spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 The RAAus Ops Manager has "clarified" her initial statement that started this thread. Check her page in the latest Sport Pilot magazine. You can fly at 500 ft AGL if not over a built up area. Something I think we all knew anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 6, 2014 Share Posted December 6, 2014 The RAAus Ops Manager has "clarified" her initial statement that started this thread. Check her page in the latest Sport Pilot magazine. You can fly at 500 ft AGL if not over a built up area. Something I think we all knew anyway. But not below unless you and your aircraft meet the dispensation criteria including a requirement to engage in that particular low level flight. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Not sure what point you are trying to make Kaz. The ops manager originally said; "The pilot had been operating just above the 500ft AGL minimum and didn't believe a Low Level endorsement was required (it was)" She now says "Operations can confirm RA-Aus members can certainly operate to 500 ft AGL without a Low Level endorsement, as long as it's not over a closely settled or built up area" She was wrong in the first instance when she added the "it was" phrase and that is what created the confusion that started this thread. While she says the original article "appeared to create some confusion" she doesn't say why she caused the confusion in the first place. A simple "I was wrong" or "it was a typo" would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ...Looking outside is a no brainer and you rightly emphasise it... On the few occasions I have flown low-level "milk-run" routes both pilots have had their eyes on clipboards and NOT looking out the front. Heaven help the rec. pilot they don't notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Or the Ops manager can explain how the permission granted under the CAOs to fly under 500ft (take off landing etc) requires that you ALSO comply with teh Ops manual ... and the OPs manual (written by the OPs Manager one presumes) requires ALL pilots operating as pilot in comand to have a LL endorsmement for ops below 500ft .... and that DOES include take off and landing on the written words of the Ops manual ... we can wait for 6mths until the next revision of the OPs manual corrects that one. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Usually those height restrictions relate to populous areas and "except in the process of taking off or landing." To suggest you need a low level endorsement for take off or landing is wrong. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Suggest you read CAR 157 closely. If you look at all the exemptions, you'll see that the average pilot has quite a bit of 'wriggle room' in order to cope with special conditions. (including t/o and ldg) This, (in my opinion), over-rules anything that is written by any RAAO. RAAus Ops also have a requirement that anyone requiring a LL endorsement must have reason to use this endorsement - but this cannot over-rule the CAR 157 exemptions. This has raised the question of using LL training to improve a pilots' skillset. My opinion is that a pilot well trained in LL is not going to immediately use this skill to 'hoon' about doing dumb LL stunts. RAAus probably need to consider the positives in LL training before making assumptions that every pilot is a probable criminal until proven innocent - we've got CASA to do that! happy days, 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 The same applies to IF training, where it can save your life but may encourage people to do it.. I couldn't believe I was not issued with a low level endorsement on request having done it (documented and signed off) when I was a GA instructor. I was informed there was no need for me to use it. ALL instructors should be trained in it as well as "unusual attitude recovery". There may be some pilots who are better than some instructors but there should be a seriously well designed level of training for instructors. specified as a minimum for them, and it should be above that required for the others. It IS expected that you will demonstrate a high standard as an instructor, but as I try to point out there is no extra exposure specified to more extensive flying skills. For the "normal" pilot.. Once you have your certificate , you are not required to demonstrate any extra later on. as an ordinary pilot. Just remedial if you are dropping standard.(and someone notices). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I never said anything about the CAR or CAO on requiring a LL endorement - I said the OPs Manual requires it. If you follow through 95.10 for example you can see the exemtion to CAR157 penalty (3©) and you can see the permissions to operate 500ft for take-off and landing as specific exemptions (6.1(a) and 7.1) BUT the elephant in the room is actually up in CAO 95.10 5(d) and 5(e) where you have to operate in compliance with your certificate from RAA and in compliance with the operations manual as a general requirement. Its this that makes the ops manual - which HAS NOT incorporated the exemtion from LL endorement for take off and landing - an issue. At best we are operating in breach of the requirements of the Ops Manual when acting as pilot in command below 500ft when taking off or landing. I never said it was not an ass of a conrstruction but the CAR on penalty and CAO 95.10 are not the problem, its our very own OPs Manual. And Yes, its a long standing problem with the manual, it was there when I left OZ 12 years ago (and the ops manager had had it pointed out to him way back in 1995 by me) but to see it still there is just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I agree about the manual. It's supposed to reflect the law. Precautionary search and landing too would be an issue. You should only have to draw their attention to it and the wheels should start turning.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 So! is it Official, my instructor put me at risk for every strip-run, precautionary landing search, and engine out on take off. As there was no LL cert back then? spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Probably saved your life by teaching you properly. IF there's no LL how can you have a problem? Once you list something you have to write rules around it. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I agree about the manual. It's supposed to reflect the law. Precautionary search and landing too would be an issue. You should only have to draw their attention to it and the wheels should start turning.Nev Hi Nev and All The Manual at 9 should perhaps read (a) "or" (b), not "and". The take off and landing exemption is in 6 and 7 of the CAO. See CAO 95.10 for example. However, if it is "or" the provisions of the CAO would allow flight below 500' over your own land without a LL endorsement. RA seems to be acting to enforce LL provisions that are not proscribed by the CAO...curious either way. Kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Flight at 500ft AGL is legal. Flight below that level isn't unless for taking off or landing, or for a specific purpose for which the pilot has the appropriate endorsement such as aerial agriculture or low-level aerobatics or some types of geosurvey work. In my GA training, I was taught how to operate at low level if forced to do so by weather. This did not confer on me the ability to operate at such levels without appropriate training, it was for the purpose of giving me a little experience and to point out the more obvious dangers in case I ever needed to do so in an emergency. Dunno if they do this in the RA-Aus training syllabus. Coop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Have a look at the CAO's and then compare with the Operations Manual. There is clearly an anomaly in the latter, anyway, but also consider how currently it's interpreted by Ops to override the CAO. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L00617 The problem seems to be that the CAO is more liberal than the CAR's and RA is trying to narrow its effect. Given the number of people who kill themselves flying needlessly at low levels, I can understand the reluctance, if not the poor drafting. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 a LL endorsement won't cure bad judgement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Hence LL training at the start!. Students can lean it as part of their training program, and if they get their cirt., they Dont need another endorsment!. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Hence LL training at the start!.Students can lean it as part of their training program, and if they get their cirt., they Dont need another endorsment!. spacesailor Exactly what I have recommended long since to CASA, and more recently to RAAus. happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes, Kaz, I see your point. Significant violations of the KISS principle. But that's true of much of our regulations, RA_Aus or otherwise... Coop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Close to terrain is the risk. If you are close to terrain at higher altitudes it's even worse as your aircraft has little residual performance left.. A point to remember when flying up valleys or rising terrain. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now