RAA fatality near Emerald

[M61A1]

How would the situation be interpreted? If the student had gained his Pilot Certificate and as yet had not attained his cross country endorsement, bear in mind the cross country is endorsement. Without the cross endorsement the pilot could legally fly around the airport for years gaining hours and skills, he can even fly till he has to do his BFR.KP

Exactly.....According to the ops manual you may not fly solo without a student pilot certificate. Once you have completed your minimum 20 hour with a minimum of 5 hours in command , completed the necessary exams and been assessed as competent, then you get your pilot certificate. After that you can fly all you want within a 25nm radius of your point of origin indefinitely, as long you remain current (BFR), or you can complete endorsements as you wish with an instructor.

Perhaps it should also be noted that CAO95.10 does say that you may not fly it without a valid pilot certificate.

 

 

[Teckair]

Wow, so many stupid comments it's embarrassing, clearly you don't have to be smart to fly a plane.

 

 

[M61A1]

And which part of that post was incorrect?

 

 

[Teckair]

And which part of that post was incorrect?

Not in response to you I was typing when you posted that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Gee Frank that's even more a concern especially with your background!Reminds me of Part 61 & CASA's CASR's, 20 yrs of confusion & an utter waste of public money wth CASA themselves having little idea what's going on there in Fort Fumble!!

Fort Fumble?

 

 

[farri]

In my post #65 I said ANO 95-10 instead of CAO 95-10, typing error, Sorry.

 

For those who are interested here`s CAO 95-10 Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2017

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

Nice to know that I would be able to fly a Drifter if I can fly a Corby. I wonder how I would cope with nothing in front of me to relate to an aim polnt on finals. Will have to try it one day.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nice to know that I would be able to fly a Drifter if I can fly a Corby. I wonder how I would cope with nothing in front of me to relate to an aim polnt on finals. Will have to try it one day.

This is a good example of the now-defunct CASA endorsement requirement. You may only need 15-30 minutes up with an instructor who would show you the aim point method for that aircraft, the speeds, including trim for glide for forced landing, the handling quirks, the strong points/weak points, the specific pre-flight and pre-start optimums and so on. It didn't cost much, it gave the FTF and instructors more income, and it probably saved a lot of time trying to teach yourself.

A good example of the benefit was when I was endorsed on the Grumman Tiger after a few years on Cherokee 140s.

 

It only had an additional 10 hp, but could climb at 850 ft/min vs the 140's 690 ft/min - a 23% improvement.

 

It was ideal for strips where there were power lines, trees, hills off the ends; also had a faster sink rate from memory.

 

What I hadn't counted on was the correct attitude on climb out; the nose had to be held way up, and a lot of your weight was on the seat back, by comparison with the sedate ride of the 140. I never would have pulled the nose up that far for the full climb out if I'd just taught myself as pilots have to do today.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Exactly.....According to the ops manual you may not fly solo without a student pilot certificate. Once you have completed your minimum 20 hour with a minimum of 5 hours in command , completed the necessary exams and been assessed as competent, then you get your pilot certificate. After that you can fly all you want within a 25nm radius of your point of origin indefinitely, as long you remain current (BFR), or you can complete endorsements as you wish with an instructor.Perhaps it should also be noted that CAO95.10 does say that you may not fly it without a valid pilot certificate.

Yes exactly "According to the opps manual" then it goes on to CAO95.10 "Does not say you may not fly without a valid pilot certificate"

This is all a tad ambiguous.

 

KP

 

 

[M61A1]

Nice to know that I would be able to fly a Drifter if I can fly a Corby. I wonder how I would cope with nothing in front of me to relate to an aim polnt on finals. Will have to try it one day.

You still have a windscreen....as long as you aim point is not moving up or down the screen, you'll nail it.

 

Yes exactly "According to the opps manual" then it goes on to CAO95.10 "Does not say you may not fly without a valid pilot certificate"This is all a tad ambiguous.

KP

From CAO 95.10....

(d) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person:

 

 

 

(i) holds a valid pilot certificate; and

 

(ii) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate;

 

(e) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be;

 

I wouldn't call it ambiguous, a 'student pilot certificate' and a 'pilot certificate' are different things, but I would say that the regs are poorly laid out in that you need no piece together multiple documents in order to understand the rules.

 

 

[red750]

Yes Turbs. I moved from Melbourne to Sydney where I flew with Chieftain. They had a Grumman Tiger on the line. I remember the instructor demonstrating the swivelling nosewheel by standing on the left brake and doing a 360 pivot on the taxiway, clear of other aircraft of course. Only had a few flights in it, and maybe I came in a bit hot one day, but I found it hard to slow down after touchdown and used up quite a bit of runway, while nearly pushing the brake pedals through the firewall.

 

 

[scre80]

Has anyone received an email from RAAus about this? Last year they were emailing out a few days after fatal accidents

 

 

[turboplanner]

Has anyone received an email from RAAus about this? Last year they were emailing out a few days after fatal accidents

It's probably a bit early; a medical episode needs to be ruled out before other possibilities can reach any conclusions

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

.... a medical episode needs to be ruled out before other possibilities can reach any conclusions

Is that definitive turbo? I've never heard so many references to medical episodes being likely causes, it seems that just about every time there's a crash someone suggests a medical episode is the likely cause. So - are RAA, ATSB etc now looking at medical episodes as being the most likely factor "before other possibilities"?

 

 

[M61A1]

I didn't think anyone was suggesting it was (in this case), just that there was not enough information to be speculating and that it could even be a medical event.

 

I can't think of too many reasons to run into the ground at a reasonably high angle on a clear morning.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yenn. Because you have flown your Corby a lot and the RV tailwheel as well That experience would make the drifter a "no sweat" deal for you in my view. . That doesn't eliminate the idea of doing it with an instructor till he's happy which might be one circuit. YOU if you aren't happy you SHOULD do as much as you think YOU need

 

There isn't "NOTHING" in front of you .You have a pod and a windscreen. There's not much under you or at the sides and that "Throws " a few that feel exposed.. The feature of "nothing in front of you to judge attitude by" is unique to a Breezy and I've commented frequently that watching people fly THAT for the first time would be interesting, and very different for the pilot no matter how many hours and types they had flown. A strand of wool out the front would fix that, but there's nothing else.. on THAT particular plane Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

Is that definitive turbo? I've never heard so many references to medical episodes being likely causes, it seems that just about every time there's a crash someone suggests a medical episode is the likely cause. So - are RAA, ATSB etc now looking at medical episodes as being the most likely factor "before other possibilities"?

Medical issue or not, it would be good to hear the facts from RAAus re the 95.10 Student / Pilot Certificate? issue. That would put straight some of the posts on this thread.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is that definitive turbo? I've never heard so many references to medical episodes being likely causes, it seems that just about every time there's a crash someone suggests a medical episode is the likely cause. So - are RAA, ATSB etc now looking at medical episodes as being the most likely factor "before other possibilities"?

I based that on an earlier report that there was going to be an autopsy. Maybe my wording was wrong; I don't believe investigators would not be investigating, just that there is likely to be a delay pending the autopsy report.

In general, there are a lot of older people, retirees etc who have bought or built an aircraft on superannuation, so it's understandable that medical issues will feature in crashes more than they did in the 1970's etc.

 

However you raise a very important point.

 

In the case of heart attacks, I wonder how many were the RESULT of getting into serious difficulty rather than being the CAUSE of the accident?

 

 

[scre80]

Has anyone received an email from RAAus about this? Last year they were emailing out a few days after fatal accidents

I just looked up a notification from last year, it was a week after an accident that RAAus sent out the notification of a serious accident.

 

 

[facthunter]

scre80, SOME will be like that, where it can happen fast. Others won't, due to the different circumstances.. Its a good thing that some come out fast. Of course the quality (accuracy) and how it's presented can always be questioned and should be. Some past reports have contained so little they are just wasted paper. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I would have thought with such an old plane an engine failure and stall after stretching the glide was the most obvious scenario.

 

 

[M61A1]

Given the location, I don't know just what he would be stretching the glide to.

 

Better get your Tornado airborne before it gets too old to fly, and you aren't getting any younger.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Old two strokes play no favourites

 

 

[M61A1]

Old or new, two stroke or four stroke, makes no difference any of them can fail without warning.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I just thought that an engine failure is the most likely cause of the accident, if he was flying over salt bush country making an attempt to get to the highway seems an obvious course of action. Not everyone is an aircraft mechanic, its easy to overlook small fault in an aircraft if you haven't had a lot of exposure to them. Most people would rarely have any interactions with 20 year old machinery these days, so those old technologies aren't well known.