Roundsounds

The key is to recognise the early signs of an impending spin and take action to avoid entry. The typical unintentional spin will occur at a height where recovery cannot be made. Unless you're going to do aerobatics spin recovery training is not really of much use, however a keen awareness of what an impending spin looks/feels like and what to do to fix the situation is critical for all pilots. To develop the awareness of what an impending spin entry looks like requires actual spin entry, the instructor needs to place emphasis on this phase, not necessarily the recovery. Having said that, might as well get the trainee to do the recovery.

spin awareness training is a must for all pilots, it's in the syllabus for both GA and RAA. How it's delivered is the variable, whether that be a discussion or actual spin recovery training. In my opinion, the best way to provide useful spin awareness training in an appropriate aircraft type by duly qualified instructor.

Lovely aeroplane, I assisted with some info for electrics upgrade. What are you going to do with the C65?

What's the story behind the MARAP?

I must be very fortunate with my CASA dealings, I let my class 1 and 2 lapse for a few years due to a couple of arthritic hips. I've had both replaced, the last in July this year, then fronted up to my DAME armed with a letter from the surgeon saying I was fit to fly. Imagine my surprise, when just short of 3 weeks following the DAME visit my class 2 medical turned up! Further to that, my son recently completed his RPC, then sent in his RPL paperwork off to CASA - his RPL arrived after 3 1/2 weeks. He already had an ARN, level 6 English and an ASIC but again, I was very surprised. These two transactions both took place early October this year. Hopefully we are seeing a turnaround!

Anyone going?

If you're comparing pure gliders with RAAus, you are correct. However, with a little effort an RAAus pilot could acquire a motor glider, have it placed on the GFA register and complete a conversion course. At the end of the course the pilot could operate independently from controlled airports without restriction on a GFA issued certifcate and a self certified medical - no GA RPL/PPL required. The only time a CASA medical is required for glider operations (provided you have reasonable health) is for any commercial type Op's (air experience or instructional flights).

Both the Australian Gliding and Balloon Federations have controlled airspace privileges now, using only a self certified medical. They have never been restricted in their operations in CTA/CTR. The question should be - " why are RAAus operations restricted?"

I'm pretty sure a review of accident stats (GA and RAA) would prove a high rate of fatalities involve low flying - often including power lines or beat ups. Why promote a flying activity (LL endorsement) which is high risk and no benefit if conducted for other than commercial purposes? No argument against dual ops as part of flight training.

No issues in training LL skills, just questioning the need to "qualify" a person to go do it for fun.

Where and when does an RAAus LL endorsement allow a pilot to fly at low level?

I would strongly oppose the continuation of low level operations for anyone other than those requiring a LL endorsement. LL for pure "fun" has proven to be deadly....... repeatedly. Unless you're flying up a valley there are very few obstructions that reach 500'AGL, if they do they are usually easy to spot. For a person who uses the qualification for day to day operations (farmers etc), they remain current and often know the land like the back of their hand.

Seems like a few people on here should review CAAP 166-1(3). Some of the content in the link provided by DrZoos is out of date, particularly the radio broadcast recommendations - way too many. CAAP166-1 provides the current view on RT at NCTL aerodromes.

ATSB report on a fatal collision on the runway at Hoxton Park several years ago: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/aair/aair199900970.aspx

I think there might be some information missing in this story. How long does it take to backtrack 2/3 of the way down a runway? Given the aircraft called entering the circuit, wouldn't there be sufficient time to complete the backtrack and depart? If I heard someone calling to say they were backtracking on runway xx, I wouldn't necessarily acknowledge the call, unless it was worded such that a response was required. As a side issue, I have noticed an increasing number of pilots entering and backtracking along a runway before they have completed their pre-takeoff checks, then hold on the threshold whilst they complete them - often in the lined up position!

CAR 162 (5) says an aircraft on the ground or water must give way to an aircraft landing. If you were backtracking at say 10 knots, you were covering about 330 metres/minute, given a circuit takes about 3 minutes to complete from the beginning of downwind it must be a very long runway! Clearing the runway means you are outside of the runway strip, not just off the sealed section (ie outside the white gable markers). I find people's understanding of this is pretty poor, leagally you cannot land if another aircraft simply pulls off onto the grass but remains inside the white cones / gables. The exception being where a flight strip is designated for use by gliders, appropriately marked and stated in the ERSA or NOTAM (Temora is an example). It's situations like this that make RAA pilots look bad in to the GA fraternity. I'm not necessarily saying two light aircraft cannot safely operate by holding on the grass flight strip whilst another lands or takes off, but it's not legal.

The Telegraph has reported a light aeroplane has made a forced landing in a paddock near Camden at Brownlow Hill. Nil / minor injuries and seems to be a Liberty XL-2 VH-CZS, grapevine says control system issues.

That method, in my opinion, is a hairy chested macho thing and has no place in aviation from a human factors perspective. Sure it's worked ok for many years, but I'd rather let the nerves settle in with me in the aeroplane than with me standing at the side of the runway. I've always given notice to the student, along the lines of "well I reckon you're getting near solo standard, how do you feel about it?" or "if you can repeat that standard next time I reckon you could go solo, what do you think?"

Rod did an outstanding job, everyone survived and only one minor injury from memory. Rod's decision to ditch the aeroplane rather than persist with an assymetric condition which may not have had as favourable an outcome took quick thinking and decisive action.

Like Nev says, everyone else will be using a pressure sensitive (barometric) altimeter. For VFR operations that's all you need, too many gadgets can provide too much information and become a distraction.

Might be worth suggesting to your instructor that you'd like to start the next phase of training? (Steep turns, advanced stalling, PFL, IF etc.) I've done this many times over the years with students if there are delays to solo op's. I've noted an increase in confidence and competency with most students I've done this with.

It sounds like it's going to greatly improve things!

Hmmm, there proof reeder misseded this won in the E-male.... "If there are errors or omissions, simply update the details. You will be able to update most details. Where there are errors or omissions please use the contact form on the website to let us know so we can fix any errors or omissions for you."

The "plan" with the last L1 trial included a practical component, it was to take place once the level of legal / theory knowledge was established. The "trial" was intended to find out if any further theory training was needed, based on the pass rate there would not be any further theory needed. There were 2 practical streams proposed, one for a pilot already maintaining their aircraft, which involved fronting up to their next flight review with aircraft and maintenance records to a suitably qualified CFI/L2 for an assessment. If all was in order, L1 blessing given, if not then remedial training / fix aircraft, then blessing. The other stream was for new aircraft owners and involved a "workshop" run by persons capable and willing to deliver basic skills and assessment of competency. These could be held all around the country by non RAAus staff. But for some reason this path was not followed. They way I see it, maintaining an aircraft is like flying one. The person doing the flying or fixing needs a range of skills to do the job safely and legally. RAAus could use online methods to train and assess the theory and legal stuff (like the various pilot exams it sets), but not the practical. There needs to be a network of maintenance training facilities (MTF) like FTFs. These could be attached to FTFs, if they have suitably qualified trainers and assessors, or perhaps you approach a local LAME and do some work experience with their shop and have a list of tasks signed off by them.