turboplanner

SAAA on Part 149:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that would make sense, since SAAA is currently within the prescriptive protection of CASA.

The same would go for all GA operations.

Hmmmmm..Read the rules?

 

You are correct, read the rules is the operative statement. ..BUT.. The interpretations are vast, even whoever we talk to in CASA there is an abundance of interpretations.

 

The other interesting situation the MOS for Part 149 is the same as to what Part 103 is to supposed represent.

 

Work all that out.

 

Some more to consider. South Africa tried to implement Part 149 a few years back and it was unworkable.

 

The advice I have received, this is the same document -- so something must be common.

 

KP

 

The time to raise thoughts like that was in the concultative phase, and you'll remember that people were complaining about how long it was.

It would be a big mistake to grab a word here and there and say "Bingo, means nothing to me!"

Better to read the entire documents, while understanding what self-administration means for everyone. If you read it based on historic values, yes, it won't seem workable.

For the individual, the commencement of Part 149 is an air pocket on a sunny day.

 

.......provided he/she ensures by complying with Pert 149 that the air pocket doesn't hurt anyone or damage any property.

It seems you must work for CASA turbo.  Could be somewhere higher up the ladder too.  While your long-winded explanation above sounds logical, it's exactly what I'd expect of a press release by CASA PR.  In summary, it's not their fault, it's someone else's - the one-armed man perhaps.  That is such a standard cop out at all levels of Govt that you gotta be on the payroll.

 

No, I have no relationship with CASA. Thousands of pilots could tell you the same story because that’s the history.

@turboplanner educate us

 

I'll have another read.  Last time I looked it didn't look too onerous.

If nobody knows what it means then RAA can hardly say it's compliant,  and needs to do some education work right now to protect themselves.

No

Probably better to do a flight plan. Do people even do that anymore? If someone needs Oz-Runways to tell them when they will run out daylight they should not leave the circuit area.

 

It's sounding a bit as if Instructors are not taking responsibiity when they train pilots for cross country endorsement.

It may not be all, but there are enough comments which show no understanding of what a flight plan is to show that too many have not been trained.

I really see this as a problem of the expansion of rag and tube into the plastic fantastics, where people have bought the aircraft, but the administration hasn't changed yet.

The one from a couple or several months ago. 

 

Have no idea what it’s formal title was.

 

Was publically available as a series of videos ( about 3 spanning several hours  IIR) with representations made by people from GA, ?airlines, AOPA, SAAA, the aforementioned two blokes from RAAus and maybe was some others. I forget exactly as they didn’t really concern me. 

 

Everyone else was quite polished and presented factual information. The RAAus guys flustered and obfuscated. ( and  misrepresented the facts ) 

 

Basically stated that all the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to RAAus because the aircraft in RAAus are ALL extremely simple and basic with no complex systems.  Which Has been later pointed out by just about everyone with any interest to be quite false  as many of the same aircraft are used in both GA and RAAus. 

 

OK, thanks.

 

Like they re-wrote CASR Part 61 - OMG, we are in trouble if that happens!!

 

Well I wasn't thinking of having 30 of them suddenly write "how to fly at night in RA;" just the people in charge of SAO doing an audit of RA training.

I just did a very quick grab of a 2016 NVFR document from Part 61, and whether it's current or not, it at least explains the complexity of flying night VFR,, with some information on black spot operations.     file:///C:/Users/ferns/Downloads/061c05.pdf

The discussions over whether this particular aircraft or all Brumbys have lights  or not is not significant. No RA pilot should be using them to navigate or land, but a lot of high volume airfields have a practice of using nav lights when visibility is marginal, and landing lights when inbound, outbound and in the circuit, to make it easier for other aircraft to see THEM.

What does this mean “Amateur build”? 

 

Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. 

 

Or

 

Do you mean RAAus “Amateur”  Build - Is this  an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this)   

 

If my recollection of official terms is correct I am not sure that he has given any new information but maybe used weasel words in the hope no one notices he is referring to something else to save face. 

 

But regardless,  until he can show actual written information from CASA it’s still just one blokes opinion. We know those are a dime a dozen and CASA edicts are only solid when they are written into law. 

 

I don’t know who’s who in the hierarchy and who you are referring to but if it’s one of the two Bozos who presented themselves so ineptly at the senate enquire I wouldn’t put much weight on the reply you mentioned.  My opinion was that were out of their league and hoped no one would notice. 

 

Which Senate Inquiry are you talking about?

Do we even know whether the Brumby had glass panel or steam instruments?

 

A lot of people have been patiently trying to explain the enormity of this situation; using the term steam instruments is a bit like talking about sore hooves at a greyhoud race.

RAA has a massive training problem they need to address sooner rather than later, and this accident should be the catalyst for CASA to move in and sort it out.

Hey, I like the way  this thread is going. Nonsensical but irrefutable hypotheses that could keep us going for weeks if not months. Bring it on.

 

Pity it’s all over.

This is a simple forum discussion about a prang, so offering some reasoning would be good, like onetrack above.   Without going into boring detail, I've highlighted just a few subtle hints that this wasn't exactly the same as many before.  Would you also suggest that his father's death was by a lone gunman, for example?

 

His father's death was related to actions by Robert Kennedy. 11 shots were fired, Chuck Nicoletti fired the frontal shot which killed him, James Files fire from the grassy knoll, someone else I forget managed to hit the kerb and leave a scar which was there for years, a bullet went throught the windscreen of the limo and through a freeway sign which was removed same day. No great secrets there.

What several people have tried to explain is that this was a very silly flight by a pilot who was nowhere near qualified to do it, and the result was as expected. One of my instructors, flying over the sea in a search and rescue, with otherwise above average control of his aircraft, also lost contril and killed himself in daylight.

The 40 to 100 people who died after JFK were a different story altogether.

There's more to that story than we're being told.  And that guy being interviewed ain't gonna tell us either.  Dark night disorientation crash makes it sound so obvious, doesn't it?  As De Galle said, and that guy quoted, "Graveyards are full of dispensable men."   In other words, JFK Jr was dispensable, No?  Or is that too subtle a clue?

 

Routine case, take a look at many similar reports and you'll see the pilot had made similar trips night VFR then flew into a dark area without farmhouses and dropped from the sky. Same thing over water.

Wouldn't a single-engine turboprop be better value for money, safer and easier to fly? Even if it was more expensive? Dislcaimer: not buying either. 

 

Yep, a Kodiak or Caravan would be great, but the up front price is between $1 and 2 million.

Warren Buffet doesn’t own a Corporate Jet any more. He just bought an executive jet company and rents one to himself when he needs it.

A really well managed corporate/ charter aircraft is working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and that’s how they amortize the cost.

As someone mentioned, this is an RA site so not a lot of GA operations experience, but some good advice has come up nevertheless. Another option is opportunism. I had to fix a warranty problem on a new truck in Kununurra one time. The call came in on Friday afternoon.   On Monday morning the Darwin dealer called me to say he’d fixed the problem. He’d taken his tool box and hopped a ride with a ****** staff plane taking crews to work on the Sunday. They dropped him off, delivered the crew then picked him up on the way back. Cost $0

How do you get "lubricated a deal" or "feathered your nest" out of negotiations on behalf of members? I am and will be grateful for whatever can be negotiated.

 

You need to pay attention to the little snippets that drop from time to time and may or may not be true and therefore may or may not be a benefit or burden to members.

He already lists that.. In Vic /Tas region in winter you will get icing and it's just not safe to fly for quite long periods ( Days ) over any high country IFR without effective de icing. The only thing that will give you that is an executive jet. Citation, Lear etc  Nev

 

Depending on his location in Tasmania and his location in Queensland there may not be much high country involved.

IF in the course of repairing something, you notice that something else is in a dangerous condition, can you say "not my problem  I wasn't brought here to fix that". I would imagine on an onus of duty of care there would be an expectation that you would do SOMETHING about it.  I would think covering yourself by requiring a disclaimer. I am aware that further repairs need to be made to make this circuit comply, and that I have requested and paid for " ABC" only from T Jones..

 

     Electricians will not work on houses that don't have the fully operational earth return isolators and that's a straight out safety issue.. Nev

 

Duty of care has a very specific meaning in PL, so a study of that would probably answer your question. You are legally responsible for the advice you give so that will have a bearing on what you say. Just compartmentalising the issue usually decides what you do.

I’m not quite sure how you get “lubricated a deal” out of AOPA’s “Not happening”

All too true, and it's not confined to electrical and plumbing, there's a lot of construction work and additions that are not building law compliant, nor are they approved by council.

 

But the problems start when there's an accident, or a failure of major concern. About then, is when the ordure hits the rotating blades, and the authorities are looking for the person responsible.

 

Thus, the reason for going over properties that you propose purchasing, very carefully.

 

In W.A. (not sure about other States), an electrician is now fully responsible for everything in an area he has worked in - even if he only opened up a manhole in the ceiling to fit a smoke alarm.

 

He/She is then deemed responsible for all wiring in the roof cavity, as he is supposed to have checked it all out, and made sure it was all compliant.

 

This has to be complete BS, I don't know how this can be enforced in a court of law - and I don't recall knowing of any recent cases where it has arisen.

 

The original installer needs to bear the burden of responsibility, not some poor bugger who came along later, and who didn't have time to, or couldn't inspect, every single item installed in the roof.

 

I understand our training systems are in a parlous state, and it's not getting any better. Many good, manual-job-training institutions, have been discarded in Govt reshuffles.

 

Govts are always looking to offload training responsibility onto businesses and organisations, and businesses are reluctant to train people unless there is great benefit to them, or some type of Govt subsidy for the training.

 

Apprenticeships are difficult to get, and mechanics and fitters are becoming merely component replacers, rather than good troubleshooters with excellent diagnostic skills.

 

Hook up the diagnostic computer or the code reader, and it'll tell you what's wrong, you don't need diagnostic skills or full understanding. It's not helped by manufacturers adding engineering complexity onto complexity every year. 

 

The simple problem is, that there are less and less people interested in fixing anything any more, as the years progress. So the trainers are retiring, and their skills are not being sought, nor passed on.

 

We baby boomers did our training courses and gained extensive experience in repairing all manner of things - and we were taught by master mechanics, and technicians with major skills sets.

 

The younger generations see no need to repair anything, it's, "rip out the offending major component and install a new one - or dump the whole thing, and buy a complete new unit".

 

It's hardly helped by the fact that the manufacturers have reduced costs so extensively, the cost to carry out major repair to items, is often simply uneconomic.

 

I don't know what the answer is, it's a very complex situation, but it's not getting any better. To me, there appears to be a concerted effort to dumb down the nation, with automated systems appearing everywhere - and aviation won't be spared from that, either.

 

I go to a lot of auctions, and I'm stunned that driving skills are dumbed down so much today, that the auction houses post signs, warning employees and auction buyers, that certain vehicles have manual transmissions, and special skill and training are required to operate those vehicles. 

 

Para 1

Yes, it all starts with the accident. This has saved Australia billions of dollars in costs for over-priced tradesmen,  time lost waiting for inspectors to arrive, and the cost of employing inspectors.

Effectively to avoid catastrophic penalties if you do your own electrical work, you either have to train to ATO standard, or emply an qualified electrician, but the cost factors are lower and the tradesmen still make a living.

Para 2

Public Liability law is based on duty of care, so yes, he is responsible for everything he has worked on, and everything that work affects.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the second line; it certainly could be something adopted locally - even on this site there are people who post regularly who have no idea where the boundaries of duty of care lie. If anyone in WA is disadvantaged by this I'd recommend getting a PL lawyer to cehck it out.

The rest

The people themselves have caused this. The trend has been to buy the cheapest product, so the good manufacturers die out. The same people double down on that by never bringing it in for scheduled maintenance, so the low-cost repair industries disappear. There is heaps of income floating around so people just put products with a minor faul out for hard rubbish and buy a new one, and that means that companies drop slow moving parts from their warehouses, then the whole infrastructure starts to fail. I was in a crazy situation once, where a mechanic had ripped a spark plug boot off a European car and would electrical tape around the terminal which caused a miss in the engine to either cast my own rubber boot, or pay $380.00 for an ignition module.

To a degree smart people have started selling plug in modules for spares, which although costing more than the 2 cent washer we used to buy, at leat don't require a mechanic at $120.00 an hour.

It's a plug and play world.

Not only are manual transmissions dying out, but torque converter autos have started to follow. I'm driving my first CVT and they're a dream to operate, so we'll soon be getting to an era when no one can repair a manual or auto transmisison, Lost Skills like finding steam train drivers. I'd bet there are less than a hundred people in Australian now who could drive a truck with a two stick joey box, and truck drivers who can handle a Roadranger will get a special premium salary.....until the truck is sold.

The demeanour of the article seems to imply that CASA are not likely to, and never have said they would, allow CTA ENTRY without increased medical to a Class 2 or variant.

 

And CASA have stated that increased MTOW will most likely include maintenance by LAME, only at least for certain classes of those up-weighted  aircraft. (E.g.  certified a/c that fit the weights). 

 

That would be the logical path. It would be illogical fpor a safety authority to maintain that on the one had if you fly with this group and fly in this environment you will require medical and aircraft standards which have evolved based of safety standards established over 100 years, but if you fly with that group and fly in the same environment with the same aircraft you don't require the samemedical and aircraft standards.

RAA's whole existence and history is being allowed to fly under exemptions because the aircraft are kept well away from the operational and performance standards of GA.

The thought of a precautionary onto a gravel road is worrying because it might well have been into the late afternoon sun for an into wind landing. Better to go to a prepared one. A few station strips en route, (Cundimurka, and Stuart Ck, and there's a public one at Maree).  From William Ck to Cundimurka is 52nm and on direct track to Leigh Ck, and a diversion from there to Maree, (following the old line) is another 52nm.  Given they left William Ck at 1600, then  they could easily have been at Cundimurka at 1640, and Maree by 1720. That would have been comfortable for the day, given there's both accom and fuel there, and reportedly they had been there only the previous night - so were familiar with Maree.

 

It almost always takes longer to fly a trip than the basic flight plan allows. Delays in refuelling, delays in loading, traffic holdups, and then perhaps reducing speed to conserve fuel. Headwinds are always stronger than forecast, while tailwinds are always lower than the forecast.  Why?  It's the way of the weather, and we just need to adjust to it.   

 

It's cross country flying vs training/local circuits/breakfast fly ins.

 

 There are still some U/L's flying, so it's "unfinished business" for CASA . The NO pay with NO say doesn't apply . Nev

 

There are all the trikes, although a lot went to HGFA, and as one person said once (and I hope he's wrong), "about a third of them don't bother with registration."

And there would be heaps sitting in sheds.