aplund

I may not agree with the casa risk assessment, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. And ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere.

PS Just out of numerical curiosity, the Sling 2 holds 150L of fuel (the C172 I trained in had 189L usable). At maximum weight, that's the same energy as dropping your plane from ~2x10^6 feet with no air resistance. Of course in reality most of the energy in the fuel goes into overcoming drag also there's no air up there to give you any lift, so I wouldn't try requesting a climb to that altitude. But the point of this is to remember that most of the potential energy in your plane is in your fuel. To have an order of magnitude less risk from an uncontrolled decent, you need an order of magnitude less fuel, and I'm not sure how many planes have anything over the 45 min fuel reserve with just 15L of fuel.

I think ultralights got away with it because of the weight, a 500kg ultralight has a lot less potential to cause damage than a 1500kg C182

Maybe I don't understand the quantitative risk argument here.

The reality of course is that casa will never let that happen.

I'm a bit to new to know anything of the history, but presumably there would be some argument that could be made in a similar vein to what ultralights did. But the line would have to be pushed.

Clearly RAAus has put an enormous amount of effort to getting the procedures, rules and documentation right. It'd be all much easier, and creative "solutions" wouldn't need to be found, if the regulator wasn't so blind to the situation.

It seems to me that there is a mismatch here. The reasons for these problems, and it's obvious to 90% of participants and 0% of the regulators, is the way CASA operates. The CAO which exempts "recreational" planes from the CAR (is it CAO 95.55?) is a big part of the enabling of RAAus to operate a much better operation than CASA could. GA operators see this and want a piece of the pie, hence the whole weight/CTA thing.

Really, what is required is another set of exemptions for GA operators to break free of the CASA dungeon without troding on the exemptions won by the ultralight community. So some "other" set of exceptions for 600-2000kg, 3 - 4 pax, VFR private operators? The problem will be that, even if CASA agreed to something like that, is that it'd be far too much work for all 5 people left in GA to deal with. None of this would be required if CASA didn't bloody mindedly drop the ball for GA. But given that they have ruled out changing direction (as everything is perfect), I don't see any other way.

It's funny (or rather devastating) how the head honchos of CASA point to the number of members of RAAus and the quantity of operations in the same breath as saying that GA is alive and well in Australia.

Honestly try the military option, if that's not possible get a trade & fly for fun on weekends, it's sad but true, the profession has been destroyed by the bean counters.

I am interested in your progression to getting the highest level of license.

After calculating the costs of my PPL I tried estimating the rough costs CPL and ATPL. I came up with roughly $70,000 for CPL and $400,000 for ATPL given _current_ costs for General Aviation. This is just an estimate of the money spent on gaining hours of experience. Additional costs of landing/airways fees, medicals, maps/charts/software, theory courses, briefings, etc. I did not estimate.

Granted once you get a CPL you can make money and someone else will pay for much of the plane, but anecdotally it's not massive salary by any means. So I'd be interested in clarifying any of these anecdotes.

It's interesting to note that for tertiary level education for Australians eligible for Commonwealth places you are looking at about $50,000 for your undergraduate degree (one rough source: Courses and Programs - The University of Queensland, Australia).

Are these costs a new thing? What was it like 30 years ago? Are there ways around the costs of gaining the requisite experience? Are there other ways which don't involve engaging in General Aviation?

What is unclear in my mind is how in the future Australian pilots are going to achieve the highest levels of achievement in Aviation if the lowest levels are as dysfunctional as it appears at the moment.

Yes it can be, but there's been a reluctance within the GA community to pay around $370,000.00 for a new Cessna 172, even though, in terms of weekly income, the cost is not a lot different to 1960.SIDS allows people to continue flying, in some cases 60 year old airframes with 8,000 hours plus stress on them with the weak points removed and a similar level of airframe safety to a current era airframe.

 

Without SIDS, some people would just fly the old airframes until something let go.

For aircraft this same decision making process doesn't seem to work. Perhaps the depreciation is completely different. Never-the-less, the desire to extend the lifetime of aircraft is wrapped up with the issues outlined from this report. If you have an expected return on investment, then the hidden costs of regulation increase more than expected over time, you will want to try and squeeze more out of the original capital outlay.

But just as a symptomatic exercise, compare the percentage do you see of 40+ year old cars on the road vs the percentage of 40+ year old air-frames departing you local GA airport.

Unfortunately I see no chance of CASA changing.

Under the current system, if CASA makes some rule that puts huge costs on operators then it will only ever be a good thing from their point of view as it will mean less GA/Recreational flying hours hence less "risk". But the proper metric should be the risks per hour of flying, or per cycle, or some other normalizing factor.

Its interesting to note in the report the huge reduction in aviation activities on the east coast major cities (not sure why Adelaide has maintained their activity). But has this reduction in operations improved the risk per hour of flying? I'd love to know.

(I can see another weekend research project brewing.)

What's an SSRI?

GPs aren't psychiatrists. But they should know when medication isn't working and to refer someone. The concern in when psychologists try to act as psychiatrists and GPs just sign off on the prescriptions.

Well, not being driven to finish training, I managed to sit down and read the Project Eureka report that AOPA Australia put out almost one year ago (reference: http://aopa.com.au/assets/587/EUREKA_130416.pdf).

At the time it seemed to have the effect of widening the gap between General and Recreational Aviation (at least that was the impression on these forums). But me and my hip pocket, just currently, cannot help but agree with at least the spirit of the document.

I'm not 100% convinced about the quantitative benefits of some of the recommendations in the document. I'm also unsure as to the rationale of the some of the recommendations (such as privatizing the monopoly services of ASA). But the content in it has helped me understand the reasons behind the enormous difference in aircraft costs between countries. Also, the bit about the evolution of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in Australia is actually a great read.

The question though is has this "project" made any difference in a positive way over the last year? From my point of view all I see is more inertia than ever.

We are still battling with Part 61 - 3 years after introduction. Nearly 600 pages of it - plus another 500 pages of telling us how-to-suck eggs in the Manual of Standards. Kiwis did it in 90 odd pages and the FAA took 110 pages if I'm correct. CASA is just part of the 'Canberra culture' of omnipotence, that we all distrust so intensely. What irks me so much is that we, as a nation, spend squillions on unproven, exorbitantly priced military hardware: then send our ADF over to the US to learn how to operate it. But, we can't follow the undeniable world leader in civil aviation, (the FAA): nooo, the air is different here! Grrrrr!

I don't understand fundamental differences between the USA approach and here. Are we somehow safer (the S in CASA) with such unparsable rules.

(Also, the interrelationships between the CAR and CASR still confuses me.)

You might want to consider also that the "Cost" of hiring is also about how much they want to hire the aircraft out, i.e. "I don't mind hiring mine out as long as I make a lot of money out of it, so I'll charge $300/hour", or "I need to hire my aircraft out so I'll charge $160/hr."

No, especially in training (dual and solo) the C172 engine doesn't need to work as hard as the C150 engine, therefore it is under a lot less stress and lasts longer.Regarding maintenance costs, to a large degree you can pay as much as you want. If you take your C172 to "U Bute Aircraft Maintenance" at Archerfield and tell them you want it in perfect condition then the annual could easily cost $15K to $20K because they will do absolutely everything to it, and it could take months. If you can find a good LAME that knows the aircraft, that knows what is required, whats not required, and (very importantly) what to look for on that particular model so as to prevent problems occurring AND you assist/prepare the aircraft yourself then you will be able to maintain a good, airworthy aircraft for between $1000 to $3000 per year tops. Of course if you want to put in a Garmin Avionics stack with STEC autopilot then that will cost a lot (but that is not really maintenance).

 

As for load and performance of a C172M compared to a J430 then here are some numbers;

 

Cessna 172M:

 

Empty weight (varies between 610 to 650 kg depending on equipment etc)

 

MTOW: 1043 kg

 

Fuel: 182L usable

 

Fuel Burn: (cruise at 75% power, leaned correctly):30 L/hr

 

Cruise speed: (75% power 8000') 118kn TAS

 

Engine: Lycoming O320-E2D: TBO 2000 hours (can be run "on condition" with many (>90%) running to approx 3000 hours - one in the US currently >4500 hours. 150hp can run on 91 Unleaded (Petersens STC)

 

Due to it's greater weight and aluminium construction the Cessna is a lot more comfortable to fly in bumpy conditions.

 

Jabiru J430:

 

Empty weight: (varies between 330 and 360kg depending on equipment, repairs etc)

 

MTOW: 700kg

 

Fuel: 135L usable

 

Fuel Burn: (Cruise at 2850 rpm):22 - 26L/hr

 

Cruise Speed: (2850rpm, 8000'):124kn TAS

 

Engine: Jabiru 3300.

 

The Jabiru is of course a fibreglass/composite construction and is built to a weight. The question you have to ask yourself is which one do you feel comfortable flying? My personal opinion is (obviously) the Cessna. I had a Jabiru 230 (brand new) and while I did a bit of touring in the Jabiru it did have it's issues. I prefer the Cessna because the engine is a lot more reliable, the airframe is more endurable (and if needs be, better to repair) and is a lot more comfortable over long trips than the Jabiru.

I'm really in no position to spend much money at the moment (as outlined above). So what actually interests me right at this moment is figuring out the whys behind things. The whole maintenance costs thing is all over the place. I get one person saying they usually have $600 annuals. I tried to figure out what it might cost given the "market rate" for C172 hire and I came out to somewhere between $5k-$10k. And then I get someone saying that $10,000 is an underestimate for the costs of an annual as it's more like $15k-$20k and most places loose money off private hire. This huge variation is _confusing_ to say the least.

Let's say it really is $20k per annual/100hourly. Where does that money go? Clearly there is the labour costs. But many people give examples of equipment costs and talk about "aviation grade". But in so many situations "aviation grade" equipment seems to just mean 50 year old technology which has a short lifetime compared to what is possible using modern materials. Yet you pay a premium for that "grade". But it's not actually clear to me that this would explain the majority of such a high cost. One day I may get to the bottom of this, but at the moment it's all totally opaque.

My personality cannot help but pursue questions like, why is this the case, and is there a better way? There are so many different things to ask these questions of here and there is a factorial more opinions out there, all wildly different.

I'll take the liberty of hijacking my own thread. Why a J430 and not something like a Sling 4? Sheesh, if the MTOW for Recreational a/c was 950kg then recreational registration would be very attractive indeed.

I'll take the liberty of hijacking my own thread. Why a J430 and not something like a Sling 4? Sheesh, if the MTOW for Recreational a/c was 950kg then recreational registration would be very attractive indeed.

Yeah that's crap and most likely CASA having one of their bureaucratic "blonde" moments. JPs most certainly are allowed to certify identity document copies. Their signature block should include their name and qualification. They will also be listed on the state government website in the register of JPs. A "please explain?" to CASA would be worthwhile.

This is another situation where it seems like the system is broken. Why can they not get the photo from Aviation ID and be done with it? It was JP certified and they issued me with an ASIC. Seems like a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and money) for what benefit? On the plus side, I'm making a new friend at work who is a JP.

from the rules:[ATTACH]48943[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]48944[/ATTACH]

So I've read over the exemptions in part 3 of CAO 95.55 and it is still unclear to me of the interaction between the CASR Part 61 license, the CAR and this CAO. For example, given that the aircraft is permitted under CAO 95.55 to not satisfy all the regulations under the CAR, does this mean it isn't an aircraft for the purposes of the CASR? Hence you cannot log the time and then cannot count it towards the take-off and landing requirement for a part 61 license.

As an aside, and I'm no legal expert, I find it interesting they have to separately specify 3 take-offs and 3 landings. I'm trying to imagine a situation where you do 3 landings and 1 take-off. 1 landing and 3 take-offs sounds particularly bad :(

Hi aplund,Congrats on the PPL, I started with RA-Aus then after an issue with a Jabiru I went to GA - PPL, NVFR, IR and bought a C172M and never looked back. A couple of notes regarding some questions above;

Why a C172 and not a 152? Especially for training a C172 will last a lot longer (engine wise) than a 152. Family had a flying school back in the 70's and initially had 152's, none got to TBO, not good in hot weather etc. Went to 172's and cost of maintenance dropped nearly by half. My Cessna has done nearly 11,000 hours but the previous owner rebuilt the wings, tailplane, rudder, new firewall, paint job etc so passed the SIDS with total cost $3000 (over two annuals). It has the MOGAS STC so with Fuel, maintenance, insurance, hangarage etc on 75 hours/year it costs me $130/hour to fly. I paid $45,000 for it (Two years of hire&fly) and did a lot of my training in it. It has nearly paid for itself in 5 years.

 

With regard to RA-Aus conversion, I see they have changed to rules, it used to be no minimum hours unless it was for a Low Performance Aircraft (<55knots) but now it is 5 hours with 1 hour PIC. If your ultimate goal is to own an aircraft then do the sums. There are good Pipers/Cessnas/Other (Piels, Aeronca, beechcraft etc) aircraft out there for $25K-$60 while Tecnams, Evektors, CT etc can be $40K above that. $40,000 pays for a lot of fuel and maintenance. With maintenance, there is no reason why a 100 hourly should cost $5000. Under the CASA regulations there are a lot of things you can do yourself and prepare the aircraft for inspection, reducing the cost considerably. If you just take your aircraft to a LAME, drop it off and pick it up when it is all finished then yes, it will cost a lot. Also look at Experimental aircraft, there are some wonderful planes out there and the cost of ownership is less than certified aircraft.

 

Think about what you would like to do - touring, day trips away, sunny day flying, bush strips, etc. then look at buying an aircraft that is best suited to that task (the Cessna 172 will do all these things easily but of course I'm biased!).

What exactly stops 152s getting to TBO? Are you saying something else writes off the plane apart from the engine?

On reddit I was advised that basically you have to buy an entirely new engine at overhaul, but I prefer to take most things read on the internet with a grain of salt. The thing I'm having difficult resolving at the moment is the vast array of numbers floating around out there. I've had advice that 100 hourlys should cost around $1,000 to $5,000 to $15,000. That level of uncertainty makes it impossible to make a decision. Now, I know there are fluctuations in the costs, but surely it's possible to put an "average" figure on it, and even a "standard deviation" to know how much you may need available in the worst case. It would take a bit of digging through records but it's surely possible to do. Most comments seem to be made on the basis of recollections and feelings about the quantities, not hard numbers.

In trying to resolve this I made a rough guesstimate using how much the "market" rate for wet hire of a 172 is, and the maintenance costs should be between $5-10k, probably the bigger number, which seems like a lot.

At the moment, I really do need to let my bank balance recover whilst trying to keep things as current as possible. I guess that means I have some thinking/research time. But I do also need to spend time on other things which I have neglected over the last 12 months. As well as trying to have fun.

Congratulations - regarding flying VH and LSA. I owned a C172 for 15 years and operational costs over that time steadly increased finally making private ownership questionable with a fuel burn of 34l/h @ $2:50 / l, 100hrly / annuals around $5000 / pa , CIDS program forced upon owners I decided to look into RAAUS and LSA aircraft. Sold the Cessna, did the 5 hr conversion to RAA and purchased a piper sport..Cruse 110Kts TAS, Approach 70 Kts Threshold 55Kts, Flap extension 75 Kts - very simular to the cessna. Operational costs minimal. Fuel burn 20l/hr Mogas, maintenance less than half that of the cessna if i get an L2 to do it otherwise cheaper if i do it myself (where safe to do so). What i have found with the LSA class is you pick your days. performance is similar but being so lite you feel the flight, this i actually like but a hot windy day can be testing.

I keep my PPL current for if i need controlled airspace or more than 2 seats but RAA has won me over. My suggestion, if you are not going to go commercial and try for the big ones do the 5 hours and see, Hire rate at our club is around $120 / hr wet for tecnam aircraft.

It'd be great if the MTOW for CAO 95.55 was 500kg higher. I don't quite understand why the exemptions apply for light aircraft as I would have thought (as you say) that control of them could be more difficult in some situations due to a lower mass.

It's being revoked next year it seems. I don't quite understand why that sunset clause is in there.

I need some time (and hence money) before I commit to things. But from what I've read over the past couple of days, I'll be seriously looking into the RA-Aus Certificate. Oh, and the 5 hours, is this done at ~$200/hours dual time?

Oh and just to add to the fun of all this, CASA sent through a letter claiming my application is incomplete. In the application process had included a copy of my ASIC and had the copy JPed and their response was:

The person certifying your photo does not appear to be qualified to certify a photo.

Please have a suitably qualified person certify the photo and resubmit.

I'm getting assistance from the flight school on this. But I think the best reaction to this is "WTF"? (And when they say I need to send through the "entire application", I hope that's not some CASA code for me to pay the application fee a second time).

On reflection last night, I think I'm just a bit burnt out from the whole experience. It seems to feel like climbing to what you think is a summit just to find an unexpected 100m cliff-face above you. It'd be awesome just to have some fun with things now and hopefully allow some time for money to come back to me (hopefully).

Is anyone going to the Straddie fly-in this month with a spare seat or two?

Flight crew licensing (Part 61) - the basics | Civil Aviation Safety Authority has basic info about Part 61 and it starts by referring you to the rules to get the whole story.Who knows when we'll get real Advisory Circulars.

Well done aplund. It sound like your PPL test was a little more full on than mine! Was your testing officer someone from the school or someone outside? I got myself lost on a diversion as well (was low level due weather, to watts bridge), but thankfully found myself in time!!

Re cost of 172s, I think the cheapest around is Darling Downs aeroclub. Redcliffe is also under $300 (maybe 270 odd).

Doing 10-15 hours a year is just enough to maintain your skills IMO. I am doing about that at the moment due to work and other commitments. Between RPL and PPL I was doing a lot of local flying and not working, so I was doing around 100hrs a year, it sucks to have dropped that down but I need to fund the habit somehow! Every time I go up now I try to practice a couple of things if I dont have pax, and sometime I will go for a quick buzz to the training area then head back and do half a dozen circuits including shortfields, glides, flapless etc. The one thing I have not done in a while is a decent nav ex. Thinking I might a run out west soon, maybe Longreach or Birdsville just to test myself! Will have GPS and OzRunways but plan to do it using DR. The red country is the ultimate test of DR skills!

There is also an Airservices Tower fee of approx $17 as well as the AAC landing charge for each full stop landing at Archerfield. Total charge for C172 approx $34.

Services Agreement

Part 61 only applies to VH and thats only what your Part 61 licence entitles you to fly - suggest that you read the rules (but you need to go round in circles to check all the ifs and buts), not sure if the Noddy guides cover this. You may find another rule somewhere else which says you may fly another registered type e.g. from memory the US law entitles you to fly an N registered airplane in this country.Suggest you also read up on CASA's new general competency requirements as it is relevant to your question.

Private pilot licence | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

"As the holder of a private licence (aeroplane) you are authorised to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command or co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in private operations (see page 1.14) or as pilot in command in flying training operations."

The VFRG doesn't seem to say anywhere that this only applies to VH registered aircraft. In-fact, the whole VFRG doesn't mention the distinctions between RA-Aus registration and VH registration anywhere. Given that this seems like a significant limitation you would have thought it would be mentioned.

PPL achieved, but it feels like the "real" learning has just begun.