Low Level Aerobatic Peer Reviews

Just been reading some articles at Avweb.
The first, "Lucky or Good"
http://www.avweb.com/news/probablecause/probable_cause_62_lucky_or_good_198053-1.html
"There's something about the typical experienced-pilot's personality that is antithetical to safety. I'm not an expert in analyzing personalities -- though I know what I like -- but it seems the very traits that make someone a "good stick" also make that same skilled pilot a safety risk."
and the other, "We Worry About the Wrong Things and It's Killing Us"
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/pilots_lounge_122_we_worry_about_the_wrong_things_196933-1.html
"My friend just can't figure out why we Americans so blithely accept the true risks we face while continuing to smoke, over-eat, not wear seatbelts and not raise heck about hospital procedures, yet we get ourselves all in a twitter over the low risk items and take all sorts of expensive and often-redundant precautions that would be better spent on the high-risk stuff.
I didn't have an answer for my friend, but it caused me to look at the same question as applied to flying. While the fatality numbers for general aviation, just under 500 in 2006 -- far less than the number who die each year falling in bathtubs -- are very low, they have to be compared with the very small number of people who get into general aviation airplanes in the first place. With that in mind, our accident rate is far worse than the airlines and somewhat worse than automobiles, about the same as for motorcycles. Therefore, it's worth evaluating: Do we pilots worry about how to deal with the actual risks we face? As an aside, do we flight instructors teach students (and pilots in for recurrent training) how to identify and avoid doing stupid, high-risk things in airplanes?"
I was reminded of a discussion paper that I wrote for one of the aerobatic clubs about a year ago. There was some discussion. Some said that peer reviews are not needed as "we already tell people". Nope, you might tell some-one if they experience a sudden loss of judgement and does something silly but then they already know it themselves.
Some wanted peer reviews as a condition of permanent low level permissions. Nope, then we'll just have people chasing to get the peer review stamps in their book just before contest registration - if that, why would a contest registrar be looking for it? No-one else will be chasing it up so they won't happen.
If people don't do peer reviews for the right reasons then they won't be effective.
That discussion paper has gone nowhere so I thought that I'd share it with you here. I have seen that a few aerobatic pilots are practicing it. At one contest recently, peer reviews were apparently mentioned at the briefing and offered the assistance of a stamp. Unfortunately not many pilots know what a peer review actually was.

When CASA issued CAAP 155-1, Aerobatics, in January 2007 they introduced the concept of peer reviews which has largely been ignored by the aerobatic community since then. We know that CASA has been reconsidering their policy on low level aerobatics so should the club take the initiative to improve safety for aerobatic pilots before CASA imposes any restrictions?
If you consider the details of any accidents, not just those involving aerobatics, do you think that an effective regime of peer reviews would have eliminated any of them? Or even just one – would that make it worthwhile for all to undertake peer reviews?
How safe is a novice safety pilot in a competition? What do they know of their responsibilities and required capability?
Many organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programs for their members – should the aerobatic club undertake a similar program for the benefit of its members?
This discussion paper is prepared for use by the aerobatic club in consideration of the recent history of a large number of tragic accidents involving low level aerobatics and the potential for CASA to revise their policy with a possible adverse effect on the operations of club members.
BACKGROUND
Some years ago, CASA developed two new draft regulations, Parts 61 and 91, which included some new rules relating to aerobatics.
PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -
    d) Aerobatics
    e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL
    f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL"
i.e. rules relating to aerobatics were to be split into three different categories as above. Basic aerobatic endorsements would be above 3000 ft as now. Aerobatics down to 1500 ft would be administered by industry i.e. appropriate instructors and others (via the aerobatic club) would have the authority to make logbook entries permitting pilots to do aerobatics down to 1500 ft. Aerobatics below 1500 ft would continue to be administered by CASA.
There was a draft Advisory Circular which had been developed by CASA in broad consultation with industry.
PART 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
91.075 Aerobatic Flight
"(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not perform aerobatic manoeuvres in the following circum stances without CASA's approval:
    (a) below 1500 feet AGL;
    (b) in the vicinity of a public gathering or at an air display;
    (c) at night."
To enable the provisions of Part 61, this rule in Part 91 above had to be altered for it to read 1500 ft instead of 3000 ft.
The aerobatic club objected to this change – they wanted to retain 3000 ft as the minimum height for aerobatics thus requiring a specific delegation for CASA for any aerobatics below 3000 ft. So, as CASA staff had changed, being unware of the broad industry consultation they took the aerobatic club's view and put 3000 ft into the draft regulation. I learnt a lesson there – even though many of us had contributed to the draft AC and rule development none of us respodned to the NPRM – we need to have responded and said it was good. CASA only got negative comments.
The draft AC 91.075(0) has been available for review in its current form since September, 2001. Appendix 1, Para 3.3 is quite clear on the subject of initial approvals for aerobatics:
"Pilots may be certified as safe to conduct all the primary aerobatic manoeuvres above a minimum height of 1500 feet, but must not be cleared for aerobatic manoeuvres below their individual spin recovery certification. A minimum height of 3000 feet is recommended for most initial approvals."
Para 2.3 also refers to limitations for inexperienced pilots. The AC also outlines requirements for aerobatic flight instructors, training and the provision of an Operations Manual which would detail the conduct of aerobatic training. This is the mechanism by which CASA would control the process for training and issue of approvals for aerobatics down to 3000 ft; and down to 1500 ft.
I went to the CASA FLOT2003 conference in Sydney specifically to have that draft changed back to the original 1500 ft and succeeded in that. But, who would've thought that the aerobatic club would oppose the new rules which were aimed at facilitating our sport. The aerobatic club purported to represent its members yet did not tell its members what it intended to do – these days it is so easy to communicate with members with email or online forums!
Six years later the regulatory reform programme (not just aerobatics) has gone nowhere so I wouldn't rely on any changes to the rules in my lifetime. i.e. we must work within the existing CAR 155 and, probably, the existing CAO 40.0.
OTHER COUNTRIES
UK
Aerobatics in the UK is not regulated in that there is no minimum height specified for aerobatics and aerobatic training is not required – there is no aerobatic endorsement (it is likely to be required soon with the new EASA rules).
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap393.pdf page 291
The AOPA has an aerobatic training syllabus and a certificate which is generally accepted as the standard.
http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/course_a.php
The British Aerobatic Association and the Tiger club have standards to be demonstrated prior to their members performing at low level at their events.
Display pilots require a CAA authorisation http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap403.pdf
USA
The USA does not require aerobatic training and has no aerobatic endorsement.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74a345ccf8eb48a6862569d900744be1/$FILE/ATTNUI98/ac91-48.pdf
Minimum height for aerobatics is 1500 ft however the IAC has gained a waiver for its members whereby they may practice and compete to competition levels without any further approval subject to that flying being within an area approved by the FAA for low level aerobatics.
http://www.iac.org/
Display flying is largely administered by ICAS with annual renewals of low level waivers which are issed by the FAA. ICAS has a detailed manual.
http://www.airshows.aero/
Canada
From some brief research, Canada has a tighter regulatory regime than Australia.
CASA POLICY - THE CAAP
Back in the '70s low level concessions were renewed annually – testing was by CASA (more correctly CASA's predecessor) or aerobatic club members approved by CASA. CASA also approved aerobatic club members to conduct low level aerobatic coaching.
Flying Operations Instruction No 13-2 Issue 2 about '93 brought some significant changes:
A low level approval will remain current while the pilot holds a valid licence.
AAC members may be approved to conduct aerobatics down to 330ft.
The AAC may nominate members for approval for the testing of AAC members for the issue of low level approvals. So far so good, but to gain approval from the CAA as a low level tester the pilot must undergo a flight test with an examiner of airmen. This flight test must be repeated annually except that it may be conducted biannually in the case of a pilot who has competed at Unlimited level at our Nationals or who has competed in a World aerobatic contest during the preceding year.

Appendix 1 contained the knowledge requirements for low level aerobatics which largely remain today.
The came another policy with durations of two years for low level aerobatic approvals and limitations on aircraft power.
CAAP 155-1 was developed with broad industry involvement and introduced the provision for CASA delegates to issue low level aerobatic permissions. It was issued in January 2007.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/155_1.pdf
It contained some excellent information, some of which was based on USA AC's but most was developed locally.
It introduced new guidance for threat and error management.
It introduced the recommendation for annual peer reviews.
It introduced new guidelines for low level aerobatic permissions:
It included a low level aerobatic test form with additional guidance on the conduct of the test.
It contained guidance on conditions of low level aerobatic permissions:
“6.15 Conditions On Permissions
6.15.1 A delegate cannot cancel a permission once it is issued. Therefore a delegate needs to carefully consider whether there is a need to issue the permission with conditions. Delegates may issue a low-level aerobatics permission with any conditions they believe necessary in the interests of safety. For the guidance of delegates, it is considered that the following conditions are applicable to all low level permissions to provide an acceptable level of safety:
(1) Other than one-off permissions, the permission can be issued for an indefinite period, but a delegate may include an expiry date if he or she considers this necessary in the interests of safety.
(2) A limitation to single-engine aeroplanes up to 800 hp or to a particular aircraft type or types.
(3) A height limitation specifying a minimum level for the conduct of aerobatics. Delegates may specify any height limitation they believe necessary in the interests of safety, but the following height limitations would probably cover most circumstances:
• Not below 1500' AGL;
• Not below 1000' AGL;
• Not below 500' AGL; or
• Unlimited.

Note: There is no requirement for pilots to hold a permission at each higher level before being issued one at a lower level, although some form of progression would be the normal expectation. The delegate may issue a
permission with any height limitation that is based on safety considerations.”

The sample permission letter includes the following conditions:
“1 The minimum heights and distances to maintain separation from any group of persons must be
those specified for spectators in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 29.4.
2. Subject to clause 3, the approved person must not conduct flight manoeuvres below the
minimum heights specified under regulation 157 of CAR 1988.
3. If the approved person is permitted under this instrument to conduct flight manoeuvres below
500 feet, the flight may only be conducted over a location approved by the appropriate CASA
office as suitable for the conduct of those manoeuvres.
4. Passengers must not be carried during manoeuvres below 1500 ft, nor during any acrobatic
demonstration, display or competition.
5. The approved person is not allowed to conduct an acrobatic flight over public gatherings.
6. The approved person must not conduct acrobatic manoeuvres within or over:
(a) any location where acrobatic manoeuvres are likely to be a hazard to the navigation of
other aircraft;
(b) any location known or likely to be noise sensitive;
(c) an area where an aircraft malfunction would endanger the lives of persons.”

Most importantly, a delegate cannot withdraw or cancel a low level aerobatic permission.
Issues for the Aerobatic Club
As the club purports to represent its members and to have an interest in the safety of its members it should take a proactive approach in considering the recent history of accidents and what it should do to improve the future safety of aerobatic pilots.

Pilots are encouraged to consider accidents (not just aerobatic accidents) where a change in the way the pilot conducted his/her operations would've have avoided the accident. CAAP 155-1 offers a process for individuals to go to their peers to seek feedback on their own operations and potentially improve the way they do things from a safety point of view. Increased safety can only result from this very simple, but disciplined activity.
Peer Review Process
“The peer review process is intended to provide an independent assessment by a similarly qualified person or persons on the way the pilot conducts the activity and to identify any incorrect techniques or practices that the pilot may have developed over time. It is not intended to be a flight test for the renewal of the permission, but an opportunity for constructive discussion with other practitioners with a view to enhancing the safety of a pilot’s performance.”
As noted above, the provision for indefinite permissions carries some risks in that there is no further assessment and it is extremely difficult to take away a permission.
The peer review process should be promoted by all pilots within the club.
“7.28.3 The following is the recommended procedure for the peer review process:
• The pilot should have had sufficient recent practice and/or training to be able to conduct a sequence of low-level aerobatics safely;
• The pilot should brief the observer(s) on the sequence to be flown;
• The pilot should fly the sequence under observation, either from the ground or the aircraft down to the level of the permission, or the level to which the pilot intends to exercise the permission, if higher;
• After the flight, the pilot and the observer(s) should de-brief the sequence to identify ways in which performance and safety could be improved; and
• The review is entered in the pilot's logbook and signed by the pilot and by the observers as a record to indicate that the observation and discussion has taken place. It could include a disclaimer that the observer is not certifying the pilot's competence.
7.28.4 The observers would need to have proficiency in low-level aerobatics and preferably also in assessing low-level aerobatic performance. Suitable observers would be any one of the following:
• CAR 155 delegate; or
• At least two other low-level permission holders with similar permissions; or
• CASA Flying Operations Inspector (FOI).
7.28.5 During the debriefing process it is important to be objective in identifying items that were done well and those that could have been done better. Emphasis should be on providing input and advice on ways to improve safety and performance rather than on questioning an individual’s ability.
7.28.6 Signing-off as an observer for peer review should not be construed as certifying the competency of the pilot, but that the review has taken place and that any issues of concern have been brought to the pilot’s attention.
7.28.7 The object is not to assess the pilot as suitable or otherwise to continue to hold the permission, but in cases where continued operation by the pilot would constitute a serious risk to air safety there would be some moral responsibility for the participants to counsel the pilot and, if necessary, bring this to the attention of CASA.”

A sample form of the peer review logbook entry:
PEER REVIEW iaw CAAP 155-1 AEROBATICS Section 7.28.
I have observed a low level aerobatic sequence performed by ......................
and debriefed the pilot on opportunities to improve safety & performance.
Note: this is not a certification of competency.
Signed ................................  ARN ...............   Date ..............

The aerobatic club would be neglecting the safety of its members if it did not promote peer reviews as recommended by the CAAP. There may be other actions the aerobatic club could take to improve safety however this is one measure which has clearly been introduced by CASA and which has been ignored.
 
It is important not to let peer reviews become rubber stamping for mates. Should the aerobatic club accredit reviewers? Should the aerobatic club provide training and guidance material for reviewers? (This could include a checklist which the reviewer may chose to retain.)
 
The actual review is verbal at a debriefing session after a performance has been observed. Although the logbook entry records that the review was undertaken there is no statement of competency recorded. However, reviewers may like to keep records of debriefs for their own purposes (perhaps if they were asked by a coroner). Althought the CAAP refers to a debrief of a single performance the reviewer should be encouraged to bring up relevant matters of a broader nature.

i.e. the basic objective is to identify any hazardous attitudes and help the pilot to understand that so as to take appropriate action.

a. Antiauthority (don’t tell me!).
e.g.
I can join the circuit neater than that and save a couple of minutes, some-one will tell me if there is conflicting traffic.
That's not a zoom climb after take-off – my aeroplane can sustain a 60 deg climb angle, some-one will tell me if there is conflicting traffic.
45 minutes fuel reserves - its only going to be a 10 minute flight.
The spectators can't see me unless I'm really close to the fence during my display.

b. Impulsivity (do something quickly!)
e.g. I'm flying three Unknowns in this contest.
Miserable weather and no contest flying so I'll just do a display.

c. Invulnerability (it won’t happen to me).
e.g. All those things happen to other people because ….... but
engine failure at low level
spin just took a little longer to recover than usual
something went wrong with that lomcevak
there was nothing wrong with the aeroplane before the first flight of the day

d. Macho (I can do it).
e.g. Watch me on Utube – I can fly just as well as …......
Difficult unknown but I need to be down where the judges can see me.

e. Resignation (what’s the use?).
e.g. I need to do three monthly checks and a biannual flight review and low level aerobatic renewals so why do I need to do these peer reviews?

Some-one is likely to tell you if you nearly have an accident but then you might've scared yourself anyway. The thing is that the one that will get you will be something different, something that has been brewing for some time as a result of your display of one or more of those hazardous attitudes. No-one has enough lives to learn from their own mistakes – learn from the mistakes of others.
Safety Pilot
The following condition on low level approvals limits the qualifications of a safety pilot in competitions:
“Passengers must not be carried during manoeuvres below 1500 ft, nor during any acrobatic
demonstration, display or competition.”
The delegate may vary this however I note that there is absolutely nought in the test crtieria to assess a pilot's ability to sit in the passenger seat of an aeroplane and act as pilot in command while another pilot (who does not have a low level aerobatic permission) perform low level aerobatics, especially under the stress of a competition. How safe is a new safety pilot?
PILOT PROFICIENCY PROGRAM
Many other local organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programmes for their members.
eg http://aviationsafety.org.au/files/ASR_GPPP_Course_Introduction_Whats_it_all_about.pdf
http://www.piper.org.au/prof.html
http://www.cessnapilotsassociationofaustralia.org.au/pilotproficiency.html
http://www.mooney.org.au/index.php/mooney-safety-ppp.html
http://www.comancheflyer.com.au/new/join.php
http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/Promo_Brochure.pdf
Perhaps it is easier to list the flying organisations which do not offer Pilot Proficiency Programs to its members?
Did you notice the insurance companies feature as sponsors or offer discounts on insurance for those who attend?
Should an Aerobatic PPP be developed as an improvement and alternative to the peer review process?
FAA AC 60-22, Aeronautical Decision Making is a good reference. Another good reference is the book "A Pilot's Guide to Safe Flying" by local author Sander Vandeth.

CONCLUSIONS
We know that CASA has been reconsidering their policy on low level aerobatics so should the club take the initiative to improve safety for aerobatic pilots before CASA imposes any restrictions?
If you consider the details of any accidents, not just those involving aerobatics, do you think that an effective regime of peer reviews would have eliminated any of them? Or even just one – would that make it worthwhile for all to undertake peer reviews?
How safe is a novice safety pilot in a competition? What do they know of their responsibilities and required capability?
Many organisations offer Pilot Proficiency Programs for their members – should the aerobatic club undertake a similar program for the benefit of its members?

Judging Again

I was at an aerobatic club meeting recently and observed some of the discussion about judging. There was criticism of the standard of judging
and it seemed to me that criticism was directed at the Unlimited judges
of which I was one. We didn't use the Fairplay System where the judges
would expect an analysis of the scoring and a ranking of the judges - a
pity as us judges have no knowledge of the basis of that criticism. The
first that some may know about it may be when the proposed judging
committee comprising "senior pilots" decides that they are no longer
wanted at the contest. The Fairplay System would tell all where we stood
although I wonder how it deals with a majority of the judges not detecting errors worthy of a hard zero. (I admit to missing the odd thing while judging at the nationals - no-one says that judging Unlimited is easy)

Those of us who didn't compete and just participated as judges will probably respond in the following manner if this idea gets off the ground:- "I need to know a long way in advance of the contest whether you want me to judge or not. If not, then I won't bother with the judges refresher course and I will make other plans for that weekend. Please don't wait until the last minute as I would've already organised something else to do.

Good luck in finding judges for your contest."

I didn't participate in that discussion as I apparently got into enough
trouble some years ago with the comments in the posts below. That was when the aerobatic club instructed their webmaster to delete the link to my website - reminds me that I asked on several occasions what the reason for that was and still no answer despite the webmaster agreeing to provide the response.

--- In ozaeros@yahoogroups.com, ozaeros@yahoogroups.com wrote:
JUDGING - Are judges overworked or under-work?
http://www.aerobaticsoz.asn.au/0600news5.htm
"But it's hard to ignore the facts. At the last 2 nationals the largest variance in scoring has been in the Advanced Grade. Here the judges are arguably some of the most experienced judges in Australia - our Unlimited Pilots."
"I discussed all this with John Gaillard and he gave me some food for
thought with the following ideas:
Advanced and Unlimited pilots work only as assistant judges
The chief judge is chief for all grades and has no other administrative duties
Judges are on the line for a minimum of half a day
The only way your judging improves is with experience ie. volume If you're like me, you're thinking "but in the real world."
Well it's just something to think about - I'd be very pleased to hear from anyone with ideas on the subject. What do you think?"
__________________________________________________________
What this editor thinks is:
Whats the actual variance? Is there a difference in ranking?
I wouldn't want an advanced/unlimited pilot as assistant - my requirements for assistant are quite simple - enough knowledge to correctly fill in the score sheet and include my comments in the correct place; strength to hold the umbrella in a strong wind, remembers to bring sunscreen and water; doesn't talk when I'm judging.
And, more of what I've thunk on this subject is copied below. I was severely criticised for my comments two years ago so .....

Pilkington wrote back in 1999:
Just got my December AAC Magazine (well ahead of the IAC - only just
got October's Sport Aerobatics). I agree with Mr Magic's views on pilots
criticising individual judges. I was bashed up recently for my criticism
of some judges in general (I promise to only do that out of season). I
wonder if anyone south of the Murray has done a judge's refresher course
yet. I must admit that I got stuck halfway through it. I strongly
disagree with Mr Magic's remark "The absolute scores are irrelevant. It
doesn't matter if a judge scores you lower than every other judge. They
have probably scored every other pilot low as well. It doesn't matter as
long as they are consistent. It has been my experience in all the years
I have been flying that the best pilot in the competition has placed
first - without exception ...."

Firstly, how is "the best pilot" defined if not by the scores from judges who are correctly applying the defined judging criteria? If there's inconsistency between the judges' absolute scores there's a good chance that some of them are not applying the correct criteria but simply plucking a number from the air. Consistency is essential as well - the judging criteria are not that watertight that there won't be variations between judges - whether they apply the criteria for round loops harsher than others or whether the sunlight flashed off the canopy at the wrong time or, like me, just get it wrong (hopefully not too often). These judging criteria are not easy to remember, occupying 24 pages in my copy of the AAC Regulations. Its takes a lot of effort for a judge to remain up to speed. As I said in my earlier postings (eg #557) - some of our contests have very close scores. I mentioned a contest where the top four pilots had scores within 5%. The winning score was by 5 points in 4000. Who knows if the best pilot really won? We must accept that the system has limited accuracy and accept that the best pilot won. I don't want to know how the individual judges ranked the pilots for that very reason. On the other hand we must ensure that the judges are reasonable.
_____________________________
Editor: David Pilkington

Big Tour 1996

All of this is just from memory of events about 15 years ago so if anything is incorrect please just treat it as fiction.

We had two Pitts S-2Bs travelling about 1000 nm or so to Oshkosh and we were taking it in turns to lead the other in formation for one leg at a time. I had Cindy with me in the front seat. She hadn't been in a little aeroplane before at all. A little bit of baggage. Full fuel. Cruise at 145 kts TAS gave a safe range in still air of about 220 nm plus ½ hr reserve. We'd normally plan legs of no more than 200 nm.

Mark led for the first leg. After departing Afton airfield we immediately turned right through the blind canyon. Sounds dramatic but we were rapidly climbing so always plenty of options in case of an engine failure. We were soon at 12,000 ft to get us over the 10,000 ft ridge. A while later a climb to 14,000 ft to skip over a higher ridge.

At the first refuelling stop I took the lead. The tower ignored several calls from me in N727PS (that was the 50th Anniversary Pitts Special - some way to being an S-2C and later the S-2C prototype). Mark took the lead and the tower responded to his first call. That night he suggested that my accent may have confused them – thinking that I was an international 727 on the wrong frequency. That was disappointing as I thought I'd learnt the cowboy drawl pretty well by then. I knew that at breakfast “car fuel” would get me a bottomless cup for $1 plus the $1 tip. At dinner, if I wanted a very nice steak, I'd say “flaming yawn”.

At one overnight stop several months earlier I was given the keys to the FBO's truck and told that the best food was at Cactus Jane's a few miles out of town. Ordered coke to drink. “Sorry, we don't have any of that.”
“What do you have then?”
“Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper and Coke.”
“OK, I'll have coke then.”
“I told you – we don't have any of that.”
“Pepsi then.”
She dashed out the back and returned momentarily “Sorry, we're out of Pepsi, will coke do?”

This was our longest leg – about 220 nm. I had a good fuel flow indicator plus fuel totalizer and capacitive fuel contents indicator. Mark just had the standard fuel pressure gauge labelled with fuel flow plus the convoluted sight gauge so far away from the tank that its readings were vague. I had one of the new GPS/COM units which I'd never seen before. I asked Cindy to fly the airplane for a while so that I could learn how it worked and set the display up so that I could easily understand it. I'd slipped some distance behind Mark and he was a small but clear dot in the distance. I told Cindy just to keep him in the center of the windscreen and I'd pop my head up every now and then to check on things. Mark obviously got bored after a while as he was following the cloud streets and Cindy was handling things quite well. I'd had the avionics pretty well sorted out when I heard a scream and it all went black. The cloud street had got tighter. Back above the clouds all was easier.

The cloud cover increased as we progressed and we made the decision to descend underneath. We soon discovered the significant headwind lower down and judged that we didn't have many options at that time – proceed to the destination but we'd eat into our reserves. We planned a straight-in approach and considered that we'd eat even more into our reserves if we had to open the throttle on the Lycoming IO-540 and go-round. Only a few miles out my instruments told me pretty clearly how little fuel I had and Mark would've had the same but less sure of the situation.

My second time flying into EAA's Airventure at Oshkosh. At the end of the show we had volunteered to give rides to EAA vlounteers and VIPs. One of my passengers was ex-USAF with 20,000 hrs total time and 2,000 hrs aerobatics so I handed over to him as we climbed out. He did a loop and fell out. I gave him some advice for the next one as it was many eyars since he'd last flown. Fell out again. I said I'd talk him through the next one and recall that the last thing I said to him was “this is a flat inverted spin”. He forgot to tell me that he'd never done aerobatics in a propeller-driven airplane before.

The next task was to go to the aerobatic contest at Fond-du-Lac to help out and give some more rides. After that both aeroplanes were going to Oklahoma City but I'd have a different sidekick. We flew the first leg in company with a Sukhoi and an Extra. For our lunch stop we chose what appeared to be a large airport on the Sectional Chart on the basis that it would probably have a nice cafe. Small biplanes dont have much space to carry stuff and the US airport guide was a big book and we were unable to easily get info on the place at the last minute (these were the days before the internet). As we approached we saw the enormous runway but then some-one on Unicom pointed out that the big runway was not yet finished. Narrow, short runway instead. Lunch was a Mars bar and a coke.

We arrived at Page Airport just outside Oke City in time for the BBQ reception for the World Aerobatic Championships. I can remember standiung talking to Mike G when a little old lady came up to me and asked if I was married. I immediately recalled the effort that I went to in obtaining American pilot and drivers licences. “I only have an Australian licence and I haven't converted it yet so … “ She just looked strangely at me and turned to Mike with the same question. “Nope maam.” She pulled a sixgun out of her handbag and pushed him away … it all happened very quickly after that – lots of shouting and gunshots but we all survived. Great show. I left the aeroplane there for a couple of weeks then returned to pick it up. But it wasn't the same.

Propeller swapped with one to be returned for warranty work but the propeller wasn't bolted on. I got plenty of free advice (either too busy themselves or liability issues it seems) and people were happy to loan tools for the job. Some-one had ran into a runway marker so I also had to repair the wheel fairing.

I had organised a business meeting in Denver on the way home so I postponed that for a day. Next morning there was a big thunderstorm sitting over the top of the airfield so I waited until late afternoon before I got going. Visibility was 3 nm. No matter what height I flew at. 2000 ft AGL seemed a good compromise between seeing enough of the ground, not scaring myself with the high towers and staying away from the jets. I soon learnt that a darker shade of grey indicated a thunderstorm not far away. Only one leg this day so still a long way to go. Postponed the meeting again.

Next morning low cloud so waited all morning (meeting postponed again) before the destination reported a base of 1500 ft AGL and the same where I was. A few miles down the track that changed to and I was down to 500 ft AGL. The weather seemed stable and visibility was good so I continued. View out the front of the biplane was inadequate especially regarding towers so I'd fly one large field at a time, looking across it for obstacles before I flew to the other side. Good to discover that the chart was quite accurate as far as existence of towers was concerned. The weather improved significantly for the last leg into one of the smaller airports in Denver. Been away from the mountains for too long and wasn't attuned to the density height so it was a firm landing. Meeting went well.
As I departed, the tower's standard phrase of “clear for take-off, watch density altitude”. Thinking to myself I've got a small biplane with plenty of power, I don't need to worry about density height. Changed frequencies and advised that I'd be staying OCTA to the west alongside the Rocky Mountains. They warned me of plentiful microbursts. They looked pretty to me – clear blue skies, unlimited visibility just a mess of thunderstorms easily avoided. I reported my destination of Rawlins and was warned of the violent weather and extreme winds currently being experienced there. No worries - if it didn't improve as I got close I'd go somewhere else. I normally followed the highway towards Cheyenne then through the pass around Elk Mountain but today was just beautiful so I decided to cut the corner. Up to 14,000 ft and direct to Rawlins – from here I could see that the weather had moved on and it was fine now. The final leg home to Afton went well – cruising at 10,500 ft over the high (about 7000 ft) desert plain then up to 12,000 ft to cross the last mountain range.

Blair welcomed me as I taxiied in “I can tell its had a firm landing …. and I don't like the repair that you did!”

New Rules for Licensing and Operations

Well, if the White Paper is correct the new rules for licensing and operations will appear by the end of 2010. Here's a discussion of some of the proposed changes.

CASR Part 61 – Flight crew licensing

Recreational Pilot Licence to be introduced to replace passenger-carrying privileges for student pilots

This was also in the draft rules of 2002 (refer to Discussion Paper 0202FS). Back then the features of the RPL were:
day VFR only, max of 180 hp, 4 seats max
authorisation for cross-country flight in Class G airspace available as well as specific controlled airfields
Class 2 medical required although solo flying permitted not over populous areas for those without a Class 2 medical

It will be interesting to see how this turns out when the details are fleshed out. One guess is that the new RPL will be very similar to the current RAA Certificate.

In 2002 there were some changes to the list of design feature authorisations:

(i) tailwheel;
(ii) retractable undercarriage;
(iii) constant speed propeller;
(iv) piston engine;
(v) turbocharged or supercharged piston engine;
(vi) gas turbine engine;
(vii) pressurisation system;
(viii) FMS (Flight Management Systems);
(ix) Powered sailplanes (also for glider category);
(x) 3 axis control ultralight aeroplane;
(xi) weight shift control ultralight aeroplane.
Note: piston engine has been included for those pilots who may have done all their flying on turbine-powered aircraft.

Back in 2002 there were also some changes to operational authorisations including aerobatics. I've already commented on how the Australian Aerobatic Club blocked some of those beneficial changes at the time but the more recent CAAP on aerobatics partly recovered the situation. My guess is that we have lost any opportunity to tidy up aerobatics any further.

All flying training conducted for issue of a flight crew licence, rating or other authorisation to be conducted by persons holding an instructor rating who are authorised to instruct in that particular activity
Current grades of flight instructor rating to be replaced by a single instructor rating with endorsements to provide flight training in specific activities

Back in 2002 the proposal was as above but we had a lot more detail:

a) Flying training for the issue or periodic review of a pilot licence, rating or other authorisation, may only be conducted by the holder of a Flight Instructor rating.
b) Check pilots and other approved persons who currently conduct training under approvals from CASA will be required to hold instructor ratings.
c) An instructor will not have to be trained to give ab-initio instruction and the current 50 hour course will no longer be required.
d) The current grades of instructor rating will be replaced by authorisations attached to the rating to give instruction in specific activities.
h) Private pilots will be able to hold instructor ratings but may only instruct to the level of their own qualifications.
l) A ground instructor rating will be introduced for persons who wish to give ground instruction and do not a hold flight instructor rating.
o) For continued use of the rating, a biennial flight review or other method of maintaining competence will be required instead of a rating renewal test.

The 2002 proposal was a major shake-up of the instructor rating.
Compare a private pilot as an instructor with the existing RAA flight instructor rating - so perhaps that will be in the new rules too. (Take a look at the new Part 91 to see whether they can charge for it though) The whole package would enable an experienced pilot to come back as an instructor to impart his/her knowledge – whether it be in ab initio training or a specialised role such as tail-wheel, warbirds or aerobatics.
Now consider this in conjunction with the new rules for flying schools.

CASR Part 141 – Flight training operators

Key proposals include
Replaces the AOC requirement issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 for flight training schools with a flight training operating certificate (OC);
OC to be required for training for all pilot licences and ratings, including aircraft ratings; training for other authorisations can be provided without an OC

To an instructor who focusses on the design feature authorisations listed above and operational endorsements such as spinning and aerobatics will no longer need to operate through a flying school. Of course a sole trader has other issues to deal with such as legal liability, availability of aircraft and chasing up money from customers. Let's hope that vested interests don't kill this proposal too. This has the potential to reduce the cost of learning aerobatics on tailwheel aeroplanes.

CASR Part 91 – General operating and flight rules

The remainder of CASR Part 91, when implemented, will replace the various 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) that relate to general operating and flight rules and will be supported by a number of Advisory Circulars (ACs). It will form a complete set of operating rules for current ‘private’ operations, and will supplement the operating rules applicable to corporate/business, air experience, aerial work, and air transport operations.
The Part will primarily consolidate and retain most of the existing rules with little change. However, a small number of new rules have been included to further ICAO compliance and enhance aviation safety.
Key proposals include:
Strict control of Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs);
Requirement for the pilot to plan to arrive with a specified minimum amount of fuel;
Altered requirement for the carriage of Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs);
Changes to minimum operating heights to allow flight below 500ft.

The changes currently proposed fall far short of those proposed ten years ago which is good as I recall some silly onerous things back then. Let's hope they don't creep back in again. It seems that the new Part 91 will simply reflect the current situation but be much clearer.

In the past, vested interests apparently argued against many beneficial changes and stalled the process. Let's hope that the new draft rules provide benefit to the majority of individual pilots and therefore aviation as a whole. 2010 should be an interesting year but I wonder if CASA can really finish them within this timsescale.

Happy New Year.

Aviation White Paper

From the Aviation White Paper:
“To maintain and improve the safety of Australia’s aviation industry the Government will: …........;
>> finalise the suites of CASA’s regulations on licensing and flight operations by the end of 2010“
It has been a long while since I've looked at the draft Parts 61 and 91 so just as a start have a look at where I was 6 years ago:

GENERAL
This page is an update on the status of the new Australian aviation regulations with particular reference to aerobatics.
The big event recently was the CASA FLOT2003 Conference held in Sydney in March, 2003.
First of all, some advice for those providing comments to CASA -
Read all the related documents before making your comment. Make your comments concise and to the point. The new regulations are structured differently - don't comment on just one aspect without taking the time to understand the framework and all related sections. If you like something - say so - otherwise just a handful of adverse comments can end up in it being changed to something that you don't like.

AEROBATICS
I won't go into all the background information here. I've made my views and actions known on the internet for many years - search the Ozaeros Yahoo Group for more information. The relevant regulations are Parts 61 & 91 - you must read both together as they are inter-related. All the CASA information is at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/casr/index.htm
I, amongst others, put in a lot of effort towards the proposed new rules and Advisory Circular for aerobatics - the intent was to facilitate administration of aerobatics. It recognised that certain people in industry and certain members of the Australian Aerobatic Club (AAC) had the requisite skills and attitude such that administrative oversight by CASA could be streamlined.
The text below outlines the situation going into the CASA FLOT2003.
PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -
d) Aerobatics
e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL
f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL
g) Formation aerobatics
h) Upright spin - specified type of aeroplane"
PART 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
91.075 Aerobatic Flight
"(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not perform aerobatic manoeuvres in the following circum stances without CASA's approval:
(a) below 3 000 feet AGL;
(b) in the vicinity of a public gathering or at an air display;
(c) at night."
The prior draft had 1500 feet as the minimum altitude "without CASA's approval". i.e. per the draft Part 61 above the initial endorsement would be to 3,000 ft. Down to 1500 ft was a separate endorsement (or authorisation, the new term) i.e. does not require CASA approval - built it does require authorisation from .... but .... "many" of those who commented on the Part 91 NPRM either did not read the associated material (the Advisory Circular and the Part 61 proposal) or wanted to torpedo the whole proposal for aerobatics and put administration of aerobatics back thirty years. Let's have a look at those comments.
Comment 22
"I am no medical expert however I don't understand how unconsciousness is a risk with negative G......... A former member of the Club; Dr Hilton Selvey has written to you regarding his experience and research in relation to general fitness and anti G straining techniques. We have not attached DR Selvey's comment to our own however we do respect his professional opinion and his experience in this field. Although we are not in a position to give an opinion in relation to medical and physiological effects of G on a pilot our experience with current pilots flying in Australia and the world for that matter is in definite conflict ...
Spin endorsement Paragraph 12 indicates that a spin endorsement is a legal prerequisite for aerobatic training. Further appendix 1 states that a pilot must not fly as pilot in command during spinning or aerobatic flight until he or she has been certified for spinning and aerobatic manoeuvres. This appears to be a new rule and has created much confusion within the club. I personally do not have a separate spin endorsement in my logbook and appendix 1 seems to imply that this is now mandatory..... This concludes the input from myself and the AAC at this point. Once again I would like to state our wholehearted support for this initiative...."
CASA Response "Reply pertains to the AC."
Comment 24 (at FLOT2003 a CASA officer stated that the AAC was one such response below!)
"Many respondents indicated that the minimum height for aerobatics should be initially set at 3000 feet and not 1500 feet as proposed in the regulation.
CASA Response "CASA agrees."
Disposition "Revised drafting instructions submitted to raise the height back to 3000 feet, as is the current requirement."
Comment 187 Guidelines for Aerobatics - Ref AC 91-077
"Many of my comments on earlier drafts have been incorporated. Some outstanding issues:
1. References the text in para 8 refers to data from NASA but there's no NASA reference listed. Kermode is quoted in para 12.2 but not listed.
4.1 utility category may be certified for limited acrobatic manoeuvres the utility category refers to design load factors and design airspeed there being no requirement to certify any acrobatic manoeuvres.
4.8 a pilot new to aerobatics should have a check up with an Aviation Medical Examiner prior to acrobatic training? Why? What do AMEs know on this subject?
9.1.9 effects of +0 can be counteracted by pulling the head down between the shoulders? I have never tried this in an aeroplane. In the safety of my own home I have attempted this but was unable to achieve that condition.
10.3 refers to G loadings between normal, utility and acrobatic categories. Consider a note that design airspeeds vary significantly too.
10.8 refers to limits, including maximum flick manoeuvre IAS. FAR 23 only refers to recommended entry speeds and that's what is typically in the AFM or POH. It is rare to have a maximum flick manoeuvres LAS it is usually a range of recommended entry speeds or just a single recommended entry speed. I certainly agree it should be treated as a limit....
Appendix 1. When this was drafted, two to three years ago, Appendix 1 was considered to be interim. Now that CASR 91 is being delayed while the other regulations are developed were at the point where Appendix 1 needs to be removed from this AC and issued as a separate AC as it relates to CASR 61 the draft itself identifies this intention on the very last page......e
Transition - I note the intent for an appropriate transition phase. Consideration needs to be given to transition to the new endorsements in terms of minimum heights. Existing aerobatic endorsements should remain valid for aerobatics above 3000 ft. Many of the low level acrobatic approvals have no expiry date. Will these remain valid?"
CASA Response
"(1) Referencing is reasonable given that this is an AC and not an academic paper.
(2) Definition of utility category points to the flight manual for definition of the aerobatic manoeuvres, which are permitted.
(3) A Designated Aeronautical Medical Examiner is trained to make a medical assessment of a pilot according the type of flying they may be undertaking and may be aware of factors that a General Practitioner may miss.
(4) Entry IAS is covered by the statement 'maximum flick manoeuvre IAS'.
(5) Appendix to be deleted and incorporated into Part 61."
Disposition "Change to AC carried out in line with the CASA response above."

Pilkington's Views on Regulations Related to Aerobatics
Well, the intent here is to limit my views to those new regulations which apply to aerobatics however they will stretch to some related issues. Let's start with that incredible Comment #24.
Comment 24
"Many respondents indicated that the minimum height for aerobatics should be initially set at 3000 feet and not 1500 feet as proposed in the regulation.
CASA Response "CASA agrees."
As the 2002 version of draft 91.075 did not propose that the minimum height for aerobatics be initially set at anything other than 3000 ft I'm surprised at this comment. The 2002 draft 91.075 simply stated that aerobatics below 1500 ft required CASA approval.
The draft AC 91.075(0) has been available for review in its current form since September, 2001. Appendix 1, Para 3.3 is quite clear on the subject of initial approvals for aerobatics:
"Pilots may be certified as safe to conduct all the primary aerobatic manoeuvres above a minimum height of 1500 feet, but must not be cleared for aerobatic manoeuvres below their individual spin recovery certification. A minimum height of 3000 feet is recommended for most initial approvals."
Para 2.3 also refers to limitations for inexperienced pilots. The AC also outlines requirements for aerobatic flight instructors, training and the provision of an Operations Manual which would detail the conduct of aerobatic training. This is the mechanism by which CASA would control the process for training and issue of approvals for aerobatics down to 3000 ft; and down to 1500 ft.
The significance of the height in 91.075 relates to CASA approval - it sets the level at which CASA itself must issue the approval to perform aerobatics as distinct from an authorization from a authorised flight instructor (or other person). The 2002 draft 91.075 proposed 1500 feet as the limit below which CASA would directly issue approvals to perform aerobatics. Approval to conduct aerobatics at all requires an authorization and I refer to the draft for Part 61. An authorization to conduct aerobatics below 3000 ft (down to 1500 ft) is a separate authorization from that for aerobatics (above 3000 ft). This information on the intent of authorisations related to aerobatics has been publicly available since March 2002.
This proposal was widely discussed between CASA and industry some years ago. I am disappointed that CASA has lost that corporate knowledge of the development of the proposal. I am surprised that those who commented did not (apparently) adequately read the Advisory Circular nor the Part 61 Discussion Paper which clearly confirmed that the initial minimum height for aerobatic authorizations remains 3000 ft.

On the subject of physiological effects which was the subject of Comment #22 and #187. I recommend consideration of this work from the USN: http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/GTIP.PPT It provides a useful update to the material of the draft AC (which was derived from FAA AC - 61-67) - consider the comments there which support the views of Dr Hilton Selvey over the older work reflected in the draft AC 91.075(0).
From discussion with Dr David Newman late last year - he would be willing to act as a consultant to CASA on these issues. For those who don't know Dr Newman: MB, BS, DAvMed, PhD, MRAeS and Director- Aerospace Physiology Laboratory, RMIT. He is also on the Committee of the Aviation Medical Society of Australia and New Zealand. http://www.amsanz.org/Australia/home.html
Also, despite CASA comments in the SOR, I find nothing regarding the effects of G in the DAME's Handbook at http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/htm/dame/dame.htm

PART 61 FLIGHT CREW LICENSING Subpart P - Flight Activity & Maintenance Authorisations
"1.1.2 The following flight activity authorisations are specified in this Subpart -
d) Aerobatics
e) Aerobatics below 3000 ft AGL
f) Aerobatics below 1500 ft AGL
g) Formation aerobatics
h) Upright spin - specified type of aeroplane"
I generally support the above - the following notes are more specific on each line item.
In particular, I agree with d), e) and f). This provides a consistent and reasonable process for authorisation of aerobatics throughout the three regimes - above 3000 ft, down to 1500 ft and below 1500 ft. I note that NZ has implemented similar regulations and these should be reviewed for consideration to assist in drafting Part 61 here. http://www.caa.govt.nz/ Their 91.701 relates to our 91.075 but goes further in spelling out the same three regimes - above 3000 ft, 3000 to 1500 ft and below 1500 ft. Their Part 61, Subpart L relates to aerobatics and has similar provisions to that of the draft AC 91.075(0) Appendix 1.
I note that Appendix 1 of draft AC 91.075(0) is to be removed from that AC and be incorporated in Part 61. I support that Appendix 1 in general however it requires substantial improvement as follows. My comments assume that it is retained as an Advisory Circular.
- refer to paras 3.1 and 3.3. For operations below 3000 ft, the authorisation should combine aerobatics and spinning. Part 61 draft does not provide for separate spin authorisations below 3000 ft. Apart from being the current situation, the rationale is that any spinning conducted below 3000 is either quite limited, being part of a competition sequence, or highly specialised, being part of a display, so the overall competence of conducting that operation with provision for identification and correction of departures from the planned sequence is the important issue.
- para 3.4. Using 150 kts as the boundary of a performance range is inappropriate - in fact, using airspeed as the sole parameter is inappropriate. Classification of types into conventional GA types, warbirds and jets would be more appropriate.
- sections 4 and 5 were drafted to reflect current practice and need to be edited to conform to the draft Part 61 terminology
- para 4.5 consequently must be altered to delete the CASA action, except where an authorised person is not available
- para 4.5 - I recommend that aerobatic approvals down to 1500 ft be permanent and that lower levels be renewable every two years. i.e. ongoing competence at the 1500 ft level is relatively easy to maintain or regain - note that the draft approval letter specifies the currency requirements.
- Annex A, the form of the test. The application form requires editing to conform to the draft Part 61 terminology. That form specifies a log book endorsement of 10 manoeuvres contrary to para 2.7 of Appendix 1. The flight test should comprise the applicants normal sequence plus demonstration of recovery from a vertical climb, before a tail-slide, rather than the list of manoeuvres currently provided. Para 3.3 must be amended to reflect that change. Note that para 4.5 provides for any restrictions appropriate from consideration of the scope of the test. For approvals down to 1500 ft I recommend a guideline that the Australian Aerobatic Club's Sportsman Competition Sequence (current or recent) be the test sequence.
On the subject of transition to the new regulations, I recommend that existing aerobatic approvals should be carried over to the new system with the same height limitations. I note however, that any permanent low level approvals should have a termination date consistent with the renewal period defined in that draft AC 91.075(0) Appendix 1. Pilots who have significant experience at formation aerobatics until now should be granted a formation aerobatic authorization based on providing evidence of that experience to CASA.
For the author of Comment # 22 who does not have a spin endorsement - it needs to be done - the existing requirement for a spin endorsement separate from an aerobatic endorsement has been around for a very long time. The recent addition of a separate inverted spin endorsement has been around for about ten years.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/4000.pdf gives details of the spin and aerobatic endorsements - note that a spin endorsement is a prerequisite to an aerobatic endorsement.
On the subject of the upright spin authorization, paragraph h), there is some merit in limiting the authorization to specific types. This is currently the case for instructor training authorizations but is a new requirement for pilot authorizations. The current upright spin endorsement is not limited to any particular type. We must first consider the case for its introduction. I am unaware of any safety issue related to specific types. Certainly, there is a variety of different spin and recovery characteristics however different aircraft types have many other features which can equally be considered as safety issues. The issue of different spin characteristics should be addressed by the following actions:
1. improved education on spinning by an Advisory Circular
2. a limitation on any spin authorisation if the training is conducted on a type which cannot fully demonstrate a "standard" spin eg the Airtourer
The relevant USA Advisory Circular is AC 61-67C Stall and Spin Awareness Training http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular/AC61-67C.pdf
I envisage an Australian AC having different scope than the USA AC as the purpose is different - being more specific to spin training, excluding the stall awareness information and including information on various spin and recovery characteristics which may be encountered.
Finally, CASA omitted the authorisation required for inverted spinning.

Part 61 Subpart L proposes significant changes to instructor ratings, which I support. Again, to fully understand the proposal it is essential to read the draft Part 141 on Flight Training. To refer to the example that was quoted at a Workshop at the FLOT2003 conference: a 20,000 hour experienced pilot would add a lot of value to the training environment - he/she would need to add competencies in instruction plus appropriate standardisation requirements - but there's no reason why he/she should be regarded as an inexperienced instructor. The current system of instructor does not recognise, in fact discriminates against, the ideal learning situation of experienced operational pilots returning to become instructors.
Specifically, the typical profile of instructors often excludes specialist skills such as advanced, or low level aerobatics, which is sometimes best serviced by sport pilots having the appropriate skills, attitude and competence in that specialist area combined with instructional and assessment skills.
I note the proposal presented at the FLOT2003 Conference by Roger Weeks, CFI of the RACWA. He proposed the retention of the existing grades and the introduction of a fourth grade for specialist instructors. That does nothing to remove the discrimination against that nominal 20,000 operational pilot returning to the training environment. This proposal also offers requirements for flight training authorisations which are relevant so let's consider them here, along with the CASA proposal. I have a concern with a specification of number of hours, spinning for example - its not like night flying where its either night or its not. Is it actual hours of performing spins or simply hours of flying with the sole intent of performing spins? The performance of the aircraft has a big effect on the outcome with the latter definition. We need to consider that an hour on a flight with the sole intention of spinning in a low performance aeroplane achieves very much less than an hour in a higher performance aeroplane.
Weeks proposes that tail-wheel training would require a minimum of 5 hours PIC on tail-wheels (after the basic tail-wheel authorisation) plus 2 hours of instructor flight training. CASA proposes 20 hours PIC with nil additional instructor training. I'd combine the two requirements - 20 hours PIC plus 2 hours of instructor training. Tail-wheel operations requires a new set of habits - my insurance company told me that one of the significant factors in tail-wheel accidents was inexperienced instructors.
Weeks proposes that training for aerobatics above 3000 ft would require a minimum of 5 hours PIC in aerobatic flying (beyond the basic aerobatic authorisation) plus 2 hours of instructor flight training. CASA proposes 20 hours PIC in aerobatics plus 5 hours specific instructor training. Refer the draft Appendix 1 to AC 91.075(0) which does not have the 5 hours instructor training. I support Weeks proposal in this case.
Spinning training would require the basic spinning authorisation plus 2 hours of instructor flight training in spinning. CASA proposes 5 hours of spinning plus 3 hours of specific instructor training. I support the Weeks proposal - along with the training authorisation being type specific.
For training in aerobatics below 3000 ft and down to 1500 ft, CASA proposes that the instructor simply hold the relevant authorisation. i.e. as per the current requirement. I support this.
For training in aerobatics below 1500 ft, CASA proposes that the instructor simply hold the relevant authorisation. i.e. as per the current requirement. I recommend specific instructor training - ground training only to develop advanced knowledge of the relevant subjects and assessment of pilot attitude.

OTHER REGULATIONS
If I was involved full-time in the flying side of the industry I'd be taking a close look at all of the new regulations presented at the CASA FLOT2003 Conference. For example:
91.150 Parking or stopping of aircraft
"(2) The person responsible for parking an aircraft must ensure that it is secured so as to ensure ..."
Looks OK doesn't it - but it was a lot different in the previous draft!
91.335 Documents to be carried
As an instructor I can take a student on an aerobatic training flight to the eastern boundary of the Moorabbin training area with the usual aircraft and pilot documentation on board only BUT if I do a similar flight myself as a private operation I must take a swag of maps (its within 20 nm of the edge of the VTC so I need the VNC as well) plus the complete ERSA.
At the FLOT2003 conference our group recommended that much of this be deleted from the regulation and incorporated in an Advisory Circular.
91.580 Aircraft equipment and instrument visibility and accessibility
"(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that navigation instruments that are required for use by its pilots are arranged soa s to permit the pilot to see the indications readily from ..."
Given the wide range of opinions between pilots does CASA provide a certificate of compliance against this regulation when the navigation instruments are fitted? If installation is approved per Reg 35 or TC or STC - does that provide evidence that this requirement is met?
91.585 Aircraft lighting requirements
"(1) The operator and the pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight in poor light conditions ... must ensure that the aircraft is fitted with, and display, lighting equipment as follows:
(a) lighting to illuminate instruments and equipment essential to safe operation ...
(b) cockpit lighting for general illumination of equipment, and for study of checklists and flight documents;
(c) cabin lighting sufficient for all passengers to find harness connections ...
(d) navigation lights;
(e) an anti-collision light;
(f) at least 1 landing light;
(h) a fully-functional electric .. torch ..."
91.590 Anti-collision and navigation lights
"(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft fitted with red anti-collision lights must ensure that the lights are displayed before its engine is, or engines are, started ....
(4) It is a defence ... that ... the safety of aircraft was not affected ....
(6) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability."
The subject of "strict liability" was a controversial subject at the FLOT2003 conference and there's sure to be plenty of comment elsewhere. Enough to say here that its not a defence that the anti-collision lights are unserviceable (referring to 91.590) - if they are fitted then there's a penalty of 25 units if they are not turned on and working. Referring to 91.585 - if you don't have all that equipment then you must not fly in "poor light conditions" - quite a reasonable airmanship philosophy but as a regulation I'd like to see "poor light" defined (can't be a single definition as the requirement covers visibility both internal and external to the aeroplane) - does this mean that an aeroplane certified for day VFR cannot fly in some day VFR conditions? Perhaps all of this would be better in an Advisory Circular.

Draft Maintenance Regulations

CASA's new draft maintenance regulations are available for comment until 18th December.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_93516

A few years ago I was in Canberra for a presentation by CASA near the start of this project. The intent was to base it on EASA with local improvements for “world's best pratice” etc. The principle was to have outcome based regulations rather than prescriptive regulations.

My little experience with EASA is that they are very bureacratic and only make general aviation more difficult. My quick look at CASA's draft regulations indicate that they have failed to make them outcome based – they are very prescriptive and will introduce more bureaucracy and expense to us.

A few examples.

I can currently do the second inspection of the control system on an aircraft (mine in particular) after maintenance. The new regulation would make it very difficult for me to do that.

We currently have a maintenance release with a requirement for a daily inspection to be certified. The draft requirement is for a technical log with the pre-flight inspection to be signed by the pilot.

Take a look here to see how NZ does it.
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/ac91-6.pdf Reasonably sensible in my opinion – it is a daily system, not a lot different than what we currently do and provides for a variety of means to comply.

However, the CASA requirement is "pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight must ensure that the information about the flight is recorded in the flight technical log for the aircraft (unless CASA has approved another means of recording the information)." No longer a record at the end of the day's flying. Take a look at the NZ AC again to see what you can expect when CASA fills in the details with their AC. Remember, that will be required after each and every flight.

Read that rule above in conjunction with a new requirement for the pre-flight inspection, if required by the aircraft's flight manual. The Decathlon and Laser manuals, for example, are quite specific on the pre-flight check – not an issue as it includes the usual things that a pilot would do anyway. Do you think that CASA will expect that it be certified in the new technical log or not? I didn't see a requirement for a daily inspection anywhere in these draft regulations.
Consider how you operate your aircraft, say, at an aerobatic contest or practice weekend with several flights back to back.
More unnecessary paperwork and more time wasted.

The requirement for fitting a fabricated part – only if it has been made by the approved maintenance organisation doing work on the aeroplane. A simple part such as the special canopy bolt for the Pitts – the maintenance organisation had to contract the work to a specialised machining company but it seems that is no longer acceptable. The alternative is to buy the original factory part or a get that other company to get that bolt approved as a PMA'd part.

Replace a few screws on your aeroplane. Make sure that they are accompanied by evidence that they conform to the specification and are eligible to be fitted to the aircraft. Much more prescriuptive than the current reegulations I believe.

It seems that these draft regulations require more scrutiny by those people who will pay more as a result. i.e. everyone should take a look and respond to CASA. Why can't we do things the way they are done in the USA? I thought that was the original intent of regulatory reform twenty years ago. Last time I asked that of CASA in a meeting in Canberra I was told that the FAA would like to change their regulations in the same way. Guess what – the American aviation community wouldn't let them. The Australian way is to ignore drafts and simpy whinge when the new requirements are imposed on us - it is time that we changed our approach to CASA.

Spin Placard

New spin placard, well not really new as it has been in FAR 23 for many years but only newly certified airplanes will have it. Worth noting as it emphasizes a limitation on the number of turns in a spin based on what was tested.
[(d) For acrobatic category airplanes and utility category airplanes approved for spinning, there must be a placard in clear view of the pilot--
(1) Listing the control action for recovery from spinning maneuvers; and
(2) Stating that recovery must be initiated when spiral characteristics appear, or after not more than six turns or not more than any greater number of turns for which the airplane has been certificated.]
Aerobatic category airplanes are normally tested to 6 turns and with a comprehensive spin matrix of configurations and modes so your favourite video on Youtube doesn't count for much. i.e. the recommended maximum number of turns in a spin is 6 (there are physiological effects on the pilot which also support that same limit).