DavidJPilkington

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 requir...

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).

There have been some interesting articles in Sport Aerobatics magazine this year. One in the October issue that I have just received: “Making Safer Takeoffs” “... The overabundance of horsepower and the ability to climb out at an obscene angle is a great way to demonstrate one of the highest-performance maneuvers of the entire flight. … As aerobatic airplanes have become more powerful over the years, excess horsepower has seduced many aerobatic pilots into flight profiles that will not tolerate an engine failure. … let's say you are at 300 feet above ground level (AGL) after takeoff and the engine quits cold … Your airspeed is 90 mph … and your climb angle is 30 degrees. Wait about two seconds, because that's your typical reaction time in spite of what you might think … As you shove the stick full forward, the airspeed will continue to drop back … Now you are sinking and stalling … Now look at your energy state. You have no airspeed to work with, and you are going down rap...

I just have to agree with this editorial: "We can’t pinpoint the exact date, but readers keep reminding us that it’s 21 years this September since CASA launched its regulatory review program (RRP) to upgrade our dismally concocted, confused, contradictory and contaminated regulatory structure. The program set sail with the seemingly modest goal of introducing clear and concise regulations that were fewer, simpler, more enforceable, more appropriate, and in harmony with the rule structures of other nations. And there was lots of industry consultation. Since the program began in 1988, we’ve had four PMs, at least as many aviation-responsible ministers, four CASA directors, and by now something well over $200 million in ongoing costs. CASA’s legal department has grown, shrunk, and is now growing again, but the sheltered regulatory review workshop proudly sails on through dark, uncharted waters, seemingly still attached by a long mooring line to its point of departure. Every few years...

Last year I developed some rule change proposals for discussion and I believe that some-one submitted them so time to compare those with the last round of rule changes. Rule #1.8 still has liability insurance at $1M. That doesn't cover much damage if you think about it. They'll go after the event organisers for the rest (the event insurance policy excludes aircraft accidents). Also, insurance policies have contests as a general exclusion so perhaps the aircraft's policy isn't even valid. Personally, I would not get involved with running a contest with that approach to risk management. Rule #2.2 still does not clarify the responsibilities and authority of a safety pilot. Furthermore it allows a member of the AAC with a low level permission to be a safety pilot. The current conditions on permissions per the CAAP would seem to be contrary to this. There is nothing in the assessment for an individual's low level permission which considers riding along as safety pilot – ...

I was fortunate to be able to attend this seminar by Tony Kern today. I believe that CASA has done something extremely significant by organising this. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of pilots and engineers are able to attend. Even more unfortunately, only pilots and engineers knew about it - everyone in this country should undergo the general version of this and it must become part of secondary education. "Internationally recognised error management expert, Tony Kern will be presenting practically–focused seminars nationwide. The full-day seminars will cover: background to human error: physiology and psychology violation and error-producing conditions & countermeasures for LAMEs & pilots developing a personal safety management system (PSMS) to integrate seamlessly with organisational safety management systems flight discipline & compliance: the cornerstone of professionalism practical error management – tips & strategies for individuals. Each seminar partic...

There was plenty of free time at the National Championships at Parkes so I filled in some time by knocking up some proposed Known Sequences for Sportsman and Intermediate. There wasn't a lot of time to submit them so grabbed some Knowns from the IAC and BAeA and set to work. I have just heard that I was severely criticised for putting a downwind loop in one of those sequences. I was also told that one of the persons who criticised me actually had a downwind loop in his proposal. Furthermore, neither of my sequences had a downwind loop. Loopy!