DavidJPilkington

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 th...

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; (ii...

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 ...

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...