Possible Glitch with LSA Aircraft

Note from our Technical Manager.

If you are going to transfer from VH to LSA you must provide a copy of the revised Special Certificate of Airworthiness. The SCoA has to be re-issued by an Approved Person with 24-XXXX. An additional transfer cost to the owner.

Also please note that under the current CASA regulations, LSA aircraft cannot be used for Hire and Reward. A SCoA for aircraft being used for Hire will not be issued. The basis of the regulation wording states LSA aircraft can only be used for Private Ops, Flying Training and Glider Towing.

Chris Kiehn has emailed Bernie Hole from CASA for his understanding of this. This could be a serious blow for anyone wishing to make money with LSA aircraft..!

******* ********* ********

Update. Chris has received a response from Bernie.


"The information you require is contained in CAR 262 APA. The requirements are that production LSA aircraft can be used for Private operations Flying training Glider towing.

The aircraft can be hired out for any of these operations. In other words, if you owned an aircraft you could hire it out to a person for private operations etc.

Hope this helps

Regards

Bernie
"

Fire Safety and Composite Aircraft

There has been a lot of press coverage lately about fire and composite aircraft. This has been about the new generation of passenger aircraft, but there are now a lot of composite recreational aircraft on our register, so this should be of interest to us.

The following is a link to an article by the ATSB on this matter, written in April 2006. (mouse click on ATSB)

John McK

Presidents Memo to RA-Aus members

ADS-B: A Panacea and Gravy Train for Air Services Australia.

A Poison Pill for RA-Aus and all private aircraft owners.

Last week I attended the Safe Skies conference in Canberra. During one of the presentations by the CEO of Air Services Australia (ASA), I was absolutely shocked to see the following slide as part of his presentation which depicted RA-Aus aircraft as a current safety threat.

ADS-B: A Panacea and Gravy Train for Air Services Australia.

A Poison Pill for RA-Aus and all private aircraft owners.

Last week I attended the Safe Skies conference in Canberra. During one of the presentations by the CEO of Air Services Australia (ASA), I was absolutely shocked to see the following slide as part of his presentation which depicted RA-Aus aircraft as a current safety threat.

( Mouse click on the above image to enlarge the photo)

ASA’s insinuations that Drifters (and by implication, RA-Aus aircraft) are unsafe is inflammatory and patently untrue. There have been no studies, no evidence produced to support the CEO’s suggestion. Air Services Australia is the same organisation that steadfastly refuses to implement the Transport Minister's “Ministerial Directive” that requires provision of radar in areas which Air Services claims to require Class C airspace, but have no radar - such as Coffs Harbour. ASA are content to ignore real SAFETY threats and endanger the lives of “fare paying passengers” by operating Control Zones without radar, and in the process disobeying a Ministerial directive; while fabricating non existent SAFETY problems of Drifters operating OUTSIDE control airspace in “G” or general use airspace, where they have been operating SAFELY for over 25 years.

I believe that the Minister should be taking ASA to task and insisting that ASA implement his directive. Where is accountability when a Ministerial directive can be ignored for over 3 years, endangering the lives of fare paying passengers? ASA is the same organisation that is now trying to ram ADS-B down the throats of private aircraft owners to cure a problem that doesn’t exist. What Air Services Australia is trying to do is shift the cost of new and replacement radars away from Air Services and on to all owners of aircraft under the guise of SAFETY in an effort to lessen their own financial responsibilities.

In the United States ADS-B is still in its infancy and the FAA has announced that due to technical and other reasons ADS-B will not be a requirement until 2020; and then for commercial aircraft only. For Australia to mandate a technical solution years before the US is inviting obsolescence and interoperability problems as well as additional future costs. Aircraft in the US will still be required to carry a transponder as the primary means of collision avoidance. Aircraft using only G or E airspace in the US will not be required to carry ADS-B. The US has significantly higher air traffic density and the fact that they are not contemplating ADS-B for class G or E airspace makes a mockery of ASA purported safety claim for the much lower density of traffic in Australian G and E airspace.

The fact is that forcing every aircraft in Australia to carry ADS-B would be a quick and easy solution for ASA requirements to replace their current ground-based radars. RA-Aus has no problem with ASA implementing ADS-B in higher level airspaces where it will be of most benefit to the airlines. Mandating ADS-B for use in both upper and lower airspace cannot be supported on either a safety or a cost benefit basis.

Air Services Australia is a government corporation providing ATC and Air Navigation services. It is expected to make a profit and pay a dividend to the Government. RA-Aus find it somewhat inappropriate that ASA is a member of the Aviation Policy Group (APG) a peak body formulating strategic aviation policy. Policy and profit motive do not make good bedfellows nor are they conducive in formulating impartial strategic policy that affects all Australian airspace users. Having ASA represented on the APG is a bit like having the fox in the henhouse. I believe that the Minister should review the makeup of the APG with a view to excluding ASA or alternatively having airspace users represented on the APG if ASA’s commercial interests are represented.

In last months magazine Lee gave an overview of what ADS-B was all about and the fact that there was a Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) put out by the APG on ADS-B. RA-Aus have submitted a response rejecting the paper and its proposals. A copy of our response is on our website.

It appears that ASA is ready to manufacture a bogus safety case on why G airspace should be reduced or why all RA-Aus aircraft should be fitted with an ADS-B. I ask that all members remain vigilant and be ready to lobby their local members of Parliament and write to the Minister asking that he curtail ASA’s arrogance and conceit. I’m sure our 8,200 flying members and some 4,000 aircraft owners would make an impact if they all wrote letters to the media and decision makers. In the meantime please do your own research into the issue so that you can respond to any nonsense claims of SAFETY issues surrounding ADS-B, airspace and CTAF( R) being made by ASA when trying to justify their own flawed agenda.

I would much rather be talking about fun things like the Evans Head Great Eastern Fly- In over the Christmas / New Year period. It promises to be a great time with many events planned over the four days. More details elsewhere in this magazine.

Christmas and the season of goodwill is almost with us. The office will be closed over the Christmas-New Year period so if you have any business that will need to be conducted over that period, plan on getting it done earlier.

On behalf of all the members I would like to pass on a vote of thanks to all our office staff who have all worked hard and efficiently in providing us with the services we need to keep us flying with a minimum of fuss. We wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year full of rewarding challenges.

To all our faithful members, your Board extends the compliments of the season with the fervent desire that you all have a Merry Christmas and a SAFE New Year.

John Gardon

RA-Aus President

ADS-B - Technical Article

I have had a few people ask me more information on the technical side of ADS-B.

For those interested there is a very good Technical Article on ADS-B written some time ago by John Brandon. It is on the on the RA-Aus web site. Mouse click on "Technical Article" above to go straight to the site.

John McK

ADS-B, Presidents Memo to the Minister

10 November 2007

Dear Minister,

I attended the Safeskies conference in Canberra last week. It was a very beneficial conference with the Safety Systems theme well received. The organisers and sponsors should be congratulated for an excellent event. We were all disappointed that you were unable to open the conference but understood the time pressures you are currently under.

During one of the presentations I was very disturbed at the direction that Air Services Australia were taking on the introduction of ADS-B, as well as the implied suggestion that private operations in class G airspace were a safety risk. With the establishment of the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) within CASA, I would have thought that Air Services comment was inappropriate and pre-emptive.

Attached is an article that will shortly be published in the RA-Aus magazine with a print run of some 13,000 copies for both members and newsstand distribution. I would appreciate it if you could read it and respond to the following specific issues raised:

1. Is the Minister happy with the current situation of Air Services ignoring a Ministerial Directive for over three years?

2. Is it appropriate for Air Services to be represented on the Aviation Policy Group, when their profit driven motives may not coalesce with the broader strategic needs of all aviation sectors?

3. Can you assure us that issues such as the implementation of ADS-B, reduction and regulation of G Airspace and increase in numbers of CTAF ( R ) will be subject to an aviation industry wide true consultation process?

4. Can you assure us that your Airspace Policy statements, and in particular, that class “G” airspace is be considered the default airspace and that the eventual aim is to adopt the unaltered US and ICAO NAS airspace model, are still the guidance for the OAR?

5. Can the Minister assure us that, if after full industry wide consultation, it is determined that fitment of ADS-B is to be mandated for class “E” and “G” airspace that:

(i) both ADS-B (in) and ADS-B (out) equipment will be provided free of charge and maintained by ASA for all private aircraft operators.

(ii) No charges will be ever be levied by ASA for private operations in “E” and “G” airspace as is currently the case.

We plan on releasing the article to all other aviation journals and magazines as well as the Australian newspaper in the near future. We would obviously like to convey factual material in those articles.

RA-Aus has prided itself on working with the regulator in a co-operative and consultative manner in forums such as CASA’s SCC process. As a result you have heard very little from us other than occasional courtesy visits. In this instance we believe that ASA is bypassing and rushing the normal consultative process. That they are doing this in an effort to achieve an outcome that would solve ASA’s financial predicament, by shifting cost burdens onto private aircraft owners. Therefore we feel that we had no other option but to approach you for clarification given the circumstances.

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to respond.

Regards,

John Gardon

Two Gyro Pilots Badly Burnt

Two Gyroplane pilots, an instructor and a student pilot were badly burnt in a landing accident at Echuca late yesterday afternoon. The Gyro burst into flames on landing heavily. One of the pilots died of his burns to-day.

Although this is not under RA-Aus jurisdiction, it reminds me of a badly burnt pilot I wrote about in an earlier post. See Accident Lessons, Sep. 18. (just click here)

When you go flying please consider wearing non flammable or low flammable clothing, and have a way of getting out of your seat belts quickly.

ADS-B. - Know Your Enemy

This is a slide put up by Greg Russell at the recent Safe Skies conference. November 1-2, 2007 in Canberra. (Mouse click on photo to enlarge image)

He cites this Drifter, most probably legally flying in class G airspace, as an example of the type of aircraft that poses a real danger to aviation, and the reason for ADS-B

Greg Russell is the CEO of Air Services Australia. He is pushing this ADS-B business real hard. Why I wonder? Particularly in light of the conclusions the FAA in the US have come to, which are opposite to ASA views.

Greg Russell and ASA are pushing very hard to sell ADS-B as the be all and end all panacea for aviation safety, completely disregarding the US experience and intent. When the arguments they put up for safety make no sense you have to ask WHY. The Latin term 'Que Bono" comes to my mind. Que Bono - Who benefits? Certainly not the vast majority of recreation aviators in Australia.


His safety arguments are nonsense. Read the RA-Aus submission below.

I personally have no issue with ADS-B in controlled airspace or above 10,000 feet where commercial and RPT operate.

I also believe there are some regulations you may not like, and some, perhaps, are not worth fighting. In these cases you grin and bear it.

However this is a very serious battle we MUST win. Not just for us now, but for all our future members.

Our Association is very fortunate at this time, as we have a President and CEO who are willing to go out and fight for what they believe is in the best interest of our members. They are against the ADS-B proposal in its current form and are prepared to do something about it, while some others in our association are content to sit on their hands, and even be appeasers.

Others in our association may have different views to me on this matter, and that is good. It is very healthy to have different views and opinions. It is not healthy to have fence sitters and appeasers. If you feel strongly about this matter, one way or the other, do something about it. Don't just sit on the fence. Ask your local board member what his or her views and actions are. If you don't like the answer, tell them so, and consider how you vote at the next RA-Aus Board election. (This goes for me too. If you think I am too unyielding on this matter, vote me off)

John McK

ADS-B. RA-Aus Official Response

RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA

RESPONSE to the

Joint Consultation Paper

Transition to Satellite Technology for Navigation and Surveillance.

October 2007.

Executive Summary.

Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) believes that the Joint Consultation Paper (JCP) proposal has been formulated to justify extended surveillance of aircraft without verifiable and quantifiable safety related evidence and that the proposal is based solely on the economic benefits to Air Services Australia (ASA) and Regular Public Transport (RPT) Operators. Veiled threats of withdrawal of inducements and cross industry funding if a sector delays or does not accept the JCP recommendation does not engender a sense of consultation, but rather one of bribery and coercion.

The JCP justification that the economic benefits for ASA and claimed increases in RPT efficiency are justification enough to allow adverse economic impact, as well as adverse safety outcomes, for all other private airspace users is not supported. We also contend that the Cost Benefit Analysis provided is not rigorous or based on accurate current data, nor are the assumptions made accurate, in respect to the majority of the private aircraft fleet, and in particular the Recreational Aircraft fleet.

RA-Aus has a long standing board policy to oppose any mandatory introduction of ADS-B for aircraft operating in CTAF ( R ), class G or E airspace in line with accepted practice in the US NAS airspace, unless there is a clear-cut unequivocal safety case that concludes that the US and ICAO in their collective wisdom have it wrong. The JCP falls short of providing a compelling safety case to justify the introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

RA-Aus is unable to accept the proposal in its current form nor the suggested timing of the mandatory introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

RA-Aus Response to JCP Key Change Proposals

Proposed timing of transition to satellite technology for navigation and surveillance.

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionics from mid 2012

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Requirements for carriage and use of ADS-B avionic from mid 2014

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

Use of funds that would otherwise be spent on navaids and enroute radars to provide cross industry funding for fitment of ADS-B and GNSS avionics in aircraft less than 5,700kg

Not acceptable under any circumstance.

RA-Aus Position

The JCP and supporting documentation Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) have been examined by RA-Aus in preparation for our response. The CBA paints a rather rosy picture of the benefits for ASA while disregarding the true negative economic impacts on Australian Aviation if ADS-B were to be mandated for the whole of the Australian private fleet. We are deeply concerned at the attempt to oversell the benefits of navigation with the added impost of surveillance and thereby justifying both under the CBA by stealth. Statements such as: “Improved operational efficiency for RPT operations….greater availability of optimal flight levels…. due to accurate aircraft position information for ATC and pilots” benefits that are currently available from Ground Based Radars (GBR) and transponders. It appears that ASA chooses not to invest in their business and wish to shift the investment burden on to all airspace users. RA-Aus have no objection to the implementation of ADS-B (UAP) in class A airspace where the majority of the so called benefits of optimal Flight Levels accrue.

The CBA draws comparisons from non-comparable ATM systems to Australia’s primarily Class G nature and we also note that both the JCP and the CBA consistently refer to the benefits of safety by combining ADS-B (Out and In) in every context when ADS-B (Out) is only being subsidised which offers no protection to the majority of lower airspace users such as Recreational/GA pilot unless fitted with ADS-B (In). Therefore any claims of a safety based case arguments for the GA/Recreational fleet in the JCP/CBA are disingenuous at best.

If implemented, the JCP proposals would force higher cost impost on a sector of the industry that can least afford it. Unilateral mandating of ADS-B could have the effect of encouraging a new and adverse underground culture. Higher entry and operating costs (new aircraft fitment and ongoing maintenance) will have an adverse effect on the growth of recreational/GA operations. ADS-B will effectively create a controlled Class ‘G ‘contrary to a previous Ministerial Airspace Policy Statement stipulating ‘G’ as the default airspace.

The JCP canvassed option of cost free ADS-B fitment, without allowing for costs involved in ongoing maintenance support, will not encourage new aircraft ownership and will stifle growth rates in all sectors of aviation. Contradictory comments on the life of ADS-B units ranging from 15 to 25 years do little to engender confidence in the data presented.

No guarantees have been given that once ADS-B is mandated in class G airspace it will not be used as a vehicle to expand ASA airways charges or unnecessarily restrict operations.

The JCP data and assumptions are not based on facts. Current data out of the US (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8^th Oct 2007 Pg 40) claims that costs for GA aircraft could be as high as US$17,000.00 and cites avionics capacity constraints as one of the major limiting factors. It is a well known fact that the Australia suffers a major shortage of avionics LAMES. Indicative costing presented in the JCP are far of the mark and would increase dramatically due to supply and demand pressures if mandatory fitment were to be introduced. In any case, the FAA is only proposing fitment to commercial aircraft and not until 2020.

For most Recreational and GA pilots, ADS-B (Out) only, offers no foreseeable safety benefit in the mandatory fitment to a radio equipped aircraft. Even if ADS-B (In) is provided it could lead to an over reliance on this new technology and has the potential to generate a culture of ‘video screen VFR’ which will in turn create the very same accident that it was installed to prevent.

We note with interest that the military have withdrawn from being compliant within the proposed ASA time frame and have set their target for 2020 in line with the US. It would be farcical to insist that the civilian fleet have mandated fitment without including the military fleet.

Apparently ASA have already reached the foregone conclusion that they will introduce ADS-B regardless of the wishes of the majority of aircraft owners in Australia. ASA’s blatant disregard for ministerial directive “Air Services Act 1995 Section 16 Direction No.4 of 2004” would seem to be the motivating factor for attempting to force ADS-B on the private aviation sector in Australia, when in the US ADS-B will only be mandated for Commercial aircraft, operating in upper airspaces. Statements in the JCP alluding to the fact that ADS-B training and education packages are already being prepared makes a mockery of the consultation process.

JCP/CBA Shortcomings

What little safety justification is presented in the JCP/CBA draws a very long bow. It assumes that VFR CFIT accidents will be reduced. Any seasoned pilot would agree that the way of reducing VFR CFIT accidents would not be by focussing attention inside the cockpit at the expense of external visual cues.

Claims of efficient preservation of life through using ADS-B for accident location overlooks an already introduced mandate for the introduction of 406MHz GPS locator beacon by Feb 2009, and already deployed by a growing number of Recreational and GA pilots, at far lower cost than ADS-B. Many such leaps of deductive reasoning are evident in the paper and applied to excess; including that VFR flights into IFR conditions will be mitigated by ADS-B. In fact this technology may well encourage scud running and inadvertent entry into non VFR conditions.

Mid air collisions research demonstrates that risk increases with proximity to an airfield. ADS-B OUT does not mitigate this risk, only “see and avoid” is the most efficient method as even TCAS is unreliable in close proximity to circuit traffic. In the case of CTAFs the heightened sense of false confidence in technology, both radio and ADS-B is, in itself posing more risk than it does a mitigator. A non-radio equipped aircraft is virtually invisible in this sense, to others not practised in “see and avoid” principles.

The JCP claim that ADS-B will reduce Violations of Controlled Airspace (VCA) is also a rather large deductive leap as most VCA’s occur from penetration from Class G where there is no requirement below 5000’ to carry a radio or ADS-B (Out).

RA-Aus formally reject the figures quoted in the CBA with respect to non-VH registered aircraft in Table 4-6: Entire fleet numbers. Not only are these figures incomplete by not including the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia’s currently registered aircraft, but also age of the data is of great concern. Whilst it is true that most of the ‘traditional’ Australian registered aircraft numbers remain fairly constant, the same can not be said for the Non-VH registered area. This demonstrates the questionable integrity of the JCP/CBA data presented. Actual RA-Aus data since 2002 has documented an actual growth rate in excess of 10% per year to date, in the number of RA-Aus registered aircraft. RA-Aus Aircraft registrations, have recorded a 16% increase in CY 2006. For these reasons alone, we believe that the CBA analysis and integrity of the document is flawed, assuming only an arbitrary growth rate of 4% a year.

RA-Aus current projections using a conservative figure of 13% growth rate in aircraft registrations (not taking into consideration the current exponential swing) has projected aircraft numbers at 4706 for CY 2012 and the CY 2014 aircraft registrations are projected at 6009. The CBA cost analysis has been formulated on incorrect data and has also failed to correctly assess projected growth rates. Nor do the CBA figures take into account Hang Gliding Federation current and projected figures, further skewing the analysis towards the wrong side of the balance sheet.

Security and Boarder Protection

Linking ADS-B to National security has no real value unless tracking compliant aircraft. Only primary radar will identify a non-compliant or hostile aircraft. In the US the Department of Transportation's Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III told Congress “that ADS-B had Potential Security Vulnerabilities, because ADS-B makes the position of aircraft in flight generally available, some are concerned about the possibility of introducing false targets into the system”. He also went on to say “A security assessment is needed to determine ADS-B risks and appropriate countermeasures. The FAA needs to continue to work with the intelligence community and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to ensure that concerns about ADS-B security are adequately addressed”. Therefore any claim that ADS-B has benefits for National security is premature. In fact, ADS-B has some potentially damaging vulnerabilities and shortcomings that could work against National Security.

Conclusion

The JCP has made a compelling case for the introduction of ADS-B based solely on the economic benefit of introduction for Air Services Australia (ASA). Introduction of ADS-B would relieve the economic burden for ASA of replacing existing ground based radars and shift the burden on an aviation sector already reeling from high costs and least equipped to absorb further cost imposts. The JCP has failed to make a clear cut safety based case for the introduction of ADS-B (LAP).

In the USA, the FAA is proposing fitment of ADS-B to commercial aircraft only, and in any case will not be mandatory until 2020. The FAA acknowledges that there are still major risks that will have a direct bearing on the cost, schedule, and expected benefits of ADS-B and has called for further consultation and studies.

The timelines and scope of the ADS-B (LAP) introduction in Australia as proposed in the JCP are patently not required for any other reason than to relieve ASA from a Ministerial directive they have failed to implement. The proposals and timelines outlined in the JCP are unrealistic, unachievable and an unnecessary economic burden on private aircraft owners with no apparent safety benefit.

Rotax Engines

This is an interesting site about Rotax Engines. If you want to read the articles just click on the subject title below.

Reading Pistons

Reading Spark Plugs

Bing Carburettors

Choosing Two Stroke Oils

Human Factors Training

Human Factors Training

Our new Operations Manual has been with CASA for some time, (well before I was elected to the board) and was promised to be approved before this Christmas. However I see this as a remote possibility due to the election. (Update 30/10/07 - I may have been somewhat premature with the last statement. Watch this space )

Probability the biggest impact on current licensed members will be the need for everyone of us to undertake a course in Human Factors. At this stage it appears we will be given two years to undertake this course and there is a possibility that it can be done by "self study". I haven't seen the course but I don't think it will be much of a burden to us, and may be a big help to our decision making.

RA-Aus Magazine

I have been getting a number of complaints about our magazine. The main issues are Lateness, and that some members see the magazine in the newsagent before they get their posted copy.

Most members would not be aware that we no longer edit our magazine. The RA-Aus has contracted out the magazine to Zebra Publishing. We pay them a fee to edit print and publish our magazine.

I have brought the complaints I have received to the attention of the other Board Members and the Executive. My personal view is our members MUST receive their mailed copy before the general public can purchase a copy in a newsagent. Even if this means delaying the distribution to the newsagents. I have presented this view to the full Board and Executive.

I have also presented the view that we need to find out why the magazine is so often late, and take steps to fix the problem.

Recreational Flying Forum

On the side bar you will see a link to an aviation forum called Recreational Flying Forum. This is a private forum run by a gentleman named Ian Baker. It has no formal association with the governing body of recreational flying, the RA-Aus.

I have not met Ian however I personally find this an excellent forum for all recreational pilots. I am a member of this site (JohnMcK) and I support this site from a personal perspective and a board member perspective. The site is well moderated and friendly. You just have a look at some of the other aviation forums to see the viscous nature and tone of some anonymous posters to see what can happen without good moderation.

There has been an issue earlier this year where the RA-Aus suddenly refused to accept Ian's advertisements in our magazine. This was before my election to the board, and I have not been able to fully find out why. But times have changed and this is no longer an issue.

Ian also runs an online shop where recreational aviators have access to a range of aviation goods at competitive prices. I personally haven't bought anything there yet so I can't comment on the service, but if Ian runs the shop as he runs the forum, I don't think there will be any issues.

Apart from club meetings and flyins, forums such as this are a great way for recreational aviators to communicate. However for the newer pilots, don't just read the one post on a topic. I have seen examples of wrong information being given, and advice given "as gospel" that later turns out to be given by a student pilot. However the big advantage of a forum such as this, is it generally doesn't take long for someone to post the correct information.

More on ADSB

This is a copy of a post I made on the Recreational Flying Forum.

Hi Ian,

I personally have no issue, and my understanding is, neither does the RA-Aus for ASDB to be fitted for entry into controlled airspace. My main concern is for the grass roots members of the RA-Aus. The ultralight people. We have become a major growth association, (while most others are shrinking) by looking after our members, and having a policy of "affordable flying". "Safety with responsibility". Just look at what has happened to GA in the past few years. Now ask yourself why?

If we agree to this being compulsory outside CTA we are selling out not only the vast majority of our current members but also the vast majority of our future members. How are all our "Rag and Tube" members going to cope with this?. How are all the HGFA trike pilots going to cope with this, or all the roatacraft people? I will tell you how. They will be back in open paddocks like the early years. (and there are those who would prefer this to happen)

There is an old Latin saying "Cue Bono" It means "who benefits". We should all ask ourselves Who benefits from all this business. First, only the out link will be compulsory, who will benefit from this? Certainly not any recreation aviator. Where is the safety benefit in this if none of us has a down or in link? There isn't any. If there was a real concern about safety outside CTR the Government, instead of giving a $10,000 one off voucher for the up link only they could subsidize ALL aircraft in Australia (RPT included) with something like the current "Flarm" unit fitted to gliders. This is a very small box, draws next to no current, and costs about $600. This unit has in and out link, audio and visual collision avoidance, data logging, and output plotting for those with LCD screens. You can also have obstacle (power lines) and terrain (high ground) database alarms added. All this is available NOW for $600. (perhaps much cheaper if mass produced)

No I think we need to look further. Lets look at this from a "cue bono" aspect. - Who does really benefit. I have a few personal ideas. Perhaps some of you do also.

John McK

PS. In the interests of full disclosure. I have a Flarm unit fitted in my Drifter as I fly from a mixed ultralight and glider airfield. I have absolutely no connection with the manufacturer or sale of these units.

ADSB

ADS-B

Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast

Airservices/CASA are pushing ahead with ADS-B (a type of upmarket version of Flarm used by gliders and some ultralights at mixed airfields) This, in its current form, I believe, will be VERY BAD news for us. By 2012 all aircraft entering CTA will be required to have ADS-B fitted, and by 2014 all aircraft in CTAF(R) will require ADS-B. View link

CASA policy is to make all aerodromes that have a visit from one or more 10 seat aircraft per month a CTAF(R). So starting 2014 if you want to go into or through a CTAF(R) you must have ADS-B, and by then most of the airfields we currently fly at or near or through will be CTAF(R)

The “estimated” cost of these units is $10,000 to $15,000 plus instillation?. They can only be repaired by a CASA approved Radio Tec. They will also need to be serviced every two years by an approved Tec. Most of us can’t fly our aircraft into Brisbane or some other major center for a service, So if you can’t put your plane on a trailer, think of what the call out fee might be.

There are suggestions that the government may cover the costs for the initial instillation for currently registered aircraft but not for any new aircraft in the future. But even if we get a “free” unit, the upkeep could "bankrupt" many of us. We will also sell out all our future members of RA-Aus, or if you belong to AOPA, SAAA etc, your future members, if we accept this in its current form. Also no one seems to know how big or how heavy these aviation units are or what their power consumption will be. There will be exemptions for aircraft with low battery capacity or no alternator etc, plus other undefined aviation uses. You could have airspace full of, say, gliders, hang gliders, paragliders etc but banned to ultralights. If so what is the point of having them compulsory outside of CTR.

Also, as I read the new regulations, If you don't have ADSB you won't be able to fly above 5,000 ft (QNH) regardless of the terrain.

My personal view is we need to lobby to at least stop them from being compulsory in CTAF(R), and below 10,000 ft.

In the marine field this system is called AIS (no height requirement) and has been in operation for some time, and I guess is where the Aviation idea came from. This is now mandated for commercial shipping but you can buy pleasure craft versions of AIS for under $1000 which use is voluntary. Also non AIS equipped pleasure craft are not excluded from shipping lanes where AIS is compulsory for commercial shipping. Eg The narrow shipping lane up Cape York Peninsular.

Also if any of you people out there have a "thing" about your personal privacy in sporting or pleasure pursuits, be advised that every single move you make in your aircraft fitted with ADSB, from key on to key off, will be tracked and logged by the government agencies. (track, height, time, bearing, landings etc). If your IQ is greater than 10 you can work out future possible ramifications of this.

The military have rejected their compulsory instillation for now. My personal view is we should do the same under the current proposals.


How to respond

Please forward your response to DOTARS by 31 October 2007 by one of the following means:

• Fax Attn: ADS-B Proposal (02) 6274 7804
• Post ADS-B Proposal, Office of Airspace Management,
  Department of Transport and Regional Services
  GPO Box 594
  Canberra ACT 2601
• Email ADSB@dotars.gov.au

We, as Recreational Aviators must be very proactive on this matter. RESPOND NOW.


John McK (wearing my personal and RA-Rus Board hat on this one)

CASA Requests our Views and Issues for the Future

Our CEO has received a memo from the head of CASA asking us to put forward our ideas for the future of aviation (all aviation) in Australia. He also asked us to list any problems or issues that we foresee in Recreational Aviation in Australia in the medium to long term future.

I have some of my own views relating to Recreational Aviation but I need your input to get your views. You people out there are our association and it is your views that need to be heard.

I need to send in a reply to our CEO in two weeks. So please give me your thoughts and ideas before the 19 th October 2007. "Email me johnmck@gil.com.au" or mob. 0438728311

Thank you

John McK

BFR's

This past weekend my local flying club held a Fly-in breakfast, and knowing I was their new board member hit me up with a number of issues (as they should) One real problem area that I personally didn’t realise was such an issue is our BFR’s

I will bring this up at Board Level but I need to get more feedback on the issues you face. Please email me (johnmck@gil.com.au) with your concerns. The more feedback you give me the more I can argue on your behalf.

First to the BFR itself. By definition, a BFR is just what it says. A Biennial Flight Review. It is a review of our flying. It is not a pass-fail test. Its purpose it to identify and correct any bad habits or problems in our flying.

Now come the issues. These are as I see them at present, and it is here I need your feedback.

1. Single Seaters. The regulations state the test should be in the aircraft you fly the most. Several people stated they only fly single seaters and Instructors won’t review their flying from the ground.

When this is the case these pilots are told they must do their BFR in the school’s aircraft. These pilots say they feel very uncomfortable doing a “test” in an unfamiliar plane. I need more of your views on this.

2. Instructor Skills. Some pilots with “different” 2 seat aircraft claim any BFR to them is worthless as the local Instructor has never flown their type of aircraft and would have no idea of what is going on. This applies to a Rag and Tube pilot asking an instructor who has only flown hi performance aircraft to do a BFR in the back of his Drifter to a Rag and Tube Instructor doing a BFR for a Sting pilot. I agree with them on this and some solution needs to be found.

3. Insurance Issues. Some pilots want a BFR in their type of aircraft, but not in their aircraft as they carry no crew insurance and don’t know the consequences of an accident. They also ask what are the consequences of an Instructor “taking over”. I don’t know this myself but will ask.

4. Under CASA GA rules a type endorsement also rates as a BFR. This needs to be clarified under our rules. Eg. Does a tail-wheel endorsement or a check flight (endorsement) on say a Tecnam rate as a BFR?

5. Dual certificates. For our GA and RA-Aus pilots does a GA BFR also rate as a RA-Aus BFR.? If not why not. The argument here is it is a flight review of a higher level so should flow down. There has been no suggestion to me (yet) that a BFR should flow up the other way.

As I said in the beginning I was unaware of the depth of feeling on this matter, but being a rag and tube pilot myself, I can see I would be very uneasy if I had to travel to another airport to do a BFR in a plane I had never even sat in before with an instructor I didn’t know. Please give me feedback and I will bring it up with the Board.

John McKeown

Low Flying Privilages

There has been a lot talk around lately about us losing low flying privileges under Part 103 and 149. In these instances it is best to go straight to the top. In this case I wrote to Mick Poole our operations Manager. Mick's reply to my query follows.

“Hi John,

The new part 103 and 149 are actually a lot better for us then people think. Yes if you read the new 103 and its content on low flying it appears that we will not be able to have the freedoms that we do now in some respects. But, what part 103 and 149 do is empowering our operations manual. In our new ops manual (as per the board web site for those who would like to read it) actually has the new endorsement on Low flying. This has been on the drawing boards for quite a while. As you know we have been able to fly low with the land owner’s permission etc, but what we have not provided in the past is the training for low level flying. As you would be well aware there are a lot of things that are out to get you when you go low flying, power lines, wind shear, mechanical turbulence, depth perception and it goes on and on. We have been working on the low level endorsement to at least give the people who want to and are low flying, some of the necessary skills and knowledge that will maybe save their life one day.

Believe me, we by no means want to take anything away from our members, what we want to be able to do is give them more. Part 103 and 149 will go a long way in enabling us to do this. More importantly the new operations manual is with CASA at present as you know. The new endorsements that we are introducing with this, (are)controlled airspace, in flight adjustable propeller, retractable, etc etc. These and other endorsements are being introduced primarily for the safety of our members. As our aeroplanes become more and more complicated and faster, we need to be able to, and in fact need to be seen, to be providing the necessary training to go with them.

I want to be able to go to sleep at night knowing that we have, or are, providing all the necessary tools for our Schools, instructors and most importantly our members. These tools enabling them to be able to continue to fly with the freedoms we have today well into the foreseeable future, but also to make it as safe as possible to maintain these freedoms.

Mick Poole “

Airport Dreams

Following is a memo I sent to the RA-Aus Board. This is for Board consideration. But YOU, our members are the association. Without you we amount to nothing. We, the board members, act on your behalf. But we also must have your support. As your board member I need to hear your views. If you think we need our own airfields let your board members know. If not, also let us know and reasons if possible.

My memo to the Board

In my view, one common failure of the leadership of bodies like ours, and not just ours, but clubs and even governments is they think short term. One year, maybe even five years. I believe we should be thinking out at least 50 years.

We won’t be around then but we must set in motion long term goals and ideas that can be acted on or modified by those who follow us. Perhaps very few of our ideas or dreams will ever come to fruition. But if we don’t have any, NONE will come to fruition.

Airfields are a big issue for us. If we don’t have an airfield we can’t fly our types of planes, and perhaps should consider paragliding. I see a number of ways we could secure airfields.

1. We could look at securing existing council airfields where the local council wants to rid themselves of this “burden”. As a non profit body we could take over the airfield much easier than an entrepreneur could. This could be done as an outright purchase or on a long term 99 year lease.

We could supply and rent hanger space, or lease land for private hangers to cover our costs and pay any loan charges. We could lock this airfield up as an aviation site for at least 100 years.

One urgent airfield that I know needs action now is Teewah near Noosa. Another possibility is my home airfield of Boonah. A third would be Evans Head and a fourth Gympie. I am sure all of you are aware of similar fields.

2. We secure vacant land in areas of need and develop our own “Airparks”. These could be 30 to 60 minutes out in the bush as I believe most Pilots would be happy to drive that far into town if they lived on site. Or the “Townies” would drive that far out to an airport. Obviously the distance would be further out for sites close to major centres (one hour), and closer in to minor centres (15 to 30 minutes).

At “our airfields” we set up “cheap fuel” and food outlets to encourage visitors. We could have our own plane and vehicle roadhouse if we are close to a major road. We could set up low cost camping areas, not only for visiting pilots but an encouragement for the retired “Grey Nomads” to visit on their travels. This way we start to get “critical mass” for our services.

I believe we would have a better chance of local support being a non profit Aviation Body rather than a “greedy” development company. In time (50 years thing) we might be in a position to buy the Archerfield’s or Bankstown’s of the future and save them for aviation at breakeven costs.

But we can start small NOW. We have a lot of members which gives a lot of political support. If we asked these members for a non interest loan of, say $200, we would instantly have a fighting fund $1M to $2M. More if we get higher loans or donations. We could have “set in stone” policy that would require a future Board to have a 75% member vote to change this policy. (eg to sell an airport)

“Our Airparks” could be a breeding ground for future pilots. There are a lot of grandparents amongst us and having the grandkids over for stays at an aviation venue might install in some of them the aviation spark.

All this might be a dream at the moment but it is an achievable dream. Without a dream we achieve nothing.

John McKeown

Rotax production ends for the 447 and the 503

It looks like the rumours we heard at Avalon, but denied at Narromine are true. The latest issue of Microlight Flying magazine in the UK has informed its readers about the ceasing of production of the Rotax 447 and 503 engines due to the plunging sales of these engines. The 582 will be the only 2 stroke motor Rotax will continue to make.

The Rotax 447 will cease production at the end of 2007 and the 503 at the end of 2008. Spares for both these engines will continue to be available for a further 10 years.

John McKeown

September 2007 Board Meeting

I attended my first RA-Aus board meeting on 14-16 September in Canberra. John Gardon was elected the new President, Myles Breitkreutz stayed on as Secretary and David Caban was elected Treasurer. Following are some items that may be of interest.

It was agreed all Board discussions except those “In Camera” or sensitive financial dealings with third party organisations would be available to the general membership.

I expressed concern at both the wording of changes to the Constitution and the vote itself. I stated (in my view) the vote was poorly handled in that there was no mention in the magazine that a vote was to be taken at the AGM, and no ballot papers were included in the magazine for the general membership. Changes to the constitution were passed with only 17 votes for and 1 against.

Lee Ungermann was confirmed as our new Executive Director, and Mick Poole was promoted to Operations Manager

The contract with Zebra publishing was renewed for another three years and there was discussion on how to keep improving the magazine.

Mick Poole showed draft copies of new aircraft and engine logbooks. They will not be compulsory for the general membership. Mick discussed the reason for the separate book for engines as some engines are moved from plane to plane and you can’t keep track of where they are or their status. I mentioned the same should apply to trike wings as some trike pilots have two or more wings.

A motion was passed that in future All Board candidate profiles will be published even if they are the only candidate, and all candidates must list their position on the executive of other aviation related bodies.

There was a motion passed to divide Queensland into three areas, Southern, Central, and Northern. Legal advice is to be taken if this can be done without changes to the Constitution. The total number of board members will remain the same.

There was discussion about Rego labels similar to motor cars. This was held over to a future date.

Rod Stiff was inducted as an RA-Aus Pioneer

There was discussion about having a Member Forum on our web site and how and where we could get staff to moderate this Forum.

We will now have new plastic Pilot Certificate cards instead official certificate cards.

There was discussion about our long term future and the possibility of our own airfield in the future.

John McKeown

Accident Lessons

I recently attended an RA-Aus accident course in Canberra and I would like to list some comments and perhaps some lessons some of us could learn.

Fire. One of our worst nightmares. We studied an accident with an in-flight engine fire where the pilot managed to “crash” land the aircraft. Exit the inverted aircraft and die of burns and exposure many hours later. There are a few lessons here if we look for them.

1. The engine fire was caused by a fuel pump with excessive pressure flooding the carburettor and dripping onto the exhaust manifold. What is sad is after this crash it came to light that there were previous minor instances of similar engine fires of the same engine configuration that were not reported to Canberra. If reported could it have prevented this tragic death?

How many of us look at our engines and consider what would happen if we had a fuel leak? Will we have petrol dripping onto a hot exhaust? Do we have an effective fuel shut off valve? Do we have an effective firewall? Do we have an effective fire extinguisher close at hand?

2. The pilot landed the plane in a small clearing but it flipped on its back. How many of us consider getting out of an inverted aircraft, let alone one on fire?

Will your seat belt buckle release with a load on it? Mine won’t, and I bet most of the car seat belt types won’t either. Try it and see what I mean. (Don’t turn your plane over. Pull real hard on the belt to simulate an 80kg or 100kg load and press the button). If the buckle is hard to release do we have a knife handy to cut the webbing?

3. There was evidence of pilot difficulty in exiting the enclosed cockpit. How many of us consider getting out of our aircraft if the doors jam, or we are inverted? Could we break a canopy or windscreen with our head or hands?

4. This pilot, with a lot of difficulty, managed to exit the burning aircraft with his clothes on fire. He was wearing flammable synthetic clothing. Investigators could follow the pilot’s movements by following the tracks of molten clothes remanets and burnt flesh lying on the ground.

Do we as pilots always wear non flammable clothing when we fly? Not just in recreational aircraft but also in commercial aircraft? Proper clothing would have gone a long way to help this pilot.

5. This pilot managed to douse the flames by rolling in a bush but was left badly burned with only a belt and boots left. All clothing was burnt or melted. The accident happened early in the morning not long after the flight started. He would not be missed until late in the day. No one knew he had crashed. No one would know he was seriously injured. The pilot carried an ELB but it was in the burning plane.

Would this pilot have stood a better chance if he had a mobile phone and an ELB on his belt or in his pocket? (In non flammable clothing)

6. This accident happened (from memory) at around 8am on one day and the search started late that day. It was suspended at nightfall and the pilot’s body was found about 4pm on the next day. There was evidence that pilot lived for a long time. Investigators could see depression and scuff marks where the pilot sought refuge from the hot sun under the unburned tailplane, and constantly moved position to keep in the shade as the sun moved.

Would rescue have come quicker if someone knew the pilots course and expected arrival time? Would the pilot still have lived if the search was continued at night and the pilot had a torch in his pocket?

My heart goes out to this man. We have a pilot who lived through an in-flight fire struggling to survive with serious burns, with no clothes and no water, who continually dragged himself around in the dirt under the tailplane to stay in the shade all the while hoping and praying? for rescue that would never come.

There are many lessons here for those of us who want to look for them.

John McKeown

Intro to John

My name is John McKeown and I have recently been elected as one of three Board Members for South Queensland for RA-Aus. This blog is an attempt to keep members a little better informed of relevant Recreational Aviation matters.

My Contact details are -

Email - johnmck(at)gil(dot)com(dot)au
Mobile - 0438 728311
Ph - 07 38161996 (home)