Rag and Tube Aviator

There seems to be some confusion with 19 Category Aircraft flying over built up areas.

To clarify matters. 19 Category aircraft are forbidden from flying over any township or any built up area in the first instance.

There are exceptions, but it is on an individual case by case basis.

In the past the requirement was.

1. Your amateur built aircraft must be built from a recognized and approved kit.

2. It must have an "approved" engine and propeller.

3. You must get written permission from CASA or our Technical Manager.

4. Only after complying with the above requirements is it legally permissible to fly over a built up area. (above 1,000 feet AGL and high enough to glide clear in the case of engine failure)

Previously aircraft like the Terrier (above) or a Bushcaddy with a Subaru engine would not be approved. Subaru engines are not approved engines. Aircraft with a Herth engine like a Challanger would not get approval.

This was a negative impact on a number of our aircraft. Those members with affected aircraft can now get approval from the Technical Manager even if you have a non approved engine and propeller. Steve Bell has worked to rectify this problem of the past.

Those people with affected aircraft who have not received written approval, should do so now, and need to be aware of the legal ramifications of flying out of towns like Boonah, or Cabolture where in the process of taking off and landing you can't avoid flying over some built up areas.

Approval can be obtained by emailing the Technical Manager with the relevant data.

Hi All,

Please read the following and let the RA-Aus know your views ASAP

John McK

Dear Sport & Recreational Aviation Standards Sub-committee Members,

CASA is proposing to remove the formal exemption in the sport/recreational aviation CAOs relating to CAR 252A (carriage of ELTs) as part of its present CAO review. It is proposed that the general exemptions, and the exclusions built into CAR 252A, would continue to apply.

ELT prices continue to fall and the benefits of ELT carriage are gaining acceptance in the sport/recreational aviation community, CASA proposes to continue to monitor developments in this area whilst applying CAR 252A to the recreational aircraft sector without exclusions that go beyond those already beyond those already stated in the CAR.

This means that two seat aircraft operated under CAO 95.55 (RA-Aus aeroplanes), 95.32 (RA-Aus and HGFA trikes) and 95.12.1 (ASRA 2-seat gyroplanes) would be required to carry an ELT for all flights beyond 50 nm from takeoff.

Whilst CAR 252A excludes single-place aircraft, aircraft travelling within 50 nautical miles of their starting point and some other aircraft classes including balloons and gliders from being required to be equipped with an ELT, there have been exemptions extant for aeroplanes and gyroplanes under sport/recreational aviation CAOs.

Exemptions from ELT carriage have existed in sport/recreational CAOs since the time that such aircraft were confined to small areas either by aircraft capability or by restrictions inherent in CAOs as they existed at that time. Aircraft capabilities have increased over time and so have the freedoms allowed by more recent iterations of the CAOs. With these new freedoms comes a responsibility for people who wish to access the freedoms.

Increased cross country capability of sport/recreational aircraft, the breadth of general exemption available in the CAR and radically decreasing costs of ELTs/PLBs means that CASA now has difficulty justify exempting such aircraft from this requirement. Also considered are the risks to search and rescue personnel of conducting a rescue and the costs to society as a whole for a rescue.

CASA proposes the CAOs wording be future proofed by the requirement for an ELT or CASA approved alternative. This would allow CASA to broadly approve alternate technologies for operators of aircraft under an instrument or provide specific approvals to operators to use alternate equipment as circumstances dictate. It is proposed that operators of aircraft covered by this new requirement would have until 31 May 2010 to comply with the new requirements.

CASA has contacted the organisations whose members will be affected and now seeks wider aviation community feedback on this proposal.

The extract below is provided for the purpose of informing this discussion but the regulation should be read in its entirety for operational purposes and is available at this link www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/act_regs/1988.pdf

252A Emergency locator transmitters
(1) The pilot in command of an
Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft may begin a flight
only if the aircraft:
(a) is fitted with an approved ELT:
(i) that is in working order; and……………

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a flight by an Australian
aircraft if:
(a) the flight is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from
the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome from which the
flight is to begin; ……………

exempted aircraft means:
…
(e) a balloon; or
(f) an airship; or
(g) a glider;

single seat aircraft means an aircraft that is equipped to carry only one
person;

Please provide any comments by cob Friday 1st May by reply to this message or by email to (Removed by blog author)

Regards,

Greg Vaughan

All owners of the CH-601 XL are advised to read this NTSB report released 2 days ago.

Note. 1. The fatalities do not include the 4 deaths from the two inflight incidents in Australia which are still before the Coroner.

2. There appears to be other than just canopy issues with the 601.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090414a.html

Lighthearted Post

After learning that you will never, ever, really make it as an aviator unless you have Drifter training. Famous trumpet player, and accomplished aviator, James M, decided he needed some Drifter training to really make it as one of that select band of pilots with Drifter PIC time.

James came to Greg's school at Boonah to gain those special skills possessed only by Drifter trained pilots.

Ed Note. Australia's first and only, "Red Bull" pilot. Our fast jet military pilot who saw combat flying F18's over Iraq, got his initial flying skills from being Drifter trained.

CFI Greg, and James with the school Drifter. James is the intelligent looking person with the Trumpet.

Now Greg has the trumpet.

There is a very old Chinese proverb.

"Can teach Trumpet player fly Drifter. Not ever possible teach Boonah CFI play Trumpet"

Late last year we had another GA aircraft crash which resulted death.

Now enter Paul Bibby from the Sydney Morning Herald. (See link below) He wrote the most disgracefull piece of rubbish about "US". Australian Recreational Aviators. Please remember this man's name, and watch out for more rubbish coming out of his head, and into the newspaper that employs him.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/light-plane-deaths-up-more-than-50-20081229-76ty.html

See below the reply by our CEO, Lee Ungermann.

Mr Paul Bibby,

RE: http://www.theage.com.au/national/light-plane-deaths-up-more-than-50-20081229-76ty.html

I do not believe you tried very hard to verify any of the facts presented in your article. This article was a deliberate attempt to link non-related aircraft deaths with our weight increase proposal and yet another example of non-truth made to fit a good story. Had you have bothered to verify the facts you presented in the article then you would have realised that your article was not only wrong in many respects but also extremely damaging to the SMH and the Ages credibility. Had you taken the time to contact the office, myself or our President on numbers readily available on the newsstand or on our website, we would have been more than happy to present facts for you to use in your article.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.(RA-Aus) has always tried to build credible relationships with the media, however when first principles of journalism are not adhered to, such as establishing fact, it is difficult for any organisation not to be reactionary.

Here are some facts you may wish to take note of:

1. Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not register Glider or Gryo Pilots.

2. The proposed weight increase does not include Gliders or Gyros.

3. Recreational Aviation does not administer Crop Dusters, CASA does.

4. There is not a significant number of Ultralight aircraft represented in the accident statistics.

5. In the past twelve months(2008) only one fatal accident occurred involving an aircraft on our register.

6. 2008 was one of the safest years in the last ten years, despite being the greatest growth area in General Aviation in Australia.

7. Aircraft weighing 600-2250kg are administered by CASA or other self administrating organisations, not Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

8. The Recreational Aviation Training Syllabus is approved by CASA and is based on the Day VFR Syllabus.

9. A Lake Buccaneer is regulated by CASA and is not the responsibility of RA-Aus.

10. RA-Aus is a member based organisation that receives minimal funding from CASA to administer our aircraft and safety.

a. Our members financially support:

i. Our office structure.

ii. Safety Programs.

iii. Accident Investigation.

iv. Flying School Standards.

v. Our presence at Regulatory Development meetings (CASA)

b. Is a non-profit organisation conducting work on behalf of CASA.

11. Recreational Aviation Maintenance safety outcomes are proportional to General Aviation and no safety case exists that owner maintenance is a significant risk to person or public.

The point is Paul , that RA-Aus is administering the largest growth area of aviation in Australia and is doing it safely in comparison to many other areas of aviation in Australia. Your accident statistics demonstrate that there was an increase in fatalities, so I have no issue with your title or your motivation for the article, but to contact me and falsely claim that the article is about our proposed weight increase is not only deceitful but is a large impact on an area of aviation that is improving its safety record. To report otherwise, without fact, is doing a dies-service to yourself, your readers and also your employers.

The manner in which you sent this email at 8pm the night before(as the article went to print) is also not acceptable and the fact that no contact or indeed a genuine attempt was made with our organisation prior to the articles printing also demonstrates a disregard for the SMH code of ethics. http://www.smh.com.au/ethicscode/index.html . With this in mind, please respect the disclaimer at the bottom of this email.

Right now, 9,000 readers are unhappy with your portrayal of RA-Aus http://www.auf.asn.au/ , the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age. If you are interested in doing what is morally right, I am happy to discuss the facts with you, so that this kind of ambush editorial does not discredit you or your employers in the future.

If the SMH or The Age as your employers are interested in adhering to their code of ethics, I would be pleased to discuss this with them also.

Regards

Lee Ungermann

Chief Executive Officer

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

0428282870 / 02 62 804700

We have had a small reprieve on the compulsory introduction of ADS-B into the lower airspaces where it would have a devastating effect on the way we operate Recreational Aircraft. Remember this is only a short term reprieve, and we must continue to fight the compulsory introduction of ADS-B into the lower airspace.

See below the letter to our CEO. Click on image for a larger view.

Below is part of our submission to CASA for a weight increase. Both new and older members may be interested in this section as it details our history and safety stats.

Sorry, I can't seem to bring over the graphs.

John McK

JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

HISTORY

CAO 95.10 was introduced in 1976. The rules were draconian, because it was all about control in the name of safety. In those early days the participants were not allowed to fly above 300' and they were not allowed to use two seat training aircraft. The engines were single ignition two strokes, (at the very beginning converted mower engines) so it is little wonder that untrained pilots who suffered from a sudden loss of noise, stalled at low altitude or had little option but to land straight ahead regardless of terrain and where only limited by the current days rules and red tape.

The fact that anybody survived those first few years is a credit to man's ability, fortitude and ingenuity. The fact that people insisted on re-inventing the wheel was a price that had to be paid to achieve the innovation in regulations, materials, engines and electronics that the movement enjoys today.

HISTORIC FACT

It is also now a historic fact that those very rules, which were put there to "protect" the public in fact, took a heavy toll on the participants.

Explanation of RA-Aus Membership Vs Fatal Accidents.

The repositioning of weight and performance barriers has had no impact on the general public over the history of RA-Aus but has meant huge safety benefits for the pilot/participants.

Ø 1985 CAO 95.25 "Flight Below 300" was raised to 500' and legalised two seat training approved. MTOW was increased to 400 kg. Within two years there was an improvement in the accident statistics. 1985, Fatality to membership ratio 1: 230, two years later 1: 480.

Ø 1990 CAO 95.55: Height limit was raised to 5000', (Higher with operational justification) MTOW 450 kg. Once again within the two year period we see an improvement in the fatal accident record. 1990 1:480, 1992 1:600.

Ø 1993 CAO 101.55 amended to allow 480 kg MTOW in accordance with energy formulae. The improvement trend continues with an improvement in the safety statistics. 1993 1:825, 1995 1:1800.

Ø 1998 CAO 95.55, Introduction of Amateur Built (Experimental), 544 kg MTOW. This was the start of a membership number increase, which has continued until the present day. There was a spike in the accident rate 2002/2003, (almost parallel to the increase in participant numbers), however a perusal of the accidents does not reveal any obvious pattern. They appear to be random events and since then, the trend is once again showing a continuing improvement in safety. The introduction of 544 kg. has allowed the use of four stroke engines and the legal carriage of both extra fuel and passengers.

Ø 2006 CAO 95.55, Introduction of LSA 600 kg. MTOW.

Ø 2006 Introduction of RA-Aus formalised Accident Investigator Training.

Ø 2007 Introduction of Human Factor Training to RA-Aus Instructors.

Ø 2008 Mandatory introduction of Human Factor Training for all Pilots, Instructors and Students.

In the 25 years that RA-Aus/AUF have been keeping records, no member of the public outside the aircraft has suffered any injury caused by an RA-Aus registered aircraft.

This graph is based on an average of 25,000 Class two medicals for both 2005 and 2006 and 6000 RA-Aus members in 2005 and 7000 in 2006.

2005 Private& Business Fatalities = 13 Source ATSB web

ratio 25000: 6000= 24%

24% of 13 = 3.1

2006 Private & Business Fatalities= 20 Source ATSB web

ratio 25000: 7000= 28%

28% of 20 = 5.6

Note:

The use of fixed wing statistics rather than including weight shift statistics is to use similar types of aircraft to get a fair comparison and is based on CASA 1988 Regulations, which delineate between the two groups for licensing purposes. (Group A and Group B ultralights) 2007 -2008 statistics on class 2 medicals was not available at the time of writing.

It should also be remembered that members of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. members are informed participants in their chosen activity. Thus meaning that any participation is under taken at their own risk and that they are aware that the operation of aircraft involves and element of danger.

In the opinion of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. an increase in the MTOW from 600kg to 760kg mitigated by the limitations of 2 occupants only, a stall speed of 45kts in the takeoff configuration and being limited to Day VFR conditions in the opinion of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. does not constitute an increase in risk to the Australian Public or indeed to RA-Aus members themselves. In fact, the greater useable payload that the aircraft is able to legally carry can in fact increase safety in terms of greater carriage of safety related systems (Ballistic Rocket Systems), emergency rations and safety equipment, not to mention the safety benefits of increased range.

Conclusion

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. supports Option 3a without any changes. RA-Aus believes that this option gives the maximum amount of flexibility, authority and autonomy to an RAAO to administer recreational aircraft up to 760kg MTOW.

Option 3a also enables Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. to carry out administration of aircraft up to 760kg MTOW using its current practices, without altering operational procedure to administer aircraft between 600-760kg MTOW under Part 91.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. proudly supports the view that past increases in MTOW that have been granted to AUF/RA-Aus over the 25 year history of the organisation have systematically enabled greater safety and personal freedoms to many RA-Aus members. Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. regards the weight increase to 760kg MTOW as a further extension of this safety and personal freedom to our membership, whilst giving a section of traditional General Aviation the choice of administration.

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. has established itself as a capable leader in aviation self administration of aviation in Australia and looks forward to the challenges and safety benefits that administration of aircraft up to 760kg MTOW will bring.

In testament of the anticipated safety benefits of the increase to 760kg MTOW, attached as per CASA’s request, is a listing of members that agree with the position of RA-Aus in relation to the weight increase to 760kg. This listing is supplied to assist CASA in the correlation of the results of the DP from RA-Aus and is in addition to the hundreds of responses already received by CASA.

Lee Ungermann

CEO

Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

New rules for pilots operating at non-controlled aerodromes
New rules relating to minimum required calls by pilots operating at and in the vicinity of all non-controlled aerodromes will be finalised and introduced in the first quarter of 2009.

The rules will replace current regulations which stipulate mandatory calls at designated non-controlled aerodromes, known as CTAF® aerodromes, and for straight-in approaches at all non-controlled aerodromes.

The rules will ensure pilots of radio-equipped aircraft operating at and in the vicinity of all non-controlled aerodromes make the radio broadcasts that are necessary to ensure ongoing safety.

These rules will be designed to establish safety outcomes and provide consistency in radio use. The decision to finalise these rules has been made following extensive consultation with members of the aviation industry and a thorough analysis of current operating arrangements.

The decision also follows recommendations made by a study commissioned by the Office of Airspace Regulation to look at the relative safety benefits of CTAF versus CTAF®.

The study has made several recommendations pertaining to operations at non-controlled aerodromes, including the recommendation that a limited number of radio calls be mandated.

The CASR Part 91 Control Board was also asked to review recommendations relating to radio calls, made as part of a National Airspace System (NAS) 2c post -implementation review conducted in 2006 to provide advice to CASA on what radio calls should be made.

CASA also sought advice from the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) through two sub-committees: the Operational Standards Sub-committee and the Airspace and Infrastructure Users Group.

CASA’s priority is the safety of passenger transport operations. CASA is confident the decision to mandate minimum required radio calls in the regulations will provide guidance and consistency to pilots and ensure passenger safety is maintained.

From early 2009, pilots of radio equipped aircraft will be required to make the radio calls that are necessary for safety purposes when operating at or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome.

At a minimum, radio calls will be required:

When the aircraft enters the "vicinity of an aerodrome"
Immediately before joining the circuit pattern or, in the case of a straight-in approach, at least 5 nm from the threshold of the runway
Immediately before, or during, taxiing
Immediately before entering a runway.
Regarding aircraft that are operating in the “vicinity of an aerodrome,” a call will be required at 10 nm or eight minutes flying time from the aerodrome, whichever occurs first.

This rule will apply not only to aircraft that are inbound to the aerodrome, but also to aircraft that are overflying the aerodrome or simply transiting through this airspace, if the aerodrome is depicted in the aeronautical charts and the aircraft is flying at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome traffic.

The regulations, aeronautical information publications and industry education publications will all be updated to ensure they contain consistent requirements and advice on radio broadcasts at non-controlled aerodromes.

A Notice of Final Rule Making (NFRM) will be issued as soon as legal drafting can be completed, with the expectation that the new rules will be introduced in early 2009.

CASA will provide extensive training and education for pilots on the new rules, prior to their introduction.

Also, feedback is now sought from industry on the remainder of the recommendations from the CTAF versus CTAF® study. Written comments on those recommendations are sought by Monday, 1 December, 2008.

You can contribute your feedback either by e-mail to: info_oar@casa.gov.au or to The Office of Airspace Regulation, GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601.

The RA-Aus had a display at the Amberley Airshow on the weekend of October 4th and 5th. We had an excellent position right in front of the control tower and at this stage I don't know the gate figures but I would estimate about 80,000 people were at the airshow.

We had a very special VIP visit us, and not only learn who we were and what we did but showed an interest in some of our aircraft. Above is Air Vice Marshall Mark Skidmore, Air commander Australia, trying out a Tecnam for size

Our display site before the gates were opened

Our display area after the gates were opened

New Technical Manager Steve Bell at the RA-Aus tent. In the background on the right is the President of the Flying Tigers at Boonah, Brian Melbourne

The RA-Aus display tent

Our high wing aircraft provided a shaded viewing platform for some of the public

We were able to fit in 6 aircraft and our display tent into our allocated plot.

A special thanks to the Boonah pilots who helped man the stand, and answer the thousands of questions from the public.

New RA-Aus President. - The RA-Aus has a new President. Eugene Reid from Tasmania. Eugene is not new to the Job having spent a number of years as President in the past.

Changes to CAO's

Project OS 08/13
Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO

CASA are going to bring forward some of the privileges we were to get in Part 103.

The main items for us are access to CTA/Restricted airspace, and the removal of the 5,000 ceiling for RA-Aus aircraft.

The HGFA will also get access to airspace above 10,000 ft for their hang gliders (provided they are on O2) , thus giving them privileges similar to the GFA

I took my first trip to Oshkosh this year, absolutely amazing, but that is another story.

While there I went to a presentation by the FAA on ADSB. First I was surprised by the poor attendance at the presentation and I can offer no explanation why this would be so. Perhaps Americans are apathetic, perhaps they think 2020 is a long way away, or perhaps they don't understand the term "The devil is in the detail"

The FAA and other authorities are well into the roll out with contracts for ground stations signed and work progressing. The FAA asked for industry and pilot submissions and feedback and received over a 90 % NEGATIVE response. But as the roll out was so far advanced I personally got the distinct impression that this "consultation process" was purely only lip service so they could claim "We consulted with pilots and the industry" After the presentation I personally went up to the FAA presenter and talked to him privately. I asked him were there concerns about the extremely negative response. He told me "NO". He said there were 1271 negative and 101 positive submissions. He said they expected much more. Perhaps the American GA pilot fraternity may regret not responding more aggressively on this in the future. It could also be that, say an organization like the EAA with tens of thousands of members responded in the negative, and the FAA classed this as one negative response.

Now to the technical side of things. There are good and bad here. The "good" is this will not become compulsory until 2020 and like in Australia only the uplink (out) will become compulsory. It will only become compulsory above 10,000 ft and it will only apply to "high usage" airports listed in their document 41 CFR part 91

Now the bad. The compulsory (out) must be TSO'd (certified) and maintained by certificated technitions. It must be hard wired (with seal?) and must not be able to be turned off by the pilot. The current cost of available units by approved manufactures (Garmin being one) is US$10,000 PLUS instillation. Instillation alone is many thousands of dollars.

ADSB is to be considered a "primary" and it will also be compulsory to keep and maintain a "secondary" mode C transponder. New aircraft, or those wanting to fly in the ADSB airspace must fit and maintain both ADSB out and Mode C.

Also the current control "steps" will go and a wall will drop down from 10,000 feet to the surface with a radius of 30 miles. Here is some of that "devil in the detail" Those pilots who think they will be able to fly around the US at 1,000 to 5,000 ft and stay out of ADSB airspace by flying under the steps are in for a big shock. If you look at a US aviation chart and put a 30 mile radius around their "RPT" type airports you don't get much "free" airspace left, except in the desert, and the military have a big chunk of that.

Now for the "conspiracy people." Currently there is a big push in the US for "user fees" The Government wants to charge a $25 per flight user fee. This is being strongly resisted by the GA people and is currently held up in Congress and the Senate, but not defeated. President Bush has threatened a veto if some form of user fee on GA is not passed. With ADSB that can't be turned off their Airservices people will be able to not only charge a per flight fee but also a charge per mile fee. As the safety factor for pilots is the "IN" component, the conspiracy people may have a point here in that this is all about tax revenue and surveillance.

Everyone I spoke to including the FAA people privately acknowledge that the primary reason for ADSB is surveillance and income generation, and cost saving on new Radars.

The "conspiracy people" also believe (and this is something I never considered myself before) that it will allow the different US Government agencies to make extensive use of UAV's to fly all all over the US. For what purpose I am not sure.

I also saw ADSB "IN" working. You can currently buy ADSB IN and OUT for $20,000 However the manufactures said that the "IN" component will get very cheap due to competition and the fact that it doesn't have to be certified. It seems to me that if it has to be certified it becomes a license for the manufactures to print money. The massive extra amount they charge for a certified product seems to me, way out of proportion to the extra work of compliance.

We must be very vigilant here in Australia and be prepared to be very political. Once the Government installs a tax income stream it is very hard, if not impossible, to remove. If you don't believe this consider how hard it would be to get the State Governments to remove speed cameras where they are shown to have no safety benefit.

John McKeown

Hi All,

All RA-Aus members will soon be getting a CD copy of the new Ops. and Technical Manual with the July Magazine. Included will be a "Bonus Section" of John Brandon's excellent Tutorials, an electronic version of AC43.13 "Aircraft Inspection, Repairs and Alterations" and AC90-89A "Amateur Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook, and a copy of CASA Visual Flight Rules.

The new Ops. Manual will become effective on August 1, 2008.

PLEASE, don't ring the office about questions straight away. Even if only 10 % of members ring in that is nearly 1000 inquiries and will totally overwhelm the office staff.

We, the board and office staff copped a lot of flack by a very small minority of members by going electronic here, but we have saved your organization tens of thousands of dollars that can be better spent elsewhere, and have given you a bonus section that would be cost prohibitive to send out in printed form. If you are a special case and don't have access to a computer you can request a printed copy of the manuals only. You won't get the bonus section in print form.

A special thanks needs to go to board member Lynn Jarvis from SA who voluntary did a lot of work on the bonus section.

John McK

We all know someone, particularly Jab drivers, who complain about their cold morning start problems. Well after coming across a book by F. Potts " A Guide to Bush Flying" he has a chapter about cold starts in Alaska.

We really have it so, so easy. In fact we have it so easy, we don't even have a problem.

Extracts from "A Guide to Bush Flying"

Section I: Equipment and Environment

Part IV, Chapter 12: Preheating Equipment and Methods

Engine Compartment

“Aviation fuel is distilled with a much lower vapor pressure than automobile fuel so that during the climb to altitude engine failure will not be experienced due to vapor lock. What this means from an operational point of view is that once temperatures get down to -9 degrees C, the engine will require preheating so the fuel can properly vaporize for ignition.” (Aircraft using mogas will experience vapor lock at a much higher temperature) Take note here guys. JM

Compounding the problem, at about -21 degrees C most oils (the exceptions being synthetics like the discontinued Mobil AV-1) become too thick to lubricate the cylinders and bearings properly, and if you could manage to start your engine at this temperature (by heavy priming, or a bit of mild preheating), the wear that would take place until the oil began to flow would probably be equivalent to more than 50 hours of normal operation.

(Mike Busch, the Cessna Pilots Association's engine specialist, claims that one cold start at the lower temperature extremes can cause as much wear as 500 hours of normal cruise operation)

There are no convenient ways around these problems, and, like the FAA and taxes, they are a fact of aviation life

The best bush preheating rig is one that uses a simple old-fashioned gasoline blowtorch that can be operated on avgas taken directly from the airplane's fuel sumps

Blowtorch and stovepipe method. The equipment list for this system consists of a small fire extinguisher, one or two gasoline blowtorches, three lengths of 3" stovepipe, an insulated engine cover, and a two- or five-gallon metal gasoline can. Here is how the system works:

1. After the last flight of the day, the oil is drained from the engine into the gasoline can. Quick-drains should be installed on all airplanes in the fleet to facilitate this daily chore.

2. The can of oil is taken inside your office or home, where it is placed near the stove so it can be kept warm until needed again.

3. When the airplane is to be called into service, the can of oil, with the lid removed, is placed on top of the stove and heated to about 122 degrees F/50 degrees C.

4. While the oil is warming, take the three lengths of 3" stovepipe and fasten them together. Place one end inside the engine compartment and temporarily rest the other end on the ground. The best place for the pipe to go into the Super Cub's engine compartment is on the right side by the brace to the exhaust stack. With the Cessna 180/185, it is best to drop the right cowl-flap and place the pipe there (see illustrations 28 and 31).

5. Carefully light the blowtorch away from the airplane, and when it is operating properly place the nozzle into the lower end of the stovepipe.

With the Cessna 180/185 and 206 you should use two blowtorches, and these must be placed in the same pipe (see illustration 31). Never use two pipes, one going to the right side cowl-flap and the other going to the left side cowl-flap, because of the danger that one of the blowtorches might go out, while still spraying fuel into the stovepipe. The second torch could then ignite the fuel inside the engine compartment. With both torches in the same stovepipe this danger is averted.

6. Adjust the insulated engine cover over the top and sides of the engine compartment so the right cooling air-inlet, behind the prop, is covered and the left air-inlet is open (see illustration 28). This is done to allow the heated air to pass over the engine and out the far side, taking the cold with it. Remember, heat-circulation is the name of the game. When using combustion heaters, if both air-inlets are blocked, it will take longer for the engine to reach starting temperatures.

7. When the engine is warm enough that the prop moves freely and the carburetor or fuel-injector is able to vaporize fuel correctly (about 45 minutes at -4 degrees F/-20 degrees C; 1+20 at -40 degrees F/-40 degrees C), the blowtorch(es) can be turned off and set aside to cool. At this point the hot oil is poured into the engine, three or four shots of priming are given, and the engine is turned over four to six times by hand. It is now ready to go, and should start on the first turn of the prop.

Battery

Cold also affects the battery; at seriously low temperatures it will not have enough power to start the engine. In the bush you must either remove the battery and take it inside for the night so it can be kept warm, or you must handprop the airplane for the first flight of the following day."

And we think we have it bad on cold mornings.

The RAAF are putting on an Airshow on the 4th and 5th of October. There will be a civilian component where the RA-Aus will have a presence.

Nick Sigley and I will be the organizers for the RA-Aus component, and I in particular would like anyone who has some special ideas on how we can make our group really stand out to pass them on to me on. (0438728311) or send me an email.

John McKeown

Gold Coast Sports Flying Club

The Gold Coast Sports Flying Club, Heck Field, Jacob's Well, we would like to invite you and those around you that may be interested, to a CASA presentation that is being held on Saturday the 31st of May. Safety topics to be covered are operations at non-towered aerodromes and situational awareness, areas that we all need to be familiar with. The seminar will start at 11:30 am and will be presented by a number of aviation safety advisors including Charles Galea. Mike Poole, the Recreational Aviation Australia Operations Manager is also planning to attend subject to the vagaries of his position.

For those who are driving, the venue is located at 1638 Jacob's Well Road and for flyers, Heck Field is situated just south of the Jacob's Well (JCW) VOR and is displayed on both the Brisbane and Gold Coast VTCs. Runways directions are 10/28 and 18/36. On the Sunday there will also be a get together and BBQ commencing at 9:30 am. If you are thinking of coming (on either day) or for further details, please contact the club president, Peter Johnstone on 0430 466 288 or kityhawk@iprimus.com.au . The clubs website, containing some aerodrome information is www.gcsfc.org.au . While I realise that many may not be able to make the journey due to distance or other commitments please pass the message on those who can.

Our Operations Manager Mick Poole will also be in attendance.

Hi All,

The new Ops. manual is now at CD proof read stage, and all going well CD's will be burned and sent out with the July Magazine.

Mick Poole has declared August 1st as the implementation date baring unforeseen problems.

There will be a realistic "Grandfather" period for people who have been training under the old Ops. manual. (eg the new cross country increase from 5 to 10 hours.)

John McK

I thought members may be interested in some numbers and ratios.

The Government body CASA look after approx 11,000 pilots in Australia. These include ATPL, CPL, and PPL. pilots. To do this they have a staff of approx. 600 people. This is a ratio of 18:1. Pilots as to admin.

The RA-Aus look after approx 9,000 recreational pilots, and do this with a staff of 10. This is a ratio of 900:1

Interesting numbers aren't they?

I truly believe our day to day administration is is far more efficient than any other, but if you have some issue that is not the norm, please look at these ratios and consider cutting the people in Canberra and your elected members a little slack. There are some things in the past we could have done better, but we are trying to do things better month by month, and every year we become a little more professional than the past year.

There is a problem appearing in Rotax 912 engines with flickering oil pressure. Three aircraft at my home airfield at Boonah had the problem.

Rotax Australia has appeared, from statements to me by owners, to be somewhat unhelpful in this regard telling the owners the only problem is at Boonah when in fact there have been other reports around Australia of the same problem. Owners have been told all sorts of very expensive fixes including "buy and install a new oil pump"

There are two very experienced engine guys on the field at Boonah and to them the problem is not unique, and easily fixed. The problem is just a weak relief spring (probably a bad batch of outsourced springs), and is easily fixed with some shims. The Rotax factory actually have a shim kit to fix this problem, but people locally have been told to spend bulk dollars on a new oil pump.

One of our members (with air force hydraulic training and experience) and in consultation with one of our very experienced mechanics, fixed his problem by going to the local hardware store and buying a pack of small stainless steel washers to use as shims. Two little washers fixed his problem.

( I will ask M. and B. if they will write a technical explanation to post here)

18/3/08

Mr Peter Cromarty
General Manager
Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Dear Peter,

RE: Establishment of CTAF (R)
In the past RA-Aus has been a firm supporter of the consultative process undertaken by Airservices Australia and the AERU team with regard to changes of airspace and indeed changes to CTAF(R)s.

RA-Aus also supported the formation of the OAR as we believed that the service provider should not be the regulator as well. However recent events with regard to the OAR’s ‘Blanket’ creation of CTAF(R)s at all Passenger Transport Operation(PTO) Aerodromes have directly shaken our confidence in the consultation process demonstrated by the OAR.

RA-Aus believes that this unilateral move by OAR will destroy years of successful industry consultation. RA-Aus and Industry incur substantial costs to attend a variety of consultative forums of which OAR is only one. If OAR is to disregard the inputs provided by industry during the consultative process than RA-Aus would be better served to take the political route in getting our viewpoint across to Government. The current move to create ‘blanket’ CTAF(R)s is in direct opposition to CASA Directive 1/2007 and also the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) for which no cost benefit or risk management process has been undertaken.

The process used by AERU successfully in the past have been essentially Option 3 and it is the only option under the present Discussion Paper(DP) that conforms to the AAPS.

We are also keenly aware of the implications of enmasse CTAF(R)s and their direct correlation to the introduction of ADS-B in the future. RA-Aus understands the desire of the airlines to mandate radio at all PTO aerodromes, however we believe that normalising deviation from the ideals of NAS (US) is creating another unique Australian Airspace System problem that NAS was introduced to alleviate.

Phone: (02) 6280 4700 Fax: (02) 6280 4775 E-mail: admin@raa.asn.au

VISIT US AT WWW.RAA.ASN.AU

RA-Aus believes that the perceived safety benefit increase of mandating radio at a wide number of PTO aerodromes is unreliable at best and unless OAR is responsible in their duty of care and follow the required government protocols as per the AAPS and address this subject with a risk based/cost benefit analysis method, the impact will severely affect not only current operations but also future confidence in CASA’s ability to consult with industry.

RA-Aus strongly supports Dr. Bob Hall’s letter of the 22nd of February 2008 to you on the introduction of the new CTAF(R) aerodromes and further more RA-Aus will vigorously oppose any such endeavour to mandate restrictions on current freedoms where no safety case is first demonstrated.

RA-Aus remains committed to the consultation process however finds it difficult to justify expending considerable time and money on consultation with government bodies that wish to repeal strategic directions put in place by their predecessors in order to effect outcomes different to those already agreed in principle during the consultation process.

RA-Aus does not believe that OAR is fulfilling it’s obligation as the airspace regulator if it bypasses government protocols such as the AAPS in favour of more powerful vested interests at the expense of equitable airspace access for all users.

Regards

Lee Ungermann
CEO Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.

Bruce Byron, CASA
Bob Hall, ASAC
Tim Blatch, AOPA

Hi All,

Our national fly in is on again over Easter at Narromine (20 - 23 March.) This event is of special significance this year as it marks our 25 th year of existence. If you can attend, please do so.

If you are flying in please remember to read the AIP supplement about our event H12/08.

I have also had reports that the "Cat Head Burrs" are particularly bad this year. Please take precautions.

Safe Flying,

John

Friday, September 18, 2009

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Friday, April 17, 2009

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Monday, January 19, 2009

Monday, December 29, 2008

Monday, November 10, 2008

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Friday, September 26, 2008

Project OS 08/13Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Friday, May 30, 2008

Section I: Equipment and Environment

Part IV, Chapter 12: Preheating Equipment and Methods

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Monday, April 28, 2008

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Friday, March 7, 2008

Aviation Links

Blog Archive

Project OS 08/13
Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO