172 Take off and Landing Charts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest that the regulatory harmonisation process was not about CASA's liability at all but a consequence of studies which concluded that the benefits to be had by removing local differences were a valuable goal.
1. Local differences.
Who is affected? Theoretically us. If you train under that system, then it makes not one iota of difference to you, as it is what you have always known. For a foreign pilot, if they want to convert their licences, then they would have to learn it, same as we would have to learn stuff if we moved to their country.
2. Valuable Goal.
You probably hit the nail on the head there. CASA just wiped out half a dozen jobs and a whole department. probably saved em 400-600k per year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Of interest, the old DCA charts are still the ones you teach for PPL and CPL (A)
I seriously think CASA have lost the plot on this item of imperative operational info.
Moderator
It's going back a while now but my recollection is that Ron Yates' report in the 80s was the catalyst for the whole exercise.
Piloting was only a small part of the exercise, I suggest.
As to savings, that may well have been a consideration ...
Piloting was only a small part of the exercise, I suggest.
As to savings, that may well have been a consideration ...
jaz24zzk,
I am amazed at the statement in one post by somebody, that CASA still uses the old DCA charts in the training syllabus.
As to "safety" matters, the US has a darned sight better safety record than we have, why are using out of date and no longer legal charts going to improve "safety".
If there is an incident or accident, CASA takes a very dim view of using unapproved data --- even having it in the aircraft is taken as proof enough, as several pilots/owners have found out the hard way since 1998.
Several reasons why you can't use them operationally:
1) The legislation which authorized them has long since been repealed. They are legally uncertified data.
2) The AFM, part of the basic type certification of the aircraft (and not an "Australian" manual produced as part of an Australia certification to unique Australian rules) is the document you are obliged by law to use, see Part 21 and CAR 138.
Under CASA's power to issue a direction, they can enforce the "factors".
Why does CASA "allow" differences for PVT versus the others? Simply because, clear across the regulatory structure, we apply more stringent standards, the greater the consequences of something coming unstuck.
If it were to be one size fits all, why not the same pilot license for all, after all, one way and another, pilots are at the heart of a very large proportion of accidents ---- A minimum of an ATPL for all would be the way to go for PVT operations, wouldn't it.
As a general rule of thumb, if I haven't got at least double the figure I get out of the AFM available, I give the intended operation very careful consideration. And I did have UK ARB flight test (not experimental test) approval for aircraft <12,500lb, back in the good old days.
John T,
Have you ever had a close look at the old UK ARB/BCAR test standards, versus the various iterations of the FAA Flight Test Guides and various amendment levels of , say, FAR 25.
In short, the poms allowed for a considerable spread of pilot ability, but then only applies small factors. The FAA approach, staring of with TP standards of flying, then applied big factors (eg: landing 60/40) ----- in the end the actual performance figures were much the same, except for the poms approach to Vmcg limited V1's in a cross wind, and it effect on balanced field lengths. As a result, a BA 747 essentially can't use 27 at YMML at light weights with any crosswind, even with a howling south/westerly, they have to accept the x-wind on 16.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I am reminded of the number of aircraft DCA seriously damaged or wrote of conducting "certification flight tests" to the old rules. Remember the Riviera still on the bottom of Pittwater , the Merlin at Mangalore, several Aero Commanders, etc.
I am amazed at the statement in one post by somebody, that CASA still uses the old DCA charts in the training syllabus.
As to "safety" matters, the US has a darned sight better safety record than we have, why are using out of date and no longer legal charts going to improve "safety".
If there is an incident or accident, CASA takes a very dim view of using unapproved data --- even having it in the aircraft is taken as proof enough, as several pilots/owners have found out the hard way since 1998.
Several reasons why you can't use them operationally:
1) The legislation which authorized them has long since been repealed. They are legally uncertified data.
2) The AFM, part of the basic type certification of the aircraft (and not an "Australian" manual produced as part of an Australia certification to unique Australian rules) is the document you are obliged by law to use, see Part 21 and CAR 138.
Under CASA's power to issue a direction, they can enforce the "factors".
Why does CASA "allow" differences for PVT versus the others? Simply because, clear across the regulatory structure, we apply more stringent standards, the greater the consequences of something coming unstuck.
If it were to be one size fits all, why not the same pilot license for all, after all, one way and another, pilots are at the heart of a very large proportion of accidents ---- A minimum of an ATPL for all would be the way to go for PVT operations, wouldn't it.
As a general rule of thumb, if I haven't got at least double the figure I get out of the AFM available, I give the intended operation very careful consideration. And I did have UK ARB flight test (not experimental test) approval for aircraft <12,500lb, back in the good old days.
John T,
Have you ever had a close look at the old UK ARB/BCAR test standards, versus the various iterations of the FAA Flight Test Guides and various amendment levels of , say, FAR 25.
In short, the poms allowed for a considerable spread of pilot ability, but then only applies small factors. The FAA approach, staring of with TP standards of flying, then applied big factors (eg: landing 60/40) ----- in the end the actual performance figures were much the same, except for the poms approach to Vmcg limited V1's in a cross wind, and it effect on balanced field lengths. As a result, a BA 747 essentially can't use 27 at YMML at light weights with any crosswind, even with a howling south/westerly, they have to accept the x-wind on 16.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I am reminded of the number of aircraft DCA seriously damaged or wrote of conducting "certification flight tests" to the old rules. Remember the Riviera still on the bottom of Pittwater , the Merlin at Mangalore, several Aero Commanders, etc.
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Oct 2012 at 15:00.
