The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

No More KingAir Endorsements

Old 22nd Dec 2016, 10:53
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I sympathise with the costs of getting crews to Melbourne, but reread this. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3546615/ao-2010-019.pdf
That report is far closer to home to me than most..........SIM is worth it.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 11:39
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry for your connection Jab.

The SIM worth it! well in this companies case yes as they were transitioning to the SIM.


* A Braz is a larger aircraft, above 5700kg but most importantly a 2 crew.

So instantly we have 2 people doing 3 jobs - justification alone for SIM training.

If this training flight had zero thrust selected, chances are current requirements would only include all RPT above 5700 kg to require SIM training.


A small aircraft with single crew operation can and has safely carried out such training for many years in Australia and in fact the World.

To reiterate I agree 100% with SIM training requirements on multi crew aircraft.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 12:06
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The progress made by CASA and the aviation industry toward the mandatory use of simulators for non-normal flying training and proficiency checks in larger aircraft is commendable. The introduction of regulations that mandate the use of simulator training has the potential to eliminate asymmetric training accidents in these types of aircraft.
Notwithstanding, the need remains for in-flight asymmetric training in those aircraft types where there is no suitable simulator-based alternative. In those circumstances, -provided appropriate operator procedures are in place and followed, and pilots are alert to the potential hazards, simulated engine failures and asymmetric flight should not present unacceptable risks.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 03:22
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Air North VH-MMA DC-3 ... Reregistered as VH-CAN - August 9, 1950 ... utilisedfor tourist flights throughout the Northern Territory - seating 25 passengers.


Now owned by Hardy Aviation

March 19, 2016

Dick Verburg and his colleagues at Multi Pilot Simulations based inGoenekan in the Netherlands saw an opportunity to provide a viable way fortoday’s DC-3 pilots to train realistically, with her shell serving as thefoundation for a state-of-the-art flight simulator. Verburg anticipates finalapproval shortly from the Dutch aviation authority.


Multi Pilot Simulations


Hope nobody in Norfolk Island invests in a C441 simulator (would certainly increase the Islands GDP), then set up a C404 simulator for kicks on Christmas Island.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 03:55
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
saw an opportunity to provide a viable way fortoday’s DC-3 pilots to train realistically, with her shell serving as thefoundation for a state-of-the-art flight simulator.
Realistic training means the operator should supply a small phial of real hydraulic fluid as part of the type rating. The smell of hydraulic oil as you enter the cockpit is a characteristic of all DC3's. Or used to be in my time.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 06:25
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A DC 3 makes up the shell of this SIM, and it is impossible to get rid of that smell
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 07:11
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not have a B200 type rating or endorsement rating or class rating or another type of rating, but I have about 150 hours PIC on type, all legally logged on ferry operations.
In those days you got the flight manual and POH, read things up, sat in the aircraft for a while familiarising yourself then went flying. I look through my Dad's old WW11 logbooks and salivate over all the old types he flew, tossed a few pages of notes to read, hop in and fly.
Commercial ops, different thing, but a sensible operator will make sure their troops are competent before letting them loose in an expensive piece of machinery.
I wonder what all this new BUMF stuff is trying to fix?
All the years I've spent training I cannot think of one instance where I had to assume control because a candidate was going to kill me.
In the US the best risk managers on the planet dictate what is required before they will insure an aircraft. Simple, quick, cost effective, safe. Without one size fits all complicated expensive regulation that serve no safety purpose.
Too many people with vested interest including the regulator.
Whats the old saying? "never give sucker an even break" CAsA is playing the industry for suckers.

Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Dec 2016 at 07:22.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 07:38
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok is the 1900 "out of norm training" exempt because no sim in Australia (maybe since there is one now - but not my point) but the B200 is as Type Data Cert states seating - and 1900 has same Type Data Cert # as the 200.

These are from TCD and a short search on CASA sim requirement on (seats/passengers)

My interp is the 1900D has seating for 21 as per TDC, it requires only 1 crew. That leaves 20 pax seats.

Seating includes crew - under any of the TDC's passenger numbers is not listed only seats and min crew.

---

The Beech 1900D is the evolutionarydescendant of the Beech 200, which was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)30 years ago. In the intervening period, the airplane grew through variousmodels, raising a fundamental question: at what point has the aircraft been somodified that it should be treated for certification purposes as a new design?The Beech 200 and the Beech 1900D both share the same FAAtype certificate number:

Model200, Model A200C, Model 200C, Model B200, Model B200C (cont’d)
No. of Seats and Maximum 15(including crew at +129). See loading instructions in Pilot's
Cabin Loading Operating Handbook for approvedseating and cargo configurations.
Model 1900D,Airliner, 21 PCLM (Commuter Category), Approved March 19, 1991
Minimum Crew One pilot
No.of Seats and Maximum 21 (including crew at +129). See loading instructions inPilot's
Cabin Loading Operating Handbook for approvedseating and cargo configurations.
NOTE 7. With passenger seating of10 or more, the airplane must be equipped with the following:
1. The 8 cabin seats in the doubleclub cabin arrangement must be of the narrow back configuration,
part numbers 130-530074-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7,or -11, -9, or -12.
For aeroplanes and helicopters certificated to carry 20 or more passengers,or
with a MTOW of greater than 8,618kg, and where an appropriately qualified flight
simulator or FTD is available inAustralia or overseas, any non-normal exercise must not
be performed in the actual aircraft.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 05:09
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Gondwanaland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by drpixie
FutureFO - you're right, nobody does a B200 type rating anymore ... because it hasn't existed for the last couple of years, the B200 is covered by the multi-class rating

All that's required is some "training" and a flight review in the aircraft. So CASA did a few helpful things with part 61 (though I doubt it's been worth the fuss.)
Assume in reference to the PDF regulation reform.

"You cannot fly these types unless you have completed flight training and a flight review in that type. A flight test with a flight examiner is not required."

Does this mean any CAR 217 org can supply the training and it seems no minimums in hours are listed? So assume do a PT6 course and just call any org with 217 to do some sim and 3hrs and be ticked off, or does it have to be a flight training org?. So vague in their explanations/ descriptions.
FutureFO is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 11:42
  #70 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 1,471
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
org with 217
217 only applies to employees of that organisation.
601 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.