Tasmania Australia South Coast

I live near the East coast of Australia and have flown the 9A to the North coast the West coast and now the South coast of Australia.
A friend and I decided to walk the 9 day, somewhat challenging (for two 60 year olds) Tasmania South Coast Track. Naturally our transport there would be the 9A.
Left my home in Northern NSW, picked up my passenger in Orange and stayed overnight with a friend in Albury who is building an RV10. Then to Hobart the next day. Melbourne is the city (yellow) to the west of our track



Soon after leaving Albury, IFR at 9,000ft looking to the east towards the Snowy Mountains the highest land in Australia (7,310ft).



The Roaring Forties were working. We went over Bass Strait at 10,000ft with a moderate tail wind which increased into a 54kt direct crosswind down the East coast of Tasmania. No turbulence but we were in the lee of the Tasmanian Highlands and experienced extended periods of strong down draughts with the IAS dropping considerably as the AP held height.



"Hobart International Airport" after descending through about 5,000ft of cloud. Very friendly airport. The controller welcomed me to Tasmania and we had a discussion about the walk we were going to do.



The South Coast Track is in a National Park in a pristine World Heritage wilderness area. There are no roads and the only practical way in is by aircraft.

Melaleuca (Bathurst Harbour) airstrip 420 metres, at the start of the track. You may just see a parked Cessna 206.



Flew there in a Britten Norman Islander.



More to come!

Fin
9A

We were in a group of ten plus two guides. The South Coast Track goes through magnificent pristine wilderness and is considered one of the toughest walks you can do in Australia unless you are into mountaineering. Possible extreme weather, heavy packs, long days, big climb, treacherous path, leech capital of Australia and mud mud mud.
Below are some photos of the track. Not RV related but its such a unique part of the world that hopefully the moderators will indulge me!



Next landmass to the south is Antarctica.







In some places the mud holes were waist deep!







One of the guides got a gastric bug and was unable to continue. No roads so the only way out for him was the rescue helicopter. Single pilot IFR, autopilot etc. Dual 430w's soon to be replaced with GTN 650's.



Next flying the south and southwest coast.

Fin

The day of departure showed marginal VFR conditions so I filed a detailed VFR plan via the South and Southwestern coasts of Tasmania to Flinders Island with the comfort that I could upgrade to IFR if the weather deteriorated. Much of the area is sensitive World Heritage listed and there are Fly Neighbourly procedures that should be followed.



Hobart



South East Cape



The South Coast of Tasmania



Beach where the rescue helicopter landed. We camped near the river.



The "track" here followed the outside bend of the creek and was mostly underwater. All the creeks/rivers are a brown/ tannin colour from the button grass peat plains but the water is otherwise very pure and drinkable.



The 1,000 metre Ironbound Range that we climbed and a beach we walked along.





Next the South West Coast.

Fin

Thanks for sharing. We should start an Rv exchange program where you fly commercial to a remote part of the world and trade rvs with someone for a couple weeks

Southwest Coast

Looking inland. We had planned to track somewhat inland from the coast but it was non VFR so we followed the coast where the weather was better.



No chatter on the radio, no radar coverage and presumeably no ADSB coverage but I had Spidertracks (on the dash) activated.



The South West coast, like the South coast has no roads, buildings or people living there. The only sign of human activity is the occassional walking track for the really adventurous.



Approaching Macquarie Harbour with the town of Strahan a bit further on.
Sarah Island in Macquarie Harbour was a penal station for convicts from England between 1822 and 1833. Very harsh conditions but no real worry about escapees as there was nowhere to escape to except the inhospitable and virtually impeneterable wilderness.



Strahan on the West coast. Well worth a visit if you are in Tasmania



Now heading NE and inland.



Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair national Park. Well worth a day visit and the start of the stunning 65 km, 6 day Overland Track.



Landing at Flinders Island just off the NE corner of Tasmania. We stayed here for two nights mainly recovering from the walk!



Over Bass Strait IFR at 10,000ft on the way home. OAT was -4 degrees C but I was able to stay above the cloud and the forecast and actual weather ahead was clear.



The 9A. What a machine!!



Fin
9A

Finley Atherton said:

All the creeks/rivers are a brown/ tannin colour from the button grass peat plains but the water is otherwise very pure and drinkable.

Fin

Click to expand...

Maybe not for the guide who picked up the gastric bug.

Jokes aside, great pix and good recounting of a memorable trip Fin. I have flown that Tasmanian SW remote area a number of times and no photos really do it justice. It's really quite an experience. It's also quite formidable and I found myself out of radio range at times. A few beaches aside, it would not be a good place for an emergency landing. I certainly wouldn't be flying down there with an auto conversion power plant. You need a good ol' Lyc to go into that place with any confidence.

I'm a bit interested in your "IFR" panel. My understanding is that in Australia you need have TSOd flight instruments to fly IFR. You can see CASA's requirements in CASA Project CS 13/01 (Clarification of certification requirements for instruments and equipment used in Australian Aircraft). See here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101318

I think you might find that the Dynon Skyview is not TSO'd and therefore does not comply with current requirements for IFR flight in Australia.

That of course could have ramifications with the Regulator and possibly an insurer in the event of an insurance claim. Just a head's up.

Great photos Fin,
I have spent a lot of time in Tassie walking, cycling and sailing, but not in the RV yet.. I'll get around to it.

Bob,
My understanding is that CASA project 13/01 is still active and hence there has been no amendment to 20.18 or directives regarding "approved" instrumentation.

I'd say that a good percentage if not the majority of experimentals in Aus with IFR CofAs don't have TSOd primary flight instruments, and they do not require them as the rules currently stand.

Hopefully sense prevails and the excellent safety case put forward by SAAA is taken into account in the final rule making. I see they used some common sense for (N)VFR and the use of EFIS with the last 20.18 rewrite.


Cheers

Captain Avgas said:

I'm a bit interested in your "IFR" panel. My understanding is that in Australia you need have TSOd flight instruments to fly IFR. You can see CASA's requirements in CASA Project CS 13/01 (Clarification of certification requirements for instruments and equipment used in Australian Aircraft). See here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101318

I think you might find that the Dynon Skyview is not TSO'd and therefore does not comply with current requirements for IFR flight in Australia.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob,
Who knows what CASA is thinking. My understanding is that the CASA Project is a "works in progress" and a final determination/clarification/recommendation has not been made.

My RV was put into the IFR category well after the CASA Project was announced. The well known and respected AP that put my RV into IFR discussed the instrument requirements directly with the appropriate person from CASA who specified that I must add a TSO altimeter and ASI. I have a second non TSO EFIS so I now have three altimeters and three airspeed indicators!
So I have met the requirements as specified by CASA and I have a reliable system with backups that I won't be changing till CASA tells me otherwise.

Fin
9A

Wow

Fin,

What a great writeup, and the photos are tremendous. Looks like you guys had a great time. I have always wanted to visit Australia and Tasmania. Your writeup really renewed my interest. Keep the reports coming.

Geoff

Great trip write-up and photos. Looking forward to making a trip to Tassie myself one day. It's a long way from WA, but it would be a great experience.

Tasmania

We will be visiting Tasmania in early March with our daughter and son-in-law. Any suggestions for can't miss places or RVers? We'd appreciate any and all input. Thanks!

Hi Finley,

Great to see that rugged coast, as a VFR pilot, we where limited on many a occasions by cloud when we tried to explore the cradle mountain and west coast ares on our last trip.

Thanks for sharing.

Cheers

Fair Dinkum!

Finley Atherton said:

Melaleuca (Bathurst Harbour) airstrip 420 metres, at the start of the track. You may just see a parked Cessna 206.

[/IMG]

Flew there in a Britten Norman Islander.

[/IMG]

More to come!

Fin
9A

Click to expand...

G'day Fin,
GREAT report and a grand adventure for sure!
Curious, why didn't you land at Bathurst Harbour? 420 meters is no worries for any RV or Rocket especially with no obstacles. It's duck soup for a Nine...

Thanks again for pushing the envelope of cool posts, and yes it's RV related!
V/R
Smokey

eddieseve said:

Hi Finley,

Great to see that rugged coast, as a VFR pilot, we where limited on many a occasions by cloud when we tried to explore the cradle mountain and west coast ares on our last trip.

Click to expand...

Hi Eddie,

We were lucky with the weather but I get the impression that it is often VMC on or just off the coast when the inland is non VMC. The day that Par Avion flew us to the start of the track looked non VFR to me but they went coastal VFR rather than their normal VFR inland route. Still the pucker factor would be very high heading off coastal VFR in those conditions without local knowledge!

We enjoyed looking around Flinders Island. Your trip there sometime ago was the inspiration.

Fin

smokyray said:

Curious, why didn't you land at Bathurst Harbour? 420 meters is no worries for any RV or Rocket especially with no obstacles. It's duck soup for a Nine...

Click to expand...

Hi Smokey,

It would have been no worries landing there but it was just not practical to do so.
The track finishes at Cockle Creek about 85km away so I would have to pay for an airfare to get back to Bathurst Harbour to get the RV. The cost of the guided walk included the airfare to Bathurst harbour and I think it was more appropriate to be part of the group.
Local knowledge would be needed as Bathurst Harbour airstrip is subject to extreme weather, gale force winds and severe turbulence. Visiting pilots are required to be checked out by the CFI of the company that flew us there before using the airstrip.
Plus no way would I leave my pride and joy parked in the middle of nowhere for 10 days with possible gale force winds!

Fin

Bloody oath!

Fin,
Yep, figured as much. Thanks for sharing!

V/R
Smokey
www.maf.org


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m8mSye72Wgg

Fantastic write up and amazing coincidence

I just got back (yesterday) from doing the Overland Track, checked onto the web and found your story. Now I need to go back and do the South Coast Track...but doubt if my RV10 can get there from here (California). I wore my Van's hat while in Tassie but no contact.

Great report and pics! Thanks a lot for sharing.

Facts

Tasmania is smaller than Indiana, but larger than Maine

chazking said:

Tasmania is smaller than Indiana, but larger than Maine

Click to expand...

I almost matched the Tasmania perimeter today I wish weather was better.
Great write up Finley thanks!

Hi bill,

Here is a good start for you;

http://www.tasmaniatopten.com/lists/tasmanian_attractions.php

Bill Dicus said:

We will be visiting Tasmania in early March with our daughter and son-in-law. Any suggestions for can't miss places or RVers? We'd appreciate any and all input. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Cheers

Bill Dicus said:

We will be visiting Tasmania in early March with our daughter and son-in-law. Any suggestions for can't miss places or RVers? We'd appreciate any and all input. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Bill,

I live 10 minutes from Hobart airport, and have an RV-10 build underway. Check your PM for my phone number and contact details, give me a call sometime.

bob888 said:

I just got back (yesterday) from doing the Overland Track, checked onto the web and found your story. Now I need to go back and do the South Coast Track...but doubt if my RV10 can get there from here (California). I wore my Van's hat while in Tassie but no contact.

Click to expand...

You should have been with us on the South Coast Track instead. What could be better? In the wilderness and talking RVs for 9 days!

If you handled the Overland Track OK and are looking for the next challenge and don't mind "roughing it" a bit then come back and do the South Coast Track. All World Heritage Wilderness area so you can't use soap and the toilets take a bit of getting used to!



Fin

Thanks for that ref ... Great info. We're looking forward to being there. Our son in law had this place on his bucket list!

Great post Finley, thanks for sharing your trip.

Jim Fogarty
RV-9A Flying

Richard Connell said:

Bob,
My understanding is that CASA project 13/01 is still active and hence there has been no amendment to 20.18 or directives regarding "approved" instrumentation.

I'd say that a good percentage if not the majority of experimentals in Aus with IFR CofAs don't have TSOd primary flight instruments, and they do not require them as the rules currently stand.

Hopefully sense prevails and the excellent safety case put forward by SAAA is taken into account in the final rule making. I see they used some common sense for (N)VFR and the use of EFIS with the last 20.18 rewrite.


Cheers

Click to expand...

Richard, I believe you are misreading CS 13/01. It is in fact a clarification of the current position adopted by CASA and states that "approved" primary flight instruments are required for IFR flight. A Dynon Skyview is certainly not an approved primary instrument.

The matter is being investigated by CASA but as things now stand you effectively need TSOd flight instruments to legally fly IFR in the Experimental category in Australia. I have that information directly from CASA. It is unequivocal.

Fin says his aircraft is approved for IFR under his Certificate of Airworthiness but I doubt that is the case. Normally the C of A will say something like: "Approved for operations other than day VFR if appropriately equipped". The onus is therefore on the builder to ensure that the aircraft is in fact "appropriately equipped" in accordance with the CARs.

I hear what you are saying about some Experimental aircraft owners flying IFR in Australia without TSOd primary flight instruments. I am sure they are. But as it currently stands they are doing it illegally.

The problem for them may arise if they are involved in a ramp check, or if they are involved in an accident. In the latter case they may find that their insurer will not cover them for either hull damage or for public liability. In those circumstances permanent injuries to a passenger could have dire financial consequences well beyond the loss of the aircraft.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but I think it is important that owners of Experimental/Amateur built aircraft in Australia are clear about the current status of this matter and the possible ramifications thereof.

I think the scaremongering is a little unwarranted Bob.

Having been through this with more than one aircraft (most recently upgrading my aircraft to an IFR CofA very recently) I'm comfortable with my interpretation of my CofA, the CAR and the relevant CAO.

Are you saying that anyone who is flying without the following all TSO'd: AH/ASI/Altimeter/Compass/VSI/DG/OAT/Skid ball are operating illegally?

Because if thats the case then I'd estimate almost all bar a small few EXP A/B with IFR CofA are operating illegally.

CS 13/01, nor CASR part 91 draft, nor CAR207, nor CAO 20.18 make any reference to "primary" instruments. Its all or nothing if you take your interpretation. Your literal translation of CAR207(2) would require every single component attached to the aircraft to be "approved". Are you fitting TSO'd EIS or pitot tube?

Even CASA's own A/Ps are issuing CofA that clearly don't comply with the above.

Hence the reason for the "clarification project".

Now don't get me wrong, I can see exactly where CASA "may" end up on this one via a directive prior to CASR 91 being enacted, So I do have all of the above flight instruments TSO'd.

Their real gripe is with CNS equipment mainly. But heres another one for you: If you install a TSO'd instrument yourself, in your non type certificated aircraft / experimental or without an STC, is it still TSO'd?

Now we could go around in circles forever on this, I'm happy to just disagree and move on, or PM if you want to discuss further. I agree its a mess, but its a workable one currently.

Cheers

Richard, I think this matter is best dealt with in a public forum because there are obviously a number of people out there who are still not fully informed on this crucial issue.

However most Australian Experimental pilots I know who do not have TSOd instruments are no longer lodging IFR flight plans. Most of them understand the situation, as does the SAAA. If you contact the SAAA's National Technical Advisor, Geoffrey Danes, who is currently negotiating with CASA on this issue he will tell you the same thing that I have told you.

And if that does not convince you then I recommend you contact Mick Poole, Sport Aviation Technical Officer at CASA to get it directly from the horses mouth, so to speak.

This matter is not a grey issue at all. It is completely black and white. CAO 20.18 specifies what equipment is required for IFR flight. That includes, among others, an airspeed indicator, an AH, and an altimeter. Right now all of those instruments need to be TSOd for you to be legal IFR.

This is not my interpretation. This is the interpretation of both the SAAA and CASA.

To accuse me of "scaremongering" is absurd. I have no horse in this race. I don't think the situation is satisfactory but it's the way it is...and I doubt there will be any resolution to the problem in the immediate future.

Captain Avgas said:

Right now all of those instruments need to be TSOd for you to be legal IFR.

This is not my interpretation. This is the interpretation of both the SAAA and CASA.

Click to expand...

Bob, I'm sorry that is incorrect. There is no legislation that requires primary flight instruments in ABE IFR aircraft to hold a TSO. Both CASA and the SAAA know it. The original published wording on CASA's website made this clear. If that were not the case the CS 13/01 project would not have been needed in the first place.

There are many IFR ABE aircraft in Australia that fly IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments and they are still doing so quite legally. There are even type certified aircraft flying IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments.

The only way an ABE can fly at all, much less IFR in Australia is via approval from the CASA. This is done by your AP when they issue a IFR CofA as a delegate. If the aircraft holds an IFR CofA it (and instruments) have been approved by CASA for IFR flight. Getting that piece of paper for an IFR aircraft requires a great deal more than a few TSOs stamped on equipment.

What you are referring to is not a legal issue, but a (now not so) recent policy change by the SAAA. Because of the uncertainty they will not issue any additional CofAs with IFR privileges unless the primary flight instruments are TSO'ed.

If you doubt what I am saying you might refer to CAR 262AP(6)(b) which is the regulation commonly referenced on an IFR CofA when approving IFR flight.

Moderators.

Would it be possible to "unscramble the egg" removing the posts concerning IFR certification in Australia to another new, appropriately named thread?

Fin

rwtalbot said:

There are many IFR ABE aircraft in Australia that fly IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments and they are still doing so quite legally. There are even type certified aircraft flying IFR without TSO'ed flight instruments.

Click to expand...

Richard, I appreciate your comments. However in the final analysis your opinion, and my opinion, may not be that relevant. The only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Regulator. In order to get that opinion I suggest you contact Mick Poole at CASA yourself. After you have the opinion of the Regulator you might like to report back here with your findings.

In the meantime it would be prudent for all owners who might be affected by this issue to consider the wording of their insurance policy. Many Experimental owners are insured with QBE in Australia owing to the competitive rates they offer to SAAA members. In that respect I refer to QBE's specific clause in their Aviation Aircraft Insurance Policy under the heading of Compliance with Legal Requirements. This clause states:

"The insured shall compy with all legislation and delegated legislation, orders, directions, notices, approvals and all Statutory Requirements which affect safety or the maintenance or operations of the Aircraft".

I would be reasonably confident that all other aviation insurers would have similar clauses.

In the event that an owner had an accident while flying IFR in an aircraft not deemed to be compliant with the legal requirements for IFR flight it is quite conceivable that the insurer might reject the claim. That would place the onus on the owner to take costly legal action against his insurer in an attempt to obtain indemnity.

I advocate caution on this matter to my fellow Experimental flyers. And having done that, I have nothing further to say.

Captain Avgas said:

Fin says his aircraft is approved for IFR under his Certificate of Airworthiness but I doubt that is the case. Normally the C of A will say something like: "Approved for operations other than day VFR if appropriately equipped". The onus is therefore on the builder to ensure that the aircraft is in fact "appropriately equipped" in accordance with the CARs.

Click to expand...

From my Certificate of Airworthiness:
Point 5.
In accordance with CAR (1988) 262AP (6), I hereby authorise the operation of this aircraft under the IFR in IMC.
Point 6.
The aircraft logbook shall contain a statement to the effect that this aircraft meets the requirements of CAO 20.18 Appendix IV and V for IFR Operations.

My aircraft IS authorised for IFR in IMC so the question is, do I meet the requirements of CAO 20.18?
I have the required instruments but are they approved? Project CS 13/01 states that instruments listed in CAO 20.18 must be approved by one of the processes specified in CASR 21.305. CASR 21.305 says, may be approved (e) in any other manner approved by CASA.

My interpretation is that my instruments were approved by CASA as per (e) when my AP contacted CASA and was informed that my panel was approved for IFR with the addition of a TSO altimeter and ASI. I would presume that other IFR Experimental aircraft with non TSO instruments would also be approved under CASR 21.305 (e).

I have contacted the AP that issued my Certificate of Airworthiness and the current situation is that CASA is looking for "a certified 6 pack" but "CASA have not gone around arbitrarily removing IFR permissions from older aircraft with existing IFR permissions that would not meet the CASA 6 pack TSO requirement".

It's all a bit messy but at this stage I am satisfied that I meet the requirements and that my panel is approved as per CASR 21.305 (e) pending further directions from CASA. I suspect that one of the new TSO EFIS that fits into a 3 1/8" hole may end up in my panel one day.

Fin

Captain Avgas said:

The only opinion that really matters is the opinion of the Regulator. In order to get that opinion I suggest you contact Mick Poole at CASA yourself. After you have the opinion of the Regulator you might like to report back here with your findings.

Click to expand...

Bob, their opinion or current policy does not matter with respect to approvals previously issued. The only thing that matters is the law. A number of us have written advice from CASA's APs and Mr Poole that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Bob, I was happy to leave you and your opinion lie at the beginning. It was your suggestion that we deal with this in a public forum.

Seeing as you have made the outrageous claim that many of us breaking the law, perhaps you could outline for us exactly which laws are being broken.

As you claim it is "completely black and white" this should be a relatively straight forward exercise to quote the specific CAR(CASR) or CAO that is being breached.

Bob, I assume you are not making these claims on behalf of the SAAA as a TC?

Mods, can we move these posts to a new thread please. thanks

Looks likes a great trip to Tassie
Not sure about the walking but the flying is great
A pity the thread was hijacked

Allan / Cummins Spinners said:

Looks likes a great trip to Tassie
Not sure about the walking but the flying is great
A pity the thread was hijacked

Click to expand...

Allan,

Thanks for your comments.
Hijacking is always a risk especially when someone gets a "bee in their bonnet" however I could not let the suggestion that myself (and others) are flying around without the required approvals go unanswered.

Fin

Yes I know what you mean, but there are always 57 interpretations on anything that CASA writes
Now back to planning the Tassie trip

Thanks very much for sharing your pics Finley.

A trip to Tassie has changed from "maybe one day" to "must do" when I finish my -7!

Cheers,
Cam

CASA's definitive response.

rwtalbot said:

Bob, their opinion or current policy does not matter with respect to approvals previously issued. The only thing that matters is the law. A number of us have written advice from CASA's APs and Mr Poole that directly contradicts what you are saying.

Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Click to expand...

Richard, I have copped a lot of abuse on this thread by people who are angry and adamant that they have the right to fly IFR behind non TSOd instruments. However I suspect that none of these people have actually had the good sense to approach CASA for a determination. So I have done it for them.

These are the verbatim questions I today asked Mick Poole who is the CASA Sport Aviation Technical Officer and the man most qualified to answer them:

1. Are AB aircraft with C of As issued prior to CS 13/01 currently permitted to fly IFR if they have flight instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 but they are not TSOd.

2. Are AB aircraft with C of As issued post CS 13/01 currently permitted to fly IFR if they have flight instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 but they are not TSOd.

And this is CASA's verbatim response:

In answer to both of your questions, regardless of when the aircraft were issued with a CoA there has never been a provision for IFR operations with equipment that is not TSO’d or at least approved for IFR operations. I don’t believe there has been any advice from CASA otherwise and if so I would be pleased to see it.

As I have stated previously, this may be a grey area in the minds of some Experimental owners. But in the mind of the Regulator it is not grey at all.

And finally, sorry to Fin for being a party to highjacking his thread. In retrospect the issue of IFR flight most certainly should have had a thread of its own. However I'm sure the thread creep does not in anyway diminish his excellent recounting of a great trip and some fantastic photos. In fact the ongoing posts may have actually encouraged more readers to actually view the thread thus providing Fin with a larger audience for his trip than he otherwise might have enjoyed. I'd like to think that.

Captain Avgas said:

.......with equipment that is not TSO?d or at least approved for IFR operations.

Click to expand...

With the addition of a TSO altimeter and ASI, my panel was approved for IFR operations by the CASA representative.

Fin

Bob, the aircraft in question were all "approved" specifically for IFR operations by CASA, in full knowledge of their equipment levels and configuration. This is the purpose of the AP inspection and CofA issue process - to ensure the aircraft is legal for its intended operation, has a suitable system of maintenance and ensure no risk to third parties.

Owners and operators of these aircraft are entitled to rely on the advice of the Commonwealth and its delegates. I just don't understand why you would assume that has not occurred. These people all have a lot more skin in the game than you do, but you seem intent on proving a point.

I have not read Bob's posts and have no intention of doing so as I am so over this it is not funny.

I personally headed the project response done by SAAA (2 years ago) and the report (around 38 pages) was put together by a member and RAAF guy who is building a rocket in Canberra. This guy has very good skills in doing this work.He produced the best response I have ever seen and I dare say CASA were so overwhelmed by it that they have been failing for over 18 months to respond.

Yes read that again??.18 months ZERO correspondence. They acknowledged receipt of the document and silence since.

CASA are a complete joke on so many fronts that they can't be confused as to why people have contempt for them. All the good folk there are brought down by all the incompetence around them.

The "OPINIONS" of some at CASA are behind this incompetence (broadcast by an SAAA member who works there I might add) and they are opinions. Experimental category was pioneered in Australia by two fellows, one in Brisbane and one in Sydney, and the one in Sydney is a CASA AP still to this day. He knows more about ABE rules than anyone at CASA and is about the only person I know of that CASA regularly has taken a beating from.

I suggest you consult him.

Richard is 100% correct above. One Hundred Percent Correct!

Until such time CASA start playing the game properly and start working with those that actually know their stuff and committed several hundred hours to resolving the topic, most of us are just simply going to ignore them and their opinions. The sheer height of rudeness and contempt displayed by CASA is simply disgusting. I would sack them on the spot if they worked for me. It is deplorable to say the least.

And they wonder why industry treats them with contempt, mind you, they only dish back half of what CASA dish out.

I had senior exec's from all the major suppliers contribute information and data, I had supporting studies etc from the USA and the UK bodies. Yet CASA buries its head in the sand and talks 'Charlie RAP'.

You can tell I am very, no extremely cranky with these fools.

So where is this going to end? Who knows. But suffice to say that one of my associates outside of the SAAA and in the avionics game, and myself are hoping to have a high level meeting with a serious no BS CASA- Board member in Canberra in the coming months. This will make waves and I hope put a cattle prod on some morons butts. because I am over it.

If not I might sell the RV10 and buy a Bonanza that is N registered and do what all the Jet guys do here, ignore CASA completely.


One last point??..The USA has the same number (possibly more now) of IFR Experimentals flying than we have flying GA piston singles. Weed out all the twins, help's and gliders etc from the register and that is what you get.

CASA wake up, and if anyone at CASA has the guts to call me and make an appointment to see me?..please do. You can find my details very easily.

RANT OVER?.on this post at least.

Bob,
Firstly, I apologise if you feel that you have been abused.
A robust rebuttal to your opinion is a predictable result of you making definitive (yet incorrect) statements on a subject with which you would appear have little first hand experience. We have RVs in common, we can still be friends

Fin, I think we should just change the thread title (only kidding)

DB, Nice rant! 9.5 out of 10.

As far as I can see, people seem to far too easily fall into the trap of confusing "opinions" and "policy" with the "LAW" as its currently written. But hey, thats why we have lawyers... As David says, A LOT of SAAA work has gone into bridging the gap between what the law actually says, and what CASA want it to say. Most CofAs in the last year or two have been assessed with this in mind.

In my opinion this should be a relatively straight forward exercise if the people making the decisions are well informed. SAAA and CASA are broadly on the same page as to where there is or isn't a safety case to answer. CofAs already require the instruments are maintained to IFR tolerances. And we all know who's calibrating who at each AD/INST/9 or 100.5

The reality is that it just currently doesn't warrant enough resources from CASAs side to get it completed or to continue discussions with industry. Hence the radio silence for the last 2 years. Id guess that the transition to CASR 149 is way ahead in terms of priorities for everyone.

How about we shift the direction of this discussion from whether it is or isn't legal (all the lawyers I know just argue with each other) to how people think the regs as they stand may be amended in the future, and what compliance with that could look like if your current equipment configuration requires a change?

IMHO the only viable path forward is to amend 20.18 to require that certain instruments meet the relevant TSO. It would then look similar to the paragraphs pertaining to GNSS, Mode S and ADSB. Its all a mouthful, but is relatively easy to get through for private ops. Similar to the Mode S mandate, a moderate introduction horizon should minimise any downtime.

We are probably only talking about ALT and AH to be honest as NAV and GNSS is already singled out for TSO compliance. (and is undoubtedly complied with?.).

So whats that all mean? an RC allen LCD AH plus a nice ALT, or a Sandia Quattro, or an Aspen VFR PFD (no less than 8 TSOs!). All significantly cheaper than they were a few years ago, and by the time we get this sorted out, will be cheaper still.

To put that another way, all IFR pilots I know are acutely aware that a lot can kill them, and Id guess that instrumentation is probably already configured such to be low on that list. To you pilots I ask what regulations do you feel would make you safer?

To you pilots I ask what regulations do you feel would make you safer?

Click to expand...

Simple….abandon a lot of the brain dead ideas that come from CASA in the form of AD's and inspections etc that actually encourage MIF's.

I mean….you have an engine that has good EMS traces, good leak downs, and good oil tests, yet CASA mandate you pull it apart to see why it is operating so well.

Out of all the gear in my plane, over 1000+ hours now, the items that failed several times and the least accurate were……the most expensive TSO'd items. GNS530W and the steam altimeter is not as accurate as the Dynon bits (4 separate adahrs).

My previous aircraft same thing, the only bit that ever had to be removed was the TSO bit.

Ask Gary W with his Lancair. Flying back from Perth in IMC and his TSO AI slowly and insideously rolled him over mentally……his MGL EFIS has been perfect.That same AI model from a TSO manufacturer has had two similar failures in other aircraft I know.

Now don't start me on vac pumps and 6 pack steam instrument reliability.

A TSO label means nothing about accuracy and quality. Nothing. Its paperwork.

Richard Connell said:

To you pilots I ask what regulations do you feel would make you safer?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is about making any of us safer. The key issue form the regulator's perspective must be the safety of the general public. Separation from other aircraft is reliant on accurate position information (would be the regulator's argument).

To me if you can fix your position in 3d space and provide an accurate estimate for your arrival time overhead a fix that is all that should be required. I.e.

• Approved transponder and encoder
• Approved navaids

TSOs would be the easiest way to ensure you met the requirement. Some disagree with the TSO'ed encoder, but this is the cheapest way to install an approved source of altimetry and provides necessary data for other airspace users (radar, TCAS etc).

CAO 20.18 predates modern EFIS units, but the following interpretation seems reasonable and might be clarified:

• If the "six pack" is electrically reliant, two independent electrical systems or 30-90 mins standby battery within the unit, and a means for the pilot to verify battery health before departure
• If the "six pack" is all in a single unit (I.e. EFIS), redundant unit or sufficient backup instruments to fly partial panel (AH / TC+VSI, ALT, ASI, Compass).

Maintenance as per any other IFR aircraft:

• Instruments checked on every flight by PIC
• Regular (100 hourly) I&R checks
• Comply with CAO 100.5

I&R checks to be carried out with calibrated equipment. Realistically that means by a LAME.

Would also need an approved (TSO?) altimeter for vertical separation especially outside radar/ADSB coverage.

Fin

Finley Atherton said:

Would also need an approved (TSO?) altimeter for vertical separation especially outside radar/ADSB coverage.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't feel particularly one way or another. Based on what I suggested you would have two altimeters and an encoder - the encoder being TSO'ed.

If the altimeters and encoder pass preflight and regular IFR checks with the LAME they are airworthy. I'd argue that meets and exceeds the current requirement to have a single unit and should be approved. Perhaps even the encoder is negotiable - but it seems to me to be the cheapest way to meet the assumed requirement of having a TSO'ed altitude source.

Finley Atherton said:

Would also need an approved (TSO?) altimeter for vertical separation especially outside radar/ADSB coverage.

Fin

Click to expand...

Fin, you've joined the hijackers.