Hi bill,

Here is a good start for you;

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

Cheers

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.

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, 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.

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