Garfly

Man, 71, dies when his experimental aircraft crashes in Groveland WWW.DAILYCOMMERCIAL.COM An unregistered experimental aircraft crashed at the Groveland airport at 1:30 p.m. April 19, killing the pilot, according to the FAA. Bobby Bailey's own Dragonfly in this video appears to have a ballistic parachute installed. Presumably the new build that got him hadn't yet.

Nice one, Nev. I wasn't expecting back-up from you on that one ... so all the more chuffed! LOL

I did notice that. What I haven't noticed is a great deal of difference in that regard locally. Poor benighted, ignorant pilots. They must be protected them from all and any information that might confuse them.

Aware or not, in his words, it's stuff "they don't teach you in the FAA written or private pilot licence."

If you're referring to Juan Browne's little big-push demo ... yeah, basic and obvious; still, you sense some exasperation in his voice: "Look at that, Zero G! ... You cannot stall an aircraft at zero G!". It's as if he's fed up that so basic a fact seems far from obvious to many who fly aeroplanes or even instruct in them.

TKS?

No, I'm quoting 10.5's post:

Yeah, I think there are a couple of issues mixed up here, Mark. 'Compliance' as to proper full ADSB-out systems is one thing and, as you say, requires, among other things, a certified GPS source. But the other question is one we've been asking for years: does ATC yet have the ability to 'see' EC devices - if only as a "situational awareness" tool within their limited range. That's what the authorities have long been suggesting will happen but I've never heard that it is the case anywhere in the country. (See the article I quoted above, for example) Do you have any more info on that?

Yeah, interesting but puzzling; what ATC (Canberra Approach and/or Tower?) are telling you. Maybe the tech has not trickled down yet or maybe they choose not to deal with any additional "situational awareness" capacity. As to the Garmin quote, as far as I understand it, that wouldn't bear on the issue of whether or not ATC have commissioned the gear that lets them "see" EC devices (as foreshadowed in the Flight Safety Australia article [above]).

I don't think Thruster misses the point - or even disputes conventional wisdom about straight ahead being best. To me he's just putting the emphasis back where it belongs: if you don't get flying speed NOW, you won't be landing anywhere (in the conventional sense). Juan Browne makes the same point in this 2 minute quickie on the subject.

I got the impression that a buy-back isn't even on the cards. The hope being that the "pre-existing covenant" (that YGLB remains) will be honoured into the future.

I agree. FlightChops too, emphatically:

A new contribution by FlightChops:

It'd be strange if this remains the case (that ATC can't see SE2 transmissions). (And even more strange that we don't have clarity on it by now, one way or the other.) This was written back in 2021 in Flight Safety Australia in an article called "VFR and Visible" Can ATC ‘see’ my SkyEcho2? The prime objective of SkyEcho2 is air-to-air traffic awareness – the device is not certified to the performance standards needed for ATC separation services. Nevertheless, CASA envisages the device being used for situational awareness by ATC. By early this year, the Airservices Australia ATC system had not been modified to display SkyEcho2; however, it is expected that with a new ATC system on the way, SkyEcho2 transmissions will be displayed to controllers, for situational awareness only, using distinctive symbology which will prevent the application of surveillance separation standards to those aircraft. Given the COVID crisis, there is uncertainty about when this capability may be delivered by Airservices Australia. VFR and visible _ Flight Safety Australia copy.pdf

The story of Lake Macquarie airport (YLMQ) shows there are still councils around that see value in having and holding a local airport - and are prepared to resist the importunings of developers who don't. (And it seems hopeful that Goulburn's among them. Old Bar (YOBR) and Tooraweenah (YTWN) may be other examples but specific arguments around 'heritage' played a part.) From Wikipedia's Lake Macquarie Airport page: For most of its history, the airfield functioned as the base for Aeropelican Air Services ... Once these services were withdrawn in 2006, the airfield was sold to the Mirvac Group for $5.5 million in 2008.[4] // ... Lake Macquarie City Council expressed an interest in maintaining the site for aviation uses. Although the airport is privately owned and council has limited control over the site, zoning restrictions encourage future aviation use. The council rejected a proposal by Mirvac to redevelop the airport into housing estates.[6] Instead, the council's Lifestyle 2030 Strategy development plan, published in March 2013 identifies the airport as having "ongoing potential for use by commuter aircraft" to serve Sydney and regional areas while generating business and employment opportunities.[7] Lake Macquarie Airport | PROCEDURES WWW.LAKEMACQUARIEAIRPORT.COM.AU Lake Macquarie Airport - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG