Is there still an ultralight movement?

[K-man]

the first school had me confused with the validity of my log book, the instructor kept saying as i had now association with a authorized association my flight time did not count, I questioned that as some flight time is with the R.A.N, he said that was OK but all the rest was not. your response doubly confirms he was wrong, so thanks for that, this is one school i will not be going back to.

Your log book is a legal document. There are certain requirements as to how and what information is recorded. It is an offence under the regulations if an entry is falsified.

 

Requirement to hold a log book

 

 

 

 

 

 

• A pilot must keep a personal log book [Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 5.51]
   
   
   
   
  A log book consists of a number of pages permanently bound together in such a way that pages may not be replaced or removed;
   
   
   
   
   
  
• An electronic record is not acceptable as a log book, however, a computer printout bound together in the form of a log book and maintained up to date is acceptable;
   
   
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

[*]All manual entries to the log book must be made in permanent ink;

 

[*]This log book is to be produced to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) when requested;

 

[*]Falsification of a log book is a criminal offence;

 

[*]There is no regulatory requirement to carry a personal log book on a flight.

 

 

Your log book, if properly maintained, should be accepted as a valid record of your experience. As has been pointed out, it is not a record of ability or competence. It is a total lack of respect to say it has no part in your training process. If you have the experience, it will show in your flying.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi K-man,

 

That was just one of five or six reasons i left the first school and looked in other directions.

 

I have been now to three schools(2 RAA and one glider) all acept the logbooks and all three ofered me flight time to demonstrate my skills. I guess i just picked the one bad apple first timethumb_down oh I was so lucky:laugh:?

 

Bob.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's more.

 

And we are too, because you have brought it to our attention.. Nev..

 

 

[bilby54]

The minimum worry/costs/rules and unecessary equipment has gone being replaced by every option and costing well over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

Apart from a few strongholds has the minimum movement gone swallowed up by new rules, new aircraft, new breed of pilot?

Hi SP,

 

Your comments are valid and I think that we have been saddled with a few unnecassary regulations that were not needed or required.

 

I do not nderstand why there is an endorsement for "Nose Wheel" and another for "Tail Wheel" when the old system worked fine. We could also ask why there is one for "Two Stroke Engines" but not for "Jet Engines" or for that matter, "Electric Engines"? How far does the system want to go with all of this endorsement (cost) business?

 

I was told by a few professional pilots that earn their living flying turbine aircraft, that the organisation applied to have a medical endorsement for CTA operations but CASA stopped it - yes, CASA.

 

I wonder how far the pendulum has swung the other way?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Like i have said before to the RAAus i want my ANO95:10 back. I am tired of supporting an industry.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

If that is true (about casa stopping the medical for CTA endo) could anyone tell me the difference between a PPL and a RAA flying through CTA? (apart from the initial cost) I think this is enough to motivate a few of us grass roots flyers to get together and start making some more noise!

 

Any of the minimul flyers in the Sydney region feel like getting together and having a few cold beers and a talk about what we could do to protect what we already have/had?

 

Adam

 

 

[facthunter]

Medical for Controlled airspace.

 

Bilby , that is not as I heard it. I don't believe that RAAus Applied for a medical and were knocked back by CASA. They enquired IF an extra medical was required and were advised that it was not considered necessary. That is a little different. I feel I must set the record straight there.

 

Ozzie, we have operated on concessions that could dissappear quite easily, by the stroke of a pen . We should end up with something better than that, surely. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Any of the current dispensations for any class can dissapear at the stroke of a pen. after all we are considered to be a threat to national security. makes a pretty simple excuse to solve a lot of problems.

 

The only changes i would prefer to see made to the original issue of ANO95:10 (don't confuse this with CAO 95:10) is to lift the height to a grand and allow crossing of sealed roads. No rego no ticket. insurance optional. just like a trail bike that is used for recreation. We have too many classes we need to do the same as the States, 103 and LSA.

 

Adam i am in the Hunter on weekends if you are up here Feb 13 14th drop into the Elderslie Boogie catch up there, Skyhog indicted he is flying up from Forbes for it as well. Adam you can bring the Caravan if you like;)

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I have it on good authority that a medical WILL be required. If anyone has additional information on this that states the contrary by way of official communications I would be interested to hear.As per what you may have read, the RAD43/47 on transponders will be a requirement as it is already in all transponder equipped aircraft entering CTA, however it is not expected that the altimiter checks be completed (as per what was published a few months ago in the RA-Aus magazine). It is also not looking like it will be a requirement to have a TSO'ed altimiter as this is not currently a requirement in GA, except for IFR operations.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Thanks for the invite Ozzie I will see what I can do. There is every chance the Van would be at Cessnock on the 14th so I might be able to hitch across to the DZ for a few hours.

 

 

[bilby54]

Bilby , that is not as I heard it. I don't believe that RAAus Applied for a medical and were knocked back by CASA. They enquired IF an extra medical was required and were advised that it was not considered necessary. That is a little different. I feel I must set the record straight there.

Thanks for that info Nev at least that puts a clearer picture on the issue.

 

I still don't understand all of the riff raff surrounding the reasoning for the myriad of endorsements that have occured. Perhaps that has been a failing of the organisation in the past to not put the case to members. I am hoping that the emphasis will change with the new president.