aro

There is obviously a big difference between SVFR when the cloud clearance does not meet the rules for the particular airspace, and SVFR when horizontal visibility doesn't meet VFR minimums.

Avplan do use ADSB paints, sourced from one of the internet sites I think. Their traffic seems to be much more comprehensive than OzRunways as a result. Perhaps being denied OzRunways traffic prompted them to get traffic from a much better source? Here are some screen samples from both, showing the same areas within a few minutes of each other: Avplan OzRunways Avplan also source traffic from a glider network which is nice: OzRunways: The only additional traffic Avplan would be likely to get from OzRunways is non-ADSB OzRunways users, and OzRunways traffic outside the coverage of the ground ADSB network.

In Australia, Special VFR is 1600m visibility and clear of cloud. However, it's not ATC's job to call a stop to it. Visibility is the pilot's responsibility. ATC's job is to make sure you don't run into IFR or other special VFR aircraft.

If those numbers are correct I'm not surprised they were audited for quality

Responding to several posts... 1 in 60 corrections assume you can hold a heading, so a primary reason is to correct for wind. Wind has more effect on a slower aircraft. A 10 knot crosswind will probably be insignificant for a 150 knot aircraft over 100 miles. It is much more significant for a 50 knot aircraft. How do you figure out how much you need to adjust your heading? That is where the 1 in 60 rule comes in. The idea of the 1 in 60 rule is that if you are flying e.g. 100 miles and are 5 miles off track after 40 miles, you can make a correction that will put you back on track at the 100 mile point so you fly the shortest distance - or at an earlier point if you prefer. When people track visually to something they can see, they often track in a curve if there is a crosswind because they don't apply enough wind correction. It is better to calculate a heading and fly it. Making adjustments to your heading to follow ground features makes it impossible to use the 1 in 60 rule. It relies on accurately flying a constant heading. If you use a wind correction you don't know whether it is too much or too little, so you do not know which side of the planned track you will be. It is possible if you are navigating to a linear feature (river, road etc.) crossing your track to deliberately track slightly left or right so you know which way to turn when you reach the feature. The deliberate left or right angle needs to be larger than other possible errors. When navigating visually the tolerance is 1 mile left or right of track.

It wasn’t the first option when I looked. It’s an obvious thing to do, I would be very surprised if Survey Monkey didn’t do it. Their marketing angle would be to get the most accurate answers to your survey which would require randomised order. Maybe there would be an option to disable it, I don’t know, but that would require an active choice to bias the survey.

I suspect Survey Monkey randomizes the order for each respondent for that type of question.

So it sounds like a combination of "CASA publish one set of rules but work off a different set" and "the doctor has fudged the certification (with a nudge and a wink from CASA) based on their assessment that you are safe." It seems fairly likely that the DAME has certified that you do meet the unconditional commercial standards. If the doctor certifies it, I'm sure CASA accepts it - it becomes the doctor's problem. I'm not saying you shouldn't be flying. I'm just saying people should not believe that Basic Class 2 is a general - or even a likely - solution for people who can't get a regular class 2. It is certainly not a substitute for the RAA private motor vehicle driver license standard.

That is largely because Australia was a couple of decades ahead of the USA with the AUF Ultralight regulations. The USA didn't take much notice of Australia's ultralight category when they developed their LSA regulations. Australia then decided that LSA should slot in under the AUF/RAA umbrella. As far as I know, LSA in Australia is very similar to the USA, with a few restrictions removed e.g. USA has a maximum speed of 120Kt and controllable pitch propellers are not allowed. Meanwhile, the original Ultralight rules in Australia operate alongside and overlapping LSA.

CASA in their guidance material are quite explicit that if you do not meet the requirements unconditionally, you must apply to a DAME for a Class 2 medical. Here is the CASA Instrument that allows the Basic Class 2 - I don't see any scope for a DAME to assess using different medical standards: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00980 However, It is possible that there is additional material that I haven't found. It is possible that CASA have an arrangement with DAMEs where they can issue a Basic Class 2 based on different standards - it wouldn't be the first time CASA publish one set of rules but work off a different set. It is possible that the doctor (as I alluded to in point 2) has fudged the certification based on their assessment that you are safe, and under Basic Class 2 they don't have to supply the medical information to CASA. If this is the case they would probably rather you didn't advertise the fact on the internet. I can only work off the information CASA publish, and according to that information you must meet the standards unconditionally or apply for a normal Class 2.

There are many people with a Class 2 medical that will not meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. The Basic Class 2 requires that you unconditionally meet the medical standards for an commercial driver's license. It's a strict enough standard that they had to write in exceptions for glasses and hearing aids. If you don't qualify for a normal Class 2, you almost certainly don't meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. If you can't get as Basic Class 2, you might still be able to get a regular Class 2. The Basic Class 2 has 2 advantages: If you are basically healthy, it is quicker and easier than a Class 2. The Basic Class 2 is certified by the doctor, without referring information to CASA. As I understand it if the doctor says you meet the standard CASA don't second guess them. So it might be easier to find a doctor who will fudge things a bit or not look too deeply at the requirements.

What does a RA pilot need to do to access CTA? Isn't it as simple as: Fill in a form applying for a RPL Do a RPL flight review, which can incorporate the CTA endorsement and double as a RAA flight review As a bonus you get to fly heavier aircraft. It's not good for RAA as an organization, but for pilots wanting CTA and heavier aircraft I don't understand what more that they want. What are you asking for on top of that?

Someone, earlier in the thread started talking about vehicles climbing hills... Tell that to the people running aircraft with Wankel engines e.g. https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/soundings-1-180969512/ On the subject of props, they had to limit the power because their prop was only good for 500HP: https://woelfle-engineering.com/we/Wankel_Rotary_Time_to_Climb_World_Record_Presentation_Paul_Lamar.pdf If you have a gearbox, you can have whatever torque you like. But you only have a set amount of power. A gearbox is never 100% efficient, it can only reduce the power available...

Whether the units are derived is irrelevant. Energy is one of the fundamental building blocks of physics, but the units are derived. Are you proposing the laws of thermodynamics should be rewritten in reference to kg, m and s because they are SI units?

No, power is a fundamental concept in physics: the rate at which work is done. A rocket engine produces power (but no torque), a jet engine produces power, a man walking up stairs produces power. Your calculations are just specialized examples to calculate the power of an internal combustion engine. It takes power for a vehicle to climb a hill. You can calculate the power required, and it doesn't matter whether it comes from an internal combustion engine, a rocket engine, or 4 guys pushing the car. 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 75kg 1 metre in 1 second. or if you prefer imperial 1 horsepower = the power required to raise 550lb 1 foot in 1 second.

Take RPM out and you also get zero. You need non zero values for both torque and rpm, i.e. power.

Only because at the same RPM it has higher power. In other words, it is power that determines how fast you climb the hill, not torque.

"Equal gearing" - referring to gearing shows you are talking about power. Equal gearing means equal RPM, and at equal RPM power scales linearly with torque. A Rotax 912S is quoted at 128NM of torque. On a bicycle, I can produce approximately 140NM of torque. RPM and therefore power are ridiculously low of course - there's no prospect of me powering a pedal powered aircraft. A GSXR600 motorbike has only 70NM of torque. I can guarantee it will climb a hill better than me on a bicycle, despite having only 1/2 the torque. Torque alone tells you nothing, torque and RPM together give you power. Power is in fact defined by how fast you can raise a weight e.g. climb a hill. 1 (metric) horsepower is the power required to raise 75 kg 1 metre in 1 second. So climbing a hill faster requires more power, by definition.

Rotax allow 100 hours between oil changes. If you do 1.0 VDO flights including 0.1 on the ground at both the start and end (which seems to be fairly common flight school pattern) your 100 hours airswitch is 125 hours engine running time. Is 25 hours on the ground "hours on end"? Lots of people I suspect, because as I understand it, the rules say that is what you must do. No, the engine isn't going to become a block of molten metal. But you need to decide how much you care about following the maintenance schedule. If you want to follow it, it makes sense to use the method it specifies to record time.

I would have thought that whoever developed the maintenance schedule should define how the intervals are measured. Rotax definitely specify their engine hours include any time the engine is running - not just flying time. It looks like Lycoming specify "engine operating hours" which to me also suggests any time the engine is running. Are you suggesting that an engine that spends lengthy times idling on the ground should have less frequent oil changes? Most people would say the opposite. Rotax engines probably have most stress on the gearbox at idle. Time spent in cruise should be when the engine is at its optimum temperature, oil pressure etc. and experiencing least wear. CASA in their infinite wisdom might have their own definition of time, but that is not necessarily a good idea.

The problem with the strength argument is designers don't use the extra weight to add strength, they use extra weight to go faster and carry more. The AUF/RAA went from 450kg to 500kg to 600kg. 150kg would add a lot of strength, but I bet most of it has been used for extra speed (thinner wings, no struts etc. mean the structure must be heavier for the same strength) and more payload. That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want? Would you rather crash a 600kg Jabiru or a 815kg RV-7? I would certainly choose to crash in my 544kg aircraft with its steel tube cockpit rather than the 815kg RV-7. The RV-7 has many advantages over my aircraft, I don't think a more crashworthy structure is one of them.

How much VFR flying have you done in CTA? It's not as hard as you make out. I suspect most of your CTA work might have been IFR? I was a passenger in a balloon that landed at Essendon. It was interesting to see the process - transponder, airways clearance etc. No NOTAM as fas as I am aware - I don't think they could predict where they were going to go far enough in advance.

I did. Some people believe that with enough training we can all improve our skills enough to eliminate accidents. That approach regularly fails. Yesterday we had Australia's most skilled footballers playing in the Grand Final. No-one doubts their skill, they do plenty of practice, but still their skills occasionally let them down and they miss easy kicks etc. No matter how skilled you are, the risk of a skill error is always there. There are areas of aviation where they refuse to rely solely on skill to avoid accidents. They have rules and procedures to keep away from the areas where skill becomes critical. Those areas of aviation tend to be the safest areas by far. I have no objection to stalling an aircraft, but I only want to do it when I have planned it. The idea of a defined minimum maneuvering speed, to stay away from the area where skill becomes important is interesting.

Va is a maximum maneuvering speed not minimum. You didn't watch the video - the difference between maneuvering speed as used by GA (Va) and maneuvering speed used by airlines is the first thing they discuss. The point of the video is that in GA we can calculate a minimum maneuvering speed, and make sure we do not go below that speed except in very specific circumstances e.g. final approach. Then whether or not you "know" when you are about to stall becomes irrelevant because you do not fly close to the stall.

Melbourne has CTA LL of 8500 outside of 30 miles (mostly). I don't know why Adelaide has 4500 to 36 miles. I doubt it's an international thing because if you look at e.g. Dallas in the USA (quite busy), it looks like its airspace only extends to 30 miles.