Flying_higher

Wow it really looks sensational! Glad to see you all had a great time. I was meant to go but coming from the southern states, the weather forecast was just too poor to make it possible. Next year I’m there though!

If you read it again, and read the note from the Chair, it is illegal for a Board to get rid of a director, it can only be done by the members. it’s a mechanical change only and as someone above said, nothing to see here.

And that was the exact analogy I was making in that it is imposed by the bureaucracy. So here you are asking RAA to advocate against the ASIC whilst you accept it will likely do nothing. So does this mean you would prefer them focus on matters that will have zero impact versus those issues where they actually do come up with the goods? Like increased MTOW, advocating for ADSB funding, making sure the regulations CASA throws as us do not force us on the ground? Should I go on? It doesn’t make sense. They are on record for wanting better ASIC conditions (or none at all) and really, I can’t see what else more they can do without spending more time flogging this dead horse. Any btw, the airlines like them so whilst that’s the case, you won’t change. A. Thing. Dont get me wrong, there are many, many examples in this country where they make zero sense if you ask me. And yes, I do do extended trips where ASICS are required. And my home airport needs one too. It’s a massive inconvenience and I don’t personally think they do a great deal, but from what I gauged from the article in SportPilot with the terrorism expert, was that it was part of the toolkit they have. It’s not perfect, it won’t stop all terrorism events, but it is at least something. Clearly you have some issues with the ASIC, whether it’s skeletons in the closet and you can’t get one or simply a deep dislike for rules. Either way, I wish you luck with your crusade as it really will make little difference other than give you an ulcer.

Poor choice of analogy? Why? Because it demonstrates that a private organisation is at the behest of the government? Righto…. as I said previously, RAA is already on record for advocating for their members on this very issue but they have no ability to control the issue. It’s home affairs and given some clowns flew some planes into a building a few years ago I can’t see RAA’s advocacy doing SFA. But sure, blame them if it makes you feel better. and as far as SportPilot is concerned, I’m not sure why you think they are supporting the ASIC. perhaps they’re seeking the reasons why our government insists on them. That’s very different from supporting them. Maybe if your so against ASICS you should just stay away from airports that require them then they won’t be an issue.

RAAus has already made it clear what their view is on ASICS, and like you, they’ve said many times that at the very least, they should be for 5 years and not 2 years. The reality is that RAA can say all they like about the ASIC to the government but unfortunately they’ll have as much luck as a travel agent telling the government that passports shouldn’t be required.

Check the YMMB website for charges. Last time I looked there was a $560 (i think) parking charge for non-VH registered aircraft.

Its my understanding that this rule has been changed to align with ICAO SARPS. And as someone said previously, the reality is that most people fly hemispherical in cruise regardless of how low you are to ensure it gives a little protection against a collision event. In busy airspace along the East Coast this is very much advised. In terms of deviation, from the standard hemispherical level, whilst this is an item of strict liability, there may very well be operational reasons such as cloud, turbulence or terrain that stop you from being able to operate at the correct altitude. In this case one would simply make a broadcast on the area frequency (if carrying a radio) and what you're doing. Eg, "Traffic in the Ivanhoe area, ABC is a C172 is X miles from Y, tracking to the north east at non-standard 6500 due terrain/weather. Traffic in Ivanhoe area". Finally, I think low-cost ADS-B with an IPAD for ADS-B (IN) is a great addition to any cockpit in the enroute environment - so long as we understand its limitations and knowing that not everyone has ADS-B and therefore it won't pick up all traffic. In saying that, as it becomes more accessible the benefits will certainly improve too.

jackc, if you go to this link it will take you to the Part 91 Plain English Guide. Plain English Guide for new flight operations regulations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) Also, the VFRG website is available too, but it doesn't look like it's been updated with the new Flight Operation rules information yet. As RAAus said last night, this will be available in December. Civil Aviation Safety Authority | Visual Flight Rules Guide (casa.gov.au)

You don’t pay nav charges as a VFR in Class E airspace. Notwithstanding that, there are equipment requirements and that is where the cost is for us.

Perhaps the fact that the 149 certificate doesn’t come into effect till 31 March and because they’ve told us the manuals will be published by then, that in fact they have been signed off. And if you actually understood the regulations you would know that CASR Part 149 has a Part 149 MOS. Part 149 is the regulations for how an ASAO administers it’s operations. Part 103 reg and mos are the operational regs that go hand in hand with Part 91. It works the same way as Part 121 does with 91.

Correct, we don’t have WAAS but a WAAS capable device has a performance standard of better than 100m even when not using WAAS.

I know that they are pretty accurate. I’ve certainly had no problems myself either however when it comes to what their certified performance accuracy is, it doesn’t meet the same as that required for 100m accuracy all the time, as in needed in this case. And if you look at the WAAS capable GPS levels of accuracy, this does meet this standard which is why these are used for IFR approaches.

The GPS 100m requirement relates to the calibration of instruments whilst on doing maintenance. It’s not about using a GPS for navigation in Class G.....because we are visual pilots where the mark 1 eye ball is what we should be using.... And re the iPad performance, this wouldn’t meet the requirement as it doesn’t meet the 100m performance standard like a WAAS capable device. The only difference I can see from the current tech manual requirement for calibrating instruments is that a performance standard for the GPS is now stipulated.

If you re-read their email you’ll see that they say there are no material changes or costs to members. And the list you’ve posted are the summary of changes only. L1 continues to exist as does everything else, given there are no material changes.

I think the reason we will need the two radios is because you cannot operate in Class E whilst maintaining continuous two way radio communication with centre and also be on the CTAF. The two will overlap when you join the circuit at 2000.