kaz3g

My overall comments on the draft RAPAC submission I have seen are that it is too long, suffers from repetition, and does not clearly articulate the issues in terms that a Minister might understand. I also think RAPAC, RAAus and many others whose contributions I have read have been blindsided by what appears to be two clear cut choices, rather than taking a wider view. That said, I support absolutely the concerns expressed about the proposed doubling of the radius of CTAF's. I also give conditional support to a limited change in frequencies but continue to hold grave doubts about 126.7 as the ultimate in choices for the following reasons: 1. The unmarked airfield bogey The stated prime issue has been the decision to nominate Area frequency for those aviating at unmarked airfields outside of existing CTAF boundaries. Surely, if there is so much traffic associated with unmarked airfields the first step to improve safety is to mark more of them so pilots know they are there? Why hasn't RAPAC mentioned this? Step 2 is to nominate 126.7 as the frequency for all ALA's that don't have a discrete other frequency, including those that are marked. There is hardly a VFR pilot flying now that doesn't have OzRunways or similar so responding to the presence of all marked strips will be routine. Licensed aerodromes are already well covered except some need to move from 126.7 to a new assigned frequency to reduce the prospect of over-transmissions. There will be few strips remaining of any substance that are not identified on the charts. 2. The best frequency Outside CTAF boundaries My view remains that Area is the most appropriate prime frequency for VFR outside the boundaries of CTAFs, both existing and new. The reduction in unmarked fields should leave our concerns with only the least active; those that continue to be unmarked. Radar assisted conflict avoidance on Area is available to VFR and I have had the benefit of it on at least a couple of occasions. If someone is departing their unmarked ALA at some obscure location, how the heck will the passing pilot know if it is relevant to her? Does the departing pilot tie up the frequency (126.7 now being used by all and sundry) with a detailed description of their location....GPS coords, distance and bearing from, plan including height and track and the state of the nation? That's not helpful to the myriad of other people "listening" to the frequency. I suggest many will just switch off, either mentally or literally. 3. No radio VFR and single listening watch The issue of no radio flights isn't resolved by this change but it may very well lead to mandated radio which would be difficult for a number of old aircraft (and pilots?). It certainly would affect the light end of RAAus. Perhaps that would suit CASA's aspirations? A lot of us are flying with radios that do not have dual watch. I'm one of those at the present time and I know my strong preference is to fly with Area away from CTAF's. I will upgrade when I can but Area will continue to be my first choice. 4. Area boundaries marked The stuff circulating about this is beyond belief. I happily change frequencies moving across boundaries whether Area or CTAF and so is just about everyone else. And I certainly don't want to see an increase in the amount of E at the expense of G which is getting heaps of lobbying support from the biggies even though I run a Tx mode C. 5. Increased CTAF volume and definition. Ridiculous! Totally unworkable as even next door's donkey would tell them. Leave the bloody thing alone...change just increases the hazards of non-compliance due confusion, anyway. Personally, I prefer the 10 NM distance with an ETA circuit rather than a specified time to circuit. The Kingair arriving at 200 knots knows exactly where I am, anyway. Kaz

The following is quoted from the RAAus December Newsletter...... Quote: CASA survey action required by 12 January 2018 - MULTICOM Members are advised CASA have issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) MULTICOM frequency use after the recent consultation process in which the majority of respondents indicated the MULTICOM frequency was their preferred option below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). We are requesting all members complete the survey and provide a response to CASA on this important topic. The NPRM is worded poorly, making two recommendations in one response. As one of these recommendations was not part of the original consultation process we advise members that RAAus fully supports only one part of this proposal. CASA have proposed MULTICOM frequency 126.7 is monitored and used in uncontrolled airspace below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) where there is no discrete frequency or broadcast area. Above 5000’ AMSL the area frequency would be monitored. This proposal is completely acceptable to RAAus. The other proposal is to increase the size of a CTAF from the current recommended 10 nm to 20 nm. This is unacceptable to RAAus and its members for a variety of reasons, including the quadrupling of area requiring the CTAF frequency to be used, significantly increasing the risk of radio frequency congestion, the unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio. Further the CAAP recommends inbound traffic make relevant situationally required radio calls relative to the speed and type of operation of the aircraft. Inbound Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft routinely make calls 30-40 nm outside the CTAF, which should be continued. Accordingly, RAAus strongly objects to the portion of the NPRM to increase the size of CTAFs. RAAus members are strongly encouraged to complete this survey, however members need to consider the difficulty presented by the NPRM combining these two questions into one response. This requires the respondent to answer no to the MULTICOM part of the proposal to avoid the increase in CTAF component. RAAus therefore recommends the following course of action by all RAAus members. 1. Follow this link CASA MULTICOM NPRM 2. Answer the identification questions as you believe appropriate 3. For the next question you will be asked if you prefer the MULTICOM and CTAF increase. Your initial answer should be “Proposal is NOT acceptable” and in the additional information box below, you should add words to the effect “I only accept the MULTICOM Proposal below 5000 feet AMSL” 4. You will be prompted during the next question to provide your answer as to why the CTAF size increase is not acceptable. RAAus recommend you provide words to the effect “There has been no safety case or risk assessment regarding the proposal to expand a CTAF size to 20 nm. This was not part of the original MULTICOM consultation process. CAAP 166 provides guidance for pilots to make appropriate calls relevant to the aircraft type and speed of operation. Expanding CTAFs to 20 nm will enlarge the potential area requiring calls by a factor of 4, potentially leading to additional congestion in CTAFs.” 5. Complete the remainder of the questions as relevant to your aircraft type and submit RAAus has raised our concerns about the combination of the two distinct and separate questions with CASA and will continue to inform members about further progress related to MULTICOM changes in the New Year.

Well, Darren Chester has been dumped and Barnaby is taking the Infrastructure portfolio...which means aviation. This is a great opportunity for you locals to do some lobbying right now on behalf of us fliers at the light end before CASA gets in his ear, Kaz

If it's uncharted it probably has a low traffic level...see and avoid just as is the case where any two aircraft are operating VFR outside of a CTAF and are in close proximity of one another. Personally, I don't generally rock around areas I don't know at 1000'! If it has a higher traffic level then it ought be on the charts and 126.7 becomes the mandated frequency. And Australia is a big place with not that many GA aircraft so what's the chance of overflying an uncharted strip at low altitude when an aircraft is operating there and not seeing it, anyway? Kaz

I think the comments Hitch published today ring very true: The Last Minute Hitch: 15 December 2017 - Australian Flying And Alerted See and Avoid: a True Story - Australian Flying Sent from my iPad Kaz

I accept the last change occurred without consultation but no-one is surprised by that. Whether the absence of complaints about the previous system signifies its efficiency or the tired resignation of all of us who had been brought up in a full reporting environment, I don't know. But I sure as heck won't be listening to 126.7 coming down the Inland Route in case some one is departing Pheasant Creek (I know it's there but not marked), or when coming south through the Glenburn Gap where there are a couple of small unmarked strips I've only ever seen used by Aggie aircraft), or when flying to Moorabbin from Coldstream, for example. I'll be on Area/MelbRad and I'm pretty confident everyone else will be, too. And when I'm flying from Charleville to Mt Isa I will continue to be reassured by my ready access to Centre on Area. I have genuine doubts that anyone on a station airstrip will be doing inbound or departure calls on 126.7; they'll be talking to their crew on the ground on UHF or filing a SARTIME with Centre. I think a number of these unmarked airstrips should be marked if they have regular traffic and, if they don't, concerns about them are really a bit of a furphy, aren't they? After all, they are OK for "no radio" operations...See and avoid. I know two radios would solve some of the issues but hey, it's an Auster! I have been saving up for an Icom 210 to replace my older one. However, the semi-resident avionics expert who also operates our fire fighting helicopter told me today he made this change in his Tripacer and went back to the older 200 which he thought was better because you can miss important traffic on the preferred frequency if there is already chatter on the other. Dos anyone have experience with the new 220? Kaz

If this comes to pass, I strongly suggest those CTAF's currently using 126.7 need to be allocated a different frequency or I can see important circuit calls at busy aerodromes being over transmitted by pilots whose activities at Unknown locations (unmarked aerodromes) is of secondary importance. I've flown over most of Australia and spend quite a lot of time in the air each year. I listen out on Area and I have NEVER heard a call from some pissant ALA, let alone one that interfered with ATC. I have heard a number of very timely warnings from ATC to VFR pilots in close proximity. I also don't like the proposed reversion to 20 NM CTAFs or, once again, there will be significant over transmissions in busy areas involving aerodromes up to 40 NM apart. Kaz

It is a funny thing how fishing can be so absorbing. You might remember we had the "Tall Ships" in Melbourne around the time of the Bi-centenary? I was aboard the Fisheries Patrol Vessel, "Delphinus which led the flotilla from its berths at Port Melbourne out through the the Heads of Port Phillip. As we approached Fawkner Beacon with about 15 large sailing ships following closely behind, we saw a small, open boat with outboard motor and two gentlemen sitting in the fairway. They were fishing. Now, it's illegal to moor or fish there, but they didn't mind. I guess the fish were biting or the cold beer and sun had taken effect, but they didn't hear twin 1100 HP MANS approaching. Didn't even look up, until... The twin air horns and siren disturbed there peace at which they looked up and responded just like the guys in that video. There was 76' of hard chine aluminium shaped into a rather pointy edged weapon bearing down on them with a 10' bow wave to encourage them Mr Kennett subsequently sold the good ship "Delphinus" and Fisheries enforcement has been woeful ever since. Kaz

Odd float plane! Kas

Unless it gets sucked into the fan. Must be 25 years ago I responded to a call from the Master of the MV Bass Trader to Melbourne Water Police reporting a jet ski surfing his bow wave in the South Channel. I called the Master to tell him I would remove the nuisance and he replied saying it wasn't really a nuisance because he wouldn't even feel the bump! Kaz

Australian National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin would be an option. Most of the other museums are military. Probably not a huge value as most of these are available online or have been copied many times. Perhaps talk to Borg Sorensen at Tyabb or Dick Gower at Coldstream. Both have had a lot to do with old aeroplanes, and Gypsys in particular, for many years Kaz

I was in the tower at Alice talking to the Controllers some years ago when a C182RG called for clearance to depart to Tennant Creek. As he was departing, I noticed the gear on one side was hanging down part way and told the Controller. He said: It always does that but he will get it up eventually. I was in Tennant a few days later and, as soon as I saw the Cessna sitting there I knew the pilot had got the gear up. He just hadn't managed to get it down again!

Hi Alf I've been using noise cancelling headsets for ages and haven't had a wheels up landing yet! Kaz

Hi ARO I agree with all of the above except the last paragraph. My WAC, VNC etc on OzRunways can be enlarged to a size significantly greater than a printed chart. When I'm touring, I run 2 iPads (and a Garmin) and have one set with VTC if I'm going into controlled airspace at airports like Alice while the other is either WAC or VNC. But I also have my charts marked up, and my ruler, protractor and whiz wheel should I need them. I confirm my position on the ground against landmarks as I fly and irrespective of whether the GPS signal drops out or the iPads die or whatever, I will know my position to within a very small margin and revert to the Stone Age procedure. I confess I chuckle a little when I see comments about "following the magenta line" because that's exactly what you do when using an ADF or VOR to arrive at a destination. I don't have either of those in the AUSTER but the Cessna station hack we mustered in did and the ADF was both an important navigation aid and a means of breaking the monotony of travelling long distances by tuning into the ABC transmitters at places like Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Parraburdoo and Mt Newman. Kaz

Thanks Phil. Kaz

Lots of strict liability offences flying around today Kaz

The problem you have is that you land and taxi to the apron but can't get out. Then how do you contact a person with an ASIC to escort you? Some security airports are easy to exit and access without anyone checking, but others are very strict (Alice and The Rock come to mind). Yes, it's a crock but be careful the contents aren't tipped over you. Kaz

Gawne are GA only (Piper Super Cub) and Secure Air doesn't have a TW aircraft online. But Nathan is an AG Pilot and also a RAA CFI so worth talking to him about your aircraft. I don't know the guy at Devenish. Getting hard to find good TW instructors with inexpensive training aircraft. Dave Pilkington would have to be at the top of the class but he is an aero instructor using top gear at YMBN. Kaz

Secure Air (Nathan Muller) and Gawne Aviation (Allan Cole) at Shepparton can both do TW endorsements. Nathan would be my preference if using your GA aircraft. What have you got? Kaz

How terribly sad. RIP. Kaz

Light plane wreckage 'spread over four hectares' after fatal flight

Do you have a photo? Kaz

It will have been stripped ready for a repaint by morning! Kaz

I have to slow down to under 56 knots before getting any flap out and I do this on short downwind. Bearing in mind that the flap hinges are just screwed into 73 year old pieces of wood, I trim against the ASI for about 50 knots and open one stage before turning base. Second stage if not gusty (or even leave just 1st stage set if really bad) and then 3rd stage (barn doors) if all good because it brings the stall down to 26 knots. I might glance at the ASI a couple of times on final but I'm much more focussed on my attitude, the little black ball and what's in front of me. Kaz

Yes....gusty and 15 knot cross wind I'd be too busy flying the aeroplane to worry about what the ASI said. Fly the attitude --- or at least try to Kaz