kaz3g

Rule 1...when all else has failed, keep flying the bloody aircraft. He did an excellent job setting up autorotation immediately and getting it on the ground. Kaz

There are tax issues if transferring major assets to children rather than spouse. There are no stamp duty or capital gains liabilities for the transfer of real property to the OP pursuant to divorce, but your kids could face such a burden if you gift the house to them...Kaz

Do you have a reference for this please? Kaz

Me too Kaz

Sorry to hear that, Ian. But I hope the new paint scheme softens the blow. Were you on the ground when the hail struck? As up in Bourke then Renmark a few weeks ago and got in some good thermal practice for summer. Kaz

I just knew you would slip in something controversial here...kaz

I'm rapidly approaching 73 and I just renewed my aviation medical class 2. I plan on working and flying for at least another ten years if possible. One of my club members is late 80's and he just purchased another aircraft, C182Q which I think puts him up to 5 in his current stable. Kaz

AOPA is meeting with the Greens. Kaz

The Council has had no interest in fostering aviation at the current airport And has a grandiose plan to build a new one elsewhere. They just don't have the many tens of millions of dollars needed to pay for it. The airport is being rapidly built in and the land at the northern end is all zoned industrial. That big shed certainly makes for interesting landing approaches when it is windy (sheer) or hot (thermal source). A new housing estate is rapidly filling up vacant land to the south and east Interestingly, the owner of that shed has his Citation parked at Shepparton and is currently constructing a rather large hangar for it so perhaps he also thinks moving the airport is a long way off. Kaz

I live on short final for 18 at Shepparton and we have a Citation lives here, 3 or 4 aeromedical services each day, firefighting helicopter, 2 flying training schools, and lots of light aircraft. And I still look up every time one goes by. $100 million would sustain the many Community Legal Services providing free assistance to our most disadvantaged community members that are now struggling because the Commonwealth savagely cut its legal aid funding citing budget problems. Yet they found this sum out of the blue in less than 12 hours rather than have Labor vote with them. Politics is screwed! And I absolutely understand how important the backpacker tax issue is because I live in the largest fruit growing area in the country and many of my clients also pick fruit as seasonal workers. Why did the Government originally decide to screw the farmers with a 30% tax and why didn't they see the light and impose it at the same rate as NZ? Ahhhrrrrr! Kaz

The proposed legislation goes much further than that. It appoints an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and a Community Advocate whose jobs revolve around facilitating complaints from people who dislike aircraft noise. Bit scary pondering what trade-offs might occur between the Libs and the Greens after the Backpacker Tax debacle in which the Libs agreed to spend another $100m on environmental stuff without even blinking. Kaz

Vale Maj..

No...they are exempt from the requirements of 232(2) and 232(5) so they don't need CASA approved checklists, but they still must comply with 232(1), that is, they must have a checklist. Why is it so damned complicated? Bloody lawyers! Kaz

I use the universal mnemonic "P.A.N.I.C." Kaz

Dunno DJPIL...when I open the Regs on Austlii, Reg 212 is in Division 2 (Requirements to ensure commercial operations) and Reg 232 is in Division 3 (Conduct of operations) Reg 212 says "in this division" so doesn't appear to negate the requirement for check lists but I acknowledge the potential issue with "CASA approved". My AUSTER doesn't have a POH or Flight Manual and is exempt from those requirements and my checklists are a close copy of those for a Cessna 172M. I note that the CASA info on Ramp checks also lists checklists for GA (but not RA) I’m a GA pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check | Civil Aviation Safety Authority Kaz

CAR 232. I don't see this mentioned in the list of exemptions contained in CAO95.55 so, unless someone can point me to it, then I think that a written checklist is one of the documentary requirements for all pilots, not just GA pilots. I have one in my AUSTER which is probably a far less technically developed aircraft than many of those flown by members of this list. My list sits in the door pocket along with my W&B table which is also an incredibly simple one. And yes, I have memorised them using simple mnemonics. Kaz

See 99.015(3) (3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities specified in paragraphs (2)(b) to (l) even if those activities do not occur in an aerodrome testing area.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.115 Who may be drug or alcohol tested (1) An approved tester may require a body sample for the purposes of a drug or alcohol test under this Subpart from a person who is performing or available to perform an applicable SSAA. (2) However, an approved tester must not, for drug or alcohol testing under this Subpart, require a body sample from a passenger. I think the "available to perform" could only reasonably be applied to crew who were on a rostered standby. It would be pretty ridiculous to be charged on the basis that you were available to plan a flight if you were just sitting in your hotel room on holidays with a nice glass of red and your OzRunways iPad beside you....or charged for being available for SSAAs if you were repairing the mower in the garage at home where you had your partly built aircraft. But the phrase "available to perform" will no doubt be determined by a Court sometime down the track. It's not quite a Star Chamber so there is no obligation to self-incriminate. Kaz

They are exceptionally broad powers, ARO, limited only by the "at all reasonable times" condition and the common law protections against intrusions of privacy in regards places where we reside. The hangar and an oil change is clearly within scope. In my view, entry without warrant or permission of a closed hotel room or private residence would be unlawful and it would be best not to answer the knock on the door. If you answer that knock and the approved tester introduces themself AND produces their identification card (99.480), then you would likely face the prospect of a hinder and other charges if you refused to submit to the test. BUT, to meet the points of proof of exceeding 0.02% BAC while performing SSAA they would need to be able to prove you were (1) performing flight planning or (2) building the aeroplane. And they might find this difficult if you don't make admissions. The question of whether a testing officer's powers include a power of entry to residential premises without warrant or permission once the door is opened is one for a Court as is the determination of what constitutes reasonable times. Kaz

Yes, I agree ARO...apologies for the misinformation. And I should have remembered this because it raised questions about the legality of having a beer in the hangar after flying. " aerodrome testing area " means: (a) any surface in a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome over which an aircraft is able to be moved while in contact with the surface of the aerodrome, including any parking areas; and (b) any part of the surface of a certified aerodrome or registered aerodrome: (i) that is not covered by paragraph (a); and (ii) that does not have a building on it; and (iii) from which access to a surface mentioned in paragraph (a) may be had; and © a building located on a certified aerodrome or registered aerodrome that is used: (i) for maintenance of an aircraft or an aeronautical product; or (ii) for the manufacture of aircraft or aeronautical products; or (iii) by an air traffic service provider to control air traffic; or (iv) by the holder of an AOC for flying training; or (v) by a Part 141 operator conducting flying training in an aircraft; and (d) any part of an aircraft, aerobridge or other moveable structure in a certified aerodrome or a registered aerodrome. Entry only with a warrant but this may not protect from the offence of failing to comply, etc. Police in Victoria regularly charge a drink-driving offence of exceeding BAC within three hours of driving? The onus of proof is reversed and the person has to prove the BAC is due to alcohol consumed after driving and not before. It is heading towards the ludicrous if you can't open OzRunways and play with it while enjoying a red Kaz

Thanks ARO, that was what I was just looking at again, too. I think Yenn was a bridge too far because it was the employer who paid him. Kaz

I think the catch here is that it must be the employer's aircraft but I won't hang my hat on that. Kaz

I beg to differ, Yenn. The law will give the word its ordinary meaning and you can look that up in the Macquarie Dictionary. I also suggest your ferry flights did not meet CAR 2(7A)(d) because the costs must be shared equally between each of the persons on the flight, not paid by their employer. Kaz

The man has been charged with Commonwealth offences and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. The matters are now sub judice and speculating on either guilt or penalty at this stage may lead to an action in contempt including against the publisher. Discuss the seriousness of the offences by all means but my suggestion is that the alleged offender should be left out of it. Kaz

Please read the regulation below carefully, particularly noting sub-Reg (3) in the context of (2)(g) CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 99.015 SSAAs to which this Part applies (1) This Part applies to the SSAAs specified in this regulation. (2) The specified SSAAs are: (a) any activity undertaken by a person, other than as a passenger, in an aerodrome testing area; and (b) calculation of the position of freight, baggage, passengers and fuel on aircraft; and © the manufacture or maintenance of any of the following: (i) aircraft; (ii) aeronautical products; (iii) aviation radionavigation products; (iv) aviation telecommunication products; and (d) the certification of maintenance of a kind mentioned in paragraph ©; and (da) the issuing of a certificate of release to service for an aircraft or aeronautical product in relation to maintenance carried out on the aircraft or aeronautical product; and (e) the fuelling and maintenance of vehicles that will be used to fuel aircraft on aerodrome testing areas; and (f) activities undertaken by an airport security guard or a screening officer in the course of the person's duties as a guard or officer; and (g) activities undertaken by a member of the crew of an aircraft in the course of the person's duties as a crew member; and (h) the loading and unloading of trolleys containing baggage for loading onto aircraft and the driving of such trolleys; and (i) activities undertaken by a holder of an air traffic controller licence in the course of the person's duties as a controller; and (j) activities undertaken by the supervisor of a holder of an air traffic controller licence in the course of the person's duties as such a supervisor; and (k) providing flight information and search and rescue alert services: (i) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft immediately before the flight of the aircraft; or (ii) to a pilot or operator of an aircraft, during the flight of the aircraft; or (iii) as an intermediary for communications between a pilot or operator of the aircraft, and an air traffic controller; and (l) providing aviation fire fighting services. (3) This Part applies to the safety-sensitive aviation activities specified in paragraphs (2)(b) to (l) even if those activities do not occur in an aerodrome testing area. So you won't be DAMPED for showing someone your aeroplane airside but you may still have a problem with CAR 256 if you "enter" it or do something which can be construed as acting as a member of the aircrew (checking the tie-downs?) having used...ANY alcoholic liquor or having consumed any in the preceding 8 hours: CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256 Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft (1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft. Penalty: 5 penalty units. (2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.