Bill Hamilton

Folks, There is quite a range of STC's HID light conversions for certified aircraft, the shielding is vital. Their specs. would be a good place to start. An important point not so far mentioned is they run cool, so lights on without a cooling airflow/ground operations is not nearly as critical as most other bulbs. Regards,

Adrian, Try the Aviall web site. Indeed, an Aviall catalog ( about the size of a telephone book) is a very useful reference on many item, they are not free, but well worth the money. There is an Aviall in Melbourne. Regards,

Folks, Look carefully at what Ozzie has said. Many auto type paint strippers can do really horrible things to aluminium. You are only starting with 24, 26 guage sheet, not like it is the aluminium side of a tipper truck. A really good reason to strip an aircraft completely, is to check for corrosion under the paint. There are some really good two pack anti-corrosion primers these days. Caustic stripper in lap joints and other hard to get at spots can write an aeroplane off, I have seen it with a C-172. Some little time ago, a well known commercial aircraft re-finisher got into all sorts of CASA and commercial trouble for using an unapproved and very caustic automotive paint stripper. Please do your homework, and make certain the stripper you use is "aviation approved". Be very careful with control surfaces, and they WILL have to be rebalanced after whatever you do to them, and an aircraft will have to be reweighed after painting --- you would be surprised how much paint weighs ---- and make certain it is all supervised by a LAME if it is VH- and not an experimental where you can do the maintenance. For a VH- standard cat. GA aircraft, paint stripping and painting is NOT pilot maintenance. Regards,

Yes, but to who (or should that be "to whom")Any kind of reform of aviation activities (I don't want to use the word "procedures") in Australia is extremely difficult, with a very pronounced preponderance of nay-sayers to any change. The objections to "risk based regulation" are very well entrenched in aviation circles, although risk based management has been adopted by almost the rest of Australian industry and their various regulators. In the aviation case, always in favor of the status quo, usually without any idea of how the status quo became the status quo. Most of the objections to the CAR 166 changes, in favor of the status quo, have been entirley without regard to the various studies of actual pilot behavior at CTAF/CTAF®, earlier CTAF/MBZ. Further, without regard to studies of how "alerted see and avoid" works best ---- what really produces the least risk. aka best safety outcome. "Mandatory xxxxx" does not produce the best kind of behavior --- where a pilot actually thinks about what to say --- as opposed to "chanting the mantra", putting all the verbal tick in the boxes of any analysis of the voice recorder. It is also pretty clear the "mandatory radio procedures" leads to an entirely false sense of security on the part of the participants, particularly when several pilots are indulging in a bit of do-it-yourself ATC, radio arranged separation (for which there is no legal imprimatur, or any requirement for a pilot to participate, regardless of the hectoring of any other aircraft) to the degree that other aircraft in the area can't get a word in edge-ways. What the "traditionalists" can't get their mind around, as just one example, is that with very high levels of basic compliance with radio communications requirements ( I don't want to use the word "procedures") , making something "mandatory" does not increase compliance, because compliance rates are so high that most non-compliance is inadvertent, and if "compliance is mandatory", creating that animal first noted in the first Lane Report as an "inadvertent criminal". John McCormick, in early testimony to a Senate Committee, acknowledged that "mandatory radio procedures" did not improve compliance, and there is quite a considerable body of evidence that rigid " mandatory procedures" actually increase risk (aka decrease safety) by inhibiting proper communications. And that is why I don't want to talk about "radio procedures", but "radio communications", which is not the same thing. The rest of the world "communicates", Australia has "procedures", and four or five times the "standard phrases" as recommended by ICAO. The alleged importance of complying "precisely" with "standard procedures", regardless of the appropriateness of "selected phrase or procedure" to the degree that it has been elevated to a potential BFR or License Renewal failure is a nonsense. Good radio discipline and common sense is what is really required ---- not a straitjacket. One of my favorites ---- those of us who know what has to be read back in a clearance on controlled airspace clearances will really appreciate this one --- and remember, I heard it myself, I was No2 behind the subject of the story; it went like this: Sydney Kingsford-Smith early one morning, with one aircraft slow to vacate RW 16R: Tower: QF xxx, expect late landing clearance. QF xxx: Acknowledged tower advice. A short while later ---with xxx on very short final --- Tower: QF xxx, cleared to land, no readback required (Thinking controller there -- non-compliant phraseology in the interests of safety) QF xxx: (readback) Cleared to land 16R, no readback required. A wonderful example of rote adherence to "mandated procedures". A bit of thread drift ---- but don't anybody be under any illusion about resistance the changes that made the RAOz of today possible --- the legislative changes that (amongst other things) introduced the various experimental categories. One of these days the history will be written, of an unholy alliance between the nay-sayers of industry and CASA, who all knew that US style Experimental "wouldn't work" in Australia, that we couldn't cope with US style freedom, that Australians needed a stifling cloak of "control" to be "safe". The history of the last twelve years has proven that to be absolute rubbish, to put it mildly, but the same "the only good change is no change" brigade is alive and well. Thereafter, the expansion of AUF was explosive. Regards,

Les,What really gets on my wick is pilots using a false callsign, and I get the bills. On one occasion I got three in one weekend, thousands of miles apart. One chap actually had false regos taped on the aircraft, then made the mistake of wheeling in to a set of fuel pumps ----- owned by the operator of the aircraft with the legitimate registration. As you can imagine, the punch-up was something to behold -- best comedy I had seen in ages. Folks, if you insist in committing fraud, plus a handful of CASA type strict liability criminal offenses, please don't do it at the expense of air safety, just say "Cessna 172 ----- ------". Regards,

www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100081 Folks, Here is the final version of the NFRM for operations around a non-controlled airfields, hot off the press. Please read carefully, there are some significant changes, effectively CTAF v. CTAF® are gone. Regards, Bill Hamilton Regards,

www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100081 Folks, The above is a link to the final NFRM for operations around a non-controlled aerodrome. Please read the salient changes carefully. Regards,

Folks, For those of you who waded through the NFRM, the most important point is that CTAF/CTAF® ceases to have any meaning, radio (and its use) will be mandatory at any Certified or Registered aerodrome ----- quite a change to the present. In short, virtually every airfield listed in ERSA (or operations in the vicinity off -- 10nm radius) will require carriage and use of radio. Provisions for radio failure and the need to get to where repairs can be made are limited, sales of handhelds look like booming. Regards,

Geoff, I agree with you. I have been to every Natfly since the first at Narromine. I have spent more hours in meetings than I care to remember, in more meetings than are good for me, arguing against the "representatives" of one particular body of "professional pilots", whose consistent refrain is that Sports, Rec and Private aviation is a menace. Indeed, at a RAPAC, one "airline" pilot was complaining that, when he was doing 250 kt in the circuit (Yes!, that's what he said, 250) "small" aircraft were hard to see, and therefor should be excluded while he was about. The idea that he should slow up and fit in was rejected --- because he could lose 2-3 minutes ---- professional???? Putting money ahead of good airmanship. Every survey of pilot behavior, particularly compliance with mandated and recommended radio procedures, has refuted the "professionals" claims, but that has not made the slightest difference in position taken by said "professionals". Indeed, this same group is furiously campaigning against Class E airspace over the new Class D zones in WA, all on the basis that Rec/Private/VFR cannot be trusted, and only Class C will do --- in short---- all IFR should be given absolute priority. At each Natfly, the behavior of most AUF/RAOz pilots was, in my observation, excellent. Indeed, at one Natfly that came shortly after some changes to radio procedures, I sat in the Saturday afternoon sun, with the then CASA CEO, listening to the Unicom. What we heard was a bit of the old, a bit of the new, and most of all, pilots communicating (which is not the same thing as rote chanting of "radio procedures"), in other words, using their brains. But there is always the occasional black sheep, who should be dealt with sooner, rather than later. Regards,

antzx6r, Of course peer pressure/disapproval is preferable to CASA weighing in, but the fact remains, the two pilots conducting the impromptu airshow need a good kick up the kyber. I, too, witnessed it from ground level. Unfortunately, this sought of thing is all to common, witness the nonsense at the Omeo (spelling) picnic races some little time ago, where one (of many) low flying formation aircraft hit power lines and the pilot was severely burned. And the last Bunderberg airshow, and Watts Bridge, and, and!! As to so called "professional", forget that, there are no divisions in the basic rules, just the responsibility of the pilot in command. In my observation, many "professional" examples are the last example to follow --- and a few people flying Metros,-8s and Saabs know exactly what I am talking about. Further personal observations: Most RAOz pilot certificate holders try very hard to do the right thing and use common sense to fit in, as do most PPLs. Sadly, I can't say the same thing for all too many "other" GA pilots, including or perhaps especially self proclaimed "professionals". The possession of a CPL does not a professional make. These are the people giving GA a bad name, by their demonstrated behavior in the air. Perhaps this is why we have GA accident rate roughly double the US. Why insurance rates are rocketing up, if you can get insurance at all. Don't shoot the messenger. That is what is so sad about the delay put on RAOz plans for a controlled airspace endorsement by CASA. A few (not necessarily just RAOz certificate holders, even if they were flying RAOz aircraft) have spoiled it for the many, by their very public demonstrations of what I see as contempt for the basic rules of the air, and similar contempt for the rules of aviation common sense, aka airmanship. I have little doubt that CASA noticed, what they do about it is up to them, I very much doubt it will be ignored. I just hope it does not bounce back on Natfly/RAOz, to the detriment of Natfly in the future. Just remember: there are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. We all learned the basic rules of the air when we learned to fly, regardless of what license we may have, there is no good reason, not to stick to them. Regards, PS: Your attempt at humor re. the emergency, it was a structural failure in a twin, resulting in such high drag, the the aircraft only just made the runway with T/O power, the failure happened downwind in the circuit.

Folks, Nothing "probably" about it, the change is on. Regards,

Folks, Nothing bizarre about an an emergency, the incident referred to was a genuine emergency. As to the impromptu flying display that started this thread, I would strongly recommend a serious study of the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations. On the face of it, the two pilots concerned racked up an impressive total of violations of regulations, most of which are strict liability offenses. Probably also S.20(a)(2) of the Act, reckless and negligent operation of an aircraft. It is also clear that quite a few posters on this thread only have a tenuous (at best) grasp of the basic rules of the air and the level of penalties for violating those rules. Chaps and chapesses, it is time to do some homework/revision/study to get up to speed. The rules of the air are basically universal, not something CASA has concocted, they are there for the benefit of all airspace users. Neither the RAOz organizers not the Unicom operators have any authority to give "approval" or "clearances" to break the law. NATFLY is a fly-in, not an airshow, and all the normal rules of the air apply. On the basis of the general lack of knowledge, as evidenced on this thread, is it so surprising that John McCormick, CASA DAS and CEO, is not too keen on rushing changes for access to controlled airspace of RAOz certificate holders, and equally wants to see a improvement in GA standards. You can comply with the rules of the air, and have just as much fun, and it will really be much safer. While you are at it, make certain you are across the new rules for mandatory carriage and use of radio for operation at uncontrolled aerodromes, coming into place mid year, some of the changes are fundamental and quite far reaching. Regards,