ben87r

Let's just hypothesise for a moment (which is all we can do with NO ACTUAL INFO). Let's say they do get approval for their own AC register with VH reg, owner maintained, training or casa licenced and 1500kg If so etc etc. Let's also say the don't want to do 95.10 and the other UL segments as they could choose to do.... wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?? The GA guys could come through with their C1xx or PA 2xx, the folk wanting GA type plastics could also if they choose, RA could stick with under 600kg OCTA and start looking after the lighter end again and everyone wins? Or am I being too optimistic? I don't have an interest in flying RA because the aircraft I would consider buying wouldn't fit in the weight limitation, no biggie as I wouldn't want to spoil anyone's fun in RA but if there was an alternative I would be very interested if it suited.

I like the idea of being able to fly with them with a RPL or higher, would definitely have more interest from me.

What AC is he using?

Is that with Ron still Bull?

DR (and other WB drivers), do they have any indication of what altitude it maintained? And how much effect would it have had if they were say 4-6k' above or below planned cruise on range?

When I started flying the Twin Comanche the guy I was flying with said watch her because as soon as you think you are getting the hang of it she will remind you to pay attention. At first I thought he was half joking but it's exactly what happened (C210 to some extent the same) the longer I flew it the harder consistent landings became.

If IFR "ABC" would be sufficient, I don't image it would be different for VFR. I

The area that you talk about is right under the ILS so traffic would be heavy. There isn't any blaring reason that I can see as to why it couldn't be done but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a reason why it couldn't due the ils. Maybe it could start further south if it was the case?lobethel south? Flown the area many times myself and agree that you are pretty low. Done Parafield dct Strathalbyn 2.5k a few times, that isn't very comfortable.

Not talking structural, if structural was most limiting ild agree with you Nev. Just had a Google. It is EW Regulation of ultralight aircraft in the United States is covered by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 (Federal Aviation Regulations) Part 103 or 14 CFR Part 103, which defines an "ultralight" as a vehicle that: has only one seat[1][2] Is used only for recreational or sport flying[1][2] Does not have a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate[1] If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds[1] If powered: Weighs less than 254 pounds (115 kg) empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices [1] [*]Has a maximum fuel capacity of 5 U.S. gallons (19 L);[2] [*]Has a top speed of 55 knots (102 km/h; 63 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight[1] [*]Has a power-off stall speed of 24 knots (45 km/h; 28 mph) calibrated airspeed or less[1]

Tried to edit my post but was too late.. Wanted to change my wording as 103 isn't a MTOW limitation as I understand but a MZFW or a BEW or similar limitation hence the issue.

I think the point has been lost a bit here, even tho the posts have been of quality. The MTOW the op is talking about would the the FAR103 REGULATORY weight, so to be far it does warrant a philosophical discussion as to whether the fuel source weight (batteries) should be considered part of the empty weight. If we are to promote electric aircraft should those guys get penalised for having to carry batteries?

Everyone seem to be looking for a "rule" or "standard" amount/type of calls. The only rule is CAR 166, everything else is a suggestion OCTA. Make all that are required to aid in collision avoidance by judgement and situational awareness of the day being considerate of other aircraft in the area and don't make any that unnecessary. That's what being PIC is all about, judgement. Most situations more than one leg of the circuit is unnecessary. Taxi, entertaining, backtracking, lining up, departing also unnecessary in most situations.

I've flown the most remote parts of the mainland well away from highways or populated areas (unless you count the Tanami as a highway) with reception. From my experience the higher you are the better the reception. On the ground it's a totally different story.

Buttt!! How many tons of fuel are you responsible for each day you go to work!!

If old cars were maintained like aircraft I'm sure they would get there. New engine/gearbox/diff every 150k or so would go a long way.

Thanks RS, I'm quite happy with my radio use due to the reasons outlined above. Is that the same advisory document that advises all not CTAF calls be made on centre?

Wasn't my instructor I was just grabbing fuel behind them as they were preparing to depart, hence my temptation!

No offence taken. Departure call gives traffic in the area a chance that may not have herd your other calls due to frequency limitations, their distance away from the aerodrome when you made the call, terrain etc, but importantly it gives a time of departure and more relevant traffic information to anyone who may be going to bump you at some stage. IE if I hear a taxi call I normally don't pay too much attention, as they make take their sweet a&$@ time getting airborne or it may be one min, lining up, same thoughts also most wouldn't give intentions with a lining up call it would usually be ABC lining up RWY 01, which is good for inbound traffic not so much for others.... But, a departure call I know your at least airborne, passing x altitude and climbing to Xx tracking Xxx. You may not know I'm there but I can judge whether or not we are conflicting and either speak up or keep quiet and you would never be the wiser half the time. As for the on the day bit...there are times when I've had a few aircraft trying to backtrack lineup and depart, before I've landed, it's one of many cases where I would give each leg until I knew no one else was going to enter, just giving the other guys enough info for them to use their judgement as to whether they had time or not to get out, if I call base, and they decide to backtrack, you could be sure ild report final, and most likely short final too if he is buggering about.

I don't fit the 20yr criteria but the only one I would add as a departure call and entering instead of line- up. The every leg of the circuit is flight school stuff.... Unless required on the day. I herd an instructor the other day telling a student that "it's a legal requirement to call each leg" I nearly went and asked for a reference but thought better.

Wasn't in NZ by any chance was is? I remember reading a report of similar about a lady pilot who was presumed to have been entertaining her partner in the right hand seat and had knocked off (no pun intended) the auto pilot and ended up being CFIT.

It SHOULD always be cleared to TO/LAND runway 06 L/R, by as DJ has eluded to, minimum read back would be whatever they have cleared you, cleared to TO, cleared to TO runway RIGHT, or cleared to TO runway 06R. It depends on how busy they are and if they know you are familiar with the airport or not from my experience as to which is used. I normally out of habit (good?) read back the runway even if not given to me in the clearance. So if they said "cleared to land" my read back would normally be cleared to land 06R/L.

I haven't flown the area that Steve is talking about but, the Kimberley I had enough reception nearly everywhere to make a phone call and recently flew SYD-CNS and had reception nearly the whole way. That's with Telstra, one of my Pax had Optus, had no reception at all. When I was in the NT we didn't get any anywhere but that's a while ago now and I believe it's changed. Testing the memory now but if I remember correctly most of SA had it. Most of the remote communities don't have reception on the ground but onece at circuit height usually have it back.

Ian I don't see it as a loophole but actually the intent of the reg. They don't define competency as training so an instructor rating isn't required, the best training pilots aren't always instructors. If someone has significant time on type there is no benefit for flying with a 500hr G2 with little on type experience as an example, in fact ild much prefer the former. They have given the pilot the responsibility of deeming themselves competent and choosing the most appropriate way for becoming so IF needed. No one anywhere would suggest going from a Cessna 1xx to a C210 without any other experience but a C210 driver should be able to go to a C182 with very little if any conversion dependent on experience. On the multi engine side things aren't quite as clear (not that it is that clear for singles either!) as you need to be competent in emergency situations which should mean OEI operations and outside of commercial ops I believe you need a FIR to be shutting down engines, although don't quote me on the last bit.

Doesn't have to be an instructor to deem you competent OR "train" you in the aircraft. They need to be involved to issue endorsements/design features etc but if you are "training" someone to competency on a new aircraft no training has actually taken place as the pilot already holds all the requirements. This has been controversial since p61 as most ICUS/supervisor/training pilots I know do not hold a FIR and outside of a 217 organisation to train a FIR is required. I have "trained" a few guys since p61 and don't hold a FIR myself. Recently I have flown 2 new aircraft types as PIC, both reasonably complex but I had huge amount of time on similar AC from the other manufacturer so I deemed myself to be competent. Thought process was would I happily be able to explain myself in court if I had to? If yes go ahead if not don't. With that tho, under the new ruling and it being the pilots responsibility, if you did have a whoopsie it would be very hard to define yourself as competent, as by definition it would envolve not having a whoopsie. Just culture?

Thanks Ian, I figured that would be the case, I will continue to do it.