old man emu

If the Transition level was FL115, the area QNH could be as low as 997 hPa, in Australia the weather on the ground would be pretty nasty. Think of the August winds. The transition altitude (TA) is the altitude above sea level at which aircraft change from the use of local barometer derived altitudes to the use of settings based on 1013.5 hPa. When operating at or below the TA, aircraft altimeters are usually set to (QNH) Above the TA, the aircraft altimeter pressure setting is normally adjusted to the standard pressure setting of 1013.25 hectopascals. The transition layer is the airspace between the transition altitude and the transition level. According to these definitions the transition layer is 0–500 feet thick. Looking at things from above the transition altitude, an aircraft flying at the 'transition level', in this example FL115, would not have adequate separation from traffic flying on QNH at the transition altitude. Instead, the lowest usable "'flight level'" is the transition level plus 500 ft. Consider the TA to be a line in the sky. Below it, QHN prevails. Above it 1013.25 prevails. The connection between "transition altitude" (TA), "transition layer" (TLYR), and "transition level" (TL) is TL = TA + TLYR

It used to be an offence, making attempts at suicide an offence as well.

Assuming that we are talking about a happy chappy who dies a result of an impact, and investigations fail to indicate suicidal tendencies, then yes, the Coroner will mark it as "Death by Misadventure". The problem is determining a person's state of mind at any time. I was involved in a fatal involving an ultralight (something like a Thruster of a Drifter (doesn't matter). Background investigations into the deceased raised the question of whether the reason for the flight was suicide. That question could not be given a firm answer, so the Death by Misadventure was probably the Coroner's conclusion. (Not to be confused with coronary occlusion, which is often a Coroner's conclusion.)

One could say that the ultimate adventure flight is a parachute jump. One would expect, given the inherent danger that the adventurist is facing that the regulations relating to commercial tandem jumps would be pretty complex. However, do those regulations prevent a person doing a solo jump? Look at the numbers who jump from cliffs with the intention of conducting a parachute-assisted flight. I dare say that no pilot associated with parachuting would countenance taking up someone who could not show proof of training. That's the pilot's bit of the Duty of Care saga. I know that Air Combat which does jet flights in L38s conducts a thorough pre-flight briefing before putting a customer in the plane.

The crux of the argument going on here is "where does Nanny step in?". Those seeking the introduction of something similar to Part 103 say that a person has the right to self-determination in all aspects. Those who oppose that view say that a person has a duty of care to others, so Nanny should step in. I think both are equally correct, and Part 103 shows this. Part 103 basically says that a person can get themself into the air in any sort of powered, heavier than air machine. That takes care of self-determination. Part 103 then becomes Nanny and sets some limits which go towards protecting other people nearby, but which don't prohibit the person from getting into the air. Those limits also have the advantage of offering a modicum of protection to the person engaging in the activity. It's like Nanny saying, 'You can climb the apple tree to pick some fruit, but don't drop any on the kids below, and don't climb too far out on a limb." It it unfortunate that in this country we have a Nanny who has never experienced climbing an apple tree and refuses to listen to those who have.

Me thinks that there is a great deal of that going on. Whatever happened to the gyrocopter craze of a few years ago when property owners were using basic gyrocopters when doing the basc stock, fences, water inspections over bit acreages?

There's always three sides to a story, his version, the other bloke's version, and the truth.

Wasn't the original question here to do with something like a booster pack? We don't seem to have answered that question.

Hardly. Throw enough mud and you'll soon get a dirty wall, and it's not the wall's doing.

I think if you ask anyone here who has built their own aircraft that in order to get it approved for flight by either organisation, you have to show pretty convincingly that it has been built to acceptable standards. In the CASA's view, if there is no manufacturer's instruction for the construction of the aircraft, the FAA AC-43-13 is the reference source.

Sorry. You're way off the mark with that. A constable is under no obligation to initiate a prosecution. A constable has the discretionary power to decide if something warrants being reported to a Court, or, in Rugby League terminology, is only worthy of a "caution on the run". If a constable decided to stop you, then the most appropriate next action would be to ask the driver to keep to the speed limit in future. There is nothing to stop the constable agreeing with the driver that leaving the temporary speed zone signs in place is a PITA, but the reduced speed limit would have been done with the same legal authority that had set the speed limit applicable before the roadworks were started. Let us assume that the section of road was in a suitable condition to sustain traffic speeds of 80 kph, and the applicable speed limit was normally 80 kph. If you claim to be a logical person who realised that your driving was not unsafe, why not apply the same assessment of logical thinking to the constable? Unfortunately, constables are under so much scrutiny because, in the mind of the Public, as soon as one puts on a blue suit, an angel of the Lord becomes as corrupt as the picture of Dorian Gray. How does the constable know that you are not from Police Integrity Unit, out to find the slightest fault. You have to remember that a constable is always guilty of any complaint. The dismissal of a complaint due to sufficient proof isn't the English "Not Guilty", but the Scottish "Not Proven".

It may have been dealt with by CASA administration in two days' time for the paperwork. That's not the point. It still required the applicant to obtain a medical examination with a DAME. I can take this same old, decrepit carcase of mine, for which the only condition that has been diagnosed by specialist examination is its tendency to stop inhaling whilst asleep, and which tendency is stopped by the throat being subjected to constant positive air pressure to a DAME who does not know me and be found to meet the standards for a Class 2. However, I can't take the same carcase to the GP who has been monitoring my health for years, and who annually examines me for both a HV licence and a Public Passenger Vehicle Driver's Authority and be found to have not apparent health issues that would prevent the issue of a Basic Class 2, if CASA was intelligent enough to admit that even young people who have no (apparent) medical issues sometimes drop dead from causes not discovered until a post mortem is conducted.

I happened to pick up a copy of Australian Flying today and read a piece by Senator Bridget McKenzie regarding the Aviation White Paper that's being kicked around at the moment. I've stated my gripe with CASA about reneging on the Basic Class 2 Medical by saying that anyone with sleep apnoea can't get a Basic Class 2, which is supposedly based on the National Heavy Vehicle Driver's standard. I figured that it would be the waste of a stamp to write to CASA, but I note that Senator McKenzie is the Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Transport. I think I might put my case to her, just to have someone take a poke at the Government about this reneging. I had thought to write to Paulie Hanson as well. At least she knows what it is like to fly in a Jabiru.

It seems fairly obvious that CASA is not going to allow, firstly untrained pilots to get into the air, and secondly aircraft of uncertain construction to leave the ground. "Uncertain construction" is a description that might raise the hackles of some, until it is qualified somewhat. I'd say that those Part 103 kits from America, with a certainty of construction proven by experience, would be acceptable for registration. It appears that RAA doesn't want to touch them, but after an inspection, CASA would likely to be happy. CASA is not likely to be happy with something knocked up by someone who knows what an aircraft looks like, but has no knowledge of such basics as C of G position and its effects on handling. (See those videos of African "homebuilts".)

OK. I took a wider view from what you said and identified one area where the States had the say. The Cwlth Air Navigation Act 1920 deals with international flights. There's nothing stopping one company hiring an aircraft from another company to conduct a scheduled service that the hire has, but their own aircraft is unavailable. Going back to intrastate flights, it is true that CASA governs everything to do with putting an aircraft into Australian airspace, but it is the States that say if an operator can conduct scheduled services between points within the State.

I thought you meant this:

The only powers the States have for anything to do with aviation is the control of intrastate RPT air routes. "Free trade between States" permits a commercial carrier to operate between, say Wagga and Mildura for example, but the carrier has to have the approval of Transport for NSW to carry between Wagga and Broken Hill. I'm sure this also applies to other States. This all came about following a High Court challenge to the Federal Government trying to ban carriers other than TAA from routes between the capital cities. The States and Territories have no control over any unscheduled commercial movements unless they duplicated an existing service. For example, Butler Air Transport aircraft were often chartered to take sporting teams from place to place. Lawn bowlers did it a lot. Say the bowlers wanted to go from Sydney to Parkes with BAT on the same day that a BAT scheduled service occurred. BAT would have to apply for a permit for the flight.

Quite correct, but what has happened with the Australian Road Rules in particular is that the States and Territories got together with the Commonwealth and created a common set of rules for the whole country. Then each State or Territory took that set of rules back home and replaced its existing traffic laws with the common set. Each government was still able to add or subtract to those rules to suit its needs in particular areas. That wasn't a ceding of powers, just a sensible idea. The Australian Design Rules are set by the Commonwealth for all vehicles manufactured or imported. I'm not sure, but one area could be the requirement for annual roadworthiness inspections. Back in the day in NSW those inspections were required for all vehicles, even a car that was only one year old. Now the time before a new car has to have an inspection is a couple of years, but being in the habit of buying new cars, I don't know the exact number of years.

Is that a turbo-fan?

Perhaps the biggest problem was the creation of Part 149. That makes it difficult to introduce another Self-administering organisation. It is ridiculous that the States and Territories can deal with motor vehicles of various classes and drivers requiring various skills under the same national legislation (Australian Road Rules and Australian Design Rules), but the Commonwealth cannot. All CASA would have to do is establish a number of classes of aircraft and set rules for the quality and maintenance of aircraft in each class. At the same time a number of classes of pilot's licence could be defined. That would require an increase in Public Sector employment, but CASA already has a schedule of fees for many of its functions that would go to meeting that increase in costs.

The skills in writing up what we could call in general terms an Operations Manual, a business plan and the rules or constitution by which an entity is operated are easy enough to create, and many people have these skills. The real skill after the entity has been created on paper is to first get a core group of people competent in managing the operations of the entity. That's your "Board of Governors". The next thing, and the thing that takes a lot of inter-personal relations skill, is getting people with a wide variety of experiences, opinions and desire to be involved to become part of the entity. You only have to look at the diversity displayed by users of this and the sister forum to see that a successful entity is built on the application of the above skills. Could an entity be created to deal with a subsection of aviation that is involved with aircraft equivalent to FAA Part 103? Sure it could. But the entity would have to comply with CASR Part 149 and become a Self-Administering Aviation Organisation. Is it worth the effort? I can't answer that one.

While looking for that cruise speed I came across both the figure I quoted and the one that Facthunter did. Personally, I think that something around 75-80 is the correct figure. I wonder if the variation is due to engine type.

My only concern is the narrow speed range. The Yanks say 24 mph stall to 55 mph top speed (is that VNE or cruise). That's 20 to 47 kts CAS. That would be OK if you were using the plane for checking fences and bores, or potting stock or vermin, but I'd like maybe to get up to 80 kts to cover the A to B a bit quicker. You could argue that the DH Tiger Moth cruises at 58 kts, but its VNE is 95 kts. I know it has a 130 HP engine, but a J3 Cub can do 65 kts on 65HP. I wonder of that Badlands airframe would handle a higher speed, since it is said to have a Max Speed of 69 kts.

Give these blokes a call. They are in Sydney. For Spare Parts or Salvage queries, please contact us via: Email: [email protected] Phone: 61-2-8544 0808

A picture is worth a thousand words, but the ones here are speechless. Where's the source of the pilot licence, aircraft registration and cause of forced landing? It's fair to assume that being Part 103, the pilot did not have a FAA licence, nor would the aircraft be registered with the FAA. What about the Polini engine? Are we going to be taking Jabs at it now?