skippydiesel

I have just received a statement from AVDATA purporting to be for "Airport landing and usage at Goulburn Airport (YGLB)" A tad surprising as I have not landed at YGLB within the last 5 years or so (would have to check logbook for precise date). Called AVDATA, charming lady (CL) answered - Turns out the charge was for doing a low pass ? WTF? Who knew you could be charged for an aerial manoeuvre ? I explained to CL, that not only had I no intention of landing but there was also a high wing (Foxbat?) backtracking on the runway at the time, so I couldn't land and no I definitely wasn't training. Apparently YGLB charge for any fly past under 1000 ft AGL. I checked ERSA - no mention of this innovative Toll on the airspace. My thanks to CL who has waved the fee. Was the Forum aware that you could be charged for a fly past??😈

Thanks for all the responses. Unfortunatly no one (including myself) seem to have a solution for the lack of good airmanship exhibited by so many Camden GA pilots. Is this just a Camden culture or is it more widespread??? I used to fly out of Camden, in the distant past, when it was still owned by us the people (Feds)I recall a good community atmosphere. A more recent, 2 month, experince - hard to say but I had the impression that much of the past community atmosphere may have evaporated. Could there be a general loss of pilot discipline/courtesy, with the privatisation of the field and greater pressure for financial viability?😈

Fair comment however Australia has only the one big annual event, so it would be nice if us littlies were better included. Having a visiting private aircraft flight line, for existing & aspiring owners to wonder up & down, is FREE advertising, while generating a more congenial environment.😈

Never been - Could it be that, if small aircraft appeared to be more welcome (eg Oshkosh type atmosphere) a lot more pilots would fly their little birds to the show??😈

"..........ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder" Most (all?) do, although not a requirement. I know that Sydney Control monitor aircraft on "instruments" and have experince of hearing aircraft on converging course/altitude being warned by Sydney. Does not seem to be foolproof as THE INCIDENT illustrates. Could Sydney have been "blanked" by terrain? 😈

Are you suggesting transiting aircraft, not below 4500 ft? The "ceiling" over The Oaks is 7500 ft however just to the east its 4500 ft - it would be near impossible for aircraft to descend to 1800 ft, for entry to Camden airspace ie they would still be down around 3000 ft over The Oaks.😈

Hmm! There's a thought. Personally I would like to see the height go to 3000 ft . Reason being, The Oaks circuit height is 1900 ft, overfly is technically above 2400 ft, however most quote & go for 2500 ft. We appear to get a lot of overflying aircraft at 2500 & well below (even down to circuit height). 3000 ft gives a nice buffer, from transiting aircraft for those arriving/departing The Oaks. 😈

"Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden." Camden is controlled airspace (has a tower). I can see how having the same radio frequency would reduce transiting pilots workload but at the same time would congest the airwaves, likly making communication worse. Also I am not sure how the Tower would deal with aircraft movements that are 7 Nm away, out of sight. "But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ?" I Dont understand. Please expand "Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit " That Camden have a limit to the number of aircraft in the circuit does not impact on The Oaks - its the aircraft entering/leaving the circuit, transiting The Oaks, that is the problem. To me this is a lack of training/personal discipline problem - Have the GA pilots received appropriate training & follow up BFR, looking at the obligation to communicate, when transiting within 10 Nm of an airfield? Is there a mechanism to bring the failure to communicate (with The Oaks) to the attention of the flying community based at Camden? Penetration of airspace, as for the above? Should it be impractical to try and get the Camden pilots to do the right thing - could The Oaks inbound (to Camden) reporting point be removed or relocated away from The Oaks? The above may not address the dot point problems, which collectively demonstrate poor pilot behaviour but would relocate the risk away from The Oaks😈

Sorry BurnieM - I repeat this is not about THE ACCIDENT, it's about past & ongoing lack of communication from pilots entering/leaving Camden via The Oaks. THE ACCIDENT is but a symptom of what's been happening for a long time and continues to this day. Camden pilots just don't acknowledge the presence of the airfield - No communication, often violate our airspace. I flew yesterday - up with me, three aircraft apparently not on/monitoring 126.7. While on ground, doing some work on my plane, with handheld monitoring transiting aircraft (X6) - not one made a call. This is situaton normal, even when The Oaks may have significant number of aircraft departing/arriving and students training in the circuit. How do we get Camden pilots to communicate?😈

I used to attend a lot of "air shows" in NSW - after a while they all seemed to be working from the same script - not much if anything new, became boring as -------! The good ones of the past Narromine/Temora seemed to offer camaraderie, that is now only found in the small club originated show/fly-ins. Now that RAA seems to be fixated on holding their annual at Parkes (Security Controlled) - can't even wonder up & down the flight line checking out the wide variety of visiting aircraft.😈

How does fatigue explain the majority of Camden in/out transitions, above The Oaks, making no calls at all and not even monietring the CTAF?😈

The accident is subject if another thread on Forum - This thread is about how to get the overflying pilots to communicate😈

A topic much debated - when, where & what to say. An example of ongoing dangerous communication failure; The Oaks airfield CTAF 126.7: Within Sydney Center 124.55 Class G airspace Overfly min alt 2500 ft 7 Nm to the west of the much larger busier Camden, Tower 120.1 About 4 Nm to Camden airspace The Oaks is a reporting points for aircraft coming from the West, entering Camden and is often overflown by aircraft departing to the West. Aircraft entering Camden airspace do so at 1800 ft & Departures 1300 ft. Despite its proximity, Camden ERSA does not mention The Oaks Camden departure instructions require aircraft to switch to Syd Cen 124.55 on departing Camden - no mention of west bound aircraft needing to switch to The Oaks 126.7 A few months ago, a Cessna, from Camden, entered The Oaks airspace/circuit. No Oaks pilot, active at the time, recalls any communication from the two very experienced pilots in the Cessna. The Cessna and an Oaks Jabiru collided, at circuit height - all three pilots were killed. Despite this recent tragedy, aircraft appearing to be bound for/from Camden, continue to overfly The Oaks without any radio communication at all. Hard to judge but often seem to be under the 2500 ft ceiling. Hailing on 126.7, results in silence. There is no doubt that it is congested airspace, with demanding radio communication from transiting pilots, while trying to meet altitude and tracking targets, but does this excuse not even a courtesy call to inform Oaks pilots of their presence & intentions?. The majority of The Oaks pilots are RAA. The Camden pilots GA The RAA pilots may not always use the correct phraseology but they always try to communicate - not so the Camden GA. Do we need another tragedy to bring about basic communication from Camden GA pilots???😈

Done! Compass ground & air calibrations - 127%✔️ A of A also done but need to consult on when low speed warning comes on - currently at 50%😈

Latest ADAHRS fitted - off to the airfield to do the compass calibrations.

Hi Aro, Very succinctly put - Thanks! I should not have talked up GPS rather Dynon - my EFB gives me Air Speed, True Airspeed and Groundspeed. In the not so distant past I only had airspeed and altitude, from which to estimate True. Groundspeed was based on time taken between ground points.😈

Your enturing into pretty expert territory here. Airspeed, as you climb, will be a poor indication of true speed, due to the lower air pressure (ASI working off pressure differential). The higher you go above sea level, the greater the error. In the past we used the rough estimate of 2% for every 1000 ft ASL. In a 100 knot aircraft, 2 knots error (ASI reading low)/1000 ft. Now we have GPS systems that give an instant and likly accurate readout of True Air Speed. I vaguely recall that at altitude, Vne can be easily exceeded by the unwary pilot - may have had something to do with air molecule's exciting the airframe (flutter?) -- where is that expert when needed? So it seems to me that the pilot must go by True airspeed and keep his aircraft below Vne as indicated by this system (not the ASI) 😈

Well I have been flying for a while now, very far from an expert, but I found it to be confusing and possibly even wrong in parts. Looks like you might be getting a good camber on it. Dont over do it. It may make landing on a wet surface/crosswinds, a tad more difficult than it needs to be.😈

Had a great chat with David Brown - certainly knows his Dynon (& other) systems inside out.😈

Disagree. The overwhelming focus is aviation. For the most part the few digressions are informative & entertaining. In fact it may be better to have a section especially for when a digression strays too far from aviation - that part of the thread could be transferred to reduce the "pollution" 😈

You can rely on me, to come up with a humorous typo 😈

Anyone had a read of the article on Page 78 "Airspeed" - I thought I knew about the relationships between Air, True & Ground speed - now complexly confused😈

Be careful - the company makes performance claims, without specifying which engine is being used, 100-200hp😈

Email address not good - got another?😈

Thanks Rodgerc - have emailed him😈