skippydiesel

No engineer but isn't the fin (& rudder) size , relative to the fuselage length (principle of moments) ie an aircraft can have a small effective fin if its set a relatively long (tail cone) way back ???

I forgot to add - pilot training, to the cost of preparing/using the martyred one. ASIC DOESN'T MAKE SENSE on any level - EFFECTIVENESS - Zero. Possibly less, as lulls the public into false sense of security. COST - Out of all proportion to effect REFLECTION - Makes our leaders look like a right load of idiots ANGST- Upset a small section (pilots) of the community, for no gain but little loss (votes) i

I suggest; On a cost V Effectiveness analysis, It must be soooo much cheaper & quicker, to acquire a drone(s), fill with explosives and aim it at whatever target you choose - live to perform many more terrorist acts. Than Taking many years(?) to feed/cloth, transport, brainwash a young person(s), into believing in a life of luxury & sex awaits them, if they commiting suicide in service of some mythical being, then explode themselves in a single act.

Fantasy! and vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

"............ I thought I had explained that I had been briefed by a Police Minister." Sorry Turbs I and many others don't agree/buy it - I am not impressed that you have been briefed by any vested interest (particularly a politician) in maintaining what is, demonstrably a poorly conceived & executed, complete redundant ASIC (as it pertains to recreational level pilots and their little aircraft accessing the vast majority of RPT airfields). Refr: The editor of Sport Pilot flying the length/breadth of Australia - I haven't counted his landing - only once was he asked for his ASIC - this alone would cause most people to question its efficacy. See Nev's point above ; Think what a nasty person could do with an explosive laden drone - You don't have to be a martyr seeking radical, to fly a drone into an airliner full of passengers. No flight training - Minimal cost and No ASIC required.

"...............Of course speed is some issue, of course it is, because if you had zero speed, there would be no accidents. " The use of speed as a road safety control/minimisation is a cheap and nasty cop out - at best treats the symptoms, rather than the cause - extremely low level of driving skill. "Can they enhance the skill level of drivers ? I think we're at the point of the limit of what you can due to general human society. " If we had something similar to a BFR , say a true/realistic driver review every 5 years (or less if you prefere) we would have a chance of raising driver skill to a reasonable level. "Improves the roads is one way. " Road conditions are a very poor excuse for road accidents - used by those that don't drive too the conditions, as an excuse for their poor driving. A few of our problems- Cultural Having a driving license is regarded as a right, rather than a privilege. Political problem Politicians are unwilling to address the root cause(s) Education/Standards/Adherences Driver training is very poor Testing - a joke Policing - Focuses on speed, intoxication & seat belts - where is driving dangerously, lack of courtesy, etc etc? Road Design/Standardisation I could almost write a book on it - Freeway - entry to short to easily accelerate to posted speed / exit slip roads that drop to 60 kph within a few meters of the freeway. Poor & inconsistent signage. Posted speeds inconsistent with road conditions. Mandated forward parking. Roads/lanes too narrow for heavy vehicles ------- ----------etc etc Of course all this is moot - self drive vehicles is almost a reality - there will be no more drivers (on public roads) in a generation or so.

So where does BC0709's Savannah S fit in all of this - experimental?

Turbs me old mate; "If people just bought their ASIC cards and got on with it there would be no need for discussions, but they don't, and we get this endless moaning about them." It's a very good thing for you and the rest of our, supposedly free, society, that at least some of us do not conforme, without question, to all of the Gov/bureaucracies rules & regulations. A healthy democracy requires active dissent, without it we have Russia/China/ Syria/Turkey/ sundry African and Asian countries, may be even a future Trump USA. Democracy is imperfect and fragile - constant vigilance (questioning) is required to keep it from dying - look how close we came with dictator Scumo! I speculate that Australia is one of the most regulated, so called, democracies in the World - we have far too many illogical, poorly conceived, ineffective, redundant....... .....laws that remain "on the books" because of political/bureaucratic indifference. ASIC, as it's applied to private pilots, wishing to access small regional airfields, may seem to be but a small inconvenience (..got on with it there would be no need for discussions) however its continued existence, against common sense, is a foot in the door (small to be sure) of totalitarianism and should be condemned at every opportunity.

Speculation ; Where VH do experimentals fit in "state regfistered" (VH in Oz) aircraft meet design standards that are acceptable to ICAO,"?

Seems to me that Group G may benefit, if at all, a very few pilot/owners. Comes across as a diversion away from enhancing/benefiting, existing, members.

Nev - Very confused - are you responding to someone/ a topic on his thread?

Seems to me that that is an extraordinarily wide/long circuit - the pilot may have been having problems quite early on in the flight

RAA aircraft have been operating from controlled airfields for years. Some against the rules and some within, under a training dispensation. Doesn't seem to have caused widespread chaos/accident/problems. While I support the need for appropriate training/endorsement, much of the "problem" is "hype" & bureaucratic make work.

You & I might expect this to be so but just look at the significant differences between Australian & US small recreational aircraft rules. When you get into commercial aircraft that can easily/routinely fly between nations - I would expect a high degree of your "harmonisation!"

Fair enough - never thought to check out the original posters locator - well done.

FAA does not have jurisdiction in Australia. Having said that their opinion is worth considering. CAA is the Australian equivalent - what, if anything, is their ruling?

I doubt its a "legal" or "registration" issue however the common-sense requirement for clearance in the worst case scenario "...flat front tyre, and the suspension fully compressed" is, to my opinion, the only sensible way to go. It is just a matter of deciding how much more clearance (mm) is advisable, should you encounter the worst case.

Interesting (to me anyhow); Sport Pilot Editor, Nicholas Heath, has reported on his breadth/width flights across Australia (in his non RAA RV6A). Ref: “All The Way Up” (issue 103) and “Across The Guts” (issue 107). Landing at neumeouse airfields, over very many days , almost as an aside, he notes that only once was his ASIC requested. I hope that he uses this isolated incident, to write an article in the next SP (issue 108), soundly condemning ASIC, as it applies to recreational pilots accessing small regional airports.

Perchance, the Editor of "Sport Pilot" could be a closet supporter of Group G - his RV6A , registered VH-UFS, is his "Perfect Plane" 😈

I has a brief scan of the reference you supplied - my thanks. What I read does not enthuse me - it seems to be an unnecessary drift away, from what I feel is the core of RAA - small, simple, economical aircraft. Despite it not being of great importance to my flying, I would see our entry to Controlled Airspace (with suitable training/endorsement/instrumentation) as being far more desirable, than taking on a whole new class of aircraft and attendant standards to be administered - where is the cost benefit in this?

For me the change (GA to RAA) was a combination of circumstance - the opportunity to purchase an aircraft I could afford to own - the realisation that 3 of seats of the C 172 that I hired, were usually empty. In addition to this was the shear pleasure in flying aircraft that responds so crisply to every control input.

Are you implying that the RAA or GA (base level) medical requirement is : less stringent?/cheaper? If this is the only benefit - there is unlikly to be a stampede of defectors from GA.

While entry to controlled airspace (yet to be achieved) is a clear benefit that would benefit some RAA pilots, I am having difficulty in seeing the "benefits" (compared with GA) for those aircraft owner/flyers of the Group G aircraft. For those in the know, how about a comparative list - two columns, RAA & GA, pluses & minuses of each system???

I wonder where he did his RPC training? As a convert from GA (mainly C172's) to RAA, I well remember the very diffrent performance characteristics of the two classes of aircraft - conversion not a straightforward as many might think.

Why not do both, while you have plugs out and keep a record for later comparison.