Matt

Cool! Got the side of my head on a magazine cover...also a good advertisement for Bose and Oakley.

I think the fuel burn for a Trojan works out to roughly 1 litre per knot i.e. 200kts @ 200 L/hr or thereabouts...haven't found a cost model that works to allow me to buy one yet...

G'day Ryan, Have you spoken to Rex at Merimbula - the LAME not the airline. I know he used to accept work experience students, I took a couple of them flying a few years back after we'd been down there for an annual on our Sportstar. I'm not sure what the RAAF allow these days, there wasn't a work experience program for years due to security/safety and any other reason they could come up with. I recall there was some discussion about it earlier this year, check out the Defence website for details. Almost exactly 20 years ago I did work experience at 1FTS at Point Cook, spent a couple of days with the pilot trainees going to briefs, flight planning etc. also spent a few days in the maintenance hangar "helping" with CT4 servicing...I also had my first CT4 flight that week...funny how things end up ;-) PS> Say hi to Rex for me if you speak to him.

Humble apologies, right you are for procedural tower / Class D...which makes both of my comments incorrect...now where's the "delete post" key...

Clarification: Transponder NOT required for GAAP...which will only be the case for a few months until GAAP's disappear. Transponder would be required for Launy as it's Class C over D during tower hours, not a GAAP. A very long thread already exists on this topic with all the relevant references.

Without being involved or knowing the history, it's interesting to see the negative initial reaction. I would have thought that any investment in aviation infrastructure would be a positive thing. Yes it won't be all good things to everyone (nothing is) but surely this provides Goulburn an opportunity that contrasts the goings on at most of the major airfields around the country.

My quick 2c as a regular aerobatter (can't find a good word for it!) and also take a few people up for their first experiences. As everyone above has mentioned, the way a person reacts varies from people to people, day to day. Some days I can blat around for 45 minutes with no effects, other days I'm done after 20 minutes. Most has to do with fitness and general "health and wellbeing" on the day. Hydration is a key aspect - make sure you're well hydrated on the day. Wear light & loose clothing. Tighten the straps - A LOT - until they're slightly uncomfortable, after a few tight turns you'll compress a little as will the cushions you're sitting on, time to tighten again - you'll probably do this a few times during the flight. Open all the air vents and point them at your face - generally people get airsick when they heat up (as you will from the adrenalin) in a confined space. Be mentally ahead of the aircraft and look in the direction of flight - make sure your pilot is talking you through each manoeuvre so you know what's going on and where to look. Airsickness also comes from disorientation. As others have mentioned, unless you're flying something very high performance, you won't reach much more than 4-5G or sustain it for long enough for it to have much of an affect. Exhale and clench your stomach muscles as you enter a manoeuvre - this restricts the movement of your innards - again, something which leads to airsickness. Most importantly - ENJOY IT and make sure you get to have a go!

Hmmm, it appears I might be incorrect after all...according to CAO 40.0, Section 3.2: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao40/4000.pdf 3.2 The holder of a private pilot licence must not fly an aircraft as pilot in command in controlled airspace that is: (a) a control area; or (b) a control zone for which there is a radar service; or © a control zone for which there is no radar service; or (d) a control zone at an aerodrome that operates under general aviation aerodrome procedures; unless: (e) the holder has received training in the aeronautical knowledge needed to safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and (f) an authorised flight instructor, or CASA, is satisfied that the holder can safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and (g) the instructor, or CASA, has made an entry to that effect in the holder’s personal log book. This creates a bit of confusion for me, to obtain my PPL I was required to undertake CTA and GAAP training and during my PPL test had to fly in both GAAP and CTA airspace. I do have a logbook statement to the effect that I've been trained and deemed competent. It was never considered an "option" not to do it though. Maybe my instructor thought as I do now - don't consider it an option, consider it a requirement.

That's interesting David, which school was this with? I'm happy to be proven wrong but I don't believe there are any such "CTA / GAAP" endorsements for PPL - you either have a PPL and you can fly in controlled airspace, or you don't have one and can't.

My opinion only and likely to stir the pot as usual...I think this is a vote for common sense...assuming it's true of course. There is an existing system in place for aircraft and pilots to operate in controlled airspace, why try to duplicate that which already exists?

The CAR states an "approved" engine, not certified...as Peter has indicated, finding out exactly which engines are "approved" is a challenge. The requirements to operate in controlled airspace in an RA-Aus registered aircraft have been discussed recently in another thread.

Have you spoken with your local CASA field office or contacted the RA-Aus office?

If the ultimate aim of the thread is to somehow rationalise ownership versus hiring then as has been shown, there is no rational or logical reason to do it. It's purely emotional and so long as you can afford to and are happy spending the extra for your own personal satisfaction and enjoyment, then that's all that matters. Convincing the other half of that is the greatest challenge :) Personally, I have great pride, get a lot of satisfaction and personal enjoyment out of owning my own aircraft...there's a cost premium associated with it, no logic or rational behind it, but for me it's worth every cent.

G'day Shags, The recruiting team should be able to put you in contact with one of the squadrons to be able to have a chat with one of the aircrew...I'm surprised they've not already done that. I'd suspect that the "average day" for Army aircrew is much like the Air Force or Navy, when you're not flying you're training (sim, reviewing procedures & manuals), planning the next flights and reviewing the last flights. There's also the "Defence" aspects of life such as physical training, secondary duties as an officer, military skills etc. Most Defence pilots will fly "around" 500 hours per year - some more, some less depending on platform.

G'day Dave, While we're asking questions of you, are you able/approved to provide formation instruction & endorsement?

Of all of the documents reference in the thread, only the AIP is a controlled document. Despite being a CASA publication, their VFG is not a controlled document and is not reviewed/revised/released in the same manner as the AIP or other controlled documents.

So...have been reading, thinking and talking with "people in the know"...has anyone else picked up on the fact that the regulations we've been discussion clearly talk about Class A, B, C and D...there's no mention of GAAP...and GAAP is neither Class A, B, C or D....

Check out AIP for Circuit Information, Separation Minima and Height for general regulations: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf Section 57.1. Regarding height maintenance, I'm not aware of RA-Aus having any exception to the standard of +/- 100ft.

Can I recommend that if we are going to quote regs to put a link and refer the source document rather than potentially mis-quote...i.e. "recognised aero engine" is not what the regulation states, it also doesn't list the engines. What the regulation states, as per the link to the source in my previous post is: 5.2 An aeroplane may be flown inside Class A, B, C and D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the aeroplane is certificated to the design standards specified in section 101.55 or meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a), or regulation 21.186, of CASR 1998; (b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of section 101.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft to which this section applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight; © the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with Air Traffic Control; (d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence): (i) issued under Part 5 of the Regulations; and (ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace; (e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of the Regulations; (f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane I don't want to upset anyone, but these are legal documents which prescribe flying operations and mis-quoting or incorrect interpretation could lead to confusion. There is nothing you need to know about flying regulations that isn't in one of the various manuals/orders/publications. If / when you ask your instructor for information, ask for the reference as well as the information. Learn to fish.

The Tote has it right...and is presumably training with my old mate Kris. To fly RA-Aus rego'd aircraft in a control zone (Class A-D) you need a PPL as minimum, an SPL is not sufficient. As usual, refer to the regulations and not "hearsay": reference is CAO95.55 Section 5.2 (d). http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao95/9555.pdf

WOOHOO!!! Good job Philthy! does the subject get a prize Must be time to go get some more shots...

Good read Geoff and highlights a few areas of interest & discussion: 1. AIP - I'm surprised at the number of folks that aren't aware of the existing of this documentation - it should be mandatory reading as part of your BAK studies. 2. Having "played" at being an ATC in an Airservices simulator, I can tell you the most distracting thing were VFR aircaft on the radar that aren't talking to you or you have no idea of their intentions.

Attached (hopefully) are some photos taken by good friend Phil while hanging on for dear life (Photos are copyright, contact me for details).

Another option if you're transponder equipped, make use of the "flight following" service provided by Airservices.

This shot was taken about 3/4 of the way through a barrel roll and yep, it's in the CT4...what a way to end the day.