David Isaac

I dont see how that helps us as PICs

There was a plausible theory put up by a commercial pilot on some other website that suggested the plane was shot down and the world given red herrings as to where the wreckage was while it was all cleaned up. I do not subscribe to conspiracies, but this theory rang with plausibility. Plane flying straight at a critical military installation not responding to calls gets shot down, happened on previous occasions in grand public style by governments unable to cover up the evidence. What happens when you can cover up the evidence .....??????

hmm shot down maybe .... oops

35. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination. Interesting word 'devolve' means to delegate, transfer, entrust, give to, pass to .... This will be interesting, I take it this is different to the current method where the DAME can sign your medical at renewal and it is valid until the new medical arrives from CASA (as long as they dont review and decline in the mean time). It sounds like the intent is for the DAME to renew the medical. But how will that be managed? I'll bet CASA will still want their fee to administrate the process, and I'll bet the medicals with "renew by CASA only" will still be stuck in that merry-go-round process.

I wonder what BS line he pulled with Air Services to get that NOTAM up. Air Air services aware they are implicated in this?

Jees Nev, that would tear the frame out of the old Auster wouldn't it ?

And anyone knows if you do a rate 1 turn you will need 1000'. He should have demoed a steep descending turn on the verge of the stall. He would have made the turn in less than 500' there is a demo video of that somewhere. There are other methods that an aerobatic pilot could use in the RIGHT circumstances. But the message is still important. A turn back can be a death warrant for those not specifically practiced in the manoeuvre.

Nup .... Obstructers ...

Just out of curiosity is CASA an RTO?

Que .......

Sorry to hear that Rank ... I know it is bloody frustrating, but we are more powerful when we stick together, you have power as a member and NO power or influence as a NON member, so may I encourage you to hang in there for a bit. We do have some good people at the helm. It just takes time to sort out years of neglect.

Rhysmcc, It is a sad sign of the times that a well run course by a knowledgeable presenter is simply not recognised as a structured course where the presenter does not hold at least a Cert IV in workplace training and assessment and the organisation that facilitated the course is not a RTO. If we are going to do it, it should be done in a recognised form and structure. This typically means at great increased cost and may not utilise the best presenters available. Whilst I do see value in a properly structured course, I sometimes despair at the obstacles placed in the way of potentially good education opportunities.

Setting up an RTO will be a costly exercise Keith. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of competent education, usually the problem and the answer lie both in education. I do not support academic theories espoused in a curriculum delivered by course facilitators who have no experience in the field and have no ability to expand beyond the script. Students gain so much more from a presenter who is knowledgeable in the subject. If we are going to do this why don't we pool resources with other like minded organisations instead of bearing the total cost in RAAus?

The subtleties around 'what is RAAus regulating' are interesting. RAAus has an Operations Manual drafted by RAAus, approved by CASA and referenced in the CAOs. As such the RAAus Operations Manual forms part of the regulations, so is not RAAus in part a regulator of the operations that are implicitly 'part' of the Regulations? Is not RAAus a joint regulator with CASA of RAAus operations. Is this not where the conflict of interest is perceived by many? Yes RAAus is a self regulating body, but administering regulations endorsed and referenced in Federal Aviation Legislation. Does this not cloud the regulatory waters?

Ron, that is a real concern. Has anyone else had a similar experience? Surely we have improved our systems beyond the systemic disaster they were last year?

Tubz, the way I read Nev's post in relation to .... I thought he was referring to RAAus in the capacity as the regulator being exempt from being sued carrying out the function of the regulator. Previously I had thought that CASA could not be sued in its function as regulator until it was joined in the recent 'Sting case'. So perhaps even CASA can be held accountable.

it simply proves you signed the book, the assumption however, is that you were competent to carry out the daily inspection and that in fact you did. If we flippantly discredit the authenticity of signed logbooks and maintenance sheets, what does that say about our industry. If we can't have significant credibility in signed of documents (which are essentially declarations) what can we rely on ......

Hopefully. A smal turbine. LOL

Lyell, your point is valid. At least in GA the aircraft log is separate to the MR. I suspect we may end up with MR in RAAus at some stage. In GA the MR is signed each day of use following a normal preflight inspection by the PIC. MRs apply in GA whether the use is private or other. To Franks point I am not aware the Ops manual had changed yet.

I am surprised no one is doing this as a matter of course. We have been doing this in GA since time infinitum. Surely we daily inspect the aircraft before flight, all you have to do is sign the aircraft log or maintenance release in the case of GA if the aircraft passes the inspection.

The onus is always on the PIC to assure himself that an ALA is suitable for use by the particular aircraft he is operating and that includes seeking permission to use any ALA in Australia; not that many do and by NOT doing so, use the ALA at their risk. If there is a wire strike risk at an ALA and you didn't seek permission or advice from the owner/operator and you struck the wire because you were not aware of it, you would have no defense and your insurer could deny the claim. This has always been the case and I am staggered at the number of pilots who don't seem to be aware of this. Of course a paddock can meet the requirements for an ALA; as long as the dimensions are suitable for the performance of the aircraft intending to use it. For example a 650-metre long paddock at 4,000' amsl could be a suitable ALA for a C182, but it would not meet the requirements for a C172. Before you used a paddock you are supposed to drive a stiffly sprung vehicle across it at about 80KPH and as long as the ride is not too rough the field would be suitable. I have done this many times in 4WDs over paddocks that I intended to use. Landing on any paddock without prior inspection brings with it inherent risks, risks which some are prepared to accept. Some aircraft, namely tail draggers are more suitable for this type of risky operation. For example you could bounce a C180 into a rough paddock, but that same paddock might collapse the nose wheel of a C182.

When you see what you can do with the Hornet, how well they are built and how they handle ... who cares about a few knots at the top end.

Luv you sweetlocks where have you been ... xxxooo ROFLMAO

Struth ... When did the 'nasty' button become available? This will be interesting from now on ... LOL I promise to be nice ... Really I do ... ROFLMAO

I actually thought Neil was landing because of an engine problem and if so that is defence against the strict liability under CAR 92 is it not Kaz?