Mazda

Give ECI a pat on the spinner for me, she's a very old friend!

I'm with Facthunter on this one. I haven't flown a Jab, I can't comment on that, but perhaps if it is not spin certified Qwerty can volunteer to be the test pilot! Yes, anything beyond 60 degrees angle of bank is an aerobatic manoeuvre.

Crezzi my particular favourites are things like using runway 12 and 30 at the same time, people calling "ready immediate departure" on the cross strip when someone has just called rolling on the main strip, helicopters hovering right next to the landing threshold, dodging flocks of Ibis on downwind (as they fly over the tip next door) and dodging eagles on take off.

There's a north side/south side divide in Brisbane. Both have good areas. Being near the water (on north or south) is good, Moreton Bay is enormous. It depends what you are looking for - public transport, schools, proximity to the city etc. The south side is closer to the Gold Coast, the north side is closer to the Sunshine Coast, there's plenty to do north or south. Archerfield is the main GA field. It's expensive. Hangarage is expensive, landing fees are expensive, there's not much transport around, its windy. But it has a lovely terminal good for pax, good long runways. Caboolture airport has a wonderful feel about the place, a club atmosphere. But the field is quite rough. All grass and bumpy, gravel, and there are some unusual operations going on there, it can be a free for all. It's near the highway, good access to the city - but it is a fair way. Redcliffe has a good sealed strip, it's a nice field. A good aero club. But hangarage is rare (and expensive) and it suffers from crosswinds. It's slightly closer to Brisbane than Caboolture. Apart from that you'll have to go to the smaller places, like Watts Bridge, Boonah, Jacobs Well (Heck Field). Do some Googling, you'll find websites with info. Be warned some of the smaller strips don't have avgas, OK if you use Mogas I guess. Feel free to PM me.

The National Airspace System is current Government policy. So the push to move from GAAP to Class D has been on the cards for a very long time. It just took someone with guts to actually make the reforms. I think CASA has turned a corner for the better. It has a CEO with loads of aviation experience, a current pilot and aircraft owner, and someone prepared to make tough decisions while hearing the voices of the little guys.

I think you'll find that under the "humour" section! ;)

Why aren't there more? Reading some responses here it's not surprising is it. It's a man's world. Women are brought up to aim for being a hairdresser or secretary, or perhaps even a school teacher. Girls are enrolled in ballet classes, boys are taken go-karting. Girls take jobs in administrative or service roles because they can get them. No one tells them they can fly. Maybe some find out about it and give it a shot. They have pilots peering up their skirts while they refuel. They have passengers saying they'd feel safer with a male pilot. They have instructors telling them every female pilot is an empty kitchen. It happens, I've seen it. So if you want more women in the industry, treat them like human beings, treat them with respect, and treat them as though they will succeed. Maybe then a few of them will return after a TIF, instead of walking away thinking flying is not for them.

Al B, that's a classic!!! It's like the old joke. How do you know when there is a pilot at a party? They tell you.

I'd suggest tracking coastal for lower terrain if your Mum can't fly high. There are some big mountains otherwise. Plus flying coastal has better scenery. I've done a lot of flying at Camden, it's a very good airport but yes it is GAAP so maybe ask Mozartmerv for details of operating there in an RA aircraft. There are RA aircraft operating there so obviously it can be done. Camden is not on a railway line and there's no real public transport. You would probably have to get a lift or a taxi to Cambelltown to get a train, or go straight to Sydney by taxi - it's probably 60km or so. The Oaks is near Camden and RA friendly, but it is further out than Camden, again with no public transport. You might be able to find out about Wedderburn. Again it isn't so close and there's no transport that I'm aware of. Warnervale is on the north side of Sydney, check with the aero club, (they have a website) to see if it is RA friendly but I can't see why not. It's close to the freeway to Sydney but there's no train nearby. Wollongong is a fair way from Sydney. It does have RA, it also has HARS there if you want to see things like the Connie, and there's a nice cafe right on the airport. You could get a train to Sydney, maybe check Google maps to see how far the station is, but I don't think it is too far.

If you want to stay in Oz you could try saying the entire Asian region is a bit unstable at the moment after the earthquakes, the plates are still shifting. :devil:

Maybe somewhere like this place. Tangalooma Island Resort | Tangalooma Holidays | Family Holidays Qld | Moreton Island Tours | Whale Watching | Day Cruises It's not that well known. It's on a sand island on the bay side of Moreton Bay, east of Brisbane. The water is an amazing colour, you could be in the South Pacific. They feed the dolphins every day. They do boat trips to see dugongs and whales. They have a helicopter, the place has an airstrip, and there's a light aircraft lane there so you might see something interesting. If you get sick of island life, hop on their ferry and in just over an hour you are back at Brisbane to do something in the city, or hire a car and go to the Sunshine coast or Gold Coast. It may not be the sort of think you are looking for though, and from Perth it would probably be quicker to go to another country - or at least to Broome!

Do you particularly want to go overseas? There are plenty of places in Australia if you don't want to go too far. I guess it depends on the type of holiday you are looking for. For example, do you want beaches, country, different culture, architecture, art/theatre, somewhere to relax, somewhere with some adventure?

In straight and level flight the rudder is vertical and the elevator is horizontal. Imagine the aircraft flying at a 90 degree angle of bank. The rudder is now horizontal and the elevator is vertical. In effect, the rudder will still yaw the aircraft, but the rudder is acting a bit like an elevator. So the steeper the turn, the more you can think of rudder as working like an elevator. Applying top rudder yaws the aircraft's nose UP and helps to maintain height in the turn. :)

I'm not one for mandatory radio either, but note that the first part of the NPRM specifies "recommended" calls, not mandatory calls. I do like that. I also like the other parts of the NPRM that have been slipped in - things like final no longer legally having to be at least 500 metres long. That change is great for small, slow types doing 500' circuits. To me it really looks as though this NPRM has been written with lower performance aircraft in mind, so do read through all of it before abandoning the whole proposal. In the response you can accept and reject each key point offered. It's not just about radio, it's about operation at non-towered airports. Having read the preamble I can see the problem. I think CASA is trying to introduce the other changes to help us people flying lower performance RA-Aus and GA aircraft - things like the shorter final leg, the flexibility to join on base, the ability to do a 3 mile straight in approach instead of 5 miles (and I hope in time the 3 miles will be shortened). It's all for us. Even the mandatory radio requirement has two separate ways of operating into these airports if you don't have a working radio. I'm hoping that little clause may also help people to realise that even though radio is "mandated", there could still be non-radio aircraft operating there, so a good lookout is still important. The problem is that some airline pilots are pretty set in their ways - you know the ones. I can see it. "I don't want ultralight bugsmashing amateurs flying into the circuit willy-nilly from all over the place while I'm there in my Dash 8, especially when they don't need a radio." Yes, we have CTAF®s, but the NPRM correctly outlines that there are busy RPT airports where radio is not required, and not so busy airports where radio is required. Plus having two systems can lead to people making mistakes. Having one system is much simpler - and CASA won't need to have staff (that we pay for) constantly checking every airport/air route to keep the CTAF®s up to date. If you were a regulator, what would you do? I do like the inclusion of clauses to be able to fly in and out of these airports without radio - that is what has been missing in previous legislation. The "vicinity" part is the bit that could get us though, because if you have a private strip 5 miles from an airport and you operate from there without radio, it could be a problem. However in saying that, vicinity is defined as being in the normal approach height and within 10 miles. So if you are operating at say 1,000 feet 10 miles away, that's not "in the vicinity" because it isn't in "approach" airspace. I really think CASA is trying to help us with this one, keep in mind if they don't get agreement from the airlines we won't get the extra flexibility offered here, there has to be a bit of compromise. Do read through all of the documents in detail with an open mind.

Yenn, CASA has been trying to get rid of MTAF/MBZ/CTAF® for years, to avoid any confusion about procedures at non-tower aerodromes. I've now read the NPRM and I think generally it is fantastic. It allows joining on base, it allows joining on final of 3 miles (not 5) with no mandatory radio call, and no mandatory radio requirement for non-certified airports. It allows a final of less than 500m. It allows landing on runways that are not into wind IF the flight manual allows it. It legally allows people with a failed radio to operate into or out of a certified airport. And it allows people with no radio, or no radio qualification, to fly into a certified airport in company with another aircraft with radio. My only problems with it are that I'm not a fan of mandatory radio because people rely on it. However the NPRM does say people may not be on frequency. And I'm also concerned about additional costs for people, but there is a way in and out with no radio if you don't want to operate with a hand held. But I can also see how the "vicinity" aspect could be a problem for a trike owner flying from a private strip relatively close to a registered airport. The NPRM does say that operating at 500 feet 10 miles from the airport is NOT in "the vicinity". Perhaps that's one for RA-Aus to discuss with members.

Let's have a read of the NPRM - I haven't yet. Some interesting points to note though. While it says you should carry radio, from what is said above it sounds like it also introduces regulations about what do to if you DON'T have a radio. That is really sensible, because radios fail and it may also leave a way for non-radio equipped aircraft to operate legally. (In saying that, remember I haven't yet read the NPRM). That was my big problem with mandating radio - it would mean if your radio failed you couldn't even depart an ALA to get the thing fixed, or if it failed without you knowing you could be breaking the law. Note though the really big changes which will make us like the rest of the world - we will be able to join on base or on a shorter final! That will be fantastic. It works everywhere else in the world so I have no doubt it would work here. Without having read it yet, it sounds like an approach with a bit of practical commonsense and it is moving towards the implementation of the airspace policy statement. Things may need some adjustments, but at least McCormick has the courage to make some reforms.

Don't forget your credit card!

Is there any information about times etc or will people be coming and going all weekend? If there are any flying displays will the airport still be open for arrivals and departures?

If you decide to go on the inland route, I second Greg. You MUST go to Arkaroola, northern Flinders Ranges. Doug will bend over backwards to make your stay a good one. There's a strip there, accommodation ranges from camping to cheaper rooms to good motel rooms, there is a good restaurant, a shop, a pool, and two real life full scale observatories. Doug operates a C207 and an Auster and he can organise fuel. Plus you'll fly near Lake Frome, the salt lake used to white balance satellites! South of that is Wilpena Pound, nice to fly over. You can stay there but it would probably be relatively expensive. Personally I'd choose Arkaroola. Something a bit different is to land at Cameron Corner and visit the Corner Store. There's nowhere to stop, you have to taxi off the runway and along the road to park in the car park. It's not really a place to stay but an interesting place to land. You could drop in at the Dig Tree airstrip (there are two, make sure you use the right one near the tree). No fuel, just another interesting place to stop. If you go that way maybe stop at Innamincka. I think there is accommodation there, probably basic (there's a pub, maybe check with them) or take a tent and camp on the banks of the Cooper Creek, it's a lovely camping spot and you can walk to the pub and shop for food. If you need to stop at near Lake Eyre south, try Muloorina Station. I doubt they'd have fuel though. Otherwise you could take the scenic route and just track down the coast. It is spectactularly beautiful, and at this time of the year the whales are migrating. You'd find plenty of places to stay along the coast!

I'm with Qwerty on this one. Everything we do in flying is about risk management. How much risk you are prepared to take dictates what you do. If you don't want to risk injury from an aircraft accident at all, don't fly, and don't live near an airport! How much risk are you (or your passengers) prepared to take? After all, it is a risk for passengers to fly on 767s, they only have 2 engines, while a 747 has 4. There IS a chance both engines will fail. The airlines work under ETOPS guidelines to calculate the statistical risk of both engines failing at once, and decided the chance was so slight it was acceptable - but there is a risk. As a passenger, would you want the 767 to avoid flying over tiger country, or would you accept that risk to get to your destination sooner and pay less for your ticket through flying a shorter distance? It's the same for us, on a different scale of course. If you are not happy flying over tiger country, don't do it. But depending on where you live, you might not ever go anywhere. If you ever work commercially, your boss might wonder why your charter flights are so much longer (more fuel, late passengers). So if you only fly for fun, it's a short diversion to fly on a safer route, you would prefer to have more options and don't mind paying for extra fuel, avoid the tiger country if you want to. If you are flying commercially or you live in an area where the only way to get somewhere is over tiger country, you need to be prepared to take a calculated risk and fly over it. Maintain your aircraft well, check the weather etc. It's like night flying. That has risks too, some are prepared to take them, some are not.

Does anyone know the cause?

I understand the big problem in operating there is the wind.

Dog, GAAP is based on Class D but there are inconsistencies, and yes you are right, the idea is to make it standard. I don't know exactly what is proposed but if it goes to standard D the approach points should go. There is a difference in relation to IFR separation and I think that is where the objections may lie. In the US the tower controller may be given authority to allow visual separation for IFR, I'm not sure if that will happen here.

It's been in the pipeline for 8 years, it's in the national airspace system. GAAP was planned to go to Class D, because that's what it is and GAAP is a unique airspace not known in any other country. Plus they all have different procedures anyway. At Camden for instance you are not permitted to descend unless issued with a sequencing instruction. At Bankstown you must descend automatically. At Archerfield you must descend automatically unless told not to. Each one has its own rules about departing on a certain leg, at a certain height or on a certain track. GAAP was based on the airspace at Van Nuys, which happens to be Class D, but because Australia uses a type of Class D that is more like Class C, they weren't sure what to do with it and it was called something else. But Class D is what it is. For VFR there shouldn't be much difference. ICAO class D has implied clearance like GAAP, let's hope Class D here is simplified. I hope they get rid of approach points, because that was one of the problems of GAAP. In D you should be able to call to say you are however many miles to the west for instance. Let's see what happens!

I didn't see the story, just had a look on the website, I hope I looked at the right story. On the filming side, the cutaways you are talking about are known as "noddies" and yes, everyone records noddies for editing purposes. It isn't done to mislead (generally!), it is usually done to assist smooth editing to avoid "jump cuts" - edits that don't cut together smoothly for various reasons, or to try to show the interviewer looking interested so there's not just one long shot on one person, to improve the timing perhaps. So don't think automatically if a noddy is used that there's something untoward going on. Of course unscrupulous people could certainly edit to mislead! I don't know too much about the story, but Mick Quinn (CASA) I think is a reasonable sort of bloke. The issue isn't whether an audit was carried out on this date or that date, I guess the outcome is the important thing. I do agree that safety related CASA and ATSB documents should be made available, but who knows what TT is asking for. As for Qantas, they are simply the luckiest airline in the world, no more. They did have a hole in the side of one aircraft, but another hole nearly as big never seemed to make the news. Who is to say how close they were to killing people at Bangkok. They did very nearly slam into the runway in Melbourne when a go around went wrong (I think that was Jetstar). They did very nearly crash into a mountain at night near Canberra, when the crew set up a holding pattern around the wrong location. They do appear to have a very cosy relationship with CASA and the ATSB. If they say they want a change to airspace or procedures (or they don't want a change if one is proposed), it almost always goes their way. Jetstar were operating out of their base at Avalon in a Class G CTAF to keep the costs down, but they fought enroute Class E. If they land at night without turning on the runway lights, it is covered up. If they are in conflict with a light aircraft, it is always the fault of the light aircraft - tapes are provided to the airline but not to the other pilot. I don't think it was much of a story, but Qantas is a powerful, business making money for shareholders, and I could see how they would cut costs to improve profits.