Mazda

By specifically designed I mean in the aerobatic category, tested in aerobatics by test pilots, approved manoeuvres shown in the flight manual, most likely with entry speeds published in the manual and a published spin recovery technique - perhaps with a number of spins allowed. These aircraft are marketed as aerobatic. When you think of aerobatic aircraft the types that spring to mind are things like the Pitts, Extra, Yak, Sukhoi, Decathlon, Citabria, Robin, even the humble Aerobat. It's not just about +6/-3. Citabrias are aerobatic, their name is even airbatic backwards, but they are not stressed to +6/-3. Others are stressed to more than +6/-3. It's about design features enabling the aircraft to safely perform and recover from manoeuvres without normally exceeding VNE, not running into too many problems with the maximum control deflection speed, having a spin that can be recovered from, and being able to do these things on a regular basis. Let's leave the unknown to trained test pilots.

Qwerty do you know which 'Ning it was?

This might sound silly because everyone loves their own aircraft, but why don't people just do aeros in aircraft that have been specifically designed to do aeros?

I might go, I've never been to Watts Bridge. What's the best time to get there? Does it get really busy at certain times?

Transponders are not required in Class D. They are required in Class C, so if flying into D airspace with C above and no transponder, stay below the C steps. Transponders are required in Class E in Australia, but not in Class E in other countries. However some bright spark came up with the idea of mandatory transponders at Avalon when it was Class G, and at times when Williamtown was deactivated (Class G). Why? There's no radar coverage in the circuit area at Avalon, and TCAS isn't required for RPT between 10 and 30 pax seats anyway.

Turbo, the push in the back wouldn't be nearly as impressive as that of a real EE Lightning!!

That's strange, why is a transponder required when GAAP airspace doesn't require a transponder?

Thumper, it will happen one day! And women generally have better G tolerance than men, so don't worry too much.

I'd still rather have a real EE Lightning.

It wasn't the controllers who pushed for a 6 aircraft limit, they were just told to implement that. If we actually complied with the published airspace policy the GAAPs would be class D, but plain ordinary ICAO Class D, not the Class D we use in Australia that is more like ICAO Class C. The problem is that we can be our own worst enemy. Instead of saying let's do what they do everywhere else in the world, that seems to work, we say oh no, we can't do it that way, we are special, so we end up with a mixed/amended/confusing system. Plain ordinary Class D is almost the same as GAAP. It has an "implied" clearance, meaning just like we do now, we'd call up and say we were inbound and fly straight in. There is no cap on traffic, that's up to the controller. And most importantly, there are no reporting points. That's what all this review is about - the GAAP incidents/accidents. I'm not sure if the current plan means removing reporting points, I sure hope so. It would mean we'd call however many miles to the north, west etc rather than at Mayfield/Bringelly etc. As for a new airport, I'm all for it, the more the merrier. I would imagine the costs involved would be enormous and the better the facilities, the more expensive it would be. Rated runway surface, lights, instrument approaches etc would not be cheap. Perhaps the people at Wedderburn would have some good information. Power, plumbing, car park. I think the biggest opposition would be from the locals. It is bad enough when people try to close down an existing airport, but imagine the opposition to building a new one. Writing to the local member is one thing, but why not write to the Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese? In fact, why don't all of us write to him? He's the one responsible for safety, so if we mention the danger of the overcrowded airports (2RN crash, and now with 6 in the circuit aircraft can be held outside the zone, circling around together over houses), he may be prepared to think about it. Maybe. And if he won't, maybe write to senators (like Bill Heffernan, Bob Brown) who would be prepared to ask questions at Senate Estimates.

I think I'd rather have a REAL E.E. Lightning! :thumb_up:

Moving is a nightmare alright Maj! It wasn't helped by the removalist backing the truck into the roof of the house. I think those men were coming over to see the plane! Qwerty, at the moment that's about right, because at this stage all I've done is to fly into Dunwich - I flew out of Camden. I'm living on the mainland, not on the island, but so far it is great. Fantastic weather, dolphins, dugongs, whales, koalas.

Sorry dj, I've been off air for a while - moving! Duncan I'd definitely say go for an Airtourer. I'd suggest at least a 115, same engine as the C152/Tomahawk. There are bigger ones around, 150, 160 horsepower, fixed pitch and CSU, but they are more expensive. You will be able to get a Victa Airtourer 115 for under $50,000, probably a fair bit under that. They cruise at about 100 knots. They do lovely basic aerobatics and are nice tourers because you can see so much (plus they are a bit faster than the Cessnas). They are sweet handling, responsive and easy to land. Like the C152, Tomahawk and Citabria ECA, it has the Lycoming O-235 with a long time between overhauls. I've flown all those types and the Airtourer is by far the nicest to fly. There's also a very strong Airtourer organisation for assistance (they have a website if you are interested), and you have that special feeling of flying a genuine Aussie aircraft, and a piece of history. They sure turn heads. Even on my very last flight, I had two guys racing over to see mine, one saying he actually did his first solo in my aircraft way back in the 60s, the other saying he also had one. People either come over to see some history, or they ask if it is a new design! They are so much fun to fly that anyone who has ever flown one will come over to look at yours everywhere you go. You don't see many C150/152 pilots going over to see another Cessna! They are a two seat side by side seating low wing aircraft with a canopy. Tricycle undercarriage. Fixed seats, adjustable rudder pedals. One centre stick. One fuel tank, one fuel drain. +6 to -3 aeros. Full span flapperons, with extra flap under the fuselage. One consideration is weight. There's only around 200kg between empty wt and aeros wt, and around 250kg between empty and MTOW, so you will have to do two up aeros without a lot of fuel (or go by yourself), and plan carefully when touring. As dj says, the aerobat and Citabria ECA would also be possible choices. The 7GCBC wth a bigger engine would be more expensive I'd say. Depends what you want. The Citabria is tandem seating with the pilot up front. Tailwheel, fabric, and the ECA has no flaps.

Sabre have you considered Dunwich? Dazza let me know what they say about Kooralbyn, the QLD airstrip guide says it is emergency use only and poorly maintained.

Turbo there was a fatal accident in the UK with a very young early solo student who was confused by unknown tower instructions ("backtrack"), then held for wake turbulence. He was told to orbit on final to allow a faster aircraft behind to land. He lost control and crashed. One thing to remember is that as pilots, we are in command. If any controller ever gives instructions that you are not happy with (maybe due to inexperience, weather, performance, sun glare or anything else), remember you can say you are unable to comply. Sometimes I think we are so used to following instructions (school teachers, bosses, flying instructors, air traffic controllers) that we lose sight of the fact that we can say no if we are not comfortable with the instruction. Someone told me once he was told to orbit so he did - straight into a cloud! First look after the safety of yourself, your aircraft, your passengers.

GAAP data IS recorded. Don't just look at the reports, read the weekly summaries. CTAF and CTAF® data is recorded too. There are plenty of incidents there, including ones involving airline aircraft using the wrong frequency where radio is "mandated."

Thanks Merv, they'll realise I'm just a big girl one day. You can forget about that NPRM, it isn't relevant any more. For those who don't know the history of that NPRM, here it is. Going back a bit further, way way back, CASA introduced an airspace system with implementation dates. The system was presented to Federal Cabinet and approved, and it was written into the Australian Airspace Policy Statement that we were heading towards that plan, which basically aligned Australia with worlds best practice. The reason is that other countries have more aircraft and a better safety record, so it was decided by the Government (not by us) that we should follow their practices. Back to that NPRM. Initially that was issued as a NFRM. Yes, a Notice of FINAL Rulemaking, not an NPRM, because some in CASA thought there wasn't enough of a change to go to NPRM. There was some dispute about how it could go directly to a notice of final rule making without wider consultation, so it was issued as a NPRM and went out to industry. The industry people were appalled. Remember the plan is to harmonise with international practice. The reason the safety record is better in their Class G is because it is simple, everyone knows the rules because they are simple, and compliance is much higher. Procedures in other countries are often recommended, not mandated. The USA, UK etc does not mandate radio for CTAFS or in Class G enroute. They don't have a squillion mandatory calls. They have recommended calls, depending on the situation and assessed by the pilot. The US doesn't even have a VFR enroute frequency. They can join the circuit on base leg, or on final (they don't have to do that 5 miles out) - and they can do that without radio. So why don't they run into each other as much as we do? Good question. Maybe with no area frequency, they don't accidentally leave the radio on that frequency, maybe they don't try to monitor two frequencies at once. Maybe there are so many unicom operators at little airfields that when they don't hear a reply, they check the frequency again, and maybe that unicom operator says there is a non-radio tiger moth doing circuits, look out for it. Maybe they just look out better. Maybe they are not wasting brain space thinking "what was that latest change again? Do I make a call on downwind or don't I?" I don't know, but the truth is it works. Sorry, thread drift. Anyway, the NPRM said things like if you have one working radio you make an inbound call at 10 miles, and if you have more than one radio you must make the call at 8 minutes. And you had to make a call on frequency within 10 miles of any private grass strip. If you think about it, there are so many overlapping 10 mile areas where you'd legally have to be on several different frequencies at once (by law) it was ridiculous. So, the proposed changes to CAR166 in that NPRM have been scrapped by CASA.

As I've said, my TSOd radio, fitted, with an intercom, with various problems being sorted, was closer to $7,000. That's not the point though.What is the safety issue being addressed? Let's say it is lack of radio use in CTAFs. So look at the ATSB incident reports. Are these incidents mainly the result of aircraft which do not have radios fitted? No, they are not. They are radio equipped aircraft on the wrong frequency or with a radio or electrical failure. Mandating radio will NOT fix this. Those aircraft already have radio.Don't believe me, go to the ATSB website and have a look yourself.Mandating radio fitment will not improve compliance, so what is the point of making it mandatory? People can still carry and use radios without it being mandated.If you want to improve compliance, mandatory fitment is not the answer, it is third party confirmation at places where this is necessary.

You do realise that all this speculation would require a scientifically based cost/benefit study and safety study before implementation. I'm sorry, but opinion isn't good enough to experiment with untested ideas.What's wrong with ICAO and already proven procedures?If radio is NOT mandated, you CAN still carry and use it you know, and just about everyone does. The issue is not whether radios are fitted, it is about compliance with procedures.Have any of you looked at the ATSB weekly summaries yet? How many radio non compliance incidents seem to be caused by aircraft without radios? Go on, have a look.

Watto, a silly question from someone who hasn't flown one, is the J230 fixed pitch? For CPL you need to be flying something CSU and 120 knots cruise. You won't need NVFR for CPL, but you will need passes in the CPL theory subjects and you'll need a Class 1 medical.

Well Maj, I could offer my services - but I'd probably want to do the flying myself, and Sharp End might not be too happy! ;)

I've never had a problem with elevator effectiveness Nev! The canopy catch is the very effective pilot elbow, as you casually use the canopy rail as an armrest while taxiing out in the sunshine. :thumb_up: I don't think I'm tall enough to have my fingers up over the windscreen! Cliff Tait flew a 115 Victa around the world in 1968 and ended up doing numerous ferry flights. He tells stories of holding his wet socks out in the breeze during flight to help them to dry. He also told me a not so repeatable story about what happened with lidless ice cream container after a nasty case of Bali belly ... let's just say he told me there is negative pressure in the cabin! Yenn, there is a problem with non-spinnable aircraft because you need spin recovery to do aeros.

Mozartmerv, you are a real inspiration, that is an amazing story. I'm so thrilled that you did get back into flying and you are now teaching others the joy of flight. I can believe those dreams. I've lost some good pilot friends over the years, and after one of them died, some very weird things started happening. Like the time I was doing flight planning in sight of the front door and the doorbell rang. There was no one there, but I was convinced it was my old friend at the door, wanting to give me a hand with the planning. We had some fun flights at times, I might put one of those on here next. OK Frank, let's have it.

Here's a short one to start things. Rainbows Think back to your childhood, when you marvelled at the beauty of rainbows and even used to sing "red and yellow and pink and green..." Go on, go back there. Did you ever wonder where the rainbow ended? Ah yes, the pot of gold resides at the end of the rainbow, but you could never find it. Rainbows are round and the only reason earthbounders can't see that is because the ground gets in the way. I remember one day taking off solo in a lovely red Pitts for a session of aerobatics. It wasn't the best day, there were showers around, but any day in a Pitts is better than being stuck on the ground. I climbed over the green fields, establishing a "line" between a beach and a mountain, thinking how wonderful it was to be airborne after a busy week in the office. Up here I was free. Just the Pitts and I, enjoying the freedom of the sky. We (Pitts and I) started our sequence, throwing away our cares with every manoeuvre - and there it was. As I looked out to my wing tip I saw a perfectly round rainbow. The pot of gold exists alright, it is just for those that fly, and there we were right in the centre of it.