Mazda

A CPL needs 10 hours IF minimum but there is no requirement to hold an instrument rating. GA instructors are all CPLs, plus to be a GA instructor you need either an instrument rating (40 hours IFR) or a NVFR - much of which is done on instruments. Also GA instructors do more IF in their instructor ratings, and must demonstrate how to brief and teach instrument flight.

I disagree Joe, the 1 in 60 is a very practical method to use in the cockpit, and no ruler is required. There is sure no need to measure 3 distances with a ruler. What do you do in turbulence?

Order a free flight planning kit from CASA. It has a kneeboard with ruler, notepad, maps and some very useful information.

Motz, good post above. My concern from what I've read in this thread is how RA-Aus pilots are currently being trained. FYI, there is no special GA training for operating above 5,000'. All of Motz' points above should be taught to all pilots, especially in nav training. Is this not currently being taught? One of my biggest concerns is the confusion on here about both airframe icing and carby icing. Is this covered in current training? If not, there are good reasons to brief it. Maybe it is taught but it doesn't really sink in because pilots might think it isn't necessary to know it? To be honest, icing should be the least of your concerns here, because if the weather is bad enough for you to get icing VFR, you shouldn't be there. Perhaps part of the education is when to go or not go. Remember, many RA-Aus pilots don't have any time at all under the hood, and the last thing you want is to put yourself in a position with no visibility and no instrument training, flying an aircraft without TSOd instruments. I love RA-Aus for the opportunities it gives to people, but please, if you do have plans to fly in bad weather, get the appropriate training or don't get airborne. Never underestimate the weather, it kills people more than anything else in aviation. On hypoxia, be aware that in the USA pilots can fly along all day without oxygen at 12,500' and up to 14,000' for short periods. Maybe those Americans are fitter than us! One thing I do think is very important in Motz's post is the engine monitoring on descent. This is taught in GA, especially in types which need a warm engine (and cowl flaps). Keep your engine warm, or it may not respond when you need it, and it can cause damage to the engine. The traffic danger is definitely down low, close to airports. Have a look at the collision stats - they are at or near airports. I agree that pilots need to be aware of the approach profiles of higher performance aircraft and plan their frequency change in accordance with that. The higher you are, the earlier you need to monitor the CTAF, and always keep a good lookout - after all, you are in VMC.

Looking at the track on webtrak could indicate wx.

Turbo I don't understand. Are you saying certificate holders are not taught meteorology, and don't understand airframe icing vs carby icing?

I've had carby icing on the ground, and yes, carby icing happens in the tropics. But that has nothing to do with freezing level and airframe icing.

That sounds promising Tarnasky, what was your instructor flying in the RAAF?

Tarnasky are you doing a full time flying course or do you mean the CPL theory? Just a word of warning to the CPL candidates, if you want to do the 150 hour CPL there are very strict times when each theory exam must be done. If you sit the exams to early, you no longer qualify for the 150 hour syllabus and must do an extra 50 hours. Make sure you talk to your instructor before sitting any theory exam to make sure it is the right time to do it. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing the extra 50 hours, it is all good experience, but they are hours you have to pay for.

Ferris you could use MS flight sim, that's OK for navaid work.

Don I do have to agree with you there regarding Williamtown. I agree absolutely a clearance should be available to any aircraft for the Willy coastal lane, especially in bad weather. In fact I would encourage any of you to request that clearance, RA-Aus or not, if you believe you would be safer flying coastal. Don't let them bully you to fly a mile offshore either. The same applies for the Gold Coast, it is safer flying along the coast or even on the western route, rather than skirting the airspace over those mountains in bad weather

Ignition Schofields couldn't be changed to D as it is military, which must be C. If you want a bit of it to be D, that means a separate tower and controller just for Schofields, I doubt it would be justified under the tower establishment criteria. I do agree that Richmond has way too much airspace though, especially for Hercs and training, it is vastly greater in size than military airports overseas operating a high number of fast jets.

It sounds like you are having a great time, not hell at all! It is good to hear of your progress. Are you doing any powered approaches at all, or are they all glides? A powered approach gives you many more options and keeps the engine warm, a glide approach is either a practise for an engine problem, or an indication that the approach hasn't been spot on! Do ask for a bit more of a briefing on go arounds, on some aircraft they are really hard work and the technique can differ a bit - some need a bit of flap up quicky, others can climb with some flap, but do look for a positive rate of climb, then get out of there! Climb up to circuit height, having some room underneath you is a good thing. One exception though - do look out for any aircraft that might be joining the circuit midfield crosswind at circuit height. When are you next at YCAB?

I think Pylon has a point, in that RA-Aus was designed to be a fun and less expensive alternative to get people airborne. It seems now it is trying to parallel GA but personally I think that is a backward step. GA already exists. If you want to fly at night, in cloud, take lots of pax, do charters, aeros etc, you can - in GA. It is more expensive because of the medical requirements, extra training, LAME maintenance, CASA costs and so on. I fear that if RA-Aus keeps pushing for more, the costs will go up and it will no longer be the fun and accessible way into aviation that it was designed to be - it will just be the same as GA! Can't we keep RA-Aus simple to allow more people to fly, and those that want to go further can then go over to GA? Maybe the proposed recreational licence will sit somewhere in the middle!

In Australia a transponder is required in Class E, but it is not required in Class E anywhere else in the world. The requirement came into being due to a deal with the airlines. In lots of countries they have E down quite low, 1200 feet or so - but they don't need a transponder so the Class E is transparent for VFR. The transponder requirement is probably why our Class E is higher here. Class E is generally from 8500' up but read your chart, there are exceptions - like Williamtown. Class E is exactly the same as Class G for VFR (except in Australia we DO need a transponder). Once again, there is an exception because the Avalon controllers don't seem to want to let go, the E down there is more like D. I do hope this will be fixed soon because it isn't proper E. The Melbourne people might know - has this been fixed now or are they still treating the E like D?

Yes Tomo, Class E is an excellent class of airspace and it should not be forgotten!

CAR 166 is more harmonised with the FAA rules, and the USA is a very litigious society. If there were legal problems in not making particular calls, the US would have changed them long ago. Plus the old rules were not enforceable, so what is the point in having them? People flying from their own sheep station were joining base or on a shorter straight in approach, and not making all the calls, do they all need to be prosecuted? Or is it better to make the rules more practical? Call me NUTS 'cause I make calls as required. I sure don't make 'turning' calls on every leg of every circuit. Imagine my 'turning downwind' call prevented a transmission by others which might have prevented a collision? In my view, the duty of care is to remain situationally aware enough to make calls as required, rather than doing them parrot fashion.

I did a reply and it disappeared into cyberspace, here we go again. I don't see the problem. The traffic density increases closer to the ground, so there is less traffic up there. Your TAS is higher, you can see further. There is no icing without visible moisture (cloud). So if you are flying clear of cloud, as you must by law, you will not get airframe icing. What is "IFR airspace"? The only IFR airspace I'm aware of is Class A, which is a fair bit higher than 9,500'. IFR aircraft mix with VFR aircraft right down to the ground. When there is a low freezing level, the lower performance types could be below 5000', or cruising at lowest safe. If you are particularly worried, stay off the IFR routes. The chance of collision is minimal, they will be at even levels (or LSALT), you will be at 500' levels. Plus, you are in VMC so can look out of the window. When they are in VMC they are also looking out of the window, they have to, by law. When in IMC, they can't run into you because you won't be in cloud. The only chance of a conflict is during climb or descent, such approaching an airport, and this can happen below 5000'. Before descent IFR aircraft always request traffic and they are given everything known. The only problem is if you hear the call they don't always say where they are, they just request traffic for descent, but some will say they are x miles to wherever, request traffic, so if that is near you, you have some warning. But if you are in the approach or departure airspace to an airport you must always be aware of arriving and departing traffic. There is no transponder requirement above 5000', it is purely a factor of the class of airspace. So what is the problem?

I can't think of anything with feedback. The problem is you want a realistic response, and you want to know if you have said something wrong. Otherwise you could repeat the wrong call over and over and learn it! Why not pair up with another pilot to do this? If you want to make it realistic, do something else at the same time. Like ride a pushbike around the 'circuit' making the radio calls as you go.

RPT goes from Darwin to Kununurra too.

Sorry Gecko, I don't understand? The calls use standard words, there's not a lot of variation, and all the details are in AIP. Once you know what to say you can make the calls for real, and you will get good 'real world' feedback! What is it you are unsure about? The responses you will get from ATC?

You can fly RPT Broome to Kununurra.

Do you mean Broome or the Kimberley? There are a few operators at Kununurra, some better than others.

Why not just read the Jandakot guide out loud? http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/jandakot.pdf

Red I hate to say it but I do get the feeling that if don't fit the aircraft, you a re fighting an uphill battle. You need to have a reference point from your sight line, so bobbing your head isn't the best because you won't get to the same place each time. You could ask your instructor to fly some landings for you, and really look at the picture outside. OK, here's a challenge to help, I want you to write on here, tell everyone, exactly what you see during that flare and landing. What is the attitude you are looking for? Look for where the nose is with reference to the horizon and let us all know. Don't say what your instructor says because with your height the picture might be different. You could break it down by flying level over the runway and taking your time, try to not let it land. Your instructor an show that to you too. When are you flying next?