mnewbery

Not training. Flying into or through controlled airspace. But yes Daniel you are correct regarding the training. It just won't count as valid unless part 141 is followed with regard to a part 61 licence. It may count as aeronautical experience only.

I should have mentioned Mode C or Mode S but yes there will be a test and validity date for the pitot static system (altitude and airspeed) and the transponder. Its a minor detail that will appear in the aircraft log. Normally this isn't in the plane. CAO 20.18 paragraph 9 gives some clues about the need to have a servicable transponder in class C airspace. Side note: inspection is annual but calibration is 24 months.

In answer to the second part of the question... The bit about going through the Nowra when it is active. If the plane you are going to fly has been to Canberra or any other class C airspace, then it will be acceptable. A J170 from a flying school with a certified altimeter and Mode C transponder (and the certification period is still valid) will be ok. That is in part 95.24. The pilot needs to have a valid current part 61 licence. ALSO if the PIC is on a part 61 RPL they need to already have had CTR endorsement for transit and CTA endorsement for landing at a controlled aerodrome as applicable to the mission

This question has been done to death. This is not advice but if it was me I would be talking to my instructor about my part 61 licence and endorsements and the specific plane I plan to fly

For those posters who would like to jump up and down on the spot over how I am supposed to send an expired ASIC back as soon as it expires, save it or PM me.

With regard to post #3 you can only get credit for common syllabus items. Otherwise the training and examination must be as per part 141 or 142 etc

Comment below applies when going through CASA ASIC team at Merimbula. When applying for an ASIC renewal the applicant can submit the paperwork whenever they want and ask to have it sent to them valid for a particular month. So if you aren't flying over winter or over Christmas you can ask to have your card sent about when you need it. It is still up to the applicant to ensure the photo submitted is a recent one. I got mine this way a few times and it saved me quite a bit of money by not paying for something I wasn't using. Also I've only ever had to send the old ASIC back AFTER I got my replacement but in practice it's been expired anyways so I sent the old one with the application. The new ASIC comes with a reply paid envelope for this purpose. I have never gone through RAA although that choice as open to me.

Merimbula. The airport is walking distance to the beach and they have car hire Moruya is quite similar. I think that have a caravan park and car hire but it's a bit far from the Vic border

The F-35 just absolutely slaughtered the competition Bit different to the thread title

Something else to consider Drone Club For Kids With Autism Is Really, Really Awesome

I'm stunned NASA has one but that describes my lack of imagination rather than the state of Uber Uber Hires NASA Flying-Car Expert - AVweb flash Article

PM sent

The Birth of the "Dilbert Dunker" - National Naval Aviation Museum

Post does not add value so removed - Mod

... In accordance with state and federal law. So we agree on that it is a federal offence for a state police officer to enter the sterile area of a certified aerodrome with a service weapon (a gun) unless authorised under aviation transport safety regulation act 2005. The act is quite clear. There is no rule that says the local police must be able to recite state or federal laws. What happens at uncertified noname grass airstrip is up to the land owners (could be a public place too) and plod. Personally I want local plod to come and have a cup of tea, hang out, go for a fly and look down on the neighbours wicked hydro skunk setup. Safely. Why should I have all the fun?

Nope Opal does not because it doesn't need to meet that standard. It is still also 91 octane and goes through pipes that have had other product in them.

Also before anyone nitpicks, actually read and understand the STATE laws around search and seizure before talking about being safe from police on an airport. Other federal laws also apply even to the state police without a written exemption that names the officer personally.

In response to #46 a certified aerodrome airside is not a public place, that's why. The sign on the gate makes that and a few other facts quite clear. If a person thought of it like the council chambers one would understand the state police don't get in there without prior authorisation either. The number I was dialling was the operations manager. Certified aerodrome. Driving a car on a taxi way with no radio no reason and no authorisation. What would have happened to Joe Public under the same circumstances? Trespassing charges?

If the area the pilot is flying into has Opal low aromatic fuel in an effort to address issues around petrol sniffing and the trafficking of the desired product, would the pilot rather a) identifying oneself at some personal inconvenience and getting 100LL; or b) only having Opal or walking to choose from? Ironically the blend for Opal is very similar to 100LL without the TEL and has a very different effect to other inhaled solvents. Back to the ASIC, never discount employees' desire to ensure their job by appearing useful even if the contrary is true. I got some negative attention at a municipal airport because I had a dog on a lead next to a plane. Once the uniformed employee determined that between us and the dog we had more than one ASIC plus the animal belonged in the plane not in the car we were all square and on our respective ways. The local state police tried the same trick on a different day. We told them they had no jurisdiction on a certified airport no ASIC and were endangering the public by driving a police car on a taxi way without a permit or having gone through any safety training. Cops were stunned into silence. I think they wanted to toss the plane for naughty items. When I pulled out my phone and started dialling the number in the ERSA they wished us well and quietly went out the way they came in. Municipal airport has since run safety seminars for Plod and co.

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/multimedia/f-35_program_key_facts_and_milestones_-_march_2016__2_-9-7542.pdf http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/newspapers/raaf/editions/5814/5814.pdf USA are claiming their combat readiness with weapons release in August 2016. What RAAF will do and learn between IOC and FOC is anyone's guess. From what I have read, nobody is talking about a reliable FOC date.

Oh no. No tactical advantage but they are proven to have low radar signature and two guns. Off topic but the pilots all wore frilly knickers, I hear

Can we do replica Polikarpov Po-2s instead?

I am putting my hand up as one of the forum members who ignores Fly Tornado (see my signature block). Life really is better when I have a care about the opinions I expose myself to. To quote Bobby Henderson (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster): In this thread, there are many items to question and certainly more questions than objective facts. The F-35 development program has become one of the most heavily scrutinised in modern history. This is entirely justified. The Su-35 program does not experience the same heavy scrutiny. This motivates observers (me) to fill in the blanks. Seriously though, linking to a bolting Su-33 and implying "this is an example of high AOA in an Su-27" is inviting derision. I do wonder if the Su-33 in the video trapped and slammed into the carrier deck resulting in a fireball, would that have been made public? Question everything.

Thanks for the comments in post 208. I welcome the criticism as valid and timely

The Su-27 is what the Su-35S is based on. Admittedly its possible the internal structure could have been strengthened to allow for better combat manoeuvres but that would make it heavier (slower, not as much fuel etc). So the public information is that the Su-27 is limited to 33 degrees AOA in combat. This means that at best, the Su-35 was put into combat in January 2016 with no NEW validated combat AOA beyond 33 degrees. The Russian air force has not faced an adversary where this became an issue. At worst the Su-35 development program is going through the same validation steps as everyone else including the Chinese and they don't need to tell anyone what the final numbers are when they are finished. But I strongly believe the Su-35 combat AOA validation is not finished and that since the Su-35 will not be carrier borne (therefore stronger), it will be less than the F-35 as a trade-off for carrying more payload. I find it interesting that when the Russian government offered the Chinese an opportunity to licence build the Su-35, the Chinese turned their noses up at it, only showing mild interest in the NPO Saturn 117 engine but the Russian government said "Its a job lot. Build the plane under licence or get nothing". There are some other politics around that deal which complicate things further but not relevant to the F-35. Side note for the Gripen fangurls: The Gripen C stalled when encountering wake turbulence that resulted in greater than 20 degrees AOA. For a period of time after the initial stall the test pilots needed to perform some alternate law (that is, overriding the computer controlled canard) commands in order to regain control. It took a couple of geniuses a few months to determine why the computers got so confused and what to do about it. This software change has been implemented in all versions from the -C onwards. This is why skipping AOA validation for combat is not really an option.