KRviator

You're right, but with a typo. Basic C2 needs the AustRoads Commercial standard. Class 5 is Private. Got my wires crossed. I still can't meet the Class 5 though, because the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation specifically call out my condition. I hope they never need to travel on the XPT though - there's a damn good chance I'll be up the front of the train, with no co-driver and no Automatic Train Protection to stop me blasting past a red signal into the asre-end of the train in front and killing everyone because of the medical condition that they say is such a threat to aviation safety I can't hold a C5.... Oh... Wait... My Rail medical is fine. Thank god for CASA and their "evidence-based approach to aviation safety"

It is, however is a subtle, but extremely important difference. The CASA Class 5 rules you to meet the "Unconditional Commercial AustRoads licence standard". RAAus requires you to meet the Private licence standard, which is more lenient in some areas. I can't meet the C5 standard anymore due to a minor yet very-well-controlled neuro issue (but this issue is specifically called out as not meeting the AustRoads Commercial standard), but I can hold a Class 2 if I want to be butt-phucked by the cretins at AvMed every year with never-ending assessments and reports or I can go back to RAAus and fly until my heart is content. I have a Cat 1 Rail medical every year that's far more stringent than a CASA C2 and my Neurologist specifically wrote in her report "We have no issue for The KRviator to drive trains or fly" - and she is one of the leading experts on the condition on the planet! Good enough for CASA you'd think?? Nope. So if you're thinking of going RAAus - CAsA (either for registration or RPC->RPL) bear this difference in mind and double-check you'll be okay.

Nope, haven't paid it, and I won't be until they remove the charges. They've refused. So not only those charges, but every landing fee since has gone unpaid as well because they include them all on the same invoice. Re the deconfliction call, here's an example from when I went to Broken Hill. "Dubbo Traffic Rex 6866 a Saab Taxiing for Broken Hill runway 05" "Rex 6866 and Dubbo Traffic Alpha Bravo Charlie an RV 30 miles west maintaining 9,500 overhead time 20" "Alpha Bravo Charlie, Rex 6866 we'll maintain 8,000 until we've confirmed we're past you" "Rex 6866 much appreciated sir" Shortly afterwards "Alpha Bravo Charlie, Rex 6866 visual, your 11 o'clock low, 1 mile and we'll start our climb to the flight levels soon as we're past" "Rex 6866, Alpha Bravo Charlie, copy sir, thank you"

I'm glad they've corrected it for you. They've refused to do so for me - despite contacting them in writing over it. They're a parasite on the industry. Look at this very thread, people suggest bogus calls or bogus callsigns in an attempt to avoid being charged, to the detriment of safety overall. And they don't "only charge for landings" - I've been charged for overflying airports at 9,500' - verified by ADS-B - because I put "YGLA" on the flightplan as a turnpoint instead of the aid and made a deconfliction call with a departing RPT on CTAF. AvData, scum of the earth.

I continue to get nasty-grams from Avdata claiming I owe money for landings at places I've never been. Tried to sort it out with the morons there to no avail, so simply wrote back "When you work out which fees are legitimate and issue a true and correct invoice, it will be paid". Till then, my dollars haven't become their dollars. Parasites. Bottom dwelling pond scum.

What's the failure message? That "Multiple Sensors failed" type thing can often be caused by attempting to do a pitot-static check without being in test mode, the ADAHRS sees the rapid climb/descent and IAS changes without corresponding GPS position or accelerometer changes and cries foul. Doesn't sound like you've actually done a P-S test, but it might be somewhere to start. First thing I'd do is unplug your GPS antenna, do a network calibration to rediscover all the modules but without the GPS, cycle power and see what happens.

A 916 would cost more tan the entire airframe, yet alone two! A pair of 914's would be a far better choice. Much cheaper, aftermarket EFII is available, critical altitude of FL160 and did I say cheaper than a 916? EDIT: Just saw the same MTOW of 760, so only 280kg payload. You couldn't even put 4 people in before you're over MTOW, so WTF's it good for?

Wouldn't be the first time RAAus didn't understand their own manuals or the legislation they operate under....

Why do we need an alternative to VH- these days? The US seems to get along just fine without RAUSA. The Brits too, can't see RAEngland getting off the ground. RAAus is a continuation of the AUF that was about before we had the likes of Part 103 and the Class 5 medical.

No, they're not. Wedderburn is home to the Sport flying club buried among the trees - makes it easy to spot going past... The Oaks is about 5NM southwest of Camden, two separate airfields.

Yer know - I was impressed that that Jab managed to slip between the water tank and the hangar outrigger down SA way last year when the pilot pranged it. This one beats that - managing to park it on the hangar roof without so much as cracking one of the solar panels behind 'im. I'm impressed. Exceedingly curious, but impressed nonetheless.

Just like the dozens, if not hundreds, of "news" reports telling everyone those nasty Sydney train driver's went out "on strike" when that never happened either. Welcome to the modern-day media....

Yer know the inherently interesting thing about the ASIC? It's as useless as a flyscreen in a fucken submarine at any airport that doesn't have RPT, but does still get large-capacity business jets. The KR KRew live adjacent their local airport, we have through-the-fence access to take the RV flying and Mini-Me has got a photo standing in front of a brand-spankers Falcon 8X that had flown in when we pulled up for fuel. The crew were at a hotel, the jet was simply parked with the bungs in and that was it. No armed guards. No guard dogs. Not even security lighting on the tarmac. Granted, it'd be locked, but that's not going to stop a dedicated "I want to steal a jet" whacko with a toolkit, and said lunatic wouldn't be questioned because there's no need for an ASIC here. All an ASIC does is give the impression of stopping an identified threat - it'll do nothing at all to stop the unidentified ones....

An ASIC - or lack thereof - is going to do sweet FA to stop the next attack. It might stop singular nutjobs, but a determined attack in Oz? Not in a snowballs chance. And if there's no assurance it'll stop anything, then it's a WOFTAM. There's any number of ways dedicated whack-jobs or religious zealots could harm the population. Two blokes could walk onto a Sydney or Melbourne train at either end towing two big-arse suitcases of not-so-nice-stuff and you've got 1000 casualties when it goes BANG! underground. No security. No sniffer dogs. No boarding passes or identity checks. They ain't gonna bother getting an ASIC, or not getting an ASIC just to fly some shitbox 172 into Parliament House. That ship has sailed, but as is typical in Australia, we're about 20 years behind. 40 years for the Democratic People's Republic of McGowanstan.

If it does - I can't find it on the CAsA website. But that's not altogether surprising, given the convoluted nature of their sites design. SAAA still references 18/22.