KRviator

Also check out Mark Rober - he's the guy that built the parcel bomb to catch out package theives - but he goes into the science in an easy-to-understand way which is downright enjoyable. Between the two of them, and FailArmy, they occupy about 90% of my YouTube time. ?

Just goes to show someone else can love a narcissist besides themselves...

Pretty sure all new transponders need to be Mode-S, so about $3000 for the box maybe $500 for an encoder, and $1000 or so to fit, depending on how complex your installation will be.

That's correct. All new IFR installations require a C145/C146 GNSS to drive your ADS-B. Garmin has released a couple new boxes, plus an indicator like a G5 configured as an HSI and you should be able to fit one for less than $20K. Still a BIG chunk of change though...

I am sure the maintenance figures, are not cheap - I'm not disputing that at all. The problem is "they", councils etc, are passing on those distinct airport mowing-and-maintenance charges to the users but not anywhere else. They are not passing on the mowing and lighting charges for the use of my local park to me when I take my kids down to kick the footy or ride their bikes on the waterfront cycleways. They are not passing on the boat ramp maintenance charges to my neighbour when he launches his tinny at the brand-spanking $1.5-million-dollar facility at Koolewong, or ties up to the local pier, nor are they passing on the maintenance charges to park my car at the car park at the beach. Why not? Because in each of the previous examples, they are community assets, and their maintenance has been incorporated into Councils annual operating budget - as should be airport maintenance, at least for Private fliers - no matter how expensive it is, for anything else is discriminatory. I can understand if a Council wanted to charge business operators as I believe they charge cafe's a lease fee if they want tables on the footpath for example, and if you are making money out of a community asset, the community should be reasonably reimbursed for it, but to use a community asset for my own private use (note - not exclusive use, if you leased a hall for a party, etc), then I fail to see a reasonable expectation that I should pay extra to use it when I am already a ratepayer in the shire. AAhhhh you say, but what if I am not a ratepayer in the shire? Then your ratepayers are welcome to fly down here and use my local airport, or the boat ramps - let's face it, Cessnock and Hornsby shire councils don't have a lot of waterways... Sure, it can be argued, "You use the facility, you should pay for it", but I have yet to hear anyone who actually uses that argument, provide a substantive case for why it only applies to the local airport not every other piece of council-owned infrastructure, like carparks, beaches, sporting fields. About the only example of "user-pays" for my local council I can think of is the pool - and at less than $25 for a family of 4 for all-day access, and free parking, even that doesn't compare to a lot of airports that charge well over $10/tonne landing fees. Even for a small four-seater like a Mooney you're still up for $15-20+ just to land, with parking often extra. Cessnock, $17 for a Mooney to land + 12.80 to park per day, Toowoomba $16.75 to land (per landing too, another airport that results in $180/hour for circuit training in my RV-9) plus $16.60 just to park - it isn't just Warnervale where they are gouging pilots, though that is my oft-used example as it is my local airport.

Had AvData developed a business model that issues timely and accurate invoices and had councils developed a fair and equitable charging system - instead of one that charges $495 in landing fees for an hour of circuits - though they have "generously" introduced an RAAus rate that reduces that to "only" $150 an hour now - it probably wouldn't exist either... Then again, you can't simply point and say "Those pesky RAAus pilots are avoiding landing fees..." when you look at the various threads on PPrune et al. and see the commentary from GA pilots that utilise false callsigns in an effort to avoid AvData owned charging systems as well. The publication of aircraft owners details is a separate issue, wrong as I feel it may be, the root issue is the majority of Councils do not see their airport as "just another council asset" that they are responsible to maintain in accordance with their ratepayer budget. "All them noisy airplane owners is rich" seems to be the common mentality and they then think we should be charged to operate from a 1.5km strip of bitumen when they wouldn't dare introduce a toll-gate on the road into town, or a $10 fee to launch your tinny at the local boat ramp (of which my local council has 46 across the shire and receives no income from). Now, Private strips are another story - and I agree yes the owners are entitled to charge for use, but it should be fair, something that isn't always the case. Though for example, I pay $300/month for hangarage and unlimited use at Somersby and I am quite happy with that.

MGL make their N16 that utilises the SL30 communications protocol so you can drive it with an EFIS if you need to. Again, not TSO'd, and I can't recall if you need TSO to do NVFR. From memory, you do not, but I can't point to the legislation that says either way atm...I've got it in my mind that you don't need any navigation receivers for Night VFR though and the VFRG seems to support that. I picked up a KLN-90B from Ebay a couple years ago for $600, it won't do for IFR these days as it is only a C129 unit, but it will give you RNAV and push your position-fix times out to 2 hours if you need that. Really, you'd be wanting a GNSS unit over a VHF Nav as VOR's are going the way of the dodo, but it depends on your panel space.

I noted this in my reply to the OIAC last week, along the lines of "To get access to the Motor Registry requires legal action or a court order, the RTA can't "simply change their privacy policy" to allow a shopping center to issue invoices. Begs the question why the Civil Aircraft Register is public domain at all. Boats aren't. Cars aren't. Motorcycles aren't. Planes? Well, they're owned by toffee-nosed rich people, so what if their details are in the public domain?!?

Looks like I can't edit the above to add the privacy policy as well, but here it is from RAAus website: https://shop.raa.asn.au/privacy-policy/ 1626 AEDT on the 23rd October 2019. Click HERE for a JPG if the embedded version doesn't work.

Except RAAus currently has two privacy policies displayed on their website. The PDF Privacy Policy "Version 2.0" that contains the AAA clause, and THIS ONE, which I believe is "Version 2.1", or the one they changed by adding the clause. So it is not clearly expressed or up to date. Now lets see how long it is before RAAus remove that policy in another cover-up attempt (note, that policy is current and displayed on their website as at 1611 23/10/2019, so over a year since the other policy was changed,) Note the line right at the bottom? "We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. Amendments will be published on our web page www.raa.asn.au/shop" So if you were visiting that site to check on updates to the Privacy Policy, you would not be aware they have changed it, as their website is out of date, and/or their webmaster has not got an 'effin clue what he's doing. But you did not consent for the secondary purpose, as the "AAA Clause" was inserted after you joined RAAus, and there has been no notification to the membership or you directly about the change in the Privacy Policy before they did so, in August 2018, and started disclosing your details. No, you were not aware it could reasonably occur, as in the March 2017 edition of Sport Pilot, RAAus made a declaration in writing that they would not disclose your details to a third party. As such, you would expect RAAus to abide by that declaration, not perform a 180* backflip and enter into a commercial arrangement with a third party less than 18 months later. Furthermore you "are concerned" that once your personal information has been disclosed to various third parties, it is no longer controlled by the RAAus Privacy Policy, and may be on-sold, used for direct marketing or more illicit activities such as identity theft, as you have no control, nor have you agreed to supply, your personal details to those third parties, nor are you able to find out who those third parties are, nor what their privacy policies contain, as the AAA refuses to disclose what members of their organisation will be able to access your personal details, as it "is private"! There is also no control over who may access the RAAus database in terms of accuracy of registration provided. Ie, Jabiru ixty-five, nineteen sounds exactly like Jabiru ifty-five, nineteen over any number of radios, except the owner of Jabiru -5519 now has their personal details provided to an airport owner they have never visited. How so? RAAus is not an airport operator, airport owner, and does not currently, nor have they ever, collected landing fees, or acted as an agent for collection of landing fees on behalf of an airport operator The Primary Purpose of collection of your personal details is to administer your RPC and Aircraft registration on behalf of CASA as the delegated ASAO for light aircraft. There is no remit there to collect or participate in, the collection of landing fees, either on behalf of, or directed by, CASA, or as part of our Ops Manual. Presumably your consent for collection of personal information was before the AAA Clause was inserted, and as RAAus is the only entity which administers ultralight aircraft, there is no alternative to opt out. You agreed to the collection of Personal Information for the administration of your RPC and aircraft registration, the mailing of the monthly magazine and email correspondence relating to safety notices, etc, these may be considered to require your personal information and you consented to disclose it to receive such services.

I've not flown a -6, but my fixed-pitch -9A does not like slowing down landing downhill there. I did it once, and it was immediately added to the list of things not to do again. Landing uphill, I can be down and stopped in well under 200m with moderate braking. One thing that concerns me is the repeated buckling behind the cockpit of the RV-series. It has been mentioned in several accident reports previously, as well as this one, and makes me wonder if something should be 'done' to resolve it. The problem being, if the longerons buckle ahead of the shoulder restraint, it effectively slackens your shoulder harness and you are then unrestrained and pivot around your lap belt only.

Final report is out. Landed (very) long and didn't go around.

Found this today from the Australian Airport Association: MY bolding - See the scope creep already? So it is no longer about 'just' landing fees. It never was... I'm in discussions with the OAIC at the moment about the privacy breaches, so will see what they ultimately have to say about the matter, but from what I can see, arbitrarily changing the Privacy Policy for a new secondary purpose which is unrelated to RAAus' operations isn't legit...Hopefully they agree... I asked the AAA who their members were that would be accessing my data. The response? "We can't tell you, it's private!". ? RAAus has also put out this FAQ about going's on too... aaa-agreement-faqs.pdf

The vest itself is a combination of MOLLE equipment over a tactical vest. Some of the US RV'ers use those fly-fishing vests as an alternative too. Ultimately what I use may not fit anyone else, or they might have different priorities in what they want to carry, but the beauty of the MOLLE system is you can customise it to suit your own needs & wants. An example is this bare vest is on Ebay for $40, and you can add whatever pouches you want and will fit in your cockpit. You'll notice I haven't focused too much on food, though there is a small snare in one of the pouches. You can go 3 weeks without tucker, and I hope I would be home by then! Survival to me, isn't about camping in luxury, it is about making sure you are still alive when the paramedics find you, so I have put more medical, first aid and location aids in there than rations. For remote areas, I would carry water in the back of the plane, but not on my person. You can still go 3 days without water and again, I hope AMSA would have at least found me by then, even if the ground party is still some days away. To that end, I typically use OzRunways with tracking enabled, I have ADS-B in the RV, and for XC flights, I file a plan, rather than just a flight note or worse, nothing at all - even if ASA does get confused because not many RAAus aircraft request flight following...The recent Mooney prang inland from Coffs shows the benefit to ADS-B in the search effort, even if it wasn't a happy ending...

Insofar as political politics, I don't think people are ignorant or uncaring. I think most of us have simply had a gutful of our elected officials behaving in a worse manner than my 7 year old. Screaming and mocking each other across the chamber, concerned only with getting themselves reelected and their parliamentary pensions than the overarching good of the country. How many hospitals, freeways or schools would that $1080 tax refund buy? But that wont get the asshats voted back in... I'll get off my soapbox now......

I think that's the gist of it unfortunately. I am ropeable, not so much with RAAus and their direction - though I am not happy with that either - but with their decision to publicise our details to other organisations with zero consultation and no accountability for the 180* backflip.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: I do need to route it (the shoulder straps) inboard of the PLB & Firefly pouches and that can make it rub on my neck, so I tend to ensure I always wear a collared shirt with it up to prevent any discomfort. I have even flown Victor 1 with an inflatable life jacket over the vest several times without issue. The longest flights I've done with it so far have been Sydney-Caloundra return at 3.0 + 3.5 hours in a day and it hasn't been uncomfortable.

A L2 ASP is a Level 2 Accredited Service Provider - basically a Sparkie who can work on the network infrastructure, as opposed to simple electrical stuff inside your house. You can buy them (the markers, not Sparkies ?) from the link in my previous post, or probably the manufacturer directly, and yes, they simply clamp around the wires.

How high AGL are the wires? You can buy those RotaMark rotating ones for around $160 each, and they can be installed from ground level with a hotstick, so any L2 ASP should be able to do it for you for their hourly rate.

Not when you consider who was flying the following aircraft and what was at stake given the previous Youtube videos posted of this outfit...

So here we are, the final report is out, and what a goatphuck that operation was. AIUI, LowFlyer1770 was Bruce Rhoades, the CP of the operation, and he passed away last month, but I cannot see any reasonable person, yet alone any reasonable pilot attempting to defend the shenanigans going on up there...? Multiple flights conducted overweight, or with no evidence the aircraft was in balance Multiple flights conducted with no records of them bar the GPS296 logs Multiple flights exceeding required maintenance timelines Multiple flights conducted without the MR in the aircraft. The report speaks for itself...

The tampon and sanitary pad are for controlling severe bleeding. Absolute worst case, put tampon into wound, and pad over the top, tape it and hope for quick rescue. They are small, and already sterile. The condoms for carrying water, use as a slingshot elastic, small tourniquet, makeshift gloves, or even waterproof storage if needed - because I know one of you will ask about them next! ?

Nothing in the back usually, except my flight bag occasionally. But I always fly wearing a survival vest. Using the logic "I fly in a plane I built in my back shed!" makes explanations at the bowser much easier. ?

Yeah - but you're in Victoria. The state that introduced legislation to charge pilots for conducting instrument approaches to an ASA-owned Navaid...

So does this logic apply elsewhere, or just aviation? Central Coast Council just spent ~$1.5 million dollars rebuilding my local boat ramp, at ratepayers expense. I don't have a boat and they do not charge those that do to launch their tinny of a weekend but I've still paid a small portion of that $1.5M. What I do have is an RAAus-registered RV-9A, with a 165HP engine so it's massively overpowered. Which in turn means I can fly a complete circuit, to 1000AGL and back to wheels-down, in 3 minutes 20 seconds. And which, since I am not based at Warnervale, means "paying for a service I receive" costs me $150/hr in landing fees to fly circuits at Warnervale - which is less than 5 minutes away from where I keep my -9 and the closest aerodrome at which I can safely do circuits, plus another $110 if I refuel on council land - even if I bring my own fuel! My actual use of the runway, that portion that my wheels are down, at 125m/lap for that hour of circuits amounts to around 2250m total or a $66.60/km toll if we were doing it like they do for the new toll-roads. Reckon that'd stand up anywhere else but aviation? Imagine the outcry if Council introduced a 'pay-for-service' charge at each of their boat ramps. For "maintenance of the facility" of course. Afterall, it costs money to have a tractor tow a slasher over the grass once a month. And then there's the salary for the ARO to catch the rego numbers of those pesky Gyro's and other GA'ers that have the audacity to fly to Warnervale because it's the only aerodrome within cooee for the Central Coast... User-pays as a concept is fine unless there is a monopoly. As soon as you have that, or any other lack of meaningful competition, then the user-pays concept is exploited to the detriment of all users.