KRviator

Personally, I like this one more:

ATSB RepCon might be a good option too?

But how is that different to Christian Scholl, the arsewipe who drove his B-Double into the side of a passenger train at Kerang and killed 11 people. The only substantial difference, is Scholl drove that route weekly, for 5 years and knew the level crossing was there but still drove at a speed that meant he couldn't hold short of the stop line when he observed the crossing lights were activated and his actions resulted in the worst rail accident since Granville. Sometimes I wonder just how 'justice' is served...

I dunno about that... I overstayed a parking meter in Brisbane once. $52 fine. But to do an hour of circuits at Warnervale will cost $82.50 - plus another $110 if I want to refuel there (not counting the cost of the actual fuel, either...) I don't begrudge paying my way at all. What I have an issue with is a private organisation performing an extraordinarily quiet backflip on a well-known public policy - that was reaffirmed in writing as recently as 18 months ago, in an attempt to feather their own nest at my expense. And then being told I am the one who mis-read their privacy policy, when I called them out on it. Given they've gone to the trouble of actually removing and replacing it, it smacks of a cover up. Exactly the same as when I called them on the Privacy Policy and their URL's...Not even a mention of it in the December one, not even an 'errata' or correction advising the membership "a draft release went out last month, sorry about that". One can only wonder just what is going on down in Canberra....

Dunno about anyone else, but I sent the CEO an email about it: The reply was less than inspiring, basically saying "We amended the Privacy Policy in August and uploaded it to our website, you must be looking at an old version" and "There are a number of drivers for this change, access to CTA and higher MTOW are also a driver, as is Part 149..." I replied Deafening silence has been my only reply. Not that I am surprised, but I am drafting a complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner about it, as I provided my details to manage my RPC and aircraft registration - NOT for RAAus to use as an olive branch to the rest of the industry in an attempt to feather their own nest at my expense (both literally and figuratively). Afterall, if they're happy to change this policy willy-nilly, and disclose our details to whoever they want, what else will they change, and to whom might they give our data to next time?

I would say the vast majority don't even know about it, Keith. I didn't until I read a post on PPRune, and then went looking (And found the old privacy policy they had never bothered updating...) Apart from a short spiel in the latest Sport Pilot magazine - that no one gets in the mail anymore - there has been absolutely no communication from RAAus about this change. No email, no letter, no SMS - NOTHING at all.

The school might reasonably be expected to foot the bill to train their individual instructrors, but RAAus - and as a consequence, everyone - has to foot the bill for the legal advice, development of a training and standardisation package, dialogue with CAsA, etc etc. And for those of us who will likely never use CTA, then yes, we are footing the bill, indirectly.

No.....They don't. Not for VFR anyway. They provide segregation, not separation - there is a very big difference. Separation has minimum standards, segregation doesn't. Note there is no mention of VFR/VFR separation! An oft-overlooked gotcha in CTA... There was a very close near miss at Bankstown not long ago when a Warrior was doing T&G's, went around and a Helo was cleared across the runway at 500'. This is the comment from one of the ATC'ers in the tower:

At a guess, they response you (we) will get is "Well, the new privacy policy allows it, suck it up, princess!" The thing is though, I didn't provide my details when that privacy policy was in effect, and there is no alternative but to use RAAus, for many things they are effectively a monopoly. I am still waiting on a further reply from the CEO, but am seriously lodging a complaint with the OAIC, given the sneaky way in which RAAus brought this in, and has not notified the membership.

Buggered if I know, I refuel at Cessnock or elsewhere -though I'm hanging out for Rylstone Airpark's bowser to come online! They're spelled out in Council's Financial year fees and charges document. Rotate it clockwise once, then search for "Airport".

IMHO, there's a pretty bloody big difference. Let's look at Warnervale as my oft-used example. As I'm based at Somersby (About 4 minutes away, really), I am classed as an 'itinerant aircraft', so I don't benefit from their new 20-minute blocks available to aircraft based there. So it's $8.25 for each and every landing. Even though I am based - and own a house in - the Central Coast Council LGA, the same Council that operates Warnervale. If I want to refuel there after my hour of circuits, that's another $110 just for the "Privilege" of refuelling on council land - on top of any fuel purchased! The motoring equivalent of that would be to charge me $1.375 for every kilometre I drive on Council roads, with Council being able to get my name and address from the RTA -simply for travelling on a Council-owned and funded asset. And don't forget that if you want to refuel at the local BP (if they've 'just happened' to lease their land from Council) it's another $110 on top of the E10 you just put into your Hyundai... It's a loooong bow to draw when comparing an illegal act (speeding ticket & photo-fine, to use your example) to a legitimate and lawful recreational activity and the provision of data thereof. As it happens, I emailed the RAAus CEO about it today - and he claims the new privacy policy permits it, and was uploaded to the RAAus website in August. UUhhh, no. Nice try. If you look at my PPRune post, date and time-stamped, complete with the relevant section cut-and-pasted, you can see they have only just now put up the new policy after being caught out...

IMHO, Council run airfields are not entitled to cost-recovery in any way, unless they apply such cost-recovery methods equally across the rest of council-owned infrastructure. Most Council's I've come across seem to be quite selective in who they charge, to minimise the chance of blowback come re-election time. Case in point: Warnervale charges me $8.25 per landing, so an hour of circuits costs $82.50. Plus another $110 just to refuel on council land. But the Central Coast Council have, IIRC, 58 boat ramps across the LGA, for which they don't charge boaties a fee to use - including a brand-new $1.5 million-dollar facility at Koolewong. How is it one recreational activity that costs more to maintain their facilities than the airfield gets a free pass, yet Council feels recreational pilots shouldn't? I can understand charging a landing fee to aero clubs and FTF's as they're running a business, but private owners? Nope. That being said, private airfields should be entitled to recover some of their costs, as they don't have the ratepayer base to fund ongoing maintenance. How big would the outcry be if the RTA said they're going to disclose Driver's names & addresses to Council's so they can charge a fee to drive down the main street?

Yep. Different symbols on their displays. Check out ASA's spiel about it HERE. ?

Well, it seems the RAAus leadership team has sunk to a new low. Not content with trying to trademark the "Freedom to Fly" catchphrase - and what a horses arse that turned out to be, they have now entered into a commercial arrangement with the Australian Airport Association to disclose the private details of their membership to members of the AAA to allow them to be invoiced for landing fees. They didn't even have the courtesy to sent the membership an email or letter saying "Hey, we're going to give out your private data now". Nope. Just a 5-paragraph spiel from the CEO in the latest Sport Pilot magazine. This is despite written assurance to the membership in the March 2017 Sport Pilot magazine where they clearly stated they would not share member data - but encouraged the membership to register with Avdata to allow them to be invoiced independently of RAAus. Given this new stance is a 180* backflip, and also violates the RAAus privacy policy, one can only wonder what game RAAus is playing, when they attempt to use the members private data as a bargaining chip to feather their own nest at a time when they are chasing CTA access and higher MTOW's - and who else is going to be able to enter into a commercial arrangement with RAAus to get access to the member database? Insurance brokers? Sales agents? Maybe even generic advertising brokers can have a go too? It's a disgusting breach of trust of the membership, IMHO.

The worst part about this whole sorry saga: They're probably not alone in their antics...

I dunno about that...The Seppo's lost 3000 people in the WTC attacks. They also lost somewhere near 42,000 people in road accidents that year - with nary a peep. Australia had more people killed on the roads last Christmas holidays than have been killed by terrorists in Australia since Federation...The security muppets at airports are there because we tolerate the Government telling everyone "Security to ensure your safety", when all it does is pass the risk elsewhere. Trains, public gatherings, etc...

IT seems to be an extraordinary common belief that we need a flight plan and to get 'permission' whenever we fly. When I'm explaining to someone for the first time, they are usually quite surprised to hear the freedoms we do have in terms of where we can go.In saying that, I did file a pair of plans for a trip to Queensland and back a few days ago, then got a call from ASA and had to explain to the briefing officer that ASA told RAAus to tell US that if you are filing a notification, it has to have Rnnnn, and it has to match your ADS-B ident - or it screws up the flight plan auto-coupling in TAAATS and upsets the controllers when you request flight following. In the end, I emailed him both the ASA and RAAus reference documents.

Ain't that the truth. Mind you, I always cringe when the insurance invoice arrives, but everything else is lots of smallish costs over the year, and definitely worth it for what I personally get out of it. Take yesterday for example, I flew from Somersby to Caloundra, a short local flight on arrival to scatter a mates ashes after his 'final flight', had lunch with his wife at the surf club then flew back to Somersby. All in less than 11 hours., with around 7.5 hours in the air. Short of hiring a PC-12 from Bankstown, it'd be damn hard to find a better, faster way to do it.Personally, I don't consider the engine replacement costs or anything else other than fuel as a direct/regular operating expense. I might buy a carton of oil every 18 months or so, and some plugs when I'm getting close to the 100-hourly but that's it, really. Tyres will be bought when needed, though I always carry a spare tube in the hangar. My engine is (was) brand-new, and everything else I simply replace when the time comes, but to do a 'proper' comparison, they do need to be included in the total operating cost.

Similar to that, for my RV-9:$57 per hour for fuel at current prices ($2.30) if I run Avgas exclusively, $45 ($1.80) if I run Mogas. $15 per hour for engine replacement $4 per hour for oils & filters $1 per hour for tyres & ancillaries $2000 a year for insurance $3600 a year for hangarage $260 a year for RAA membership $165 a year for Registration $144 a year for a ASIC card $250 to $300 for my 100 hourly’s (oil & filters included above & not much else to change. 8 x automotive plugs are inexpensive) Summing that up, you get $6500/year in fixed costs and $75-ish in opreating costs. I probably fly 70 hours a year at present, so roughly $170 / flying hour total. Still much cheaper than hiring a school plane, but if you did that, you aren't out the $120K to build an RV, nor can you control the fit out and finish.

BD-5 kits come up every now and then, but you've gotta be keen. If you want turbine time, you're better off trying to build a Cri Cri, and running two JetCat turboprops or AMT (or equivalent) model jet's on it. TWIN-turbine time! And you don't need a multi-engine endorsement to fly it. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the Qantas interview..."So, Mr Planenut, I see you have 1,500 hours twin turbine, but you only have a CPL but no MECIR, can you explain that?".

And just for interests sake, the chair that he's on you can actually buy yourself, though shipping would be painful. They're made in the UK, though I note the manufacturer now has a US branch. David Ogilvie Engineering is the company.

Yep, email came out this morning. Homework done & accommodation's booked, now just hoping the weather's good to turn a 6hr drive into a 70 minute flight.

Good thing it's well-built. In my younger days, a mate and I built a zip-line from the top of his dad's 30' feed silo. Threaded an old steel shovel handle over it and pulled it tight with the tractor. First time we tried it, it snapped about 5m out and he dropped into the only stand of thick grass between the silo and the tractor. Other than a couple of beautiful bruises, none the worse for it...

Anyone heard any information about the SAAA MPC that's going to be run out there the couple days before? I've registered & paid, but haven't got any info about when, where, who, etc etc.. I'll put a call into the SAAA tomorrow chasing it up but figured I'd ask here first...

I'm reliably informed this accident led to the implementation of the GPWS Mode 4 warning. "Train, Train. Whoop, whoop, pull up" If you have a look through the ATSB Database last year, there was a Loss of Separation between a hot air balloon and a wheat train in WA. The PDF report