Happyflyer

Final report is out. Pretty clear about what happened. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772702/ao-2017-001_final.pdf

They were asking $120k, bit less now. I wonder if it was a prospective buyer trying out the aircraft. Hope the insurance was paid up!

If you drove your car into a ditch and rolled , it would be a car crash. Can't blame them for calling it a microlight crash in this case I would have thought. Although a car crash with minor damage and no injuries would not be reported.

The reg you quote is but a small part of CASAs convoluted definition of private ops. See paras iii and v below. The companies using private pilots for station work are sometimes very large operations not in the habit of breaking the law. (d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of: (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft; (ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted; (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft; (iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted; (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft; (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A); (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade; (vii) flight training, other than the following: (A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR); (B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR); © balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or (viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive); shall be taken to be employed in private operations.

Nope. Plenty of PPL station pilots in the bush. We've trained a couple of non flying station hands for a PPL and they went back to fly the station plane as station pilot.

Yep, plenty of this happens in Australia. A good way to get some hours. Company does not have to own the aircraft, could be hired. Can only carry company employees or company freight.

Next time it flys over, get onto Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!, move the map to your area and see if it shows up. If it has ADSB it should show up.

If it's only you using it, couldn't you write the owner a letter absolving him of responsibility/liability? (Perhaps with legal help). You will still have your own third party insurance which would cover any damage you cause should the worst happen.

Radio has changed a bit but there are plenty out there that haven't so it won't sound very different. Secondary airports are now class D. If you went flying with an instructor a few times I'm sure you would pick up the changes and get current at the same time.

On 22 March 2014 a Cessna 206 crashed ar Caboolture with the loss of five lives. To me, it is unacceptable that this investigation has not been completed after nearly three years. The same pathetic excuses are listed again and again below. Let's hope the new boss at the ATSB can make some improvement. Collision with terrain involving Cessna U206G, VH-FRT, Caboolture Airfield, Qld on 22 March 2014 Updated: 30 June 2016 Quality assurance and management review of the draft investigation report is in progress prior to being forwarded to the ATSB Commission for approval for release to directly involved parties (DIP). The draft investigation report is now anticipated for release to DIPs for comment on the factual accuracy of the report in July 2016. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in September 2016. Updated: 1 March 2016 The additional investigative work reported in our 19 October 2015 update has been completed. Quality assurance of the investigation and draft report is being finalised before ATSB Commission approval of the report for release to directly involved parties (DIP). The draft investigation report is now anticipated for release to DIPs for comment by mid‑April 2016. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in June 2016. Updated: 19 October 2015 Completion of the draft investigation report has been delayed to allow for additional investigative work and by competing team member priorities and workload. It is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in December 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in February 2016. Updated: 25 August 2015 Completion of the draft investigation report has been delayed by competing priorities and workload, and is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in October 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in December 2015. Update: 14 May 2015 Completion of the draft report has been delayed by team member competing priorities on other investigations and is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP’s) for comment by the end of June 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated for release to the public in August 2015.

A business or company or other entity can own or hire or borrow a plane and have it flown by a member of that entity and provided only goods or people from that entity are carried, it is a private flight. So for example, if a builder with a PPL owns or hires a plane he can fly his workers and equipment to his building sites.

Private operation if owned or hired by a company and used to fly only employees of that company by a company employee pilot.

Welcome Martin. I'd have to say you'd find our bush a bit warmer and drier than yours!

If it happened at the time the witness said, it was after last light. Don't often see small choppers flying about in the dark. Must be quite hard to judge touch down and drift, more so in adverse weather.

I would have thought on top of the wind sock at any air strip I might fly to would be a good location! The FAA do a great job with cameras in Alaska. FAA Aviation Weather Cameras - Home

Just wondering why CFIs would volunteer for this added task and responsibility. I expect many would charge, as they are entitled to do, so another impost on Pilots.

Ha ha. Don't underestimate yourself so much! You seem to think deeply and plan well. Both these endorsements are 80% prior learning and preparation followed by carrying out the actions a few times.

Yes, a bit cheaper but hard to find features in RAAus aircraft. Usually only two hours flying doing both endorsements together, so not too much of a price to pay if done GA.

The GA endorsement is actually called MPPC (manual pitch propellor control) not CSU. Should not be a problem for RAAus to GA or vice versa. Cheaper to do it RAAus if you can find RAAus aircraft to do it in ( big if ).

Two ways to commercial. One is the integrated course which is a min of 150 hours, basically full time in GA aircraft only and can be done at YPPF in a couple of the schools. The other requires 200 hrs with 100 hrs in command. Half the 200 hrs can be RAAus. Self study will save money. Probably the cheaper option in the long run. Suggest RAAus certificate first to see if he has the aptitude, drive and interest to commit more money. Cheers

It's a requirement to stop at a stop sign. If someone doesn't stop and is killed doesn't mean the stop sign is ineffective and should be removed. You publicise the event so others are reminded of the consequences of not stopping I would have thought.

Have you considered this: The reminder for dual inspections is linked together with the accident in Tasmania. I read that as the investigator finding some preliminary evidence of a failure in the flight control system and RAAus letting us know and learn from this tragic accident.

I think he'll probably get slapped on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf. You have to ask yourself if it was worth it, and also why they dropped the unlicenced charge.

RPL limited to single engine aircraft. Licence types | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

He didn't front up in Jan 2017. The offence happened in 2013. He has pleaded guilty to the one remaining charge of reckless operation of an aircraft. Not the most complex case. The magistrate should just have sentenced him. He had his opportunity to state his case but again it is adjourned to get legal aid and advice. We give these people too much leeway.