Happyflyer

Para 7.3 of CAO 95.55 details when an aircraft can fly into controlled airspace. At first glance it does not rule out owner built aircraft. https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CAO95.55-24-Feb-2015.pdf

The top and bottom of life.

Agree with SDQDI. Perhaps if all instructors could do some serious stall/spin training to get comfortable so they can pass on the stall part of it with no fear and confidence. I still get guys on a BFR who have never seen the consequences of stalling out of balance. Stalling in a turn is a non event if you are in balance. Other than that, a gradual change in culture to be more cautions and safety conscious. The cowboys amongst us should be made to feel that change is in their best interest.

Steady on. DrZoos is entitled to express his view without being told to leave RAAus. From where I sit, his views are shared by many.

I went to the same seminar a few weeks ago. The type of person who deliberately goes into IMC or indulges in low flying does not go to a safety seminar. Completely wasted on those that attended. Just going through the motions to tell their masters they are educating us.

"The ATSB is investigating a collision with terrain involving a Cirrus SR22, VH-OPX, near Moree, New South Wales, on 17 September 2015. During landing the aircraft encountered a gusting crosswind, resulting in a collision with terrain. The pilot suffered minor injuries and the aircraft sustained substantial damage." One of the most important skills to master in crosswind landings is when to go around and rethink the need to land at that particular airport.

The feeling around the airfield is quite negative in relation to the vests and brochures. This is what you get when you have a safety manager. They have to be seen to be earning the big bucks.

Flying schools have been sent a bunch of fluro vests and pamphlets. I wonder how much that cost. New slogan of "Clear prop, clear mind" doesn't do anything for me. DrZoos is right, just fluff.

Looks like very unprofessional conduct by the flying school aircraft. Both aircraft should have moved to their right to allow passing, basic give way rule.

Why did the following aircraft have to also exit if the runway is "massive, wide" and "two taxing aircraft can also easily pass side by side'? Why didn't he just pass and continue backtrack?

You should never be surprised to see an aircraft on short final before you enter the runway, you should have been aware of it well beforehand. Listen to the radio while doing engine runs and taxiing, look at downwind, base and final while taxiing (situational awareness). Look again before making entering runway call. Never assume no radio means no plane and never assume others have heard your call. For all I know you and I may make exactly the same calls. Some examples of what I consider to be unnecessary calls are: Making inbound calls at 10, 5 and 2 miles. Wanting to know duty runway after I have called "downwind 23, touch and go". Telling me I am at his three o'clock!. Calling every turn of the cct when no one else is in the cct. Calling every turn in the cct when four other aircraft are in the cct. Saying " Traffic Heck Field and Jabiru 1234" as if Jabiru 1234 isn't addressed by " traffic Heck Field". Saying "joining crosswind 23, traffic on final sighted" Why? Giving full departure calls on taxi, rolling and overhead. Wanting to establish two way communication, just make minimum necessary calls and keep your eyes and ears open. Contrary to what some seem to think, stating your intention does not give you right of way. Some of the most dangerous calls are made by those that give the wrong direction for departure or inbound and people only expect them from that direction. There! I've got that off my chest!

Too much radio is just as bad as too little. Just listening to 126.7 on the weekends shows non stop over use of the radio. To me it appears the less hours a person does per year the more they feel they need to talk on the radio.

I only found out because I saw her name on the schedule for the upcoming CFI conference.

Cirrus owners can afford Hamilton Island.

Clare O'Dwyer has been appointed training coordinator. I assume she will be introduced in the next magazine with an explanation of her role.

Just looking at the video, it's not surprising that it's no longer flying.

Perhaps it was this one. Not an engine failure but aircraft on fire while descending under a chute after a midair. NTSB report CEN10FA115B News article http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14350203

I wonder where they got the design for the Buran, looks kinda familiar.

Drone An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, and also referred to as a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. helicopter a kind of vertical-lift aircraft, capable of hovering or moving in any direction, having a motor-driven, horizontal rotor. So it's not a plane and it is not a drone as it is carrying a man. I reckon helicopter is a pretty good description. Just because the control system is different does not mean it is not a helicopter, in my opinion.

13000ft? I think not. The micro light may have been climbing.

Agree but is it being done? When I take some people up they act as if they have never seen a stall let alone a wing drop. Yes I know, just wishful thinking.

I'm not so sure. No RAAus aircraft and many training aircraft today are not certified for spinning. I definitely think all instructors should demonstrate spin recovery. Students should be able to recover from a proper wing drop, the precursor to the spin. It appears to me many instructors are scared of losing control when stalling out of balance and unwilling to demonstrate a wing drop let alone teach it. I base this on students of other instructors who make it to me with blank looks on their faces when I discuss this. The consequence of not flying in balance is not stressed or demonstrated. There should be much more emphasis on flying in balance. Many pilots seem to use their feet only for steering on the ground, even worse, some use their feet for steering when in the air and then use aileron to hold off excessive bank. Unfortunately RAAus aircraft are not allowed to bank over 60 degrees nor have a nose down of over 45 degrees. This limits demonstrating a proper wing drop in these aircraft legally. I think both these values should be increased to 80 degrees but only when with an instructor. If you haven't done it I suggest every on take a trip in an aerobatic aircraft with a qualified instructor and at least explore the wing drop and recovery fully at a safe height. If you can afford it and want to, do an aerobatic endorsement. However remember this will not make you bullet proof. That is proved by the regular deaths of aerobatic pilots.

What would be an appropriate qualification I wonder? Perhaps a GA licence where the pilot can make that decision.

Unfortunately they didn't think this through before they put it in the ops manual. Someone has to be able to fly new types or we are forever stuck with what we have now. An experienced instructor or CFI needs to be able to self endorse but the current ops manual forbids that.

I agree Roundsounds. See 2.1-05 para 13 below. There is no way of anyone getting type trained on a new type or on a single seat type. Hope it is re-written before there is an accident and the insurers look at this clause. The GA requirement is much more sensible. On top of this if you buy a homebuilt type that you are not type trained on, no one can train you in it and you can't do your BFR in it. In the GA world as an owner (not necessarily the builder) of a home built you can train in it. 13. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as pilot in command without having demonstrated competency on Type. Aeroplane Type Training must be undertaken with an RA-Aus Examiner who holds the respective aeroplane group and type.