Happyflyer

There is a silent group who have never cared. Thet have no choice but to join RAAus to fly their aircraft. They just want to fly and not play politics.

My two cents worth. Restricted air space is controlled airspace. Therefore you need a CTA endorsement to enter (RA2 or RA3). You cannot get this endorsement on an RAAus certificate.

The council for letting them build there. The builder for not making the house plane proof.

It's what we call a glide approach. Everybody should practice it and fly a circuit size that makes it possible. Might tighten up the circuit size of a few!

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdfQfBrJzNvc1Pov9odsW_EXU2MW50sJVwsUk1fOa8J3KG-o7Y9v3jh_Cqmg Pilot has been named in the media. VH-BEG Manufacturer: AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT Model: SLING 4 Serial number: 035 Engine type: Piston No of engines: 1 Aircraft first registered in Australia: 19 October 2015 Year of manufacture: 2015 Registration holder: BERG, Ben Peter Registration holder commencement date: 19 October 2015

Strange this isn't all over the news tonight if true.

Yes there is a radio exam, also an English exam. The BAK exam is now the RPL exam (basically the same exam). All exams can be done at a flying School. The RPL exam is a CASA exam done online at the flying school. Sorry, can't recommend any schools in Sydney.

Like every thing in aviation, lots of experts offering well meant advice. My two cents worth. Do the spin / unusual attitude training, Hopefully you will realise recovery when this happens unexpectedly will result in lots of altitude lost and you will be motivated to fly in balance and well within a safe flight envelope. Prevention is easier that the cure.

Pilot error blamed for Bundaberg crash in which two died A PLANE crash in which two people died last year was caused by pilot error, a coronial investigation has found. The flying instructor and his student died when the light aircraft they were flying smashed nose first into a North Bundaberg cane field in March 2012. A spokeswoman for the Office of the State Coroner said thorough, independent investigations into the crash were undertaken by the Queensland Police Service and Recreational Aviation Australia. "Both reports indicated pilot error was the cause of the incident," she said. "Accordingly the coronial investigation has been concluded." She said the families of the dead men had been informed of the findings. "No further details shall be made available due to privacy consideration for the families involved," she said. The two men who died in the crash were well-known Bundaberg man Hugh Kay, 71, and his 57-year-old student Keven Dickenson, from Gladstone.

I agree with a lot of your points, but isn't it just common courtesy to turn your phone off for the time you are with the doctor?

CASA allows aircraft to conduct "air work" with the engine having exceeded TBO on condition. Airwork covers flight training. Another example where RAAus have gone further than CASA. http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/enggen/eng/ENG-004.pdf See requirement 1.

This from someone in Melbourne? You would get all of that in one lesson.

Try here, removing paint from perspex post 5 by rgmwa.

In my experience helicopters do have a different set of rules. I don't think they are written down and I think making them up on the spot must be taught as part of the course.

Licence or Certificate, it's just words. Interestingly, the FAA in the US issues airman certificates and not licences. Any reasonable person would see that there is no practical reason for a PPL or CPL to be prohibited from flying a RAAus registered aircraft if they were properly endorsed and checked out. It's just that CASA and RAAus have strangled themselves with legislation and red tape. It just needs CASA to change CAO 95.55 etc to let PPL/CPL holders fly RAAus aircraft. Pilots wanting to fly RAAus aircraft on a PPL/CPL should still be required to be a member of RAAus so the rest don't have to pay more. Of course to be fair, RAAus certificate holders should be able to fly GA registered aircraft up to 600 kg mtow also. Will it happen with the current clowns in charge. I don't think so.

Yes. However RAAus will give the endorsement on the basis of your PPL. So, just a bit of paperwork and RAAus don't charge for that!

Well, that's the challenge of being an instructor, you have to make a judgement. Just as you do when you send them off solo. You have to judge that the 'what happens if' scenario won't happen. Throttle control isn't all that difficult and you have to know and trust your student before you put them in that position.

Is that a rule or your opinion? I can't find anything in the ops manual about it and as a senior instructor can send a student solo without direct approval of a CFI, I can't see why the instructor can't authorize a solo taxi.

I reckon P2 was watching but could not act because if he did, it would cause the senior pilot to "lose face". I asked an Aussie captain who flies with an Asian airline if this could really happen. He said you better believe it. Some junior pilots in some Asian countries will watch the Captain crash rather than point out a mistake to the senior man!

Yes. At least one aircraft and all crew lost in testing I think after being hit by their own bomb. Great ingenuity and courage but not sure the price paid was worth the result. Bomber command didn't try it again did they.

If you follow the track, it shows the aircraft descending to 500' over the city of Mt Gambier. I assume all of these heights are GPS derived and show height above sea level, so may have been even less agl. If these are confirmed by on board data it will paint a very sad picture for Angel Flight, which will be tainted despite their wonderful work.

TV saying it was an angel flight, if so it may get CASA going again as they tried to curtail Angelflight a few years ago when a fatal angel flight occurred in Victoria.

Here's the reg for you. You obviously know of another one. I'm always keen to learn. I can't find the one you are referring to about the inspection and the 3nm. CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157 Low flying (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over: (a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or (b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . (3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of: (a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter--600 metres; or (b) in the case of a helicopter--300 metres; from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft. (3A) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place. (4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if: (a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or (b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or © the pilot of the aircraft is receiving flight training in low-level operations or aerial application operations, within the meaning of Part 61 of CASR; or (d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or (e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or (f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in: (i) a search; or (ii) a rescue; or (iii) dropping supplies; in a search and rescue operation; or (g) the aircraft is a helicopter: (i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and (ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or (h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

Care to quote the regulation that lets you fly at 50 ft 3nm from the landing area?

If you want (or need) good vision on takeoff, don't fly a Spitfire ( or Mustang or Stearman or Tiger Moth etc etc).