408059

Glen I have two copies received as gifts. Happy to part with one and I'm in town. Steve

Ironpot That was my initial thought. I can live with this change. But this is how freedom is often lost.....incrementally. I'm still interested in the evidence and risk assessment that require the change of rules. My mind wonders as to whether they are simply following some sort of international obligation, whether there is empire building at hand etc. We'll probably never know.

KGW In 1998 CASA announced a reform of the licensing system with promised legislation in 2001. The reforms CASA suggested included many elements of the RPL. It wasn't until 2014 that Part 61 became operational. Part 61 was touted as a milestone. I had another view. I wouldn't only be pointing a finger at the public servants as mentioned above, they are answerable to the CASA Board and ultimately the politicians. Of course, the only thing the politicians react to is the bad media and getting back 'in' at the next election so reform is not necessarily a high priority. Reform may even may even result in bad media so conservatism reigns. Then you have the systemic issues. If you're a public servant out of industry or, heaven forbid, a former CEO from RAA now in CASA, and have a pragmatic view of how to administer recreation aviation, unless you adhere to the conservative culture wrought by the politicians then you are let go. Even if someone wanted to interpret the rules in a pragmatic way they'll end up with a 'please explain'. If they don't, there is always the performance audit administered by ANAO. Performance audits review regulatory adherence. ANAO findings that can be traced to an individual have consequences. So what can we do? Well, we could convince the public to convince the politicians to direct CASA to reform the rules. Then again the public are only concerned about travelling in an airline and getting from point a to point b safely. Stories about accidents, beaten up by the media, undermine confidence in the industry. Recreation flying has their fair share of accidents. Another reason for CASA to be conservative and reform at a 'glacial' pace. Some cynical thoughts.

A couple of years back I had an engine outage over the Southern NSW costal range. Insects had nested in the fuel vent unbeknownst to me and not picked up in the DI. Wasps were what the LAME thought. The fuel system was gravity fed with not a lot of head pressure. The engine continued to operate until the vacuum overcame the head pressure and the engine was starved of fuel. Nothing I tried could get the engine started again. Had it not been for the height I used to cross the ranges, together with and good LD of the aircraft and no propeller spinning, I was looking at a river landing. Instead I made the airport with sufficient height for a planned circuit. Now all vents and tubes are covered with breathable fabric and are part of my DI. Steve

Isn't 'nice to fly' also dependent upon your mission? I've owned aerobatic aircraft that are nice to fly but hardly easy to fly. My current aircraft, the Varieze, is fast, different and nice to fly but does not suffer fools if you are not in front of it when circumstances are challenging.

Speaking with the CFI of a South Coast (NSW) flying school a couple of months ago, they were doing a roaring trade. I was having trouble booking a BFR because it was so busy. Those not in the tourism sector, and had money, were using it to pursue life long desires rather than going overseas as they would normally have done. Also, there were a number of people who had dipped into their super funds and gone flying. They were his thoughts.

Shajen If he is prepared to fly it down to Victoria, and makes it, at least it is airworthy. If you do pay out the full amount, then make sure you have insurance in place. It is your aircraft.

I do not often whinge but this topic has struck a cord with me. A couple of weekends ago at Goulburn a pilot, from somewhere on the Indian Subcontinent, was doing circuits. The speed of his patter, mixed with a very heavy accent, made his radio calls useless. I had no idea where he was from the calls he made, as I taxied to runway 22. The only discernible part of his call was his frequent mention of 22. I saw him in circuit and thought him on downwind so I declared my intentions, lined up on 22, and departed. He was in fact on base leg for 26 and the runways cross. He declared a go-around as I sped through the crossover, which I did hear. The conflict in traffic was not close but it was unnecessary. My learnings? Well, not to assume, which was my failure, call-out poor communication, and make sure you understand his intentions. I would normally have had a quiet word with the pilot afterwards but he had long departed by the time I returned.

Totally agree with the comments about side sticks. Likewise I thought them a gimmick but now prefer them. Flying a Canard where PIOs easily occur, the side stick helps manage the situation. Also, they help manage fatigue over long trips.

On my computer they are images. Just click on them and expand. Of interest to me is the point being made from the images. I'm unsure as to what it is. Matty, would you care to elaborate please?

My understanding is that aircraft trying to avoid landing fees by not making circuit calls, or calls without registration, or calls with the wrong registration are a big problem for airport owners chasing landing fee revenue. The industry, and I'm being deliberately vague because I've heard this third hand, is being advised to install camera's to catch the 'cheats'.

Last Sunday afternoon was a glorious day to go flying at Goulburn but there was no one around. Normally I'd see a half dozen aircraft based at Goulburn airport flying. It could be coincidental but the sign/pole is a likely contributor. Next to the sign is a pole. On top of the pole is a camera to record the movements so the airport owner can charge aircraft owners using taxiway delta. The owner of the hangar I rent from did some measurements during the week. I'm not sure that it is much consolation but the claim is the sign/pole is illegal. The sign/pole are within 22 meters from the taxiway center line. I'm told that at a licenced airfield it should be 32 meters. I left on Sunday, after my flight, thinking about other airport options.

Acro sport 1?

DR 107?