aro

I wouldn't call this situational awareness. Situational awareness is knowing who is an immediate threat and where they are right now, who is a possible threat and who can be ignored. In a busy circuit things might be changing every 15-30 seconds, not in 6 minute blocks. A real life example, you are taking off for circuits and at 400' you hear a broadcast that ABC is joining crosswind. At 500' another broadcast, DEF is 10 miles west inbound. Situational awareness is knowing that you can ignore DEF for now, but you need to be looking for ABC as soon as you turn crosswind to avoid possible conflict on downwind. It's not appropriate to be head down writing down callsigns at that time of the flight. Maybe after you are established on downwind having already identified and made sure of separation from ABC.

Maybe you can't. I'm not saying don't keep a list, just telling you what works for me. I don't know what constant broadcasts you are referring to. Most people seem to do what was taught years ago, which is: - inbound - taxying - rolling i.e. takeoff - joining the circuit - turning base, with intentions. Plus, often: - downwind, which was added as a local recommendation when the airfield got very busy and there were multiple conflicts between aircraft in the circuit and trying to join. That doesn't seem like constant broadcasts. Without those calls, where exactly do you get your list of traffic?

I have read it, but the guidance in the last few years has been a bit wishy-washy. Make a broadcast if there is a risk of collision? Who would have thought... I don't write down traffic, but try to keep a picture in my head. In the circuit you need to keep track of the aircraft in front, the aircraft behind and anyone joining the circuit. Separation in the circuit needs to be visual, not by radio. Radio just alerts you that you need to be looking for someone, and where. I will listen to the CTAF from around 15 miles out and build up a picture, with the help of traffic on Avplan. Eg. there might be a 172 in the circuit showing up on ADSB, and a 152 and Jabiru with no ADSB and another 172 showing on ADSB inbound. So I know how many aircraft I'm looking for. The radio calls let you keep pretty much up to date - if e.g. the 172 calls a full stop I can remove it from my mental picture. When I get close I need to figure out where everyone is in the circuit, and plan the join from there. Typically I overfly and look for an aircraft on upwind/crosswind, descend and join the circuit behind them. Other times everyone is on late downwind/base/final, which means separation isn't an issue for a normal e.g. crosswind join. Other inbound aircraft can be harder to spot, so if there is someone with a similar ETA I typically try to maintain vertical separation until I see them. The important thing is to figure out how many aircraft are there, and actually see the most important aircraft e.g. other aircraft on downwind when you are joining the circuit. Joining the circuit is the time when a downwind call is quite useful.

If you read before posting you'll find I did make that point: Realistically, if you would normally do a 1500' circuit you would be merging with 1000' traffic on short final so a straight in approach is no different. I'm on a crusade against people who do straight in approaches because that way everyone else has to stay out of their way and they can pretend other aircraft don't exist. Everyone else can extend their circuit so they can save a few minutes.

Time isn't the problem. They spend the same amount of time in the high risk area (short final) as anyone else. The problem is that they can't make significant adjustments to their own path to fit in with other traffic, so they expect everyone else to adjust around them. In theory they are supposed to give way, but that rarely happens. I've been in the circuit when there's been 3-4 aircraft in the circuit, and flying school aircraft returning from navs doing straight in approaches. There were aircraft at 1 mile final, 2 mile final, 3 mile final, and 5 mile final, all yakking on the radio to decide whether they really were at 1 mile and 2 miles, or 1.4 miles and 1.6 miles. No-one knows how to go around and join a normal circuit to fit in with existing traffic and meanwhile there's a couple of aircraft on downwind trying to figure out when to turn base so they can fit in.

Usually, a final call isn't much use. By then you should have a good picture of other traffic, so give the final call if you think there is a real possibility of conflict. You can have to many calls when the circuit gets busy - which is when you really need the important ones.

Time in the circuit is time to build a picture of other traffic. Too many people aren't comfortable in the circuit, so they do a straight in and hope that everyone will hear their calls and get out of the way. If you're a faster aircraft and can't fit into the existing circuit fair enough, but if you could easily join the existing e.g. 1000' circuit and there are multiple aircraft already in the circuit, a straight-in is a bit rude. Yes, you are faster on downwind than final so a 5 second delay turning base probably gives you something like 15 seconds or 1/4 mile difference at the threshold.

I disagree. Downwind calls are useful for anyone joining the circuit on downwind or crosswind. For everyone else, base calls are better. The point of maximum conflict is at the threshold of the runway. Downwind calls are too early with too much variation in time to the threshold to figure out whether there is a conflict. They're useless for someone on a straight in because at that point they're trying to see an aircraft front-on at a distance of 5-8 miles. A base call (with intentions) is much easier to figure out if a conflict exists, and there is plenty of time to resolve it. A base call allows a following aircraft to adjust their spacing if you're doing a full-stop. A base call allows a departing aircraft to judge if they have time to take off. A base call allows you to figure out how many aircraft are ahead of you, without the likelihood that other aircraft will join the circuit in front of the aircraft that just called. A base call allows an aircraft on a straight in to judge whether a conflict really exists (if they are short final probably not, if they are a 2-3 miles out there will probably be a conflict and they need to take action).

I have heard of this before. I think that if the plastic gets hot enough, the pressure from the suction cup can be enough to deform the plastic leaving a ring. It probably depends on the window material, suction cup colour, how effective it is etc. I would recommend not leaving suction cups attached to plastic if the aircraft is left in the sun.

You have some quasi-military ideas going on here. The instructor is usually more experienced, but senior is the wrong word. "The student must follow the Instructors direction?" No. When they are in the aircraft, the instructor as PIC has the authority that they have over any other passenger, to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Other than that there is no "must" about following directions. "Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval" The instructor needs to authorize the flight. That is different to command, e.g. the instructor cannot command the student to take off. Line authority? No such thing in a civilian flying school. More complex in the military, where a student might be higher rank than the instructor so the student does have line authority, and line authority and PIC must obviously be 2 different things. You are pulling in every possible meaning of command, rather than what it means in this specific context.

It is relevant - the instructor cannot be PIC if they are not in the aircraft! It is in the definition of PIC, quoted previously in this thread from both CASA and RAAus (and FAA) - you just don't like it. "Command" refers to command of the aircraft, not people. I did my first solo in an aircraft without a radio not that long ago (1990s). When the rules were developed, that would have been common. They're not going to change the definition of PIC just because sometimes the student is within sight of the instructor and radio is available. There are many more situations where the instructor isn't in a position to be any use. Solo circuits, where they are not going to stand out in the weather for an hour to watch you. Area solo and solo cross countries where you are well away from where the instructor could be able to "command" anything.

There's no grey area. You just think the law should be different. The instructor is not in the aircraft. The person flying the aircraft has final responsibility for its safety. Let's take a scenario: A student takes off on their first solo. While they're on downwind, another aircraft lands gear up and blocks the runway. The instructor looks at where the aircraft stopped, and tells the student over the radio they can land over the top of the disabled aircraft in the remaining runway. The student points out they have 3 hours fuel and plenty of daylight and would rather circle the airfield and see if the runway can be cleared. Who is responsible for the decision of what to do? Answer: the pilot in the aircraft. No question. They are pilot in command and responsible for the safety of the aircraft. They can take the instructors advice, but they make the final decision.

Yes. If the student signs that document (probably incorporated into signing out the aircraft) they are bound by the terms and conditions. There isn't really an argument that they shouldn't be because they are a student. Whether the terms and conditions are fair is a different argument. There are many contracts that we would argue are not fair.

CASA make the rules. CASA say they are in command and have authority and responsibility to make decisions for the safety of the aircraft. CASA are clear. You are muddying the waters because you think the rules should be different.

You understand the idea that you have a contract with the insurance company saying that they will pay (according to various terms and conditions). Why do you think you can't have a contract with the student? It doesn't matter whether they are trained or not - it is the contract that matters.

Why does the insurance company pay when they were not even present? Because you have a contract saying they will pay. What you say might be correct, if there is no contract and you try to sue them for negligence. But there is almost certainly a contract (terms and conditions, and a signature accepting them) which spells it out. Then all that matters is who the contract says will pay.

If they are solo, yes they can override the direction of the instructor if necessary for the safety of the aircraft, and there is an expectation that they will do that if required. They are in command of the aircraft. The instructor sets the circumstances where that happens, and gradually widens it as they gain experience. The reason you have minimum solo time is to give the student experience in command.

You keep quoting imaginary laws. djpacro quoted the actual, real regulation that says that a student is pilot in command when flying solo. Like it or not, they are in command of the aircraft. Or the definition from RAAus: Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time The instructor has made the judgement that they are ready for command when they send the pilot solo. The circumstances might be limited (whether first solo through to solo cross countries) but it is still command time. But PIC isn't necessarily relevant for insurance purposes anyway. For insurance, what matters is the terms and conditions you signed up to. Which is why it's a good idea to check them before you hire/fly.

The first step is what does the contract you have signed/accepted say? In theory, the student could be liable for everything regardless of who is PIC. An example where that might be likely is if the student owns the aircraft. You might have rights you can't sign away (consult a lawyer on that one), but to enforce them might require suing the instructor. As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that.

Isn't the antenna cable coax with the shield attached to the BNC connector at each end? So the shield ends up attached to the antenna and ground plane at the antenna end, and the radio at the radio end?

Rotax do allow Lithium batteries and even sell them under the Rotax brand - so in theory it should be OK. But Rotax specify max 22 amps from the regulator, and the batteries list charging current as 5-15A recommended 60A max so I'm not sure how that works together. Is there something that reduces charging current to keep the maximum load under 22 amps?

If the failures are being discussed on the Rotax forum, that's probably where you will find opinions on the alternatives. If there are few people here who have failures, no-one is likely to be able to make a comparison. One thing I have heard is that high load isn't good for the Rotax regulators. One of the characteristics of the EarthX batteries is a high initial charging current, which seems like it might overload the regulator.

Couldn't you drop the 95.10 registration and register it under 95.55 e.g. change to 19-1103? What was the obstacle?

Join the SAAA and learn?

The standards you refer to don't exist for GA experimental. They are a figment of your imagination. A large part of the problem is that so many people make up rules that they think ought to exist, rather than refer to the actual rules. I'm not actually sure why this Hummelbird can't be registered under 95.55 instead of 95.10. Amateur built? Less than 600kg? Stall speed less than 45 knots? Why does it need to be 95.10?