aro

In Australia, Class C and E are 1000' vertically, 1500m horizontally. Class D is 1000' above, 500' below, 600m horizontally. Because they wouldn't be Australian regulations if they were consistent and logical.

RAA fly in Class G not Class C and the rules haven't changed for as long as I can remember. Below 3000' or 1000' AGL the rule is "clear of cloud" e.g. if cloud is 2050' you can fly at 2000' (you must have a radio on the appropriate frequency). Above that you need 1000' vertically and 1500m horizontally. In both cases minimum visibility is 5000m. 5000m is extremely poor visibility. It will probably feel like IMC even at only 1000 AGL. Just because the regulations say you can do it doesn't mean it is safe. We only report visibility less than 10km, but the reality is that anything less than 10km is very poor, and a VFR pilot should be careful.

I don't really understand the purpose of the lengthy wing down approach. The wind at runway level is almost always totally different to the wind at e.g. 200', so why put in the slip so high? it's not like you can hold the same correction all the way to landing. With the crab method you are working with the natural stability of the aircraft. Momentum keeps it travelling in a straight line, which means that as the wind changes with gusts etc. the crab angle changes automatically to compensate. The drag is the same as normal, which means that you fly a normal approach, with the runway in a different place in the window. When you round out over the runway, you align the nose with the runway and kill any drift with aileron. "Kick it straight" is not a good description. I don't understand the concern about timing either - how do you judge the timing to round out and stop the descent? If you don't do that before you hit the runway it would also be bad - but we manage to judge it OK. With a wing down approach, you are fighting the stability of the aircraft. Every change in the wind needs a change in the amount of slip. Every change in the amount of slip changes the drag, which changes the rate of descent, which changes the power required. Then you fly through the low level wind gradient and most of it goes away. It just seems like a lot more difficult approach for no benefit.

Just don't wear it when you have a passenger... they don't like it.

Names change, there's usually a reason. People don't always agree with the reason, but the name still changes.

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate. It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

I don't know how the rules work for 19 reg. My understanding is that it is for Amateur Built, i.e. not built to a specific standard - even if most 19- aircraft are common designs built from kits. In theory that might mean more freedom to modify. I don't know how you classify a 25- reg aircraft as amateur built though.

25 reg aircraft were certified to a particular standard. The RAA's job is to make sure that the aircraft continues to meet that standard. If you want to modify it, someone needs to make sure that it still meets the airworthiness standards for 25 reg. That might include flight testing (if there are aerodynamic changes e.g. an external canister), weight and balance, and structural assessments. Among other things, 25 reg is supposed to provide an assurance that the aircraft has not been modified without that level of scrutiny. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to have a qualified person do that type of assessment and sign it off was in the 5 figure range. That's not what your RAA membership is paying for.

I wouldn't recommend Experimental category, you are likely to spend too much time learning about the builder's idiosyncrasies. Every instrument panel is different etc. The RV-4 would be one of the least practical because the rear seat probably doesn't have full dual controls and instruments. Based on the original criteria I think either Cirrus or find a flight school that uses new C172 etc. Cirrus is probably closer to the original intent. Learning in a twin is probably impractical because as well as the added complexity there is too much you can't do. Plus most twins used for training are probably old and wouldn't be considered fine machinery...

That might apply if you only fly day VFR over open country, but people do fly single engine aircraft at night, IFR, and out of suburban airports like Moorabbin. In any of those circumstances a BRS chute is good insurance. Even landing in a paddock after engine failure... in something like a SR22 the landing speed is 80 knots so you're doing 150 km/h over a paddock you've never seen before, with tiny wheels, rudimentary suspension and lets face it, not much in the way of steering. If all goes well that should still work out, but the parachute might be the higher percentage play. Just because most aircraft don't give you that choice doesn't mean it's bad.

If you are looking to learn at the higher end I would see if there are any schools doing primary instruction in the Cirrus SR20 or SR22 (I think there are). They sound like the most realistic path to do what you are describing.

No. It only means that preserving is considered too much trouble for less then 30 days, not that flying every 30 days avoids the problems prevented by preserving. That is under the heading "ACTIVE ENGINES". Your logic is circular. It's only ACTIVE because you flew it instead of preserving it. If you're worried about your engine in lockdown, preserve it. That work is clearly on the authorised list.

Neither ascribe any benefit to flying every 30 days. They recommend preservation if the engine will be inactive for more than 30 days. Flying every 30 days is probably the worst case scenario - often enough to produce water and acid combustion byproducts, not often enough to give the benefit of frequent flying, and the engine is not inhibited.

"Monthly servicing is a requirement for the safety of light aircraft" Do you have a reference for that? I know many aircraft that are not serviced monthly. Has someone been telling porkies to the department? In any case it says servicing is authorized, not flying.

That is what would be considered permission. No-one is saying you can't land on private property. Just that if someone says Prior Permission Required, you need to ask for permission. It doesn't matter whether you would give or require permission on your own land. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept.

Incredible to see the flexibility of political views here. Pilots tend to be right-leaning, in favor of lower taxation, "freedom", capitalism etc. Until you talk about places to take off and land from. Then they are taken over by socialist/communist tendencies: society should provide airports, landing fees are outrageous, the taxpayer should pay for it all, and the whole concept of private property should be abolished.

That doesn't take away the requirement to have the permission of the landowner. It just means you are not breaking aviation regulations.

Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected, less likely to pass it on, less likely to end up in hospital, less likely to die. Same logic: What is the point of changing my oil, if engines can still fail? In fact, statistics show that most engines that fail had had their oil changed.

True... but for other diseases we get to 95% so we can expect to go a lot further yet. The important number is the percentage of people unvaccinated, so the gains go up quickly as more people are vaccinated. Going from 70 to 85 percent vaccination halves the number of unvaccinated people, from 30% to 15%. That is a big difference. From 85% to 95% would cut the number again by 2/3, to 1/6 of the 70% rate.

The FOI emails stuff that have been revealed in the last few days have been damning. The government delayed meeting with Pfizer for months while Victoria was in lockdown. Morrison is calling the people saying that they should have met with them "hindsight hereos" but seriously, how hard is it to figure out that it would be a good idea to stay up to date with information from the vaccine manufacturers in the middle of a global pandemic?

That's what happens when you vaccinate the most at risk people first. The vaccines are not a guarantee, they just make it far less likely you will die. Last year Vic peaked at 700 cases/day. Deaths were averaging about 20/day. NSW now has far more cases, with a sustained rate of over 1400 cases/day yet the number of deaths is far lower. That is the effect of vaccinations, particularly in the vulnerable populations (elderly etc.)

Only 1 reason for that: not enough people vaccinated in Australia. And 2 things are holding back vaccination: 1) People avoiding or delaying vaccination 2) The federal government delayed ordering Pfizer vaccines and didn't order enough. We are probably 6-8 months behind other countries as a result.

Sorry to disappoint the people on this site, but I don't see that at all.

Do you think there might be a link between people with this attitude, and the thousands of pilots not flying because interstate travel between Melbourne/Sydney/other states is shut down? Or the pilots employed in the tourist industry that is shut down? Did pilots have it better earlier this year when things were open, or now? Maybe you need to think about who you are talking to when you say you don't give a f* about other people.

Do you think so? What training do pilots get in critical thinking? I would have said pilots are trained NOT to think. To follow procedures without question, and question those who don't follow procedures. It makes for safer aviation (when you think, sometimes you get things wrong, which can be fatal in aviation) but it doesn't result in a high level of critical thinking. The exception seems to be e.g. test pilots, who are trained to analyze situations, and pilots with outside interests that broaden their thinking.