aro

It's not just whether you can see the note, it's whether someone who doesn't know it's there will find it in their normal use of the map - preferably at the flight planning stage. There are other notes on that map too - what about the note about the aerobatic area, or the notes about flying east of the CTR and the north eastern VFR route?

Anyone can follow a GPS and end up at their destination. That's no great feat of navigation. The important questions are: Do you know where you are, or only where your device tells you you are? Do you know where you are going, or are you going where-ever the device tells you? Do you have enough awareness to recognize if your device is giving you bad information, sending you in the wrong direction (either due to device error or user error)? Do you know what airspace, terrain, airports etc. are around you, e.g. 20-50 miles either side of your track? Do you have enough awareness of where you are going to e.g. modify your track to avoid passing downwind of hills and mountains on a windy day? In other words, are you navigating or is the device? I have noticed that the Ipad screen is very small compared to a paper map. There is a lot of information on a paper map that is virtually impossible to get from an Ipad, simply because you can't see enough of the map at a large enough scale.

To cross over with another thread, that box with the recommended procedures only shows up in OzRunways if you zoom in so far that you can't actually see any useful features on the map. People who don't use paper maps may not be aware of it. My understanding of the proposal is it will have Eastbound at 1500, Westbound at 2000 and RPT at 2500.

It is part of the GBAS instrument approach for RWY 34 at Melbourne. I have heard details before. My opinion is they want to effectively close the light aircraft lane (CTA down to 1000' or lower) but can't push that one through. So instead they come up with a proposal that is basically within the rules but will be unworkable in practice. Then when they get too many TCAS RAs etc. for aircraft flying the approach they can't shut down the Melbourne approach, so are "forced" to NOTAM a restricted area closing the light aircraft lane. The proposal has YMML traffic (up to A380) at 2500', as I understand it turning onto final, with VFR traffic OCTA at 2000. At 2000 VFR is "clear of cloud" so your cloud base could be e.g. 2100 with the Melbourne traffic in cloud. (If an A380 passes 500' above you, I'm not sure whether you are better off seeing it or not seeing it!)

Presumably the bloke hanging out the door would be the one who was supposed to renew the insurance!

CASA publish a list, currently it is: Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) Maintenance Procedures Course as approved by CASA or A CASR Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation that is approved by CASA to provide category licence training. You don't have to be a member of SAAA to be an AP. I doubt that t all APs are members of SAAA. You can also apply directly to CASA (and pay accordingly I presume). So there is some link to SAAA but the responsibility is more on the individual AP. Someone has to actually have the authority to issue the Special C of A. There are a couple of problems if you wanted to make the AP responsible for airworthiness: 1) There are no airworthiness standards for Experimental Amateur Built so there is nothing to evaluate against. 2) Even if there were, there is really no way to be sure there are no faults unless you were there during the building. That is why certified aircraft have a strict production process. The regulations actually say the AP must issue a certificate of airworthiness if the applicant is eligible. Eligibility does not include an assessment of airworthiness, however the AP can put conditions on the certificate. That really is the underlying principle of Experimental Amateur Built. If you don't like that arrangement, fly certified aircraft. That is a long standing concern with the AP process. However, I don't think insurance solves the problem, it tends to create juicier targets. Have you seen how quickly the PL lawyers move on to the next target if you don't have insurance? I think people tend to fight a lot harder to hold on to their own money, so unless you have a lot of money the lawyers would rather take on an insurance company. On the other hand anyone even peripherally involved covered by insurance is fair game - as your fire marshal found out (since he was sued, I am betting there was insurance coverage).

No, it means they administer the standards for the courses. They do not manage anything to do with actual maintenance in the field. The wording is murky because you are trying to see things that are not there. SAAA provide support for aircraft builders. A number of SAAA members are CASA Authorised Persons who can issue Experimental Certificates of Airworthiness. You do not have to be a member of SAAA to receive a certificate of airworthiness (or to be an Authorised Person). This is a service that is available commercially. However last I looked SAAA offered the service at a significant discount to people who have been members for a number of years. The Authorized Person does not make any determination about the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is solely the responsibility of the builder of the aircraft. Likewise maintenance standards are the responsibility of the owner and the person who signs the documentation.

There is a clue on that site: For every other organization it says "... administers". For SAAA it says "... provides support". SAAA don't actually administer anything.

There is certainly foreshortening, but that can't explain the view of one side of the aircraft then the other, or the changes of alignment of nosegear and main gear in relation to the observer. Using the gear you could probably work out exactly what angles were involved. It does look a bit exciting, it looks like the pilot tried to kick it straight for touchdown but got a bit enthusiastic and didn't account for the rotational inertia of wings and fuselage that size.

The problem is that the SAAA is like the RACV, in that it offers some benefits to membership but they have zero authority to enforce rules. GA Experimental is operating 100% under rules set and enforced by CASA. If the RACV decided to implement a safety management system and apply it to members they would have a similar problem. There is a suggestion that the SAAA will become an organization like RAA where people are required to be members. The claim (like the MPC) is that this is being driven by CASA, I have some doubt about that.

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like: When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations. If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities. Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval. The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

Yes, I suspect that is supposed to be hydrocarbon emissions i.e. partially burnt fuel and oil.

The problem is that the theory taught to pilots is simplified to the point of being wrong. It's OK for the intended purpose (flying an aircraft) but not so good as a basis for other theories e.g. how an aircraft really turns. Other examples are Newton/Bernoulli and pitch vs. power for airspeed on final - the arguments arise because what pilots are taught is oversimplified.

They illustrate that the elevator does not turn the aircraft, and is not required to turn the aircraft. Model or full size, the aerodynamics are the same. The elevator does allow us to turn without losing height or adding power, which is usually desirable.

That's not required to turn, e.g. you can have a single channel glider. The turn isn't balanced while you are applying rudder but when you neutralise it it should be quite well balanced due to the large amount of dihedral required to get the roll control from the rudder. The rudder initiates and ends the turn, but while the aircraft is banked it will continue to turn without rudder or elevator input.

Unfortunately, just because it comes from the FAA doesn't mean it is right. Someone seems to have decided that if it isn't the rudder then obviously it must be the elevator but that's not correct. Try a 15 degree banked turn and see how much control over the rate of turn you have with the elevator (assuming you have enough power to keep a constant speed). Single channel (rudder only) RC shows aircraft turn just fine without an elevator control. You need to increase the load factor to account for the bank - which means an increase in speed, either from a descent or increased power. That isn't always desirable or possible, so using the elevator we can increase the AOA to change the load factor. The (coordinated) turn is always from angling the lift vector to one side. In a steep turn it *looks* like the elevators "pull you around the turn" but it isn't actually true.

I would say that is very unlikely without banking the aircraft and changing the direction of the lift vector.

The statement was "RAAus are not permitted to seek clearances". There is no such rule. You can seek a clearance, if it is denied and you don't enter the airspace no rule has been broken. If clearance is given and you enter class C or D the rule is broken when you enter the airspace, not when you request or receive the clearance.

Actually I referenced that in post #40, but A, B, C and D alone do not define controlled airspace. Controlled airspace is A, B, C, D and E (AIP ENR 1.2). RAA can fly in class E controlled airspace. CAO 95.55 no longer says anything about restricted areas. API doesn't say the airspace is equivalent, it says the service is equivalent. You choose to interpret service = airspace, but I don't see that as true. They could have said active restricted airspace is equivalent to class C if that was what they meant, but they did not. Yes you are required to follow the ops manual, and it could have had something explicit about restricted areas, but it just points back to CAO 95.55. I don't really GAF, I have a PPL but you are reading extra stuff in that isn't there. I have no issue if CASA change the regulations to prevent RAA in restricted areas, it might even be a good idea. But I see no existing rule. (But there may be something in other areas I haven't looked at...)

No such rule.

If it's marked as class C then it is class C and RAA are not allowed in. I am referring to restricted areas in class G (and E). No, it is correct logic (and I do logic pretty much all day every day). You can but I am looking at what it actually says - and I believe that is also what lawyers attempt to do. You don't become something simply by providing equivalent services. There is no such thing as a controlled airspace endorsement for RAA, and no rule that says you are not allowed in controlled airspace. The actual rule is you are only allowed in class G and E airspace. Does a restricted area in class G stop being class G or E, is the question? And if so what is it? Whether it is wise is a different question. It is obviously CASA policy that it shouldn't be allowed but it appears that whoever wrote the earlier version of CAO 95.55 (which did prevent flight in restricted areas) understood it better than the person who removed the reference to restricted airspace.

So exactly which words in ENR 1.4 section 5 spell it out in black and white? I can't see anything in there. "will receive a service equivalent to that of Class C" does not mean it is class C."Will receive a service equivalent to that of" does not mean "is". In fact, it pretty much confirms "is not", otherwise it would not need to be specified.

Sure, but CASA wants to see evidence that the passenger weighs 80 kg not 90 or 100, and that you determined that before flight.

Probably CAA 9 (1) (f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance... 9 (3)(ba) enforcing the requirements of this Act... 13 (1) In addition to any other powers conferred on it by this Act, CASA has, subject to this Act, power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions. That one seems pretty broad, I assume that lawyers would read it to be somewhat less sweeping than it seems

CASAs ramp check guidance sheet says: The inspector will check: ... Evidence of pilot and passenger weights (standard weights should not be used in aircraft with fewer than 7 seats) The guidance sheet quotes CAO 20.16.1 however on a quick look that doesn't support the guidance sheet. Which is my main beef with ramp checks - the CASA list of what is required seems to be far greater than what is in the actual regulations.