Flying_higher

Wow it really looks sensational! Glad to see you all had a great time. 
I was meant to go but coming from the southern states, the weather forecast was just too poor to make it possible. Next year I’m there though!

54 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I have read it again and it looks to me as if the board wants to be able to dismiss a director and also prevent that person from standing again for 5 years.

I don't know what the law concerning directors is, but it appears to me that the board is wanting to be able to dismiss a director who may be not able to be a director under company law. Why try to do what is already in the laws.

I have little faith in anyone who holds power nowadays and going on past performance I would not trust some of the present board to be given more power. There needs to be a really good reason to change a constitution and I don't see it here.

If you read it again, and read the note from the Chair, it is illegal for a Board to get rid of a director, it can only be done by the members. 
it’s a mechanical change only and as someone above said, nothing to see here. 

On 16/4/2022 at 8:30 AM, skippydiesel said:

(Passports) Poor choice of analogy? - The only similarity between passports & Red Cards is their mandate by the Australian Gov and their issue  by a bureaucracy. After this there is no similarity. Most people support the need for monitoring entry/exit to our country & accept the same for our entry to other countries. Not so the Red Card as applied to sport level pilots & minor RPT airports - Initial support has completely evaporated - Red Cards are are rarely inspected - the two year life span is ridiculous. Basically no one can see the point in containing with them EXCEPT  for that gelling concern/fear you might just get caught out & be charged with something??

 

"I can’t see RAA’s advocacy doing SFA". Unfortunately you are probably correct in this sentiment. That does not mean that RAA should step back from a position of opposition (on behalf of its members) on this matter and certainly they should not take up a pro Red Card position as it would appear they have, in publishing  BS articles in Sport Pilot.

 

"But sure, blame them if it makes you feel better."  RAA are supposed to be representing its members - in this matter who else would you have us blame??
 

"Maybe .................you should just stay away from airports that require them ..." When was the last time, you tried to go on an extended trip away and were unable to avoid landing  at some stage,  at an RPT served airfield?  Personally, most of my trips are short,  I do not often have to access a "security controlled"  field  but a few times per year I may go on a longer voyage - this is when I get concerned about not having a Red Card and question the legit massy of such a programmes existence. 

 

"......then they won’t be an issue."  - So you only appose  bad legislation on the basis of how it effects you personally ? 

And that was the exact analogy I was making in that it is imposed by the bureaucracy.

So here you are asking RAA to advocate against the ASIC whilst you accept it will likely do nothing. So does this mean you would prefer them focus on matters that will have zero impact versus those issues where they actually do come up with the goods? Like increased MTOW, advocating for ADSB funding, making sure the regulations CASA throws as us do not force us on the ground? Should I go on? It doesn’t make sense. They are on record for wanting better ASIC conditions (or none at all) and really, I can’t see what else more they can do without spending more time flogging this dead horse. Any btw, the airlines like them so whilst that’s the case, you won’t change. A. Thing. 
 

Dont get me wrong, there are many, many examples in this country where they make zero sense if you ask me. And yes, I do do extended trips where ASICS are required. And my home airport needs one too. It’s a massive inconvenience and I don’t personally think they do a great deal, but from what I gauged from the article in SportPilot with the terrorism expert, was that it was part of the toolkit they have. It’s not perfect, it won’t stop all terrorism events, but it is at least something. 
 

Clearly you have some issues with the ASIC, whether it’s skeletons in the closet and you can’t get one or simply a deep dislike for rules. Either way, I wish you luck with your crusade as it really will make little difference other than give you an ulcer. 

37 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Poor choice of analogy.

 

RAA are duty bound to pursue the majority will of its member's - that is why we elect/pay them. 

 

Not only do they not seem to be doing so, in this case.

 

To make matters worse, their publicity mouth piece "Sport Pilot" is actively prompting this discredited and unpopular system - what do you propose should be done?

Poor choice of analogy? Why? Because it demonstrates that a private organisation is at the behest of the government? Righto….

as I said previously, RAA is already on record for advocating for their members on this very issue but they have no ability to control the issue. It’s home affairs and given some

clowns flew some planes into a building a few years ago I can’t see RAA’s advocacy doing SFA. But sure, blame them if it makes you feel better. 
 

and as far as SportPilot is concerned, I’m not sure why you think they are supporting the ASIC. perhaps they’re seeking the reasons why our government insists on them. That’s very different from supporting them. Maybe if your so against ASICS you should just stay away from airports that require them then they won’t be an issue. 
 

RAAus has already made it clear what their view is on ASICS, and like you, they’ve said many times that at the very least, they should be for 5 years and not 2 years. 
The reality is that RAA can say all they like about the ASIC to the government but unfortunately they’ll have as much luck as a travel agent telling the government that passports shouldn’t be required. 
 

Check the YMMB website for charges. Last time I looked there was a $560 (i think) parking charge for non-VH registered aircraft. 

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

Nicely argued, walrus (and turbo, too).  But I hope 2(c)'s "practicable" would make it tough for any prosecutor to nail you on that, even if you happened to be (responsibly) 'transponding' your details at the time.

 

Still, I'd love to know what CASA's reasoning is regarding this rule change.

 

I wonder if it's about trying to clear up the wild-west of G space surrounding terminal areas used by IFR flights, more than, say, VFR/VFR separation in Big Sky country.

 

If so, IMHO it'd be more effective to donate TCAS conspicuous gadgets to all recreational craft and make sure that IFR types have the capability to detect and avoid them (when standard radio comms just don't cut it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its my understanding that this rule has been changed to align with ICAO SARPS. 

And as someone said previously, the reality is that most people fly hemispherical in cruise regardless of how low you are to ensure it gives a little protection against a collision event. In busy airspace along the East Coast this is very much advised.

In terms of deviation, from the standard hemispherical level, whilst this is an item of strict liability, there may very well be operational reasons such as cloud, turbulence or terrain that stop you from being able to operate at the correct altitude. In this case one would simply make a broadcast on the area frequency (if carrying a radio) and what you're doing. Eg, "Traffic in the Ivanhoe area, ABC is a C172 is X miles from Y, tracking to the north east at non-standard 6500 due terrain/weather. Traffic in Ivanhoe area". 

Finally, I think low-cost ADS-B with an IPAD for ADS-B (IN) is a great addition to any cockpit in the enroute environment - so long as we understand its limitations and knowing that not everyone has ADS-B and therefore it won't pick up all traffic. In saying that, as it becomes more accessible the benefits will certainly improve too.

jackc, if you go to this link it will take you to the Part 91 Plain English Guide. Plain English Guide for new flight operations regulations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)

Also, the VFRG website is available too, but it doesn't look like it's been updated with the new Flight Operation rules information yet. As RAAus said last night, this will be available in December. Civil Aviation Safety Authority | Visual Flight Rules Guide (casa.gov.au)

On 20/03/2021 at 12:16 PM, jackc said:

Another windfall for Avdata?  
And what IF you don’t use any Air Nav services?

You don’t pay nav charges as a VFR in Class E airspace. Notwithstanding that, there are equipment requirements and that is where the cost is for us. 

2 hours ago, Keith Page said:

I am at a loss how did RAAus get granted Part 149 when their manuals are not completed.

I am of the view all those manual are to be ticked off before Part 149 is granted.

The other missing issue Part 149 is what one is going to do and Part 103 is how one is going to carry out operation.

Now Part 103 is now actually a MOS for Part 149, the goal posts have wheels under them.

The Glider federation paid a lot of money to have their SMS formulated and the goal posts moved on that one.

So happy times. No wonder aviation is going backwards.

KP

Perhaps the fact that the 149 certificate doesn’t come into effect till 31 March and because they’ve told us the manuals will be published by then, that in fact they have been signed off.

And if you actually understood the regulations you would know that CASR Part 149 has a Part 149 MOS. Part 149 is the regulations for how an ASAO administers it’s operations. 
Part 103 reg and mos are the operational regs that go hand in hand with Part 91. It works the same way as Part 121 does with 91. 
 

Correct, we don’t have WAAS but a WAAS capable device has a performance standard of better than 100m even when not using WAAS. 

2 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

Taken from the web

 

Is iPad GPS accurate?

The iPad with the 3G/cellular option has an embedded GPS. The WiFi only iPads do not have an embedded GPS. ... When you use an iPhone or iPad to geotag a photo, the accuracy is about 100 feet (about 30 meters), because Apple only stores GPS data down to the nearest second in latitude and longitude.

I know that they are pretty accurate. I’ve certainly had no problems myself either however when it comes to what their certified performance accuracy is, it doesn’t meet the same as that required for 100m accuracy all the time, as in needed in this case. And if you look at the WAAS capable GPS levels of accuracy, this does meet this standard which is why these are used for IFR approaches. 

The GPS 100m requirement relates to the calibration of instruments whilst on doing maintenance. It’s not about using a GPS for navigation in Class G.....because we are visual pilots where the mark 1 eye ball is what we should be using....

And re the iPad performance, this wouldn’t meet the requirement as it doesn’t meet the 100m performance standard like a WAAS capable device. 

The only difference I can see from the current tech manual requirement for calibrating instruments is that a performance standard for the GPS is now stipulated. 

If you re-read their email you’ll see that they say there are no material changes or costs to members. And the list you’ve posted are the summary of changes only. L1 continues to exist as does everything else, given there are no material changes.

25 minutes ago, Bennyboy320 said:

Well I’ve just looked through the AIP & there is NO requirement to have dual VHF radios to legally operate in ANY airspace in Australia, looks like Airservices is just making things up as they go along.

I think the reason we will need the two radios is because you cannot operate in Class E whilst maintaining continuous two way radio communication with centre and also be on the CTAF. The two will overlap when you join the circuit at 2000.