Agamemnon

AvPlan already has this function, but unless you're running ADSB-in then the data you're getting will be delayed and limited by mobile reception.

I'm genuinely concerned that I have to share the sky with people who think this is correct... Your IAS and rate of descent will be the same facing into or away from the wind. What will change will be your ground speed and angle of descent relative to a fixed point on the ground.

Yes but as you say above aircraft do not fly randomly in most instances. Altitudes and tracks congregate around airspace boundaries, corridors, airfields etc. So all of a sudden once every 20,000 years becomes something much riskier.

This is quoted directly from AvPlan's website. "Cellular based traffic solutions such as AvPlan Live help to bridge the gap where ADSB-in is not available. These systems rely on an EFB sending position reports to a ground system periodically and that ground system sending back known traffic. The update rate for these system is generally very good, but rely on having cellular coverage in the aircraft and users using the same EFB product. For GA VFR and RA aircraft, these tend to fly at lower levels where cellular coverage is usually better, alleviating some of the issues with cellular coverage. Cellular systems currently only depict aircraft using the same EFB product. Since the introduction of AvPlan Live in 2015 we have been willing to share traffic data on a reciprocal basis with the other main EFB vendor in Australia, but they do not wish to enter into such an agreement. If this policy were to change, data could start to be exchanged in a matter of days. It is not difficult or expensive to do. Our cellular based traffic system, AvPlan Live, also includes feeds from ground based ADSB and FLARM receivers. Traffic received by these ground units is also displayed on AvPlan EFB. If you also have an ADSB-in receiver, the traffic via the attached device will replace that received from the ground."

So you just chose to do a right hand circuit not because it was published, but because you just felt like it made more sense??? Sounds horribly dangerous and not at all "in the spirit of the regs"

The ultimate requirement to receive the RPC & endorsements is of course proficiency, and the minimum hours are a secondary requirement. No matter how many hours you do you will not be given your ticket until you can demonstrate the required criteria. So I'm not sure what your point is here? Also I can't understand how you think this is an 'elitist statement'? Flying costs considerable money, that's a fact. It's the hard truth but if you can't afford to fly semi-regularly than you won't be able to make the most of having a licence. Safety depends on retaining adequate flying skills. Of course you can take a break, but you will need to pay for an instructor to build proficiency again.

A cross-country endorsement requires a minimum of 10 hours dual + 2 hours solo + a flight test. So the cost is roughly based on that plus other purchases including maps, flight computer etc. Passenger endorsement requires 10 hours PIC time + a flight test. If you do any solo flying once you've received your RPC then these hours count towards this total, along with any PIC hours you already obtained getting your RPC/Cross country endorsement. If you can't afford $12-13k to do the training then there's no point getting a license anyway, how are you going to afford to fly afterwards? Ongoing costs can be significant even just to stay current.

Nope, cross country is around another $4k. Passenger endorsement maybe another $600-$1k depending on whether you do it before or after cross-country. These costs include all flight hours and required purchases except for an iPad and EFB subscription (which is another $1k plus potentially).

Around $270 per hour for Tecnams in Southern Victoria. Total cost (including everything) for my RPC was around $8k.