BurnieM
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by BurnieM
-
Normally I go for a middle of the road 4 man dome tent. A 2 man tent is pretty small even for 1 person. Is weight really a facter ?
-
Check the tent is long enough. Touching the end will get your sleeping bag wet from condensation. Or take a rubbish bag. Definitely need an insulating sleeping mat if you are camping anywhere cold. You lose more heat thru the ground than the air. Jetboil is a one trick pony but it boils water faster than any other stove type.
-
You need a Jetboil Flash
-
For licensing moving to a RPL with Class 5 medical is straight forward. Has anybody successfully moved a plane from the RAAus register back to the CASA register and what costs and how long did it take ?
-
There appears to be a lot of history which some of us here are not aware of. If you have facts then please state them. RAAus being a company surprised me and I am not aware of why this happended. However from what I know they do a reasonable job with limited resources. Withholding information from the Coroner was stupid. But.... .... we are where we are. What is the best option moving forward with what RAAus is now ?
-
Yes and no. "you own the airspace above your property that is necessary for your ordinary use and enjoyment of your land" and "A majority of court cases have concerned cranes or machines carrying weight that have passed through a property without the neighbouring owner’s consent. The success of these court cases have found in favour for both developers and land owners, varying between granting an injunctions to stop developers from using the airspace to granting the developer access to use the airspace without the landowner’s consent." Good luck getting any court in Australia to say you own the airspace at circuit height under any circumstances.
-
A few points; - does CASA really want control and managing 10,000 pilots and 3,000 planes back ? Control probably yes, management workload probably no. - if criminal actions against RAAus or its officers are successful then insurance may be void. This is probably not what his girlfriend wants if she brings a civil action against RAAus. - any civil damage award may be reduced by his partial liability (poor decision making) and his girlfriends partial liability ie being too scared to fly with him and her PPL training meaning she knew or should have known she was required to report him to CASA which did not occur. So we are left with does the cost of legal action and any damages bankrupt RAAus. This is the real risk which may take 5 years plus to play out.
-
Legally unenforcable.
-
The height of Camden traffic overflying The Oaks it a significant part of this problem (as Skippy points out). Camden being 649 ft below The Oaks makes this more likely to happen. Surely nobody is saying 'dont bother calling' if you are at or just above circuit height ? A good way to find out if an airfield is populated is to listen on their CTAF.
-
The issue is that departures from The Oaks 36 or 18 do not fly over Camdens circuit area but upwind departures from Camden 24 fly almost directly over The Oaks.
-
x
-
But AVDATA do have a contract with the Airfield owners. Most airfield owners have a website where they state their charges. Really this argument should be with the airfield owners if you are being charged for usage that did not occur.
-
I thought they only charged for landings ? They have been used in incidents before but I understand ATSB do not specify the source due to lack of proof of chain of custody.
-
They charged me $12 for a single touch and go a few weeks ago. I understand that the charging is done from radio recordings. They pretty much had to wave it but I would have thought it should have been obvious you did not actually land.
-
Pitts crash at Avalon airshow 28 March 2025
BurnieM replied to Blueadventures's topic in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/plane-crashes-at-avalon-airshow-20250328-p5lney.html -
Stef does Avalon (Youtube)
-
Ok stretching it a bit. At YSHL I have heard 20 NM long finals from RPT aircraft. Just trying to paint a picture of the relationship between Camden and The Oaks for those unfamiliar with this area.
-
You are still stuck with the Camden 24/06 runway orientation. This is the longest and only sealed runway at Camden.
-
Camden ground height 230 ft AMSL The Oaks ground height 879 ft AMSL In order to climb above The Oaks circuit height (lets say 1500 ft AGL at The Oaks) 879 + 1500 = 2379 ft AMSL Height to climb from Camden to above The Oaks circuit - 2379 - 230 = 2149 ft to climb 6.8 NM from Camden reference point to The Oaks. Lets subtract 1 NM for The Oaks circuit - 6.8 - 1 = 5.8 NM Departing upwind 24 at 100 Kt you have 3.5 minutes to climb 2149 ft (or 4.4 minutes at 80kt)
-
Departing upwind Camden 24 goes almost exactly over the The Oaks as does long final for 06 Removing The Oaks (THK) reporting point probably does not change a lot.
-
When suggesting options you have to be careful that one of the options IS NOT 'shut down The Oaks'. It seems to me that the relationship between Hobart anad Hobart Cambridge is similar with a common CTAF. How does this work ? Can anybody comment ?
-
Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden. But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ? As it is I understand that Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit at Camden.
-
Not saying there is not a real Camden/The Oaks comms issue. Just saying that this mid-air collision is not the best example to drive action. Or maybe it is. A loud and well known incident could maybe drive extra education and training. It is just logically comms was only one factor and the reason for lack of comms was not lack of knowledge in this incident.
-
Both of the Cessna pilots knew about the Camden and The Oaks comms requirements and yet did not perform them (Oaks comms). At least one of the Cessna pilots had flown in this area many times. From a distance this looks like a fatigue/workload overload rather than a straight comms issue.
-
Has the report been issued for this collision yet ? Comms was definitely an issue but both the examiner and pilot being tested were aware of The Oaks. The examiner was a Shell Harbour local. I believe the Cessna was at 1300 (Camden circuit height) and then climbed into the Jabiru at 1900 (The Oaks circuit height).
