Bill Hamilton

The massive expansion planned for CSWAFC was CANCELLED because of bureaucratic impediments ---- to make is plainer, the sovereign risk was judged too great, in dealing with then CASA ---- based on the company experience. The sovereign risk was not an issue in Canada, and has not been in the years since the decision. It had nothing to do with airspace restrictions or costs ---- costs were actually marginally cheaper in AU, and WA was on the same time zone as CS HQ. The WA Government (from the WA Dept. of Transport ) is the only state government that has a coherent and consistent policy to encourage aviation business in WA, it has been completely undermined from Canberra. Since Kevin-O-Lemon's Mining Super Profits Tax, sovereign risk is now a well understood term. Regards, PS: Skybum, Well done, backs up everything I have said. I had forgotten about that Senate submission ---- which was ignored in favor of a 77 page submission by a former head of legal counsel in CASA --- which is worth a read to understand a little more about the CASA culture of the day, that had such a devastating effect on planned investment in WA flying training.

Dunlopdangler, Do you have any experience of just how easy and pleasant any flying can be is US, including VFR --- which is not discriminated against ---- "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" is something you will NEVER hear in US. Don't kid yourself that the sentiments are out of date, and the airspace descriptions are what the Kings found in practice, not the names Australia gives to airspace. Australia is an unfriendly place for visitors to fly. The training industry in Australia is, sadly, in decline. A combination of Commonwealth and State bureaucracy, not limited to CASA, has made it all too hard. The costs associated with said bureaucracy have largely made Australia uncompetitive. An example is the China Southern Western Australian Flying College. About 10 years ago, with the plan for a $US350M initial, final total $US750M expansion of an already very impressive operation, things looked rosy. I won't go into detail here, but suffice to say that the Commonwealth impediments put in their way resulted in China Southern deciding Canada would be a far more friendly place, and all the investment expansion of CSA primary training has been made at Moncton. CSWAFC has been in decline ever since, and China Southern have now effectively pulled out of Australia altogether, an ignominious end to a pioneering efforts by Captain Yu Yan En (then DFO of China Southern) and Barney Fernandes almost 20 years ago. Sadly, Australia is an aviation backwater. Regards,

Folks, The FAA Flight Manual gross weight for a DC-3 is 25,000 lb. With undercarriage modifications, essentially a Dakota undercart, around 28,000 lb. WW11 military weight (or Berlin Airlift) 31,000 lb. For many years in Australia, about 1956 until 1998, 26,200 lb --- as a result of a pilot union ruckus, nothing to do with basic airworthiness. Regards,

Folks, I have made a minor amount of progress, thanks to Paul Phelan. It seems the Council/Shire bought the airfield from a subsidiary of Ansett, quite a long time ago, so the question becomes: From whom Ansett did Ansett acquire the airfield? There must be some local historian who knows the story?? Regards,

davidh10, As I said in an earlier post, the regulations are a mess, thus even knowing some of the HCA decisions, while helpful, are only part of the answer to trying to work out what the aviation law means. With the new "Maintenance Rules" (doesn't have any impact on RAOz aircraft) and the new CASR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, ( which is applicable to all those who commit aviation) it is about to get a whole lot more difficult. We have the doubtful distinction of having the world's most verbose aviation law. Regards,

Darky et al, Go look for the CASA v. Hevilift Helicopters, a major issue was the rights and obligations of Australia as a contracting state, and the use of an aircraft from another contracting state on an Australian AOC, as Australia being a contracting state is relevant. The other I will have to find, from memory it was one of the airlines V. a CASA predecessor, and the right of intrastate or interstate airlines to use an airport. There is a long history of litigation re. the Commonwealth power to administer aviation in Australia, and the limits of those powers. There is no mention of aviation in the Constitution, aviation is state's rights. The Commonwealth powers to administer aviation rests on the Treaty Making powers and the Corporations powers of the Constitution. All the ALOP Deeds were great stuff, but who is going to come up with the history of Proserpine. I don't think (but I don't know) if it was ever a DCA/DoT-ATG/DoA/CAA/FAC (have I left any out) airport or if it was, therefor, an ALOP airport, but that is not the only reason for knowing the history. Regards, PS: If I had a lazy $0.5 mil, I have little doubt that I could extract an interpretation of CAR 91 that says, in effect, that it would be unreasonable to interpret "contracting state", as in the CAAct 1988 or (in a slightly different wording) the Air Navigation Act 1920, contrary to the definition of contracting state in the "Convention", so as to discriminate against an Australian aircraft identical for the purposes of the regulation compared to an aircraft bearing the nationality of another contracting state having the right under CAR 91 to use the Australian public airfield.

Powerin, The present ownership is well known, what I want somebody in the region to find out is the history of the airport, going back to before the Ansett involvement, which is many years ago. It may or may not be significant to the right of entry to a public airport. Who by and when was the original airport built?? Darky, What other reaction to your original post did you expect, that's the problem with bush lawyers, simplistic answers to issues that are far from simple. Winsor68, I am not a politician currying votes, I am not in any popularity contest, but I do have some knowledge of these matters, anybody who knows me personally or professionally will form their own opinion. Regards,

Darky, All you are quoting is an interpretation from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 ---- do you really think I don't know that ?? ----- and we are not really interested in a speculation about what somebody thought at some time. There is far more to the effect of legislation than simplistic interpretations ---- up to and including court precedents as to the legal interpretation of the law ---- and this is particularly applicable to aviation law, because it is such a mess. One indisputable fact (including at least one High Court of Australia decision, with which I am very familiar) is that Australia is a contracting state to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, aka the Chicago Convention. Therefor, the fact that both the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Air Navigation Act 1920 purport to exclude Australia as a contracting state, in the interpretation of "contracting state",for the purposes of these two Acts, has been varied by the HCA. For far too long, all the disunited segments of aviation in Australia have rolled over to every major and minor challenge, and the result is there for all to see. Will GA and the rest of Australian light aviation ever get together to collectively fight for their position in the scheme of things ---- all indications are, probably not, they are too busy fighting each other. Still nobody has come up with a history of the ownership of Proserpine, isn't there anybody who knows somebody who might know --- anybody in that area of Queensland??? Regards,

Folks, The basic principles of cost/benefit justification of regulation "flies" out the window, as soon as the sacred cow of "air safety" is mentioned. The DAMP program and the whole security apparatus, ASIC cards etc. has never been justified. It was the US that had 9/11, but GA/Sports aviation doesn't need an ASIC equivalent to get onto most airports. Into passenger terminals, but not generally ---- So what the security problem in Australia that requires an ASIC to be reasonably flexible. The results, so far, for screening, has been just over 1% for alcohol, that is not necessarily pilots ( I know, informally, that most of the few have been baggage loaders and cleaners) and for "drugs", a little over 4%. The 4% includes false positives and aftereffects of prescription and over the counter cold remedies. The genuine positives, for pilots, have been negligible, the whole system fails any reasonable cost/benefit test to justify public policy. Coming back to Turbo, it is quite clear to me that the aviation community is not just a small number of "the average" community, and all the motor accident surveys cannot be extrapolated to make assumptions about the percentage of pilots who "must" be under the influence, based on motor accident surveys. Regards,

Darky, If that is the case ( and I am by no means certain it is) the ERSA entry means that foreign ultralights have a right to use the aerodrome, but not Australian (ultralight) Aircraft ----- does that sound logical. What nobody has done, so far, is dig up the "ownership" history of Proserpine ---- this will be pivotal to the legal right of the present owners to restrict access. Clearly, whoever somebody spoke to is not up with the current definition of an Australian Aircraft. Clearly, the local regional council is the operator of the airport, but what is the history?? Regards,

Folks,No, mostly they are not !! Of course, this doesn't stop many aerodrome operators ignoring the law and purporting to ban certain aircraft. The first question to answer, is Proserpine an ALOP (Airport Local Ownership Program) airport ?? ie a former Commonwealth owned airport, tuned over to a local council in the ALOP program, with the council contractually bound by the terms of the Deed covering the transfer. If it is, the council have to make it available to all comers on reasonable terms. Re. CAR 91, under current Australian legislation, RAOz aircraft are "Australian Aircraft", notwithstanding the fact they are not VH- registered --- look up the definition of "Australian Aircraft". Don't forget, Australia is a contracting country the Chicago Convention, and CAR 91 does not say "----except Australia". Therefor, in my opinion, the guaranteed access provided for in CAR 91 applies equally to RAOz aircraft as it does to any other aircraft. If you want to be a bush lawyer, you could say that, if the airport being subject to CARs 90 and 91, this contradicts the purported ban on whatever an "ultralight" happens to be. Indeed, it would be rather ridiculous to suggest the ERSA condition means that the airfield is open to "foreign" ultralights, but not Australian. This is without consideration of what constitutes an "ultralight" in legal terms. It was (previously) used as shorthand to refer to any aircraft registered by the AUF ---- but had no strict legal definition, as far as CARs such as CAR 91. Would somebody like to do the homework, and find out the history of this airport, and is it, or is it not, an ALOP airport. Regards,

Turbo, I understand exactly what you are saying. I believe we have already proven that all too typical behavior by car drivers is NOT replicated in the aviation fraternity, whether it is pilots, LAMEs or others in aviation safety related occupations. The Australian result from drug and alcohol testing is about the same as all the results I have seen from US, Canada and Western Europe, including at least one EU country that has much higher known usage rates for "recreational/addictive" drugs than many countries. Thus, the aviation community stands apart in its demonstrated behavior. The two accidents I am referring to were both GA accidents. Do you have figures for state police reports from RAOz accidents that suggest that RAOz pilots are a less responsible bunch than GA pilots ?? Or are you just speculating ---- based on a particular preconceived personal view. The quite clear fact is that the whole DAMP program, like most of the "airport security" programs (outside major airports), and the ASIC card boondoggle are all very expensive and bureaucratic answers to problems that have never been demonstrated to exist ---- as a significant, let alone major safety problem. Regards,

Turbo, The CASA results to date, and the published US results do most certainly NOT support your contention/opinion.. The FAA database is huge, statistically valid, most of the very few (in relation to numbers tested) positive tests were from pre-employment screening. The CASA results to date were presented to a meeting of the CASA Standards Consultative Meeting several weeks ago. The number of tests are now sufficiently large to be statistically significant. There is absolutely no connection between results from auto driver screening and the aviation community. I am aware of only two aircraft accidents (both GA) in Australia where postmortem blood analysis has suggested drugs (not alcohol) as possible contribution to the accident. As far as I am aware, drugs/alcohol has never been stated as the root cause of an aviation accident or incident in Australia. Regards,

Turbo,The fact is, aviation wise, it is a non-problem. From the reports I have seen, of the many thousands of tests conducted, there have only been a handful of positives, plus a number of false positives. Re. pilots, as far as I can see, none of the positives were as a result of a drugs or alcohol problem. The positives included some who had been using over the counter products that contain codeine. World wide, there has been a huge over-reaction to a non-problem, but once the bureaucratic empire builders get a start, they are hard to stop. There never was a demonstrated problem, the results worldwide have established what we all said in the first place ---- but once the legislation is in place ----!!!!! Re. the aggressive searches of airline technical crews in front of passengers, so as to cause the crews the maximum of embarrassment, delay and aggravation, UK airports are famous for this sort of behavior by the security nazis. I have had first hand experience. Beware the new Australian "security" rules, making joking remarks about security procedures is to become a serious offence. Regards,

Cameron93 and All, You might be surprised how small a B747 circuit can be!! A B767 even tighter --- because you will be flying a little bit slower --- particularly when you are going downwind at 800'. Certainly smaller than some of the circuits I see being done by "certain" flying schools around my area. Indeed, very easily !! There are some strange misconceptions about the speed of some aircraft, particularly small turboprop aircraft ---- even if they are a bit faster than a Drifter.The fastest circuit I have seen, in a B747 Classic, T/0 to touchdown, was a few seconds under 4 minutes. I most certainly disagree with this, if the RPT crew were unwilling, for any reason, to delay the takeoff until the aircraft that HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY landed, that is their business. Indeed, if the aircraft on final had gone around, it would probably (at least in the minds of the RPT crew) have just been another airborne obstruction. When you have right of way, you have right of way ---- take it ---- you have as much right to the airspace as any other aircraft. A big problem that has developed, is that far too many Regional and similar pilots have come to expect, and all to often actually demand other aircraft to give way ---- don't encourage them into such bad (and non-compliant) behavior. Remember, these are only recommended heights, based on somebodies (mis)conception that the bigger the aircraft, the faster the speeds --- ain't necessarily so ---- and quite large aircraft are capable of "quite interesting performance" in circuits conducted as low as 600 agl, commonly at 800agl. Regards,

Darky, Just go for the UK NPPL --- that will get you around most places in Europe you will probably want to go to. As for the JAA PPL, forget it, even the initial and ongoing medicals are frighteningly expensive, and beware the ratbag new colour vision standards --- which looks like becoming an annual requirement. If you want the JAA PPL, and only have an AU PPL, you will be just about starting again, so examine carefully all the alternatives, including short term validation of your AU PPL. I don't know how that goes any longer, but worth a look. Don't obsess about the weather, the locals don't, there are plenty of opportunities for VFR --- as in right on the minima --- it really sharpens up your contact navigation skills. I did my original PPL in UK, only when I got home did I realise that, in some places like AU, you were expected to be able to see the runway from downwind in the circuit. Tootle pip!!!

Fari, Ppppleeeezzze!! It's QANTAS, as in Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services, the world's oldest continuously existing airline. Regards,

Spiriteah, Before you go any further, ask yourself: "Why am I doing this?" If you don't have a really good answer, give it away. If you want to be an owner/operator, but cannot afford it without rental income, you cannot afford to be an owner/operator. If somebody tries to sell you on the idea that the losses are tax deductible, forget it, because it means that you are planning a non-commercial operation, and there will be two results: (1) Anybody who plans a non profit or loss making operation always succeeds beyond their wildest dreams (nightmares, really), and; (2) There is a very good chance the ATO will knock back deductions, because there was no realistic hope of making a profit --- it was not a genuine business --- even if they do allow some losses, check with your tax accountant, the losses allowed will not be all the losses. Insurance will (not might) be another nightmare, and don't forget that the new MANDATORY insurance that is likely to become law about December this year. It is a sure fire bet that the mandatory nature will be seen as an open go by insurance companies, and; All this without taking into account that the normal legislated consumer laws, that you enjoy in insuring a car or boat don't apply to aircraft, with the result that there are so many really sad stories from "owners who thought they were insured" ---- which they were, except for so many things that happen to aircraft. With all due respect, if you have to ask the questions you have asked, rent, don't buy --- with the intent of putting the aircraft on line. Buy a Jab or similar, just for your own use, do all your own maintenance ----- and enjoy flying. I know of one sad case of three small single engine aircraft on line with a flying school, and the owner was an instructor with the school ---- and he still lost over $100,000 getting done over by the school. Regards,

Turboplanner, Sadly, the (non) reaction you experienced is all too typical in Oz, those with a direct interest seem incapable of getting together for the common good, putting in the effort --- and a sustained effort ---- it is a hard slog with no certainty of a good outcome. But, if you don't put in the effort, the outcome is certain. Folks, It is no use just lodging an objection on a council web site ---- the only way you will get action is to make a politician, local, State or Commonwealth feel threatened ----- sheer logic of a good case is trumped by developer dollars any time ----- unless the Councillor thinks he or she will not get in at the next elections ---- that trumps developer dollars. You need every aviator in the area, and as many ring-ins as you can get, plus families and friends ---- and get to work politically. There are some honorable exception, two people at Evans Head have been doing most of the heavy lifting for years. The Archerfield Chamber of Commerce efforts are very commendable, let's hope the outcomes are favourable. None of it is rocket science, AOPA Australia even had a CD of how to get organised locally with an Airport Defense Committee ---- but it needs sustained commitment of a kind all to rare in the Australian aviation community ----- Which prefers tearing itself to pieces, with public mudslinging usually directed at those few who are making an effort on behalf of the aviation community, and thereby leaving the developers and their council mates a free run. Regards,

Folks, The biggest reason why local councils have been able to "get their own way", is because a small mountain of regulations and contracts have been ignored. Re. Hervey Bay, it is highly probable that this aerodrome fell into the council's lap as an ALOP airport (Airport Local Ownership Plan), so those in the area should find out if this is the case. Assuming it is ( was it originally a DCA airfield-Anybody remember??) Council's react to pressure groups, particularly if you target the individual Councillors. If Hervey Bay airport is an ALOP airport, the council is almost certainly in breach of its ALOP Deed of Agreement (a contract with the Commonwealth), given what has been allegedly going on. However, any reversal of the trends is going to take local aviation people doing a lot of hard work, when it comes to local airport disputes, blow-ins have minimal impact. It is local relentless politicking that produces results. Watch: <http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/category/airports-infrastructure> for a major story by Paul Phelan, in the very near future. Regards,

Bass, The is little/no difference, operationally, between 100LL and 100/130. Interestingly, depending on the refinery, 100/130 may have less lead than 100LL. There are now, as far as I am aware, only two sources of "avgas" in Australia, Shell Corio and BP Kwinana, so the name on the tanker/bowser doesn't mean much ( it never did), and the geographic distribution from each refinery is not "obviously logical". Both sources of fuel ( and that imported from Indonesia and Singapore) meet the ASTM specification for Avgas, ASTM D 910 or DERD 2485, the testing method is in the specification, and involved measuring the octane at two different fuel air ratios, translate in "round engine speak" as the fuel air ratios for auto rich and auto lean (P&W) or rich and normal ( Curtis/ Wright). Some interesting info: <http://www.astm.org/SEARCH/sitesearch.html?> <http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7671746/ASTM-D-910-%28Grades-Avgas-100-and-Avgas-100LL%29> <http://www.shell.com/home/content/aviation/aeroshell/technical_talk/techart12_30071515.html> The answer to RON, MON and avgas is all on the last address, a Shell page on the subject. Regards,

Folks, An STC is a Supplementary Type Certificate ---- really only applicable to Certificated aircraft/engines. There are already a number of (mostly US) companies that will sell you an STC to run various GA aircraft on motor fuel, but not the variety that contains Ethanol. The "ethanol" problem is twofold, whether it is compatible with various seals, hose etc, and it "vapor pressure", which becomes a possible problem at altitude. I say "possible" problem, because I have done plenty of driving (in stinking hot, 35+ and freezing cold, -15) weather at 6-8,000 AMSL, without a problem - 10s of millions of cars do it every day in US. If you have an old DH Gipsy engine, or other engines from the same period, have a look at the original Manufacturer's Manual ----it will say something like "Use a good grade of motor spirit, well filtered".To run on "leaded" fuel, they all had to have new cylinder heads, being originally designed to run on unleaded. It was only the late and unlamented Australian Flight Manual that specified Avgas, where motor fuel would have been quite adequate. Remember leaded fuel of any kind only became common during WW11. Something like the Continental O-470 in all but the latest C-182 were originally certified on 80/87. Likewise all but the high horsepower Lycomings. In fact, all these older engines have a problem with lead fouling of the plugs, because they often don't run hot enough to properly scavenge all the lead. My IO-470Ms were certified on 90/94, so either above should (from the octane point) run happily on premium unleaded motor fuel. However, the "lead" has another important function, lubricating valve stems, particularly exhaust valves. Unless the engine (choice of materials) has been designed to run on "unleaded", you probably need to use a "lead substitute" additive. From the RAOz point of view, things can be much more simple, as we are generally not using certified engines, all else being equal, switching to motor fuel does not have all the certification impediments --- not difficult, but horribly costly. Depending on what engine you have right now, consider carefully whether you need Avgas -- but do your homework very carefully. The impending loss of leaded fuel (more a commercial/economic problem, than an environmental problem -- there is so little avgas consumed it's enviro. impact is negligible but there is now only one single producer of tetra ethyl lead) is a much greater problem for high HP GA engines. Regards

Turbo, With all due respect, you have completely missed the point, haven't you. So let's try again: 1) The engine had a "time in service", Time since overhaul, commonly if a little erroneously called Total Time, (TT) (the correct term is TIS, time in service) since overhaul, of ~270 hours ---- all quite legitimate. 2) It was a Bert Flood overhaul, it is quite legitimate to quote 270 hours since overhaul, since there is no question that the engine was overhauled, nobody has suggested that the engine was signed out as anything other than overhauled. ie: It wasn't a repair that didn't qualify as an overhaul. 3) The only reference to the airframe was to the Hobbs meter being connected to an air switch that triggers at 60kt---- all quite legitimate, with the caveat of my previous post, that 60 kt is very close to when the aircraft gets airborne, or touches down. 4) It is not clear whether the airframe has a time in service of 270 hours or 1370 hours, but that is not at issue 5) That the engine was stripped and inspected by Bert Flood, re-assembled and signed off as overhauled ---- without needing any replacement parts, except for the usual gaskets and seals, is not unusual for a "first life" engine being overhauled --- and does suggest the engine was very carefully operated during the 1100 hours before overhaul. 6) For an overhauled engine, commonly it is not necessary to record or even know time since "new". If any parts or components are "time-lifed components" (see CAR 2), that's a variation not applicable here. 7) The only time you will know (almost) for certain that an engine (or all its components) is first life, is by buying a factory new engine, not a factory re-manufactured engine. 8) The original poster was asking for opinions about the situation, not making defamatory remarks. 9) Then "the Xsperts" started to weigh in. And what is the definition of an Xspert? 10) Despite a plethora of "opinion", the fact remains that the seller was quite legitimate (had complied with the aviation law) when he or she said the engine had 270 hours, and was quite forthcoming that the engine had previously done about 1100 before the Bert Flood overhaul. Give the seller a break, he didn't do anything wrong, he didn't misrepresent the engine, or something called "Total Time" meaning "Total Time in Service", TTIS --- TTIS is not even an aviation term, it does not appear in CAR 2. So, exactly where is the misrepresentation ?? If it was a new aeroplane, in which the overhauled engine was installed, the time in service for both the engine and airframe is 270 H TIS. If it was the original engine in the aeroplane (not clear), and had been overhauled, then the engine TIS is 270 hours, the airframe is TIS is 1370. Regards,

Steve Donald, Would you like to provide a reference, or is this another "old wives tale" ?? Approve by whom, the International Old Wives Guild ?? How somebody charges for an aeroplane has absolutely nothing to do with aviation regulatory matters, and we are not discussing the Trade Practices Act here. If somebody wants to charge you from the time of picking up the key from the desk, and bringing the keys back, they can, whether you want to hire there is not a matter of air safety regulation. In my ICAO Annex's/SARPs/, I have never seen a reference to "air switch time". But "time in service" is clear, and goes back to ICAN, the predecessor to ICAO. Every aircraft that I have flown, that has automatic time recording (as previously posted) records "off blox" time on the release of the park brake, "on blox" from park brake on --- with provision that setting the park brake during taxi delays does not have any effect. "Time in Service" is measure by release/weight on the main gear squat switch, time off to time on ---- as required by regulation, and already comprehensively covered in my previous posts. I have a reasonable amount of time behind both P&W and Curtis Wright radials, they have one thing clearly in common, there is no such thing as a T/O with a cold engine, both specify a minimum CHT and oil temperature before application of more than idle power, and before takeoff. That somebody makes a generalized comment about wear and tear can, in no way, be considered as an authorization to operate the engine other than in compliance with the AFM Limitations. NO cold takeoffs. With such engines used occasionally, most of us have oil tank heaters and pre-oiler pumps, the engine is pre-oiled with hot oil before start, for the obvious reasons. For CW engines, pre-oil is required, if the time between shutdown and the next start exceed 72 hours. Is "air switch time" --- "legal". I would have thought the answer was obvious. If it accurately represents the time "wheels off" to "wheels on", the answer is Yes. If there is a significant difference, or it is ineffective ( 60 kt switch in an aeroplane with a cruise speed of 55kt) the answer must be No. What is a significant difference --- there is no "legal" answer, but no regulatory authority will demure if the difference is in seconds. Turbo, Go back to the original post, the seller was reported as quoting Total Time since overhaul a proper answer. Total Time in Service since New is another thing altogether, apparently when asked, the seller also (not instead of) provided the total time since new. In a previous post, I have explained how you can buy a "factory manufactured" piston engine, with nil hours (time in service) in the log book, and critical components may and usually will have thousands of hours since new --- or total time in service, time that does not necessarily have to be recorded --- none of these comments refer to turbine engines. Regards,

Motzartmerv, At no time have I made a statement as above, indeed, quite the contrary. However, some provisions in the Act and Regulations are clear and simple, most of those hark back to the old Air Navigation Act and ANO's, were there long before I graduated from model aeroplanes, probably back to the time Cecil Rhodes said "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" --- and the definitions of "flight time" and "time in service" are two of them. How should I write ?? All confused?? Repeating what I have already said, I only came into this discussion because a seller of an aeroplane had, in my considered opinion, been seriously defamed, because of a paucity of knowledge and understanding of the regulations resulted in somebody convincing themselves the seller was misrepresenting the aircraft. Then the bandwagon (or was it a tumbrel) started rolling: Of with his head!! On the basis of the posts, to which I took exception, the seller had, in fact, conformed to the regulations in recording "time in service", including "time in service since overhaul". There was no evidence to the contrary. We have a serious problem in training standards --- students should be able to rely on the information provided by an instructor doing their training. Or rely on accurate answers to question at any time. There is also a trait (not unreasonable) to remember best what you/we first learnt. A student should not expect to have to verify as correct, what he or she is instructed during training. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (particularly marked in GA, with generally low experience instructors, compared to many instructors in the RAOz lineup) we have several generations of pilots with a very limited and often seriously erroneous conceptions/misconceptions/standard of quite basic knowledge. In recent years, Bruce Byron as CASA CEO/DAS moved decisively to rectify the problem, it has taken several generations of pilots to develop, it will take as long to rectify --- but only with concerted effort. The greatest impediment is that so many pilots have never experienced operations to what should be the minimum standard, have no frame of reference, and therefore no real comprehension that their personal standards need significant improvement. Your new RAOZ CEO is an expert in the field (he wrote/edited the most recent edition of the CASA VFG) of training, training standards and training generally, and he is moving decisively to do the same in RAOz --- where, in my opinion, it is a lesser problem than GA, but still a very significant problem. You can all help yourselves, by understanding the basic rules that apply to all flying in the airspace you use. Self education in the art of aviation should never stop, you should all aspire to achieving the highest standard you can. Setting yourself unacceptably low standards, and consistently failing to achieve them, is just not good enough!! Understand the limits of the "exemptions" that make RAOz possible. Understand that those are the only exemptions, all the other relevant rules apply. Never forget that not only do you have a legal obligation, but you also have an obligation to those around you , to fly with minimum risk to other airspace users, and those under the flight path of the aircraft. Be thoroughly familiar with the basic "Rules of the Air". Forget looking for "tricky interpretations" to justify operating outside the intent of the rules --- they might go down a treat over a beer in the bar, but such BLB (bush lawyer bu----it) lasts milliseconds in a real court. Understand the limits of the aeroplane you are flying, and you'r own limits. As Captain Dan Maurino of ICAO would say: "All aircraft accidents are Human Factors accidents". And as your CEO has said, the most important factor in achieving safe operations is: CBS --- Common Bloody Sense. CBS, a commodity that, all too often when reading accident/incident reports, or observing some individuals at fly-ins, is in seriously short supply. Regards,