Bill Hamilton

Folks,This statement is not correct. We have had multiple circuit heights for longer than I have been flying (which is longer than I care to remember) with 500' as the minimum. 500' is derived from another regulation about minimum heights for flight, other than for the purpose of takeoff or landing. With 500' as the "recommended" (not mandated) height for the "low and slow", if you, as pilot in command decide that 500' is too low, based on your operational safety evaluation of your particular circumstances (AGRADE in CRM-speak), you have a legislated responsibility, as the pilot in command, to act on that decision. The cultural shift that must take place in Australia, if we are going to improve our safety standards to the safety outcomes level of the US (which leads everybody else --- with one exception, gliding) is to get away from mindless "compliance" with some "one size fits all" "rule", and start thinking. You now have a wide variety of ways you can conduct an arrival at an airfield in Class G airspace, by intention the system is now very flexible in low traffic density airspace ---- as the pilot in command it is your responsibility to decide your course of action, depending almost entirely ( there are still some restrictions, cf; straight in approaches) on your operational position. Typical is the shift to thinking required for the new recommended radio calls ----- I look at threads, with all sorts of variation on "who will do what to whom when" use of radio. The fact is, you are all correct, for your particular time, place and operation, if you, the pilot in command, decide that is the appropriate "communication" **at that time. Remember, there is a vast difference between "communicating" and what has all too often (particularly with self styled "professional" pilots) mindless chanting the mantra, aka "complying with mandatory radio requirements" --- without ever actually communicating with another aircraft -- let alone their own brains. Read CAR 166 in its entirety very carefully ---- but not with a "mandatory" mindset, and note the most important provision, that you must operate safely (although it says it in a few more words) Regards, ** Project Service Centre - Charles Sturt UniversityCommunicating.ppt See Item 4 on the list. Not about aviation at all, but "communications" in another context. Have a look, and have a good hard think about what good "Radio Communications" really means, compared to "radio procedures". AGRADE ---- Aviate (don't forget to fly the bleeding thing) Gather the information Review the information Analyze the Alternatives Decide on a course of action Evaluate to outcomes --- hopefully at your leisure and learn something for next time you decide to commit aviation.

Folks, For anybody who wants to know, the CASA PMOs name is in the CASA web site. The CASA regulations on drugs and alcohol are quite draconian, it will be at your peril if you are not familiar --- study them carefully, the penalties are equally draconian. Remember the alcohol level is set at the minimum reliably detectable level, because zero (0) cannot be tested. Remember, it drugs as well, and some well known illegal drugs are very persistent in the body, as several have found out already, at the cost of their jobs. A positive test (for whatever reason --- including some prescribed medicines that will produce a positive) grounds you immediately. Getting back into the air, or back on the job may well the a lot longer. Not only read the regulations --- the L-A-W law, but also the advisory material --- which constitutes the "acceptable means of compliance" with the law. In addition, there is quite a bit of educational material supplied by CASA. What is happening here mirrors the early days of the security program, when under educated and over enthusiastic inspectors of doubtful intelligence, with an IQ of about their shoe size, damaged a number of aircraft, including at least one broken windscreen on a Jab, and several damaged locked door on parked Cessna --- yanking hard on them, to make certain they were really locked. For those of you rabbiting on about "human rights" and "Privacy Acts", clearly you have been watching to much US TV, there is no Commonwealth Human Rights Act. If you want to appeal the effects of Australian law (State or Commonwealth) to the UN, make certain you have very deep pockets. Any "common law" rights are negated by specific statute law. The various "privacy" acts have very limited functions, and will certainly not prevent the operation of enforcement functions of any other State or Commonwealth statute. All politicians get completely carried away about "air safety", hence not only these rules, but read all about the new "security" rules, as the Minister said: "We face a greatly increased threat to air safety" ( which we demonstrably don't) yadda yadda three new offenses (two of them already in other the Civil Aviation Act -- nothing like doubling up) yadda yadda greatly increased penalties yadda yadda. If you actually look at the new sercurity "rules" ---- observe how many of them are actually aimed at not inconveniencing an airline, and so costing money --- where a badly time humorous remark, with no intent to commit what "a reasonable man" would call a crime, becomes a criminal act. Again remember, it is not just the cost of the fine, if you rack up a conviction under any of these rules --- but the limitations you will face if you attempt to travel to many countries, starting with Canada and the US. Regards,

Folks, John Brandon is correct, the Designated Airspace Handbook is not intended for daily use in operations -- it is more an ICAO requirement to produce a detailed (non-chart) description of all national airspace --- from which, amongst other things, charts are constructed. Stick with the relevant charts from Airservices (or Jepp. if you are predominantly an IFR operation) for VFR operation. Regards,

Bass, It's the 1090ES that doesn't work with too many emitters (more than 1096), sorry if I have not phrased it carefully enough. There are no plans in AU for other than 1090ES ADS-B, and no plans for low level coverage. There is not really much cost benefit justification for the present AU coverage, bit if airlines want to pay, that is their business. There is most definitely no justification for low level coverage, let alone cost/benefit justified low level coverage ---- the capital and running costs would be very substantial, for no gain. ( sadly, at small cost, we could have had WAAS, a significant safety enhancement ----- but AsA wasn't interested, possibly because they couldn't send you an invoice for it ----- but the Government --- not CASA --- is looking at this again) As far as the US is concerned, you are quite correct about all the services that can come through a UAT (or VDL) broadband transceiver, ADS-B is only one of many uses for a Universal Access Transceiver. This was the whole point of the ICAO competition (early '80s)for a common broadband transceiver for future years. Again, ADS-B was only one use, along with transmission of most routine ATC comms, instead of using VHF ---- and everything else down to the Chief Steward placing bar orders for the next sector. Back to the US, nothing changes about the requirement for a Mode C transponder. There is no technical limit to the use of the UAT system, but the situation with the 1090ES hijacking is such that any aircraft flying beyond US continental airspace will, for practical purposes, be fitted with 1090ES, and will now also have to have a VDL type datalink for ATC comms. To further confuse the situation, a system based on VDL-4 ADS-B is in increasingly wide use in US, for ground collision avoidance, and parts of the US military are using VDL-4 as a datalink. So all three systems are in use, in one way or another, in the US. This leaves UAT as the system for aircraft that will not be operating outside US (in a "mandatory ADS-B" area ---- there won't be too many at low level) ---- as most of these will be unpressurized aircraft, something like 90% of the US fleet ---- hence the UAT for low level and 1090ES for high ---- but if you want to fit your Lear 55 with UAT, it will work the same, as far as FAA ATC is concerned. Despite all the hoopla in AU about ADS-B IN and collision avoidance, the only use of ADS-B IN will (if anybody wants to buy it) be to feed an additional input to TCAS 11. That will be transparent to the flight crew of TCAS 11 equipped aircraft, there will be no additional functionality ---- so, as far as most GA aircraft are concerned, it's just the same as if you only had a Mode C transponder out in the boonies ---- which the great majority of aircraft already have ---- and an airline aircraft is looking at you. There will be lots of small GA manufacturers producing "bells and whistles" ADS-B IN displays of traffic, I just hope it doesn't increase the collision risk in VMC --- with pilots head down, although somebody will come up with a head up display ---- even here in AU, there is a small percentage of pilots fill their aircraft with every electronic gadget known to man --- with about the only guaranteed result being a reduced payload. Interestingly, AsA and FAA are using the same ground equipment. Apparently you could convert the AsA ground stations to dual 1090ES/UAT by just putting the UAT card in the vacant slot. The way the signals are processed, from the ground station to the ATC computer is a common format. Regards,

Bass,The standards for ABS-B/C are finalized, have been for quite a while, the only significant change in quite some time is an upgrade to a fairly esoteric part of the GPS signal integrity as transmitted by a 1090ES type ADS-B/C. There is not (in my and probably not your lifetime) going to be one single world-wide ADS-B system, which is unfortunate but a fact of life. We are stuck with three. Universal 1090ES will not work in US, for clear technical reasons of the total number of aircraft emitting. Western Europe may have the same problem, if ever 1090ES is "mandated" for most aircraft. That is not an immediate problem, look how many years EU argued about mandatory Mode S transponders for IFR ---- and finally made up their minds only about five years ago ----- about 35 years after Mode S transponders appeared, and 25 years after they became "standard" in most large aircraft. I have already "told the story" of how 1090ES even came into existence, a sorry tale of short-sighted accountants, most of my post is not "my views", but a potted narrative of facts. If you don't want to accept facts as facts, that is your business. I am not in the Jacques Derrida post de-constructionist business, where there are no facts, only "views of ideas" based on a self chosen frame of reference. Such views have no place in any kind of rational engineering, there is only one law of gravity, not multiple laws of gravity based on multiple philosophical position on whether "gravity"* is a fact or a concept. I have been quite seriously involved with this issue since mid-1970s. Indeed, involved ever since I picked up a copy of the original FREE FLIGHT study, commissioned by United Airlines, produced by one of the US's major institutions, MIT. In short (and excluding terminal area "marshaling" for arrival and departure) it was shown that random tracking would produce fewer mid-air collisions (MAC) than the airway system + ATC errors. Remember, these collisions were not theoretical, but had actually happened in US and Europe (and we had had some very serious near misses in AU, including passenger injuries during the violent maneuvers to avoid a collision). The spread of INS navigation, and later INS updated by various means, DME/DME, GPS etc, the widespread adoption of IRS/FMCS systems, made tracking tolerances very tight ------ the previous random navigation errors, that saved a number of MACs from happening gradually ceased to exist ---- increasing the probability of an ATC error becoming a MAC. Of course, the kneejerk reaction was that this could not work, bodies would rain from the sky. Unsurprisingly, most of the "safety" objections came from those whose job was threatened by such a radical idea ----- the "radical" idea that actually underpinned the safety of VFR operations, which outnumbered IFR operations of any kind by hundreds to one in US. My preferred defense of FREE FLIGHT always is: There are approximately 6,500,000** ships over 2500 DWT plying the world's seas. By definition, they ALL CRUISE AT THE ONE LEVEL, and collisions on the high seas are very rare. Rare to the degree that many vessels do not mount an H24 lookout. Politicians can almost understand this, the distinctions between VFR and IFR and operations in G, or VFR in E in US, are meaningless as arguments to non-aviation people. This is what has been turned on it's head, to the degree that "FREE FLIGHT" really means totally controlled flight ---- just have a look at the early ASTRA proposals for Australia, the proposed end state of mandatory ADS-B. Regards, * Gravity as understood by both Newton and Einstein. ** Lloyd's List.

Folks, Thankfully, not much chance of that, given that a CASA AWI or FOI is very unlikely to have a clue about "community administered" aircraft ----- but they all understand low flying and similar misbehavior in any aeroplane. Just to add a little complication, around the world there are a variety of stall speed limits for these kind of aircraft, JAR VLA being 37 kt, so Jabiru make one model that fits that criteria. The "administrative" weights are more or less arbitrary, and prior to the "544 kg", the weight was 488kg for AUF. To clarify further, AUF did not "choose" 544. The LSA weight came with the package. During the period of the PAP/CASA Review ( John Sharp was the Minister) the PAP decided that it was likely that quite a few aircraft were "probably" flying over 544 kg MTOW. We agreed with the Canadian approach, neither Canadians, nor Australian come in SSB size (Standard Starving Biafran), and arbitrarily increased the weight to the same a the "new" Canadian weigh ---- hence 544. Why??? 544 ---- so that we could use the Canadian example as the "safety case" ---- and not have the weight change process strung out for years by local bureaucracy. For different reasons, we also changed the stall speed limits, because it was the PAP view that very low stalling speeds made for serious controlability problems in quite moderate gusts common in Australia, during landing and takeoff. The JAR/VLA limit of 37 kt was not accepted, and the result is what you have today. This really upset some of the "low momentum" purists, but we were of the view that it was better to not have the accident in the first place, rather than be able to step out of wreckage unscathed, because of the low speed ---- that V squared didn't getyah. Very few "ultralights" (for want of a better word) or amateur built aircraft have been subjects to anything like the design analysis, let alone static and dynamic testing, of a CASR/FAR 23 aircraft, so be very careful about exceeding the design limits ----- as in don't. Seemingly "identical" aircraft may well have subtle but vital production differences, depending on the design AUW for the intended registration category ---- do you know how many layers if glass there was in a layup ---- Another really good reason why is lack of accountability for "gust loading" ( not the gust on the ground that tips you on your wingtip) and it is fair to say that some designers allow for this by "over engineering" the static strength of the airframe. Our Australia manufacturers serve us well in this regard, Jabiru is a good example, but not the only one. I don't have the same faith in the "certification" of some of the LSA I have looked at. Regards,

David, I get the horrors even at the thought of some tecno-dingbat pilot, head down in the circuit, looking for the traffic, rather than using his or her on-board ultra high speed multiple processor computer, simultaneously integrating high fidelity multi-scan audio and visual inputs --eyes, ears and brain ----and all produced by unskilled labour. One of the demonstrated safety problems with "mandatory radio" is/was the almost automatic (even sub-conscious) implicit assumption that all you can hear is all that is there ---- completely excluding all the versions of digital dysfunctions (finger trouble) that prevent you hearing other traffic. "Mandatory" ADS-B IN would only compound the problem, and remember that no cockpit presentation would be "safe" for close-in maneuvering --- all to do with scale presentation versus position accuracy, you wouldn't want to turn into something you thought you were turning away from, the reason why TCAS11 only has pitching escape commands. However, I would be the first to say that a traffic presentation in front of you is a great aid to seeing some of the traffic, before you get to the circuit ------ but it is NOT essential for effective "alerted see and avoid", either in the circuit or en-route. "Nice to have", but not "need to have" as in "mandatory", that word that seems to only appear, aviation-wise, in Australia. Might I suggest that you have a look at some of the more substantial responses to the JCP re. ADS-B, and then consider why the "requirement/demand" for mandatory ADS-B for almost all aircraft, in a short timetable, all "subsidized", was dropped like a hot brick, once the proposal got to senior management levels in the Government and airlines. No major airline ever agreed to the industry funded cross subsidy for GA ---- that was pie-in-the -sky, the low level functionaries who talked about that were not the ones who had their hands on the purse strings. There is no airspace in Australia where the traffic levels are anything like the US, and US is only planning to make ADS-B mandatory where transponders are already mandatory, above 10,000' and withing 30 nm radius of a Class B airfield. And then only by 2020, and a lot can change. Unlike here, FAA does not require a transponder in Class E airspace below 10,000'. The US dual system (UAT and 1090ES) means that relatively cheap UAT stand alone boxes are already available, now, from GARMIN and FreeFlight (ne. Trimble) ---- there is no need for a high end (not just any) Mode S transponder. Just a few point: (1) Have a look at the FAA ADS-B NPRM industry objections by the Air Transport Association and National Business Aircraft Association, based on high cost for no benefit ---- in other words, even the FAA proposal fails any cost/benefit test. The FAA do not regard ADS-B as anything but a datalink for ATS purposes, and certainly NOT as a substitute for TCAS. The two CASA "cost/benefit" studies were incompetent. Even in the JCP, it is NOT a cost/benefit analysis, as the process is generally understood, and as defined by such guidelines as the Productivity Commission or the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR). All the CBAs only covered ADS-B OUT, but many of the claimed benefits (most, like SAR, quite spurious) required ADS-B IN and low level surveillance. In fact, most of the savings (to AsA) were going to come from the fact that the adoption of mandatory ADS-B was going to mean most aircraft (and all IFR) would have a forced fit C145 or C-146 GPS, and thus AsA would be able to pull out all but a handful of VORs and all NDBs. Even then, the benefits were hugely miss-stated, by people who didn't understand IFR rules, including that you can already do GPS/NPA approaches, with a C-129/129A GPS. The only IFR "saving" revolved around alternate criteria and flight planning. AsA "active disinterest" in WAAS meant that aircraft in Australia would never have the biggest (in my opinion) on-board benefit of C-145/146 GPS, precision vertical guidance, allowing an IFR approach to Cat 1 ILS minima at virtually any airfield. No saving there to VFR at all. And the saving claimed did NOT require an ADS-B to have a C-145 or C-146 GPS available. Again, have a look at the GARMIN range --- some of which ( various 400/500 series) cost about the same as a Drifter. (2) On the local scene, it has cost around $350-400,000 to enable ADS-B OUT (only) on a Dash-8. More than 10 times the JCP proposed subsidy to Regional type aircraft. Interestingly, throughout the JCP, it was rather obvious that somebody didn't understand the difference between C-145 and C-146 TSOs, somehow equating one with VFR and one with IFR. (2) If ADS-B IN is available to a TCAS ( the RTCA standard is long in place) the additional functionality, compared to a return from a Mode C transponder (or even another TCAS 11 equipped aircraft) is precisely ZERO. Last time I looked, neither Airbus, nor Boeing, offered OEM ADS-B/C IN for TCAS, as there is no customer demand. (3)In the local airline scene, the ATC benefits of ADS-B OUT to the airlines has not been demonstrated in $$$ terms. There is not enough traffic over continental Australia to give savings from reduced separation. Since RVSM, being forced to cruise $$$ off optimum altitude or optimum route is rare. (4) In terminal areas, MLAT provides the same functionality as ADS-B for ATS, but only requires aircraft to have a Mode C transponder. See AsA trials and plans for MLAT. (5) AsA never had any plans to make ADS-B generally available below 30,000' and in most areas where there was any significant traffic, there is already primary and SSR coverage that is now going to remain. (6) About 95% of Australia's population is going to be covered by new Primary radar (as per the US) because SSR or ADS-B has no national security functionality. The baddies wouldn't operate their transponder ADS-B in the "Off Mode" if it was "mandatory", now would they??? (7) Even to provide ADS-B down to 5000' AGL across Australia was going to mean about 350 extra ground stations (versus the present 30 or so), and to do what? There is not the satellite capacity to handle that, right now, satellite transponder capacity is at a premium, and we don't have the land based infrastructure (reasonable bandwidth land lines) to handle terrestrial transmission of the data from many geographically isolated ground station to the ATC Centers. (8) One of the most amazing calculation, to show the complete unreality of the JCP ADS-B proposals, was done by the local Avionics Association. They showed that, to make the proposed timetable for "mandatory ADS-B OUT" ( if the equipment was available, which is still isn't at an affordable price) and with the available avionics LAMEs, they would have had to drop all other avionics repairs or installation from then until the cutoff date for the mandate (2013??), and then they still wouldn't make it. ADS-B/C/X has some interesting potentials, aircraft to aircraft separation (as opposed to a rough idea of SOME of the local traffic) is not one of them. It should be, but the whole basis of the original Free Flight concept has been hijacked to completely reverse the original concept of less ATC intervention and much reduced collision risk---- to greatly increased ATC intervention. Remember, the definition of ATC: To concentrate a few aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, over a point, creating a collision risk, and thereby justifying an ATC system. Never ever discount the "rice bowl" effect, or "proponent bias" in any proposal, but particularly any Government/Semi Government proposal, especially when they are enthusiastically supported by those who will make a buck out of the supply of equipment. More than 10 years ago, I was involved in the development, including trials, of an ADS-B system, including IN and OUT with traffic displays, and a previous poster is correct, the material costs, off the shelf, is quite low. The basic software is just that, basic. The cost of development and certification (including patent licenses) is another thing altogether, and no non-TSO system that can be received by an ATS data antenna is ever going to be permitted. Regards,

Folks, As well as aerodrome information, there is a lot of "good gen" in the ERSA. In my view, it is the most important book you should have available, and current. In the overall scheme of things, it is not really all that expensive. Buy at least one copy complete, and have a good look at all the info. available, and remember you are not exempt from the rules about having necessary data "on board" for each flight. Regards,

Folks, If you don't require certified parts, JIC hydraulic fittings have the same form as AN/MS hose fittings. The major difference between SAE (automotive) and AN/MS/JIC is the angle of the mating surfaces, being 37.5 degrees for AN etc, and 45 degrees for SAE, hence the guaranteed leaks if you mix them up. Again, if you don't require certified parts, several manufacturers put out a wide range of AN etc. equivalent hose fittings for general (mostly hot rods, drag/competition cars) use. There is usually a very good range of stuff, at very good prices, on US e-Bay. As the previous poster says, AN/MS covers the whole range of aviation, not just hardware. For example AN 4101 covers a range of manufacturers fuel pumps, all interchangeable, and found on such as the P&W R-1830 and the Wright R-1820. Regards,

Folks, Don't forget the Airservices movement charges and aerodrome charges at a Class D, the additional cost compared to, say, The Oaks, is really significant. Regards,

Yenn, Actually is (was) Army Navy, the USAF did not come into existence until after WW11. The AN standards go back pre-WW11. AN standards were superseded by MS, and more recently a new universal US standard. Regards, PS: Two threads showing is the minimum, and having any threads "down the hole" is a really bad idea. I will bet a good proportion of the bolts ( with threads down the hole) are in shear, not tension, and I will further bet that the result is that the whatever fitting puts the bolt in single shear, instead of the designer intended double shear. Thus doubling the shear load on the bolt x-section. A great recipe for failure, and if it is something like a wing strut, drag brace etc., a failure is going to cut your future aviating very short.

Folks, I would suggest a presumption based on a triumph of hope over fact. The lack of knowledge of a proportion airline pilots, beyond their narrow focus has often surprised me, and it is not limited to ex-military with no other civil aviation experience, either. The view that everything that is "VFR" is flown by "the terry toweling brigade/blundering bug smashers/otherwise incompetents" is virtually an article of faith with a "particular" group of "professional" pilots and some ATC, you only have to have a look at the Australian sites on pprune to verify. In my experience, this is a particularly Australian thing, you only have to go as far as NZ (NZCH) to see light aircraft operating on the grass parallel to everything up to B744 operating on the runway, imagine suggesting that at any major in Australia. Regards,

David C, Re. The Oaks, that's correct. Re. Wedderburn, look up the web site for the NSW Sports Aviation Club. Regards,

Spin, It was a comment on the unreliability of the engines on a DC-7, compared to the R-2800s on the DC-6. Just like the later Connies, you only declared an emergency if you were down to two. Regards,

Folks, The is still The Oaks, a nice friendly place, and if you join the club that owns it, Wedderburn, a really friendly place. Regards,

Folks, Just so you understand: A DC-6 is a four engine aeroplane with three blade props. A DC-7 is a three engine aeroplane with four blade props. Regards,

DJP, Not doing well, I have no idea of a realistic timetable, and little confidence that the finished "legal draft" will look anything like the NPRM or lay draft. Regards,

Folks, Aircraft in this cat. are not aircraft, as far as FAA is concerned, but aerial vehicles, more or less the same as 95.10. Major defect reporting legally only applies to normally certificated aircraft. Assuming this aircraft is to go into an Experimental cat., you do NOT have to produce any justification history for the aircraft, that all went out the window in 1998. You are solely responsible for the "airworthiness" of the aircraft, the Level 2 or whoever completes the inspection and paperwork is NOT certifying the aircraft is airworthy. Regards,

Folks, I don't know where 760 kg comes from, but I do know where 750 kg comes from ----- CASR Part 21 for a Primary Cat. aircraft that can be certified by industry ----- and we have had that rule on the books years before the US LSA ---- we have had it since mid 1998. Note that the JAR/VLA max. gross is also 750kg. Primary Cat. can go to 1225 kg (1539 for a seaplane). Our Part 21 also has an "Intermediate" cat, which is not limited to single engine. The weight limit history is interesting. When I first got involved in the detail, the AUF weight limit was 488kg, and I think (but don't know) that it had even been a lesser weight at some time. We increased the weight (during the period of the PAP/CASA Review, 1996 to 1999) for the same reason the Canadians increased their weights for ultralight ----- because Australian and Canadians, particularly two at a time --- weigh somewhat more than starving Biafrans ---- which meant that many aircraft owners were probably operating over authorized weights. Thus 544 kg. And now we have the LSA weights, but only for LSAs. We also put in the present stall speeds ( v JAA/EASA VLA) because we viewed 37 kt JAR/VLA stall as too slow, making the gust response, and hence handling, a problem during approach and takeoff. This cause a huge reaction from the "slower must be safer" low momentum enthusiasts, but there are not too many Jabs flipped on their back in a gust. As to poorly maintained aircraft, because they are not LAME maintained, the most pristine aircraft I see a Amateur Built Experimentals ----- and if the guy can build the aeroplane ---- what makes you thing the maintenance will be deficient. Likewise, in the Canadian owner maintained category (for production aircraft), the aircraft I see are invariably beautifully presented, compared to A&P maintained school hacks. Likewise the LAA (ne. PFA) aircraft in the UK. There is absolutely no reason why a Cessna 150 or similar would not be maintained to an entirely satisfactory standard by an owner ----- and my experience tells me that owners that don't feel personally confident of their own abilities will always recruit those who have the skills to do just as good a job on a C-150 as on any other small aeroplane. After all, small aircraft are hardly rocket science ---- and the average aircraft enthusiast owner is definitely not stooopid. Regards, PS: Anybody thinking about a C150/152 or any strutted Cessna, look very carefully for corrosion in the multi-layer main spar between the root and the strut attach point --- including paying for ultrasound and X-ray, with the tanks out.

Folks, It's the 50th Anniversary tomb from the FAA, which only started in 1958, under the first Administrator, the justly infamous (General) Elwood R. (Pete) Quesada --- so the title is a bit of a misnomer. He is the origin of the "age 60" rule, introduced as a result of an industrial battle between American Airlines and it's pilots, which AA lost --- so, Hey!! Presto!!, a new retirement rule and AA got rid of all the pilots they wanted out ------ and absolutely nothing to do with medical and safety standards. You have to give Australia one thing, we were well ahead of the US in development of "air law", passing our first laws to restrict aviation years before the US, and why doesn't that surprise me. The best airshow I ever went to in Australia, was not to celebrate a success ( as in the Battle of Britain Airshow, and the many airshows in US celebrating a victory) but ------ Australia "celebrated" ( should that be commiserated) the FIRST ANO ----- I suppose that was a victory celebration for the bureaucrats. Regards,

Folks, This could be misinterpreted ---- after the cutoff date, you still have whatever license you hold, but cannot exercise it until you receive the new credit card license. If you have an FAA license issued against a foreign license, you will have to attend an FAA FSDO to complete the process for the new form license. Regards, Bill Hamilton

Folks, The whole issue of "medicals" is a boondoggle, with an empire built around it. What most people don't realise is the origin of such "standards". It all started with military screening standards to EXCLUDE about 95% of applicants for flying training ---- what it was NOT, was a set of standards based on the physical needs to actually fly an aircraft. Since I first started, there have been significant changes, as a result of pressure to "relax" standards. When I first started, for an initial medical ---- no vision correction was allowable ---- but once you had a license --- you could use glasses as age caught up with you. That "initial medical" standard was a nonsense --- as obviously you could fly with glasses. There are many other examples. In recent years, the battles (including major successes) for persons with non-standard color perception has been most interesting, all the court wins have essentially been because "the authorities" could not demonstrate ANY operational safety reason for the "standards". Hundred of Australian pilot owe a debt of gratitude to Dr.A.M.Pape, a DAME in Geelong, for so successfully fighting these battles, over many years. But "the authorities" are once again trying to "tighten up", color perception tests have becomes an annual event in UK, there is pressure to follow suite here ----- all without any operational safety justification. The FAA has done some huge (and therefor statistically valid) studies on the relation between "medical standards" and pilots suffering in-flight medical incidents ----- and were unable to show any connection, regardless of the class of medical. Thus, FAA recommended "driver's license" standards for the original FAA RPL medical, but the US equivalent of the DAMEs Association went political ( think of the loss of $$$$ income) and the DoT overruled FAA. This is why the National Drivers License standard makes so much sense --- in the real world, a driver collapsing at the wheel is far more likely to do him or herself and other road users serious injury ----- -----for the aviation medical we don't even get the exposure stats. correct, but assume a pilot spends 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in the air. Far too many "aviation rules" have no basis in risk analysis, but once they are on the books, Oh!! Boy!!, are they hard to get rid of ----- the wiseheads (with no idea of the origin of a rule) will nod, look very serious and say something like: " Well, I'm certain there was a really good reason for this rule". There has been a fairly wide analysis of CASA "rules", based on AS/NZ 4360:1999 Risk Management Standard, you should have seen the resistance when this kind of rational approach was applied, and showed a good proportion of the rules (most of which are administrative, not really "safety" related) should not be on the books at all ( and in many countries are not). The UK NPPL ( there are equivalents in other European countries) is more or less the same syllabus as when I got my first PPL in UK, just as the RAOz syllabus is the old DCA PPL, before all sorts of "enhancements" were added. The JAA/EASA PPL had just become bureaucratically overloaded, the medical renewal costs alone are seriously scary. The old PPL® made a lot of sense, the "GFPT" is, in my opinion, an abortion of system. Can anybody explain to me the logic of the PPL NAV training (which has nothing to do with a Daily Inspection) qualifying a pilot to sign for a daily. Quite a few glider tug and para. jump pilots flew for years and hundreds of hours on a PPL® ---- the GFPT put paid to that. Guard very jealously what we have in Recreational Aviation in Australia, and remember "CASA" cannot just change the rules, only Parliament can do that ----- and we have had some notable successes, over the years, in having adverse changes to the rules "disallowed" in the Senate. But to do that you need your associations for that, the cost of your membership is the cost of your freedom to fly as you do!!! Regards,

Al B, Vastly greater cost doesn't equal "better". More paperwork doesn't equal "better". Buying what is a mass production automotive part, at ten times the price, because it is from a "CAR 30" supplier, and is therefor now an "aeronautical part" doesn't equal "better". Buying wheel bearings that came from Bearing Services, but are thirteen time price of the same bearing bought over the counter, because they come through a CAR 30 supplier, and the invoice double as the "trace" document that CASA wants, does not make it "better". Buying "aviation grade" aluminium sheet from a CAR 30 supplier, at about three times the price of "commercial grade", then have it delivered by the industrial stockists' truck that delivers exactly the same Alcoa product I use in cars, doesn't make it better. The administration of Rec. Aviation in UK is a bit of a mess, there is effectively no self administration in US, but Canada has a rather good approach to the "little end of town", including "owner maintenance" for a wide range of (older) GA aircraft. Yes, it costs here, and is fragmented, but the answer is not CASA, but greater co-operation within the Australian self-administrative bodies ---- but don't hold your breath. Yenn, I don't have the current figures (but little changes) but last time I had current CASA manpower figures, something like 80% of operational CASA staff were NOT involved with airlines. CASA won't be shutting anybody down in Sports and Rec., that will be a political decision ----- have a real close look at how self administration came about in the first place --- read my last long post. Regards,

Sseeker, What are you smoking?? It must be strong stuff. Do you have any idea of the costs and delays of even getting an SPL right now?? If it ain't broke, don't fix it !! Regards,

Al B, A gentle dutch roll, with the nose making a small figure 8 on the horizon on the B744. The pressurization problem --- seems to vary from aircraft to aircraft. There has been no cast iron technical explanation, just speculative causes. In my cases, getting the cabin crew to look for anybody with a then model of the Powerbook, and asking the pax. to turn it off always immediately solved the problem. With all due respect to GraemeK, he is not correct, an extensive series of tests by United Airlines also showed a range of problems, in one case enough to preclude a Cat 11/111 coupled approach, with corresponding misleading displays of commands on the ADI and HSI. What makes it so tricky is that the results are not consistent across a range of supposedly identical models, this is where airline results across a fleet have shown results, whereas Boeing (can't say for Airbus) only subjected (an) individual aircraft to tests. The old analogue phones seemed to cause a lot more problems than present generation, high powered TV transmissions also cause problems (see TSO requirements for VHF radios in Europe) and there has been much speculation over "radiation hardening" of Airbus flight control systems. Regards,