Bill Hamilton

Kaz3g, You've got it in one. S.20 of the Act applies. Regards, PS: "Vicinity" is a long standing ICAO term, and is also used in Metar/TAF/TTF and similar.

Folks, We must absolutely keep the present structure of Sports and Rec. Aviation in Australia. It is the foundation for the success of (amongst other things) RAOz, ne. AUF. Under CASA and its predecessors, the growth of Sports and Rec. would never have happened. It is that simple. The GFA, AUF/RAOz and similar all exist because of political directions ----- NOT any concessions, initiatives or favors from the predecessors of CASA. If CASA was to get directly involved in this end of pilot licensing, or start applying GA maintenance rules, costs would skyrocket, and the present flexibility would disappear. Do you really want to pay CAR 35 Professional Engineer charges and CASA approval charges every time you want to do more than pump up your tyres, ie do some minor modification to your aircraft??? Do you know that (due to CASA rules on maintenance) you cannot "legally" wash your windscreen, because you don't have "approved data???!!! ---- and washing a windscreen (or the whole aircraft) is "maintenance", and all maintenance can only be performed with "approved data". Attend one of the CASA briefings on "Pilot Maintenance" and learn why Schedule 8 doesn't always mean what it says, because you will NOT have approved data, or will not be able to comply with the approved data. Learn why you cannot legally change or charge a battery, even though Schedule 8 seems to say otherwise. Learn why you can't "inspect" wheel bearing, before you repack them, having repaired a tyre or tube ---- without "jacking" the aircraft!! There is a legislative instrument that (beneficially) eases the very restrictive Australian definition of "approve data", in effect changing it to "acceptable data", but for the moment I can't find the number, I hope it hasn't expired with no renewal. We put a lot of time and effort into this simple instrument, so that "approved/acceptable data" in AU would be the same as US/CA/NZ, but there was a lot of opposition from within the "traditionalists" within CASA. That these sort of maintenance rules are seldom enforced does NOT make it OK. It is the complex, convoluted and contradictory Australian Civil Aviation Act and Legislation that makes "inadvertent criminals" of many of us, day after day. Part 103 and Part 149 (149 was base on NZ Part 149) were started in 1996 --- where are they?? Keep this out of Sports and Rec. aviation, if you want to have this sector survive and prosper. Regards,

Folks, It is not only phones or other devices that have a transmit function that can cause problems/interactions with aircraft equipment. No names, no pack drill, but certain mobile phones can cause a malfunction in the pressurization outflow valves in a particular quite common aircraft, causeing anything from cabin pressure "bumps" to an emergency descent. For another example, until relatively recently, many Apple computers had the same series of Motorola microprocessor chips as a number of Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS) in aircraft. If you were sitting in the area of a B747 which was near or directly above the main electronic compartment, unintended consequences could and do eventuate. Mobile phones have also been shown to cause interference with VHF comms radios. I have has personal experience with both the above, so, please, please follow the airline rules and turn of what you are asked, when you are asked. Regards,

Folks, The latest version of the ATSB Confidential Incident Reporting System really is confidential, read about it on the ATSB web site. Then consider using it. Except in extremely limited circumstances, CASA does not get involved. Regards,

Folks, I can thoroughly recommend Dick Gower/RVAC, or the guys at Lillydale. Regards,

Folks, Have a look at US eBay for transponders, usually a huge number available. PayPal buyer protection rules can be quite a help, if things turn sour. <http://motors.shop.ebay.com/Aviation-Parts-/26435/i.html?_dmd=1&_dmpt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&_pcats=6028%2C6000&_sop=1&_rdc=1> Regards,

Folks,There is little likelihood of ADS-B/C OUT becoming mandatory any time in the foreseeable future, except where it is already in use ----- above FL 310 ----fact!! Have a look at what Airservices says about coverage with the present number of ground stations. Even to produce coverage down to 10,000 ft, close to 200 ground stations would be needed (I don't remember the exact number but you could dig it up from ASA). To produce coverage down to 5000', something over 300 ground stations would be required, plus one or two additional satellites to handle the traffic. And all for what ???---- In present G airspace, and potential E, or current C, there is simply no collision risk safety problem that would justify such a huge expenditure for a non-problem. The real cost/benefit outcome made it a non-starter. The so called cost/benefit figures in the DP were nonsense, they complied within NO KNOWN guidelines, certainly not Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR), Productivity Commission, or A-Gs Department. Once the DP got beyond the protagonists and their cheer squads, and was considered at a higher level of Government, most of the proposal was dropped like a hot brick. Claims of subsidies for GA etc. were pie-in-the-sky, none of the airlines ever agreed to the cross subsidy to GA. Recreational wasn't even seriously mentioned. We are so short of avionics LAMEs that, based on the "proposed" time scale for ADS-B, even if ALL OTHER AVIONICS WORK was dropped in 2009, and that continued for about 5 years, there was no way the proposed fitting timetable could have been achieved---- even if the equipment was available at the claimed prices, which it still isn't All the replies to the discussion paper on the subject are public documents, have a look at them. One has my name on it, I have put a lot of figures on the record, and included the coverage charts. Even arguments about "safety" for "Regionals" doesn't stack up, they will only see the same thing as they already see with TCAS 11, if you have a Mode C transponder ---- despite a lot of ill informed claims to the contrary ----- even if they had ADS-B IN, which is not part of the modifications I have seen in airline aircraft. A Mode C transponder is a fraction of the price of even the cheapest currently available ADS-B Mode S (which is a Garmin 330, from memory--- lots of claims by others are vapor) is about about 10 times a cheap Mode C transponder. Beware claims about several European/Australian "manufacturers", so far they do not meet Australian specifications, usually in the GPS area, but also sometimes in the Mode S transmission format. Most of the "mandatory" proposals were put by organizations with a financial interest in ADS-B/C installation. If you still want to fit a Mode S transponder --- just in case ---- make absolutely certain it meets the FULL requirements for ADS-B, as required by Australia/ICAO. Regards, PS: (1)There are three ICAO standards for ADS-B, all mutually incompatible. They are UAT, VDL-4 and 1090ES. Australia has chosen to impose the "airline" 1090ES on the rest of Australia, locking us out of the cheap UAT equipment available in US. With 1090ES equipment, the ADS-B/C data is carried on the vacant DF 17 and 18 message slots on the Mode S signal. The 1090ES format is a very old technology "narrow" band (around since the 1970s) with literally no room for further expansion as a datalink --- an extremely shortsighted decision forced by cash strapped airlines ---- it was touted as cheap and quick, and is neither, turning out to be a far more expensive update than either VDL-4 of UAT ---- but that is what happens when technical decisions are made by accountants. And, for their troubles, airlines flying in US or Europe have a deadline for installing a datalink for routine ATC communications ---- if they had thought ahead of their next quarterly report, UAT or VDL-4 would have served multiple roles, which is what ICAO intended, originally. A VDL-4 (from memory, I don't think it is UAT) datalink network (privately owned) is well on the way in Australia ---- for airline use, to replace ACARS --- which has run out of bandwidth. UAT is CDMA (as per current/future mobiles) , VDL-4 is TDMA ( first generation digital phones) (2) Re. the Garmin prices, it is only the "top of the line" 330 with "antenna diversity" that fits the bill, and you need a C 145 or C 146 GPS input., so add that in.

Folks, One not insignificant problem with NZ ---- as soon as you get there, you will get a bill for GST (or whatever they call it in NZ) for the value of the aircraft. Regards,

Folks, The sad piece by Doug Nancarrow in Short Final, Australian Flying May-June 2010, is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in Australia Aviation, and a problem that just does not exist in US, Canada, NZ or the UK. The problem is an "assumed" and "attempt to enforce" a hierarchy of "rights and priorities". It goes something like this: I am an ATPL, I'm better than you, a CPL ME CIR who is better than a CPL, who is better than a PPL, who is better an RAOz Certificate holder, and: I am flying an "big" RPT, I have priority over "little" RPT, who assumes priority over non-scheduled "commercial", who "assumes" priority over "Private Operations", (where the PIC may very well be an ATPL, but is more or less assumed by self-confessed professionals to be a low time and incompetent PPL) who assume superiority, if not priority, over "mere" Recreational Pilots. This is a very "Australian thing", it pains me to say, and in my opinion, a significant threat to air safety. The prejudices go very deep. In a proper world, they should not exist at all. They are very resistant to treatment by fact, witness the nonsense about training standards, and the emerging safety outcome statistics, which increasingly look like they favour RAOZ v. GA. Some aircraft do have legislated priorities, have a look at the rules: Without quoting verbatim, an aircraft in an emergency always has absolute priority, by law. Then there is a list in the AIP, starting with an aircraft carrying the Governor General, the Prime Minister etc etc. Note that these latter "priorities" apply to handling in controlled airspace, particularly where traffic slots are limited, capital city primary airports. Ask yourself what applies in Class G?? Do any?? When might they?? Clearly, any aircraft in distress has priority, a Med 1 possibly, but what about the rest? Nowhere but nowhere do we have a regulated system of rights or priorities based simply on the size of the aircraft, the class of operation or flight (IFR v. VFR) turbine v. piston, or the hourly operating cost of the particular aeroplane. But if you were a stranger to Australia, and knew no better, and observed and listened around quite a few airfields in Australia, frequented by "commercial" traffic, including Regionals, you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise. The attempts at browbeating I hear regularly on CTAF simply do not happen outside Australia. The Rules of the Air ( convenient shorthand for some of the CARs that apply to the operation of all aircraft - in the G.O.Ds, they were called the Rules of the Air) apply to everyone ----- there is no hierarchy of rights or priorities based on size, speed or type of operation. Which brings me (again!) to the latest version of the rules for operating in Class G and at/in the vicinity of non-towered etc airfields. Please read the regulations and the associated CAAPs very carefully. They will actually tell you that what I have said above is correct. Not quite so bluntly, but it is there. They suggest you might consider letting a RPT in ahead of you, even if you have legal right of way. However, they make it very clear that larger/faster/RPT have no right to demand a priority, and have no right to demand other aircraft in a circuit area stand off or give way or otherwise feel they have to obey "directions" from said "assumed more important" aircraft. Know the rules, use your common sense (aka airmanship, or as the new CEO of RAOz calls it, CBS) always be courteous, never indulge in tit for tat over the radio --- don't lower yourself to the same "standard" as that percentage of "professionals" who give the majority a bad name, but: Always clearly understand your rights and obligations as the pilot in command ----- regardless of which bit of paper or plastic you have, and whatever kind of aerial locomotion you are engaged in!! Regards,

Folks, This sounds like 90% complete, with 90% to do. Chap I know bought a SA 227 Metro 11 on eBay, worked out to be a very good deal, but I guess that's a bit different to a home built. Regards,

Bacchus, The answer is quite simple: If the manufacturer will issue an amended LSA Type Certificate to operate the relevant serial number aircraft at the higher weight ---- The answer is YES. Otherwise: NO. Possibly operating it in the Experimental Cat. is a different kettle of fish and/or can of worms. Regards,

Folks, Is this really a correct statement. A VH- Experimental Amateur Built can certainly be used for training of the owner/builder(s), why is an RAOz registered Experimental Amateur Built any different? Regards,

David et al, The problem is, I don't know enough, because I don't know the solution to the regulatory (reform) problems we have, with the Australian political setup. Again, just one example, Government policy in 1996 was that we had to stop doing business by exemptions (by whatever name) from a set of "rules" that all too often had only a passing acquaintance with the real world. Update, so we had relevant rules. The biggest problem is for airlines, at least we got new certification rules in 1998, that has saved airlines a small fortune in no longer having to comply with Australian unique and generally unjustified restrictions on the operation of VH- aircraft, putting Australian operators at a serious competitive disadvantage. And, of course, we got the various Experimental plus Primary, Intermediate and Limited categories. But, despite the changes, far too many things have not changed, compared with, for example, NZ/Canada/SA or even US. I doubt there are any less exemptions now, than in 1996. Have you considered why so few aircraft on trans Tasman flights are VH-, including Australian airlines. Look at RAOz, it exists on exemptions. Work started on Part 103 in late 1996, was complete in draft by 1999 ----- 11 years later, and it is years away. Part 149, rules for self administrative bodies, was also started in late 1996, and largely complete in draft by 1999 (as were Parts 43,61,66,91,141/142) ----- 11 years later, most are still years away. Regards,

Folks,An interesting example of lack of corporate memory in CASA. Prior the AMATS changes in 1991(?or was that 1992?) all cross country flights (more than 50nm) required a flight plan with full position reporting, and Australia used non-ICAO standard cruising levels, with IFR and VFR using the same cruising levels. And the cruising levels started at 5000'. So radio comms was mandatory above 5000', how else could you make the mandatory position reports? When ICAO cruising levels were instituted with AMATS, and the requirement for mandatory VFR flight plans and full position reporting was dropped, the consequential amendments omitted to rescind the requirement for mandatory radio for VFR above 5000'. You can thanks Dick Smith, as Chairman of CAA, for these very positive changes, that started to drag Australia into the real aviation world --- despite the kicking and screaming of the nay-sayers, who knew it was the end of civilization as we know it. Another unfortunate consequence of this incomplete change was the idea that, although there was a requirement for "mandatory radio" above 5000', there was no "mandatory" requirement for VFR to use it. If you look at the totality of regulations for the use of radio, this idea never held water, but the idea that radio usage was "optional unless it was mandatory" found fertile ground amongst all the bush lawyers. Without going into too much detail, the idea developed that, even if you had a radio in a CTAF you didn't need to use it, only in an MBZ. This was exacerbated by the changes to CTAFs a procedure, rather than a geographical area, they became a procedure, with some CTAF requiring mandatory radio, which became CTAF® ---- Which was NOT a new name for an MBZ, although to talk to many pilots, you would never have known. For reasons unknown, the penalties for having a radio in a CTAF, and not using it, were inadvertently dropped from that version of CAR 166. In the days of CTAF/MBZ, the penalties for having a radio and not using it in a CTAF were exactly the same as being in an MBZ without a serviceable radio. From memory, 25 penalty points. Via a circuitous route (almost all airfields in the ERSA) this has been rectified in the "new" CAR 166s ----- but CTAF and CTAF® have ceased to have much meaning, as discussed elsewhere. Regards, PS: Approval for hang gliders to operate to 10,000' was years ago, maybe 10 or more (I don't remember) which make the restriction of RAOz aircraft even more illogical ---- but all too typical of Australia's complex, convoluted and contradictory aviation law.

Folks, My comments are NOT directed at RAOz pilots, but pilots in general, starting with self described "professional" pilots. You might be quite surprised what turns up from time to time. You would be quite surprised at the gaps in the documents that should be carried in any aircraft, and what is actually carried in practice. The details of some CASA ramp checks make interesting reading. Please note that new CARs 166 have a selection of "recommended calls", in this sense, "mandatory" does not have the predominance as previously, which is a good thing. That most pilots are conscientious in discharging their responsibilities as pilot in command re. communications is not questioned (as formal surveys/studies have shown, most recently, PCR and Ambidjii reports refer) ----- but then there is the rest. Where deliberate non-compliance has been identified (as opposed to inadvertent non-compliance, as in digital disfunction, aka finger trouble) the culprits is overwhelmingly a "professional pilot". Having said all that, there is a different "philosophy" behind the new "rules", compared to the long standing approach to "radio procedures". The new approach will, hopefully, move us from "procedures" to "communications". It has been a long time coming, it is going to be interesting to see how long time instructors/CFIs adapt. At present, in GA training, the "culture" is usually to comply with the "pingya protocol", make every call in the book, regardless of circumstances: So "They Can't Ping Ya". Whoever "they" might be. Regards,

Slarti, Tell me something I don't know. The fact is that there are many pilots who only ever operate in G, who don't even know what ERSA is, let alone carry one that is current, plus any NOTAM changes since the date of issue. In fact, that has not really cause a lot of problems for the guys who don't go to far, and only went to local CTAFs, and CTAF® never, but the new CARs 166 clearly changes all that. Regards,

Folks,Sorry about the typo, too late at night. Re. the ERSA, almost all the airfields in ERSA are either registered or certified, including quite a number that wouldn't see more than a few movements a month. How many in ERSA, I don't know, but last time I counted the total of all entries, it was some 300 plus. CTAFs almost become irrelevant. Sorry to rain or your parade, but the new CAR 166 is a whole new ball game, and not a very friendly one, compared to what people have grown used to. If you don't think so, might I suggest you haven't read the new regulations and CAAP thoroughly enough, and/or compared the differences to the present CAR 166 --- as several of the posters have clearly illustrated. Apart from the typo on the date, please show me any factual errors, but don't just shoot the messenger. Whether you like it or not, the rules of the air apply to everybody flying. Believe me, there is nothing more humbling for a pilot than to be involved in enforcement action by CASA, it is always a most unpleasant experience. As two poor sods recently found out, enforcement action by CASA not only cost them $$$$, they found out they couldn't go to Oshkosh, refused entry to the US, and if you have any doubts, read the US Consulate web site. Doesn't even necessarily need to be a conviction, just a charge in an aviation matter, and the US/Australia data matching is very good. That is why I have highlighted the new CAR 166, I don't want to see anybody caught out. I don't have any trouble looking in the mirror of a morning, if you don't like the style, too bad. I don't like a number of aspects of the new CAR 166, for one because the requirement for mandatory radio is overkill, and not the result of any safety study or analysis. There are a number of other issues as well, but this is not the place for that discussion. Regards,

Folks, Come the new rules for radio (see threads elsewhere) you are all going to need an up to date copy of ERSA from Airservices. There is a complete section is ERSA that deals with the proper actions in an emergency, including advice on which frequency to use. I commend to you the need for a proper understanding of emergency communications. There is no "HGFA" or "RAOz" way, if anybody is teaching contrary to what is in ERSA (which is ICAO standard) they have it wrong. Regards,

facthunter, Both Peter Patroni and Boyd Munro were also President's of AOPA, Peter immediately before Dick, Boyd immediately after. Regards,

Ultralights, Thanks, you have made my case for me. As you have said, (despite specifications otherwise) sometimes the only reason you are aware of a transmission is that the non-aeronautical noise volume drops ---- but you have still missed a transmission. The the number of AsA retransmissions, particularly weekends, it is hard enough to keep track of what is around you, without non-aviation distractions. Do you actually understand the real extent of the legal responsibilities of the pilot in command ---- and the size of an aircraft is irrelevant, from 95.10 up. Of course, another matter is whether some of the "modifications" to VHF comms. aeronautical radios, to feed in non-aeronautical noise, a signal, from a device of unknown specification and performance is, in itself, legal. For TSO equipment, the answer is undoubtedly yes, for non-TSO, the answer is less clear, but in my opinion, at the very least, very poor airmanship. Regards,

Cressi, Please go and re-read what the new rules say, come 3 July, and read the definition of "vicinity". Given the number of certified, registered, military and (potentially) designated airfields in ERSA, well over 300 last time I looked, that 10 mile radius of "in the vicinity" is going to catch a lot of people who previously only needed to (legally) concern themselves with CTAF® --- always--- or CTAFs as well, if they carried and were qualified to use a serviceable VHF comm. radio. Folks, For those of you who want to argue about "legally" connecting various audio entertainment advice to comms. radio, I strongly recommend a careful reading of all the regulations surrounding the carriage and use of radio, which assume a whole new importance under the new rules. And an even more careful reading of S.20(a)(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and nobody but nobody has any exemptions from that!! On this site, there are links to both the new CARs 166, and Ian has posted a link to the associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publications, CAAPs, which are acceptable means of compliance with the new rules. Whether you like it or not, the whole game has changed, as far as carriage and use of radio goes. That it is not even more restrictive than the new rules is thanks to a few people in the Rec. aviation world and their lobbying. If the AFAP ever get their way, not only will carriage and use of radio be mandatory for all flying, but there will be a lot more restriction on areas of operations for anybody with less than a current PPL --- and even draconian restrictions on PPLs. But these are far from the only rules for the use of radio, and with the carriage and use of radio now being very close to mandatory for all flights (and all above 5000'--- nothing new here) it becomes vital for everybody to have a working knowledge of all the rules re. radio use. I have close to 25,000 hours, and I still haven't figured out how to guarantee that I will not miss a radio call, in the presence of non-aviation background noise, and anything from an iPod is most certainly non-aviation background noise. Airlines don't have all sorts of rules about "quite cockpits" for nothing!! Regards,

Folks, The correct radio phraseology (including numbers) is in the AIP. If you haven't already noticed, the whole game changes mid-year, links are elsewhere on the site to the new rules for the carriage and use of radio, with a much wider spread of mandatory radio. See the new regulations CAR 166 and 166A. Operating to or from or in the vicinity (note the definition of vicinity) of any aircraft listed in ERSA will require mandatory radio. Regards,

Folks, Look elsewhere on the forum for details for the new rules for the carriage and use of radio. Mid year the whole game changes. Could I strongly recommend you buy (at least) a one off copy of the AIP, there is lots of useful (mandatory) information, no aircraft is exempt from the basic rules of the air. Also ERSA, which everybody will now need, including a subscription for amendments. Regards,

Have a look through the general discussion forums, you will find it there. CTAF/CTAF® will cease to have any real meaning, radio will be mandatory operating to and from or in the vicinity of any airfield in the ERSA (which you will now need, plus amendment subscription) or any military or other designated airfield. Note very carefully the definition of "in the vicinity". The regulations are CAR 166/166A. These rules apply to all aircraft. Regards,

Folks, How come you have time to listen to an entertainment device airborne, when you are supposed to be keeping a proper listening watch. Please read the thread about the the new radio rules, it ain't optional, in fact never was, but it will now be spelled out far more clearly. Regards,