ben87r

This has been done a million times by new pilots both GA and RA, same answers each time.

It actually answers your question in the first line.

The intent of the law has to be taken into account, and will be in court. We all know what the laws intent is, for the flight to arrive at the same aerodrome it departed from excluding an emergency. Would your PPL mate be happy to defend his position to a judge? The regs should state something in legalese saying that an aircraft flown by a PIC not having a navigation endorsement is prohibited from landing at an aerodrome outside of 25nm from the original and first departure for the flight or subsequent flights. Note, the above does not prohibit the PIC from flying the same aircraft from a different aerodrome should the aircraft have been flown by a suitable qualified PIC to navigate the aircraft between the two aerodromes. Note2 notwithstanding the previous this does not relieve the responsibility of general competency for the restricted PIC to be competent with the required procedures and relevant airspace qualifications for the new aerodrome. Your mates the reason we have to put up with the rubbish legal dribble that we have been given.

I unfortunately know the pilot well. She's doing ok and will come good but multiple fractures, the student is apparently in a worse situation. Very very lucky people.

I started in RA before moving on to turn my hobby into a profession and although my RA time was enjoyable and educational, in the end there wasn't any cost saving over GA as basically everything was to be redone. I was very surprised at the difference in training standard between the two and there was a large amount of unknowns in the GA scene. Now this may not be the case with dual RA/GA schools but definitely in my case. There was also a case of me thinking I already knew how to do a lot (because I had the certificate to say so) which probably added to it. The RA standard I was thought to would be absolutely minimum at best but, for a pleasure pilot probably sufficient and that's the idea right?

Captain spilt his coffee on his newspaper?

Too much talk on the radio also reduces the attention of the receiving station and there's no point making a call if no one hears it.

Maybe a 320vs321 issue?

I lost both steam ASI once when IFR departing in IMC, WX was rubbish as there was when one of those east coast lows was hanging around NSW so the winds were about 50kn and lucky it was under reading so no chance of stalling, it just wasn't climbing. Wasn't that big of a deal, GPS still had Ground speed so a quick and very rough calc of the wind vector and fly everything fast. Flew the RNAV in and again luckily it was a long runway so flew it in fast until it said it wanted to land. From memory that was 40-50kn under the normal speed.

We have to different panels at work, one completely glass and one with just the avionics only and I prefer the avionics only panel for readability. Having the engine instruments steam makes it a lot quicker to get the whole picture. The full glass panel has digital round instruments (Tq RPM) and they're the only thing that is harder to interpret than the tapes, due to the lag which is significant and trouble with acute reading. Glass is great but not for everything. In saying that I'll take all glass over no glass.

That's incorrect TP, the CAAP isn't saying that ALL those calls are needed just that they are the standard broadcast. 6.3.4 says the following Table 2 sets out the recommended broadcasts, but pilots may use discretion in determining the number and type of broadcasts they make. For example, when operating from a private or remote airstrip, a single broadcast declaring an intention to take-off and track in particular direction may be all that is required where there is no response to the initial transmission.

Avoiding landing fees usually is the reason.

I would even go one step further Nathan and say it's a list of the types of broadcasts that COULD be made to aid your obligations to CAR. That's what the CAAP are for, Infomation to aid adherence to the CAR.

Can't comment on San Fran (or SYD/MEL) but we're not usually handed across to tower here, you would change frequency either reporting ready or at the holding point unless asked to stay with ground, so ild say if the aircraft were intending to depart on that runway one or two could have been with tower.

There is still a requirement for an inbound call and either taxi or entering can't remember which off the top of my head so any arriving or departing aircraft would be know at which point you're obliged to make all required calls. Like I said without being there it's too difficult to judge personally. In saying that I would usually still report downwind myself. This comes up quite often on here and there's two different approaches, those that use the radio a lot and those that refrain from unnecessary (in their opinion) calls. Both are usually complying with the regs.

If there wasn't any other traffic around not necessarily bad, too many variables without being there to judge. Certainly not required to call each leg of the circuit and the regs now say that all required calls to avoid a collision so no breach.

My suggestion would be to continue with 'advanced' training and when you can, fit in a hire and fly the following day or week, that little bit of currency should be enough to keep the owner happier? If you can choose a good instructor that will give you plenty of freedom with the 'normal' flying tasks, with the usual pointers here or there it shouldn't feel to much different from a command flight and you have the added bonus of learning whatever new skill it is you're focusing on at that stage. 10hrs really isn't a lot, 10hrs a month still isn't a lot and it's surprising how quickly you lose some of the skill set, especially if you are removed from the avation environment as well.

I don't have my regs with me at the moment but when I trained (GA) restricted airspace was controlled (because it required a clearance) but was technically still class G airspace (disregarding aircraft requirements). I've flown through restricted airspace regularly, and never thought of it as class C. Mil CTR obviously different.

For a normal VFR flight 500' agl can be held (judged) and that half the fun of VFR, it's much more flexible. IFR doesn't allow as much flexibility (fun), if on a 'cruise' sector it would be prudent to go as high as the sector length/ aircraft performance would allow, but this is mission dependent. I still love (and can't do) flying 500' costal, it's about as good as it gets.

LSALT MSA MORA etc have no meaning when VFR (day). There are altitudes that a pilot may consider to the his lowest safe altitude but it isn't LSALT.

And no less than 1500'

Have a search on here too, plenty of info.

This whole thing is just sad and, an unfortunate sign of the times with social media exposure. Keyboard warriors once again ruin something good, congrats.

Ive flown both In GA AC, and personally the sidestick was much better IF it was to be left hand controlled. The joystick always felt more comfortable in my right hand but obviously doesn't work for engine/radios etc but for a home built anything is possible. Also the stick takes away valuable lap space for maps/charts etc depending on mission.