Jaba-who

Quite correct Ben87r. In Qld if you are in a vehicle and the keys are also in the vehicle then you are "in control" of the vehicle. There have been many people booked for being intoxicated while in charge of a vehicle while sleeping in the car with keys somewhere in the car. The only way to possibly escape it is to not have the keys at all while you are in the car. ( was suggested by someone, can't vouch for that actually working though. ) In Victoria section 49 of the act says the person must be intending to drive and there is a case of a guy even getting off when he started the engine to run the heater while he slept it off in the back. But in Qld section 79 of the act says "in control" of the vehicle with mention of driving only as a seperate subsection and no mention at all of " intending" to drive. The precedent case was a guy who was acquitted initially when he sat in the car waiting for a relative to come pick him up. The prosecution appealed the outcome and won on appeal because he was in control. Now there is no hope of getting out of it in Qld if you have the keys as well.

Max all up weight is what it is on the day, not what you could weigh if you filled each of the seats with a pax and full fuel in the tanks. Otherwise lots of aircraft ( certified as well) that are quoted as four seats would be overweight with said four seats full and full tanks from the time they leave the factory. It is a legitimate statement to say " I never fill the tanks to full". Many aircraft in commercial ops operate on that same principle. That's why if you are ramp checked you can be asked for your weight and balance check done on the day with the load you have on board then.

You are probably better asking this on a Korean web forum. The rules are completely different in every country and this is mostly an Australian forum. Pilots don't have a 3 rd class medical here Australia. Here 3 rd class is for air traffic controllers. Here we have essentially 5 different types of " medical" and they are all different to medicals in say the USA.

Yep. I don't recall a pedestrian crossing anywhere in the town at all. And besides the betoot advocate isn't a real paper it's a satirical website.

I have a jab 430 with Dynon D180 with autopilot and also a full suite of round gauges. Thought long and hard about that when I built it. In the end opted for complete redundancy in case the Dynon died. I'm am currently still flying but had to send the Dynon back to the USA for repairs About a month ago - for the second time in the 12 years I've had the plane. There's a trade off with not having all the round gauges. When the glass goes down ( not " if" but " when")

Mmm I have to suggest I may be wrong on this. I can't find reference to to it. I can find reference to one person being nominated. But the reason I was sure about it enough to post it was because I was advised and as best I recall it was an by an AP this was the case for the following reasons. Scenario: Two people build the aircraft and both do significant parts of the build and are qualified under CASA IA 15/16 to do maintenance work on the parts they built and by virtue of ie having done a maintenance procedures course both "could" be authorised to sign the maintenance release. If only one is able to sign the Maintenance release then it requires that person to be present to sign even though the work is done by someone else. It then follows that if that person is not present ( many scenarios where this could occur) and some work is done by the second person then the aircraft is " unairworthy" for lack of a signature despite the aircraft actually being airworthy and maintained by the person who is qualified to maintain it. Multiple scenarios could be envisaged where that person authorised is not available for long periods of time and the aircraft is grounded despite no practical reason being so grounded. The second scenario is that the person with the authority to sign may have no legal capacity to actually do the specific maintenance, inspect, have any knowledge about or approve its adequacy if he/she did not do the initial build on that part of the aircraft. The person who did build it has that authority under CASA IA 15/16 to do the maintenance but is unable to sign the release regarding it. While the same could be said for a group it makes no sense that in a group of two only one could sign. But as I said I can't find any reference at present. I'll have a bit more if a look around.

Well - after throwing the cat amongst the pigeons ( and with the immense help of 44032 ) my concerns have been laid to rest. The above mentioned problem of amateur built aircraft and controlled airspace, populous areas and my mates A of C which did not allow these, has turned out to be a complex mix of unrelated things which mimicked the CASA website stuff. Basically what I mean is that proposal from CASA was quietly cancelled ( in part by pressure from SAAA) and did not become law. There is no mention of it having done so on CASA website - but I suppose I can understand why they just let it go and don't want to publicise how they had to back down on something. My mates C of A turns out to be related to some specific events and people involved ( unrelated to the above) and I understand he is working around these issues.

This has been discussed on this forum before somewhere but I am too lazy to search for it :yikes:but the previous thread someone found the Rules pertaining to it and it is outlined that the professional factory made contents of the kit, the factory made avionics etc don't come into the 51%. The rules as I recall them were fairly sensible ( unbelievably) and made the concerns we all had redundant.

Yep. The is no requirement that an individual alone has done the work just that the majority is done by the builders. Where two or a small number of people do the work both can be given approval to do maintenance and to sign maintenance releases. Where a group of people or a class at a school or college or similar collective does the work, one person can be allocated as the responsible person and that person then can sign releases, log books etc.

Who knows? They didn't include it in the project summary but that's not to say they haven't done so since or aren't planning on adding them in. CASA have kept the whole thing very quiet and the only reason it was even an issue for us is that one of the members of my SAAA chapter got snared by it. When only a trickle of people are caught by it at a time there's very little noise and it flies under the radar. I suspect that's what CASA wants until the lawyers are finished and the final rule will come out with a bang but by then they will say it's too late, the rule is made!

ive sent you pm

Not sure how to interpret this and to what you are referring. However, assuming you are stating it in response to my post I can only say I wish it were true ( that it didn't happen) But given this came to my notice as president of an SAAA chapter when a builder in my chapter after years of building an aircraft which he planned to fly into controlled airspace and over populous areas was refused that permission. So it not only has happened I have found evidence to support it having happened. After doing some searching on CASAs website I found a minimal reference to this and then I discussed it with the AP who was the one who issued the C of A and he confirmed that CASA has removed from all APs giving approval to fly amateur build aircraft over populous areas, into CTA and IFR until some as yet unnamed date when CASA will have come up with an actual set of rules. It is apparently with the CASA lawyers at the moment and it is possible there will be a published set of rulers in a few weeks. The AP said that APs were given an unpublished set of rules to follow until the final rulings were made. But that there was much confusion in this rules and as to whom it applied ( which sort of engines or props. He interprets that it is only non certificated engines and props and does not apply to actual airframes. But some of his AP colleagues interpret that airframes also are affected. The problem is typical of CASA rulings where they make rules without consultation and only after they make rulings do the confusions and ambiguities of their rules become apparent. Below is the only references I could find on the CASA website but as usual what they have done is outlawed something and then wait for the flak and see if it has created enough noise to warrant actually doing anything about. So far it hasn't, it seems. The cut and paste below is from the casa website and has the similar information in two different places ( both copied here) It outlines projects casa is/has done and states the project is closed. It states the authority for APs to authorise these activities has been removed. It says a future circular will be published when the new rules are finalised. However there appears to be no further publications following on from this. The stated AC.21 xxx is not findable with multiple searches using different techniques so one has to assume that it has not yet been finalised nor published. This accords with the APs advice to me that it is with the lawyers. Project MS 11/18 - Review of Advisory Circulars & Development of CAAP relating to limited category and experimental aircraft Flight over built up areas CAR 262AP and CAO 95.55 state that amateur built experimental aircraft must not fly over built up areas unless authorised by CASA or a CAR 262AP(5) authorised person to do so. There currently is not a published set of CASA requirements, procedures and limitations for approval of amateur built experimental aircraft for flight over built up areas and due to concerns about the unstructured manner in which some of these approvals have been granted in the past, CASA has decided to withdraw the delegated powers from appointed persons. 2. Flight over built up areas The second project objective is to introduce a set of parameters and procedures for the assessment of applications by operators of amateur built experimental aircraft for approval under CAR 262 AP(5) to fly over built up areas. It is proposed to achieve this by publishing a new advisory circular, AC21.xx - AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AND CERTAIN ULTRA LIGHT AIRCRAFT- FLIGHTS OVER BUILT UP AREAS. The procedures are intended to thoroughly address CASA concerns by specifying in detail, the assessment criteria to be applied to the type of aircraft, engine, PSRU (where applicable) and propeller. A standardised set of eligibility parameters and assessment criteria and procedures will address CASA concerns about the currently unstructured and in some cases arbitrary granting of CAR 262 AP (5) approvals.

Yep. But now a word of warning. I was just speaking to our chapter AP about another matter and its worth throwing this new thing in the mix. If you are thinking of registering it in the GA experimental class AND you want to fly it into controlled airspace, over populous areas or IFR then DON'T buy an engine or a prop that is not type certificated. Late last year CASA removed all authority for APs to give approval for aircraft with non-certified engines to do any of the above mentioned things. The AP has no say in it, they no longer are able. There has been a bit of very quiet happenings on this. I first heard about 3 months ago when one of our chapter members finally completed his RV14 and has one of those modified Lycoming or Continental knock offs (can't recall which) which are really popular in the USA. But not Type certifcated/approved. He now has a GA registered "as good as-RAAus" aircraft. No CTA, no IFR, no over populous areas. Apparently there has been quite a bit of confusion and even the APs don't know what they can and can't approve. The actual legislation is in the hands of CASA lawyers at present but it all sounds very bad for anyone with a non certificated engine. Potentially even if you have one from previous with an approval - it may be stripped from you in the next few weeks.

With regard Experimental class ( VH registered) I have no idea about the RAAus situation. ANY aircraft made by ANYONE -paid or not, home or factory built, made from anything no matter what percentage is home made/built to can be registered as an VH experimental aircraft. You can sub-contract out significant parts such as dash, avionics installations or electronics to professionals. You can pay anybody any amount to make any percentage you like. There is at least one Cessna 172 on the register ( with a deisel engine). The problem is that once it's on the Experimental register it's stuck there and can't be used for any hire or reward, commercial work etc. so a factory built would become severely limited in its value so unless you were doing something really weird with it it would not be worth it. What changes is the authority to do any of the ongoing maintenance. If you can satisfy the AP that you did the work the AP can give you authority ( supported by the CASA instrument of Authority) to do maintenance. If you can't satisfy this rule then you will be limited to CASA Schedule 8 pilot maintenance only. Any maintenance then has to be done by a LAME. If you sell the aircraft then the new owner cannot do maintenance on the aircraft except in one circumstance ( unless they have already built a previous aircraft which is substantially the same and for which they were given authority under that same instrument). There are heaps of Experimental Aircraft that belong to second or subsequent owners and plenty that were commenced as kits etc and sold on to subsequent builders before completion. It makes for complexity in records but is entirely possible for the subsequent owner to be granted authority and for it to be registered under the Experimental category.

I agree with you on all those. As I said in the opening line in my response to Nev. . Not trying to defend the indefensible. Just happens that this topic is easily found and is explained. One of the few times I have looked for something and found it without tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth!

As much as I agree with you that on some things the rules are impossible to follow or navigate - this is not one of them. It took me less than 5 minutes to find it and read the relevant sections. In the AIP there is a contents page - it is easily followed to the air space designations which is even easier to go to the PRD section and in about three pages the answers tumble out in front of you.

Just to reiterate The AIP outlines it all in ENR 1.4 sections 5 - All in absolute black and white - restricted RA1 means when it's active it's Class C. But you could plan to go through but you gotta get approval and it is likely to be given but it may be refused. Given it's in the middle of the Nowra zone it's a certainty there would be a tower ( and it will be outlined in the ERSA who and how to contact to get that approval. That carries the assumption it requires you ( and the aircraft) to be qualified to enter it. I have to assume from your questioning you do not have the qualifications to enter class C airspace. So essentially if that remains the case, when R421A goes active you're grounded. I want to ask another question that derives from your question. You ask if you need a CTA endorsement to enter it as an RAAus pilot? Have I missed a change in the rules but it's my understanding that there is no such RAAus CTA endorsement ( only a GA RPL endorsement). AFAIK It's a wish list item for RAAus but does not exist. Have I got that right?

OK Fair enough.

Not sure why you you say this. The EAA Was the major user group who drove the basic Med change. Along with the American AOPA but last time I read about it EAA had more members than AOPA.. I was an EAA member until this year ( only dropped it cos I figured I wasn't actually using it any more) and their journals and web site had stuff about it for ages and they have been driving the medical reforms since at least 2013 when I joined.

But just be sure you have every official map because there are a number of airfields that have appeared at times on one but not other official maps. Be sure you know where nearby marked airfields are even if you aren't going there because where two airfields are marked but there is a gap between them it is common for aircraft moving from one airfield to the other to remain on 126.7 because they are needing to advise traffic in the circuit areas they are coming so they are likely to remain on 126.7 not change to area and miss the important traffic in their destination. Also look at and get as much information as you can about altitudes where Area frequency is not functional. It's common for rural airports to not have any or adequate area freq reception but to be easily heard on 126.7 by aircraft operating at nearby marked. Airfields ( which often also has repeater functions and is relayed to other airfields which control centre can also hear and monitor. ) Oh damn, so that's why we have all this argument in the first place.

Birddog, This current thread is not going to get you an answer, in part but by no means limited to, because there is widespread confusion as to what form of airspace you are actually trying to describe. Mil CTR or Restricted Area which are two completely different things. Can you tell us your exact location and what form of controlled area you are located in - Is it a Mil CTR or is it an Rxxxx (PRD) type restricted area. Name of and numbers so we can look it up would be a great help. In fact its the only way we will stop all the bush lawyers going off on tangents about airspace rules for Class E, downtown Baghdad or the far side of the moon

I'm sorry to say this but: MAN this thread has degenerated into an endless loop of crazy (and mostly wrong) interpretations (and unrelated red herrings) revolving and disappearing up its own arse.

Of course the question remains - why do you want to fly into a restricted area while its active? When A restricted area is activated its because there are military aircraft or bullets or both flying around. Or do you mean a military control zone at a military airfield? That's an entirely different meaning and proposition. We have a bunch a restricted areas south of here around Townsville. The areas are frequently active and have fast jets and helos flying at all levels without lights or radio calls. No way you want be there when they are active. I always plan for flights around them as you will usually not get clearance to cross them when they are active even if you ask properly. In fact I have never heard of civilian aircraft being given approval to enter active restricted areas except for flying doctor aircraft on a Med 1 priority task. Interestingly though theres a vfr entry route from the west through it and once I was with another aircraft ( RAAus ) transiting the lane and the other guy was not sure where he was - drifted into the area. Got calls from military controller telling him to turn back into the lane. He turned wrong way and got deeper into it. They called a couple of times and he got flustered etc made things worse. They called back and words to the effect of "control and advisory services are terminated. You are entering a live firing area at your own responsibity for whatever happens from here.!" As far as I am aware he never heard anything more about it. ( although it's possible he did and just never told me. ) Oops Mea Culpa - I just reread the initial post and you did say a military control zone (not a restricted area). It was someone further down the line seems it drifted off into a confused state. Back into my box!

There are heaps of half and half versions as well. If you like the side stick but like the feel of the stick being central you can set up a t-bar like system that are in Robinson helicopters. Obviously you Dont need both sides for duals in a single seater so you can drop one side.

However you've all missed the significant point. That is that there are many situations that don't have rules to cover them ( not that people have just decided to make up their own) they genuinely don't have rules or they have rules which can't be followed. There are busy country airfields that don't appear on maps, or that appear on one map but not others and if you don't know that they are on another map then you will be "legally" using a different frequency to someone else who uses a different map that has the airfield marked. There are airfields that are outside the "vicinities" ( just) between two airfields that do appear on maps and strictly a pilot should be on area while two nearby airfields are using 126.7 and traffic to ransitting between the two are using 126.7 And one near here that is under the steps of a nearby major airfield but has its own 126.7 frequency but also has significant traffic entering from yet another area freq. Sticking to the rules means you definitely will not hear traffic because there are so many frequencies that legally require you to be on different frequencies. In these areas there is vast confusion as to what frequency people should be on, because it's not actually covered by the rules. If the rule makers had had some forthought then a lot of the anger and different interpretations wouldn't exist.