skippydiesel

Better - more advanced pic; PTT buttons are from JayCar😈

Received new DC ear cup/dome Thursday. Had great fun dismantling, reassembling wiring etc. Tested Friday - all good including ANR (noise cancelling). My thanks to Bushcaddy105 - his suggestions have worked very well. 😈

In Cruise, I fly with the proverbial "two " fingers, about midway down the stick, so that my arm rests on my knee/thigh. I may add further fingers, as required, in strong turbulence. My hand turned "grips" look good, are comfortable, do give my hand a place to reside in more demanding stages of flight - TO, Climb, descent to Landing.😈

I am not a lawyer, so the following is speculation based on a little knowledge and some experince running public events. As I understand it - a limited yes. A waiver will not avoid responsibility for things like: Not declaring an unsafe situaton, known or should have known about. A deliberate act or failure to act, by the owner/operator or their designee, creating an incident. Falsifying something that leads to an incident eg best I can come up with at short notice, might be something like overstating the length /condition of the landing ground. Failing to adequately supervise/control the movement of aircraft, vehicles, people and even livestock, such that they not cause an incident. Licensed pilots who elect to land at private strip, do so at their own risk, subject to the owner/operator declaring all known hazards (if exist) taking reasonable (in the circumstances) precautions to keep everyone safe and signing "a waver" agreeing to landing/taking off at their own risk The only reason that a document , needs to be signed & returned, by pilots intending to use the landing ground, is that the owner/operator has a record of their willingness to attend at their own risk.. Simply posting a notice saying the same thing, is open to a pilot claiming they never saw it.😈

Correction - I fitted a CARMO CARR5115 MOSFIT VR not a 5005.😈

I don't think there is any under GA either. The RAA/GA rules/ regulations all come from CASA. Going back to the original question on insurance & student liability. Its my contention that the student is, at all times, under the supervision of the Instructor ergo the Instructor is PIC. Therefor can not be liable for any incident while so supervised. If not liable, not responsible for insurance. That at some time the student may go solo, only changes the degree of direct control, not the basic premise, that is they are still under supervision. The loose /miss use of the phrase "Pilot In Command" for a student going solo, muddies the waters. It misrepresents the actual legal situation, as it suggests that the student has moved from the Instructors supervision, thus making them liable for contribution to an insurance claim, should one occur. While I agree that the student is on a journey of increasing aviation skill/knowledge and responsibility, I do not think they become fully responsible (PIC) until licensed/certified ie are no longer a student. Ergo they can not be held responsible for any part of an insurance claim (obviously wilful damage, straying from the agreed flight plan, etc may modify this in whole or part). CASA has erred in the use of the phrase PIC, when applied to a student. A more correct phrase may be something like Student Pilot in Control ie continuing the reality, that the Instructor is the responsible party, the PIC. Note; Command has never inferred that direct (hands on) control is a necessary condition of its use. My pedantic focus on the word " Command" is because I feel that it is the miss use of this word, that is key to the debate on students being coerced into signing a document that commits them to pay the excess, on any insurance claim, for the aircraft they are using, that may occur. It has been an interesting debate (thanks BrendAn) however I suspect that this matter (student/insurance/Command) can only be resolved in a court, assuming CASA and the Flying School(s) practising the coercive student insurance participation, do not read my threads😈

As for Thruster - please provide details as soon as you have them . Part of the pleasure , for me, is the planning & expectation 😈

Septembers a long way away - something to put in the colanders when you supply details. There are quite a few towns that claim to be the Central NSW - Cobar, Condobolin, Hilston come to mind - tad vague😈

Unfortunatly no. Very Very Disappointed. Had been looking forward to & planning for both away trips for months. Purchased new camping equipment and all. Had the Sonex loaded & fuelled - Voltage Regulator failure caused me to return to The Oaks about 5 minutes after TO. Repair not feasible, in the short term, so missed Old Station as well. New CARMO CARR5005 VR now installed - with 2 hrs on the Hobbs performing well - long may it continue to do so.😈

Yes if you wish, however I would prefer a considered analysis, of the last significant post I entered on the word Command. It is the correct meaning/use of this word, that I consider key to your question on insurance, as it indicates the rights & responsibilities of the pilot.😈

Its definitely looks like a work vehicle😈

More attack, with no attempt to analyse. This has always been the strategy of the closed minded - The joke, my friend is on you😈

So! In short you cant fault the logic of my statement, exploring the logic or lack of, in the current practise, PIC & student. Is that what the tennis people call Game Set & Match? On the RAA - did you not see where I wrote of my conversation , on this matter, with no less than two RAA officials - not so supportive of your wild assertions.😈

Go on , lets see you logically take apart my statement (above)😈

Laugh all you wish BrendAn - the joke remains with you until you put up or shut up😈

Why don't you try and attack my logic or are insults all you are capable of ? 😈

I have had a further thought or two about the word Command. In General It is possible to be In Command of a vessel/aircraft/ machine however you can not Command (verb) a non sentient object ie you can not Command a machine, your utterances will have no disenable effect. Command infers authority to control humans or other beings eg a working dog, by the use of words (verbal or writen). In Aviation A Pilot In Command (PIC) implies a great deal more than mechanical control (as in manipulate the machine so as to achieve flight). The PIC has legal standing & responsibility, must by convention & I suggest, law, be licenced ie not a student . It is tempting to think of a solo (unlicensed/student) pilot as PIC, as they are the only person on board, so must if circumstances (safety of aircraft) dictate, make authoritative decisions. However this is to ignore the role of the students Instructor, who is in fact the only Commander (PIC) in this relationship/situation. Note; The Instructor need not be in the aircraft to maintain this relationship. By law & convention, there can not be two PICs for the same aircraft/time, ergo the student can never be PIC. CASA/RAA/FAAA and any other authority that uses the words Pilot In Command for an unlicensed pilot, are simple incorrect, inconsistent with other aviation rules, regulations & custom. Their intentions may be known/understood, even supported however the terminology does not accurately reflect the situation, that the student is under the Command of the Instructor. Just because a bureaucracy (staffed by fallible humans) draws up a regulation, this does not mean it is necessarily worded well (grey areas), correct (wrong) or consistent with (supports/contradicts) other regulations. Those who blindly refer to/quote the regulations, without critical thought, undermine democracy and ultimately the rule of law.😈

Is it my imagination or has there realy been a marked reduction in the number of fly-in's this year? I much prefer the informality & comradery of fly-in's to air shows. Clifton, Qld, is coming up but seems to have reduced to a one day event - hard to justify a long flight for one day. After Clifton - nothing on the horizon that I know of. 😈

Aro - Friend you are just wrong about almost every point. Pilot In Command is not just some way of saying a person is flying an aircraft - it has legal meaning, ramifications and authority. Check into it before you respond. 😈

I fly from the Sydney Basin. When I first used SE2 I could not believe the numbed of aircraft that were in my vicinity. OzRunways on its own, only showed other OzRunways carrying aircarft. I now get almost all aircraft - much safer. Must still use the Mk1 eyeball but now know where in space to look. Annoyances: The suction mounting seems to pick the worst times to drop the whole shebang. I get an annoying "tick" in my headset . Comes and goes depending orientation of head to SE2 . I follow the recommended charging regime - at home. I would much rather charge from the aircraft power. I highly recomend this little white box 😈

😈

I beg to differ (of course). In your scenario; The matter has been discussed by the Instructor & Student, a possibly satisfactory course of action arrived at. I do agree that the Student has had significant input - as he/she should. They have never been expected to slavishly adhere to the Instructions. In fact to do so would be counter to the ultimate aim of the Instructor, that is to deliver a new hatched autonomous licensed pilot. In time, the student, now a licensed pilot will not be required to consult with the Instructor (PIC). The fact remains the Instructor is PIC & there can not be two PIC's. That the Instructor is not physically in the aircraft is not relevant, except to say that the student is on a journey of increasing independence. As the journey/training progresses, so the confidence of the Instructor, in the students capacity to make appropriate decisions increases. When judged up to it, the student will be first released into the training area. In time will go on a solo X country - clearly they are close to achieving their unrestricted pilots license/certificate and decisions made at this time will have near the weight of a qualified pilot. Should there be an incident, the standard achieved by the student & the circumstances (eg was the student following the agreed flight plan), will of course mitigate the blame levelled at the Instructor. Once qualified the new pilot may become PIC in the FULL sense/meaning of the word, within the aviation context. Carrying your scenario a little further; Who would be to blame if the the Instructor said "Land AS Instructed" and the student refused. Later crashing due to fuel exhaustion, weather, etc? The answer my friend is simple - The Instructor would carry by the far the greater proportion of the blame. Why? because legally & culturally the Instructor is the responsible entity in this relationship. Again this makes the instructor PIC. "Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time" These are the words and I believe they are wrong and should be changed to reflect the true situaton, which is student pilot in control, under the direction of the Instructor who remains PIC at all times 😈

As I said - read what has been writen earlier - I have made my position on this clear. Its not about "fair" - Its about legality, custom and rational behaviour - read the earlier posts.😈

😈

Now I understand; From the the original question/statement by BrendAn, I understood that the student is being required to sign a Flight School document, agreeing to pay the excess component, of any insurance claim, that may be made as a consequence of their use of a training aircraft. I am unaware of the student taking out their own insurance , other than what they get as a pilot member of RAA. IF the Flight School is doing this - its an agreement with the school - not the insurance company. I suggests you read the various posts that precede yours. It may save you going over points already explored. Should you wish to continue, after doing this, I will be happy to debate further😈