Ignition

You need a transponder to use Class E airspace, ATC still know you are there, and where you are, so long as your transponder is working and if you are at correct hemispherical levels, IFR traffic should not conflict. The only conflict would be climb/descent but even then it is highly unlikely. Mid airs are one of the rarest causes of a crash, even in the USA, and is far less concern than say spinning onto final. Sure, I am not saying they should not be allowed to have a CTA endorsement to transit in Class C, however the costs and regulations are not really worth it when it could be done with less trouble. Besides, Coffs is Class D, and RAAus already operate out of there (by exemption), and in Class D it is still up to the PIC to see and avoid, separation of VFR and IFR is not provided by ATC, not much different to Class E airspace. The biggest difference with Coffs would be that you would have effctively the exact same aircraft operating exactly the same way, however as it stands, they are jammed into a smaller patch of sky, rather than opening up a currently under-used altitude block and spreading out across what could be a nice big block of E airspace, because of the current overlying Class C, which is unnecessary. Effectively, as it stands, it is less safe now than what it would be if the overlying C was reclassified as E - and CASA's role is supposed to focus on the safety of all aircraft, not just RPT, as far as I can see. By your idea on Class E, Coffs (and all Class D and E airspace) would need to become Class C, and more restrictive.

So therefore, because Coffs is close to the beach, you feel that it would be unsafe for Class E to be over the top of the airfield from say 5000ft up to the Class A LL and therefore the entire area needs to become a complete roadblock? As an example, Santa Barbara in the USA (roughly 80nm NW of LAX) is reasonably similar setup to Coffs (and even Newcastle to an extent) - 5-7,000ft mountains and forest, pretty crappy place to fly over. Santa Barbara Airport is right on the beach, reasonably similar runway directions as Coffs & Newcastle, yet they manage to have Class E over the top from 4800ft up - and they do it just fine, safely. Aircraft on Approach or Descent are generally not going to be overhead the airport at these altitudes, and if they are, separation is rarely a problem. It makes it far safer for everyone. This is an example of where the MDX crash wouldn't have happened had they been able to transit direct through Newcastle in an area that really wasn't going to be an issue. Newcastle already has VFR lanes, so if the traffic were to follow the lanes, in Class E (no clearance needed) the controllers already know where to route the traffic around that is going into Newcastle. It isn't like people transiting are going to be going all over the shop and completely unpredictable, they generally are transiting A to B for a reason and to be able to do this over safer terrain efficiently (not going out west) should be a big consideration. With the amount of airspace our controlled airports already have locked away, protecting the approach & departure paths is hardly going to be a problem. As a side note, you can fly directly overhead Atlanta airport (the busiest in the world by aircraft numbers) from 12,500ft upwards, in Class E; safely. And transit directly in front of the Runways, 5nm away - yet Newcastle is locked up for a 12nm radius - if this were reduced to 5nm to match the busiest airport in the world, the Coastal VFR lane would be in Class G. (Or alternatively, a Victor Lane could be put along the beach, just like Sydney.) which would solve that problem. As I said before, there are plenty of ways to do it with out adding regulations and complicating things. As far as I am concerned, RAAus does not need a CTA Endorsement. Our Airspace on the other hand, could do with a reduction of boundaries, in line with the USA

I'm guessing you have never flown in North America then or you would understand the purpose of Class E and how it works (over there at least). Victor One is technically *in* Sydney's Class C airspace, it is just a carving off the internal side of the 8.5 DME arc (aka where it is for the most part SFC to 2500 Class C) and reclassed as G airspace. There is no reason it can't be done anywhere else, or at different altitudes for that matter (in the case of Coffs being right on the beach)

Or the alternative, instead of having more regulation (ie. RAAus getting a CTA endorsement, needing to spend time and money to qualify for the endorsement when all you want to do is transit), why not make it easy like the USA and simply reclassify a block of Class C airspace (say 5000ft to FL180) to Class E instead, or if that is too much of an ask, chuck a few more Victor lanes in around Coffs/Williamtown etc. There are plenty of ways that transit over safer terrain could be done that don't involve more regulation. Unfortunately we like to reinvent the wheel though so less regulation would be unlikely with any change.

The climb rate was around 1200-1500fpm. He took off around 1:23:00, was level at 3000 at 1:25:30 (roughly 2.5 minutes), then 30 seconds later at 1:26:00 something has gone wrong and 20 seconds after that at 1:26:20 was the impact into the ground. It looks like he took off from Runway 17 R.

He wasn't gliding, webtrak shows 6-9000fpm and increasing descent rate. From 3000ft, cruising along the beach, to impact in 20 seconds. I assume from that it would have to be structural or medical related.

Ok, so I was reading another thread and discussions on VFR lanes like Victor One, which would be great for many places along the coast so that RAAus can transit safer areas rather than tiger country at low levels. Maybe instead of reinventing the wheel, we could just copy the US FAA Airspace System like Dick Smith tried to do a few years back, then this discussion wouldn't be happening... Class E Airspace over the top of most airports, ATC focused where they are really needed, in the circuit and immediate vicinity of an airport, and stress free and flexible flying for everyone. Of course a lot of people were against Dick's changes, because they assumed he was in it for his own gain, or jealousy, I don't really know... but I don't see it that way. To me, it is clear he just wants the best aviation system, and if it is great for him, that is cool, but we also would get the exact same benefits. Why would it be a problem for our airspace to be logical and make sense rather than having things that are unique to us and only add to the stress rather than make for a good user friendly experience? Honestly, I think if we were to copy the US System (and also get the XM Satellite Weather and traffic to increase situational awareness), we could be the best in the world for Aviation. We live in a huge country where most places are spread out, there isn't anywhere better that I can think of... I've done some flying in Canada, which as far as I know is similar if not the same rules as the USA, and its a world of difference. I was in one of the busiest areas, and ATC are friendly, they work in with the pilots rather than pilots working in with them as is done here. There was never a 'clearance unavailable at this time, remain outside CTA' or anything to that effect, it was always 'remain west of this location, and this is the other traffic'. It was friendly, and welcoming, and that was IN Controlled Airspace. For those who are unfamiliar with the US Airspace, here is some light reading: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) And for a comparison, Australian Airspace: http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/navigation/airspace.html (Notice the difference? Class C becomes a roadblock in Australia, where as in the USA you can go right over the top. Safely.) It works in the USA, why wouldn't it work here?

Have you looked at the http://flywithspa.com/panther/pantherspecs.html http://flywithspa.freshdesk.com/support/articles/123165-how-big-is-the-panther-cockpit-will-you

The only AirCruiser is hangared at Frogs Hollow Airfield (South Coast NSW, near Merimbula) and is still flying.

My suggestion as a local and for the easiest (and more scenic route): Merimbula to Moruya: Coastal (Radio Freq at Merimbula and Moruya is 126.7, enroute if you can monitor both area (120.75) and 126.7 do that, otherwise most people tend to stick to 126.7 because its not a huge distance and you can generally hear ops at both airports) Moruya to Canberra: Almost Direct via Captains Flat - Head up the Araluen Valley (keep the radio tower on your right at the start of the valley, there is a grass strip halfway up the valley which is a one way strip and about 800m long, if you need to use it in an emergency, stay over the cleared area to the south and approach the strip from the south, and you will want extra height in the valley, so 6500 or 8500) until you get to the Captains Flat VFR Waypoint and then into Canberra. The ERSA is your friend for Canberra, give them a call for GA Parking and use of the GA Terminal. As a side note, if you were to go Merimbula to Polo Flat instead, be aware of Frogs Hollow Airfield approx 10nm north west of Merimbula (direcly south of Bega township about 5nm)

See picture:

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_AccidentCause-207911-1.html

I dunno, I don't see this having any effect on safety really regardless of whether it changes or not. If people want to grab a "UAV" from Toys R Us and head down to the end of 16R at YSSY to scare some pilots, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now, nor will there ever be, and yet up until now there hasn't been an issue with it. Most people are responsible and wouldn't want to risk losing a couple hundred bucks by flying an expensive toy into the path of a plane... It's a bit like the ASIC card, it might make you feel good, but in reality it does sweet nothing. Especially when most people would have no idea that CASA have any regulations regarding UAVs (or for that matter, most wouldn't know CASA exist.) so they aren't going to follow any training or licencing anyway. From where I stand, any changes to the light end of the toys is a non-event. In saying that, is there an ICAO definition of a UAV, such as empty weight or size, some sort of defining specs? When I think of an actual UAV, I think of something like a Global Hawk. Where do RC (Toys) stop and where do UAVs start?

What positive things can we learn from this story to make flying safer: - Precautionary Landings before things get too bad are always a smart option - The 5/6 P's, prior planning prevents poor performance.. Plan every detail to the best extent you can, if going on a cross country flight where there is the potential for bad weather, don't jump in the plane, grab OzRunways and blast off, plan your flight before you get in the plane properly, allow a good number of alternates so that you never find yourself dodging storms and going through holes. Feel free to add to the list...

And this highlights a safety culture that needs to change! If people are afraid to tell there stories based on recieving a little criticism (constructive or otherwise) then they really should be re-evaluating whether they are in the correct mindset to be behind the controls of an aircraft. Maybe, just maybe, if people weren't scared about looking like a wanker or too proud to admit they may have f***cked up, we could all learn from their mistakes and aviation would become just that bit safer. If you are one of the people who says that this does not encourage people to share their stories, than you are one of the people contributing to this idea of it being shameful for others to know you have made a mistake. We all make mistakes from time to time and if people shared their stories more often, more people would feel less shamed to admit they stuffed up, because hey, they arent alone, and that changes the entire safety culture where people can post shit and be happy knowing that other pilots have their back and are willing to point out areas that they may be deficient or need to get some more training with and suddenly we find we would all be working together to make aviation the safest it can be. So if you genuinely are scared about posting a story were you have stuffed up, reconsider whether you should be flying at all because that story you don't share may have the ability to save someone else from making the same mistake, and potentially save a life.

"cloud closing in......bad, he tells me head out off Dunk, looks ok out there, get under it, then all's good. So east I go, iPad has me now over Dunk, things are not looking good, infact BAD.....so 180 it is, back inland, tracking Garnet, bit by bit I'm now getting better glimps of ground, bewdy, iPad has me near Dimbulah, good hole under me, bewdy, down to 2000 I go, now tracking Atherton, in the distance it's not looking good, big storm clouds, raining for sure, so now track Mareeba, dodge a couple of rain cells, but arrive Ok." Relying on GPS for position, Glimpses of the ground and needing to go through a hole to get under the layer of cloud you are above... Does not sound VFR, a precautionary landing earlier would have been a better decision if this were the situation.

This story terrifies me, Flight level 7500, poor planning, VFR pilot flying IFR conditions, relying on OzRunways GPS and other pilots for weather, far too many risks taken. Human Factors, perfect example. Please take the time to get more training before you become a statistic. And I mean that with genuine concern for your safety and the safety of others.

Photos and Video were the standard iPhone Camera App, editing music and the entire thing was done in PowerDirector 11.

How I spent Easter - filmed on my iPhone 5s.

Of course we all know how useless an ASIC is, but if it is in fact here to stay, they could at least have it replace the paper pilots licence... Maybe that could be an alternative to lobby for.

Statistically speaking (in the US at least, but I assume the Australian figures would be similar) you are far more likely to stall/spin a perfectly good aircraft into the ground, than to have a mid-air collision. - http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_AccidentCause-207911-1.html The best collision avoidance tool really is looking outside, rather than having your head inside fixated on a traffic monitor. As soon as you start having something else inside the cockpit that is designed to prevent something else from happening, you are going to be spending an awful lot of time looking inside monitoring them and while you are looking at them, you aren't flying the plane. Sometimes there can be too many tools, keep it simple, and remember to fly the plane. In saying that, if there were one low cost traffic avoidance tool I'd be looking at adding to the cockpit, it would be something like a Xaon, with a voice alert, that way I am able to keep the eyes outside and still hear an alert. Unfortunately Xaon are out of business now though.

Good to see another young person having a go Just looking at your planned route, very seriously look at changing the Aleutians part (Attu Island & St Paul Island), weather in the Aleutians is marginal almost all year round, changes rapidly (you may experience every season in 10 minutes.) average rainfall is around 2000mm per year, the winds are so strong due to a semi-permanent low that most of the Aleutians have zero trees - basically you will have only a handful of days that are ok at best and you can expect fog and wind on those days too. If you get stuck there, you will want some long term survival gear (including a firearm, preferably two, absolutely necessary in bear territory) as it could be a few months before you fly out; not only this, you would have to factor in the risks that the rescue crews may have to put themselves into to rescue you if something were to go wrong, it isn't going to be safe for them either. If you end up in the water, which is highly possible in this part of the world, you will be dead in minutes, at most. It is simply one of the most dangerous places in the world to fly. You could go a little more north via Russia & the Bering Strait which isn't going to be much better and could get expensive when dealing with the Russian Authorities, or what I personally would think is the far safer option and recommend you consider is to go over the Pacific ocean, like Ryan Campbell did. If however you do choose to continue with the Aleutians, good luck and to put it frankly, if you survive the Aleutians, you will almost certainly find Alaska and well, the whole trip, a piece of cake in comparison. But please, consider changing the route.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/service-rv6.htm - Service Bulletins for the RV-6 can be found here - Vans actually do release SB's, and on everything I have searched through, I find zero references to Vans "quietly adopting" any mods similar to what you speak of. Well, I can find a few issues with the techniques and things he says, but I will reserve my comment on those in order to remain on topic. In my opinion, RV's are very safe and strong aircraft - when operated right. Interesting ATSB report there too: "Examination at the accident site revealed that the aircraft struck the ground while banked about 90 degrees left, and descending at an angle of about 34 degrees." - I cant imagine that being comfortable with many aircraft.

Care to provide a link to the Service Bulliten for this apparent RV-6 cockpit strengthening mod? That link you provide is interesting too... How much experience did the pilot have in RV's? Its all well and good to provide a story, but a story is just that without context; as Mat says above, who is the author and what makes him an expert?

What causes a stall?