dutchroll

Sort of. CAAPs have no technical legal standing themselves which is why CASA puts the "advisory" legal disclaimer on them, but they are designed to summarise and explain the requirements of the legal documents such as CARs, CAOs, etc. they provide a list of the applicable references at the end which you can look up. Ignoring a current CAAP just because you can't find the corresponding reference is most unwise, in my opinion. You do it at your own risk.

7.3.1 When departing or arriving at non-controlled aerodromes, pilots should monitor their radios and broadcast their intentions in accordance with the following and paragraph 7.3.4:  When at or near a non-controlled aerodrome or in a Broadcast Area with a CTAF, including those assigned Multicom 126.7, listen and broadcast as necessary on the published frequency.  When at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes marked on charts that have not been assigned a discrete frequency, use Multicom 126.7.  When operating at aerodromes not depicted on aeronautical charts, pilots should monitor and broadcast their intentions on the relevant Area VHF. If you're not "at or in the vicinity of" the aerodrome, you should be monitoring the applicable area frequency. In the vicinity: An aircraft is in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within:  airspace other than controlled airspace; and  a horizontal distance of 10 NM from the aerodrome (reference point); and  a height above the aerodrome (reference point) that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome. CAAP 166-1(3) Any local special procedures in ERSA of course override this.

Yes that was rather a screwup from RR, who actually do normally make quite good engines. I think to say they were embarrassed by their manufacturing defect is an understatement. They paid quite a hefty sum in compensation to Qantas for that one. Aircraft manufacturers are all economical with the truth when their marketing people get involved talking about how efficient, reliable and economical their new plane is going to be. I have never seen an exception to this rule. Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed (from first hand experience). All of them. What it essentially comes down to is "which new aircraft is going to be the least disappointing when comparing real performance to the marketing blurb?"

Most of our Airbus A330s have "performance factor" adjustments set into the FMC of +3 to +7% depending on the individual aircraft. This is for fuel flow calculations which are higher than the manufacturer's spec. The A380 is pretty bad but I don't know what the numbers are. These get set in virtually from day 1 of operation. Boeing do the same. I have never, ever seen a "negative" one, ie fuel flow performance better than the manufacturer's spec, in my whole career.

The A350 will be more economical, but not as much as the manufacturer's hype! I've never seen an Airbus meet the original fuel economy spec yet.

^^^ I was actually going to say much the same thing, almost word for word! Thanks for absolving me of any necessity to do it! I was also going to add "Twice in two years? Cry me a bloody river!"

Do you consider yourself a "victim" when you're stopped for an RBT on the road?

Yes that's right. You don't get infinite chances. I know our program is designed to get people back on their feet. Our company doesn't hire drunks. What usually happens is that pressure or adverse life events get the better of some people. The DAMP is designed to give them a chance to get back to work and stay off the grog or whatever it was they were doing. It doesn't apply to criminal activity - just substance (usually alcohol) abuse. When it comes to alcohol, as long as you are not actually working with aircraft, or about to go to work with aircraft, CASA could not care less whether you have had a few. This is what people need to understand about the whole thing.

Nev you're talking about other issues. We're talking about the DAMP program.Look....honestly, the second guessing of the legislation here and - to be quite frank - a fair tinge of paranoia surrounding it is getting quite ridiculous. The DAMP is aimed squarely at the big end of town and while technically it could be applied to others, if you don't drink and fly, or drink and maintain, then you have nothing whatsoever to fear. Beating the door down of your house or hotel and demanding a breath test? Bursting into your hangar in the evening while you're in sitting in a lounge chair watching the footy sipping a beer after a day working on your plane? Seriously? That's what this thread has all boiled down to? And the whole idea of DAMP is not to mercilessly prosecute people and lock them in prison. I know this from knowing the background of a couple of DAMP events in our company.

When and where did they say that?

Yeah "being available" doesn't mean 24/7. It is designed to close the loophole defence of "oh yeah sure I was in uniform in the crew room 30 minutes before scheduled departure drunk as a skunk and barely able to walk, but I wasn't actually performing any aviation duties, therefore DAMP procedures don't apply to me!" Well yes they do, as you were fully intending and "available" to fly in that state. So off to rehab for you...... These rules are not designed to catch Drifter pilots at the annual flying club BBQ or in their hangar having a beer after downing tools for the day. Whatever you think of CASA, they actually do have bigger fish to fry when it comes to the DAMP regulations.

You're reading way, way too much into this. They cannot enter your home. Not even the police can do that (without a warrant) unless they believe there is an imminent threat to the peace or serious physical harm about to occur/already occurring.

19, with diagnosed autism and depression - as stated by his lawyer and legitimately reported in the news. The court will take this into account when sentencing (as they are required to do by law). You are actually allowed to report matters of fact after they are presented in Court without being guilty of contempt.

You wonder what would happen if a guy stood in front of your plane trying to flag you down and you deliberately didn't stop?Oh.....I don't know. Conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm or manslaughter and a lengthy prison sentence sharing a cell with "Bubba", maybe?

For my entire aviation career I've lived by the rules of 8-9 hours absolute minimum from your last alcoholic drink (which also directly ties in with being adequately rested), zero blood alcohol, and no hangover effect. For anyone who actually finds that difficult, flying planes is probably not for you.

(1) states that you can't enter an aircraft in a state of intoxication. "Intoxication" doesn't mean "can't have a beer or two" before you board. Intoxication is slurring your words, stumbling, being argumentative, etc. Like I tell all my friends: if we (the crew) believe you may be "intoxicated" we are obliged by law to refuse to carry you as a passenger. However if you've had a couple before your flight to Bali, walk calmly aboard, smile, generally shutup and be polite, then we have no grounds to believe you are intoxicated. As soon as you give us grounds to suspect it, our hands are tied by the legislation. This is usually what actually happens. People board who've had a few but do not make it obvious. Then some idiot swaggers down the bridge smacking into everyone on his way, abuses someone, then gets stopped at the door and asked if he's been drinking, and promptly threatens to knock the block off anyone who stops him boarding (actually happened on one flight I was on - heard him from the cockpit - then we called for urgent security assistance over the radio). He was spoken to by 2 quite large Australian Federal Police while still at the front door wanting to get on, and they offered for him to turn around and head back up to the boarding lounge either the easy way or the hard way. NSW Crimes Amendment Bill 2014 (example of definition of intoxication): "an offender is intoxicated if the offender's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected as the result of the consumption or taking of alcohol"

I'm not saying you "must" have a physical checklist in a small aircraft, If you have fixed gear, no flaps, limited engine controls, even nothing much in the way of conventional flight controls, a written checklist may be unnecessary. However not all light aircraft are like that and a lot of the above demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of checklist principles and human factors (our imperfect memory being one). This is human factors stuff which has been studied by NASA and other professional organisations, and originally came about in 1935 after the loss of an aircraft doing a demonstration flight when the highly experienced test pilot forgot to release the control lock. There is nothing "potentially fatal head in the cockpit distraction" about a before takeoff checklist. You're not even off the ground yet. However if you use one, a placard in easy line of sight is preferable and common sense dictates it is done with the aircraft stationary, at the runup bay being ideal. Again, a brief placarded before landing checklist of safety critical items only (like gear etc) to confirm they have been done is no more distracting that actually glancing at your speed and altitude, or engine instruments to confirm that they are showing what you want. And how exactly does checking safety critical items off a list promote "rigid unresponsive piloting"? In fact what actually is that?

Interesting. I've had a long term interference problem (radiating directly through the com antenna) from electronic ignition noise. Initially we suspected a coil problem. Narrowing it down from one of 18 to one of 9 is simple depending on which ignition it is, but it gets hard after that, especially because it's quite intermittent. However several coil replacements have not fixed it. I had some com reception problems recently and after more troubleshooting we found some poor crimps on the coax (not mine - it was factory built) and a badly installed connector. Continuity testing showed it was very poor. I'm hoping this might address the problem, though the plane is down for other work so I haven't been able to test fly it yet. Who would be an avionics technician?

I doubt he'd get fined. A caution perhaps. CASA can beat their chest about what the maximum penalty is, but a reasonable magistrate would most likely understand that "no animals were harmed in the filming of this commercial" and there wasn't any deliberate recklessness, etc. Having said that, there are no doubt some idiot drone pilots out there, just as there are idiot full-sized aircraft pilots out there too. Peer pressure is usually the best behaviour modifier, because no-one likes being called nasty names by their annoyed mates. Save the big stick for the more serious and recalcitrant offenders.

I'd be staying away from them. I don't like clouds which show strong indications of turbulence immediately underneath them like that, even if there doesn't appear to be a huge amount of vertical development.

Ooooh yeah I didn't even notice that! I applied elevator once as I fell out of a stall turn in my Pitts into the incipient phase (trying to outsmart myself) and promptly entered an accelerated inverted spin! Step 2 is the dangerous bit. You don't do that before you oppose the yaw.

My questions on the above 14 letter name-mnemonic for a landing checklist (on any aircraft) would be: Why are you checking your magnetos and master switch before landing? If they were on in your before takeoff checks, and your engine and systems are presumably running fine, why would they now be off, and how would they attain that position without you knowing about it? I don't understand why you'd open and then close the carburettor heat shortly afterwards. Is there a reason for that? What is gained by checking "instruments" immediately before landing? Which ones, what are you looking for, and what are the safety implications? There are a couple of others I'm dubious of, but these are the main ones. If this is actually a landing checklist then it seems rather extravagant to me with a number of things which are not vital safety checks or which are doubling up for no good reason.

Good topic of discussion. You stumbled on my previous area of expertise here, which was checklist and procedure design and philosophy in the RAAF. I got assigned the job as part of the introduction of a new aircraft type and had to quickly gather together all the research I could (which included everything up to and including checklist typography research from NASA) because the manufacturer's checklists we got were atrocious and actually very time-consuming and error prone. I re-wrote pretty much the whole lot - that was in 1998 - and just the other day someone told me they're still using my checklists on that aircraft. As far as Laming's article goes, he does have some valid points......but also I might add that just because they did something during the war, doesn't mean it is a good thing. Example: they had zero CRM and human factors training during the war and in the post-war years. Only after hundreds of senseless and stupid passenger deaths did we finally think "you know, we might need to train pilots a bit differently here". "Checklists" vs "Do-lists" "Do-lists" are like an old style checklist. They are less common these days, but basically every single item, procedure, flick of a switch, is read from a list, then the applicable person performs the action. These are time-consuming and more suited to a multi-crew environment. The problem is that they are less reliable than a checklist which is a safety summary and is performed after the procedures are all done and does not require any action to be carried out. This might seem counter-intuitive, but if you are relying on reading an action from a list and then executing that action, you only get one chance. If you accidentally skip that item on the list then it is missed forever, unless it is checked in a subsequent checklist. However where a "do-list" can be useful is where you are just learning the procedures and checks, to get familiar with the order of everything. They can also be useful when written in a highly abbreviated form, because you're not bombarded with text telling you how to do it, but it serves more as a "cue". A true "checklist" is designed to check that all essential items for that phase of flight have been completed. So the procedures have already been done - the gear is down, the flaps are set, etc, and the checklist just reinforces that everything is as it should be. Thus you actually get two chances to get the safety critical stuff right: the first is doing it in the procedural flow, and the second is when the checklist is read. Non-essential items (those things which should be done but won't kill you or hurt the plane if they're accidentally omitted) are not included in a true checklist. For example "strobes - off" after landing would be non-essential. Not going to kill you and won't hurt anything but your pride if you have them flicking all the way to parking. Doing a true checklist, you end up with an expanded form and an abbreviated form. The expanded form in the POH shows in detail all the procedures you do for that phase. The abbreviated form, which actually becomes the "checklist", is a brief summary of only the critical items. Carrying checklists On all military and commercial aircraft I have ever flown including the single seaters, we have been required to carry the abbreviated checklist in some form, whether it be in your pocket, or one which stays in the plane. On the single seaters, we did not refer to it for normal procedures because it's just not physically practical, but it was to be carried anyway. However in some abnormal circumstances, you certainly could refer to it. On the multi-crew aircraft it was always referred to, from day 1. What works on small planes? In a sense it depends how often you fly. We forget procedures over time. In the commercial world where you're flying often, you'll almost never forget them. But go on long service leave or annual leave, come back and see how you do. After coming back from extended leave I once sat there on a B767 after the 2nd engine was started, brain in neutral after my holiday, thinking silently "now I have an automatic procedural flow to do here but for the life of me I can't remember where I start!" The other pilot knew exactly what was happening, turned at me, and said "start with the APU". Light bulb goes off and from then I was fine and started flicking the switches all in the right order! This is the consequence of having time off. Flow versus Mnemonics Humans are always seeking visual patterns and our brains are very good at remembering them. This is why "flow" procedures work well. The classic is the before start "left to right" cockpit checks which is common on a lot of aircraft. I use flows in my small plane wherever possible, including before takeoff. Some people prefer name-mnemonics but personally I find them a pain unless they're very short. There's not a lot to remember in a procedural flow (given that simply looking at or touching something you usually know what to do with it). With mnemonics I still have to remember what the letter stands for, it can take me zig-zagging all over the place so it's easy to lose my spot, and if the mnemonic is a long one, it often doesn't form any sort of sensible word in the first place! However some people work well with them so it's dealer's choice really. If you don't fly often, having an abbreviated checklist to check the important items have been done prior to entering the next phase of flight is not such a bad thing. If you fly the same aircraft regularly, you probably don't need that. I have the abbreviated ground checks on a laminated card. I don't have to refer to them, but they're there if I feel the need to. The important stuff is placarded as an abbreviated checklist on the instrument panel. You'll note that the Before Takeoff checklist is 7 items long. These are done in a procedural flow from left to right then front to back. The expanded version is also 7 items long but with sub-paras giving a more detailed description of things. Missing any of those 7 items could end up hurting me or the plane. I don't have strobes etc, but if I did, these would be omitted from the checklist and simply done as procedural items. I could probably have omitted the "After T/O" and "After LDG" stuff because the boost pump can be left running indefinitely, and the transponder is not immediately flight safety critical. But I had the space, so it's there. If I didn't have the space, I would've left those items off.

The reason being that for those who clip their transmissions (an R/T habit I find quite annoying), both words have the same ending but opposite meanings. So it's "affirm", or "negative". No confusion. No two syllables are the same.

Limo service? Geez haven't kept up to date with the airline industry for a while have you?