Lamiunto

Hey Keiran, and welcome to the forums. You'll find that you have come to the best recreational aviation forum on the internet, there is a lot to learn, and there are a lot of educators on this forum willing to share all kinds of knowledge with you. When it comes to purchasing an aircraft, you will most likely find that you are heavily biased towards the aircraft you received your training in. Since that is a Jabiru, you will most likely want one of those when you get your pilots certificate. Then again, you may find you hate it. There is no shortage of aircraft users here that can help you form an un-biased opinion on which aircraft can suite your needs. Since I came to this forum, my dream aircraft I want to own has shifted from a Gazelle, to a Jabiru, and is now on a CT, it's all great fun, so be prepared. ;) Welcome again.

Hey Knighty, You have until the 2nd of July to respond, and it takes 5 minutes with their online response form, no posting or printing pieces of paper and posting. Simply click on a few check boxes, fill in your details and click submit. Go here to get to the form: http://nprm.casa.gov.au/default.asp?nprm=0603OS RA-Aus believes (and so do I) that part 103 is a very good thing for the recreational flight community as a whole, and recommends that you simply reply in agreement to each section that CASA asks. You don't even have to put in any additional comments (I didn't ) - Shaun

I got mine back after waiting about 3 weeks. I was expecting it to be much longer because of my continuous moving around the planet. I have been to the UK, South Africa and now here, been here for 8 months and it seems the longest part of my wait was when I phoned and asked for the progress and they said it was in the "Card manufacturing stage", and that all the security checks were done in the first week! Now that is really strange, maybe they were laughing so hard at my photo that it was disrupting office work, so the powers that be at CASA decided to get it out of there as soon as possible. Anyway, we have an agreement here with the security people, you can stay inside the hangar without an ASIC, but the second you step beyond those railings on the ground, you are required to have an ASIC, or be escorted by someone with an ASIC. We have 2 security people here, and according to Peter (a grade one instructor and ATO) one of them is a real security nazi, who actually took some poor kids parents away in his car while they were video taping his flight. The other guy is very nice apparently, and gives you a warning and lecture. I mainly got an ASIC so that I can do my daily inspections (aircraft are kept outside the hangar during most of the day) without someone standing with me just to show off some red piece of plastic. Also, now when Peter, or Trish (CFI) ask me to move some aircraft around the apron, or fuel one of them, I don't have to be escorted. So you can say I mainly got it for the freedom. It does get in the way when I am doing my inspections though. :;)1:

Thanks for that, it is extremely interesting to see how ancient people did their math. I still like our base 10 though.

60 is a very flexible number, which is no doubt why the Babylonians used it for so many of their operations, and if we are to believe the few, then that would be a very good reason to operate their entire numerical system in base 60. I would just love to know what symbols they used once they had used all standard numbers, so after they moved from 0 to 9, what did they do then? In base 16 they go on from A to F, in base 60, the entire alphabet isn't even enough!

Brilliant idea, the toolbar is also a magnificent idea. :big_grin: Apart from the links you mentioned, here are some I think would be nice. Detailed weather forcasting http://www.bom.gov.au/ For the flight sim enthusiast http://www.pcaviator.com/shop/index.php Aeroclub and Flight school directory http://www.aeroclub.com.au/ Australia AOPA http://www.aopa.com.au/ Student Pilot Experiences http://www.newflight.net/ Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co. (Worldwide Distributor of Aircraft Parts and Pilot Supplies) http://www.aircraftspruce.com/ Avery Tools http://www.averytools.com/ Wicks Aircraft Supply http://www.wicksaircraft.com/ Huge links database http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/home.htm Demystifying Headsets http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/headsets.html That's all I could come up with at the moment, as I come across more interesting ones, I will let you know. :big_grin:

Nice one Kevin! I would love to go and see the factory, but all my cash is devoted to flying lessons at the moment. Maybe once I get my cross country endorsement, luckily the flight from Mackay shouldn't be too long. Luckily it seems that CASA is sticking to their 4 week processing period. I received mine on Monday, in total it was actually 3 weeks, this included checks to be conducted both in South Africa and the UK, so even though my application could be considered "difficult", it went through without even as much as a sneeze from CASA. Arrived as registered post with a card holder and lanyard, plus a nice little letter explaining how I must display it, or return it if I am not going to use it. Anyway, I am up to circuits, so hopefully I can solo soon, get my certificate, train for a xcountry endorsement, save up some cash and rent a Jabi and fly down to Bundy for some sight seeing. Did you take any pictures Kevin?

For people who live close to a non-controlled airport, it is easy to say that we don't need a CTA endorsement. But for those of us, like me, who only have one airport for hundreds of kilometers and then that airport has a control tower, this CTA endorsement is a life saver. Consider the fact that here at Mackay, all we have is Mackay airport, unless you want to go out to a farm with a private airstrip, that is all you have. Also, people in Sydney, who might have to travel by road for close to 2 hours to get to a non-controlled airport just to have a lesson or an hours solo flight. Like I said before, CASA is giving the recreational community an option here, flying in CTA airspace is a general positive for the entire recreation community, whether you are going to ever fly in CTA or not. Again, if RAA does a good job of the new operations manual, this will hardly have an effect on those who don't want it. Plus, those who are training and don't see the need for it won't have an increase in cost either, it will be an optional endorsement. For those of us who train out of controlled airports, maybe this endorsement will automatically be given to you once you have achieved your pilots certificate, much like the radio operators endorsement now, it just comes with all the training and you have 2 extra tests to pass and you have a CTA and RO endorsement. The option now exists for us not to plan our trips around controlled airspace, finely tuned navigation just skimming past CTA boundries. You now have the option to enter that CTA and fly just as you normally would, all you have to do is have a transponder and ask ATC for clearance. Again, if you don't want to use it, you can go on as you do right now, without this endorsement ever having an impact on your flying. The important thing is, that if you ever want it, it is available. For example, say the airfield you are operating out of gets dug up, either for new construction, or the new owner of the land doesn't want an airstrip, it can happen. Then, if you are over 2 hours away from another non-controlled airport, you will be wishing for this endorsement. Again, it will hopefully be presented as optional to all the pilots, thus not affecting you in any way, or compelling you to get a transponder. It is there to use if you ever need it.

Thanks everyone for your input, I really appreciate it. I will definitely keep that import suggestion in mind Andy, I never even though it was an option. I think what Ian said is true though. At the moment, I am only flying once a week, and each lesson is about an hour long, I am looking at going twice a week but that is still a way off. So a simple recreational headset would do me well. I also did a small search on the web for this, and found this article: http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/headsets.html It is extremely informative, and helped put all your suggestions into perspective. Maybe we can have this link put up somewhere for students like me who have no idea about headsets? Thanks again for all your help, it's greatly appreciated.

I have been contemplating getting a new headset, since the ones that they lend out at my flight school can be pretty bad, and then on a day like today you have the controller shouting back 'OKF please repeat', not good. At $100+ for a decent one, I need to know I am getting one that is well worth my hard earned cash. ;) So here is my question to you, which headset do you use, and what is your opinion on it. Optionally, include the price if you want to. Thanks!

Ok, so Rotax engines aren't nearly as noisy as I once thought, so if a trike were using a Rotax engine and the pilot was appropriately qualified then I don't see any reason why a trike pilot can't get a CTA endorsement. But like Crezzi mentioned, I haven't seen this discrimination in the NPRM.

Thanks everyone for the kind words. It is nice to know I am not alone in the type 1 diabetes arena. Lucky I don't have old age syndrome just yet, so I can enjoy every hour of flight time I have, and can get while I am still able to, and hopefully that continues for a very, very long time. I am going to send away for my RAA membership next week, I am conducting my training on my CASA SPL at the moment, and my CFI said he talked to an RAA rep the other day, and was told all the hours I accumulate until my school becomes a registered FTF will count to my pilots certificate. So I am all for it. I just find the $170/hr in the Gazelle a bit much, they are thinking of getting a Jabiru, can't wait to fly one of those! By the way, if any of the powers that be want to know where I am learning, it is at Horizon Airways Mackay. Now you know which one it is, so you can make it an FTF on Monday, how about that?

I haven't been here too long, so I wouldn't know about who the endorsement would be available for, so I can't really comment there. If that is the case, then I would tend to agree with you, the problem, or so I've been told, is that you must have an approved engine to fly in CTA, which is probably why a trike can't fly in CTA, not a "good enough" engine. When it comes to RPT, a jet noise doesn't last long, the aircraft is going about 140kts on final, or about 190kts in the circuit, so you don't hear it for long, give it about 30 seconds and you don't know about it anymore. But then you have the UL's, crawling along at anything between 10 to 100kts, with the UL's that can fly 100kts having very high RPM's, but then again, the Gazelle only goes 70kts when at about 4000rpm, so still it is extremely noisy for an even longer period of time. It is almost like your neighbor mowing the lawn, it isn't very noisy, but it irritates you enough to go mad. Ahh well, I guess only time will tell to see where the lines get drawn, if any are drawn at all.

I agree, it would help a lot of RAA pilots. But given the option, I would rather just get a transponder and the endorsement and not have a worry. But lets take a look at your proposition. Most RAA aircraft are capable of a glide ratio of 10:1, so if you are at 500ft, you will need to be within 5000ft of the beach, which equates to 1.5km, now think of all those people who live on the coast just 100m from the beach, I don't think they will be too happy hearing light a/c with high rpm's just 1.5km from where they are staying almost each and every day.

I am all for change, and allowing more freedoms, but like it was said before, you have to limit those freedoms to keep RAA flying as easy and cost effective as it is now. Aerobatics is a very complicated sport, which is why it has remained in GA and as an endorsement for so long, you need to be able to handle everything in the first place (most can) then you need to have a firm grasp of the theory, the number crunching and many more pencil and paper stuff before you even try. Aerobatics is not just something you do, you need to plan it out, and if you have trouble with the load, landing, take-off charts and their calculations, plus some of the physics involved in the GA syllabus then you will be hard pressed with the theory aspect of aerobatics. I myself have told my CFI that while I am going for an RAA certificate, I want to do all the study that would allow me to go for GA, all the expectations of performance must be the same. It all comes down to personal preference. If you want to be the best RAA pilot you want to be, you can do it if you so wish, I know I will most likely get all the CPL study material just to increase my performance and understanding as a pilot. This does not mean that you now have to force the rest of the pilots out there to comply with the same standards. If you are going to be flying a drifter in the middle of the outback with no controlled airspace for miles, why would you need to study a syllabus which is up to par with the GA one? RAA is keeping the medium perfectly, some pilots just want to get up there and have a good time, and not worry about all the aspects on the theoretical side, they just enjoy flying the simple way. Then you get people like me, who love theory, complex calculations, standards etc, but just because I like it, doesn't mean you have to enforce it on everyone else now. CASA is already trying to give is just a bit more freedom by allowing you to fly in controlled airspace if you have the appropriate endorsement. And for those of us who would love it, I am sure the small amount of extra theory isn't going to bother you, the bit of extra time with an instructor, another quick exam, all with the end goal of flying in CTA, I find that acceptable. But for the pilots who don't want to, then they don't have to, CTA flying will be an endorsement, so if you don't want to do the extra studying, then so be it, you don't need to, you just won't be allowed to fly in CTA but if that doesn't bother you, then there is no problem. So it comes as an option to you as an RAA pilot, if you don't need it, don't use it. You aren't forced to learn the theory for that endorsement, but the option is there if you ever want it. So that is my opinion, if they can give you extra freedoms as optional extras, it would work out much better for the community. But, if they made these extras compulsory, like CTA flying, then it could have a negative impact. As an optional extra, costs are not raised for those who don't want it.

Ok, this is straight out of my BAK study guide, it applies more to single engine light aircraft, but it gives you a better idea of what to use and when. Mayday Probably the most obvious example of an emergency in a light single engine aircraft is engine failure. In this situation the pilot has limited time available to call for help. To indicate the message is vital, the transmission is prefixed with the word 'MAYDAY' spoken three times. The official content of a distress message is located at the back of an ERSA. Pan-Pan Not all emergency situations place the aircraft in grave and imminent danger. Sometimes, an immediate landing may become the best option due to environmental conditions like smoke, dust or bad weather. Also a pilot who has become lost or is running low on fuel or daylight might consider the option of landing. If such a landing cannot be made on a properly prepared aerodrome, it makes sense to advise the nearest Flight Service or ATC station. An urgency message could also be given if a passenger becomes seriously ill and requires medical attention after landing, or the pilot becomes aware of people, other than the occupants of his/her aircraft who require immediate assistance (eg a boat in distress). ----------- So I guess you can say a Mayday is used when the aircraft is in danger, so in the case of the thompson flight, the one engine was off, placing increased stress on the second, which they did mention when on the ground, so the aircraft is in danger. Whereas a pan-pan is used when the situation is not endangering the aircraft or its occupants and that the aircraft needs generally a higher level of watch from ATC in case something had to develop further.

I believe the mayday was the correct call. Remember, the pilot didn't know it was a bird strike up until ATC told him so. So all he saw was a loss of engine power and a fire warning, I too would call a mayday very quickly. I have the theory book here somewhere describing when to call a pan or mayday, if I find it I will let you know.

Hey Andy I tell you, it is unbelievable how many type 1's are flying aircraft now. Just 10 years ago it was extremely difficult, and then there were very few of them, making it difficult to get an opinion. Luckily the winds of change are on the horizon, both medically and regulation wise. I heard about a conference held by the ICAO and type 1 diabetes was discussed, I don't know what happened there, but it shows people in high places are taking note. CASA is also thinking of people who generally will be hard pressed to get a class 2 by allowing you to fly with an RPL and no class 2 medical, obviously with restrictions attached. Then medically, they are already trialling medications that can delay or even prevent the onset of type 1 diabetes, then there are the various "cures", but I am not going to talk about those, they tend to get your hopes up for nothing. More promising though, is the artificial pancreas, which has already got its beginnings in the MiniMed Paradigm pump with continuous glucose monitoring, now they only need to close the loop, make some fancy algorithms and get approval, and you will have a mechanical device controlling your sugars, this is also being extensively trialled in France. So it is my belief, than in less than 10 years time, you will go for your medical and a scenario like this will play out: Doctor: "Oh, you have type 1 diabetes, how are you controlling it?" Patient: "Artificial Pancreas" Doctor: "Great, here is your class 1 medical" Ok, maybe not so simple, but you get my drift. In the meantime though, I am keeping good control of my diabetes so that when revolutionary treatments come out, I don't have any other complication that would disqualify me. Plus, diabetes is not going to stand between me and my dreams either. ;)

Well, just because you would be allowed to fly as a pilot (with the correct aircraft and equipment) through controlled airspace, doesn't mean you are compelled to do so. Class G airspace will still exist, and hopefully the class G corridors will still be around, and maybe some more airports will start creating them. Like it has been said before, I think, you will most likely need to get an endorsement, which would include a radio operators license, and then only, will you really legally be allowed to fly in controlled airspace. I think this regulation is more for the growing "go fast" ultra-lights that want to land at controlled airports like here in Mackay at normal hours of the day, and not some insanely early hour of the morning when the tower is closed. Also, I think it is in recognition of the diminishing amount of non-controlled airports, I heard from my CFI that not long ago, an airport was dug up in Sydney to build a golf course, and this airport was one of the very few non-controlled ones. Like I said, just because it is there, doesn't mean you have to use it. ;)

Thanks for the welcomes everyone. :big_grin: I surely do plan on getting my pilots certificate without letting my constant sugar checking getting in the way, I already have about 3-4 hours flight time, and I have gotten the routine down to a pat, which makes it very easy for me, and makes it much safer for me to fly. Most of my lessons have only been 45 minutes long, so I haven't checked in flight yet, but I do check every 30 minutes before a flight to get a trend and make sure my BSL isn't doing something weird, then one last check before I get in and fly. When I get to the longer lessons and solo's, I will definitely start checking in flight as well. Again, thanks for all the welcomes, I see I am going to have a great time here. ;)

Hi, this isn't really my first post, but that doesn't matter, only 7 or so posts on this forum still makes me a newbie. Anyway, my real name is Shaun, I am a student pilot based in Mackay. The flight school I go to isn't a registered FTF just yet, they do have an inspection on the 21st June though, and they already have a Gazelle on top of that, so it is all good. They are in the process of negotiating with the owner of the Gazelle so that they can re-register it with RA-Aust, but finding the owner is proving difficult. I was initially training for my PPL, but then I found out, that just because I have type 1 diabetes, the costs for my medical is going to be around the $1000 mark, and being a real student as well, I don't have that kind of cash just lying around. I have my diabetes controlled within the margins that CASA wants, I don't have any complications, amputations etc, been a diabetic for 5 years and I am now 19 years old. So I have a very good handle on it, just don't have that kind of money. Maybe I will have it next year, who knows, hopefully my RA-Aust hours can count towards my PPL. So, I did initially fly the Cessna 172, all the way from basic effects of controls, through to slow flight and stalling. Just saturday gone past I hopped into the gazelle, on a really bad day, with a lot of clouds and rain, with some gusts too, which threw that small plane around a lot, but it was nice to dodge some clouds and rain, looking for patches of sunlight and then being sucked up into a cloud at one stage. I was trying to keep about 700ft so that we could see below the clouds and have a look at the situation at the airport, and as I was flying under a cloud, going 70kt, I felt a jolt upwards, and for the duration I was flying under that cloud, I was climbing at 400ft/min, which was really funny, my instructor said it was nothing to worry about and that it happens to all light aircraft when flying so close to the bottom of a cloud. So saturday coming, I am booked in for take-offs, landings and circuits. Great stuff, maybe after that I will ask an instructor to take me out to the training area so that I can practice some stalls in the gazelle, I love those things. I had another instructor take me out in the cessna once, and he showed me a wing-over, now that was a weird feeling, he is an ex-RAAF pilot, and he has an aerobatic endorsement, so he showed me a good deal of what the cessna is capable of, in its utility load range of course. ;) Apart from flying, I have a big interest in programming, that is actually what I am going to be studying next year, a bachelor of IT, with a lot of the programming electives thrown in. That's pretty much me. Thanks for this great site, its really useful, kudos to the owner and developer.

Thanks for that. It was my first lesson in the Gazelle, before I was training in the C172 and I finished up everything up to slow flight and stalls, then I decided to move over to the Gazelle, so I think I was more used to the Cessna and I might have lifted the nose too much. So RA-Aust has to write an ops manual, and then CASA has to approve it? Is CASA trying to take a more active role in sport and rec flying or something, since I read at numerous places in the proposed part that CASA spent a lot of money funding an RAAO to develop the regs etc... and so it considers the regs part owned by them. So is CASA trying to to pry their nose in, or is it like this already?

Ahh well, my instructor said that if you want to do anything in the gazelle, apart from cruise, do it at 55kt I did in fact hear the stall buzzer go off when I rotated at 55kt and then continued to climb out at 55kt, it irritated me some more without the plane actually stalling, so I decided to climb out at something like 58kt. brentc, I wasn't aware that there is already a formation endorsement, so that is something good to know, and at the moment, I doubt anyone would want to hang around my wing for no reason, it's a dangerous place. I hope that they choose to implement part 103, it would be brilliant, it seems though, that they are bringing part 103 heavily in line with their proposed RPL, which would also (as far as I know) allow you to fly in controlled airspace with the required endorsement. But it seems, according to part 103, that a pilot with a recreational certificate doesn't need a controlled airspace endorsement, it makes no mention of it.

Thanks for that. I will get in contact with him if I get a very pressing question, but the questions I did ask are more for confirming what I interpret from the proposal. I have in the meantime already given my response to the proposal at the link you gave me, I had no real objections to what is proposed so I just said "Yes" to all the questions. Thanks for all your help, it's really appreciated.

Great stuff! :big_grin: Here are just a few things I would like to clear up before I go on, some may seem trivial, but I just want to make sure, it is also a bit off topic, but anyway. 103.005 Applicability of this Part  aircraft (3) An aeroplane meets the criteria for this subregulation if: (a) it has 1 or 2 seats; and (b) its stalling speed is no more than 45 knots; and © its MTOW is no more than: (i) 600 kilogram; or (ii) if it is equipped to land on water  650 kilogram. It makes no mention of an engine number restriction, so does that mean if a multi-engine a/c which would otherwise conform to the above reg, would be allowed? 103.010 Flight activities – pilots authorised by RAAO (2) For paragraph (1) (b) a flight is an air experience flight if: (a) the purpose of the flight is for each passenger to experience a flight in the aircraft; (b) the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO contains procedures for the authorisation of operators and pilots to conduct air experience flights; © the flight is conducted in accordance with the procedures for air experience flights contained in the procedures manual of the relevant RAAO; (d) each passenger is a member of the RAAO. Note: The purpose of membership for an air experience passenger is to ensure that the passenger has acknowledged that the flight does not meet the safety requirements that would apply to an airline flight and to provide a measure of compulsory insurance protection to the passenger and the RAAO. So if I wanted to take a friend up on a flight, they would need to be a member of RA-Aust? I find that a bit restrictive, since they are most likely only going to go up once to get the feel for it, why would they need to be a member of RA-Aust? 103.335 Formation flying (1) The pilots in command of two or more aircraft must not fly in formation unless: (a) each pilot in command: (i) is trained and appropriately endorsed (in accordance with the procedures manual of an RAAO) to fly in formation in that kind of aircraft; or (ii) is being trained for such an endorsement; and CASR Part 103 – Unsettled Consultation Draft – 8 December 2006 27 (b) the pilots-in-command have agreed to fly in formation. Does this open the door for a formation flying endorsement from RA-Aust? Finally, a lot of the regulations state "with approval by CASA or the relevant RAAO", now what happens if the decisions made by CASA and the relevant RAAO are in conflict with each other? Does the decision made by CASA or the RAAO take precedence? Thanks :big_grin: