PapaFox

The concentric flap and aileron torque tube idea looks similar to those used on the BD4 and Grummans AA1 and AA5 if want to see how it has been implemented in other aircraft already

Going straight to the primary registration source (CASA), although their latest data is 1 month old now (usually is updated each Monday). There are 70 8__ regos and 9 X#_

14 hours ago, flying dog said:

The second post is a URL to google maps.

 

Or did I miss something?

 

Not sure anyone has notcied this bit:

New details:

 

Peter Davis.

Yalcowinna.

 

The first name I posted is because the names of the properties don't line with what google says.

(Remember:  Googles isn't always right)

I got the name from what was shown.

After a bit of asking/digging I got the person's name and property name.

Yes, this is the same name and property as listed for VH-PHG

A check of the address of the map in the 2nd post matches a Tecnam Eaglet registered VH-PHG. That should give you the owners name if you want to try to contact them

A ground based pitot-static check will verify the accuracy of the altimeter and vsi instrument but not the full installation. If you are sensing static pressure in a poor location aerodynamically, your readings will not be indicating accurately. 

According to here, when the USN finished with it in 1956, it had 3357hrs already before becoming a civilian photo platform for another 6 years

And then you get the likes of Mildura airport where their Terms of Use for the airport says that all aircraft shall call downwind, base and final amongst other calls. That would have been a nightmare when the pilot academy was operating there.

Yes, the aviation security status check must be current as per Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, section 6.55

Kgwilson posted this in the other similar thread

https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/38164-murwillumbah-airfield-flood-today/?do=findComment&comment=524694&_rid=29

The archive these came from is via windy.com . They have the webcam layer with all sorts of cams. Unfortunately, going past 24hrs is a bit useless as it only gives nighttime shots

Looking through the cam archives can, I can only feel for the owners of the active aircraft

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

You need an ASIC to hold a GA license. It’s is nonsense.

Not quite. You need to have a security check, so an AVID is the minimum, ASIC is optional if needed

Classifications, altitudes and hours are also listed in the table on the ERC-L charts. It's been a long time since I've used Ozrunways to advise how to select the airspace on the map in there

Do you mean R131A-G? RA3 designation H24. Fly under the steps or around

Possibly looks like VH-SIP, DynAero MCR VLA Sportster, recently for sale after being out of the air for some time

Looks like a Remos G3

Not a Bocian... wrong tail, cockpit and cranked wing. Not sure what it is though

 

 

Mildura with Sunraysia in the background

 

 

It appears it's a sign of the times with councils expecting aerodromes to cover their costs. West Wyalong (with as little activity as there is) is now actively charging landings, and Temora is looking at ways to get more revenue from users. I agree, the amount that would be recovered is a small portion of the overall annual costs, so it won't really affect council funds significantly, but will affect the popularity of the fields

 

 

Khancoban

 

 

I agree, there's some schools/instructors out there that need to be given a very wide berth. I had already done my RPL conversion a couple of years ago. That all went fine, and since then, have done quite a bit of XC in the 172. As I was coming up for my AFR, I thought now would be a good time for CSU+RG, so I went to a school at Albury for this. After multiple trips there and being told "next session will knock it over", I just had to walk. A few examples, like sitting in the plane, expecting to ask ground for airways clearance for circuit bashing, only to be told by the instructor to ask for a departure to a nearby class-G airfield, that I hadn't ever been to before, hadn't looked up in the ERSA, didn't have maps or GPS. That's some good demonstration of flight planning right there. Same instructor being paranoid about rudder use near the stall as it "will put us in a spin", and being repeatedly told to make my "mandatory" base call at the non-controlled airfield. There were enough other red flags that I just had to walk away and chalk it up as a bad experience. He did also detail why he wishes that RAAus did not ever exist, and that everyone needs real GA training.

 

 

Yes, legally to use a CASA flight crew license, a pilot is required to hold a current AVID or ASIC. While enforced at the time of license application, the requirement is ongoing. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the ASIC system in its present form, but if you fly GA without a security check, you are leaving yourself open to action should you be checked (20 penalty units). Now, part of the purpose of the AFR is to make sure pilots are aware of and complying with regulations, so the instructor checking that a pilot holds an AVID or ASIC is correct in that intent.

 

To back all this up, have a look at the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, section 6.55. In short (I'm on my phone here), a person who is over 18 and holds a security designated authorisation (pilots license is in this definition), must not perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an aircraft unless their aviation security check is current or had been applied for.

 

 

The details that I had to provide for the authorisation were the aircraft details and hours (type, engine, prop), list of modifications (including photos), pages from the maintenance logbook covering the previous 3 years, compliance with CAO 100.5 for transponder (if required), copy of CASA licence proving CTA endorsement, CASA medical (if required), and finally the type of authorisation being requested (Flight over built-up area OCTA, Flight over built-up areas within class C or E, or Flight over built-up areas only within class D).

 

My experience with CTA has been mixed, mostly positive with controllers responding regardless of aircraft type, while another just straight out denied clearance on the basis of being RAAus. After confirming that I did have all the authorisations to actually request the clearance in the first place, then the clearance as requested was granted. It might have only be an isolated case, however.

 

 

AS far as I am aware you need a factory built aircraft and RPL with CTA endorsement

No, as I stated and have done with our aircraft, 19- can be approved. Factory built don't require this additional approval, which obviously makes them easier, and is possibly the source of the confusion. CTA endorsement on the appropriate CASA license is required, but just be prepared for controllers initially not providing clearance on the grounds of them assuming that RAAus aircraft shouldn't be in their airspace

 

 

I went through this process a while back.

 

Starting with CAO 95.55, your Savannah would be described in 1.2(e).

 

Follow the bouncing ball to 7.1(d)(iii) which otherwise states ops in class G or E only. Going to 7.3 to see the conditions where class A, B, C or D can be accessed, then (a)(iii) states that the aeroplane being approved under 262AP(CAR1988) for flights over closely-settled areas is one of the complying conditions, with all six main points of 7.3 being required.

 

Short answer is that Darren B can issue this approval, but unlike our SAAA friends, the approval here is limited to that airframe (obviously), for the named operator only, and ceases if the aircraft is sold or modified.

 

After a bit of paperwork, it all went through fine.