Mazda

Wayne, Dick Smith has both a two stroke and four stroke Airborne Edge.

I think Hamilton is where Cliff Tait is based, he is an interesting character. Ardmore is the equivalent of Bankstown or Moorabbin, but they have air/ground not ATC. Before you go look at the NZ CAA website and maybe Airways Corp. I'm sure the instructor manual is online so there must be other info there.

That would be Wrights Air. Be careful if you go to the Territory, there is plenty of VFR flying which isn't and some dodgy operators.

Shags midfield crosswind is midfield. If you fly crosswind over the threshold that isn't midfield or in the normal position, and you might run into a higher performance aircraft taking off, or an aircraft going around. Use commonsense and situational awareness to assess the situation on the day. Note that under the June 2010 changes you can also join on base or a shorter final.

It also makes your pax feel a bit less embarrassed, it looks more like their future lunch rather than their past lunch.

I've seen plenty of it unfortunately. Sometimes even on the ground after landing (or before departing). Maybe it was something I said. The best things I've found are BBQ chicken bags. Get your hot tasty chicken here.

Up, down. Easy. Just don't forget the down. Seriously, those pre-landing checks must be thought about and done, it is easy to slip into complacency and rush through them. Also allow sufficient time for slowing down, setting up the aircraft for landing, and be kind to that engine. Those Continentals have had their fair share of issues.

Tomo the majority of aircraft in D do not have TCAS! Ha Gibbo, our militay koalas don't like flying around GA either! Not like overseas where fighters fly around in Class G at low level.

Tomo, who in class D is going to see your transponder return?

Blackrod the issue is mandating. I would certainly encourage transponder carriage in all airspace but I'm not keen to mandate it when it is not ICAO or used in other countries because it makes us less competitive in a world market. People love flying in the US because it is cheaper and has more commonsense rules, but so many here want more and more rules and that means expense!

Blackrod, you say transponders should be required in Class D, can you tell me in which countries this is a requirement? Maybe somewhere busy like the USA? No, sorry, transponders are note required in D in the USA, what is the point when it is non radar airpace? They don't require transponders in E either, and their mid air collision stats are better than ours. Be careful what you wish for. Transponders are expensive, and what will happen if we all need to upgrade to mode S?

Poteroo there is no transponder requirement for Class D. There is for Class C though.

Apologies Motz! You are quite right. I was thinking of 75 hours RA, not 75 hours in command, but isn't the other option 100 hours aeronautical experience, and the RA instructor rating is 20 hours? So unless I'm missing anything else that would make it 120 hours total time to instruct in RA, with theory passes to PPL level. Let me know if I've left anything else out. The GA numbers still stand though, which is a minimum of 150 hours or 200 hours for CPL (depending on which option is chosen), plus either a NVFR or Command instrument rating (40 hours IFR), plus the 50 hour instructor course, so the minimum is over 200 hours to 300 hours, depending on the path chosen, with a theory pass to at least CPL level, and if they do have the instrument rating, an IREX pass. While considering costs, remember each hour must be paid for, and the RA hours also cost less than the GA hours!

It might go a bit deeper than that Black Rod Who is going to teach it, if RA-Aus pilots are not able to do it in the first place? Does this mean the RA-Aus instructors will need PPLs, or CPLs? Some will be able to do it of course, but perhaps some won't. Wouldn't this ultimately add to the cost? Remember, if an RA-Aus instructor currently only needs a total of 95 hours, and a GA instructor needs 150/200 hr CPL, min NVFR plus 50 hour rating, let's say realistically a minimum of 250-300 hours, is it any wonder the costs are higher? Be careful what you wish for!

Shags, there are much higher costs in GA. For a GA flying school to operate they need an AOC, which could cost $10,000 or more. They need an Ops manual which must be approved by CASA, and CASA charges an hourly fee. They need CASA to approve a Drug and Alcohol Management Plan. To operate as a flying school they need a CFI, and the qualifications required for a GA CFI are very high. CASA must approve a particular person to be a CFI. If the CFI leaves, the school cannot fly, they must shut down until CASA approves the new one. Because GA CFIs are highly qualified, they are usually quite well paid. The amount the school can do depends on these qualifications, so a CFI might only be approved for the school to teach to PPL for example. The aircraft are not in private category, they must be in the minimum of airwork category and may be in charter. They are maintained by qualified LAMEs, who charge a high hourly rate for their expertise. All the aircraft are on a particular maintenance schedule and it isn't cheap. Add required instrument checks and ADs, routine maintenance for aircraft flying at night or in IMC. The instruments in that case are required to be certified to a particular standard, and they are expensive. IFR GPS units have databases which need to be updated monthly and the subscriptions are expensive. The purchase price is higher. If you are talking about new, a 172 would be about $300,000. Most schools these days have a mix of old and new, some all new, but those aircraft really were built to last. The fuel costs are higher, bigger, heavier aircraft with bigger engines use more fuel, and they use aviation fuel. Even the most basic of the GA instructors does 50 hours of flying for the instructor rating (more than double the RA requirement), and they do this on top of a CPL and NVFR or CIR. So each instructor has outlaid many tens of thousands of dollars to train you. And all of them pay for Class 1 medicals every year. It is because of all this money spent on training, aircraft certification and maintenance, that you are able to do night training, instrument ratings, aerobatics, multi-engine and so on. Also remember the instructors need additional approvals to be able to teach some of these, so that again means more money. Operators flying from the bigger controlled airports have higher costs for hangarage, parking and landing fees, or if flying IFR, for enroute fees. Landing fees are based on weight, so even if RA operators are at the same field, the landing fees are lower. It even comes down to hangarage. Simply due to size, it may be possible to fit more RA-Aus aircraft in the same hangar space. Then in the training, due to the syllabus, you need to fly more hours for your training, again adding to the cost. In a nutshell, it is not a level playing field.

On the UNICOM issue, that is exactly what they are supposed to be. They have nothing to do with Airservices, a UNICOM is not a certified air ground. It is a pilot, refueller, groundsman, ground handling agent, anyone, and it is advisory only. All they need to do is say there's an aircraft doing circuits and the wind is from the south. It works overseas and we really do need it here. The airlines have people talking to them on company frequency anyway, all they need to do is get that person on the CTAF. Karratha is Class D, and Class D is not radar airspace. Win I'm not sure what you are getting at with airspace, are you uncomfortable flying in Class G? I've heard airspace described as similar to the road system, so think of it that way. We cannot afford to have multi-lane tollways everywhere, only in busy corridors where there is a lot of traffic to pay for them. That is why when road traffic decreases, the roads go from tollway, to highway, to smaller sealed roads and dirt roads across much of Australia where there isn't a lot of traffic. Class G is the dirt road. Ignition that is a very good point, I do hope RA-Aus can stay inexpensive and simple to give more people a chance to go flying. GA already exists! On the CTA issue, I really don't know so I'm listening to what people have to say. I agree RA-Aus should be simple. In the USA the sport licence and rec licence don't allow CTA flight, but they can get a log book approval I think. That sounds like it means extra dual time, which of course means higher costs. It's one of the reasons GA is more expensive. I also think ANY pilot should be given a clearance through any airspace if the weather or conditions mean it is safer - maybe it could be submitted as an incident if it has to be. Are RA-Aus pilots currently requesting clearance (for convenience, not emergency) and flying through without the training or qualification? If so, does that mean RA-Aus pilots should have CTA training as standard, adding to costs for those who might not ever fly in CTA, but it would reduce the chance of people trying to work the system? I'm interested in what everyone really wants with this. What about with the proposed Recreational Licence, what do you think should be included in that, if it is somewhere between RA-Aus and GA?

Andy that is very true. There is a tower establishment and disestablishment criteria but it doesn't always seem to be applied. Sometimes I wonder if the towers are established where air traffic controllers might want to live and work! Ultimately let's hope the inconsistencies are ironed out, in recent times there have been towers established at Broome and Karratha. There should at least be a UNICOM at RPT airports if there can't be anything else.

Yes, Proserpine is an odd one, it proably should have a tower - I believe the old tower is used as a clubhouse?

Have a look at Maitland and Cessnock aerodromes. I did a lot of flying at Maitland but that was a long time ago. This is in GA not RA-Aus, and I flew with an aerobatic instructor there who is currently out of action. The aero club there has been going for a long time. Cessnock has a big school which seems to primarily train foreign airline students, it can get very busy and you might have more personalised attention elsewhere, but maybe talk to the different schools and see which one feels the best. You have time to hang around a few times and form an opinion! The locals might have more current information though. I hope you and your Dad enjoy the training. Your husband will get used to it!

They do have them at Gympie.

So true Facthunter. In some aircraft it is virtually impossible to measure charts with a ruler - and where do you put the ruler anyway? (Be careful what you say to that ...)

Facthunter who says "large unpressurised aircraft rarely fly above 8,000''? Many times I've been higher than that in large unpressurised aircraft. Be careful with soft drink cans though, they go strangely convex up there!

It is more expensive to buy than hire in my opinion. Purchase, hangarage, insurance, maintenance, allowances for engine and prop overhaul, allowances for other equipment upgrades, plus fuel/oil/consumables. The fixed costs are expensive whether you fly or not, so the more hours you fly the more sense it makes to buy. But your fixed costs (excluding allowance for engine, prop and upgrades) are likely to be somewhere around $7,000-$8,000 per year before you even think about going flying. That pays for a lot of hours if you hire. Also consider what you would buy. If you buy an aircraft suitable for CPL it won't be as cheap to maintain and operate as a slower, fixed pitch aircraft. If you buy a cheaper one to operate you will still need to hire a CPL suitable aircraft for the test and some training. In saying all that, there is nothing quite like owning one. You know it intimately, you know what works, and it is ready for you whenever you want to fly. Be prepared to get your hands dirty though, when you own there are all sorts of things to do. Shares may or may not work, it depends on who the partners are. Some syndicates are quite well run. Are you an AWPA member? If you write to the WA President she might know who is at the same level so you can cost share trips for hour building.

Oh, and using that method doesn't require an autopilot, 2 hands, or spending so much time with your head down in the cockpit measuring that the aircraft is no longer near the original fix. You can still fly the aeroplane and look out of the window to scan for traffic! :big_grin:

Lots of ways Joe. If your track has distance markers you could use those, and just use the distance between your fingers to estimate distance. An estimate is surprisingly accurate. If your track has time markers you could use those for distance. You can know the distance of your thumb or fingers for various charts. You can score lines in your pencil. Or you can use proportions of your track against the known distance to your destination - eg. a third of the way along a 60 mile track is 20 miles, and there is 2/3rds of the way remaining (40 miles) - if you are 5 degrees off to the right, just turn 7.5 degrees left to get to your destination. Or if half way, with half remaining, just double your error, so if you are 5 degrees off, just turn 10 degrees the other way. That method needs absolutely no measurement at all. And if you can't look out and say you are approximately x miles off a town etc, you should be able to do so. Even military pilots are taught to do DR 1 in 60s, with no ruler, at much higher speeds than we use.