68volksy

I think we're witnessing Australia's passion for rooting for the underdog... Whilst it's every small business owners intention to do things properly I can safely say their are many things never get done as well as they should. That's what marketing is for! It's curious to me that people selling the electronic stuff are bagging out Airservices - its not like they have any option or millions of dollars to go and develop their own maps! They're stuck using the Airservices data - they should be helping Airservices make it better rather than attacking them for minor errors. I know a few of the guys at airservices and i've met a few of the guys selling the programs for iPads and the like. I'll be trusting the Airservices guys over the guys in it for a dollar anyday. Sensible solution to all of this is going to be as referred to above in the email from CASA - they'll let you carry electronic versions of things so long as you have a paper backup (or some other form of backup).

I believe a good stick was actually in the emergency tool kit on the old biplanes. :)

Simple answer is don't pay for it! 50 years ago it was the way to go but things change over time. If you're interested in flying for the airlines then the only way to go is the cadetship path. Rex at Wagga have a very good system and whilst you may have to sign a chunk of your life away, if you're good enough it will be money well spent over the course of your career. There are many other cadetship programs also. Anyone who tries to sell you a CPL license after you tell them you're after a job in the airlines is either trying to rip you off or is ignorant of the way the system has evolved in my view. The CFI at my school is very blunt about this - she's had a few students who got their GFPT whilst they were waiting to start with Rex in the last couple of years but they cleared it with Rex first. Her feedback from these organisations and the defence force is to fly as little as possible before signing up. The Air Force and the Rex school hate having to "untrain" pilots who have too much experience.

For some a larrikin, for others an inspiration, Goulburn identity and well-known aerobatic pilot and Biplane maestro Dick Nell passed away yesterday. His son has posted a short movie on Youtube: Thoughts are with his family.

Welcome Geoff!

Hi Clouseau, Welcome! The pre solo test is generally focussed on local procedures for the aerodrome at which you fly. The test is usually written by each independent flight school. You'll very rarely have to study anything as it'll all be covered during your flying lessons. I think the books the Compulsion refers to are the BAK books which are more useful as you progress further through your training. Hope that helps.

Best possible illustration of my point. If an organisation the size of Airservices with the number of staff they have and the decades of experience and knowledge can still make little mistakes how much faith can you really put in a couple of IT guys out to make a dollar with the electronic stuff? Forgive me for bringing the cold art of logic into these discussions.

I've been informed by several at CASA that the requirement to carry paper copies is still very much the situation. The Attorney General recently provided them with guidance on this matter. Electronic versions of data will not be acceptable as they cannot accept them as being accurate. (all they have to certify their accuracy and integrity is the word of the businessmen who are selling them at the moment). They are looking to perhaps provide some sort of licensing process to these guys but it's a long way off yet. The ERSA is a lot easier to certify in theory - there's no manipulation of the data if all you've got is a pdf or something such as that. I'd imagine that showing an iPad with a flat battery/frozen/broken on a ramp check would not go any way to proving you had the maps or ERSA though in the same manner as losing the paper copy out the window would not prove you had a copy on you. That's the common sense approach that i'm adopting. Edit - easiest way of keeping up to date is maintaining a relationship with a flying school or good Aero Club. Never had to worry about any of this stuff - always borrowing one of the schools copies! Those portable EPIRBS are brilliant also!

The Coroners report on Sting accident back in 2009 highlights the dangers of buying a used aircraft - even if it's a demonstrator from one of the biggest importers of RA-Aus aircraft in Australia! Absolutely appalling the way in which the distributor handled the records and their attitude towards the coronial process. http://www.recreationalflying.com/attachments/smith-and-guthrie-finding-final-doc.7159/ The upcoming ATSB report into the Old Bar accident and will provide interesting reading also. Factory built aircraft might be no better! If you want an RA-Aus aircraft you can rely on it seems the only way is to build it yourself (if you have the skill and patience - i certainly don't...).

Nice topic. For me it always seem to be constantly evolving. Had landings down spot on then for some reason found myself having to relearn a new technique entirely to keep the plane in one piece. I think it was either eyesight changing or reflexes fading that caused the change. The concentration's the hardest thing to maintain now the whole adrenalin-rush at getting airborne is slowly fading. I still remember when circuits seemed to flash by in the blink of an eye, now I find myself enjoying the scenery on downwind...

Remember the need to still carry all the paper documents - my only gripe with Ozrunways is the marketing they're doing in promoting their product as meeting the requirements to carry all the required documents. Was at an ozrunways presentation where the presenter and a couple of audience members got very vicious when a couple of CASA guys tried to question their position on the carrying of paper documents. Be pretty daft to rely entirely on an electronic device for everything anyway! Putting your life in the hands of a couple of IT guys out to make a buck is not a smart move. I'm an analogue kind of guy in my spare time though so have little interest in the GPS stuff I must say. Nothing wrong with a good old bit of paper, a pencil and some brain power!

I suppose my point was more that I don't see maximums as really all that relevant. I'd rather show a little respect for the machines that we use - there's no need to go trying to rip the undercarriage from the fuselage unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't think you can argue that being able to take a 13 knot crosswind comfortably is really that much more difficult than being able to take an 18 knot max crosswind - only difference is the strain you're putting on everything. There'll always be some who push the limits of their aircraft but to me that's akin to running your car down the freeway in 2nd gear bouncing off the rev limiter - it's technically below the maximum but there's not many who'd argue it's good for the engine.

All the theory is well and good but I'd like to look at it from the view of why there is a crosswind maximum component on aircraft. In my understanding it comes down to the amount of crosswind the aircraft can handle in the air which is basically a combination of controls versus profile of the aircraft. There's also a great deal of thinking that goes into the side load on the undercarriage i'd imagine however. Talk to Piper pilots and they'll tell you how much they love their wide low undercarriage in a good crosswind. Basically i'd be more concerned with the damage being done to the aircraft when operating at max crosswind more than i'd be worried about anyones ability to takeoff or land the plane. I think you can put any aircraft down with a 30 knot crosswind if you have to but you'd put no faith in the legs holding.

No need for insurance in NSW - Club can maintain it if they want to but unless you have lots of visitors the most you stand to lose is the money in the bank if someone sues. No need for audit in NSW either unless turnover greater than $250,000. Just need to lodge an annual "statement of affairs" with a simple profit and loss and balance sheet with the Department.

Airframe insurance is really something that should be mandatory and the cost in the grand scheme of things is really quite minimal. If you were flying solo and damaged it then I would think they can simply ask you to pay whether it is insured or not. Then there will no doubt be the lengthy and ongoing legal stoush. I do know that most aircraft that are cross-hired have noted on their insurance policy that it covers the flying school and all students authorised to fly it by the school. So in that case if there was an accident the insurance company would still cover all costs. Many RA-Aus policies also have extra public liability added as part of the insurance. As an aside it's also good policy to ask to see the maintenance documents for RA-Aus aircraft. GA aircraft will have the maintenance release to certify airworthiness. RA-Aus aircraft are maintained differently. Some times the documentation can leave a little to be desired - especially with aircraft components that have a limited life. My CFI said I was one of only a handful of students/hirers to have asked to see the maintenance documents in her 18 years of operating! Needless to say they were promptly brought forward and very well notated. I actually found it interesting to see how all the records tie together.

I also wanted to say that there still seems to be a popular view out there that the only career in aviation is a lineal progression. ie PPL>CPL>Instructor>Twin time>Charter>Twin charter etc. all the way to $500,000 A380 Captain. This is a very old-fashioned view which probably dates back to between the wars and is entirely focussed on "getting your hours up" rather than "getting the right hours up". The path to A380 captain has to start with a cadetship from what I can figure. Basically get in on the ground floor and work your way up. Getting there the old-fashioned way would probably take 150 years...

Hi Solomon, There are a few paths to making money out of flying as you can see above. It comes down to the type of flying you'd like to do and the type of money you'd like to make. If you're after an airline job and decent money then the only real path in my view is a cadetship through someone like Qantas or REX in Australia. If you're happy to travel then airlines all over the world run very similar cadetships and some of them are really quite cheap. To get one of these though you do have to be up to a certain standard - these things don't just fall in your lap. Any RA-Aus flying you do will be useless in this arena and any GA stuff also won't count for much. These guys (and the Air Force generally) like to get students as fresh as possible so they don't have to spend time "unteaching" them. If you're interested in training or charter flying as a career then it's simply a matter of getting out there where the jobs are. It's also a very competitive market out there for this stuff and even getting award wages can be very hard. This is the path for two kinds of people - the ones who truly love flying and the ones who were never quite good enough or willing to work hard enough to get the job they dream of. If you're the first kind of person and can make do with what money you can make (or better yet find a non-aviation job you can stand to pay the bills) then I personally think this path provides the most enjoyment. Keep in mind the only job that hours in RA-Aus aircraft or single-engine GA aircraft will get you is flying training which is great only if this is what you want to do. Problem is that the training will only get you more hours in the same aircraft so your future is set. If you want to fly twins however or earn the big bucks then you'll need to make sacrifices such as moving to where the work is or signing your life away on a cadetship. You can't steer a stationery plane so start moving down a path and see how it feels. If you like it then knuckle down and get stuck into it.

Starting off with an incorporated association is by far the easiest. Looks like you're in NSW so it's simply a matter of getting a copy of the "Model Rules" from that you can simply adopt as part of the registration process. If there's anything in the model rules you'd like to change then you can do so before registration. I'd highly recommend reducing the number of meetings and committee members in the model rules - there's nothing stopping you having more if you want to but if things dwindle for a while it's a lot easier for the enthusiastic few that are left to maintain. It's all very simple from then on. In NSW a Club has to hold an AGM every year is about the only requirement you can't change. The easiest way to keep the politics out is to limit membership as much as possible. If there are a few regulars who are looking to do this for their own enjoyment then make it hard for others to join. You could even create a non-voting membership class outside of the constitution if need be. I know this sounds counter-intuitive but from experience there are a lot of people out there who can get a bee in their bonnet over something and utterly destroy the fun for others. Having a clear outline of the purpose of the club might help with these things also. Model rules are here: http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Cooperatives_and_associations/Incorporating_an_association/About_the_constitution/Model_constitution.html Westpac have a fee-free account for not-for-profit clubs although you may have to push them to let you sign up for it.

Was wondering on whether insurance would payout as I was watching several guys flying the other weekend when NOTAMS were out closing the runways. My gut feeling is it's one of the first things an insurer would check for?

I still have hope. CASA setup their team to get all these new bits and pieces out there only a few weeks ago and we've already seen the first part roll out. The hardest part with all this stuff is getting the education out there so we know what all the new changes mean. Good chance you'll be seeing your friendly Aviation Safety Advisors rolling around with presentations and visiting organisations over the next 6-12 months.

So it begins! CASA's been very aware for a long time of the exodus of "mature" gentlemen from GA to RA-Aus due to concerns about medicals. This will help keep guys flying the aircraft that they're used to and comfortable in. The 1 pax rule is pretty simple I would have thought - same reason RA-Aus was limited - to minimise the "collateral" damage should something go wrong. I think there will definitely be an impact felt on RA-Aus over the next few years (good or bad will be dependent on the individual standpoint). A good deal of the market for the super-fast/super-light RA-Aus aircraft has just been lost. The guys who would have looked for medical reasons alone now have no reason to look. On the flip side this should provide a welcome boost to the lighter end of the GA spectrum!

Seems its started already: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/casa-briefing-newsletter-june-2012.41156/ Drivers licence medical for GA! Huge raft of changes to flow over the next few years by the sound of it.

There are just too many factors to consider before planning a navigation exercise. Weather details, fuel planning, wind calculations, end of daylight - it's not something that's just done on the spot in my view. A school to have a policy that sends it's pre-GFPT students off on a navigation exercise with only a map and one nav complete due to a shut runway sounds a little off in my view. It sounds like the ATO might know the school you're at or its CFI if he's asking such a specific question - probably catches a few of their students out with the answer. Any ATO would take a very dim view of anyone (let alone non PPL pilots) being taught to conduct unplanned navigation exercises. I'm pretty certain the ATO would have been looking for "conduct a Precautionary Search and Landing" as the answer in this instance. Your experience would be irrelevant to the ATO as they have a very simple list of questions they ask and the answers that a GFPT student should give them. I'm very concerned at the thought that a pre-GFPT student is taught they are capable of performing a navigation exercise. Even a full PPL holder would baulk at the choice of flying an unplanned nav.

I think the very simple and correct answer for GFPT for the above scenario would have been "wait until airfield clears or conduct Precautionary Search and Landing". Hard to believe your school has led you to believe you're capable of even thinking of performing navigation exercises without any maps or planning when you haven't even passed the GFPT!

No luck there i'm afraid. I thought I did pretty well remembering the name of the aircraft! It's an aluminium hub and the Vision had a Jabiru engine at the time i think. If i remember i'll ask when i'm out there later today.