Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About PapaFox

More Information

  • Aircraft
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

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


  3. Mildura with Sunraysia in the background
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. The flight from Murray Bridge to Mt Gambier that morning doesn't paint a nice picture either. From FR24, the last 25 minutes were all below 900', dropping down to 600' at times before doing somewhat of a circling approach (3 full orbits) at 200'. After that, airborne again 15 minutes later...
  11. All should be working again with the links. I hadn't renewed the domain due to lack of use, and the files on the server are rather out of date, however I have been working on updating it again, so will upload the current version when finished
  12. In the first video, at the moment the first dust is kicked up from the prop, the elevator is clearly seen rising rapidly along with full rudder deflection, although it was too late by that stage
  13. Neil, exactly as Alf and others have said. What FACTS do YOU have apart from quick assumptions. Given that portable locators require manual activation, they are not the panacea
  14. I wonder if any Dutchess pilots (or insurance companies) are getting a bit concerned at the moment. Coincidentally very similar to another incident at Cowra a month ago Update: Pilots escape injury after forced landing | Photos, Video
  • Create New...