dsam

I agree Nev. However real-world pilot experiences often differ from black letter regulation. For example, errors in setting QNH, Track errors, Missed approach path vectors, instrument errors, etc. I'd like to empower Banyule Council with some practical examples beyond what CASA might allow. Banyule council's legal team might benefit with such examples in VCAT.

Perhaps I was too brief. Yes, Banyule Council unanimously voted against the proposal. Yes, Council has my objection including the YMEN approach plates. Yes, Council will contact CASA. Yes, it will go to VCAT. My plan is to tie up and constrain the developer & VCAT in CASA red tape, so nothing tall ever gets built in this residential suburb. I’m looking for “unofficial” real-world experiences here, because I am not IFR (just RA-Aus). Can anyone answer my original questions? What is the typical vertical clearance in this instance? What are the IFR clearance minimums? I’ve included the ILS plate for reference as well, but the NDB looks worse (which is better for my argument). Here the ILS missed approach path looks like a problem too. Advice please?

A predatory developer wants to build a ridiculous 26-storey building in suburban Ivanhoe at the top of Melbourne's second highest hill. Residents & Council don’t want it. It tops out around 630 ft. AMSL directly under the CAT A&B NDB approach path (see approach plate with pink line showing location of structure). The structure is 7.2 NM from RWY 26 threshold. Surely CASA, Airservices Australia, and the Essendon airport management would reject this as unsafe, wouldn’t they? Can any YMEN IFR pilots advise me of the likely vertical clearance between this tower’s top and their aircraft’s approach? What are the minimums?

I have a real soft spot for the DC3. As a 13 year old air cadet in 1969 it was my first time in an aircraft. We flew in an RCAF transport from Calgary to Cranbrook in the BC Rockies. As it was winter, I couldn't believe how beautiful the mountain scenery was from the air. They even did some gentle stalls enroute for the cadets up front and on the jump seats aft. All fantastic fun! Unfortunately the snowy weather closed in, and we could not return by air. The cadets still enjoyed the new adventure of a hastily arranged bus ride back home in the wee hours of the morning. Caught the flying bug then, and it has never left me since. Wonderful memories - wonderful aircraft.

I have the Dynon 10" Skyview system (non touch screen). I am very happy with it, as it clearly provides a wealth of information not readily available with standard instrumentation. The Dynon system runs the autopilot which is very handy for the longer legs of my flight plans.

It's easy to be an armchair pilot, but nobody mentioned the beautiful beach straight ahead of him where a downwind turn-back to runway was unnecessary. Phone video footage suggests he kept a nose high attitude, trying to stretch his glide to the runway rather than be decisive about maintaining airspeed to flare nicely somewhere (either the beach, or the golf course he just flew over on climb out). A LAME I know has suggested a likely engine seizure due to an oil petcock (for anti hydraulic-lock) accidentally being left closed on the pre-flight check. Only a theory, but apparently is a likely cause on that engine.

Interestingly, years ago I landed at Tindal (as a passenger with a PPL in his VH piper) when Tindal was inactive restricted airspace. As you suggest, such wide open spaces are ideal for supersonic fighter training, in my opinion. Granted, it is a remote place to spend any time living, but why should the military tie up so much vital urban airspace.

Hypothetical RA-Aus question regarding any (RA1) restricted airspace that is KNOWN to be currently Inactive. If a transponder equipped 24 rego aircraft with a Pilot Certificate holder in command wishes to transit this airspace: A) Can they do so under current regulations? B) if so, MUST they contact ATC prior to entry knowing it to be inactive? For the record, I always plan around all Restricted airspace, though I'm just not 100% clear on RA-Aus regs in such circumstances.

Hi recflyer. I usually pull on full flap under 75 knots on late base to final. As a former glider pilot, I tend to set up for a rather high but steep final (which helps keep me above any unseen power lines at unfamiliar ALA's). Sideslips with full flaps are permitted, and they are well mannered, thanks to the hanging flaperon config. Once over the threshold fence I'm generally just under 60 knots, and really washing off this excess speed on a longish & flat flare to my aiming point. The main gear is robust and wide, so stability on the ground is good. There is still good control authority upon touchdown to keep the nosewheel off as I tend to do at my local (often wet) grass strip (YLIL). Soft field take-offs I do with full flaperon (yes, full...) Being full length, the maximum flap angle is only around 15 degrees, so it is more lift, than drag producing. Though I haven't actually measured it, solo with under 1/4 tanks, I'm off a hard surface in around 80 metres, I estimate. I hope this is the info you wanted. Horsham Aviation are the (very capable) agents for Eurofox in Australia, if you want to follow-up on this aircraft further. I also have them do all my maintenance, and they are as meticulous as the factory that builds them. Happy flying...

My 2 cents worth on this: Eurofox 3k. Loved it so much I bought one. Rotax 912 reliability, 110 knots TAS cruise, 36 knots at touchdown - all with very well mannered flight characteristics, thanks to suspended full length flaperons. Roomy with excellent visibility. STOL (140 metres at 560 kg MTOW - much shorter when light). Wings fold back for solo trailering. Robust & immaculate factory build quality. Dynon Skyview runs the autopilot - handy for the long navs (540 nm max range). I know I'm biased, but there are no significant shortcomings I can think of. It even tows gliders if required!

For this reason it puzzles me why RA-AUS has had to resort to FOI action to see CASA evidence. One can only conclude they have much to hide. Aviation organisations in particular, need to keep lobbying the minister to hammer home the Forsythe review recommendations they "claim" to have taken notice of.

Did anyone have a chance at Avalon to tackle CASA reps there over the damaging behaviour of their organisation? It would be interesting to hear them try to defend themselves.

Nobody...? Is it too hopeful that we might gain back some of the excessive military restricted airspace? Or is this just about reckless cost-cutting, and shedding ATC jobs...?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/161433/thales-selected-for-australian-air-traffic-control-contract.html Anyone have a knowledgeable view about this announcement? What impact will it have on recreational aviators?

Interestingly, the American military just landed one of their drones at Avalon for the airshow static display. I believe it came in from Guam. It looked like it was a night landing, here.

It is interesting that since my original post at the top of this thread, it seems 36 out of 37 recommendations of the Forsythe review have been approved by Warren Truss to reform CASA. Here's hoping he makes sure at least some of those changes are forced to take place (I wish I was more optimistic about this actually happening). Secondly, in the last e-mail newsletter from RA-Aus, there is an indication that they have made undertakings to Skidmore to go ahead with the possibility of CTA endorsements for suitably equipped 24 rego aircraft. Again, I am hopeful, though I reserve myself from optimism - but who knows... Perhaps common sense might prevail after all!

Even with a President that is a "favorite" of the government of the day, having a fixed term of 4 or 5 years, the president is likely to outlast the usual term of government, which is typically much less than 3 years these days. Regardless, with a mainly ceremonial role, the political persuasion of the President is unlikely to have much functional impact. But having an Australian that is our Head of State, is a very coherent "look" to our formal international affairs.

Interestingly, Canada still has the Queen as Head of State, but they changed their flag in 1967. Canada's constitution used to be a UK act of parliament (the British North America Act) up until the early 1990's (I think), when Canada established its own Act of Parliament as the national Constitution. At least Australia has had its own Constitution for quite some time now. The Australian flag is quite likely to change following the repatriation of our own Head of State/President. However, I feel it is best to leave the flag alone through the period of transition to a republic, so as to not conflate & confuse the separate issues involved.

RE: Head of State (aka President) of an Australian republic: One danger is that the position of President can claim a mandate that rivals that of the Prime Minister, if the President is directly elected by the people of Australia. My suggested way to avoid this potential power conflict is: A: 5 proposed Presidential candidate names get put forward by a federal Senate committee (comprised of both opposition and govt. members). B: Presidential voting is done by Whole of House members (ie. Senate + Reps) including Whole of House voting by every State & Territory Government. This way, there is clear & national "democratic" input to the position of President, but the political mandate is "at arms length" to individual voting citizens, so power conflicts & political bias would be minimised. The powers of the President & would be strictly limited, so the day-to-day role would be mostly ceremonial, and the term of appointment should be fixed (to either 4 or 5 years). The issue of the flag could & should be left for much later, so as to not muddy the waters during a referendum campaign for a republic.

Perhaps Dick Smith to the rescue...?

I wonder how many Australian vets of the recent Middle East operations will be inclined to go into politics? What changes might they bring, I wonder...

It sounds to me like here in Oz, the inclination and skillset to take over an "upset" airliner is more likely to be found, thanks to the prevalence of GA/RA opportunities our pilots tend to take up and maintain. In our neighbouring countries, GA "sideline activities" would be much less likely. Add to this the dis-inclination to challenge authority figures over fuel for diversions, and cockpit authority issues during confusing system failures, and the whole picture seems a bit more disturbing. The best hope is for more rigorous simulator training throughout a pilot's career, I would think - particularly in countries where dabbling in GA isn't prevalent.

Thanks dutchroll. That's about what I thought. I didn't really mean to imply handflying in the cruise for practice with passengers. It was more about simulator training regiems testing what skills can be demonstrated when system failures make handflying a necessity. Further, what cockpit teamwork gets demonstrated at such times, (authority gradient, confidence, etc).

True, best not to speculate specifically in this most recent case (yet). Speaking generally though, how confident are airline pilots to bypass cockpit systems when things are obviously haywire, declare the emergency, and actually (& skillfully) take over the flying sometime before they smash into the ocean! How good are the simulator regiems to test this "human factor" in their pilots & co-pilots as an effective team? Also questionable is a flight crew setting up a flight plan through such weather in the first place - again it is down to a pilot's ability (or perhaps his authority against the company fuel budget).

Similarities between these two tragic events cause me to really wonder whether the modern airliner cockpit is causing pilots to loose the ability to actually fly a plane. Natural "seat of the pants" skills atrophy if left un-used. Do the basic stick and rudder skills ever get reinforced during an airline pilot's career, or does that just fall by the wayside in modern commercial aviation?