SDQDI

They are not all 5 years either. As a side note our boat epirb had its battery expire so I decided to send it back to the manufacturer to get them changed and they quoted me more than what I could get the exact same model for brand new!! So I now have an old one kicking around the house. And on that note make sure you do de register them and don't just throw them out as amsa doesn't like responding to beacons set off in landfill!

A possibly helpful post from FT.......... You saw it here first on recflying! (Just having a stir FT, unlike some others I would like to meet you one day:whisper:) In case you still have him ignored Bex he suggested having the part number cut into the gussets when they are being cut out.

FWIW Bex thanks for posting here and bringing us along for the ride, it is a treat getting shown the development step by step and watching it grow.

I didn't mean to sound like I expected things to get harder for the 95.10ers, I get baffled and frustrated by those that think more privileges means we get a throat cut in exchange for said privileges. Actually for what it is worth I think the RAA cops a bit of slack for what I think is basic economics, it isn't RAAs fault that things aren't as cheap as they were in the early eighties but anyway I'll stop carrying on:doh: PS I certainly will be here on the 11th, I am currently the president of the yqdi aero club so will be out in full dress making a spectacle of myself and will certainly say G'day:thumb up: PPS anyone else who is within flying distance of YQDI is more than welcome to pop along on the 11th (this coming Saturday) for a BBQ lunch with some special guests, the deputy PM along with Michael Johnsen and our local council will all be there. So the more people that turn up to take the focus off me the better:wink: and better for aviation as a whole really:laugh:.

I'd like to see the stall limit stay but that may not be a widely held view. I know two people is a risk minimiser but I do get frustrated that I can't take both my kids and my wife for a 'rec' flight. I know 4 pob is 'GA' but I don't see any reason why the medical and maintenance of 4-6 seaters couldn't be the same as ours if not being used for commercial purposes. IMO aviation in Australia would get a boost by canning the medical for non commercial pilots (although that could also negatively affect RAA) without a huge spike in incidents. Yes I will eventually get around to converting to a PPL (I won't leave Raa though as that is where my hornet will be kept unless something hugely negative happened) and getting a medical so that I can hire a plane big enough for the wife and kids but it would be nice if there were a few less steps to get to that stage. And before I get shot down...... I DO NOT WANT ANY OF THESE EXTRA PRIVILEDGES TO ADD EXTRA REQUIREMENTS TO OUR BASIC ULTRALIGHT FLYING and I don't see any legitimate reason why they should. I think bringing aviation regs back to be more in line with road rules makes logical sense

I voted no. I do fly with a radio and I won't start on how many times I've stuffed up, or others have stuffed up or radios have been faulty as that isn't the deciding factor for me. At the end of the day we are all rec flyers and I would think the majority of us are against further rules that could hinder a fellow flyer (if not ourselves). The argument "because it will be busy" doesn't hold up for me as the busier it is the radio will become clogged and people listening will be overloaded with calls which would be counter intuitive to safety. IMO Nev has the right idea, organise from the start procedures that will aid in safe arrivals for everyone. If done properly the radio then becomes a handy aid but not the primary way to get into the field safely. Reading up on CASAs radio procedures they note that in the majority of close calls that are blamed on dodgy radios most of them are unable to reproduce that fault later which I interpret (I guess this is getting to be like he said, they said, she said Chinese whispers) to say that most errors in radios are operator error. I know I said I wasn't going to say anything I'll stop now.

Bull dust. While there are some things I don't agree with under the current leadership I think it is quite obvious that we are getting a lot more info out of them and I think we are miles in front of where we were in the not too distant past. Yes the cash reserves have gone down but take a look at the big picture, we are now using a lot more up to date system which wasn't/isn't free. Yes it may still have bugs in it but at least we are well on the way to a user friendly electronic system. As for a 5$ fee increase I think that works out to roughly a 2.5% increase which I think is reasonable, obviously it would be nice to know if further increases are planned or not. On the magazine increase side of things I don't quite agree with how that has ended but it isn't a deal breaker for me. At the end of the day we can say it is/was a fee increase but we do still have access to a digital copy which might not suit everyone (myself included) so an argument could be made that it wasn't removed. So to finish I am cautiously optimistic about the future of RAA, I do think we need to be careful going forward that we don't lose any privileges but I also like the idea of increasing our freedom/access to more aviation options. As for those who are all doom and gloom, I don't hold any hard feelings and I don't wish them to stop being negative but I would like to see them keep attending meetings and keep voting so that we do end up getting better and better.

That is an informative site Toby but is talking about the 912uls not the 912is which was the op's original question. Having said that it nearly deserves a thread of its own and I don't mean to sound as if it is not a valuable post.

I myself do base joins occasionally as taking off from one of my farm roads puts me very neatly onto base for one of the YQDI strips but I don't make a habit of it and don't do it if there is other traffic around. IMO the main reason that base joins and straight ins are frowned upon is that they can seem a little rude. From memory the regs acknowledge that by frowning upon them if they affect any other circuit traffic. Of course I don't mind flying a bit longer on downwind to make room for an rpt aircraft but if joe blogs cuts in with a base join or straight in and makes me go a bit longer on downwind it will irritate me a little and that is the main reason I don't often do them at my local field and never plan for them if I am away at another airfield.

Fair dinkum Kasper, we get a nice mag which, IMO, has some decent safety value to it and you complain? Yes privacy is important but if it is just my name and address to send me a nice little book I don't mind.

Well as far as magazines go, I got a nice little "close call" magazine in the mail yesterday. It would be nice if that became a regular thing.

My technique which may or may not be legal/correct is roughly as follows. 1. (If I have heard traffic) "Cessna alpha bravo Charlie, me 1234, radio check." Says me in me1234 "Me1234 Cessna abc reading you (relevant strength here)" hopefully said by Cessna if they have heard me "Thanks/Roger ABC you are coming through at (insert relevant strength here)" (if it is a quiet airfield I use thanks instead of roger and add a "have a good day" at the end but that will be frowned on by some.) 2(if I haven't heard traffic) "traffic (insert airstrip name here), me 1234 requesting a radio check, traffic (insert airstrip name here) Then if answered answer them as appropriate as the above example.

From what I can gather FH there WAS conversation with controllers about smoke ect which was alluded to to start with by Egyptair then denied by someone and then finally I think everyone is now agreeing that there was communication describing smoke and an emergency decent???

Personally I think engine out training is a good idea. BUT I do think strongly that it should be well briefed beforehand, I wouldn't mind a cfi killing the engine with me if we had talked about it beforehand but if they did it without briefing I would not be as happy.

Just reading this I would have to disagree as I think most people have transitioned from a 3 or 4 inch GPS to an iPad rather than paper maps to iPad. Yes yes everyone should be DRing but I would happilly gamble the family farm to a fiver that at least half of rec pilots are relying 90% on a GPS or iPad device. On that point I do think it is silly that we are taught navigation exclusively with compass and clock. I am NOT saying we shouldn't be taught C and C but I do think a portion of our navs should be done with an iPad or GPS.

Welcome Jc I hope you can keep putting up Pics of your area. Forumite Farri is also up there and teases us with some beautiful pics occasionally, it is a beautiful part of the world no doubt about it.

Happy I think what HH was meaning (even if it didn't quite come out that way) was to decend before getting near the circuit and joining a close downwind leg. In most cases this would be perfectly fine. Even for unfamiliar airfields, if you come in at 45 degrees for the downwind and just come in close enough so you can see the sock and strip you will soon see if you need to continue on and call joining crosswind for the opposite runway or if the wind is right just call downwind and you will save a bit of time. Now if you have heard traffic in the circuit you will have a decent idea of which runway is in "use" so there would be no real need to overfly as you should get a good view of the field either joining crosswind or downwind. (If you can't see the field on your downwind leg you are too far out! But that is a discussion for another day.) Having said all of that the overfly method is still my go to technique when heading to a new airfield and is generally what I plan to do unless I hear traffic and then I will reassess my options and aim for downwind or crosswind if I can see it will work.

I know it technically isn't an incident but I think this is very relevant to accidents and the aftermath thereof. This is a video that I think would be helpful for us all to have a squiz at. Not just for aircraft related things but could be useful for life and it's pitfalls in general.

I was always taught that your height was transmitted as amsl and everyone around here does that, well unless someone is doing a 500ft circuit or 500ft run but then they mention agl very clearly.

Turbs there is nothing wrong with climbing on the downwind leg. Climbing to depart overhead is one of the two recommended departure techniques. For sure it might be busy overhead but it is no different to coming into an aerodrome you just have to expect traffic and keep your eyes open. You will note the "caution" note after the recommendations. 6.4 Departing the circuit area 6.4.1 Aircraft should depart the aerodrome circuit area by extending one of the standard circuit legs or climbing to depart overhead. However, the aircraft should not execute a turn to fly against the circuit direction unless the aircraft is well outside the circuit area and no traffic conflict exists. This will normally be at least 3 NM from the departure end of the runway, but may be less for aircraft with high climb performance. In all cases, the distance should be based on the pilot’s awareness of traffic and the ability of the aircraft to climb above and clear of the circuit area. CAUTION Be aware of traffic joining the circuit by the recommended overfly procedure, especially if climbing to depart overhead the aerodrome.

It sure does Neil:thumb up:

All the more reason to have a little header tank that the wing tanks drain into so that you can't accidently jettison your fuel. With the 914 I run my electric pumps all the time so not as much to remember. What I mean by that is that is the proper way for my plane which coincidently makes it easier, I DON'T mean I leave them on to make it easier and I don't recommend that everyone does that because each plane is different. As has been said the POH should be read and understood and followed.

This may hopefully change in the future. Someone at the tamworth do in the morning asked why we couldn't have it stipulated in employees contracts that they couldn't work for casa for a few years after they finished working for RAA in a similar way that some contracts stop people working for their companies competition immediately on the finish of their employment. The CEO was very positive about this and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't being put into effect soon.

I am the same Ayecapt, not so much because I don't want to pay the extra but just because I am too lazy to go through the steps to subscribe and also to lazy to find the links to get the online version. Maybe I will subscribe next time I renew my membership. I wonder if it could be an option when we renew our certificates? (Maybe it already is but I haven't renewed for a while.)

Just a guess Dsam as I am NOT atc. I would say, if you were in an aircraft doing 200 knots, reporting every 30 minutes would not give a very accurate picture of your progress inasmuch as you would nearly be there by the time your first reporting time came up and on the other side of the spectrum if you are doing 50 knots reporting every 10 minutes will be pointless as you wouldn't have travelled far from your last point. As for something traveling at 110 I would guess that 15 minutes would be reasonable.