440032

As the chief of QANTAS doesn't require an ASIC while on airside of an airport, neither do I.

As Turboplanner said correctly, SAAA are not (and never have been) a self administering sport aviation body (like RAAus, GFA etc), and so are not eligible to participate in Part 149. SAAA did not refuse to be Part 149, we were always lead to believe we would be eligible (if we wanted it), we participated in CASA briefings and so forth, with other organisations there as well, then the rug was pulled out from under us at the last minute. Hence the notification to members that SAAA has concluded Part 149 considerations. We are not even eligible. No point wasting one more minute on it. Good luck to the first organisation that jumps into the 149 bathtub from the seven meter platform. Many other groups will be watching and waiting to see how it goes.

Nice send-off for Mark at Ballarat today. Probably near 200 there. Good stories and lots of I didn't know he did that moments. Ping ponger, horse rider, scuba diver, photographer, writer, aviator, and lots more. It will be hard for magazines to find a replacement editor with so much enthusiasm.

Clearly a twin engine SU47 Cessna Saratoga. Or a KR2.

First answer is there is no transponder required for Class D airspace. That's found in AIP fairly readily. I'll leave others to discuss the can you or can't you aspect, the answer lies in CAO 95.55, good luck decoding it satisfactorily. Some will say yes, some will say no, many will not be able to prove their conclusion either way. You need to be satisfied with proof, not just some well intended opinions. Imagine if you got it wrong, and you were relying on "some guy on some forum said I could/couldn't!" (insert buzzer sound here)

Not in North Korea Nev. In fact, in a recent poll, 137% of the population thought Kim J.U. was doing a great job!

Just to set the record straight, again, ASIC has nothing to do with CASA. It's not theirs. It was DOTARS, now something else (this week). But yes, it's bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz transmission terminated abruptly................

#1. SKYWARD - Bette Davis, Suzy Gilstrap, Howard Hesseman. #2. Never tell me never. (australian telemovie) Claudia Karvan.

Usually, the topic is raised by someone at RAPAC meetings then proceeds at a slow pace from there, only overtaken by the occasional snail. Contact your state reps. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/working-industry/regional-airspace-and-procedures-advisory-committees-rapac

US FAA Repairman Certificate is issued to the builder of the aircraft only, by the FAA, upon application, and it's sole purpose is to sign off an annual inspection, nothing more. Good, bad or otherwise, routine maintenance (on experimental aircraft) can be done by anyone there. It's a different world. And thriving there.

Porco Rosso. (The Red Pig).

I flew Mark earlier this year on an air-to-air photo shoot for one of his magazine articles. What a character. Blue skies.

One small problem Jim, well, two really... 1. The other door CASA left open is only open to a CASR Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation that is approved by CASA to provide category licence training. (see CASA Instrument 10/19). 2. When the Part 43 maintenance regulations come in (no idea how soon, could be next week, next month, next year, we just don't know..) , we have no idea what happens next. The requirement to do the MPC will change, more likely vaporise altogether. We just don't know yet how CASA are going to play it and what comes next. They have claimed that they will be introducing FAA Part 43-like regulations "with minimal changes." From what I have seen so far, that is not even slightly true. In USA, part 43 maintenance regulations do not apply (at all) to experimental aircraft.

The SAAA course is only available to members of SAAA. We are not set up to cater for non-members, even at a higher cost. Same as other organisations - services provided are for members of the particular organisation only. CASA left the door open for other training providers to invent, sell and run a course, thus far, no takers to do that. That was done to make it "not SAAA exclusive." Maintaining your own aircraft is also not mandatory, it's a choice thing. If I want to drive my go-kart at the local track, I need to be a member. If I want to ride National Velvet on the pony club arena and get a blue ribbon, I need to be a member. Yes, if we have a few varied interests, we need to be in this and that and the other organisation, even if committing aviation is the one common theme.

We can't take you anywhere Peter, can we........................

Go straight to maintenance logbook FIRST. Does it have lots of detail, or is it rather bare. Does it have good detail on particularly engine service bulletins. Ask to see all the maintenance manuals and whatever publications. Are all the engine etc service bulletins printed out and maybe in a binder? Do your own research on those after getting the engine serial number. You need to find all those first, before you go, so you know what to look for. Any service bulletin not recorded properly must be treated as not done. Good bargaining point for you, value goes down. If the logbooks check out, THEN you go look at the aircraft, which will likely be quite good also. I did a pre-purchase inspection of an aircraft for someone a few years ago as he just couldn't get there. Logbook had nothing - and I mean NOTHING - written in it for the previous 15 years and no record of the three prop strikes that I personally knew it had. (I personally knew the previous two owners who personally told me, personally, in person, to my person.) Yes, it had been flown occasionally over those 15 years. Another trip to collect an aircraft by trailer some years before, as it hadn't been flown for six years, we knew all that in advance. Aircraft had been part maintained by a LAME. He had delight telling us that he just drilled the rocker chamber vents (Jab engine) as per the Jab service bulletin. Great. Except for, it didn't apply to THAT serial number engine. DOH! I didn't make a new friend by pointing that out. Good luck with your quest.

Here's that Senate enquiry things mentioned above. If you've never seen it, I urge you to watch all three. Generally about the medical standards anomalies for <600 kg aircraft of RAAus or VH flavor, as a "level the playing field, umpire" debate. https://aopa.com.au/senate-rrat-inquiry-into-dual-medical-standards/

Ah! Yes, "Effective from March 2021" ..... of course! That's why it does not show up today. Not active yet. Thanks for that mnewb. So it's not illegal to crash, just yet! Case closed, off for tea and medals!

Looking at the part 91 regs on the CASA website, today, there is nothing between 91.005 and 91.830. Nada. Nought. Nuffink. (No MOS DJP...) Regarding the "strict liability" penalties, see attached. strict liability.pdf

Has anyone (other than me) taken a look at those mentioned regulations (and more) in the CASRs Vol 2 and 3 (on the CASA website today). Let me know how you go.

Pober Pixie.

Are the senders suitable/matched for the installed instruments? Years ago, a mate's VW oil temp went thru the roof on the first flight. Oil temp sender was a different brand to the guage, totally wrong. He got the correct sender to match the guage, then all good. The clue was that the oil was actually still cool so clearly it was not a cooling problem at all.

A friend I've known for nearly 20 years was an engineer for Rex. The treatment he got from management has destroyed him, he's lost everything, job, home, family, everything.

Haven't found the what or the when, but the where is at AERO expo, Friedrichschafen Germany. Ist gut, ja?

I find it all rather odd, I can fully maintain a car - even owned by friends, motorbikes, boats, with no qualifications. I also do some part time work at a car repair shop. I'm yet to see a service manual, tool calibration sticker, operations manual. I also see LAMEs servicing aircraft in my travels. Never ever seen a Cessna service manual on the bench.