KRviator

Where is the requirement to "apply" for CTA access referred to, @skippydiesel?

Typically around 1,600km. With all the gear it isnt exactly lightweight - or aerodynamic. I record date, distance travelled, quantity added and indicated consumption (to crosscheck against actual) to track actual fuel economy and usually get 15.5-16.5 without a trailer. The long term average over 19,000km so far, with highway, towing, around town etc is 16.12L/100.

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft. I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

Well don't keep it to yourself. What did you learn? That you need one? That you need one beyond X-nm? And here's one not a lot of people know....Your beacon must be registered with the AMSA!

I've had Dynon in my RV broadcasting full ADS-B out for years using the GPS-2020 antenna, relying on the provisions of CASR 21.470. Essentially, the installation (modification) is approved by the FAA, so CASA automatically recognizes it, notwithstanding the provisions of CAO20.18.

I disagree. Going coastal implies a climb to cruise, descent to low level mid-flight, and climbing back to cruise altitude. That should not be necessary to get through an empty parcel of Class C. P or R, yes, but not C - particularly in a relatively high performance GA single. Ol' mate was screwing up by the numbers, no argument, but I'd put the proximate cause of this accident at the feet of the ATCO. He denied a clearance "just because". There was no traffic, no weather, and no ASA procedure that required him to do so, he just "did". ASA is Australia's Air Navigation Service Provider. If they can't (or won't) provide a service to GA/VFR then pi$$ them off and get some FAA-types who will.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. Forget his currency, or lack thereof, it's an 'administrative' issue only. What difference did his currency make in the context of this accident? None at all. Were he actually current, he would "legally" have been there, instead of "illegally" being there. Highlighting the currency issue, while "technically" correct for an accident investigation/report, does not achieve anything in preventing a similar accident. I would wholeheartedly agree his decision making left an awful lot to be desired, but being refused a clearance though empty airspace "just because" does not sit well with me. There was no other traffic within cooee, there was known bad weather, and the Trainee ATCO couldn't handle a simple VFR clearance through 7 miles (<3 minutes) of his airspace - yet didn't get upset when the PIC violated his airspace anyway...The Trainee ATCO didn't want the workload, and so wanted the pilot of an aircraft in the middle of its' cruise flight to descend to <3,500 to get through the Coffs area and palmed him off to another Controller's area of responsibility - and then had the PIC being passed back and forth thrice more, all the while said PIC is closing on not only bad weather but CTA he has been denied clearance to enter that triggered all this in the first place. I take issue with that comment. The aircraft was equipped with a GTN650. That's TSO'd to 146 and waaaaay above what you need for VFR flight. I have a KLN-90B in the RV-9A and am legally allowed to use that for enroute navigation with "positive fixes" pushed out from 30 minutes, to two hours but AIUI, a "positive fix" is considered to be when provided with a TSO'd GNSS anyway... With a C145/146 GNSS with FDE, that allows sole means navigation with nothing but that little black box telling you where you are & where you need to go.

Replace those two victims with you and your missus then. Or me and the KRviatrix. Yes, he was uncurrent, and "legally" should not have been there. But it wasn't his technical skills as a pilot that brought him undone. This could have happened to any VFR pilot - and to be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't more often given the airspace layout & lack of clearances available from some agencies. 0717 & 45NM north CFS - Request clearance from Controller A. Refused, directed to contact Controller B. (Now I'd be thinking 'there goes Plan A') Request clearance from Controller B. Advised "I don't control that airspace, contact Controller A" (Now I'd be thinking 'Well, phuck, there goes Plan B') Contact Controller A again. Directed to contact Controller B again (Thinking 'WTF is that going to achieve?!?') 0721 Contact Controller B, advised "Clearance only available below 1,000" Bear in mind this whole time he's covering over 2.5 miles a minute, is closing on the 5,500' step that he doesn't have clearance to enter, has lost his Plan A & B, and likely didn't have a Plan C such that at that rate & RoD still had a not-insignificant airspace infringement in the 5,500' step. I wonder what the report about the UH-1 crash at Newcastle will have to say on this issue (clearances & airspace layout) as well...

I'm guessing the site's SSL certificate is expired and someone in the office hasn't renewed it. Might need to increase our fees to pay for someone to keep on top of that issue? 🤑

RAAus BFR = WOFTAM. GA BFR with a decent instructor = good value & worthwhile. I have not done a RAAus BFR that was challenging or from which I took anything significant away. But a GA BFR where you are placed under the hood and have to maintain S&L, execute a level 180 or climbing 180 to a specific heading, go through CTA that you normally wouldn't or properly use the P charts to work out if you can get in or out of a particular strip is good value.

Yes....And no...The Comanche I missed out on was priced very reasonably for what it was - probably why it went in less than a week which surprised even me. The other one I've looked at, is significantly overpriced for what it is. The seller paid $92,500 a year ago, installed a very basic GPS in it, and now wants $105-110K for it - and from what I can tell, it hasn't had the gear SB done on it, which if it fails, is mega $$ (the FAA actually made it an AD, CAsA didn't).

I think @jackc is on point. I've tried to buy the same Comanche - twice - and each time the buyer has pulled it from sale after it being listed for a few days. I missed out on a beautiful Comanche -260C by a weekend last month after the KRviatrix dilly-dallied confirming the $$ would work out, so now to get an equivalent plane to that -C model will likely cost another $50K. Wimmen! 😛 I'm thinking about penning a letter to every Comanche owner on register asking if they want to sell. I CBF importing one from the US with all the extra hassle!

IT always was, and remains, the best option. You might roll your plane up into a ball, but you'll likely survive if you choose what you hit. Once you depart controlled flight, where and what you'll hit - and how hard you hit it - is anyone's guess.

I got hit with a near-$15 landing fee at Scone a couple weeks back, in a <1,000Kg RV-9 - after ironically flying up for an information session (all of 2 hours on the ground) to discuss the airport upgrades. They've also introduced a fee for each T&G now too, asshats. Yet Councillor Ron Campbell in their December meeting wants "the airport to be used much much more in the future" - but they are increasing their landing fees, and introducing additional ones, to deter GA operators from using their airport. Can't remember which document I read it in, but they added (or wanted to add) a 6cpl surcharge on fuel purchases there too, that is, for each litre of fuel dispensed, 6c goes straight to Council.

Just a followup to my "The Scone camera's aren't working..." post above. They are now - courtesy of the folks at Airspeed Aviation & East Coast Aircraft Maintenance. Click HERE. I'll hopefully be able to add a 6th option in the next few weeks from the opposite end that has weather data overlaid on it.

For the moment, I'd avoid Scone like the plague. The availability of fuel is limited and the AD Manager apparently published the incorrect phone number for the on-site refueller now their self-serve bowser has been removed - and she has now got the Council charging for each T&G, instead of a 1-per-session fee like most other places. 🤬 Wait until they get their "upgrade" sorted out before planning a stop over there. I can't even get the RV into my hangar there until the end of January! 🤬 Also bear in mind going coastal through Sydney is likely to be easier than going coastal through Newcastle which you'll also have to negotiate, but if it were me, I'd consider YMRY-YGLB-BTH (fuel)-YWKW-YCMH. The difference is +15 minutes over YMRY-YCMH direct, but that 15 minutes gives you high-altitude, stress free, turbulence free flying, with much better options if the engine stops. I've done Victor-1 multiple times as part of a scenic junket but wouldn't plan it as part of a cross-country flight, a mid-trip descent to low level just to get past Sydney doesn't make sense to me, I'm all for takeoff, climb, cruise, descend, land keeping things as simple and boring as possible! 😛 The other benefit to clipping the southern edge of the 'Tops is both Cessnock and Maitland have weather-cams so you can see the actual weather - as does Goulburn & Bathurst for that matter. Scone doesn't have theirs installed yet, with the only other ones up that end of the Hunter being the ASA cameras at Murrurrundi. For fuel, if you can't or don't want to do YBTH-YCMH-YBTH you also have Taree & Port Macquarie a few minutes away too.

After a quick read through the judgement, the thing that struck me was the Judge finding the pilot, in effect, negligent for screwing up the approach resulting in the subsequent go-around. I've lost count of the number of times I've abandoned a landing into Somersby because I didn't like how things were going, but does that make me negligent? I'd argue not at all. Flying visually is purely a seat-of-the-pants judgement exercise. What one person thinks is a mile away might be two, but that difference between two individuals is a 300' difference on the glidepath... There's no argument he royally screwed up the approach, (I think every pilot has done that several times) but he abandoned it and went around, was still within the OLS protected area and hit something that shouldn't have been there. If he were low on the departure profile, ok, he might be negligent, but he was above the protected area and had the right to expect it to be free of obstacles - no matter how good his initial survey of the airport environs was in his overflight.

From the judgement, here is where the court found the Ferris Wheel. IT pokes into the splay a damn sight more than 2m!

I typically don't change tanks regularly. Start & warm up on one, taxi out on the other, take off and climb to altitude and change back to the first one until I run it dry, and only then do I change back. The one exception to this is if I am down to less than 15L or so in it, I'll go for the fuller tank in the circuit to minimize the chance of unporting the outlet due a slip etc.

I don't understand why everyone doesn't have an AH - even one of those little portable jobs like a Dynon D3 - as a "I stuffed up but this can save my life" type of deal. I've lost the horizon when flying before, but wasn't in cloud - surrounded by it yes, but not in it - and I was eternally grateful for that 10" EFIS right in front of me. And that's in a simple VFR RV. Being able to immediately transition to that might have helped these two idiots...

Makes me wonder if they snagged the glider as U/S for an engineering inspection. They pulled enough G's to lose the camera mount - and I know sometimes it doesn't take much to do that - but the G-meter shows nearly 8G's on the recovery and that looks to be over the redline on the G-meter.

Yeah, this'll work.....HHmm, maybe this wasn't such a good idea.....What's that smell?

Must be the Kiwi -GDG, the Aussie one is listed as a single seat. The only other thing I have to say is "WTF were they thinking playing so close to cloud without an AH?" Wonder what a new pair of seat cushions costs for one of those fancy high-performance gliders?

I don't think it's water they're spraying. Maybe CO2? Here's a better video showing the drones up close on the ground, they aren't overly small, but still, there's no chance they can carry a hose filled with any decent amount of water.

If you are going to routinely do over-water flights, I would recommend something like the HEED/SpareAir tiny SCBA systems. They're fairly cheap, relatively small, and could probably be mounted under your knees in most planes and would give you enough time to calm down after the initial oh-shyte moments and avoid the panic of knowing you only have a few seconds to get out before you need to breathe. I've seriously considered getting one for the RV, as if I put it in the water, being a bubble canopy it'd be hard to open if it flipped over in the time I'd likely have available.