KRviator

Sorry. that should be VOR/NDB info, VOR shows up as a VOR, the NDB's as a "Tower_Short" icon. Can't seem to edit the above post...

Thank's lads, with Excel it doesn't take too long to do at all, so I've included the NavAids as another CSV download. It only has VOR/ILS info in it, no ILS/DME/LOC info but if you need to find an ILS in a hurry, odds are you've got bigger problems than this can help with!

Because I am a good-natured bloke (and get bored easily) I decided to work out a way to import all published Australian airports into my SkyView system - a process that was relatively painless using the DAH, Adobe and Excel. However, as the RecFlying forum architechture doesn't allow uploading of *.CSV files, you'll need to actually download them from my post at the Dynon Forums, over here... Now, given there are many hundreds of Certified and Uncertified/ALA's in Australia, I cannot guarantee these are accurate inasmuch as I haven't screwed up something in the PDF-XLS conversion, but those in my immediate vicinity correlate perfectly with the OzRunways VTC overlay. That is my way of saying you use these files and the data therein at your own risk. If you get lost, that's your own fault, these are intended for situational awareness only. Furthermore, I haven't been anal enough to go through and categorise each and every airport to their respective icon in SkyView. If it's a Certified airport, per the DAH, it gets a "Filled" icon, if it is a Uncertified aerodrome or an ALA, it gets a "Hollow" icon. Additionally, these will show up as User Waypoints in SkyView, so you need to have the "display user waypoints" option selected at a suitable map range to enable you to see them. I will endeavour to keep these two files updated with each revision of the DAH unless AsA has a dummy spit, or I get tired of doing so. Anyway these are based on the November 2017 revision, with the next being due in May 2018. Eventually I might do the NavAids as well, but for now, here's the two airport files. Happy Flying!

If you're happy to let an instructor learn on your plane, you're more than welcome. Me on the other hand, feel this is an unnecessary risk, particularly when it can be avoided and I wouldn't stand for it. The 'suck it and see' mentality has no place in aviation.See that plane below? It was someone's Belite. Here's what happened in the pilots (note, NOT the owner) own words.

It is just another plane, but like most every plane they all handle differently, that's all. As the instructor, you need to be aware of the aircraft's handling quirks to be able to catch a students mistake, which, if you've never flown it, means you're learning at the same time as the student and that doesn't leave you much time to be able to salvage something if the student fluffs it - clearly not an ideal scenario.The Foxbat also has this funny arrangement for mounting the elevator and flaperons that leaves you with the impression a series of bolts, washers and clevis pins have fallen off, when that's just the design - which if you didn't know about it could lead you to trying to ground a perfectly serviceable aircraft. And the flap handle is inboard between your heads, so you can't simply drop the flaps anytime you want, you need to be established in a comfortable flightpath, swap hands on the (centre) stick, drop the flaps, then swap hands again.

I could probably teach someone to fly a 737 even though I've never flown one, too... I flew in a FoxBat today (3rd time) for my BFR after 18 months flying my RV and it was different enough to cause a few hiccups. I wouldn't want to try to learn from someone who themselves is learning the plane!Don't stress too much about the RAAus aspect. Learn under RAAus in a Foxbat, send the form off to CAsA to RPL your RPL (sorry, couldn't resist...), and away you go. The only limitation may be if your Foxbat is VH-...

AND IT WORKS NOW! You can now transfer your flight plan from your old iPad2 running iOS9 to SkyView via the WiFi connection. BIG thanks to the OzR lads!

Pretty much, yep. The 24.2 is accurate based on flight time tests, not just indicated fuel flow, though it does vary slightly up to 24.5 sometimes. This is for flight at 8,500', and it takes 10.5L to climb to and descend from that altitude. With the engine in my -9A, you can run MoGas too, so there is not a significant difference in operating costs between a Rotax-powered Lightning, (for example) and an RV-9A. And depending on your mission, the -9A can be registered RAAus too - mine is one of two on the register.

FP Sensenich G/A prop, 145KTAS at 24.2LH in my -9A, and I could probably have pushed that out towards 150KTAS if I had paid more attention to drag reduction during the build. EFII would also make a significant-enough-to-warrant improvement next time too!

Wait till the missus buys one of those Google Home things and you test it out with things like 'Ammonium Nitrate bomb receipie' or 'How to assassinate Donald Trump'.She gives you one of "those" looks...

Good thing CASA can't intervene. Remember that bloke with the drone who wanted a Bunnings Snag?

Not always, no you don't. Take a look at some of the restricted areas closed off around Williamtown, Amberley, or even the CTR around some of the major airports, and the only practical option to get around, under or through, these areas is not overly friendly. The lane through Dungog and Gloucester has an upper limit of 1000AGL. Do I fly over tiger country? Certainly. But I am comfortable wrapping the -9 up into a ball to walk away, and with a stall speed in the mid 40's, I am confident such an arrival would not be life-threatening. Painful, perhaps, but not fatal.

A big thing that needs to be instilled in pilots IMHO is this:When the engine fails, destroy the aircraft if you have to, to ensure you walk away! It seems too many people focus on attempting to save the aircraft, resulting in a stall/spin/other undesirable outcome. If you condition yourself to accept the aircraft is disposable - even if you built it yourself - you are likely to be happy to fly it into trees under control, rather than trying to stretch the glide in an attempt to reach that unreachable clearing.

But look at their definition of a model aircraft: A boomerang fails on that point...

I went from RAAus -> VH -> RAAus with my RV-9 a few months ago. The transition back from VH -> RAAus was about as painless as it could possibly have been, thanks mainly to Jared S at RAAus HQ. I didn't keep it VH- as the SAAA refused to provide the MPC dates that would enable me to re-weigh the plane and compile a valid MR. Be stuffed if I'll pay a LAME to do it for me when I built the plane and its' flown near-on 100 hours under RAAus already...Still haven't heard if there are going to be any MPC's run this year either...If going from RAAus -> VH, use caution in filling out the CAsA form if it is still on the RAAus register. You will get it back, while being called a liar from CLARC because CAsA defines "foerign" as "any register other than ours", notwithstanding the context of the question is asking about other countries...Then end up in a 30 minute argument with them about it. Anybody want to buy low-time RV-9?!?

If it is Australian ones you want, check out Sect 17 & Sect 20 of the ASA Designated Airspace Handbook. Every cert/reg airport in Aust, and every ALA as listed in the ERSA. And Sect 21 has the Aids too. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V and off you go! :-)

If you want an international listing of airports and codes and coordinates, etc, Google one of the Flightsim NavData packages. You can grab them as a TXT file, and their have all the navaids, airports, etc, with country, Lat/Long, magnetic variation etc etc.

Okay, so perhaps you could clarify how filing IFR helps you find your landing spot over conducting the flight under the VFR? You still can't see the fence, judge height AGL or find that SWER you talked about. And you're not likely to have your visual chart open vs an ERC-L.The only practical benefit I can see in conducting the flight using a PIFR is in case of inadvertent IMC the outcome may - and I emphasise may be better. Certainly, to the minima, then off you trot to your alternate, as you can't get visual. Same as a NVFR- rated pilot who couldn't acquire the airport or maintain VMC. Who said anything about illegal ops?!? Big difference between using them in the planning phase and trying to find a landing spot in a hurry in the IFR environment in IMC. As is managing those risks - which you haven't addressed one iota except to say it's safer under the IFR, with no real justification. The only risk addressed by that is inadvertent IMC (which introduces additional risks that then need mitigating...). Taking that away and most everything else I can see is the same.

How so, given your commentary below? Try contemplating an off-field landing in IMC. Finding one suitable - when you likely don't even have a visual chart available, yet alone any topographical information available. As soon as you descend below LSALT you are on your own, with exactly zero guidance. Methods of determining wind direction under the IFR are equally applicable and available as under NVFR. GPS/VOR/NDB tracking is all available under the NVFR, IAW the AIP. Members have been contesting points you raise, but you continue to parrot your alarmist rhetoric. What if this...What if that...as though a PIFR in a single is somehow the magical cure to these maladies when someone with your claimed experience should realise it isn't - and in those cases you raise a PIFR rating exposes you to more risk than simply flying VFR. While conveniently neglecting to point out the many dangers of SE IFR... And fog forms exclusively at night? That experience is equally applicable to VFR or IFR pilots. Remember fog is cloud on ground, so you wouldn't be visual at the minima, so off you go to your alternate. Or if that is fogged in too you are in exactly the same predicament no matter your flight category.

The problem with that concept is: Unless you are recent and competent on instruments, you are setting yourself up with a false sense of confidence. "I've got an instrument rating, what can go wrong?", when you find yourself in a no-shit IMC approach you can get behind the airplane very quickly. Witness the number of accident reports of single-pilot IFR coming to grief. If you plan a flight to an airport with a low dewpoint depression, you are likely to come unstuck, but that is part and parcel of your training as a pilot. How many VFR pilots get caught inadvertent IMC every year? And these are day-VFR pilots. More than NVFR pilots I would suggest, though I have no statistics to back that up. No one is suggesting we restrict this style of flying in any way not suggesting it is unsafe... Night flying can be as dangerous as you want to make it. Like everything, it is about managing the risk and reducing it to a value you are prepared to accept. Would I do it in my -9? Certainly. But I have a decent EFIS and dual-axis autopilot. Would I do it in a clapped-out 152 from a local aero club? Perhaps, maybe even probably, not.

Clearly - and thankfully - the worldwide NAA's don't share those sentiments, given the number of paperless cockpits that now exist in airlines around the world.

It would be the perfect engine for the RV-9, but at over $10,000USD More than a typical brand-new Lycoming clone it doesn't make a lot of financial sense...

Except in the NT... Section 155 of the criminal code:

Installation, simple as it is, likely wouldn't comply with Schedule 8, so it would require a LAME to install it each time, so the only ones to really benefit from the 'portable' systems would be aircraft operated under RAAus.

Wonder what the drag penalty is???