KRviator

Owning it is not illegal. Using it is illegal. And, without a spectrum analyser or a bunch of other high-tech equipment they've no proof whatsoever that you used it unless they catch you in the act.

 

While CASA does appoint Authorised Persons and Investigators under the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Regulations, and under certain circumstances they can seize items, the use of a non-ACMA-approved radio does not fall under the CAA or CAR's, it falls under the radiotelecommunications act, over which they have zero jurisdiction. Ergo, CAsA staff cannot seize your airband portable, even if they suspect you've been using it.

 

Also note that "Authorised Persons" appointed under CAR6 are not the same as "Investigators" appointed under Section 32AA - and it is only "Investigators" that can seize items. So if the ID card of the CAsA bloke says "AP under CAR6", they can't touch your portable - or anything else... The best they could try would be an offence under CAR83 regarding unauthorised transmission if not qualified, or maaaaybe CAR82 "Aircraft must be equipped with such radio system as CAsA approves" if such approval specifies ACMA-accepted gear.

 

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 32AH Seizures related to civil aviation offences(1) This section applies if:

(a) an investigator searches premises with the consent of the occupier, as mentioned in section 32ACA; or

 

(b) an investigator searches premises in accordance with a warrant that has been issued under section 32AF or 32AG.

 

(2) The investigator may seize a thing that he or she:

 

(a) finds in the course of the search; and

 

(b) believes on reasonable grounds to be evidential material; and

 

© believes on reasonable grounds needs to be seized to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, or its use in committing, continuing or repeating a civil aviation offence.

That only applies to factory-built aircraft. It does not apply to any amateur built ultralight. Many people within RAAus fell for that fallacy, right upto management level, but CAO95.55 Ch 1.3 is explicit in that it does not apply.

 

I'll be the first to admit I do not have sufficient payload for two adults and even VFR reserves, yet alone trip fuel. That being said, I have a fast, long-range single seater, for me solo with full tanks or a suitable two seater for a local junket with one of my kids for upto 2.5 hours with reserves. That suits my mission perfectly. Eventually I'll probably go for the RPL and SAAA for an Experimental CoA, but right now, that's too much hassle, for several reasons.

 

 

Not a -4, but my RV-9A is going on the RAAus rego, hopefully this week. Current Basic Empty Weight is 422.25Kg, without gear fairings or prop blades, with the final weighing to be done by the L4. I'm assuming worst-case 950Lbs BEW, leaving 370Lbs payload, but it might sneak in around 940.

 

MTOW under CAO 95.55 is 600Kg / 1320Lbs, not 1200Lbs. And, for amateur-built aircraft, there is no payload limitation based on number of seats as there is for LSA/factory-built.

 

 

What happened to the old aero club competition bursting these balloons?

 

You'd roll out on final, call for release, or flick the landing light, and try to pop it with the prop as it climbed.

 

 

100NM is about an hour flight in a jab type, allot happens in an hour but more importantly is ALL IFR traffic will be on area.

What is the reference/requirement for IFR aircraft being on Area QNH when Local QNH is available?

Clearly I'm not the only one out and about with an accurate QNH, per the AIP if you "know guys around there" that do it as well.

 

I've had a pretty good look through the AIP, and I can't find where it says what it is "intended" to mean. It says use a known QNH within 100nm of your route, if that is not available, use area. That makes the most sense as it means an accurate QNH for local conditions.

 

If you choose not to, well, that's up to you, particularly as you seem to know of the 100nm requirement but ignore it anyway. But if you're that scared of me being on local QNH and you being on area, to use you're example we have a 120' buffer between us vertically for the same altitude enroute.

 

Knowing that, and if you reckon most other pilots are flying on area QNH, I think I'll stick to what I'm doing!

 

 

Yes! Pet hate of mine, I know guys out here who cruise around on Terminal all day long, update from aerodromes they transit past, all because they don't want to bother (couldn't be bothered?) getting Area off Brisbane.

Maybe because that is what the AIP says to do? Use a QNH setting from a reference source within 100Nm, if not available, use area.If you blast off into the briny blue and don't touch the subscale again, then you're a goose though, I agree...

 

 

I was always taught to have a 200' below designated step as traffic can be at the step height in controlled airspace. Below transition height you should be on area QNH either on forecast or from the ATIS. NO? Nev

Traffic cannot be at the step height, as it is not in controlled airspace at that height if you're in G. Well,if the overlying airspace is C and oure in E then he could be there I suppose, but then he's not being separated from VFR traffic.Where two layers of airspace adjunct vertically, you are always in the "lower" class (not the physically lower) of airspace. Ie C/E, you're in E. E/G, you're in G. AIP ENR 1.4 1.1.7 refers.

 

 

Don't forget you don't need to be under a CTA step. If the base of the control zone is 500, you can cruise along quite happily at 500', just the same as if the base of C over E is 8500 and you're at 8500, you're in Class E.

 

 

Thank you for your efforts Andy, it was good to talk to you several weeks ago. Hopefully things will work out for you shortly.

 

 

Guys - completely inappropriate to be discussing this in an online forum that's open to anyone.

Why? And it is not "open to anyone". The forum owner can permit or deny anyone he so chooses. The same as any internet forum. IF only one person modifies their behaviour or double-checks something and finds an error or omission, then these discussions have served a purpose. And, from personal experience in another industry, they do achieve that.

 

I am a family member and it was extremely easy to sign up and get access to these posts after hearing through friends what was being said.

And if you hadn't, you wouldn't be any the wiser....Yet here you are, based on what you had "heard".

 

Let's get the facts straight though - the pilot was experienced and the aircraft was registered.

That has yet to be determined and disclosed officially. You're more than welcome to rebut any claims the media make - in the media. Would you like their details?

The plane was privately owned and was not registered' date=' with Mr Brown the sole occupant, [b']police said[/b].Source

 

The family will be pursuing actions against those who have posted otherwise.

Good luck with that.

 

Please cease posting these insensitive comments. Have some respect for those directly involved. Those not directly involved should keep their opinions to themselves.

So, besides being a family member, what is your direct involvement in this accident?Harsh comments? Perhaps, but as a mod on another forum, I am personally sick to death of family and friends signing up to forums and newsgroups following an accident, then attacking or threatening those who are trying to discuss things.

 

 

I've two boys, a couple of months off 3 & 4, and the elder one really got into the build. It helps that he was the first person ever to sit in the QB Fuselage.

 

I wouldn't trust him to cut out parts and the like, but even simple things like getting "the big green screwdriver" or "that little spanner" make them feel a huge part of the build and that they've helped build dad's plane. A year ago we worked late one night, I'd drill and countersink the rudder fairing holes, he'd follow along and put a cleco in every other hole, and the empty ones he'd put a CS4-4 rivet in. Together we'd pull the rivets. That worked a treat. From there, he learnt how to power on the plane, and turn on the fuel pump, they helped polish the plane, and have "helped" in numerous other ways that puts a smile on their face.

 

IF your 10-year-old can drive a bobcat, he'd be more than capable of bucking rivets, drilling and countersinking various holes you point out. You don't need to build a perfect plane, but (for an RV anyway) the result would be a safe plane. As Van says, You're not going to the moon, you're only going to Denver...

 

Building while babysitting. If you plan on doing this, turn off your air compressor. Do not ask me how I know......

 

 

Cheap labour. They charge by the M'n'M!

 

 

 

Replicas like this are allowed in QLD but if you go over the border to NSW like we did a few years ago heading to Evans Head be careful, they are illegal in NSW and if the Police know the rules its mandatory jail time for even having a replica bolted in the back of your jeep.

What replica? I thought he was asking about a propane-fuelled bird scarer to minimise birdstrikes on takeoff and landing?

 

And the alarms have just gone off very loudly in the Canberra offices of ASIO and the AFP!

Nowhere near as bad as that damn Kiwi bloke who built his own home-made, DIY, Cruise Missile! Let's face it, if we're going to appear on ASIO's radar, might as well go all out!I give you Marvin Story's KC Dawn Patrol gas-fired machine gun. $20 for the full plans. Presumably that's USD too, so the way the exchange rate has been going, I hope you're willing to take out a second mortgage to buy them!

 

If you blow yourself up testing it, I shall disavow all knowledge! :P

 

 

Welcome to my world! Trying to get the XC endo and some BFR prep done in between days off, kids in daycare and good weather. Upto nearly 6 months so far, dagnabbit! Yet when I'm rostered on, the weather is clear and a million, what's with that?

 

 

If you haven't seen the calls for Van's Calender submissions before, I'd certainly send that in next round. It's a cracker!

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/airlines-sceptical-commercial-planes-can-be-hacked-20150517-gh3qdf.htmlI think Mr Roberts is buying publicity for himself, or just deluded.

 

Just for a start, there is not a physical, wireless, or any communications link at all, between an IFE (inflight entertainment) system and a thrust management computer. Why on earth would there be?

 

Secondly, even hacking into a thrust management system cannot "cause a plane to move sideways" as he alleges he did.

 

The FBI is right to investigate, as even an attempt to hack into an IFE system is still interference with an aircraft, though I suspect the only thing he may have been able to do is download the inflight movie database - and he is welcome to it.

If you can trick the FADEC or other relevant computer into thinking the temperature is higher than it really is, it'll need to produce more power to meet the demanded thrust. In turn, this'll yaw the aircraft. "Moving sideways" is just what the media calls it...Whether or not this bloke actually did it or not, it is more than likely possible. The IFE does source some data from the air data and navigation systems, how else does it know OAT, ETE, altitude and the flight planned route? Even when Captain Fourbars comes on and says "ATC asked us to slow down, so we're going to head down to Wollongong before we get to Sydney" if you look at the map page, it'll show the dogleg. It does have a link to the FMS. Everything can be hacked, eventually. If you Google the ARINC label list you'll find an awful lot of things publicly accessible and in some cases, with an explanation of how they're used.

 

 

I've just finished building my RV-9 and she'll be going to the airport in a few weeks. The build process was both fun, and a little challenging in a couple of areas, mostly where I deviated from the plans slightly.

 

If you liked Lego or Meccano as a kid, you will have no problem whatsoever with the modern RV's. The RV-3,4 and 6 aren't "matched-hole" kits, but the -7 and -9 are essentially identical bar the wing.

 

If you can afford an RV, and have a tolerant wife, odds are you'll be able to finish it, they are not difficult kits at all.

 

 

I don't think the designer recommends an engine that big.. Nev

Van also doesn't recommend engines bigger than 160HP in the -9 either, yet many have installed O-360's, and I've got an O-340 (165HP, for now...)That's why they call it experimental!

 

 

I beg to differ.

 

APRS is almost exactly like ADS-B, both in operation and function,the major differences being frequency allocation and ADS-B's inclusion of the Ident function. Both transmit similar data, including GPS position and altitude, specific ID (Flight #/Callsign), ground track and speed, and both do not care if there is anyone - or no one - to recieve the data.

 

From 5000' your radio range is around 70NM, extending to 100NM around 10,000'. If you can't hit a digipeater within 100km on the J-curve, I would be very spurprised!

 

I would never trust my life to APRS, but it is another tool that is available, cheap (FREE once you've bought the hardware!), easy to use, generally reliable and one that you can set-and-forget in your pane.

 

To me, that makes it worthwhile.

 

 

One thing I've not seen mentioned is APRS.

 

For those who don't know what it is, Automatic Packet Reporting System is basically a home-brewed ADS-B for anyone and everything. Your boat, plane, or even your wifes car! Here's an example of what's out and about in Sydney.

 

You get your amateur radio licence (Standard licence), buy the hardware (around $250AUD) install it in your plane, and go fly, and anyone in the world can track your flight in near real time, so long as you're in range of either a digipeater or an Igate, and lets face it, in a plane you're pretty much guaranteed to be where most of us fly.

 

It's quite popular with the RV crowd in the US and I'll be installing it in my RV soon as I get the licence out of the way.

 

 

My GoPro takes good quality video but it's too wide-angle for my tastes. It's a damned pain to use and you have to drill a hole in the casing to run it with a power cable. In preparation for last Sunday's flight I checked battery level; it showed full charge but the next day it would not power up.

Get yourself the GoPro Skeleton Case. It has the holes for the charge cable & aux mic cable already there... Run a 5m USB Extension cable and you've got it running off ships power, so the limiting factor then becomes the capacity of the SD card you're using. Tie it into the WiFi on your phone and you can see, in real-time, what you're filming and the status of the camera.I've used it dozens of times on various parts of my trains to film all sorts of odd angles, and it's never let me down, filming many hours of 30+FPS in full HD continuously, many times over. Get a GoPro combo cable and you can charge and record your intercom audio to the footage at the same time!

 

 

I'm expecting 2000+FPM climb in the RV-9 but getting back down with the FP prop is the problem. Circuit altitude at around 35 seconds, 50 seconds back down perhaps, maybe this is something to have a crack at once the 40 hours is flown off - show what an RV is capable of?

 

 

Part 139 MOS is what you want.

 

For a non-precision approach, you must have a 3.3% clear path out to 6,600m, then a 2.5% clear path out a further 8400m, to a total 15km from the threshold, giving an average OLS clearance plane of 1411' AAL at 15km from the threshold, with the splay (angle out the side) being 15%.

 

So, at the extremity of the OLS, you have a 2250m distance off the inbound course (267*) centreline at 15km and a maximum height of 1693' AMSL, call it 1700' for round figures. The outbound course has a MDA of 1900' which looks to be nearly 1500' higher than the highest point in Ivanhoe, according to Google.

 

Of note, the MOS says Airport owners must (I love that word in rules & legislation ) monitor the OLS applicable to the aerodrome and report to CAsA any infringements or potential infringements. Also, CASR 139 requires obstacles above 110m AGL must be reported to CASA, but it doesn't say by whom.

 

 

Not at all. Last I heard he was still licence-less, and probably will be for life. What I meant was that JQ had not admitted to anything that would be worthy of a cancellation. No "Yep, that was me hot-dogging in a Robby" or "Looks good on youtube, dunnit?". He had always maintained his innocence, I have never read of him confessing to anything that would be grounds to cancel his licence.