bas

Sounds more like a pilots-type-rated-on-our-equipment-and-with-enough-hours-to-satisfy-the-marketing-department's-requirement-so-they-can-say-we-only-employ-experienced-crew shortage.

I don't think they majors could get away with cheaper, foreign labour. Just look at the QF unions' opposition to even the notion of a foreign QF-subsidiary flying into Australia, as was planned with "Red Q".

Interesting article, that's the first time I have heard of there being a (potential) shortage of flying instructors! What are the military guys that do the training now going to do? The whole industry is changing; people are going to have to realise that if you have the license and endorsement or type rating, you can fly the freakin' aircraft. Not after flying that same aircraft for some other operator for a few years. You can fly it now. Especially if you are doing multi-crew ops with someone that has more experience in judging situations and weather.

It wasn't 2000 hour TBO 5 years ago, but this serial number (yes, I checked) is eligible for the 2000 TBO upgrade SB. Involves replacing one bolt and spring somewhere, though it is highly recommended to also change the fly wheel. Basically, a $500 bill of materials and a couple of hours of work. (I did it to mine two years ago.) Is the opening bid also the reserve, or is there a higher reserve?

Should have spent some of the money on a recreational airfield for ACT instead!

As soon as you add the word "aviation" to your insurance proposal, everybody that does reasonable deals normally (like these agricultural shows) walks away. Try getting indemnity and liability insurance for a software company. Easy peasy. Now try not for a company that makes aviation software...

They are taking the easy way out. There is nothing stopping them from getting insurance for the event and slightly raise the attendance fee - even the Parafield airshow's insurance would have been only a few grand. (QBE sponsored it instead) I don't think Michael would have pulled out if he had to pay $100-200 more to be there. Asking everyone to get their own insurance to basically cover the entire event is a waste of money, plus nobody wants to touch it. And no: I don't blame the legal industry - I blame the LAW MAKERS for allowing these nonsense blame-society suits. The legal and insurance industry just take advantage of it.

CASA considers anything more than 60 degrees aerobatic and a properly executed wing over takes you to 90.

So there you are, your stand set up, talking to people about your aircraft, or your radio, or showing off your iPad software. Like WTF could possibly happen that results in a $10M claim FFS!? I mean, this is completely and utterly retarded beyond any insurance requirements I have have ever seen. The ONLY things that could cause a serious claim is an aircraft slamming into the crowd, chopping someone up if started up by mistake, etc. Wanna know a little secret nobody seems to know about? ALL THESE RA-AUS AIRCRAFT ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF 3rd PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE BY VIRTUE OF BEING REGISTERED. I mean, WTF are they thinking? Sorry for the language, well, no, I am not sorry. Who ever came up with this needs an earful.

Don't try those wing overs in RA-Aus, they'll take you to the cleaners! Gots to get me some big-wheel tail-dragger action.

Amazing. This has never been a problem for NATFLY, has it?

That's good. If you are in SA: Flying Fuels (Stark Aviation) can also get you a box of 12. I think I paid $16 per litre last time.

Yeah, they switched to Parkes, but the first steps - that was ACT. :) http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_broadcasts.html Mind you, it is a nice drive from Canberra to the dish (Top Gear boys would love it) but once there - not much to see. They don't run tours. :(

I was just at "The Dish" an few weeks ago - the real one in ACT, not the one in Parkes used in the movie.

Ah yes, "yet", the final answer in aviation safety. There are still people going "the fly-by-wire system used since the mid 80s in the airbus has not caused an accident ... yet! And that's why if it's not boeing, I am not going!"... :D

I do! I have no doubt that they screw up and have a lot to learn or experience to gain. But that isn't the issue here, the issue is whether that actually causes accidents and the facts say no... It's kind of a moot point here in Australia anyway; we have a big GA industry, more than big enough for the airlines to have their pick of 3000 hour pilots to take in. In Europe, not so much... They simply don't have a choice but hire fresh CPLs and put them in HCRPT aircraft. And it's proven not to be a safety issue...

Depends on the hours; 1500 of which at least 500 ME with lots of actual IMC and at least 100 turbine? Or 1500 hours of flying the same 206 around the same lake? That is, in a nutshell, my problem with the proposed 1500 hour RPT FO rule. And lies, damn lies and statistics - unless anyone can actually prove there is a safety issue caused by having low time FOs (a bit hard as every decade we have less accidents) I don't see the need to go changing any rules...

Have you heard of Recreational Aviation? If you just want to fly for fun and not go broke paying landing and tower fees at Moorabin, it would be your best option. http://www.raa.asn.au/ Plenty of recreational schools around Melbourne. If you are up north, then Lillydale and Coldstream could work well for you.

They get taken in at 200 hours, then have on-type (sim) training including multi crew and hit the line at maybe 250 hours. So you can't compare that to coming out of CPL school and not having had any exposure. Those flight hours and many more in the class room make a lot of difference. Having sat through 10 seasons of Air Crash Investigations, I can't remember any ones where a low time FO was in the cockpit, let alone a factor. Remember that a 250 hour FO is only a sub-1500 hour FO for what, a year or so of their career? There seem to be more accidents caused by complacent 12,000 hour captains! ;-)

I heard a wise old woman once tell a young wannabe that the quickest way to the airlines is leaving Uni at age 22 with a degree (a real one, not aviation!) and a CPL.

200 hour A320 captain? I doubt that. FO for sure. Happens all the time in Europe and US too. And seeing as how their safety record (US and EU, not India!) is the same as here, I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about it here.

From all accounts, there is no physical difference at all between the 912S and 912ULS; same components, same quality control. Only difference is a) a paper trail that says it is certified and b) a higher price tag, presumably so that only the ones who want a certified engine pay for the cost of the certification process as well as possibly higher insurance. I have no doubt the iS vs. iSC will be the same. Heard another interesting fact (rumour?) that the production cost (parts and labour) of a 912S is about $4500. A similar amount goes to insurance!

Uhm, yeah, only if you use environmentally friendly energy sources the create the hydrogen fuel, mate!

Car petrol is 38 cents a litre, just saying'... Funny how the price of AVGAS has gone nothing but up over the years without a word, but when the government ads a little, all the suppliers start sending out letters!

A friend of mine paid CASA six hundred bucks for his approval to fly low in his chopper on a round Australia flight. He's got some great video! :)