Mriya

I think Kiwi is trying to highlight that atheism and theism result from a particular interpretation of the available evidence (data). An atheist needs to look at the incredible complexity and programming that is built into DNA and conclude that it came about by unobserved random processes. A theist looks at the same evidence and sees this same complexity as a direct result of an intelligent designer. The athist struggles to account for the staggeringly small odds of such random processes actually combining in a meaningful way and often starts to come up with theories of millions of parallel universes of which we happened to hit the jackpot in order to make the numbers begin to look plausible as has been suggested by prominent lobbyists for this worldview such as Dawkins. From what I see the atheist is no closer to offering an explanation for how the matter of the universe came into being, than the theist can explain the origin of their deity. None of these things can be observed in a scientific manner as we are considering past events that are not repeatable or observable, but rather fall into the domain of deciding which worldview you decide is most plausible. The tendency of some to resort to demeaning terms such as 'sky-fairies' does little to add to meaningful debate, but rather sounds rather intimidatory. Who would want to raise their hand and align themselves with a position that is being ridiculed. I am willing to accept that some people believe in a deity and they can interpret the world in a rational way around that belief. For others, they reject the concept of a deity and subsequently must accept (believe) that everything around them has been shaped by random processes, with no higher purpose or design in life. At this level atheism is indeed a belief system or worldview, which subsequently shapes your interpretation of the world that you interact with. I think it is a sign of weakness in ones own argument when they feel the need to ridicule the worldview of another person by namecalling. I would much rather people offer logical arguments to defend their own worldview and ask probing questions regarding other worldviews where they feel things don't compute. If a debate was framed in that way, it would be more likely that a creationist or two may be flushed out and happy to debate, but this is unlikely if they know it is just going to be an 'open-season' for ridicule from people who are after a bit of sport, rather than people willing to ask questions and respect the fact that people who hold different worldviews to ones own can still be treated with kindness and respect, even if you disagree with them personally. Having said this in my opinion post-modern thinking makes no sense to me. Applying simple logic, I can't accept that two people who hold opposing views can both be right. Either the atheists or the theists are right, but the suggestion that both are right does not compute for me. If there are any post-modernists out there who could provide a logical explanation on how their worldview works I'd love to hear them, because that one has me baffled. I can accept that people can come to a logical conclusion with regards to both theism and atheism, however I also maintain that one of these worldviews must be incorrect, no matter how sincerely the believer holds to that view. The question therefore remains 'Which worldview is correct?' Open and sincere debate will let people consider the respective arguments to support their belief. Alternatively, ridicule of another persons sincerely held worldview will not encourage meaningful debate and says to me that a person has a closed mind and is unwilling to consider evidence that may be presented. In short, debate would be a waste of time as they are unwilling to consider that they may be wrong.

Maintained by a L2?

For a different (and very scenic) way to traverse Sydney have you considered Victor 1 across the heads of Sydney Harbour and then continue down the coast to Albion Park. Arrange a stop there in lieu of Goulburn and look at all the toys that HARS have now. From Albion Pk you could then track across to Moss Vale and pick up the Hume Hwy and continuing with your suggested track to Jindabyne. As per Camel's suggestion get a hold of the relevant guide and do the research before just launching off and flying it. I did Victor 1 a couple of years back now. It had been on my to do list.

Summing up your question and the answers you have got so far: There is no legal way to do joyflights (or any other form of commercial work except flight training) in a 24 reg UL. Plenty of people try to get around this rule by offering 'scenic TIFs', however I suspect this practice would quickly become a legal and/or financial nightmare when an accident occurs and insurers start examining the circumstances. The ONLY LEGAL way to fly a 24 registered UL and be paid commercially is as an instructor in a flying school. Cost sharing between private parties is the limit of any other exchange of money that may occur between people who fly together privately.

Yes, far more options exist here, having said that The Oaks was a great spot to go in Sydney and I have always tried to drop in (and fly) when back up there visiting family and friends.

Welcome Owi as you move South of the border! I used to live in Camden and learnt to fly at The Oaks. Now live in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne and work in an aircraft maintenance org at Coldstream. Yarra Valley Flight Training have a Tecnam P92 and a friendly bunch of fellow aviators. For bits and pieces about Coldstream have a look at www.ycem.com.au

As a LAME / Chief Engineer I can understand the price difference between the C210 & RV7 checks. The age and complexity are very different + the Cessna SIDS/CPCP programmes need to be factored in also. Compare this with a relatively new and simple airframe of an RV7 and you can expect it to be a fair bit cheaper. Regarding pitot static system and instrument checks, these are hard to predict hours on due to the frequency of finding leaks or problems. I'd venture to say that for a full check done per the requirements an hour is a bit optimistic, especially if traditional instruments are involved. BTW I know of a RV7A (VH-VWM) which is currently undergoing it's test flight programme and will then be up for sale (at Coldstream). This aircraft was assembled under instructor supervision in a training school, so if you are interested I can pass on any contact details to the appropriate people. Regards, Justin

I recognise people's concerns and they are valid. Text messages rarely tell a complete story and a couple of responses here have focused on a particular aspect (hrs to solo & pilot cert when this was never intended to be the focus) of what I posted. To allay any concerns and to ensure the FTF in question is not maligned by assumptions or incomplete information, it is probably appropriate to mention my extensive background in aviation including my family owning an aircraft. It is possible that I gained a fair amount of 'informal' flying time in a different context which has never been recorded. However, as I said in my earlier post, this was never meant to be about me, but rather was supposed to be a compliment to a particular FTF for doing the right thing. Competency based training is the name of the game. All I was trying to highlight is that if you can demonstrate competency Dave would not hold you back. I am sorry that some have tried to read more into my situation, without access to the full story. I was never suggesting that shortcuts were taken and I echo the comments of many others who have high regard for Dave and his school. Enough said, and I think I will bow out of this discussion as it was fast getting high jacked and taken in a direction which gave a wrong impression of one of the best schools and group of instructors that one could ever meet.

The numbers are in my logbook and you have correctly connected the dots, however I deliberately kept it a little vague because the point of my post was not to blow my own trumpet but rather highlight the fact that I wasn't milked for extra hrs and money during my training at Dave's Flying School. I certainly don't consider myself to be anything special as a pilot, however I had the opportunity to go solo at 8 hrs and was then able to consolidate with significant solo time over the next 12 hrs. Bottom line is I have a lot of time and respect for Dave. He has a huge amount of experience and I have been privileged to be able to be trained by him and have tried to soak up as much wisdom as possible during my training. As Dave wisely said when he gave me my pilot certificate at 20hrs, "This is a ticket to keep learning". Since getting my pilot certificate in Feb 2009 I have continued that learning process, both formally with TW,LP,Pax&Nav endorsements (at Dave's Flying School of course) and informally as I fly privately and for work related maintenance check or ferry flights. I have not forgotten Dave's words and they ring true on almost every flight I do.

I sympathise with anyone who feels scammed by their maintenance org or L2. I can't really comment on what other people or org's do, but as Chief Engineer of AvServe at Coldstream, am doing my best to build our reputation as a maintenance org that is known for integrity and seeking to do the best for our customers. GA and RAAus maintenance is a tough gig with a constant battle to contain costs while delivering quality service. I realised that trying to beat the 'lowest common denominator' would be a mistake, which means that in order to be recognised we need to go 'above and beyond' in quality and customer service. Also as was the case only this week, we need to be ready to admit it to customers if we get something wrong, and find ways to ensure our customers are not left 'out of pocket' for any errors that one would reasonably expect us not to make. You can find out more at avserve.org.au or find us on Facebook. Sorry if this sounds too much like a shameless plug, however seeing as the original thread asked the question it seems approprate to respond and say that there are people and org's out there that are at least trying to do the right thing by our customers. Regards, Justin Clerke Chief Engineer AvServe justin.avserve"at"gmail.com

Great point GG. Although I am not in the 'know' with regards to averages, my experience at Dave's Flying School was that they never tried to hold me back or 'milk' me for more hours or money. In fact, quite the opposite. I completed the Pilot Cert in the minimum allowable time and by that stage had 8 hrs command time and already had done some dual navs. So in summary fantastic rates + no making me do more hours than I had to = happy customer and great overall value. A big thumbs-up for Dave's Flying School which explains why I had my Son start his training there even though we live interstate these days.

I'll second the early mention of Dave's Flying School at The Oaks. Did my training there. I started in 2007 while living in Camden. In 2008 I moved to Melbourne, but was shocked at the extra costs charged by schools in that area. I elected to keep training at Dave's Flying school when ever visiting family back in Camden and had a range of endorsements on my RAAus Cert by 2011. Last Christmas my 15 yo Son also started training with them. Very knowledgeable, friendly and in my experience unbeatable value for money!

Not buying into the rights or wrongs of the actions in the clip, however in answer to your 'G' question, 0g is what is needed to 'float'. -2G would be applying 2 times your body weight to the seatbelt straps (or ceiling of the cabin in this dogs case).

Hey, good portrait MM ;-)

AD/ENG/4 specifies engine on condition criteria, which will apply once calendar time is reached. Also worth noting that in CASA's view even when maintaining to Sched 5, manufacturers time limits are still expected to be allowed for. For example many Cessna owners had argued that SID's inspections were not required as their aircraft was being maintained per Sched 5, but CASA issued an AWB earlier this year which clearly said that the extra manufacturers maintenance requirements could not be ignored. All this is a long way of saying you will find various time limits for maintenance and parts replacement requnrelenting within the manufacturers maintenance schedule.

As you can see from my previous post the role of 'maintenance controller' (which is the responsibility of the aircraft owner) requires a significant amount of research and organisation to do well. In my experience it is one of the least understood aspects of aircraft ownership that I encounter as a LAME/L2. I don't say this to try and belittle owners and I think that anyone who has dealt with me will know that I am happy to offer 'free education' as a part of their maintenance visit. My desire is simply to raise people's awareness of the significant responsibility that comes with aircraft ownership. I also highlight in a friendly manner common errors that I find on their MR's which would cause problems in the event of a CASA ramp check.

1. Per Dafydd's suggestion LBS/CofA will specify maintenance schedule. 2.Engine manufacturer will set out minimum maintenance levels for your engine. You will find a combination of recommended and mandatory items depending upon the engine type and operating conditions. In my opinion it makes no sense to 'stretch out' time between oil changes. Regular oil changes are far cheaper than the potential damage to the internals of your engine by running old/dirty oil. 3.Engines all tend to have a calendar limit and hrs limit for calculating TBO, however provisions are in place to operate engines 'on condition' beyond TBO limits for private/air work purposes. As for overhaul costs, I suspect main variation is based on condition of components far more than simple calendar time. 4.For propeller TBO the prop manufacturer data needs to be consulted. AD/PROP/1 may also give you more info on this one. 5.Regarding AF inspections you need to take into account the current manufacturers maintenance schedule. For example Cessna now have the SIDS inspections, designed to ensure ongoing Airworthiness of their older aircraft. Although fabric is not my specialty, I understand that fabric is inspected and tested routinely and replaced 'on condition'. Modern fabrics have brought about a new issue in that the underlying structure may now develop defects well before the fabric starts to deteriorate. Inspection of the underlying structure needs to be considered in addition the the state of the fabric. Hope this all helps...

Glad to hear your txpr is behaving :-)

I wonder that too. Just did 4.2.4 instrument checks on a Tecnam at Coldstream that we maintain this morning + we keep the Rad47 up to date, however I suspect many RAAUS aircraft have not had these checks done when required.

A few possibilities with your scenario... 1. The big wad of cash covers organising the EO also. That is the way our Radio LAME works it if an EO is required. 2. Depending on the equipment changes some upgrades may come with valid STC's allowing the upgrade. 3. Or possibly the LAME was taking paperwork shortcuts which by default mean the aircraft is no longer technically airworthy as it no longer complies with the original TC and there is no supporting documentation that authorises the modification away from the approved design. I realise all this can sound a little 'petty', but please don't shoot the messenger. I didn't make the rules, but am simply trying to explain them from CASA's point of view. Bottom line as they see it is ALL repairs and mods must be documented and conform with approved data. This provides assurance that the aircraft continues to meet Airworthiness standards and has not been compromised by sub-standard repairs or alterations. The experimental category exists for people who want to 'tinker' with aircraft, but once you are in that category other restrictions start to apply to provide a level of protection to the general public in the event that an 'experiment' fails.

Not sure whether you are joking or serious with that comment. Certainly isn't how things are supposed to be done. However, wouldn't surprise me if it has happened like that out in GA land somewhere. Going back to the original question. I'd start with a question to the factory to see whether your desired change is (or can be) approved by them. If they can't help and it is an aircraft with full Type Certification issued by a NAA (not LSA factory certification) then it will require a trip to your nearest Aeronautical Engineer for an EO. Unfortunately within RAAus and possibly GA, short cutting the system has almost been 'normalised' resulting in question marks about the legal Airworthiness of many aircraft out there.

The short answer is that approval is required for any mods to a factory built aircraft. The longer and more involved answer of what that approval looks like and how it is obtained will depend upon the type of design certification that applies. Is it a factory certified LSA? Does it have a full CASA approved Type Certificate? Is there an STC approved for the mod? Maybe an EO has been prepared for the change? There are probably a few more options to be considered before answering your question, however these are a good start to help establish what type of approval you will require. Regards, Justin.

Nope. This one is blue with white belly. Was online with Lilydale Flying School, had a landing accident last year, insurance opted to provide a new fuselage, owner opted for dual controls in it. I did the repair at AvServe, Coldstream. Aircraft is now back at Lilydale, however I think the owner has been a bit busy with work and has not yet placed it back online with the flying school.

Savannahs S, 24-7728 based at Lilydale now has a dual stick from the factory.

Hope it is a great weekend for you. I have enjoyed attending this event twice in the past, but won't be able to make it this year. Highly recommend it though. Regards, Justin