Happyflyer

Latest court appearance. Ridiculous how this can drag on for so long. Ultralight crash survivor cries poor after four-year legal 'saga'

Yes, agree but you don't have to hold a drivers licence you just need to sign a declaration saying that you are fit enough to have one for RPC.

No. You can have the GP medical for thr RPL but if you want to carry more pax or do aerobatics you need a class 2 or class 1 medical.

You ain't alone there brother!

Not sure about the love of bureaucracy, more like loathing of bodies like CASA if you read aviation forums I would have thought! What we do seem to have is apathy and a lack of unity between the differing aviation bodies like RAAus, AOPA, GFA etc, etc. We seem to put up with this BS from our bureaucracy and our politicians more than most countries, event though we hate it. Love em or hate em, the yanks seem to be able to muster enough united support to target pollies to prevent the excesses of their bureaucracy.

Yep I think you're right there. They will be a price to pay with extra conditions which I wouldn't want to trickle down to existing RAAus. Be careful what some of you wish for.

Here's some light reading for you regarding RAAus aircraft from civil aviation orders. Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2015

Ok thanks. Do you have a reference for that? I'd like to look it up and see how it relates to beach below the high tide mark. Sea planes don't seem to have to ask permission so at high tide they could land in the same spot.

Phil, you seem to be in the know. Just what law was he breaking by landing on a beach on French Island when beach landings seem to happen regularly in Qld.

The poor guy had a go at landing on a deserted beach in a STOL aircraft and got it a bit wrong and it will cost him quite a bit I imagine. He will be the wiser for it. No one got hurt and the cops got to go to an interesting job for them. No need to vilify the guy! He's a fellow pilot who made a mistake.

I don't think there will be much change as basically not many people are making calls on area anyway when using unmarked strips, they are still using 126.7. The mooted change is going back to pre 2013. Read the discussion paper. There are quite a few options under consideration. The RAPAC committees around Australia have recommended the change but CASA is resisting and therefore this paper and a chance to have some input. DP 1610AS - Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Sorry Yenn, I did not notice you had started a thread on this same subject before me here Discussion paper Perhaps the moderators could merge the two threads.

Could it be this service is a casualty of the hundreds of job cuts brought about by management keen to get bonuses for lowering costs?

Above 5000 use area frequency as you are required to now. No change.

DP 1610AS - Frequency use at low level in Class G airspace | Civil Aviation Safety Authority Can't accuse CASA of acting hastily but at least you can have your say. So if you have a view about which frequency we should all be using in lower level class G airspace in general and around private strips and CTAF's here is your chance for some input. Personally I am for 126.7 everywhere except when within 10 nm of an airfield with a specific allocated CTAF frequency.

The initial reports of emergency landing probably came from a bystander or media. It sounds like the pilot had landed on the sand before. He may have had permission, could have been a private beach, who knows. Nothing necessarily cowboy about that. Planes landing on the beach up in Qld all the time. He may have just been unlucky on this occasion and the nose wheel went into a soft spot.

Or you could pay your bills on time and then enjoy a nice flight without the stress of wondering if the insurance is still covering you.

Looks like 23 is now LSA PREFIX TYPE CAO CLASS E24 NON COMPLIANT EXPERIMENTAL LSA 95.32 OR 95.55 10 AMATEUR BUILT 95.10 17 KIT BUILT EXPERIMENTAL LSA 95.32 OR 95.55 18 AMATEUR BUILT W/S & PPC 95.32 19 AMATEUR BUILT 95.55 23 LSA 95.32 OR 95.55 24 TYPE CERTIFIED 95.55 25 EARLY ULTRALIGHT AEROPLANES (1985 ERA) 95.25 (SUPERCEDED) 26 G.A. TYPE CERTIFIED 95.55 28 EARLY AMATEUR BUILT 101.28 32 FACTORY BUILT WEIGHT SHIFT OR POWERED PARACHUTE 95.32 W/S OR PPC (including LSA) 55 FACTORY BUILT AEROPLANE 101.55 (non LSA)

Private aviation + no injuries + ATSB busy elsewhere and short of cash = no investigation.

It does seem there is a current trend for huge circuits, but you never know this poor guy may have been forced wide by someone else doing a bigger circuit in front of him.

Yes to the controlled airspace. Permission required from CASA to go above 10,000 according to CAO 95.55 (see below) 8.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it. 8.5 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 10 000 feet above mean sea level or higher in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3. 9 Approval of flights not complying with flight conditions 9.1 A person who wants to fly an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, otherwise than in accordance with the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1, may apply to CASA for approval of the flight. 9.2 The application must: (a) be in writing; and (b) include details of the proposed flight; and © be made at least 28 days before the proposed flight. 9.3 CASA may, in writing, approve the application. 9.4 The approval: (a) must specify which of the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1 do not apply to the use, by the applicant, of the aeroplane in the proposed flight; and (b) may specify conditions to be complied with in relation to the proposed flight. 9.5 If the proposed flight takes place in accordance with the approval (including any conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 9.4 (b)), the use by the applicant of the aeroplane in the flight is not subject to the flight conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 9.4 (a).

In general in Australia you get what you pay for. Flight instructors are at the bottom of pay scale in aviation. Most do it for the love of flying or for hour building. I know of no one who is doing it to get rich. If you want better, more professional instructors, pay them more. If you do, you will get less pilots who can afford to learn. All in all I don't think our system is too bad. I do think less money on Hi Vis vest type promotions and more ops people just going for a flight with an instructor would be helpful.

About the same hours but generally more expensive aircraft, you need a medical and security clearance to get the licence.

An RPL is a CASA licence for general aviation aircraft (GA). RPC is RAAus for RAAus aircraft. Either organization accepts the other's qualifications after you jump through a few hoops. However to fly GA you need at least an RPL and to fly RAAus you need a RPC.

Try calling the girls in the office on 02 62804700. They are very helpful. The online free trial membership is very new.