Happyflyer

As I understand it there is no requirement for a new GA aircraft to have a radio let alone a transponder. If fitting new transponder or new aircraft with transponder it must be mode S type.

If the saying below is true then the young backpackers may be slightly safer.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

When a GA flight review is done, form 61-9FR is submitted. Where you have to put the aircraft rego number, CASA have helpfully put the first two letters.... "VH". I thinks that's a hint as to what aircraft you have to do the flight review in. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/139841/download?token=ZO8rOlgV

Part 61.007 states part 61 applies to "registered aircraft". CASA do not regard RAAus aircraft as "registered". So if you are training for a CTA endorsement issued under Part 61 they require you and the instructor to use an aircraft also authorised under Part 61 I guess.

On 2nd thoughts, without avmed I can't solo, so there's 2 or so hrs of instrument flying, a few circuits and maneuvers and we are done, baring tests. (presuming competency)My RA hours, XC and Radio certs are all transferable right?

Cheers

 

R

Here's an example of the police making a nuisance of themselves airside on an aerodrome. The guy probably told them they didn't have jurisdiction but it doesn't seem to have worked.

Police swoop on light plane, arrest pilot over drug supply

The police are welcome at our aerodrome. They patrol at various times and do drive on taxiways at times in front of the hangars like the aircraft owners. They patrol after hours also and speak to people. We are happy for them to be familiar with the airport and to keep an eye on the place. I'm sure if there was dubious activity the would do something. State police have jurisdiction anywhere in the state in accordance with state law except on commonwealths property.

I'm curious too. What makes a certified municipal airport no go for local cops? All the local drug runners could go to any one of hundreds of certified airports around the country and be safe if they knew that.

Looks like the sort of flat country you want when the prop stops. So good to see a pilot put a plane down so well.

I don't think you're the only one. Practising stall recovery is probably something most of us do regularly, but then you're in a situation where you're anticipating what's going to happen and are ready for it. In a case like this in hot conditions where you're low, slow, maybe the ball's off-centre and perhaps you're distracted by the event, it would be all too easy to put the wrong control inputs in when a wing drops unexpectedly. Not that it would probably have made any difference to the result in this case. Also in a plane of that size, I wonder how often you would go out and practice stall recognition and recovery.rgmwa

Hi Dutch...Just one comment... could be wrong, but I recall stall speed at 60* bank is 2x, not 1.4. Also, stall speed at 45* is close to 1.4x...not to be picky, but it is important.

Cheers

What happened abc news neil

It's now falling into place ! Days before Ross Millard passed we ran into him at a strip just North of Cardwell and he took a keen interest in an old style Bolly prop hub on an aircraft there.

He told us of a Gazelle he was asked to inspect that had an old style hub that had cracked and that we should keep an eye on it.

 

He went on to say that the Gazelle in question had a number of severe defects and he advised the owner the aircraft has had its day and needed serious work and not to fly it until it was rectified .

 

He refused to sign the aircraft off and he expressed his frustration at the owner for refusing to hand over the aircrafts log books so he could log the defects.

 

A search on the forum revealed this thread Caution : Older type 2-blade Bolly prop hubs.

 

I'd suggest it's the same aircraft! It looks like a Gazelle nose wheel and the colour matches.

 

If so,is this aircraft still flying without a L2 sign off or is there a rogue L2 which has signed it off ?

What intrigues me about this whole thread is the OP has made 2 posts. Then 2 different people who joined only after the OP come on and bag the school involved.

Smells like a witch hunt to me.

As has been mentioned in this thread,this aircraft IS still being used!At the time of the OP photos it was the main trainer at a school down at Donnington airfield Woodstock (Google " flight training schools Townsville Facebook" for a video of it flying and an admission of taking the young girl for a fly ) don't be fooled by the J160 in the photo,word has it that it will sit for 4 months at a time and has about 60 hours on it since 2009.

Why they don't use that J160 which is a perfectly good aircraft is anyone's guess.

 

I first saw this Gazelle when it showed up at a fly in at Ingham in around August 2016

 

As the CFI drives to fly ins there was some banter as to who was going to be silly enough to "play the student" and get in this particular Gazelle and fly the CFI's wife up ,whom apparently claims on her Facebook page, to be a pilot at the school but nobody has seen her fly solo.

 

This aircraft is an absolute disgrace and an insult to RAA members who are trying to do the right thing.

 

I am lead to believe,after having no luck in getting through to the CFI, a number of official complaints had been made to the Tech manager by people trying to give him a heads up on what is actually happening,only for the Tech manager to say a thorough investigation has been carried out and it has been sorted.

 

Any wonder the OP had gone public !

 

In my opinion a crash involving this aircraft is imminent.

 

I saw with my own eyes the severe corrosion on the torque tube and where the torque tube enters the aileron.The bush in the hanger supporting the torque tube where it enters the aileron is missing so there is excessive play and just asking for a flutter event !

 

Here is an AN warning of these very symptoms (in case link does not work have attached photos of an)

 

https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/an-2-2000.pdf

 

The leading edge of the left hand end of the port aileron is corroded paper thin !

 

Roofing screws in the doors,poor lock wiring,kinked brake lines,cracked non standard tyres,filiform and exfoliation corrosion etc etc ...

 

The CFI has been heard to boast the aircraft is also illegally fitted with a 100hp Rotax and not the 80

 

this is a 24 rego aircraft used as a trainer and should be used as an example of what's required of good airmanship to new members .At the moment it's an embarrassing insult to us all

 

[ATTACH]47958[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47959[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47960[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47961[/ATTACH]

Reporting unsafe behaviour | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Where is this aircraft flying? Please don't keep the location secret. If the flying school are using it they are not ashamed of it I assume, so don't be shy.

All RAAus endorsements carry across when you get your RPL. See Part 61.480 3 ©.

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/reactivation-membership-form-updated-20161110.pdf

You could fill out the above form and fax or email to RAAus.

Angle of attack pretty big on this video.

So, CASA accept all RAAUs endorsements when first transitioning to an RPL but if then later get another RAAus endorsement they won't accept it. Typical CASA rubbish if correct.

I heard he clipped a tree, low flying. Will stand corrected if wrong. , Please let me know if anyone knows, exactly what caused the crash or what did the others see and say in the other aircraft.Very bad day for the pax.

LOW FLYER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD 18A Seaspray Dr AGNES WATER QLD 4677 Australia

There were plenty of passengers and therefore witnesses who will all be interviewed because of the death. The truth will come out, eventually.

Light plane crash lands at Eviron

Minor injuries only. Colour scheme looks like a high wing Tecnam with retracts that used to visit Broken Hill a couple of years ago.

Have another check, pretty sure RA-AUS are exempt from Part 61?Is the 90day requirement listed in the CAOs or has RA-AuS forgot to include it in the new manual?

RECENCY

6. In addition to the flight review requirements, a Pilot Certificate holder must not carry a passenger on any flight unless the holder has conducted 3 take- offs and 3 landings in the last 90 days in an aeroplane of the same Group, aeroplane type and having the same design features.

Yes, but when you read CAO 95.55 Sect 5.1(i) it does allow for aircraft under this CAO, and this includes 19 registered aircraft, to operate over built-up areas. Yes, it appears there are are conditions and exceptions...

Para 5.1 is about licencing, so not sure what you are looking at. It's not easy to read as is usual with CASA legislation but as I said in my earlier post, you can't fly a 19 aircraft over built up areas unless authorized under para 7.5.

A 19 registered aircraft can fly over built-up areas, as long as it is radio equipped, at a height of no less than 1000ft AGL and can glide clear of the built up area in case of engine failure.

Flight over closely-settled areas

Note: while CAR 262AP uses the term 'built-up area of a city or town', the subordinate 95 series CAOs use the term 'closely-settled area' meaning an 'area in which, because of man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles, and the characteristics of the aeroplane; the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aeroplane or damaging property in the area'.

Flight over closely-settled areas is prohibited to all CAO 95.10 aircraft.

CAO 95.55 subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) and (h) aircraft [i.e. those with 28-nnnn and 19-nnnn registration] plus CAO 95.32 paragraph 1.3 and 1.4 aircraft [i.e. E-LSA and 51% owner-built powered parachutes and trikes] are – for the purpose of flight over closely-settled areas – all regarded as 'experimental' and may not operate over such areas, unless holding a written authorisation to do so.