Happyflyer

Something like this on the Centre frequency would be fine I think. "Traffic in the XXXX area, Jabiru 1234 is 12 mile to the north of XXXX 6,500 tracking 320 for ZZZZ." If Centre or the other aircraft reply, respond as appropriate.

What else can it mean? 95.55 para 8.4 is about RAAus aircraft and RAAus pilots. The "R" endorsement allows RAAus members to use the radio in RAAus aircraft.

130 pounds for this system must have been a awful lot of money in those days. Too much for this to catch on I'm guessing.

Yep, it depends on whether you have any alcohol left in the system after eight hours.

The rule is no alcohol within eight hours of departure and no alcohol in the system. The first one might sometimes be easier to prove.

State police have no authority to breath test anyone for an aviation offence. It is not necessary to prove intoxication, CASA only has to prove consumption in the eight hours prior to flight. As an example, you paid for alcohol on a credit card and were seen to drink it by hotel staff or perhaps airline staff on a flight.

Perhaps I should have said the problem with the Bernoulli theory as presented by CASA doesn't work for the upside down aircraft. Basically, it's complex and in the end you don't need to know the theory to fly an aircraft. The following is from NASA who know a thing or two about lift. The real details of how an object generates lift are very complex and do not lend themselves to simplification. For a gas, we have to simultaneously conserve the mass, momentum, and energy in the flow. Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli's equation is derived by considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the generation of lift; both are correct. The conservation of mass introduces a lot of complexity into the analysis and understanding of aerodynamic problems. For example, from the conservation of mass, a change in the velocity of a gas in one direction results in a change in the velocity of the gas in a direction perpendicular to the original change. This is very different from the motion of solids, on which we base most of our experiences in physics. The simultaneous conservation of mass, momentum, and energy of a fluid (while neglecting the effects of air viscosity) are called the Euler Equations after Leonard Euler. Euler was a student of Johann Bernoulli, Daniel's father, and for a time had worked with Daniel Bernoulli in St. Petersburg. If we include the effects of viscosity, we have the Navier-Stokes Equations which are named after two independent researchers in France and in England. To truly understand the details of the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations.

The Bernouli theory gets lost when you flip your Decathlon over and fly upside down.

That's what I like about the Tiger Moth, no P charts and no temp gauge.

Some people are not good with maths, some not good with spelling. Can't all be perfect. The system and checking should find the faults but as we can see things slip through the cracks.

I agree totally, some home builds are a work of art, however some are not. It's total risk I look at. If you had to make a decision, would you rather let your nearest and dearest fly in a GA or LSA factory built aicraft or a home made one you know nothing about. Relying on my experience, I would chose the factory build GA aircraft every time. Factory built LSA aircraft may not come up to my standard. It's a personal thing.

There are degrees of safety. Personally I prefer factory built aircraft. That's my choice because I feel I am decreasing my risks. I am sure if I built an aircraft I would feel it was safe but would completely understand if someone else felt increased risk meant they did not want to fly in my aircraft.

Many pilots carry empty containers to transport fuel from the local servo when travelling.

I have turned further than I had planned (180 degrees instead of 90 degrees) when taxiing too fast and trying to turn off the runway. No damage except to pride. I was backtracking so had tailwind which helped push the aircraft around. Lesson learnt, taxi speed reduced.

The RAAus member insurance is only for third party damage and limited passenger damage. It does not cover a pilot or instructor. Additional insurance is needed. I can fully understand the reluctance of instructors to train in owner built aircraft. Some are wonderfully well made, some are not. They are an unknown quantity. Some kits, such as RVs are very well made and assembly is easier than some others where builder competence is more important. I think a school's reluctance to use homebuilt aircraft is more related to this than making money. It's not only the build quality but also the ergonomics of some first time builders' aircraft leaves a lot to be desired. The only homebuilt aircraft I will train in are very well built RV aircraft that are LAME maintained or if I know the builder personally and am confident of his ability.

Yes RAAus is different to GA where the owner (not necessarily the builder) can train in it. Not sure why the difference and perhaps something that should be take up with CASA to change so that RAAus owners of home built aircraft can train in them.

Why don't you think we can train in experimental aircraft in Australia? Do you have a reference? I am sure we are allowed to train in experimental aircraft if we own them or are a part owner. There is no minimum or maximum number of owners as far as I a aware. Family members are not specifically mentioned but it the family owns the aeroplane, why not? Finding an instructor willing to fly in a homebuilt and maintained aircraft may be a different matter.

Kaz, this what your instructor should have gone by to record your fight review. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100191/part61-written%20guide.pdf

The instructor was supposed to annotate your old licence. That is your evidence of the flight review until your new licence arrives. This procedure was laid out by CASA when part 61 came into affect.

You need a common denominator to add fractions. 1/3 plus 1/4 becomes 4/12 plus 3/12 = 7/12. Amazing the rubbish you remember from school!

RAAus hasn't quite caught up with the fact that a GA BFR is now signed off on your licence and there is no statement in your logbook. They will probably need a copy of the licence BFR signature and a copy of the logbook flight entry.

I can use my heavy vehicle licence without a security clearance and drive through every city in Australia legally. I can't legally use my GA pilot licence at all without a current security clearance. It's not the same thing.

And you are entitled to them of course, but after reading and looking at the logic of the replies have we changed your mind? Even a little?

Wow. What a strange thing to say. I try not to get personal on these forums and will refrain from doing so now but I feel the need to point out the following. 1. I make my living from flying. I am an Australian tax payer. My opinion is informed and I would not think much of a country if this opinion stopped me from holding a pilot licence. 2. Did you know you do not need any sort of security clearance to lean to fly in Australia if you are not learning at a security controlled airport. You only need the clearance when you finally pass and apply for your licence. 3. The multi million dollar ASIC security industry in aviation is a burden on tax payers and the flying public. The only time any one has looked at mine it was when I got a flat tyre on the main runaway of an international airport, and then only after I had been taking to the guy for 20 minutes and he thought he better make a note on his log to justify his time. 4. No one checks your ASIC before you land at any Australian airport. 5. Air Force personnel only have one security check. The one they have when they join. After they leave and fly civilian they suddenly need one every two years. If you are in the Air Force you need an ASIC to fly civilian aircraft but not when you are in your Air Force plane (sometimes armed with real bullets I suppose). 6. Why every two years for an ASIC? Why not just an initial check before training? Why are pilots so mistrusted they need to be single out and checked every two years? Why don't I need a clearance to drive a truck or a car which could be filled with explosives and do as much damage as a plane (and this regularly happens all around the globe causing more deaths than all the plane crashes in the world). 7. Why do Qantas pilots have to go through security screening before getting on their aircraft but the luggage handlers do not? 8. Why do you not need anything like an ASIC in the US or NZ? Only in the hot bed of terrorism that is Australia is this necessary. The system is a joke and no politician has the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it.

Or we could get rid of both the AVID and the ASIC and be like the rest of the world.