Jump to content

ian00798

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    420

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ian00798

  1. ian00798
    SIDS is an airworthiness directive, and as such must be complied with for the aircraft to remain airworthy and in compliance with its certificate of airworthiness. The only possible difference with the aircraft being on the RAA register would be that if you had suitable skills and an L1 maintainer certificate then you would be able to do the inspection program yourself, instead of paying a LAME. As for an aircraft like a C208 it would be too heavy to operate even with the 1500kg, and I strongly doubt casa will ever let someone operate a turbine aircraft under the RAA system. I suspect the reason RAA has asked to get approval up to 1500kg is so the pilot certificate is truly equivalent to the RPL. As a good guide, 1500kg will let you fly something along the lines of a C182.
  2. ian00798
    I don't know if casa will ever let RAA issue something like a PPL, RPL directly as such, at best they might make it like the RPL is right now where it's recognised from your pilot certificate. As for things like night, multi engine etc I don't imagine casa giving that to RAA, they are all activities with significantly more risk involved and I imagine casa will want to maintain direct control over that. Also I suspect the vast majority of RAA members don't want that, as it really gets a long way from the basic principles of what RAA was formed for.
  3. ian00798
    As per what Ben said. Put it this way, would you particularly want to be receiving a controllers instructions over a busy CTAF frequency? Air traffic control frequencies are exactly for that, air traffic control. It only takes one inadvertently stepped on transmission to cause an incident, look at things like Tenerife, the Quincy airport crash in America, that kind of thing. Seems to be a silly choice when the multi on strategy was just as effective.
  4. ian00798
    Yeah I think the reference there was more to TCAS, which is a brilliant system, but once again not flawless. It's really the last line of defence, not what we should be relying on to make up for a bad rule.
  5. ian00798
    Seems there could be a different frequency for that though instead of the one where someone may be trying to issue a control instruction to stop 2 passenger jets closing at 1.5 times the speed of sound possibly in cloud from trying to hit each other.
  6. ian00798
    Yeah that is true, it will annoy the other aircraft in the area. I absolutely agree it's a poor system and I don't know why they chose that way, but I guess we have to comply with the rules
  7. ian00798
    The good news is if you can't hear us there's a good chance we can't hear you so your probably not bothering anyone. Our transmitters are a lot more powerful than yours.
  8. ian00798
    Airservices statement on recent ABC coverage This is pretty accurate, basically as per what Rhys said. Controllers will continue to provide pilots the same service they have always received.
  9. ian00798
    As part of instrument rating training you will learn how to do circuits as low as 300ft AGL to practice for a circling approach (breaking out at minima off an approach then circling around to the correct runway). In accordance with AIP ENR1.5 by day this can be down to as low as 300ft AGL. If done correctly for a low level circuit you will fly the same ground track as you would for a normal circuit, ie the runway to strut aspect will change as you go lower down. If you flew the same strut spacing that you would on a normal circuit it would keep you much closer to the runway, and leave with with an excessively tight base turn, massively increasing your chance of a stall/spin accident. Remember in nearly any circuit there are going to be times you won't be able to glide back to a runway, as long as there are other places to land it's not a big deal.
  10. ian00798
    VH registered unfortunately, as stupid as it may seem. RPL training in your case would have to be done under a part 141 training school approval, which means GA instructors with GA aircraft. Also I believe the endorsement has to be issued by a grade 2 instructor or higher, although I'm not 100% certain of that. Since it's an endorsement, not a rating, it doesn't require a flight test as such, you just have to demonstrate competence. I would suggest it might be a good time to chuck in a retractable and CSU endorsement as well.
  11. ian00798
    Yeah but her ASIC equivalent wouldn't apply to everyone, it would be "targeted".....
  12. ian00798
    Nothing makes me laugh harder than rocking up at a security controlled airport, committing the heinous crime of crossing some invisible line that supposedly defines the RPT apron and getting intercepted by security (a misnomer if ever there has been one). Doesn't matter how many ASICs are on display, they will look at you as though you rocked up with an armoury of AK's and RPGs and threaten you with everything up to the death penalty. Of course when you see the security agents your stuck laughing because they would be unlikely to catch a cold in a kindergarten and stern words are the only thing they have, and most could be outrun by an anaemic asthmatic ant. But it shows how hopeless the ASIC is. If the system is that great it shouldn't matter if I wander into the RPT apron, I'm not a security threat. Clearly the ASIC proves nothing.
  13. ian00798
    That strikes me as being exactly what CASA and quite possibly those airports want, get rid of GA/RA from there. After all, we can't be trusted to operate within the same postcode as an RPT aircraft without endangering lives.
  14. ian00798
    Haha good luck getting casa to trust the good folk at the RTA with the security of our nations airspace
  15. ian00798
    I'm certainly hoping your right there and at the moment I suspect you are right, it's getting very difficult for industry to trust the regulator at the moment, there have been too many debacles recently.
  16. ian00798
    Haha I suspect I know what clearance your after and yeah the ASIC is definitely slightly easier
  17. ian00798
    Absolutely. Seems one background check before getting a licence would be reasonable, after that surely offences that affect your right to fly could be automatically communicated to CASA, and any other relevant agencies? Should be doable, the tax office has software that can data match from nearly everything, apparently AVMED get easy access to our medical records so a database that sorts that kind of thing out should be easy and probably already exists.
  18. ian00798
    I was of the understanding the system was getting reviewed to make the system less arduous and remove red tape, not add even more bureaucracy and undoubtedly expense.
  19. ian00798
    It looks like the ASIC system is going to get even more complex and annoying later this year. Identity security amendments Even more new categories of ASIC, face to face document checks with the ASIC issuer and other changes to the regulations. I can only imagine what that will do to the cost, and I'm struggling to understand why getting and ASIC should be more complex and irritating than getting a passport even.
  20. ian00798
    Exactly what Nathan said. The calls are definitely irritating as a controller especially when we are busy, but ultimately that is the rule and I won't have a go at any pilot for following it. Just keep the calls as short and concise as you possibly can and use a bit of airmanship, if you can hear the controller is excessively busy and the frequency is congested try and save the call for a better time.
  21. ian00798
    If your already subject to a flight following, ATC will direct your frequency transfer approaching the airspace boundary, i.e. ABC contact Willy centre on 133.3 expect clearance. When your getting a flight following you really shouldn't just change frequencies without telling ATC. If you are getting close to the controlled airspace boundary and haven't been transferred just give ATC a friendly reminder.
  22. ian00798
    The zulus are a decent set, well worth the $450, you got a decent deal there
  23. ian00798
    There really is a reason the professionals choose Bose, and it's because they are just that good. Your headset really is an investment, if you lose your hearing then you will lose your medical. It really was the best $1300 I have ever spent in aviation. If you can find someone who has a Bose set and borrow it for a flight you will understand what I mean.
  24. ian00798
    If you can up what your willing to pay to about the $500 mark you could get a decent second hand Bose x set. The audio performance isn't too far off the A20, you just don't get all the gadgets like Bluetooth. You get a very good, durable headset at an affordable price. For most applications ANR is well and truly better than a passive set, just make sure you have spare batteries with you.
  25. ian00798
    Might want to get a type rating before you get too excited about that present
×
×
  • Create New...