ian00798

It's a shame to see that aircraft gone, it was probably the nicest warrior I have ever flown, and had really nice avionics in it too. Glad to see everyone made it out alive though. Hopefully TAK sees the skies again one day

You could try bullamon plains, it looks like a pretty good strip from what I can see, and the contact details are in ozrunways

Yeah you can definitely do it, you can either go through the class c over sunny coast, through the Brisbane zone or through the Gold Coast. I have done it quite a bit, it's not that tricky. If you have any questions feel free to ask me, I'm a controller as well as a pilot so I should be able to help, and I fly out of Redcliffe lots so I know the area quite well.

From AIP: Take Of Seperation Minima An aircraft must not commence take-off until: a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway has: (1) crossed the upwind end of the runway; or (2) commenced a turn; or (3) if the runway is longer than 1,800M, become airborne and is at least 1,800M ahead; or (4) if both aircraft have a MTOW below 2,000KG, the pre- ceding aircraft is airborne and is at least 600M ahead; [*]a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway, has va- cated it and is taxiing away from the runway; or [*]a preceding aircraft, using another runway, has crossed or stopped short of the take-off aircraft’s runway. Landing minima An aircraft must not continue its approach to land beyond the threshold of the runway until: a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway is air-borne and: a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway; a preceding aircraft using another runway, has crossed or stopped short of the landing aircraft’s runway. [*](1) has commenced a turn; or [*](2) is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach;

I find 5NM or 1000ft works a treat, but I get the feeling that's not the sort of separation this thread is talking about.

I think there are several different ways to do ra Aus flight plans, although I would be very careful about putting the aircraft type and last 4 numbers of the rego in the aircraft ID, as you may get really unlucky and confuse it with some of the airline callsigns. The way I do it is put the last 4 digits of the rego in the aircraft ID, ie 6669, then in the rego field I would put 24-6669, and in field 18 of the flight plan I would put RMK/ RT CALLSIGN CT 6669. The many different ways of planning ra Aus flights can make it tricky to find them, but I think our flight data coordinators can find them by searching departure/destination and then they will send them to us.

Hi Kiwi, If you have multiple legs in the system, let the controller know what leg your on, for example say Tamworth for Armidale so we know which flight plan to use. It will have a different squawk code to the previous leg, as that's the way Eurocat code assignment works. In fact, ideally before you land on your previous leg, let the controller know that you will be requesting a flight following for your next leg so we can get the plan. In most cases VFR plans aren't automatically sent to the controller, so it may take us a few minutes to get them. When changing frequency just say Brisbane centre, ABC maintaining 4500. Don't tell us the frequency, we can see that on our equipment, we only care about what your level is.

The read back is one of the last lines of defence in the system, and that is why we are very fussy about it. One of the regular missed read backs is clear to leave control area descending. It's a descent clearance and needs to be read back just like if I cleared you to descend to a level. It has happened in America, and created massive changes (1986 Cerritos mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I would suggest it would likely end the chances of RA AUS getting controlled airspace access, and bring a mandatory ADSB for all aircraft mandate. Not to mention many lives lost, so something we really badly want to avoid.

Enjoy the test, and just remember, it doesn't have to be mistake free flying, it just has to be safe flying with sound basic technique. Don't beat yourself up over any mistakes you make on the day, put them behind you and keep flying. People fail when they let errors snowball.

All iPhones since the iPhone 4s and all iPads since the iPad mini have had dual GPS/GLONASS capability.

I suspect anything that wipes out all three satellite Nav networks will probably leave us with more significant problems than navigating aircraft. Local jamming is certainly a possibility, but jamming GPS over a large area really needs a military sort of effort, and would probably be an act of war. Of course, the US could just turn GPS off, but they have kindly promised not to.... Not to mention, that would still leave GLONASS and eventually Galileo available, although I don't think most aircraft avionics can use them at the moment, but that will most likely change in future. That would really be a great extension on the RAIM concept, comparing systems from all 3 Nav networks.

Yeah I can imagine 1000ft doesn't look like a lot of separation when your closing at 850-900 knots. I think that's why we like to sort out opposite direction stuff nice and early, if we mess it up opposite direction then the airplanes radomes are going to meet at flight levels and we will end up with a very large aluminium shower. Luckily there are a lot of defences in the system to make that very unlikely. With opposite direction, even with radar I generally won't clear an aircraft through the other aircrafts level unless I know it can be completed at least 5 minutes before time of passing, which at jet speeds means the aircraft will be about 80-90 NM away from each other. That just gives me time in case something goes wrong, if I lose Comms, an aircraft climbs slow, etc it gives me time do do something about it. We no longer have the final defence in the system of the navigation being so inaccurate that even if we mess it up they are unlikely to hit, because most of the time the GPS is spot on. It really is a bit of a double edged sword.

I have noticed that it's pretty rare to see an aircraft off track these days, everything from C172s up to A380s stay on their flight planned track like its a railway. I can generally even tell when a VFR aircraft is using something like ozrunways, because their navigation is dead accurate. GPS is definitely a more accurate way to fly than the navaids ever were. It would be nice to get GPS precision approaches in Australia too, especially for places like Armidale where the weather can get pretty average. Really the virgin/Qantas incident at Mildura shows the value of GPS for approaches, and that would have been a lot safer if a GPS precision approach was available too. I think the major reason Airservices left navaids for RPT to update inertial systems is certain procedural standards require the aircraft to have updated their INS within the last 3 hours. We know you don't actually do it, but if we make sure it's no more than 3 hours before you get within range of a radio navaid, then we can keep using those separation standards. The lack of navaids is why oceanic separation standards are so large (potentially as much as 15 minutes between successive aircraft). I suspect as GNSS develops more and more large chunks of the backup network will end up decommissioned too, particularly once the Galileo network comes online fully, with 3 different space based navigation systems available it's pretty unlikely they would all fail at once.

A RAIM capable GPS can be used for primary navigation, however it can't be used as a sole navigation source, hence why the backup Nav network exists, as it gives sufficient navaid coverage for navigation in the case of total GPS failure, and also allows the RPT aircraft to update their INS equipment at sufficient intervals. Still, I'm going to miss the navaids, some of the new names for navaids are just ridiculous and annoying, and now IFR aircraft giving position reports outside radar coverage provides nothing useful to a VFR aircraft listening out, while a VFR pilot would know where Coonabarabran is, very few would know where anban is when the IFR reports overhead.

I remember YQDI quite well, I have done many a circuit, and my first solo, there. It can certainly get busy at times. I can see your point that you shouldn't use base or straight in approaches to cut people off, but pilots also shouldn't be cutting people off joining on any of the other circuit legs either. Traffic already in the circuit has right of way. At a really busy airfield, you will just have to fit in as you can, but it has to be pretty busy to make a base rejoin difficult, and generally the less time you spend in the circuit the easier your making it for traffic doing circuits. I think the thing that concerns me about a lot of student pilots now is they can only do circuit rejoins, and circuits, the exact way they were taught. It always scares me when you have the guy in the c182 eating up the c152 on downwind because they can't comprehend that you can use a reduced power setting, and put some flap out, and just do the speed that the preceding aircraft is doing. Circuits by numbers work at the beginning when the student already has too much to deal with, but by the time your getting towards a PPL you really should be able to alter your profiles to work on the day. Of course, all this would be way easier if people actually flew an appropriate circuit spacing, I have seen way too many c172s fly circuits that a 747 could fit within. Ultimately though, the overriding principle with all of this is keep it safe. Broadcast your intentions, update the traffic picture, and sight the preceding traffic. Just basic airmanship and it makes life easier for everyone.

I think there are two reasons it is frowned upon by people there, one been that a lot of people don't actually know the rules and don't know you can do it, and two been that because there are a lot of trainee pilots the overhead rejoin is selected as it's easier for a beginner pilot to do the same thing every time. It would be a lot to ask for a pilot on first area solo to figure out which runway is in use, where all the traffic is, and figure out if they can fit in for a base rejoin. Much easier to teach them to do the same thing every time. The only rejoin you can't do at Redcliffe is a straight in approach because it is prohibited by ERSA. Once you start training for commercial ops, you join the circuit in the most efficient way, and I quite often go for a 5 mile final when I can. Of course, the most exciting way to join the circuit is via initial and pitch, but I suspect a lot of people would frown upon me doing that one unfortunately.

I have been making a habit of doing base rejoins lately at Redcliffe unless I can't due traffic, and then I will normally go for a downwind rejoin. Most people come in via beachmere, so it really leaves you nicely set up for base on runway 07 or downwind runway 25. With Redcliffe you have the water below to give a good idea of wind direction, and the Brisbane ATIS, so you should know what runway is in use. I'm with HH, the less time you spend manoeuvring in the CCT area the better, find a spot you fit in and make it work from there, don't add extra track miles for no good reason, and the quicker you land the more it frees up the circuit for other aircraft. The toughest thing initially in uncontrolled aerodromes is building up a situational awareness of where the traffic is, but that eventually gets easier. The best advice I have there is write down call signs, and cross them off once they report clear of the runway.

Pearo, it really depends on whether you are in the CTA or the CTR, as there is a difference between the two. If your going into the sunny coast CTA, you should give a position report overhead the aerodrome, ie abc position Sunshine Coast at 35, 3500, Gympie at 05. When your in the Ctr, just give the reports that tower ask for, nothing else, as VFR in class d ctr have slightly different rules to the CTA when entering from, or exiting to class g airspace. If I recall correctly, the sunny coast Ctr is at or below 1500ft, above that is CTA

I don't know about what happened there, but judging by the way I have spent all day getting smashed by aircraft in and out of Tamworth, I would have a guess and say it was very very popular.

I think the main reason for the standard procedure with duri gap/gate south/gate west is to have it so all the aircraft going to/from the training area have some form of strategic separation, as a lot of training happens there and you really need to keep the VFR apart. Remember, it's class D, so the tower isn't actually separating VFR from VFR (except runway separation), you will only get traffic information. And for practical purposes, Tamworth tower doesn't have radar below 8500 feet as they are not a radar tower and can't use radar for separation, it's only a situational awareness tool. Brisbane centre does use radar for separation there, and normally around Tamworth we will have aircraft on radar by 5500ft. Even then, to seperate with radar we need to establish a positive identification, which is a process way beyond the scope of this thread. With class D, you can actually attempt to come in from any direction, you don't have to use VFR approach points. However, there is also a good chance if they are busy the tower will tell you to expect clearance via one of the published points, and with Tamworth the duri gap procedure is a special procedure in ERSA and must be used if your between those radials. If your outside those radials then you don't use the procedure. Use something obvious, like inbound via Inverell, Armidale or a radial if possible. There are also lots of other visual features you can use, such as keepit, bective homestead, sommerton, Manila etc.

No requirement to read back when ready, and it will drive me nuts if people start doing that. It's not a conditional clearance, if anything it waives the condition to commence descent within one minute that you would get with a normal descent instruction. A conditional clearance would be along the lines of "at 25 miles to run Armidale, leave control area descending". I can't imagine any controller using that though, too much can go wrong and it doesn't really assure separation.

I think I actually remember this aircraft, it's not actually that common for us to get a twin Comanche in our airspace. Don't worry, your plan amendments weren't too hard, the low level sectors get very good at dealing with flight plans.

In the military we used to do a dead cut during the mag check. Nothing mechanical can ever be 100% certain, but it was a pretty good indicator that the mags were grounding correctly in the off position. However the military also had the budget to deal with the increased maintenance burden too.

I need the coo and time first, I'm at abott t 100 pic with 275 hours total.

Robbo, that one is actually the US Angel flight website, the Australian requirements aren't quite as strict. Here is the link http://www.angelflight.org.au/Pilots/RegisterQuestion you eligible to join our volunteer team? Do you own an aircraft or have access to private hire (at your own expense)? Is the aircraft VH registered, factory built and assembled, and of a category other than 'Experimental', 'Amateur Built' or 'Warbird'? Do you have in excess of 250 hours Pilot In Command? Do you have at least 10 hours IFR (5 hours VFR) Pilot In Command on the aircraft you will be using? Pearo, I read that as the instrument rating isn't actually required. Still, I would recommend doing it anyway, IF is awesome fun.