ian00798

How many of them do you think have VHF coverage with centre on the ground......

That may well be that power doesn't control airspeed in a glide, but luckily for the most part our aircraft have engines when we are on approach so we can use power to control our airspeed, which is kind of its primary effect..... Try using attitude to control airspeed in a higher performance aircraft like a baron and see how effective the technique is, and if you somehow pull it off your passengers aren't going to be feeling to great from all those rapid attitude changes, a small pitch change to you can easily be several metres to a passenger in the last seating rows.

Probably the most intelligent comment on this thread yet

This is one of the few casa rules that is crystal clear and they have actually gone out of their way to clarify, how hard is it to just follow it until the law is changed???

I feel like this topic has been covered a lot, and casa has actually issued a lot of guidance on it. As per what Nathan put up, the law is very clear, and it's a bit concerning how many so called pilots seem incapable of finding the information on their own. You have a pilots licence, it is your job to keep up with the regulations. And no, my friends father in law is a lawyer doesn't count, find the rules yourself. Doesn't matter whether you like the rules or not, other pilots are relying on you following them so damn well do it, if you disagree with the rule then put your input into the submission.

Absolutely spot on and quite a commonly used instructional technique. It's much easier to teach a student aimpoint aspect airspeed, where the power controls airspeed and the attitude controls the aspect. I don't know why so many people are hell bent on using the secondary effect of controls to fly the aircraft down final, all that you end up with is a constantly wandering attitude. Bleve's technique works in every aircraft from ultralight in day VFR to a 747 shooting the ILS. The first four words of the post were dead accurate. Students need numbers to anchor themselves on, and can't just fly off gut instinct.

A lot of the people you are criticising as low hours and low experience probably have a substantially broader level of experience and knowledge than you give them credit for

I suspect you are right there unfortunately.

A drifter isn't exactly the space shuttle, I think with training most pilots could handle them. Just like with enough training most ultralight pilots could probably handle a chieftain. I think the elitist rubbish needs to be wiped out.

Carbon monoxide detector

In fact at the moment there are no prohibited areas in Australia. Pine gap used to be prohibited, however was changed to an RA3 restricted area active 24/7 (R215 I believe the identifier is)

I don't disagree, but I have a slightly different take on the priorities. I use AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE ADMINISTRATE. Aviate means keep the aircraft in a safe state, ie set best glide and the immediate action drills. Navigate means point the aircraft where you will survive, ie the field. Communicate, let someone know. May not seem too important, but once you have survived the crash you are certainly going to wish you did it while your slowly bleeding to death waiting for someone to notice your ELT or SARTIME expiry. Administrate is all the nice to do checks, like get the engine restarted if time permits, prepare for the forced landing etc. As for communicate, is it really that hard to quickly push a button while your setting best glide or turning for the field and tell someone who will organise a SAR response?

He had spent a couple of decades before throwing hang gliders off cliffs, and then later that day Wilbur tried the same thing and crashed it..... As for going solo, there are so many variables that decide how long that takes. Having sent people solo, I can tell you that your instructor will know before you. Ultimately the solo standard is all about being consistently safe, your circuits don't have to be perfect.

I am yet to do a type conversion that hasn't taught me something yet. Jab was great for really basic stick and rudder, and they will help your crosswind technique more than you can imagine. Once you start adding CSU, RU etc the complexity goes up, but the basic aircraft is a lot more stable. Once you get to things like a C210, twins etc all of a sudden you are moving fast in an aircraft you can't just chop and drop so you have to think profiles and get well ahead of the airplane. Obviously turbine starts changing things even more again. Ultimately if your ambition is to become a commercial pilot, having an ability to rapidly convert between aircraft will be advantageous. RAA isn't a bad place to learn the basics of flying though.

Beautiful aeroplane there, you would have a blast punching holes in the sky with that.

Gawler would be worth a look, but I have to say my preferred destination would have to be wherever Bernie has that RV8 parked, that is one nice well presented looking kite.

No minimum time to convert from RA to GA, you just have to meet the standard for an AFR in a GA aircraft. My recommendation would be when your doing your RA Nav, ask for 5 hours solo Nav, it will tick that box for the conversion. Or get your licence then do enough Nav to get to the 5 hours solo. 1 hour of the instrument time can be done in the simulator, that will reduce the cost. Your AFR can include a Nav component, and you can even use it for training for CTA/CTR and do some of the instrument time on it. However I would suggest you won't get to CTA/CTR standard in much less than 10 hours if you haven't been exposed to it before.

Pretty accurate there Bernie, just a few corrections on the conversion: - To have your flight radio endorsement carry over you will have to do an English language proficiency test. Not hard to do, but probably cost about another $100 or so. - To convert the Nav endorsement across you will need to meet the RPL experience requirements. This means 5 hours total solo Nav (most RA cross country endorsements only have 2 hours), and also 2 hours instrument flying. - You will have to do a medical for it as well, your choices are either the RAMPC, or a class 2 medical. The RAMPC will limit you to only one passenger, and operations below 10 000ft. If you meet the standard, I personally would just get the class 2. - You don't actually need a PPL to operate in CTA/CTR, these are endorsements that can be added on to your RPL. You are correct that you are limited to 1500kg MTOW, however you can do endorsements such as CSU, retrac etc, as well as aerobatics and a few other flight activity endorsements. As stated above, the GA AFR (aeroplane flight review) will do your RA BFR, but it doesn't work the other way around at the moment.

Still very much optimised for the apple platform with many more features, however the android version is catching up.

For the cross country endorsement to convert over you will have to do 2 hours of instrument flying and also have a total of 5 hours cross country PIC

He provided the aeroplane, she provided the fuel. Therefore expense sharing. However given they claimed they maintenance on the Jabiru as a party expense, things start to get very very murky

Well given that it's your job as a pilot to know the rules and breaching the rules is an offence of strict liability perhaps you can show us in the rules where it says it is legal? As I have said above my interpretation of the rules is that it is legal but it's definitely operating in a grey fringe area. And it's not the RAA regulation that is relevant in this occasion, it's the casa regulation defining what constitutes private ops.

No still bound by the exact same rules regarding private ops. RA AUS is subject to all the legislation in the CAA, CAR, CASR and CAO with the exceptions been as laid out in the exemption instrument.

Other companies can use employees with a PPL to fly members of the company around and meet the requirements of private ops, so I don't think it would be an issue

It's operating on the fringes of what can be considered legal, it gets very murky. It would really depend on exactly how you interpret the CAR, however I think it would be considered legitimate provided she doesn't actually pay him for the flying of the aircraft, and at best it could be done on a cost sharing basis. He owns the aircraft, so from cost sharing he could consider providing the aircraft his component of the cost, and Pauline paying the fuel bill and maintenance her share of the cost. Really it's not that different to him driving her around in a car without having a taxi licence, and casa would probably not even try to prosecute that one.