Ironpot

In this instance I don’t think there is a readback requirement but I like them to know I understand what he has said plus it imprints it in my short term memory. I would say “ turn base on your call ABC “

Yep, heard last Sunday arvo:- “ BN CN Qlink xxxD request” ”Qlink xxxD - go ahead” ”request you say something as we’re worried we’re off the air .... etc”

This has been my query all the way through because we will all have to come into contact with it at some stage. I have reached the conclusion that, in Australia, we are simply attempting to ensure that we do not overwhelm our Health Services at any stage and it will simmer-on like this for many months, if not years. However, my personal experience of the SARS epidemic gives me hope that it may just fizzle out at some stage.

Outside tower hours some airports are Class E above 700 ft and controlled by CN.

can anybody help me with this one please? I know about TTI etc, however on the modern glass cockpits the identifier will show on the VOR frequency eg "CG" Gold Coast, "TL" Townsville etc. My question is - when the identifier appears beside the frequency, does it satisfy the Test requirement and dispense with the necessity of listening to the morse. I ask cos "SU" doesn't appear for Sunshine Coast for some reason. If so, can you point me to the relevant clause in the legislation or the authority? The reason I ask is because I'm sure I have read somewhere in the past that an identifier is all that is is required to use a VOR but I can't find and it may be from the US or Europe and not applicable to Australia.

We had a navy bloke transfer into the squadron - he’d been a chef on the Ark Royal. He had an eye tattooed on each cheek of his arse. Once he had a few drinks in him, his party trick was to stand on a table, drop his daks and invite the whole pub ... “can you see any sxxt in my eye”. Then the fight would start!

I have no experience of OzR. I have to say AvP is fundamental to my flying now. It’s been absolutely brilliant. I have one issue at the mo and that’s the syncing of the two iPads - I’ve been unable to master it so far ... but I will!

Spot on!

At no point did I say rely on NOTAMs but I’m sure that you will agree they are useful sometimes? What I was querying was his statement that “Lack of Avgas is not a NOTAM-able event” . Whereby he proceeded to give a BS reply that does not correspond with either the AIP or factual events. It’s Important that users of this type of website don’t spread myths or it’s no better than Facetube. #2 Posted 6 hoursLack of Avgas is not a NOTAM-able event

Thanks for this. I didn’t realise Old Station was an option.

Well I can’t find the “quality guide” so I’ll quote the AIP back to you:- “NOTAM provide information that is of direct operational significance and which may immediately affect aircraft operations”. And, to my mind it follows that: 1. Where it says in ERSA that fuel is available at an airfield and it isn’t, then that would be of “direct operational significance”. 2. I’m sure you’ll agree that when an area that encompasses half of Central Queensland is devoid of fuel it might definitely “affect aircraft operations”. eg you could arrive with more than 60 minutes in your tanks and not be able to depart legally. Creating possible safety issues? 3. YBRK YTNG & YGLA are NOTAMed re AVGAS so clearly ASA doesn’t agree with you. That is not to say that Pilots should not check if fuel is available when flying into airfields where they could come unstuck. I get pissed off with being preached at when I was simply trying to notify local pilots who could be affected that there is a problem. I thought this site was about sharing information??

Where does it say that? What’s your reference please?

Make sure you check your notams - I nearly came unstuck!

I can hear the “ ride of the valkyries”!!

Ah I see where you’re going now - why not add 5. All flights to be conducted in twin turbine aircraft That should see it off! Mate , you need to get into the real world more often .... it’s all about costs out there. Start by looking at cost/ benefit and you may understand the new CASA guide.

OK - what is the specific solution?

I live on a road that has killed circa 20 people whilst I’ve lived here and even though Main Roads have spent money it continues to kill people. In fact one of the improvements was the cause of at least one fatality. It’s sad but true. The insurance industry, amongst others, can try and influence government agencies to improve safety but still accidents will happen - no matter what statistics will say or indicate. Statistics and trends help to make management decisions but are tools and simply assist in the process. The Insurance industry has the ability to shut down any industry or endeavour if they don’t like the statistics so clearly they don’t agree with the ATSB and consider AF as safe enough for their purposes. On the face of it I would suggest that a 400 hr pilot with a Class 2 Medical would have the skills and ability to provide this service for AF. I would also suggest that, by that stage, he/she would also have had plenty of previous experience of opting for prudence by making decisions that would disappoint others. AF is an incredible organisation from a regional Australian viewpoint. I note that most of their critics on here appear to live in metropolitan addresses and may have difficulty in understanding a 16/20 hour car journey undertaken on a frequent basis. The people that use this service are, by definition, resident in regional areas and some actually do drive 8- 10 hours on a fortnightly basis. These patients don’t have to avail themselves of an AF but they continue to do so and normally then only on medical advice. I also suggest that the vast majority do so because a stressful visit to a specialist that may have taken a number of days is, in some cases, reduced to a day out allowing them to sleep in their own bed that night. In my opinion Angel Flight is a true Australian icon and embodies the true essence of “Care in the Community”. It is not above criticism but when the alternatives are considered it bears scrutiny.

ANGEL FLIGHT RESPONSE TO ATSB REPORT 13 august 2019 ANGEL FLIGHT IS AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST AND LONGEST-SERVING CHARITY FACILITATING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FLYING Angel Flight has co-ordinated free flights for more than 100,000 disadvantaged rural Australians, whose only other option to attend city hospitals for specialist treatment is ground transport – often taking days each way, at times with the driver/ patients being very elderly or accompanying very young children, on dangerous outback roads. These people cannot afford commercial air travel, which is more often than not, unavailable from their hometowns. Angel Flight recognises, publicly and privately with the affected people, the consequences of tragic fatal accidents, wherever and in whatever circumstances they occur, and is (and has always been) committed to safety and welfare as its priority. THE ATSB REPORT INTO THE ACCIDENT AT MT GAMBIER ON 20 JUNE 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather. The safety recommendation made was for the charity to book people on airlines for travel: this does not adequately factor in cost (particularly where two or more people are travelling, which is often the case); nor does it properly factor in the infrequent scheduling or non-existence of airline flights into country regions across Australia; the inconvenience and difficulties faced by the elderly and families with young children at major city airports, and the associated ground travel; and appears to work on the assumption that city specialists and hospitals will gear their appointment times around airline timetables. Angel Flight does use airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services. The rules implemented by CASA were not directed to the cause of the 2017 accident, or any other accident in the community benefit sector, and the ATSB has not given any support for those rules, save and except for that requiring pilots to write community benefit flights up in their log books, and note that fact on flight plans: the only flow-on from those rules is one of policing data – the very same data has been given by the charity to the ATSB. It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions – the cause of the accident: it would have been of benefit to the flying community had the ATSB focussed on these aspects of the accident. The safety message raised – induction training and safety management systems, together with a pilot mentoring programme, had already been implemented by the charity prior to the ATSB report and recommendations. Angel Flight takes, and has taken, a very serious and proactive approach to improving safety, and will continue to do so. Angel Flight will continue to urge CASA to improve its Human Factors training in the pre-licencing stage of training, in addition to the refresher courses now offered. THE DATA The charity engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the accident rate was not significantly different from the rate for other private flying across Australia. The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity –it disregarded the flights, also coordinated by the charity, where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns: it did, however, include those flights when reporting ‘occurrences’ against the charity flights. There was, and is, no reason for this failure. To remove up to two-thirds of the coordinated flights in order to make statistical conclusions is unjustifiable. Moreover, when comparing the data with private flights generally, it did not exclude the non-passenger flights for that group – all flights were counted in the general private sector, but not in the charity sector. Angel Flight has coordinated more than 46,000 flights for the purpose of travelling to, returning from and carrying rural Australians to the city for non-emergency medical appointments. The ATSB has excluded more than half of these flights when assessing accident rates, with the result being to substantially increase the alleged statistical accident rates. THE EXACERBATION OF THE DATA ERRORS The ATSB has not adopted its own protocols (and those followed in the US) of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents - instead it counted only flight numbers. An example of that methodology, further invalidating the findings, is (a common route), where the pilot departs home base in Tyabb, flies to Essendon to collect passengers, flies from Essendon to Hay, then returns to Tyabb (three sectors) – this is counted as one flight by the ATSB for its statistical purposes. The flight time for this route in a Cessna 182 would be at least 3.5 hours yet the ATSB gives it is given the same status as a 6-minute touch-and-go circuit at Essendon. To disregard both the actual flight numbers, and the flight hours, compounds the errors (and unreliability) of the findings to an extraordinary degree. OCCURRENCES The ATSB also looked at ‘Occurrences’ in controlled airspace (in comparison with private flights generally, most of which occur in uncontrolled space, and therefore are not reported). The ATSB acknowledged that they have no data from flights OCTA, so they did not take that fact into account. The investigators also included in the occurrence data (adverse to the charity), instances where the admitted and conclusive report findings included ATC errors; errors of other aircraft causing safety breaches (not the fault of the charity flight); the proper reporting by the charity-organised flights where others had caused danger (including, for example, a pilot reporting a model aircraft illegally on a flight path, causing the authorised charity aircraft to take evasive action: this was included as a ‘negative’ occurrence against the charity; and diversions to other airports in the interests of safety. This cannot be regarded as valid in the collection of statistical data, and nor was it found to be so by the experts. OTHER FINDINGS The ATSB, amongst its findings, noted that Angel Flight was planning a mentoring program: this is incorrect, and known to the ATSB – the charity implemented its pilot mentoring programme more than a year ago. It was required to stop because CASA introduced rules which imposed restrictions on who could accompany a pilot, as was made very clear by the written advice of a senior CASA executive that “another pilot can accompany a pilot on a CSF as operating crew, so long as the other pilot qualifies to be a co-pilot of the aircraft and has such duties in relation to the CSF”: this clearly precludes pilots from being on board for mentoring, familiarisation, and observation of Angel Flight’s processes and safety culture. FUTHER OVERLOOKED FACTS It has not been acknowledged that all volunteers operating their own (CASA-approved and maintained) aircraft for the purpose of these community benefit flights, are CASA-licensed, CASA- trained, and CASA-tested on a one or two-yearly basis. Angel Flight has ensured that the volunteer pilot qualifications are not less than as permitted by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and for the entire period leading to the investigation (14 years), these pilots have had substantially more than the required experience for passenger-carrying private flights in Australia. The new Rules decreed by CASA would have had no bearing on the accident under investigation, and this has been acknowledged by CASA. The pilot under investigation had greater experience than that required by either the former or the current Rules. Angel Flight has been urging CASA for a substantial time, to re-visit and strengthen the training of its pilots in the human factors area prior to issuing licences. With the additional safety, risk- management and induction training that Angel Flight has already implemented, the addition of CASA training would be beneficial for all pilots in this and other general aviation environments. This message has been authorised by Angel Flight Australia.

Finally!

EOD is not the same as “sunset”. EOD is the end of “civil twilights” when the sun is 6 degrees BELOW the horizon. EOD tables are in the AIP. I understand that you must PLAN to have an ETA at least 10 minutes before so I reckon it’s allow P for plenty!

Ah thanks - didn’t know that existed.

You’ve misunderstood my point. You are advising the 18yr olds on here to get hold of IFR approach plates and exercise full blown approaches to add to everything else they’re learning. Presumably you are suggesting exercising with an instructor. What I was highlighting was that at no point and in any context ,was he advising traffic of intentions. I was simply pointing that out. However, the more I think about this the more I think it is ill advised unless in an absolute emergency and then after undertaking the course - it’s called a PIFR.

... comms? The RPT conducting the same approach might like to know. Is it legal without ADSB?

Aviation in Australia would be so much poorer without it mate! I hope he keeps it exactly as it is.

Thanks for this. I thought Mackay was expensive so perhaps it’s a sign of things to come.