Jerry_Atrick

One hopes this is inaccurate... Otherwise it is an admission that the company hd no idea, and no control over its finances. After all, the lease contract will not normally allow a reposession unless a) the company is in default, or sometimes, it it is deemed a risky lease, the lessor has a rasonable belief that the lessee will default imminently, or c) not maintaining covenants such as a minimum share price, or maintenance or something similar. It would be alarming if the directors of the company were not expecting reposession proceedings were being initiated, as the directors would normally be informed of such proceedigs. and the reason why.

I follow this Youtuber because he posts vids of accidents (usually fatal) with cool as a cumber analysis of what went wrong. In this vid, you will see reference to a few of them, and to be honest, even though there are patterns, there is always something I learn from others mishaps. But this vid is about how to do it.. and it is great to see. One of my fave aircraft is the PA28 (Yeah.. I know.. many LSAs will run rings around performance - except for load-carrying, of course).. It is just nice to see a good outcome when things don't quite go so right aviation vid for a change.

Isn't there a saying that in flying, you start with a bucket full of luck and an empty bucket of experience - and you hope the bucket of experience fills before the bucketof luck empties... Sadly, one seems to have emptied before enough of the other filled.. A tragic loss. In my early solo days, I recall looking outside and thinking. "Jeez.. this 150s is slow today... Then I looked at the airspeed indicator. A little more time before comprehending the speed outside and I suspect I would not be here today. RIP to the pilot, and condolences to the family and friends; and thoughts with the instructor...

I would say that is a misfiring engine

Yeah, but not sure the tape is up to aviation grade. Cardboard looks good, though.

What the article doesn't mention is the number of movements Western Sydney is forecast to have, so it makes it difficult to assess the need for Class D. I operate out of two London-ish airfields - Fairoaks (located in the Heathrow zone) and Blackbushe (located in Farnborough's Class D airspace. We have Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stanstead, London City that are all busy CAT airports, as well as Southend ramping up. We also have Biggin Hill and Farnborough as fairly busy bizjet airports. There are airfields in the zone (Redhill, Denham, Fairoaks), and some just outside it (High Wycombe, Blackbushe, Elstree, White Waltham (which is half in the Heathrow zone), Stapleford Noth Weald, and i am sure I am missing one or two. Until Farnborough got their airspace grab of Class D (which most guess involved brown paper bags), there was lots of class G under 2,500'. But there were notable choke points for people trying to stay out of Class D, and there are now more. This may be something to look out for Whenever I fly, there is a Class D transit and even Class D bimbling. Never had to lodge a flight plan (the only time I do is when flying to the continent). In class D, we are told the route we have to take and we take it. I guess our longer radio calls though, form some sort of flight plan. I like flying in Class D.. It is not as restrictive as most think; yet you are always under a flight following.. And ATC are working to stop you bumping into someone else.

Is the airfield liable for the cables? The two airfields I have had parking at provided the tiedown points/blocks, but it was up toi us to provide the cables..

I did.. I broke my ankle in a motorcycle accident and as soon as I was out of hosptial, I fired an email off to my AME, who handled to comms to both CAA and CASA. Once I was ready, I had to undergo a minor medical to ensure all was OK.. Doc didn't charge me, but from memory, CASA wanted some money to process the information, so as I wasn't planning any trips to Aus until after the medical renewal was due anyway, I left it until then.. If they didn't want money, there was some administrative hassle that didn't make it worth it.. It was a while ago.

Doe having a medical absolve you of responsibility if you are incapacitated at the contrrols and cause an accident? It doesn't here which is why we carry 3rd party insurance. What about if you flew with a known ailment at the time? I would say the Daylesford driver would be in hot water even if he had a medical for driving: Daylesford driver ignored nine blood sugar warnings before crash killed five, court hears WWW.THEAGE.COM.AU The minutes before the Daylesford hotel tragedy have been detailed for the first time, as police opposed bail for the 66-year-old driver.

Biased? SD may well be biased, but is his synopsis biased with the information at hand? Or does Australia have that many more criminally minded nutters per capita than the USA, for example? Or could it be that the pollies/bureaucrats can't be bothered doing their jobs properly so implement a CYA regime? Biases have a tendency to gather pace when there is a lack of information. And that information does not have to go into specifics. Don't think the pollies/bureaucrats shirk their responsibilities? Ask undercover AFP officers if the latest news is to be believed.

Judging by two elderly US presidential candidates, cognitive ability does generally decline as one its into the older yers. So, as an absolute, I don't think it I ageist per se. However, as I have suggested on the other forums, I think, like the aviation sector, drivers should be tested periodically. OME pointed out the logistics of the number of drivers divided by the number of examiner would be difficult to achieve. But this could mean, like CAA (and I presume CASA) class 2 medicals, at younger years the testing is further apart (4 years) and as one ages, it drops to 2 years and for me, now yearly, with an ECG every year (under 50 and its an ECG every two years). Maybe the test should be for cognitive ability in the same way he have period medicals for flying. but in GA world, are Australian pilots still subject to the BFR? Over here it is 12 hours of flying in the last 12 months and 1 hour instruction (they can't fail you - just recommend additional training) within 90 days of your 2 year anniversary. At least that's what it was in EASA.. not sure if the UK has since Reverte to BFRs... I am getting back into flying after a 3 year break or thereabouts, so I have to do a renewal. I dressed.. for cars, maybe up until 50 or 60; once every 10 years, then from 50 to 70 once every 5.. Would be driven by the medical stats of the population of drivers.. there will those In their 90s that have full faculties and good cognitive abilities, but I would imagine that is not the norm. Loss of cognitive ability, I would guess is also not linear. So, I would think a driving test over 85 once and nothing is pretty useless except for that point in time. FWIW, I think the road law, fairly easy to test online should be done every so often. Today, a newspaper ran a quiz to see hoe much we retained of the road rules... I last did my road rules here in about 2008; I got 3 out of 15. Thankfully my daughter has the latest books as she is getting her provisional licence (L's), so I will be reading up to see what else has changed.

Is there an age limit on the CASA medical. There doesn't seem to be one for the CAA. John Houlder, the late Elstree airfield owner had his medical into his early 90s.. in his late 80s he had to renew it something like every month or 6 weeks. I think after 90 he had to fly with a safety pilot. He died, I believe of natural causes aged 96.

Looks not a bad job given the circumstances known so far. "An investigation into involuntary injuries and endangering the lives of others was opened by the regional prosecutor and the air transport gendarmerie." May cause the pilot or operator some consternation. Villejuif: Small plane makes emergency landing in Paris suburb WWW.BBC.CO.UK An engine failure forces the pilot to make an emergency landing, crashing into an apartment building.

Here's the uk flyer forum where the pilot started a thread on it: Flying Reporter - The email no pilot wants to receive FORUMS.FLYER.CO.UK FLYER Forums

Although technically not a commerical passenger plane, Piper, courtesy of CAE are getting in on the act: Piper PA-28 electric conversion kit on the way : : FLYER FLYER.CO.UK Pilot training company CAE is working with Piper Aircraft to develop a electric propulsion conversion kit for in-service Piper Archer...

That is sort of true, and sort of not. The grandfathered UK PPL, of which none have been issued since the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) and later, EASA PPLs can be flown on a PMD (Pilot Medical Declaration). However, these still cannot be issued, and after Brecit, the UK has a Part FCL PPL, which will eventually replace the grandfathered UK PPLs. These do required a class 2 medical. I believe that the original UK PPL is no longer considered ICAO compliant and definitely is not ICAO compliance if being flown with a PMD, and while dlying arond the UK - especially to Scotland in the suimmer is lovely, eventually you will want to go abroad. There are effectively two types of sports licences in the UK - National PPL (NPPL), which can be flown using a PMD, or, if you want to fly into Europe, a Part-FCL LAPL (Light Aircraft Pilots Licence), which requires a LAPL medical certificate if you want to fdly in Europe. Medical requirements for private pilots - LAPL | Civil Aviation Authority WWW.CAA.CO.UK Information on medical standards, certificates and self-declaration of medical fitness I just got my CAA and CASA Class 2 medicals.. Not much seems to have changed since my very first one in the early 90s... Except the bureaucracy.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/ersa/FAC_YDLQ_30NOV2023.pdf https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/ersa/FAC_YMNY_30NOV2023.pdf

Yes.. But I think (may be wrong) you need at least an AVID?

What I would like to understand is how many pilots or would-be pilots have been grounded as the result of failed ASIC or AVID checks? I googled it, but couldn't find it; I searched the Buearu of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (what sort of department is that?) and could not find it in their statistics or general search. Not making these numbers available is denying transparency and public scrutiny of the scheme. So what we have is an unspecified secret risk, presumnably resulting from existing experience of nefarious actors that no one else can acquire, attempting, if not succeeding at a specific action/s, maybe linked to terrorism, maybe organised criminal activity, or maybe serial offenders with or without some mental health issue (or both). And the nefarious actions they have concoted are so unique and innovative that no one else will think about them and that telling us the nature (not the specifics) of what they are will endanger life (you know, like there have been x attempts to inflitratre aircraft by people who are linked to established terrorst/criminal/gangs, etc..) All from successive Lib and Lab governments that seems to prosecute genuine whistleblowers who, after whistleblowing using the correct procedure were ignored, and that, the person they whistleblew against was found by a court to a civil level of evidence to have committed war crimes - yet that person found to a civil level of evidence to have committed war crimes in a court continues free seemingly without an active investigation (throw in hushing the Brereton report); a government that seems to have fallen silent on criminal investigations into Robodebt; a NACC "along the lines of the NSW ICAC, yet silent hearings, and the list goes on. The exposure that the AFP does the governments bidding, if they are not corrupt, and the NSW fixated persons unit (yes, I know, it is not a federal department) setting upon a couple of youtubers. Couple with the fact there is, at least anecdotally, widespread non-compliance with the security procedures required at most of the airports private flyers are flying into, the fact that some have admitted to not having an ASIC (and presumably an AVID) for donkeys years, and you will have to pardom my skepticism that it is a reasonable and proportional requirement against something like, I dunno, having the appropriate security where the risk is? You know, like other countries do.. Are nefarious Australian actors that different to others? There are many good, hardworking ethical men and women in law enforecement and national security and I do not want to disparage them. It is the excrement that floats around them that seems to be the problem.

It may be designed for it.; but does it achieve it? And is there a better way?

The rightist deflection - don't address the points; dismiss it as a lefty thing

Unless there is some national/security reasons to withold publishing, surely these are in the publoc domain at least through court reports? And if it relates to terrorism via aircraft, isn't in the public interest to publish these so the public can becoime vigilant, but redact any specifically sensistive information that would identify law enforcement, etc? Think French and it means something that sounds like shippy.. Firstly, I am no expert on terror and major, violent crime threats; and I completely respect the hard working and honest people who work to protect us from these threats and risks materialising. AApart from ramming something with a C150 packed full of explosives, there is a myriad of ways of committing terrorism and mass murder with an aircraft (thinking airliners). Hijack is one, martyrs blwing themselves up mid flight is another, or, as with a case going through the courts now, unlawful interference with an aircraft. In this case, it wa rigging cabling or something that resulted in a crash on take-off killing the pilot. But for terrorist effect, and taking out a suburb two, I guess planting a small explosive designed to bring down a plane at the most inopportune moment would do it. But these are all combatted through security both airside and out. Heathrow blanketly doesn't allow private GA in (unless the odd business jet is considered private flying). Luton allows us in, but it is a minimum (or was) £1,500 landing fee.. then add handling, parking, etc.. you may as well take a private jet there. I am not sure about Stansted, to be honest. Gatwick I don't think allow private flying aircraft at all. And I have no idea what London City allow, but I have never heard of a private flying aircraft land there. I live between Exeter and Bristol airports and I have flown from both (although only once from Bristol). Neither require special security clearances (they do require ID tags for home-based pilots). Both fly the bigger jets (e.g. I have taken a Dreamliner from Exeter). Both (and all like it) have the security operations in place to deal with the threats. If I tried to taxi a Robin ( http://www.robin-flying-group.org/Robin_Flying_Group/Base.html) anywhere near the CAT aprons, I would be met very quickly by a team whom would take great pleasure in administering a proctological examination. Yeah, I couild ram some expensive hardware, but it is unlikely to take out a suburb. Similarly, if I walked across to the aprons, I would meet a similar fate. We don't really have CAT/RPT airports that do one scheduled flight a week, but surely, the answer is stand up the security for a period before they arrive and after they leave. Let's face it, any security clearance is at best, a guess of how integral a person's character is, and only at the time they are assessed (without consistent post-assessment monitoring). Anything could happen post assessment that tips the holder over the edge - so security is still needed! ASIC/AVID should not lull people into a false sense of security. So, if you still need the security because a) anyone could tip, or b) you can never guarantee the person flying in has remained compliant with the law and have a current ASIC; or even a licence for that matter... So since the security is still required, what is the point of making me go through the security clearances, when I am (or should be) subject to security that assumes I have not got the clearance? I would rather Homeland Security, or whoever the department that came up with this scheme say, "Hey, all you private aviators; sorry to tell you, but with the deteriorating global and domestic society, aircraft are meing weaponised in all sorts of ways to wreak havoc on soeciety. As such, we have to ensure CAT/RPT security in airfields/ports that allow private flying have adequate security measures in place to prevent such risks from materialising. As a user (or possible user) of these facilities, we're going to have to slug you the equivalent cost of a one hour rental of a PA28 Warrior every two years." And of course, the money is used to pay for it. At least it would be directed to the resources needed to implement the security, which has to be done anyway, and noit unnecessarily line pockets of corporations. And it may even reduce things like landing fees, or costs of camping at Birdsville Races, etc, as the security is still mandated to be implemented at the airport anyway.

Possibly, but there are other legal constructs. For example, just start the ball rolling with the next peice of legisation, and every time a new or amendment to and act comes in force, they add a sunset clause. Or easier still, pass a Automatic Application of Sunset Clauses Act (as opposed to Santa Clauses Act), that retrospectively adds a sunset clause to existing acts by a standard amount of time (can stagger depending on how long it has been since existing acts were enacted or last amended); and where future Acts or amendments don't explicity add a sunset clause, an implied clause at the expiration fo a default period of time could apply.. Or something like that. Regardless, I am still against them in a general sense, unless there was an explicit reqauirement for it - e.g. to cover some temporary event or something. I don't want to get into a pee-ing match of which jurisdiction has the bigger and better thugs, but, at the end of the day, the UK was the birthplace of the convicts that were sent to Aus - so probably retained a decent amount for themselves 😉. But, we have had our fair share of nefarious actors using airfields for their purposes and ending up spending a long time in gaol, too. There are ways to ensure security. I can only speculate, but my guess is that a) the authorities have risk assessed and determined GA aiirfields and those with lighter amounts of CAT/RPT to be low risk and such, security clearances aren't required; or b), and probably more likely, when you submit your paperwork for your license, one of the reasons it takes 8 weeks to get it, and does cost a relative shed load of money for what they claim to do, is that you are submitted for a security check of some sort. That, to me would make more sense. And they can renew their checks on whatever frequency they want to, which would also make more sense. I used to be security cleared here when I was working on defence and nuclear projects. I had a SC clearance, which is the lowest clearance. The next is SC+ (introduced after my work in the area finished and therefore, my clearance lapsed). My clearance allowed me access to facilities, but not to secret and certainly not top secret information. A friend of mine has one (or had one) as he worked for the National Crime Agency, which targets organised crime, dark web, etc. I think that allowed access to secret infdormation. Then there is a DV clearance, which is effectively the one required for top secret and anti-terrorism activities. I don't know Australia's clearance levels, but I imagine they are faily similar. These are to ensure that you don't engage in activities that are likely to compromise your judgement when handing sensitive information. For example, if they figure your a gambler, or involved in petty crime, excessive drug taker, or even using sex services too much, you may be knocked back (as one person I knew was and had to leave a project). The difference between the levels of clearance is how much digging they do to your background (and the higher ones used to involve home visits and some tough interrogation of your deep, dark past). The anti-terrorist one, which is one of the highest (there is one higher), would involve a lot of digging around. So, if ASIC and AVID are to prevent terrorisnm, why are they lower than say an anti-terrorist clearnce level of digging into your past; and then why to they only have a 2 or 5 year renewal period, as well? In other words, apart from the fact that the department has your details and can (and should) conduct whatever level of investigation of your character as they deem commensurate with the risk, why would they, in trying to prevent terrorism, not subject you to the level of background checks that other security clearances for anti-terrorism type clearances require? To me, it is either a farce to appease the popultion, or they are genuinely that incompetent. Of course, if the AVID does meet the requirements of equivalent security checks, then I will gladly rebuke myself. A back-of-a-beer-coaster risk assessment. Say we assumed the median GA aircraft that would be used to commit a terrorst attack using GA is a Beech Bonanza, because you want a decent payload. A Beech Bonanza A36 has a useful load of about 550KG. Take away the pilot/s, the fuel and the like, and say empty the non-flying seats, etc.. you may be lucky to get more than 150KG of explosives and shrapnelly stuff in the plane, given weight and balance requirements of a plane and the potential for it to go horribly wrong if you stuff them up. . You could drive a Ford Transit to where you want to blow up is pursuit of whatever your cause is and pack in between 895kg and 936kg of your favoured bombs and shrapnelly stuff without worrying too much about balance. And you're less likely to have a bingle getting there, and less likely to miss your target (or less liikely to glance it because of say windshear, gusts, or just flying is harder than driving). I doubt you would take out a whole suburb, unless you were cropdusting chemical/biological nasties. And as mucked in the head terrorists are, they often aren't stupid. Yeah... And the Victorian police commissioner's response: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ridiculous-police-chief-dismisses-30km-h-trial-as-an-answer-to-soaring-road-toll-20231116-p5ekd4.html, which I thought was very uinusual for the Police Commissioner to be not supporting it. We have them in London and villages where I live, and they have not reduced the accident, injury, nor death rates. And when traffic jams up, people tend to drive to the conditions - except those nutters who will ignore the limtis anyway. Wales have just introduced a blanket 20mph (30kph) speed limit on non-trunk roads, so it will be interesting to see the figures in a year or two time. The usual subuirban rooad speed limit here is 30mph (50kph)., but our roads are a lot narrower, and with somee exceptions, busier than most in Aus. Apart from the Avid, what is the alternatives? And if they are not onerous, why are they not available to local pilots? Maybe I will import a G Reg aircraft 😉 BTW, I agree there has to be a balance struck between ensuring community safety and individual (or a collective segment of society's) freedom; and I am not meaning to be belligerent. I just see more flaws in ASIC to meet its objective than other more pragmatic ways. What government?