Jerry_Atrick

- I dom't know what it is called; When I ext go there, - will let you know. (I now work at Canary Wart - not the City). If you've got time in June, let me know and if the peices of the jigsaw fall into place, will take you up from the 'Bushe...

I was at Brick Lane today, and my has it changed - very fancy-dancy.. But there is one curry take-away still going strong - the queue outside for lunch was longer and there were more people buying from them than the fancy-dancy bistros around it combined... I am going to hurt tomorrow ;-)

Thanks, Nomad... It is good to get out with the requisite marks.. Hi is a good examiner for sure - not my usual one who also likes to put me through my paces.. And no - he wasn't trying to fail me - we wanted to make sure I was safe... at the time, anyway

Last year, I didn't manage to get much flying in, which culminated in my single engine piston rating lapsing. We had one of the finest flying summers since I have been here (22 years), but various commitments and a protracted house move prevented me from taking to the skies.. typical. Anyway, towrds the end of Summer, the rating lapsed and this means one has to do a renewal by proficiency test (sort of a BFR in the old days - no longer needed in the safety-conscious EASA land that believes as long as there's a paper trail, everything is safe). My normal examiner had gone on a month or so holiday so I thought I would wait until he was back - no hurry. Then, he was off ill for a bit and then on another holiday so I thought sod it (by now it is December) and time to find someone else. So, I booked a revision flight with the examiner in the morning and then the test in the afternoon of 8th December.. The revision flight went well better than expected right up to the PFL, where for some reason, my field selection was a "little" awry. Bummer. Basically, on turning final, I realised I was going to overshoot, which was odd given the picture out of the cockpit, but I had selected an approach dutilfully assisted by a decent tailwind. And, the field itself stood out as one of very few that probably wouldn't graciously accept an aircraft, forced landing or not. Basically, my restart checks, mayday, passenger brief and shutdown checks were fine.. I just forgot to apply the checks to the field selected... We did another PFL which was better and then returned to te airfeld for the obligatory circuits (short field, glide, flapless and a simulated EFATO)... landings were OK.. during the debrief, we decided to bin the tet in the afternoon and I would go home and reflect on the PFL... Yesterday, the weather finally almost played ball conincident to my booking and we went up. It was very claggy with a base at 2000' (the airfield has an elevation of 840' but one over a line of hills, elevation is a couple of hundred feet). I decided during the test I would do what I always used to do have a field in gliding distance alongside a distinctive landmark fille out, with the image of the approach and hieghts alreay layed out... When the exampiner pulled the carb heat and power (which he tried to do when one seemed otherwise occupied), it made the whole thing much easier. Got a few extra feet while going for best glide, identified the land mark and already had the approach worked out; by the time I had all checks, mayday, briefings and shutdowns completed, I had what seemed like an eternity to get the aircraft down - in fact I started to think I may have missed something.. He called go around; and of course, to make it interesting, waited until we climbed maybe 300' and pulled it again... Managed to look like I would make the second one as well... Back to the airfield for the obligatory circuits - this time he called EFATO as we were turning crosswind... Only place to put it down "safely" was a field with a wooded area at the end and chances are, it would have collidided with the wooded area. His lesson - sometimes you don't have great choices and you have to take the one that gives the best chances of survival... I am now legal again!

OK, I admit it.. I like - even love permit (RAA) aircraft types. However, I have remained a CoA/Cat A pilot - I like the robust build and how they are in the main forgiving of some pretty solid landings that I sometimes fall prey to. Although having flown a decent variety of these types, I have liked the Piper low wing models as the airframe has the feel of a solidly built, rugged machine (Grumman has a more solid feel; Beech about the same). Although I have flung C150 and 152 aerobats over the skies in the YMMB and YCEM training areas, for some reason, Pipers just felt more solid. And, on the 5th of next month, I have a Single Engine Piston renewal (BFR or whatever it is called now) booked in a PA28 Warrior III, resplendent with its 8.33mhz spaced transceiver, various push buttons over the old rockers and a chunky yoke to boot. But, I am now questioning the wisdom of my decision: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27577/airworthiness-directives-piper-aircraft-inc-airplanes. An AD looks like coming alive to check on spars of the venerable PA28s (and PA32s) with what in effect will be over 5,000 hours (I think - I will re-read), lest one of the wing folds up at some stage. So much for the impression of robustness (said somewhat tongue in cheek - as these a/c get a lot of abuse).

I had my first flight with a 8.33 about 2 months ago... Still not sure why we needed the change. The US has far more airports than Europe and intelligently designed frequency allocations means they have little contention or overlap. I guess the child of an EASA official started a new job as a salesperson for Trig, Garmin or something similar. Wouldn't surprise me. BTW Phil, you may have some competition on your hands (not.. most of the aircraft rigs have gone - to the US I hear)... EASA = Europeans Against Safe Aviation

I was listening to someone who makes anti-drone defences for airports in the US (from here in the UK). He says he can't reply them here because it is illegal for anyone but the military to use signal jamming devices of any kind. Apparently that is why the military were called in. On the "it is possible there was no drone", apparently a comment by the Sussex police commander was taken out of context - he was asked about the pair that were arrested (not charged - so their personal details should never have been leaked out) - where he said they are no longer suspects and everything is back on the table. Apparently a journalist asked him if there was the possibility there was no sighting - to which the response was making the point that everything is on the table... And for the commander to say this is reasonable in that they are employed to determine the facts. It is not an unfair leap of faith to say the commander may be questioning the sightings - but to say there wasn't any sightings is taking it a bit far.

I lost weight by breaking an ankle in a motorcycle accident and then getting an infection after surgery... My wife has just asked me to get another motorcycle! Seriously, well done, fellas! It is bloomin hard - have been trying for a while... Problem is Aussie wine...

How about this for a reg:

Terrible news - condolences to family, friends and those affected.

Ahh yes - I forgot the CAA relatively recently went to the self-declaration route. As I (too occasionally lately) fly EASA aircraft, I don't keep up with the national reg as it is part of the UK ANO, which only applies to annex II aircraft. I hadn't even heard of the change to the LAPL medical requirements (EASA is slowly relieving itself of "harmonisation" aviation safety regulation, which they originally took to mean harmonising with CAT/RPT regulations rather than meaning reaching the same proportionate to risk safety regulation for GA across the EU's 27 countries). Re Brexit and EASA. First a little background.. The EASA, screwed up its harmonisation charter, and for EASA aircraft, they were mandating all sorts of silly things for GA aircraft - to the point they wanted to mandate black boxes cockpit voice recorders on most GA aircraft... As an example, an aircraft has to be registered/associated with a CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Maintenance Organisation) and in addition to its normal maitenance schedule, has to have an Annual Review Cerrtificate (ARC). I am not actually sure what an ARC does that an annual doesn't, except increase the paperwork required. Part M was thrust upon an unsuspecting GA community which effectively doubled the fixed maintenance costs of aircraft. Coupled with shady protection practices in which, for example, the Robinson R66 had its EASA certification withheld until they had logged some 1bn (or million, can't remember) hours of hassle free rotoring of a specific torque bolt - that was, thankfully dropped I think due to the threat of taking EASA to the European Court of Justice. Of course, EASA decided they didn't lijke to be held to account and Robinson's cost to certify their copter turned out to be about double what it should have been. Closer to home, EASA decided it was taking aim at the IMC Rating in the UK (I think Aus has a similar rating, but the UK pioneered it as pilots were falling out of the sky when being caught up in unforecast weather; that had a habit of forming at great pace). Since the introduction (I think the 70s or thereabouts), the fatality rate dropped like a brick and I recall reading not too long ago no IMC fatality has been recorded by the holder of an IMCr when flying in IMC. Of course, EASA lined this one up and even though it was a UK only rating that could only be excerised in the UK, they put in a concerted effort to have it terminated. When the CAA dug their heels in, EASA came uo with the EIR (Enroute Instrument Rating) - you could use it in the cruise but not for approach or departure. Very useful in deed. As it transpired, Germany and France sided with the UK and the IR® (the latter R meaning restricted) was born, which is the IMCr and only available to UK based pilots and only can exercise their right in the UK! Go figure - so much for harmonisation. Despite all of the shennanigans and ocmplaints to the EC/EP, Patrick Gordeaux (sp?) was able to run his reign of destroying GA unfettered. He required twins of any size to be restricted to licensed airfields, required crazy maintenance regimes. Finally, France dug their heels in, and in their gallic way (something the UK could use a dose of occasionally), said "non!" They started not complying, which forced the EC to look at what was going on and they finally allowed Gordeaux to step down and enter Patryk Ky. Things have started to return to "normality", but not before it has decimated GA (manufacturing held well thanks to US and most manufacturers waiting until Gordeaux's departure to start certifying for EASA again rather than run under national permits). The result - a lot of hacked off pilots in the UK, many of whom openly stated, despite their philosophical stance to remain in Europe, voted to leave in their droves. A few with direct financial interests to remain in Europe were vocal remainers - but many - including those with sizeable business interests were out. So, the question on life after EASA - the CAA no longer has the technical where-with-all to be a regulator and to recruit and train the staff is a mamoth task - to my knowledge they haven't started down that route as they have publicly stated we expect to remain a member of EASA (other non-EU countries, e.g Iceland are). That would mean we have it for a while, but it is better (e.g. Part M Lite); Medicals no longer require ECGs after 40 (a CAA requirement) and only once every two years over 50. They even introduced an aerobatic rating, which I am for as people were deciding they could spin or barrell roll without instruction - many coming off the worse for it (or at least needing a change of undies). So we will be EASA bound for a while - the difference is we won't have the same power to block dumb moves because some insipid beauracrat of some GA-unfriendly country decides to dig their heels in.

A couple of reasons: The UK no longer issues UK-only PPLs; I was issued a JAA PPL which had to be converted to an EASA PPL. If one had a CAA (UK) PPL, then it is perpetual, but as I understand ti will not be recognised for flight in an EASA aircraft. The UK Medical only applies to Annex II aircraft (as well as other sub-ICAO types). For the UK, this means it only covers your UK PPL (no longe available for new issue) or the NPPL (sort of RAA ticket). Yes, I can fly Vans and other permit types, and yes, I can fly to France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany and I think Austria without doing extra paperwork and yes, with certain suitably equipped and approved permit aircraft, we can now fly at night and IFR, and we can now hire them out for reward as well as train in them, but if I want to fly on old spam-can PA28, I will need my EASA licence and I will need my EASA Class 2 medical Of course, it beckons the question - why not just move to permit (RAA equiv) flying? Good question - at the moment, I like the ability to take up a PA32.. Permit aircraft are restricted to 4 seaters... Of course, I like the ability to do it.. I can count the number of times I have actually done it in the last 12 months on the thumb of my hand. So the question is more, should I cross over to permit-land (now, a UK medical for a NPPL is, I think=, a GP declaration; if I go for an EASA LAPL (Light Aircraft Pilots Licence), then the medical is the same as a class 2 minus the ECG and I think it lasts a little longer (at my age). Whenever I got my medical here, I used to get my Aus class 2 as well.. Our AME gave up on it due to the admin burden that was introduced - another notch in the "let's make things more difficult and expensive for absolutely no value add"... Happens everywhere, unfortunately...

I have exactly the same question...

Yes - Ol Blighty - but about to go through the rigormorale of applying for an ASIC. And prepare to do the Aussie PPL based on my EASA PPL based on my (now defunct) Ausse GFPT...

Wow.. Up 'ere, it is every year when one is over 50... And every second one requires an ECG Cardiogram.. Bummer insurance won't cover it.

In the absence of a buyer, the syndicate continues and the seller has to contribute. However, my understanding is (and it is only my understanding) that the seller can compel the syndicate to keep dropping the price or sell at auction - though this would require a court order and costs would be met by the seller unless the price asked was manifestly in excess of the market value of the aircraft (presumably as estimated by a broker/surveyor). Of course, to enforce this would involve the courts, so syndicates usually come up with their own arrangements. In our case, we would agree a buyout price and either each remaining member would contribute equal share to buy it out, or the keys would be returned and the requirement for the seller to pay their monthlies + cash calls would be waived until they met the price of the share. During this period the keys were withheld from the seller (it apparently happened once before my time on the syndicate). This was my beauty Light Aircraft, Share Of Warrior 2 @ Fairoaks - Price Reduced, Shares & Groups, advert ID=33414 Mind you, when I photographed her, she was about 6 months after a bare metal respray - took about 12 months to sell her.. and I discounted it to £3k or thereabouts... Sacrilege and selling her is now a decision I absolutely regret.

Stating the obvious, one has to do their homework very well. My first syndicate membership was based on the personal recommendation of a friend whom I trusted (and was a member of) and it largely worked. There are some bumps and disagreements on the way, and while this was a relaxed syndicate in terms of stated rules, the one rule that did matter was that whenever there was contention, there was a simple vote - majority wins (although it was a syndicate of 8 and in the 4 years I was a member, we only had two votes, both won or lost by a clear majority). I sold my share 2 years ago and haven't found another suitable syndicate closer to home since. Some things to beware of - onerous conditions of selling your share, onerous restrictions on booking, ensuring there is sufficient funds in the account or that the other members are solvent and can afford cash calls, is there a designated administrator and/or maintenance coordinator - much easier, that there is a vetting procedure available to all existing syndicate members when taking on new members, that there is a protocol for deciding contentious issues, that there isn't any member that is in arrears and that payments are made promptly, the serviceability of the aircraft and its history (and the willingness of the syndicate to show you/walk you through the maintenance history - has their been recurring problems, is there a large number of inop instruments/aviaionics, etc); does the tech log look like there are cowboys in the syndicate; what are the shared responsibilities (keeping it clean, flying to maintenance base if not at home base, etc); if you want a bit of a social life within the syndicate, are their members who often fly with other members, etc. Taking Old Koreelah's point, probably best to stick to Cert of Airworthiness aircraft because they are a lot less flexible with what owners can do to them. (BTW, not sure in Aus, but in the UK, they syndicate can be forced to wind up and sell the plane if one member (of legally up to 20) decides they want out and a buyer can't be found - there was a collective sigh of relief when I purchased my share as I believe that is what the seller was threatening - thankfully it didn't could my friend's judgement).

I had a Jackaroo when I last lived in Aus.. Petrol model.. Was a really good car... took it bush bashing a bit and while not a capable as my old MQ Patrol (which had a few mods including OME springs), accounted for itself pretty well..