Jerry_Atrick

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..

Only to claaim the insurance!!

Is it the right runway?

Phew!

I haven't flown a spit or an AT-802, but I have a few hours in a Yak 52... Would I use a camera and screen (viewfinder in the traditional sense isn't really the right phrase with today's lens/camera and display technology)? Probably not, But for those who have taken the time to get used to it in the cockpit and have trained their brain acccordingly may find it better - for the late flare (possibly), rollout and taxi (probably), depending in the lens angle, focal length, picture clarity and depth of field representation (I can't remember all the jargon terms for these). For the final approach where the mk 1 eyeballs provide the requisite picture in a nose down attitude, I would also suggest the camera is superfluous. Best.. J

I posted the funny to Dazza's comments because I thought he was referring to the Yak pilot and not Callahan. I think Bex's idea is fine, but there is no reason to get personal about Callahan's response as he was just stating it may not work with older eyes. I would go one step further and say even younger eyes may not adjust well; there are young people who have poor eyesight and, like everything physiological, even if they don't wear glasses (and don't need to), there will be differences in muscle reaction/strength, etc, which means for some people, there will be a greater impact and need to refocus than others. So, it really comes down to, if it works for you and it will make you safer (and, of course, it is legal), go ahead, install a camera and use it. For those where it would compromise safety, then don't.. Simples.

I have lived through EASA under Patrick Gordou (I think that's how his name is spelled).in which his remit was to harmonise aviation law across the EU. Unfortunately, he took it as harmonising recreational aviation law and requirements with CAT/RPT which decimated the recreational (but CoA) end of the market. An example as Part M which virtually doubled the cost of maintaining aircraft at the light end of CoA examples through increased paperwork and certification requirements. Flying schools that only taught to the PPL + IMC Rating + Night Rating + Complex Singles only had to be a registered traidning facility, which was like AOC lite; but this was to be abolished in favour of requiring a full ATO. There was no safety case for any of the changes and so punitive were the changes, many operators circumvented the rules as the CAA inspectors focussed on paperwork rather than the oil dripping from the machine that was signed off. Thankfully, he has been replaced (after 10 years of destruction), basically because he tried to push through all CoA aircraft over a certain weight - I can't remember it but YAKs were caught in it - requiring a certified cockpit voice recorder and black box. Despite years of protestations by the CAA, this was enough to get the French DGAC upset and Gordou is replaced by Patryk Ky, who then charges the DGAC for coming up with recommendations for streamlining light GA regs to be proportional and evidenced by the risks. It has been slow going, but there has been improvement - and we are getting to where we were before EASA got their claws into it. Part M lite has taken maintenance back to where it was (and in some areas, a little more relaxed), twin are again allowed to land in unlicensed airfields (for some reason, the Tecnam :P2006T was considered as needing a much emergency services cover as a B777). There is still some way to go. I can see where Bruce is coming from; My view is that once the regulation is more or less complete, the regulators tend not to be able ti justify their empires so move to the realm of fiction and over-regulate based on nonsensical safety cases. The problem is there doesn#t seem to tbe the political will of democratic accountability to fix it.

Which bit/s? And on what basis?

Sounds like they transplanted it into the V50 I bought

1@Phil Perry[/uSER] - wouldn’t worry about it. He would be pretty stupid to report it as he would be admitting a crime - intentionally flying into IMC without an appropriate licence/endorsement contravenes both the UK ANO and the SERA. Also if the Ikarus is not CoA then it will have to be individually certified by the LAA/CAA under permit rules to fly into IMC and my guess is he wouldn’t have it done so there is another crime. Secondly, the law in the UK and Australia permits breaking the law to save life - a famous case with respect to the Zebrugge (sp?) ferry that sank I think dealt with that. Clearly, the flight was not being conducted safely and you took action to ensure it’s safe conduct. This was not a case of you freaking out as a flyophobe so You have a good defence. As stated, this is his word against mine... all you would need to say is that once he saw the ice on the strut, he yielded control to you. One day, Should he outgrow his arrogance, he will thank you, Job well done,

On the topic of fling show restrictions - Avweb may have reported it slightly incorrectly. As I understand, all flight manouvres (sp?) have to be performed in the flight line, parallel to the crowd, etc. However, they have to be performed over the sea for delta/swept wing vintage jets, and there cannot be planned sea-based events and the normal amount of sea-going activities in the vicinity has to be less than some formula. The airshow management have to do extensive risk assessments as well. Deta/swept wing vintage jets are allowed to do flypasts and associated positioning manouvres over land along the flight line.

Do it sooner rather than later.. Even if you couldn't transfer your file, you will get it done quicker and ultimately cheaper in the long run...

Cessna Citation?

Many central and eastern Europeans have a good grasp of the English language, have vibrant GA/recreational community and also have a vibrant manufacturing industry (Czech Republic, Poland, Solvenia to name a few). Oddly enough, except in France, all European countries conduct GA flights in English, but instructors brief students in their home language. It doesn't address why the gauges are unreliable and even why the warning light is also unreliable. With the Out n Back, it is real people flying real planes and an instructor going over relevant safety items and the reason behind them.

CASA have certainly not done themselves favours with the GA end of the spectrum. However, when they decide educate GA pilots (and others), they take it prety seriously, even though it may be a jolly for some: CASA Out-n-Back Bu EASA, with the fudning of about 32 states can only come up with this patronising sh!te: Introducing Sunny Swift ... | EASA While I philosophically support the EU, I can understand why people voted to leave

Phil - I hear and agree with you. The councils are low-lives and are more about destroying local communities while beating their chests with self-importance. Also it is HMRC and the police that enforce the law around red diesel... not the council... And let's face it, fuel is about 1/3 of the cost of running a tractor (well, mine anyway) so even of the council picked up the tab, the farmer would be contributing a lot out of his own pocket. But councils and their staff are imply too thick to see the picture. It is similar - in that the employees will provide the information to the councillors in such a way as to get the councillors to make a decision or strategy they way the employees want. However, councillors here do weild power over what is left of their employees because of massive outsourcing. Councils are about fleecing as much from their constituents as possible and minimising the services they provide. While I could probably write a book on the subject in terms of mismanagement and petty politics; taking on issues that are of a national concern rather than those of local administrative remit, there is a push by central government (when will they accept they run a federal system here, too) to offload as much of the responsibility for the provision of services to local councils while reducing the grants they give the councils to do their jobs. Anyway, back the thread - be interesting to see the cause of the emergency and how they could fly it out so quick... and yet we will still have to wait, how long, 2 years to know what happened???

It's not a comma - its a rare example of an inverted apostrophe. Worth millions, I hear...

This is one of those threads that reminds us why we are into aviation. Well done, gents!

Ouch! That's gotta hurt! I agree with Butch in the sense that there is way too much paperwork for what it achieves (over here, anyway) - a bit like CASA and general aviation - way over the top. And I agree about ambulance chasign lawyers - they work on the fact it is cheaper for insurance companies to pay the claim than defend it. But I do think an employer has to take reasonable care to mitigate against the risk and unfortunately, some farming pursuits are high risk. If a farmer has taken resonable precautions, there should be notning to worry about. Of course then, the bill will fall to the state workcover authority and they will charge a premium by business type/category - the higher the claims in the catgory of business - the higher the premium. I can't comment on specifics of how the premiums were formulated, but it bassically boils down to not pinging other business categories and also trying to provide some incentive for a type of industry to clean its act up a bit. I am not making a judgement on whether or not farming or any other high-claim industry category is generally negligent, but they do focus on trying to innovate with safety. At the time I was at the workcover authority, butchers had the highest number and value of claims, not farmers.

In Devon, my partner lost a friend to an agricultural quad bike accident in her early 50s. I will only go with ATVs