Jerry_Atrick

I wonder what training is required for a CFI to become an agent for verifying docs and, importantly, identifying forgeries? Doesn't seem like the sort of things a CFI would have as their main skill set. As an aside, say one wants to go to Mildura, Merimbula or Birdsville on their AVID, can they but avoid the arestha supports the heavy RPT traffic areas or the field?

That is either a great optical illushyn, or they have an incredibly short wingspan....

There's a charity here called Project Propeller where pilots donate their time and plane to ferry WW2 vets for a "reunion"; Basically, the organisers pair up one or two vets with a pilot; the pilot files to the nearest airfield/s of the vets and ferries them to the gathering airfield where a spread is laid on; after which the pilots ferry them to their home airfields. The gathering airfield waives landing fees and either they or the charity put on the food/reshreshments/marquee. It's a great day and surprisingly satisfying.

Ain't that the truth! After getting my GFPT (years ago), too my mum ,brother & sis-in-law up for a bimble at Coldstream (mum lives in Healesville) in a C152 (was a little tight ;-)) She loved it, as did the sis-in-law; learned that day my bruv was white-knuckle flyer...

As an Aussie citizen, my experience with the Aussie immigration officials is not much better... Heartless rectal doughnuts they were... and that was to my then 3yr old Aussie citizen son. It's the reason I am still here... The cool, reasoned approach they show on Nothing to Declare is not always how it goes...

Was expecting to see a mounted machine gun though

I did a lot of work in the US a few years ago and it was an eye opener as far as gun culture was concerned: - Bismarck ND: 16 year olds drive their "trucks" resplendent with gun racks and guns to school. Leave them outside. - Philadelphia. . Conversation with a drunk nutter on first day goes like this: He: "You and I are kindred spirit!" Me: "How do you work that out" He: "Your're Australian and I am American" Me: "And that means?" He: "We are both Irish" Me: "No - I'm Australian and you're American" He: "Yeah, but we both come from Ireland" Me: "With my surname, how do you work that out".. and then trying to change the conversation, "So, how do you like working here?" He: "It's going from bad to worse." Me: "Really? Seems a nice place to work" He: "Yeah, but they no longer let us carry our handguns in the office, so I have to leave it in the car" Me: (after a stunned look and slight pause): "Er... you leave a gun the car.. What happens if it is broken into or stolen"? He: "err... Have to get another gun, I surpose" - When still working in Philly I stayed a weekend at a colleagues place in Delaware state. As he drove me back to the hotel in downtown Philly, his wife handed him an innocuous looking satchel, turned to me and said "I hope you don't mind." I asked her what it was and she said it was a handgun. I said I would rather not, when he turned to me and emphatically said, "I never go to Philly without one." My response is, "And you are leaving me there?!?" - Later, on the evening that the assignment I was working on finished, another colleague and I went out for a few brews. He had a Mitsubishi somethingorother with a targa top. As we were stopped at an intersection on a fine summer evening at around dusk, so a little light about, he decided to shut the roof. "I suppose you don't want people spitting in here?" I asked. "Nope - that I can live with. The car-jacking could spoil our evening". - Dallas TX (late 90s shortly after they started showing the TV show cops in Aus, and I was only a month or so out of Aus at the time), talking to a brutish looking policeman, I asked him if what was shown in Cops was real or was it somewhat dramatized and he confirmed it was pretty real; after which I mentioned that in Aus,when one is pulled over for a traffic violation, one gets out of the car to talk to police (or did then, anyway) to which he responded, "Well, when you have law makers that TODAY enacted a law allowing concealed handguns in shopping centres, you know what we're working against!" So I asked him if he was supportive of gun control; emphatic yes.

Much the same as here. The pilot would be expected to make a report to the AAIB (which is summary of facts and a self-analysis of what the pilot felt contributed to the accident/incident) and it would be published in the AAIB bulletin.

That would probably depend on the nature of the power failure... Was he in a descent and one to many shock cooling events that caused the engine to throw a crank shaft or something? Was it Fuel starvation (though there was no mention of a prior surge which is common on those lycs)? The wx should be good at the moment, but if it was high humidity and moderate temps - was there carb icing - esp with the butterfly valve closed in a descent (happened to me - advancing the throttle does not much); The power issue (and I use power intentionally) may have occurred at that point on base - regardless of whether he was doing an overhead join or not... If course, if it was the shock cooling, he would have been in the overhead first, but just because he was doesn't mean he would have flown a tight circuit anyway. But fuel starvation/exhaustion may have occurred slightly earlier if it was straight in and he remained in cruise until overhead. Will the ATSB investigate (or commission an engineering assessment of) this or will the ATSB rely on pilot reports.. I am always interested in what happened because I am sure (or at least hope) the pilot did more than just open the throttle on losing power - but putting more detail in a newspaper report would be lost on Joe/Jill public.

Of course GA are taught engines fail - but only when other people are flying

Oi! Pipers are good (except for the 1 door thing) - they are honorary Rec Aircraft ;) Not judging the pilots choice of landing field (as we have no idea what the circumstances are that compelled the forced landing), that field doesn't look to make it very easy for a forced landing, so I'd say he's done a bang-up (pretty good - but pun sort of intended) job of it. I know a bloke who had an EFATO in an RV - made a bit of a hash of it, ended up in hospital for almost a week - nothing permanent nor major - his comment: "P|$$ed off I made a hash of it; problem is it all happens much faster when you're not expecting it".

Oops (just out of a pub and read coomentator) though whatever that commentator does - he should be fired as obviously has no concept if reality

They were practising GPS and magnetic field jamming at the time

Quite simply, that journo should be fired

Very sad event and condolences to the families and others affected. I am totally ignorant when it comes to CASA's reach over airport/airfield safety, but it would be very strange if they didn't at least have the ability to refer potentially dangerous development within an airfield (licenced) boundary to some other authority, if not within their own department. Personally, I am not fussed whether or not the on-field business is aviation related or not; the buildings should be constructed to not present a safety hazard to approach/departure paths and reasonable paths in the even of emergencies during take off or landing; the occupants of a building don't make it any more or less safe with respect to airfield operations.

I have to agree with Facthunter - I was very fortunate to have an ab-initio instructor that was more interested in teaching me to fly than getting me my licence post haste. His view was better to get in some of the other things that can happen such as x-wind landings, efatos, etc as well as well understood other things such as handling in-flight fires and identifying carb icing before that first solo so if the unexpected happened, then I could handle it. I recall rocking up to YMMB for a solo training area flight on a foul weather day, but within limits of a PPL and the CFI expressed reservations about letting me go. I badgered him a bit and he finally agreed to let me go if another instructor (jet jock hopeful) deemed me OK after a dual flight first. In the training area, the engine kept on dropping revs and the instructor pointed out I left my hand on the throttle and inadvertently was throttling back. I suggested trying carb heat, but he said it wasn't required. The engine drop and throttle up happened a third time, after which I insisted application of carb heat as I made sure my hand was feather-touching the throttle. Needless to say, there was a drop in revs and a bit of a cough before it revved well above where it was previously. Back to the circuit and the first landing was safe and the instructor pointed out my aileron positioning was a little off; second circuit, he called a full stop and let me go on my own. Other studes were disappointed being left on the ground that day. I am certainly no flying ace nor skygod, and I wouldn't even attempt flying in that wx at the moment given my currency/recency (little rusty at the moment - waiting for the next shareoplane). But my instructor ingrained what flying was and we weren't watching a clock to go solo.

Out of interest, what is the average rate an instructor will get in Aus. I see from various GA school sites, it looks like the school gets $90/hr for the instructor (maybe less in a dual flown with a club a/c). When I did training in Aus, the briefing and debriefing time was included in the flying time rate - i.e. no extra was charged outside flight time for the instructor's time. In the UK, GA schools charge about £20/hr on average for an instructor and the instructor gets around £12.50 or so... In today's money, that's around $32.50 to the school and about $20.50 to the instructor - but the student pays for the briefing and de-briefing time for the instructor. Definitely not something someone will get rich on and I have always thought it is ironic that those who will teach people to fly safely are paid the least...

Of late, I have been watching youtube videos of various folks mainly RAA flying in Aus. The vids of people being trained are, on the whole, quite encouraging in terms of safety and technique (as I was taught, anyway). There has been the off duff landing or instructor having to take control - though nothing unexpected in a training environment. But, there have been a couple of things - in the small minority, that had me grimacing, including pumping the throttle on a stall recovery. What is worrying is high-vis vests and keyrings.. seriously? On what basis do they make these recommendations as, in particular, high viz is usually very flammable - not a great combination with aircraft at the best of times. Also, I am not sure, but I have heard more of people walking into turning props than being mowed down - so on that basis, surely high-viz props would be better? Ah, but they would probably be flammable... Gawd - thought it was just the GA mandarins in the UK that were being stoopid. Although mandatory at many airfields, I have never worn one. I once had an irate jobsworth drive in the follow-me car to give me a dressing down. I politely explained if he could see me from the tower, then my normal clothes were high-viz enough.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying don't take direct action - what I am saying is prepare for it first so when the media (conventional or social) get active, there are others willing to say they support us and are not at best, ambivalent, at worst, tainted by sensationalistic and over-dramatised risks and are pro-over regulation. How long have we had the ASIC? 10 years or thereabouts? CASA have been embarking on EASA style regs for a few years now. In that time, getting those affected on board as well and then taking action would have been time well spent and at least there would be voices heard (which is apparently not the case now). In EASA land, EASA finally agreed for the DGAC (French CAA) to review EASA GA regulation and make recommendations, of which many are being adopted that will merely return us to the status quo of pre-EASA regs. This happened over a three-pronged attack - 1) all EASA countries' AOPAs being represented through IAOPA and lobbying; s) educating the communities that they were suffering due to then massive reductions in flying activity - everything from customs, security guards, refuellers, maintenance people, etc who are not directly involved in aviation but earned a living from it were being affected and things like unemployment are being affected - this led to them complaining a bit to their local representatives; 3) taking direct action through petitions, general media support, direct mailing, etc. The latter two were manly done in France and their MEPs brought it to the EU legislature's notice and started kicking up a stink in the EU institutions, this time working on the detriment it was having on the economy as a whole. Suddenly, Gordeau resigns and Ky launches a review - led by those who were protesting loudest, to review and overhaul the draconian regulations. Point i am making is it wasn't protest alone; it was a concerted campaign that then fed into the political process though both education and direct action. Others that take direct action usually already have some affinity with at least large swathes of the general electorate, or they have some power over the political institutions (e.g BLF of days gone by and Painters and Dockers Unions, etc).

Skippy - agree wholeheartedly with you (well, almost ). The point I was trying to make is that one of the things the government don't have a monopoly on is being in themselves a welfare agency.. The other point I am trying to make is that, at the moment, for the most part, we have our representative organisations all moan and groan at the parlous state of regulation directly to the regulator and through it's own media. And so they achieve putting the regulator into a defensive position and preaching to the converted. The problem with protesting for the private GA fraternity is that it is not a pursuit nor, in the case of ASIC, a predicament that a lot of society has a natural affinity to. The worst thing could happen would be having a protest that is covered and after the protest leader had their 30 seconds of fame passing the message to the tv journo, they cut to members of the public that are at best. apathetic and say something like "Yeah - agree with what they say, but the gov't have bigger fish to fry", or worse, believe the over-dramatic hype and say, "Nah - there's a chance someone could pack TNT into a plane and if this will stop it I am all for it". Plays right into the pollies hands. Which is why broader public support is required first.. Again, it can be done locally and the protests then follow locally, etc. Put enough of shock in at the edges of the B, and the ripple waves will be enough to get change in the centre. It really is a concerted campaign, that starts with community education to drive support to push change through...

My experience of the public service (Victorian) is actually not that much different to large corporations - there are those that are conscientious and want to do the best, and there are empire builders, etc. In my fledgling career, I worked in IT (then EDP) for a Vic Gov't office. Team was small, adept, conscientious and meritocratic with a good user rapport. Some head honcho in the department decides ha can monetise information we hold, sets up an empire and it fails monumentally complete with a damning auditors report mainly because the empire couldn't have been stuffed about what was right for its "clients". About 1.5 years into its 2 year schedule , I had had enough and made the move to the large corp sector. Same thing; teams, usually on the ground, doing the hard yards and trying their level headed best to do everything in their power for the end user/client. Others, who are great at soap box politics, just doing stoopid stuff and making things difficult for their clients/users.. Difference is, somewhere in the corporate world, their performance/remuneration is tied to profit so they sometimes try and put the brakes on this sort of carp; often it is just passed on as higher prices to the consumer as much as possible given competition - government departments rarely have competition for their funds. Rant over and back to topic.... Unf., private GA is seen as a rich-man's pursuit and we have the tall poppy syndrome. I know, esp, for RAA, it isn't the preserve of the rich - but it's a perception. That coupled with a relatively small participation rate relative to population, it is hardly going to be a vote winner for the government to protect private GA's interest. In fact, if anything, the government will use unnecessary burdens of GA to improve its perception to the public it is doing something - in this case protecting the public against terrorism threats - a few people that Joe public doesn't really care too much about jumping up and down complaining is not going to do much, by itself to force the requisite change. There are two things one usually has to do to get governments to eat humble pie and reverse a decision, especially when the decision is trumpeted as necessary for protection of people, given the increasingly sensationalistic and sound-byte driven media these days: 1 Get wider public Support; 2 Get departmental/government support. So how do we, as fat, rich bar-stewards, get wider public support? By wider, I mean not just aviation folk, but business people, workers, community heads,. Find areas where the local GA scene generates a bit of cash - both directly and indirectly and preferably where an ASIC would be very difficult to justify, but has sufficient population to make the local MP feel a little threatened if public opinion in that area would wane. Start the information campaign in these locations - declining aviation = declining revenues = declining wealth/jobs, etc - preferably quantified. Educate people that it is not just rich, fat poppies, but people from all walks of life that partake. Maybe the local GA facilities could throw open days, etc. Get locals thinking - "Hang on, the arguments don't add up and it is costing us as people don't fly as much, less people are taking up the pursuit as it is too much of a faff and for the same reason - more people are hanging up their headsets. Also, many overseas aviators just give up (as I have mentioned before). I am looking at spending AUD $4,400 - $6,000 on a/c rental alone this year in Aus - but if it becomes too much of a pain to be able to do, having a go of flying from the UK to Cyprus will be a pretty good alternative. For the "high risk" airfields, keep the ASIC backed up with effective enforcement; for the low risk airfields, bin it (life is full of risk, it's how we mitigate it effectively and what risk we are willing to accept). The point I am making is if we educate those that are not just in aviation to the real detriment this (and other unnecessarily burdensome regulation) is having on their wider community, we will get support. Now, how do we get the government to support it. The Department that administers it is not going to support reversing their decision on a bunch of people moaning - and internal proponents will use every means available to them to preserve - lest they forgo their next promotion. Unless there is something we can offer up as an alternative that lets them save face, pushing against them will be very difficult, especially if pointing out the stupidity of their ways. There's two ways to do it. One, offer a real alternative and allow them to take the credit for thinking it up as continual improvement. It is easier for them to say something like "We absolutely need a system in place to mitigate the real threat of terrorism and other anti-social ills presented by a small minority of GA. The initial assessment didn't differentiate the threats as they were so wide, however, after successful operation of the ASIC/AVID scheme, and with the availability of better data and new intelligence, it is clear that our resources are better focussed on better security at major airports and more thorough checks of people who intend to fly into them." than "Yeah, we finally listened to a bunch of people who told us how dumb we are and, you know what, they are right". The head of a GA/private aviation lobby group here constantly bangs on about how bad/illogical this decision is or that decision is and how it is smarter doing it the lobby group's way. It's true, but people just get sick of the moaning and start to tune out. Another prong to getting government support is to point out to other government departments that an initiative may be infringing on their turf and possibly making them look a little inadequate. In the case of the ASIC, ASIO already has counter-terrorism responsibilities with one would think at least the Federal police and probably state police as well. So, these organisations should be using various intelligence techniques to identify and where possible apprehend terror suspects, be they foreign visitors or locally radicalised. They will also have handles on drug smugglers and other nasties of society. So, is this ASIC requirement a vote of no confidence in our security organisations? What consultation did the Dept of whoever they are have with the intelligence organisations to properly assess the threat and the potential holes in the security organisations' techniques? And so on. The point is, again, educating other government departments may bring pressure to the department, if for nothing else than they don't want to be seen as not being able to do their job properly, or submitting someone who is bad to a security clearance may force them underground where it is not easy to provide surveillance - i.e. it could hamper efforts. They start talking to the department to see what the gubbins is going on... Point is, moaning won' solve it; education over time will... Sounds a lot easier than it is, I know.. @Kunanurra, no pain here - I am a wining (as opposed to whining) PomAussie ;-) But you are right - there are more passivists than activists . Now, where's the telly remote?

Firstly, Ian, this is a great site. I visit it much more than another forum that covers GA and LAA in the UK, which is where all my flying is done at the moment. The members are refreshingly courteous, humorous and in adversity, usually very civil; I have only read 1 post where it could be considered aggressive or offensive to other posters, but compared to he other forum (no, not PPRUNE), it was still civilised-ish. So well done Re the above, the other forum I am a member of have regular local catch ups with forumites (drinks and dinners usually), and they sponsor of the forum provide branded lanyards (it also advertises them at things like fly-ins, etc). I don't think they are expensive to make, but make it a helluvalot easier to find people you have never met and use useless (or, as in my case no) avatars. Maybe one for each first class member (I will get there) and/or purchase over a certain amount; a few to hand out at fly ins or at clubs, etc. Best of luck for the future...

I had to larfff at CASA being an over-arching aviation body - doesn't it stand for Completely Against Sound Aviation or something like it. Unf, bringing all of the organisations together tends to create more (internal political) problems than they solve. No easy solution, and compared to some of the issues here and undoubtedly in Aus, the ASIC/AVID is a minor niggle (we are losing airfields faster than we can fly between them, for example, and I believe developers are trying to get their hands on prime GA airports in major towns/cities in Aus). However, what the regulators don't realise it is all piles up on the camel's back and makes the faffing about that much less attractive to all but the hard-core in what is an expensive sport/pastime (OK RAA is cheaper than CoA, but it is still costlier than a set of golf clubs and takes up as much, if not more time) - especially in a society where immediate gratification is becoming the norm, etc. So, I suppose the aviation bodies may say its a pain, but there are bigger fish to fry? Trust me, the carp that EASA makes one go through (although it is now getting better since a huge drop in CoA pilot numbers - meaning airfields on the west coast of France were suffering financially through lack of Brits visiting them and started kicking up a stink). I am about to try and convert my now recently expired JAA license to an EASA one (long story as to how it became expired before I converted); if they say I no longer have a JAA license as it has expired, therefore have nothing to convert from and make me to the theory and a flight-test again, I will either finish the Aussie licence and get a piggy back FAA licence (plenty of N-Reg a/c, instructors/examiners and maintenance shops here - although EASA want to make that difficult, too) or go to LAA/Permit (similar to RAA) - the only problem with that is, it is OK if flying to France, Germany, Spain and I think Austria, but a pain if wanting to fly to other countries (ironically they have a EASA LAPL for harmonised LSA type licensing, but can't agree a common tech/engineering standarf for permit type a/c). The point I am making here is that unless the industry stand up and scream, "Hey, your carp regs are costing us money and jobs at the expense of the yanks or someone else", then the regulators will have bigger political fish to fry.. If I was in Aus, with the vast flying distance, I would be RAA - lots of flying space without crossing international borders...

Given the lack of enforcement of the requirement to carry an ASIC/AVID card at non-majors, there is no way that anyone will know who or how many are disobedient, anyway. So getting these organisations to lobby is the only route. Isn't there some over-arching organisation in Aus that binds most of the organisations together (I recall reading it in Aus Flying a few years ago)? A united front with many members will have more clout than fragmented numbers all biting at ankles...