Jerry_Atrick

UInsure about Aus, but over here, councils don't tend to pay the best, so they get monkeys...

What is the issue with Tyabb? I can see the council want it shut down, but why? It's not in the most populated area and from memory, it is sort of light industrial/agrigultural around there. I noticed in the article someone was complaining residents didn't get their democratic day in court? What's the beef?

Ver sad news to lose valued members of their community. Condolences to their family, friends and their community.

I think, even if it said it can be flown into CTA, as the ad would not constitute and offer, it is still OK from a contract perspective. From a false/misleading ad perspective, it would probably cross the line. On rules around RAA, from reading this forum, it seems a little too restrictive in Aus... and when I finally get back, I may be tempted to stay with GA. You sir, are a sad man 😁

@skippydiesel - are you not secretly a law lecturer and hoping to tease out legal knowledge? Although the subject of the question involves an aircraft, your question is actually of general legal principles. IANAL, but I have studied law in the UK (the law of England and Wales - Scotts and NI have separate laws and legal systems) and a bit in Aus/NSW. So, what I am about to carp on about is UK based... but should be roughly equivalent to in concept if not precision, to Australian law. There will be two areas of law that are involved in advertisements... Advertising standards (or equivalent in Australia). As this is a relatively modern branch of the law, it is likely to be codified and covers things like false and misleading advertising, etc. I don't know too much about the E&W law and nothing about the equivalent in Australia (which I am guessing is different per state). This law wouldn;t provide redress to the purchase of the plane, but it could cost the seller in terms of fines and/or jail, and maybe a criminal offence. I have no idea whether the ad would break those laws. Now, lets assume some hapless purchaser bought the aircraft on good faith and learned, because, say it was homebuilt, they can never enter controlled airplace with it (assuming that also means class D). What redress does the purchase have. It comes down to the law of contract (or I think commercial transactions, as OT described). Under contract law, which has been evolving since about the 1500's, the law is more codified in Aus than the UK, although there is still a heavy reliance on the common law. It is one branch of the law where casees in the US, Canada, Aus, and NZ are cited in cases in each other's jurisdictions. Contract law deviates a bit between the UK and Australia, with Australia preferring more American concepts (such as punitive damages, something never developed in the UK, which allows restitutional damages). There are two doctrines of contract law that apply: Offer and Acceptance, and misrepresentation (the latter, auctioneers work very hard to not violate). No representation can = misrepresentation, but only in very limited circumstances. Maybe, under UK law, the auctioneer and/or vendor of the dud earthmoving equipment could be sued for misrep through their silence if the fault was that obvious and there is an expectaton or industry practice that obvious faults are disclosed. OK.. First, to offer and acceptance.. Under the doctrine, a contract is only concluded when there is a definiite offer, a definite acceptance, there is consideration, and there is an intenton to enter a legal relationship. Let's dispose of the latter two, because the exchange of money for the plane is consideration, and a contract of such is an intention to enter a legal telationship in the context of the transaction. Let's even forget about acceptance - if the buyer has stumped up the cash and the seller handed over the plane, acceptance will be one of those two item. So we are left with... what was the offer. For a statement to be an offer, it must be able to be accepted without further clarification (i.e. it is precise and unambiguous), and convey to a reasonable person that the maker of the proposal (ie the offeror) intended to be immediately bound by the proposal if the offeror accepted it. It also must be directed to a person or class of persons (legal or living) that are identifiable. On that basis, most advertisements are not offers, but what are termed invitations to treat; i.e to encourage the buyer to make an offer. This goes for TV or even Facebook/Google ads, with or without news feeds.. This is a presumption, that can be rebutted and has been - the famous and seminal case of Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in the 1800s (can't remember the year, 1876 or 1856 pop into my head). Where the ad is sufficiently clear, contains wording that indicates it intends to enter into a legal relationship with an identifiable people (in that case the purchasers of the smoke ball), then it can be an offer, and the purchaser's cash is acceptance. However, normally, it will be the purchaser who is deemed to make the offer and the seller accepting it in the case of advertisied goods - this includes those items in a shop with a price tag on them. Given the wording of the ad, it would appear to be an invitiation to treat... So you would have to look at how the actual contract was formed and what representations were made during the formation of the contract. On that basis, there is nothing wrong with the ad... Which leads in nicely to a following doctrine of contract law - misrepresentation.. For a misrepresentation to be made, it has to directly relate to the subject of the contract and not be ancillary, it has to be directed or reasonably be deemed to be a factor in the decision of the purchaser to buy, and it has to be an expression of fact, not opinion. So, say, during the contract negotiation (or haggling), they hapless buyer asks, "Are you sure this aircraft is suitable to be flown into CTA?" and the seller responds with, "Yes, I believe it to be able to"... is he making a misrepresentation? Under English law, anyway, the answer is quite clearly no! The words, "I believe it to be" are a clear indication of an opinion and not a statement of fact. Now, the law in Aus may be different on this.. And there may be some codification that overrides the common law doctrine in specific circumstances where the buyer can only rely on opinion.. but the ad is perfectly legal.. it only expresses an opinion.. The advertisement could be for a 3-tonne lump of granite that the advertiser believes can be flown under its own power into CTA.. as long as it is opinion, it is fine.

Wow.. what a rort... The auction style is very similar to a now defunct penny auction site, madbids.com (or madbid.com)... They would run auctions where you had to pay per bid.. Your bid would increment by a penny - you couldn't bid a price... The clock would cound down from I think a minute and if there was no new bid by the time the clock count down, the current bid won, but as soon as a bid was placed... the clock would reset.. Sounds like Pickles used to use these guys for inspiration.. Of course, I would watch the clock and with a second to go, a new penny bid was submitted.. Now, call me cynical, but somehow, I think some of those bids many have been automated stooge bids... From how OT described the auction process at Pickles, I would not be surprised if some of the bids they receive are...... I may be drawing too long a bow.. but those fees are enormous, given I bet they aren't paying storage fees on the aircraft... But, it is simple.. Work out the max total you are willing to pay, workout the max you are to bid by subtracting the costs from the amount you are willing to pay, and, using OT's technique, but up to you max bid (with any luck, you will win). If someone outbids you, assuming your max price to pay was realistic, let them be the suckers and look for your next steed on the open market... Simples. If everyone did that, and was reasonable about their valuation (i.e. not OTT), then the higest bid would always be lower than value and vendors would eventually realise they are getting shafted and go somewhere else... Hmm.. I may have to read the pickles Ts&C's.. I feel a dusruptiuve business coming on...

In Somerset, we haven't had the snow other parts of the country have had... In fact, we have had bone-dry gin clear days hovering between -3 and 1 degree. We have had mornings that, although cold, of almost no frost. Perfect flying weather (with the appropriate attire). Pity I am back to renting aircraft, as we are in lockdown, and I can't rent one.

Maybe I should clarify what I meant by "And those who are supposedly well educated have doors opened too easily for them..." Which means that those who have passed their exams but haven't really learned anything or how to apply what they have learned.. I have seen MBA graduates who probably don't even know what the acronym stands for, let alone how to manage or administer anything. I have seen engineers who are crap, but because they have a masters, are given project management jobs ahead of good project managers. I have seen the same with traders - and the results were a very expensive failed project... Yes, it is probably tinged with who one knows, as well... But not always.. Anyway, back o the classified numbers - up to "14", but I notice, it is really 13, as one of the aircraft ads is a portiable hangar... or some such thing.. Noticed on aviationtrader, there are more rotors than other aircraft for sale...

I just wanted to know if it were more than that (RAA is a small world as far as I can see, so wanted to know if there were other potential ramifications)... Although, sometimes, the principle is more important than the money - it will be @New2flying's judgement... as long as he is getting impartial and good advice - his decision to make.. If the school is that bad (and there are always 2 sides of the story) and it goes further, it can be a warning to other potential students. As I said, there's always two sides to a stroy, so not casting any aspertions on the school..

I have to admit, my first thoughts were, "why?", so would be interested in your thoughts... If there is a legal obligation that is not being fulfilled and there is no reasonable way to see it being fulfilled, then, the question would be "why not?" Before one can asnwer either question, the natural question to ask is, what was th elawyer instructed to do? But, lets assume it was to seek specific performance to hand over the log book and training records, I can't see an issue with that - will no other school touch @New2flying as a result? I have no idea how much lawyers charge, but I am guessing it is about $250/hr up... so on a practical level, if it is going to cost you $1,000 to recoup $500 worth of training, it may be worth just moving on. However, most letters written by lawyers will demand their fee be paid as well (assuming the lawyer believed their client had a case and exhausted reasonable avenues to obtain their outcome). One would hope the lawyer would act in their client's best interest and advise appropriate action to obtain their records without unduw personal reputatrional or financial damage.. Back to the question - what was the lawyer instructed to do?

Has Top Gun II come out yet?

Darn! Wish I was back in Aus.. That is a shame it isn't open to RAAus pilots - surely it should be f they have the requisite endorsements and the plane has the speeds.. Even as a GA'er, I find it unproductive.

I'm not sure what the RAAus flight instructors courses cover, but GA flight instructors courses cover little about actually flying, and more about how to teach people in a cockpit and ground briefing environment. A lot of emphasis is on communication, how to impart knowledge, identifying student's reactions, cognitive patterns, and working with them through different techniques to encourage and affirm to them when things are tough for them - which happens in virtually every student (yes, there are some true sky gods, but not many). IN other words, it teaches people what to do when their students are paying to try and kill them... So, I find it strange that someone - especially one who owns (or who's partner owns) a school that they would blanket turn you away. Even if you are a little too nervous or not committed, every flight they do is money in their pocket and often I have found instructors and schools push well past the point of identifying students who will never become pilots to extract as much cash from them as they can..Often, they hope these students never stop trying. I know Shepparton, Kialla, Devenish areas reasonably well, and I would be surprised if the school is that over-subscribed they would turn people away, except in the most peak of times. Yes, Susan may well have taken a disliking to you at first sight, but it is an extreme reaction to not only want to no longer instruct you, but to bar you from the school, where other instructors may have a lot better relationship and success with you. You have already shown one hallmark of a good pilot - to seek information about something when you don't understand it.. Another hallmark is to self-reflect and try and identify what went wrong... Look back at your flights - was there something that you did thinking to be entirely normal that may have resulted in a subtle reaction of disapproval or discomfort in your instructor? It may have been something entirely unintentional - for example, mishearing a request and doing the opposite, or maybe consistently too tentatively at the controls coupled with a lack of patience on her side.. Replay your lessons in your mind and look for her responses (admittedly you will have been concentrating hard on the flying, so you may completely have missed it). Her reaction, even from the gender that the big fella in the heavens himself struggles to understand, just seems too extreme from what I would expect from a trained instructor.. (hmm.. is she really accredited... We had a situation where there was an "instructor" who wasn't accredited - guess what - every hour of instruction of his students' were invalidated and their licences pulled). @farri is absolutely right... find an instructor you really click with. If you thought you clicked with the Susan, but she didn't with you, despite the attractive rates on offer, it would eventually come out during the more advanced stages of training and cost you a lot more. Find a school/instructor you click with, even if it does cost a bit more.. Hopefully after you have your certificate, you will spend many more happy hours in the sky, that the total cost of your training will pale into insignifcance compared to the total cost of you having the best time of your life.

Indeed, spacey...And those who are supposedly well educated have doors opened too easily for them...

Then, spacey, can I invite you to the..... dark side.... GA.. At least we expect the red tape...

As someone who used to live under the long final approach to Heathrow's 27L when Concorde was alive, I am trying to think where I have seen one of these before... sporting different livery, though... 😁 A few times,I was having a telephone meeting and we had to pause.. and the Bloomin Concorde was probably on close to idle... [edit] I say "Blooin" as a mark of affection of the ol' bird..

It's a short, fat Connie... Never seen one before.. and hopefully never again.. French normally make beautiful things.. that lack practicality.. I recently parted with a TB20.. Ask me why...

I remember being at Minneapolis airport reading an opinion in Flying (American) magazine about how, when the bean counters asked the pilots and cabin crew what would bring more people and money/revenue to the airline, they answered being on time, having better in flight sustience, etc. The same bean counters went to a marketing agency and asked the same question, to which the response was to paint the tails of the aircraft with someething funky. They did the latter, followed by a PR campaign and low-and-behold, revenues shot up... The airline captain writing the article conceded they were wrong.

I am not normally one for flying boats (Compromise that produces a bad aircraft and bad boat), but this model is a beauty!

When I first came to the UK, I could not believe the cost of Japanese cars... It took a while, then it dawned on me... those made outside the EU were slammed with extortionate customs duties. Also, Nissan discontinued Patrols here (which are one of my faves.. but then.. the 4x4 here is not quite the same as back home, so brute-ish 4x4s are not needed.. despite the many Landrovers I see here). Hopefully the cost of Japanese cars will come down after Brexit. And bikes. Second hand Japanese bikes here are crazy prices, because new ones are, too. Hopefully they both will decrease, too. Anyway, back t' thread.. I will wait a while before boarding a 737 Max 8.. even after pandemic.. I waited before boarding an A380.. and It's a bit why I like syndicate aircraft.. after the maintenance (CoA), let the other members test the engineer's handiwork 😉

I cetainly agreed that Norton and Macafee were pretty over the top.. but I am typing this from a Macafee protected PC and I have to say, it has improved immensly... And no, neither I, nor anyone I know has any vested interest in Macafee! Is Norton still going? I bought one of his books on the innards of the PC and, FFS, it was harder to read than Gray's Anatomy. Anyway, back to the lack of aircraft for sale.. There is 12 currently on these classified.. Surely there are more RAA aircraft for sale in Aus? What are the other sites that are dedicated to RA aircraft for sale in Aus?

And a happy new year to you, too.. (and everyone else)...

I have a slightly different theory on AF447.. If you are an ATPL pilot and you have not learned not to pull back and the difference between the AoA and pitch angle, somethig is woefully wrong. As I recall, it was a releiving officer - I think a second officer - that had the right hand seast while the captain took a break. He pulled the yoke back which caused the stall.. The first officer, who was in the left hand seat had tried nose down and various other things. The captain came, but all too late, immediately put the aircraft nose down, but it apparently wasn;t responding. It was later concluded that all the while, the second officer inthe right hand seat had held the control column firmly back all the way down. Now, I can understand that in the later period when all is looking lost, but at altitude? Unfortunatley, we are unable to inquire into the minds of anyone, but I would not rule out suicidal intentions on the second officer. We all know from the earliest training that pitch angle and AoA are different and that we need to pitch the nose down (in most situations).. We don't always practice it... but.. in this case, the frozen pilot, could possibly have been frozen for more depressing reasons. I will try and dig it up, but I think there was a in an LSA or glider where the deceased pilot and passenger were found to be naked in the aircraft and not in a position where the pilot would be able to attend the controls at the time of the accident. The AAIB ruled the accident was effectively due to them mucking about; the aircraft losing control and crashing. Er, in a plane without autopilot, I think most pilots would know simply trimming an aircraft is not enough to ensure control is maintaied, even in stable aircraft. Again I wouldn't rule out suicide...

I should be very quick to say that Part M Lite (I think the Lite is how the Eurocrats spelled it to look more friendly) has reversed a lot of the damage - but not all. @spacesailor- your cousings & partners reminded me that during that period,people were scrapping their aircraft and selling the parts for more than they could get for a whole plane. People were also buying aircraft for the engine as it was cheaper than an overhaul... and scrapping the rest (often the avionics were obsolete).. Again.. thanks to the EU mandating we needed .8.33 khz spacing rather than the 25hhz spacing in radios because of the concetration of airfields, ground stations, aircraft etc.That is despite the fact that the US has much higher concentration and still manages to do well out of 25khz spacing. Just another expense for no gain (I bet a sibling of a Eurocrat scored themselves a job as an avionics salespersonor something). @Bruce Tuncks- thanks... though I still think the SAF reg of having differences training for each model of aircraft is a bit daft.. Apparently (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), you need an endorsement for each model (not necessarily variant).. so ifyou can fly a C152 and want to fly a C172, you need a separate endorsement. I am sure EASA at the time would have relished that if they thought they could get it through. @pmccarthy- For VH (or G) reg, being a LAME has a distinct advantage. Mind you, with the more expensive marques, it can pay to send a LAME over to the US if you have a number of examples to look at it can still pay well... because the price difference is bigger between Aus and the US (although the percentage ofprice difference may be the same). @Jabiru7252 - Yeah - I did go a bit into the European background - but I think Europe (inc UK) can be a good source of low time good quality aircraft for Australia - More about value thought... their times cane be half od that in Aus and the US which gives a much longer service life. @old man emu - despite the UK government's rhetoric that it wants Britain to tbe the best country in the world for GA, sadly its actions prove otherwise and my guess is councils would be glad to be shot of the airfields. I would expect in the years to come, save for a revolution in fuels to hydrogen and/or electric, more UK planes will come o the market as the country slowly disintegrates private flying in the UK...

I think where OME may have originally wanted this thread to go is, is the theory syllabus for gaining the requisite flying qualification required to the extent it currently is: etc. The presentation of using a spirit level and a bank angle indicator, although worthy of discussion, narrowed the discussion somewhat - although @old man emu - please correct if I am wrong. I don't know how detailed the RPL theory exam is, but looking here, it looks very similar to the PPL theory subjects: https://learntofly.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Recreational-Pilot-Licence-RPL-Theory-Course-Learn-To-Fly-Melbourne-Course-Guide.pdf , though I am assuming it is probably a lighter weight version. Anyone who used to read Jim Davies in Australian Flying would know one of his mantras was to know the systems of your aircraft because when the proverbial hits the fan, knowing those systems can be the difference between continuing to enjoy life or burning a smoking hole in a paddock. I personally think this is a very good idea.. However, I do qualify it with these points: If it is a system that I cannot control in flight, then it is nice to know, but hardly going to save me.. How it interacts with systems that I can control in flight, I should know. As a PPL, I can't do any but the most basic work myself (legally), so having to know know things like how the ignition system works, or the suck, squeeze, bang, blow cycle of a 4cyl engine are not really adding any value to the safe conduct of my flight. However, the theory should labour the point of how I can manage things associated with these systems to ensure safe flight. For example, in pre-flight I should know to look for chaffing of HT leads because that will affect the performance of the engine due to resistance/electrical loss. I shouldd also be taught to identify a rough running engine.. and what to do to determine if it is a bit of water in the fuel or an ignition issue. But knowing the clloapsing a magnetic field to induce a spark, or the 4 stroke cycle is not really going to help me when I get rough running in flight. Don't get me wrong - I am glad I learned what I did, but I can't help thinking if the theory spent more time on what I need to do amd monitor to ensure a safe flight and less of the periphery to this, would mean less clutter in the brain. So, yes, I agree with @old man emu - we don't need to know the theory of lift.. We need to know, for example, to keep our speeds correct and listen for the stall warning and feel for buffet, and that for certain flight manouvres (sp?), expect a higher airspeed to not stall. There is more we need to know, but themathematical equation for lift (which apparently, is wrong), is not one we need to know. On the AoA indicator - remember - as pointed out, it is the critical angle of attack that, when exceeded causes an aerodynamic stall.. this can be done with, say, A 4G pullout of a dive at a high IAS.. However, you have exceeded the critical angle, and I would also argue your airspeed (as opposed to velocity) has rapidly deteriorated to next to nothing as your pitot tube will be suddenly not be having air rammed into it.. unf. your airspeed indocator lags a bit and won't show it.