frank marriott

The rating BGT (basis gas turbines) was removed in the 1980s as an obtainable rating - now part of aircraft type endorsement.

I think the problem is too many people here have not had the actual "pleasure" of dealing with AVMED especially at class1level, and have no idea of the stupidity of certain members of that dis functional organisation - over ruling DAME decisions and then even not accepting specialists advice (in some cases) leads to dishonest medical information. And the new online system - well has to be experienced to be believed - my last renewal took four (4) hours to get the computer to accept the medical, then issued manually later. Reminds me of another organisation I deal with - Just incompetence in the areas that count!

The point being an RAA school must operate within the ops manual (approved facilities etc), anyway I am not going there - multiple breaches occurring with more then one school - but that is what one would expect when run by the "Canberra based knowledge base". I have no longer ANY interest or involvement (other then as an owner/pilot/L1 doing my own thing) but I "suspect" our organisation could well be called on down the line to explaine credibility which would not be good for any of us - I just hope I don't receive a subpoena to any action as I have NO involvement or interest in RAA operations that don't involve me personally.

As CASA licences do not expire surely you would only have to hold a current CASA BFR (or instrument renewal) and maybe Aust medical? I know of one RAA certificate issued operating out of class C, but I'm not suggesting that it was all above board. With the current form of our ops section nothing surprises me any more.

Yep.

To be honest I don't care if back door deals (and probably happened) between 2 employees and an elected member of RAA & Ungermann. - the organisation is supposed to be run by an elected board. - is is not a privately owned company although it appears to be run that way unfortunately

Don't just worry about CASA look at the new Tech Manual for instruments for CTA - our wonderful organisation Solely responsible. NOT CASA. I tried to have it changed but without success before submitting to CASA - and got the same comment as above re "mixing with the big boys etc" People need to look at a couple of private agenda items of a couple of our representatives - too late once this rubbish is put in place. I realise some are still supporters of the new push, but everyone should look behind the expensive advertising BS at what has been done and what is being planned. I hope my view ultimately is disproved but I honestly fear for the long term effects of a couple of individuals on what used to be "our" organisation. Ultimately it is the members choise and I only HOPE everyone seriously considers what they do next vote and more then <one tenth bother to vote.

Sounds like you have been speaking to Monk & Banfield. I had a similar discussion with Monk re instruments - interestingly very similar words - flying in CTA (including with fare paying passengers) is what I have done for for the last 35 years - the emphasis SHOULD be on on training to a standard NOT silly by-products. Incidentally I (and many others) have been operating our LSAs into class C seamlessly since I purchased it over 8 years ago - currently only require a RPL (or higher) with relevant endorsements.

Do you really believe the current administration actually cares what "members" want? I believe they have their OWN agenda!

Yes. Put your political / racist comments where the sun doesn't shine and keep Rec Flying to recreational flying content.

Do not get confused between "certified as within tolerance" and TSOed instruments. Big difference in cost and the certification process. - L1 can test and certify (except transponder) in RAA. - 12 months for CTA, 24 months OCTA only. Remember RAA is for VFR day only.

That's why I used the words "suspect" and "expect". After my experience with the Linke/Monk approach I wouldn't rely on a FB post - But that is just me, you are more then welcome to put your faith in some BS promotion, and best of luck with that. I would hope that the mini board has some input even though obviously not control.

You can now if your aircraft complies with 95.55 - only need a RLP. Even if RAA gets CTA approval it will still require CTR/CTA endorsement AND I would suspect the same medical certification as the RPL. I would expect 95.55 restrictions on aircraft would not change either). So similar extra training as getting a RPL and a time delay in getting qualified RAA instructors (obviously excluding those that are already GA/RAA instructors - who can already cover the situation with a RPL). Also watch what "Our?" organisation is doing with (instrument) certification for CTA because they "think it is a good idea" (quote) - Even though seamless operations in CTA have existed for over 10years (licence being only an issue prior to the RPL). So nothing much changes even when/if RAA obtaines CTA approval other then further requirements issued by some ill advised RAA individuals.

When I hear someone using what I consider overuse of any freq. OCTA I give them 1000ft vertical or a couple of miles horizontally so I guess they are achieving their aim anyway. I just don't want to be there.

I have no doubt that anyone doing that in my local area would attract "advice" from local operators without considering area controllers.

The problem with over use is created by pilots using 126.7 as a chatter channel AND giving 1. Initial Inbound call 2. What they had for breakfast 3. General obversations 4. 3nm inbound 5. Joining circuit area 6. Joining downwind 7. Joining base 8. Joining final 9. Reporting clear of runway Etc. when there is no other aircraft "near" their area of operation at the time causing traffic at near airports with circuit traffic communication difficulties. Remember "potential for traffic conflict" when deciding on what calls are relevant. Also over use of the radio does nothing for separation with potential "non radio" aircraft. Short, precise, and relevant is what is best. More is better, as promoted by some, is not the answer.

Nothing odd. Outside tower times (i.e. Mornings ) Townsville airport is class G and it is both a RAAF base and international airport. CTAF remains tower frequency so you know when it becomes class C, if for example you are doing circuits.

Too be honest Keith I am no longer prepared to waste any time on trying to get commen sense. I was against the "Canberra Aero Club" (my words) approach but 800 members supported it so OK it happened and I hope they are happy with their efforts. The bottom line is we are still losing $200,000 a year off cash reserves - unsustainable in anyone's sensible consideration. (4 years left without change - already done a million with around $800,000 to go). Don't forget the proposed directors fees in the new constitution - if anyone believes they were put in the constitution with no intent to invoke them then I guess the tooth fairy is real. I accept that there are some on this forum who still think everything is great and I am happy for them but without substantial membership/registration fee increases it cannot work. There is an election for two board members in the next couple of months which gives the membership a chance to regain control - but naturally only if they think it is necessary. I certainly hope a selection of people put their hand up, unopposed is not positive whichever view one holds and my only involvement will be casting my own vote as there is NO way I will be involved with making legal the autocratic views of 3 people and a couple of followers.

Have to be the understatement of the year! However, CASA is aware there is a perception from some elements of the pilot community that CASA can take an overly rigorous approach in terms of testing and contesting opinions from other doctors.

Just look at the budget figures, you may be surprised, too many members accept the published BS - I was at the meeting involved with the board (or it may have been on line voting) when the advertising budget was increased from $50,000 to $70,000. I have given up, but still have my own opinion of misuse of members money. If people support this approach then I have no answer - Ultimately it is up to members to accept or change the current approach - I tried and got a kick in the teeth, no longer interested in wasting 5 or 6 hours a week (sometimes more) of my time to be insulted.

The investigation of this matter as to the cause will be interesting. You don't crash in a twin with a "single engine failure" in normal operations - obviously more to come in due course. (Surrounding buildings more related to SE aircraft)

Or maybe just don't want to leave their "primary business" interests at their respective locations unattended to complete RAA roles which should be the primary full time job.

With $70,000.00 on self promotion and advertising in the budget (or at least the last one I bothered to read) how much do think is reasonable? I obviously have a different opinion of effective use of members money! Think about measurable results V BS - we are not a chain store trying to sell consumables - but that is an individual view which many may (and apparently do) agree with. I can accept that but just shake my head in disbelief.

I would suspect pulling the AOC would be stage 1 and subject to further investigation.

Unfortunately not a defence to the offence - not agreeing with law is not a lawful reason to commit an offence. I don't agree with the ASIC rules but I still comply to be lawful.