frank marriott

It is difficult to understand the push by some individuals for more expense and higher level of required medicals for no practical purpose. Like the push by some resulting in the Jabiru fiasco resulting a NO benefits for anyone but a lot of inconvenience and expense for others. Self-centred fools would be one description that comes to mind.

$2.10 to $2.15 generally around N.Q. before you go inland.

Read better now Nev? Doing a Dazza on me.

5.5 hrs @ 120kts = 560nm : hardly needs more fuel, the statement makes no sense to me. I feel like having a break after plus 4hrs hand flying, especially in the northern summer heat/turbulence.

What is actually being referred to here is incompetentance. Surely you fly an aircraft with reference to its performance figures. What you are suggesting here is the RPL should not be classified as the same as an RAA cert as stated by CASA because if the 1500kg limit. If someone is incapable of analysing the performance figures of an aircraft and fly accordingly, then quite frankly they shouldn't be flying. I am not buying into the pros and cons of the design limit as it exists just pointing out IMO that the stall/spin arguement relates to pilot competence. If you are flying an approach too close to the stall it would not matter if that speed was 30,40,50,60etc. Fly the aircraft according to ITS design limits not a legislated limit according to its registration type.

David Be careful reading too much into Internet opinions, best advice for a student is listen to your instructor, there is a lot of advice by "some" that are actually VERY amature when it comes to the real world. I would suggest a new pilot needs a bit of exposure to be able to sort the weeds from the chaff.

Maybe by publically displaying their attitude to low flying and VCAs would be a good start.

That would be great - save wading through a lot of "stuff" which I have NO interest in discussing.

Jump up and down and created a medical test (with costs) when there is no identified problem existing seems stupid to me. If pilots are not capable of flying safely they stop without more regulations. And don't assume I can't pass a GP medical - I currently (and for the last 35 years) do a class 1 every 12 months for a CPL.

If, as you suggest, LSA is unchangeable then it won't concern me either way. Just fuel limited with 2 up.

I may have missed something but I thought the lifting of the 600 limit would also apply to LSA and just require being re certified by the manufacturer? Given the airframe is certified to 700 if VH registered.

Hard to suit everyone but a personal preference will always be there. For me I would prefer an extra 100kg MTOW given that CTA is available already (admittedly at a cost) via the RPL, PPL etc. I admit self interest also, as an extra 100kgs in a J230 would be useful and I already have CTA access. (Also recertification of a J230 to 700kg I believe would fairly straight forward) But I don't see why it should be only one or the other - I don't think anyone is suggesting that either.

If Aust Flying Mags article is correct, the we can expect MORE attention from CASA at fly-ins. Sounds like building an empire around the section now run by Ungermann? "According to the Corporate Plan, CASA has identified recreational aviation as a key challenge, and will introduce modern regulations, have an increased presence at sport and recreational events such as air shows, and help RAAOs with enforcement action on non-compliant operators."

3.30 / 4pm only applies to locals. When I attended Temora airshow for a Sat /Sun event, arrived Friday and planned out Monday. Weather turned crap so sat back and watched aerobatic practice for 2 days and returned home Wed/Thurs in perfect VFR weather via Toowoomba. (Over 900nm direct) So concerns about early departures to a lot of us are funny. When flying VFR build in possible delays and enjoy the trip.

Yes Nev, not great, but at the time with fuel rationing it was that or go by horse.

My answer was only to address the matter raised by Willie, they were in use in WW2 in Australia. Not interested in buying into any political (or religious) arguments in the slightest.

What happened to the RPC holder conducting a private flight with pax (and the FTF for authorising it) when he/she ran out of fuel at Archerfield. Nothing publically. Is this a common occurrence or just this FTF? Insurance?

Met Pud after your visit, Frank. Had planned a scenic over our city but time constraints (stayed too long on your farm) prevented this, but chewed the fat about all things aviation - very likeable bloke.

Surely it is not just my area but non hemispherical above 5000' and not on area freq. for example. Some education needed, I realise not applicable to everybody, but some glaring gaps need to to filled I would suggest. Attitude of 'some' is a big chain to drag when current privileges are being abused.

Whatever - do your own thing.

It's voluntary, you can turn the info Off. If you are unfortunate and have a forced landing you can keep your location private as well. Makes rescue more difficult and costly but you may prefer that as well - personally I have all functions turned on and my correct call sign - can only be useful for those who choose to use it if you are flying legally, BUT participation is voluntary.

No worries, whatever helps you - Everyone has a slightly different approach, but who is say which one is better, everyone is an individual.

False calls signs, whether deliberate or accidental, is not unique to OzRunways.

The question begs why? A situation occurs, "continue flying the aeroplane", declare emergency (6 words), then whilst "continuing to fly the aeroplane" provide any/all relevant details you have. Relevant details is the key - as in some position reports, I am not interested in what the pilot had for breakfeast.