frank marriott

That's why they are called a "blind" encoder, 1012.3 regardless of pilot input. Also it prevents a pilot from intentionally transmitting a false altitude.

Nick sounds like a RAD43 might be in order for your aircraft

Nev All the various 172s I have flown had the battery in front, actually requiring the removal of the cowl for access (when not fitted with external pwr). Rear in 182s. I don't know about the VERY early or the current issue.

About $10 last time I was there, no AVDATA only manual collection. Bitumen strip but breaking up in parts, have to dodge the bad bits.

No problem with the instrument and still accessing YBTL should you wish but generally you will find more sociable people at the smaller strips, just another number at bigger locations (just more convenient for fuel). Only limitation in Qld is Archerfield, some would argue differently but to be honest I am over discussing it with them.

I gather from the above by "into" Townsville you mean remaining OCTA? Just realised above posts are not current and you stated Townsville area, disregard unless you are planning into YBTL.

Should the matter end up in court (which must be likely) some of the overt critics may well get an "invitation " for a bit of he said, I said , to explain their evidence for making public statements and involvement with CASA. Interesting times. True identies, when not already know, are not difficult to obtain if needed. Only time will tell.

TA - tax free income and free travel. Might be the "real" agenda?

EFATO? I obviously have no idea but reports above imply incident occurred at the end of the downwind leg.

After obstacle clearance climb at 100kts and full power and it doesn't get hot.

Since the introduction of said instrument there has been 10 RAA crashes (resulting in 8 fatalities) and if one is to believe the information posted on this forum, none relate to airframe/engines or maintenance. This would suggest to me another area should be of greater concern! I think there is a problem with "personalities" in CASA behind this instrument and not a comprehensive risk analysis as one would expect. Level of skills/knowledge being delivered would be a point of discussion at this years CFI conference I would suspect.

I find it hard to believe that here we have people suggesting MORE costs to fix nothing. More conditions will not change the noncompliance, only add costs to the ones already complying. Must have had the CASA needle. "Annual inspection by an L2" what a waste of money. Without generalising, there is some L2s I wouldn't let near my aircraft - next thing will require a LAME (at least they have formal qualifications)

??? Certainly 100hrly/annual inspection is done on all aircraft that I have any close knowledge about. (Some lack of compliance in the 12/24 month instrument certification I "suspect" in a few cases - but is a requirement in the Tech Manual)

I didn't realise Savannah and "high speed" went together:roflmao:

Engine cowl rash

I fail to see the extra costs for RAA in registering LSA aircraft as some claim. LSA come with a SCoA and with manufacturer's specifications - accept the SCoA, take the money, all done. Modifications etc are between the manfacturer and owner - either compliant or not. Changes/modifications/approvals etc requiring Tech Manager involvement are nonexistant. What am I missing? Same with CTA access. If you want it, you pay more for the aircraft/instruments etc. but if you have no interest then you don't have to worry. Where is the extra cost. The current debate about certificate V licence ditto, only cost to those who wish to make use of the option.

The internal GPS is not a problem it is the wifi only iPads that use an external GPS that have the problem e.g. still works on my phone, just it is too small for airborne purposes (IMO anyway, there are other opinions about that but you will always get various opinions)

Happyflyer The answer is in (3) and the definitions of "group" & "type". There will be people who might want to argue, I will not, but read the definitions and decide for yourself. I gained my certificate under the old manual so it doesn't involve me to any great extent.

"Is it financial interest by instructors who want the five hours of training?" --------------- I don't read the requirement for 5 hours training so long as you have a RPL (or higher Lic) and the required flight time in aircraft that fits the definitions of "group" and "type" which are fairly general(other then the high drag or what used to be LP), then it is only a test/check with an RAA CFI. Similar to the last manual only more words (I suspect to bring it in line with the part 61 wording) So if you are up to speed a check with a CFI is not that onerous and then you have a certificate and then there is no question about legality. If one insists on five hours just ignor them and go to another school.

Jetjr Too much to expect I think, unfortunately.

Forget the above, I posted a lengthy opinion but the "system" decided to record 3 words only and I don't intend to do it again and can't edit it, so don't try to make sence of the 3 words just forget it.

The "leaked" AD

I think the "intent" of the legislation is fairly clear. Should a defence to an action be successful the it would only result in a amendment as is usually the case with any legislation. Up to the individual to decide the intent of the legislation and the risk/cost of challenging it.

No worries, just the term has me wondering .

The "cross" you are referring to, is that Xwind or base?