frank marriott

No argument if you are buying a new one. At this stage new fitting only applies to VH registered.

If you are worried about RPT mode C displays on TCAS, no need for mode S.

Maybe more CTAF freqs would be the answer for heavy traffic areas rather then pushing unnecessary traffic onto area.

I guess without a radio they would not be on the frequency anyway.

I always monitor area (and multicom or relevant CTAF) immaterial to my altitude. I support the change from the current CAAP 166. Low level ops at unidentified ALAs should not be on area, as least IMO.

Yep

A double check on short finals of Red Blue Green works for me.

So you want to/or do fly extended periods VFR "on top". Have I understood you correctly?

I must be missing something here, If you are flying RAA you are day VFR anyway. Whatever instruments you have fitted to the aircraft is not relevant. Is the point that you want to put them on a flight plan for some reason? Just don't worry about it.

I don't try to understand what RAA is carrying on about with relation to BFRs etc connected with a RPC (other then is probably about MONEY) A CASA licence does not expire - to exercise the privileges of that licence & ratings you have to comply with the BFR, medical and recency requirements. Simple really. e.g. If your instrument rating is out of date you can still operate VFR until you complete the instrument renewal (or currency on the particular aid/approach etc). It would appear a "money" thing or a lack of understanding of normal process.

There is a big difference between "tracking" using an ADF as opposed to "chasing the needle". Situational awareness is necessary when intercepting a VOR radial etc. Hence the requirement for a particular endorsement on each before they can be legally relied on for tracking. The argument seems to be straying from VFR really.

I wonder if you have heard of or practised "attitude & power"? Might surprise you just how accurate it can be.

I don't have a problem with your statement Keith but you have to be taught Navigation first to be able to use an EFB properly. With the minimum time spent on navigation with an RPC, I doubt there is sufficient time to be taught both properly. Given the current law in relation to non TSOed GPS & instruments I don't think there is any option to being competent navigating purely from a map FIRST. I am a big believer in the multiple "toys" available today and do use them but to do so both competently & legally you need the foundation to build on - the magenta line followers just don't cut it, after all the RPC is VFR i.e. Visual not instrument. As a flight planning tool the EFB is unbelievable.

I've only seen one - Try lifting the nose wheel off the ground - the local one is on it's 3rd or 4th nose leg (prop etc) I have no idea if they are all the same, just appears wrong undercarriage set up to me?

Failed nose legs over represented (I suggest most not reported as well).

IMO a student needs to understand navigation FIRST. I am a strong believer in the advantages of various electronic devices available today, and to use them efficiently you also require instruction on what information is "actually" displayed. I see too many people that don't even understand the term TMG. Following the magenta line ONLY and not flying a heading and being aware of drift etc. is pretty basic flying & if you have any intention to progress to further levels in your flying then a rude awakening will occur.

d. for recreation-category aircraft, the aircraft type followed by the last 4 characters of the aircraft’s registration number (e.g. “JABIRU THIRTEEN FORTY SIX”). The method as listed in the AIP (as above) works well in CTA & OCTA, for me anyway.

Sounds like CHTR without paying the pilot to me (with possibly an unqualified pilot i.e. PPL) - I wouldn't be going anywhere near that minefield.

If you are referring to 5127 at Townsville - it could be delivered for the cost of fuel, accommodation, and a return air fare as an option. Obviously any purchases arrangements would between the owner (not me) and yourself. I have NO involvement with the aircraft other then knowing both the owner and the aircraft. If I were to purchase an aircraft from WA I would go there and inspect it and bring it home myself - but just putting up an option FOI.

You really think the "Canberra Aero Club" mentality will take any notice of you Bull, wasting your time. Until a return to a members organisation then Vic & NSW rules - as it was set up to do.

Without knocking the idea at all, the location is a difficult one. Many people like camping whilst others prefer accommodation options. Example 1 The Monto RAA event. Nothing wrong with the event as such but next to no accomodation. I like many camped in a tent but sub zero temp. which ment it was a once only trip for me. Ex 2 Watts Bridge fly in. The weather was also cold but I stayed in a motel at Kingaroy 30minute flight away and considered it great. A comfortable bed and hot shower made a big difference. But you can never satisfy everyone.

It would appear, quite apart from other events, the most public memory of the 2017 event will "the fence". At 750nm direct, w/o a fuel stop, it will never be a consideration for me in any case. I have travelled further (half a dozen times to Oshkosh) but that is at a completely different level & for a week long event.

Be interesting to hear whose idea it really was and "why" as opposed to just guessing why. No such thing at an open day at local RAAF base this year, plenty of aircraft up close etc - seems to suggest it was "someone's" idea as opposed to a requirement?

My opinion I would take the inurance and buy a NEW one, and sell the wreck to a "builder" for whatever you can get. Obviously I am not a builder.

I believed that to be the case until flying with RAA over a period of 10yrs and now have the realisation that it not always the case. The situation is obvious that there is a BIG variation in training from one RAA school to another. Not fair to generalise but SOME outputs are at best basic.