Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ha, ha ... that's a great vid. So the moral is: while it may be CAVOK for some, it's VFR in IMC for others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks , Flightrite,

Those were new to me,

Does the "DAH" book have to be renewed annually? .

spacesailor

 

The DAH is part of the AIP, freely available to all pilots, actually anybody who likes to read& doesn't have a life!?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

UltraLights. = U/Ls.. That's what the Forum is about.. Mostly.. Nev

Ahh.. but some of us are new to U/Ls.. others to aviation, etc....

 

But there are also LSAs, Microlights. paramotors, etc....

<pedant mode>at least I can google YBDG, or EGLK aith the word airport and it will usually give me the answer.. a newbie googling U/L and the location - not necessarily so... </pedant mode>

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The (s) is plural (more than one) or possessive. These designators are CODES. which are often not intuative . and are a pain when used unnecessarily

. Making a joke of everything is sometimes not helpful. I've made an effort constantly not complicate explanations etc by using simple rather than highly technical explanations to hopefully cover a wider audience and keep them involved as much as possible . It's about communication rather than complication

. Micro lights , Ultralights and Light aircraft are easy to interpret, even IF you are recently involved person.. We used to be the AUF. Australian ULTRALIGHT Federation. It's hardly a revolutionary concept that I've just made up. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree, Nev.. I wasn't making a joke, I was making a point in an attempt at being non-offensive and not having a public spat on a public forum. People are being castigated for using internationally designated OFFICIAL aviation codes/abbreviations because it will put off those new to aviation. Anyone new to aviation and coming to this (or any other aviation forum) would reasonably expect aviation abbreviations and jargon to be used and I would hazard to guess, not be too put off by it (unless it was an over-exuberant use); and would happily google it. I have to admit, I get a little annoyed when people use them and I don't know what they are, but a quick google sorts it out.

 

But using a colloquial abbreviation in a context to describe the properties of a landing area - by referring to the type of aircraft it can accomodate rather than saying short field or even spelling out the word ultrlight, and new people to "recreational flying" let alone aviation are supposed to somehow, by osmiosis, I suspect, work out what it is - and that is OK and defensible. Sorry, squire it is called hypocrisy by any other term. You either require people to use spell out all but the most common and easily decipherable codes/abbreviations etc so newbies aren't forever googling - and in the U/L case with no real prospect of working out what you mean - or don't castigate people for using them.. simples.

 

I don't even get your point about the AUF.. Recreational flying may mean light sport aircraft or what we in the UK refer to as permit aircraft... but the term recreational virtually everywhere else in the English speaking world refers to private flying - and includes general aviation.. I honestly had no idea what you meant by U/L in the context of landing areas.. and google was of no assistsance, either.. Maybe in the context of diuscussing different types of aircraft, I could work it out.

 

I would go so far as to say, after this spat, that the issue with using ICAO airfield codes is not because it would put newbies off, after all, newbies to any forum of a particular subject would expect OFFICIAL codes/abbreviation and possibly jargon to be used and be prepared to look it up - I think it more has to do with people not wanting to look things up and expecting others to spell it out for them to make their lives easier..

 

Frankly, this issue is tiny.. if I don't understand anything or know anything, I look it up and if Mr. Google can't give me anything, then I ask - as happened with SIS (and no one complained about its use).

 

[edits to correct typos - though I did invent a new word for a minute - abbreaviation... ]

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to disagree, Nev.. I wasn't making a joke, I was making a point in an attempt at being non-offensive and not having a public spat on a public forum. People are being castigated for using internationally designated OFFICIAL aviation codes/abbreviations because it will put off those new to aviation. Anyone new to aviation and coming to this (or any other aviation forum) would reasonably expect aviation abbreviations and jargon to be used and I would hazard to guess, not be too put off by it (unless it was an over-exuberant use); and would happily google it. I have to admit, I get a little annoyed when people use them and I don't know what they are, but a quick google sorts it out.

 

But using a colloquial abbreviation in a context to describe the properties of a landing area - by referring to the type of aircraft it can accomodate rather than saying short field or even spelling out the work ultrlight, and new people to "recreational flying" let alone aviation are supposed to somehow, by osmiosis, I suspect, work out what it is - and that is OK and defensible. Sorry, squire it is called hypocrisy by any other term. You either require people to use spell out all but the most common and easily decipherable codes/abbreviations etc so newbies aren't forever googling - and in the U/L case with no real prospect of working out what you mean - or don't castigate people for using them.. simples.

 

I don't even get your point about the AUF.. Recreational flying may mean light sport aircraft or what we in the UK refer to as permit aircraft... but the term recreational virtually everywhere else in the English speaking world refers to private flying - and includes general aviation.. I honestly had no idea what you meant by U/L in the context of landing areas.. and google was of no assistsance, either.. Maybe in the context of diuscussing different types of aircraft, I could work it out.

 

I would go so far as to say, after this spat, that the issue with using ICAO airfield codes is not because it would put newbies off, after all, newbies to any forum of a particular subject would expect OFFICIAL codes/abbreviation and possibly jargon to be used and be prepared to look it up - I think it more has to do with people not wanting to look things up and expecting others to spell it out for them to make their lives easier..

 

Frankly, this issue is tiny.. if I don't understand anything or know anything, I look it up and if Mr. Google can't give me anything, then I ask - as happened with SIS (and no one complained about its use).

 

[edits to correct typos - though I did invent a new word for a minute - abbreaviation... ]

 

Well said but save your breath, it's wasted on some!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an abbreviation .It's a code. There's a big difference. People have carried on about weather reports being unintelligible What's the difference? This is a forum for many newbies to visit and not everyone will just go to Google in the middle of reading a post and come back. For me I have to re-open if I do that..

I'm amazed and somewhat taken a back by the fuss and I thought it would be better for everyone to just use the place name. I've done it at all times myself, and I'm as used to Aviation as just about anyone here. . I only tried to do the right thing for what I thought was the Majority view and a long standing policy of the forum. You are entitled to your view Jerry but calling me "SQUIRE" and a hypocrite I take personally VERY personally.. It's not called for. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest we carry this on through messaging rather than bore other people with our views.. But I want to state these three things publicly:

  • I used the term squire as a term of respect; I was going to use the term mate, but thought that may be interpreted too sarcastically/cynically. Maybe I should have used the term, sir or not reference the person.. so if you took offence, I publicly apologise - it was not the intention.
  • I don't think you are a hypocrite - quite the opposite actually - and I never asserted you were. I called the defending of U/L in this context and defending its use while castigating people for the use of ICAO codes as hypocritical. I was, in common parlance, attacking the ball, not the man. If the majority of the site take the position, then I don't resile... but I am calling the position of the site hypocritical - not the people or the site itself. So, please don't take it personally; in fact I respect and admire you as a person (online), your publicly expressed views and your publicly expressed opinions. And most often I agree with them. As I was accused of making a joke of everything, I thought it required me to be explicit.
  • ICAO Codes are synonymous with abbreviations. Unf. too many countries start with A and somehow we ended up with Y. The next 3 letters (e.g. BDG, MMB, etc) are abbreviations of the name of the aifield where they can; unf some airfields share similar names and they can't always be reflective. Either way, code or abbreviation, they are not easily understood without knowledge, especially colloquial ones - the difference is semanitcal..

 

I personally don't see the considered use of codes and abbreviations as a big issue, especially for the reason cited. Happy to take it offline because I may be missing something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

And Ian asks in another thread why the readership is dropping off. The above covers it perfectly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks (but NO thanks) for wasting a bucket full of bandwidth. And your point is exactly?
My point was that the comment from Flyboy1960 was the list he was previously given was old and incomplete. As I have repeatedly made available free Australian databases for Dynon SkyView & Garmin G3X owners I have the ability to quickly & easily provide the most up-to-date list of Airport/ICAO code combinations for people to use as they wish.

 

Most people would either say "thanks for the latest list", or remain silent if they had no need for it. I'm still trying to work out what your little tantrum is proving though...

 

I hope you don't own one of the above-mentioned EFIS' as one of my databases you would probably find incredibly useful - but I fear if you are so hard up for bandwith you will never be able to download it without your 14.4kbps modem exploding. A pity... :bash:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ITS SO EASY to look things up !.

 

As a not so newby, Ive tried to look up?:

 

AIP 02 March 2017 Gen 1.6-2

CAR 1988

Part 4 D , Removal of data plates and Aircraft Registration Identification plates.

 

Were do I find it.

And any other items in this tomb of NONE INFORMATION, that I,m supposed to read and know by heart.

As not knowing is not a defence in a law court !.

 

spacesailor

ps I,m showing my poor schooling , again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just google AIP & the first item is Airservices Australia who publish the AIP. The AIP you have quoted is out of date so it won't be published now anyway. The current (21/5/20) and next (13/8/20) AIPs are published. The link to the site is HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks KG,

BUT

after three or was it four pages I ended with:

 

Effective 21MAY2020

So I still cannot find the answer to the question ( information on deregistering an aircraft). I want to know Who can deregister your aircraft.

 

And I'm still reading page by page of the 21st may 2020 :General : it's harder than reading the paper copy.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably wouldn't find anything to do with registration matters in the AIP, that's operational information, not administrative or legislative, per se'.

 

You can try one of the following from Part 47 of the CASR's...

 

47.131 Suspension and cancellation of registration following a transfer of ownership

(1) This regulation applies if:

(a) the ownership of an aircraft is transferred; and

(b) the new owner does not, within 28 days after the day of the transfer, make an application that complies with subregulation 47.110(6) to be the aircraft’s registration holder.

(2) CASA must, by written notice given to the new owner, suspend the aircraft’s registration.

(3) The suspension remains in force until the first‑occurring of the following:

(a) CASA issues a new certificate of registration to the new owner;

(b) CASA cancels the registration.

(4) If the new owner does not, within 3 months after the day the aircraft’s registration was suspended, make an application that complies with subregulation 47.110(6) to be the aircraft’s registration holder, CASA must, by written notice given to the new owner, cancel the registration.

 

47.131A Suspension and cancellation of registration if registered operator is not an eligible person

(1) If CASA becomes aware that the registered operator of an aircraft is not an eligible person, CASA must, by written notice given to the registration holder of the aircraft, suspend the aircraft’s registration.

Note: Subregulation (1) will not apply if the registration holder of the aircraft is an eligible person: see subregulation 47.100(1).

(2) The suspension:

(a) takes effect on the day the notice is given to the registration holder; and

(b) ends at the earlier of the following times:

(i) when the Australian Civil Aircraft Register is amended, in accordance with subregulation 47.100(8), to show the name and address of a new registered operator;

(ii) when CASA cancels the registration.

(3) If the registration holder does not, within 3 months after the day the aircraft’s registration was suspended under this regulation, give a notice under subregulation 47.100(5) appointing an eligible person as the aircraft’s registered operator, CASA must, by written notice given to the registration holder, cancel the registration.

(4) The cancellation takes effect on the day the notice is given to the registration holder.

 

47.131B Cancellation of registration at holder’s request—limitations

CASA must not cancel, under Subpart 11.D, the registration of an aircraft if:

(a) in the case of an aircraft that is subject to an IDERA, and is not subject to a CDCL—the person who requests the cancellation is not the authorised party under the IDERA; or

(b) in the case of an aircraft that is subject to a CDCL—the person who requests the cancellation is not the certified designee under the CDCL.

 

47.132 Cancellation of registration on other grounds

(1) CASA must, by written notice given to the registration holder of an aircraft, cancel the registration of the aircraft if CASA becomes aware that the aircraft:

(a) is registered under the law of another country; or

(b) is no longer to be used as an aircraft; or

© has been stolen or destroyed.

(2) CASA may, by written notice given to the registration holder of an aircraft, cancel the registration of the aircraft if the registration holder does not comply with a request under subregulation 47.040(1).

(3) CASA must, by written notice given to the registration holder of an aircraft, cancel the registration of the aircraft if CASA is required, under the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Rules 2014, to de‑register the aircraft.

(4) A cancellation under this regulation takes effect on the day the notice is given to the registration holder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats the information I wanted.

When my rego was canceled I was Not notified at all. RAA may have special exemption from CASA,s rules.

" 47.131A (1) CASA must by written notice given to the registeration holder of the aircraft "

These rules are Far too hard for normal lay people to, just look them up.

As some are stating on this site.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Yes thats the information I wanted.

When my rego was canceled I was Not notified at all. RAA may have special exemption from CASA,s rules.

" 47.131A (1) CASA must by written notice given to the registeration holder of the aircraft "

These rules are Far too hard for normal lay people to, just look them up.

As some are stating on this site.

spacesailor

You will not find anything on removal of raaus registration in any casa documents at all.

 

Cao 95.10 you are concerned with on your plane is the only casa doc and just says it has to be registered with rasus. - was Auf back when it happened to you but that’s not changing anything.

 

Removal of registration is an admin issue within raaus. You’ve been offered help previously to sort out your Hummel bird rego issues and my offer stands.

 

Paperwork is just paperwork and it’s an easy thing for some and a devil for others. If you want to get it back on the register let me know and I’ll get it done. No cost to you other than the raaus rego cost.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...