aro

Sure, but I suspect that you would have made it over without flaps as well. It was the "slowest forward speed and maximum climb was full power and full flaps" bit I was querying. Particularly in a BAK thread. It's not generally true, and shouldn't be taught in BAK.

Pretty unlikely. Flaps add heaps of drag, to give a better angle of climb they would have to allow you to slow down more than they impacted your rate of climb e.g. 10% less climb but 20% reduction in stall speed would give you a better angle of climb. But it seems unlikely that flaps could reduce the stall speed enough without adding too much drag. The POH will have the answer, does it require flaps for best angle of climb? (Which is different to an obstacle clearance takeoff.) Flaps will certainly allow you to get off the ground sooner, if you are already flying they will not help you climb.

The solution seems simple, Avdata send the information to RAA who pass on the bill to the owners. Then RAA require outstanding landing charges to be paid before renewing aircraft registration. RAA could add a fee to cover costs - or Avdata might even discount their fee to account for sending one invoice a month instead of one for every aircraft.

Studies have shown that 9 out of 10 spreadsheets contain errors. If Avdata can correct errors in their bills, it is evidence that they are not heavily computerized. If you have ever tried to correct a billing error by the large telcos or utility companies it can be very difficult because the person on the phone can't change the computerized record. Sometimes I suspect there are policies of making errors that are small enough that the customer won't bother to go through the hassle of correcting them. A few dollars over a million customers adds up...

I agree about the weather, it looks like the rain caused a down draft which translated into a strong wind blowing away from the rain, the same direction they took off. This is probably a common danger if you're taking off to beat weather. I gave them the benefit of the doubt on the mixture, they said "mixture set" rather than rich, and it didn't look fully rich. The flap setting is a very important point. I looked up a C172M POH online and definitely flaps 0 would be appropriate, particularly at high altitude. I disagree about the speed though. Waiting for 65 knots to rotate or climbing at 65 knots would degrade performance. For a maximum performance takeoff the POH specifies Flaps 0 Climb speed 68 mph (59 knots) until obstacles are cleared. For a flaps 10 takeoff, 65 mph (56 knots) until obstacles are cleared. Flaps 10 gives you a lot of extra drag. Too fast as well gives you extra drag squared. (Obviously that is slow and could be a problem in gusty conditions like this. Gusty winds and a requirement for a maximum performance takeoff might be a good reason to stay on the ground.) Often during training a few extra knots are added for "safety" and comfort. That doesn't usually matter because we usually have performance to spare. However, it can be deadly if you really need that performance. If there is any doubt about takeoff performance, know what configuration gives you the best performance, and know what speeds to fly to get it. However, whatever the reasons for the problem, the abort decision was good. Problems can happen to anyone, and it would be easy to sit there in denial and wait for the aircraft to climb until it is too late. Takeoff accidents are statistically much more deadly than landing accidents.

In fact it clearly fits the classification of a private operation that can be conducted with a PPL: CAR 2 (7)(d)(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made. However, to me it appears that perhaps it should require an AOC: CAR 206 (1)(a)(vii) ambulance functions (or a purpose that is substantially similar). The issue seems to be that that gives Angel Flight more responsibility than they want to take on. They would rather that all responsibility rested on the pilot.

CAO 95.55 has the answer. The requirements for an active restricted area are the same as for other types of controlled airspace.

I don't have absolute faith in CASA - quite the opposite. I am saying that CASA do not always act according to the regulations, but if CASA say you must do X then (in practice) you must do X even if the regulations say something different - unless you want to take them on in court, which as you point out might not be a good idea. I am saying that (CASA permitting) we should be operating according to the regulations as written, not as interpreted according to unwritten principles behind them handed down through folklore.

I do carefully read what you write. The problem is that if you and I have different beliefs about the principle behind a regulation, how is that resolved? The principles behind each clause are not documented - we only have the regulations to work with. Commercial operators have problems in large part because they engage lawyers who come up with an interpretation to match what the operator wants (and mostly they want to reduce costs and avoid complying with inconvenient regulations). CASA also appear to frequently disregard the text of the regulations and instead work off an individual's opinion of what should or should not be allowed. As I have said before, in the end the only thing that matters is CASA's opinion, unless you are prepared to fight in court. However what we don't need is to make up additional rules, like RAA registered aircraft can only be used for Recreational Purposes.

Most of the confusion comes from people looking for "the principle" or "the intent" and then trying to find a way to interpret the rules to fit their own preconceptions. (Incidentally, that is often how lawyers operate. The client wants to do X, so the lawyer comes up with a creative interpretation that would make it legal. Then perhaps you go to court and the court rules on the lawyer's interpretation. Life tends to be simpler if you follow the regulations as written.) Care to guess what information the VFRG includes regarding "Classification of operations"?

Where did you find the information about the "intent" of the legislation? My experience is that different people infer different intents depending on what they would like it to mean. It is better to read what the legislation actually says.

To elaborate further, that's exactly how the regulations are written. 61.505 Privileges of private pilot licences Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulation 61.510, the holder of a private pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if: (a) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation; or (b) the holder is receiving flight training. "private operations" are defined in CAR 2(7)(d). If it's not there, you are not allowed to do it on a private license. If it is there, you are. 61.570 Privileges of commercial pilot licences Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulation 61.575, the holder of a commercial pilot licence is authorised: (a) to pilot, as pilot in command, any aircraft in any operation, other than: (operations requiring an ATPL) It says nothing about selling your services. For a commercial pilot license, the privileges are "any operation". For a private license, it is "a private operation".

Easier maybe, but wrong. That's why people get so confused around this - they use an interpretation which is definitely not what the regulations say then try to selectively pick bits of the regulations and patch them together to support their interpretation. Why don't we work of what the regulations actually say?

I think you are breaking the rule down incorrectly. You are not allowed to charge to carry goods. You are allowed to carry goods for free, unless they are the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft and you are transporting them with the intent of selling them. i.e. you can't run an airfreight business where you purchase stock, transport it and sell it as a private operation. You are allowed to carry someone else's trade goods for free - just not for hire or reward. The assumption is that that you would not make a business of that.

Actually you are not permitted to do operations that are not Private Operations. It doesn't say anything about Commercial Operations. There is a general assumption that anything that is not Private is Commercial, and anything that is not Commercial is Private, but that causes problems in various areas. Particularly where you try to use CAR 206 to define Commercial and CAR 2(7) to define Private. There are areas of overlap, and probably areas that are not included by either.

I'm far from a Pauline Hanson supporter, but CAR 2(7) also includes "the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft" so maybe it would be legal if there was no payment for carrying her. Or under 2(7A) if she and Ashby shared the cost of the flight equally.

RAA pilots are only allowed to fly for Private operations or training. Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d), which includes "the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft". I don't see "Recreational" included in any regulations, or an actual definition of "Recreational". "Recreational" was basically just a branding change from "Ultralight" anyway, not a basis for regulation. The reference to the ops manual seems to refer to the purpose of RAA being to "encourage" recreational aviation, which is has no bearing on what is and is not allowed.

The reason I said it's misleading is your statement made it sound like RAAus write the rules for RAAus pilots, but there may be some rules overridden by CASR etc. That's not true - CASA write the rules for RAAus pilots as for everyone else. The RAAus rules are another layer on top of the CASA rules. RAAus pilots are required to comply with both.

That's a slightly misleading way of putting it. CAA, CAR, CASR, CAO all apply to RAAus the same as GA, except where an exemption is granted i.e. the specific exemptions listed in CAO 95.55. In addition, you have the rules written by RAAus (Ops manual etc). They apply because operation according to those manuals is a condition of the exemptions in CAO 95.55.

I shouldn't have picked on Jetjr specifically, it is a more general problem here as well as across all aviation. People will tell you what they think the rules are but they never actually look them up. I have literally been in the room when 3 flight instructors were unsure whether something was allowed under the regulations, they had a vote: "2-1, well that settles it, it is not allowed". Ridiculous. Jetjr's assertions are correct in at the high level of "not all RAA aircraft can access CTA" but not very useful if you want to know which aircraft can access CTA.

I do tend to look up a regulation before I make a comment about what it says.

Do you have a pilot certificate? You are supposed to know the regulations (at least where to find them). CAO 95.55 is the foundation of RAA existence and your ability to fly RAA registered aircraft on a RAA pilot certificate. It is very important.

Interesting question. I am not sure what the current official recommendations are. When I was learning, I was taught the standard circuit join was "crosswind" at the departure end of the runway. Sometime after that the procedure was changed to "midfield crosswind" over the middle of the runway. It could have changed again. The advantage of joining over the departure end instead of the middle is that if you have an aircraft joining for 18 and another joining for 36, you have a full circuit to figure it out instead of figuring it out when you are head on at the circuit join...

Appendix B in the report details the examination of the trim actuator. It seems they pretty thoroughly investigated this possibility. According to the timeline, the mayday calls were in the last 3.5 seconds before impact. I suspect the pilot had realized that the situation was unrecoverable. Overall the report seems pretty good to me. Generally there are multiple pieces of evidence listed for the conclusions, and it avoids speculation where there is no evidence. They were probably very careful, knowing it was likely to be scrutinized by the lawyers.

Pretty much everything has more bacteria than a toilet, because toilets tend to have a lot of bacteria killing products used on them. Bacteria are everywhere. Interestingly, the old statement that there are 10 times more bacteria than human cells in our bodies seems to be incorrect - it seems more likely to be about the same number of bacterial and human cells.