BurnieM

Transponder mode A - 4 digit octal id code Mode C - 4 digit octal id code plus pressure altitude Mode S - 24 bit hex code plus pressure altitude plus callsign Mode S extended squitter (ADS-B) - 24 bit hex code plus pressure altitude plus callsign plus GPS position including GPS altitude plus a range of other data

Yep VFR flight plan, known for over 12 months. More like an Air Services 'requirement'. Lots of talk for a while now about it being a sort of D+ whatever that means. I believe you will need a mode C transponder or higher (Skyecho will not cover it) and a VHF radio (but not a second radio). It is actually worse than that. Talk of a 1500 AMSL max height for this lane.

The flight plan and controlled airspace endorsement have been a requirement with all of the different airspace plans and known for over 12 months. Having to overfly Bankstown going north and south has also been known for a while. RAAus getting the CA endorsement running before Christmas is good but very much in the realm of about f*king time.

Avdata already have a big database. They already have your rego, name and billing address. I do not remember a public enquiry before CASA just handed this information over to a commercial organisation. They do not appear to be interested in anything except our money. Councils will take the path of least resistance. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not. Most councils have very limited funds and do not really want to perform tasks they do not have to. In 18 months doing my RPC at Shellharbour (a council owned security controlled airport) I was only asked for it once. This was about 4 months before I actually got one. Pretty hard to stop anybody from landing anywhere even YSSY. Yes they can arrest you afterwards but a serious terrorist would have already done the dirty by then.

Somebody at a senior level in CASA is supporting the ASIC otherwise why would it be a requirement before you can be issued with a RPL or PPL ?

Translation; We will continue to be ripped off by an inefficient and meaningless process.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/562009

For measuring using any scale you really want to use a scale where your expected weight falls in the mid range of the scales capability for reasonable accuracy. You should also use a check weight in the middle of the range. If we have a bathroom scale with a stated range of 20 - 150 kg then this would not be suitable for LSA measuring if we are expecting a weight between 150 and 250 on each wheel. Even if each wheel had only 150 kg weight then this would be at the scales extreme with a high error. Using a 20 kg check weight would not give a meaningful check for the same reason. And we have not even got into calibration issues 😀

Good Garmin autopilot overview video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQMWC5Aq1JM This is an early video. References to the G5 equally apply to G5, GI275, G3X Touch or G500 TXi. There are a lot of confusing videos on the Garmin autopilot. The GMC507 is the autopilot mode controller. The autopilot and flight director software runs on the G5, GI275, G3X Touch or G500 TXi. If you have a G3X Touch you can run the autopilot without the GMC507 mode controller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_914 Wiki says it was introduced in 1996. A little perplexed why they kept the carbs as I would have thought at throttle body with a multi-function ECU would have been the way to go. This would probably have required a lot more sensors but ECU based systems were not unknown in 1996.

https://www.flyrotax.com/products/914-ul-f I am confused, Rotax says that the 914 has an automatic wastegate and electronic ignition, so no ECU.

A lot of people only have manual trim. Not sure of the reasoning as I have never installed a GSA28 servo. Interesting you went with a Yaw servo as this is often left out (cost?) There is a FaceBook page for GFC500 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/833963897818892) that can probably answer your questions. A power switch to quickly cut power to all servos and the GMC507 is a good idea.

CASA are slow. Maintenance Course sounds good but the voices I am hearing say 2028. Thought you would already be an RPL ? Get an ARN (the only thing free). Submit a passport sized photo $10 and declaration for your ARN record. Pay $330 for ASIC (and wait 8 weeks). Pay $150 for English Language assessment. Do a class 5 medical online $10. Do extra 3 hours solo (at RAAus rates) if you want the Navigation endorsement (including one trip of 100 NM with 2 away full stop landings). Pay $50 for CASA to process form. Do a flight review, say 2 hours at GA rates. Will probably require 5-ish hours to 'convert' you as most GA schools do not seem to want to just do a FR. Do a CASA flight review every 2 years then advise RAAus and they will update your RAAus records (no RAAus FR required).

Re-opening of Tumut delayed till 22 December

Isn't clothing a simplier option ? Maybe a pair of sale ski pants and jacket.

Anybody know the stall speed with gear and flaps down ? Google says its 61 kts.

Ah yes, in Coverage "RAAus related activity". Wonder what the actual policy conditions say as this reference in Coverage is very loosely defined. ie is flying a VH aircraft to an RAAus airshow an RAAus related activity ?

This appears to cover me in a VH registered plane as long as I maintain my RAAus membership. Am I reading this correctly ?

Have you looked at the oil cooler and its airflow ? In summer coolant temp is a problem on the ground but oil temp is more of an issue in the air.

What changed in the last 18 months ? Its either him (his hearing) or some fault in the hearing aids or some fault in the headset or some fault in the radio or some interference in the plane. I would start by getting a non-hearing aid user to test using his headset, radio and his plane. If the fault still occurs I would start swapping things one at a time. I would probably start with the headset. Putting another device in the path would probably be the last thing to do.

Collecting accurate information about the current legal situation is a good idea if you want to change things. If he is wrong state why he is wrong but saying I do not like what you are saying achieves nothing. Do you get that you are attacking the messenger ?

Que ? Turboplanner is not the federal or state government and neither does he have any significant influence over them. He is not saying it is fair or just simply that this is how it is based on actual involvement in duty of care legal cases. He is a good source of actual information. We get that you do not agree with the current situation. What do you propose to do to change it ?

How ? Last I heard you had to be a CPL to teach in CASA land.

https://cubcrafters.com/c/2025/10/press-release-cubcrafters-carbon-cub-ul-soars-to-record-altitude-of-37609-ft/ San Luis Obispo, CA — October 30, 2025 — In an incredible demonstration of the capability of modern backcountry aircraft, a CubCrafters Carbon Cub UL climbed to a verified altitude of 37,609 feet (11,460 meters / 7.12 miles) above sea level over the California coast on October 28, 2025 — setting an unofficial new world altitude record for Cub-type aircraft. This historic climb surpasses the previous record of 30,203 ft (9,206 m) set by pioneering aviator Caro Bayley in a PA-18 Piper Super Cub over Miami, FL in February of 1951. Bayley’s record was recognized internationally by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) in the C-1b light-aircraft class, earning her the prestigious Blériot Medal, and has stood the test of time as the high-altitude benchmark for light STOL aircraft for almost 75 years. MISSION TO REACH NEW HEIGHTS The Carbon Cub UL represents the latest evolution in CubCrafters’ mission to build the highest performing backcountry aircraft. This record-setting climb showcased cutting-edge engineering of the Carbon Cub line focused on exceptional power-to-weight ratios, modern powerplants, and incredible efficiency, all while keeping the aircraft in a typical bush plane configuration. “This achievement exemplified everything we stand for — innovation, craftsmanship, and the courage to push limits,” said Brad Damm, VP of CubCrafters. “The original vision of Jim Richmond, the founder of CubCrafters, was to take the Super Cub, considered the workhorse of backcountry aviation, and make it better. I think Jim would be the first to congratulate our team on what was achieved on this flight” Although not an official FAI record attempt, the Rotax 916 iS powered Carbon Cub UL was also easily able to surpassed the current official FAI Ultralight category world record altitude of 35,062’ which has been held by a Rutan Long EZ since 1996. Piloted by Jon Kotwicki, the Carbon Cub UL began its climb at 9:55 a.m. out of the San Luis Obispo Airport (KSBP) under ideal weather conditions and with approvals from Los Angeles ARTCC. The aircraft reached its peak altitude of 37,609 ft after approximately 62 minutes of climbing, with an outside air temperature of -51 °F / -46 °C. This project was a team effort. The turbocharged Rotax 916 iS engine was developed by Rotax in collaboration with CubCrafters and Rotax served as a technical advisor on the project. At extreme altitudes, Kotwicki relied on supplemental oxygen supplied by project partner Mountain High Equipment & Supply and wore a parachute as a precaution due to the unknowns. Despite thin air and extreme cold, the aircraft maintained remarkable stability and control throughout the flight. “The Cub flew really easy,” Kotwicki said. “We were outside the normal realm of operating parameters, so we were proceeding with caution. It was pretty dang cool to be in a tube-and-fabric bush plane that high, and it was surreal hearing airline pilots over ATC wondering what a Cub was doing up there.” he team’s goal was to reach 30,200 ft to break the record for a Cub-style airplane, but with the perfect conditions, Kotwicki continued to 37,609 ft. “We didn’t know how high we could go, and we were honestly surprised we reached that altitude with 29” Alaska Bushwheels installed and all the camera gear onboard. The UL is truly an amazing backcountry aircraft. We could have gone directly from over 37,000’ to landing and taking off from any unimproved dirt strip anywhere in California. That’s what makes this machine so versatile,” Kotwicki explained. “This is my 17th aviation record, and it was one of the most fun to go after,” said Paulo Iscold, Professor in Cal Poly’s Aerospace Engineering program and Project Manager for the record attempt. “The entire team was great to work with. From CubCrafters and Rotax to Aerocrafted and Mountain High, we couldn’t have asked for better partners or a better aircraft for this project.” He continues that: “In test flying we plan for everything to go wrong. When everything goes right — that’s the flight you wanted, that’s the flight we got.” ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CubCrafters is grateful to every partner who helped prove that even a bush plane can reach the stratosphere. We want to especially thank the following people and organizations for their collaboration and professionalism that made this record-breaking flight possible: Flight Test Lead: Paulo Iscold (Professor, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo) — project management and oversight. Test Pilot: Jon Kotwicki (Fly8MA) — for his expert airmanship. Engine Partner: Rotax — for technical guidance and flight test analysis. Aerocrafted: Tres Clements — for providing hangar facilities, tools, and ground support. Oxygen Systems: Patrick McLaughlin at Mountain High Equipment & Supply — custom-built oxygen regulator and system. CubCrafters: Pat Horgan and Brad Damm — for continued vision and support. Air Traffic Control: Los Angeles ARTCC Special and Military Operations coordination team and air traffic controllers — for safe flight monitoring and for providing the airspace for the record setting flight.

I agree that poor judgement from the pilot was the major cause of this incident. A reasonable person attributing blame may say that the fault lies 80% with the pilot, 15% instructor and 5% RAAus. Both the instructor and RAAus knew there were questions about this pilot but proceeded with his licencing anyway. However, the pilot is dead and the instructor has since died. So RAAus is the only party left. I suspect that a civil action will significantly reduce the payout because of the pilots cupability but the legal costs to RAAus could still be significant.