old man emu

A question that has been on my mind recently concerns the effect of the rapid expansion of residential areas in the Sydney Basin, and its effect on the micro-climate of the Basin.

 

The Sydney Basin is named for the city of Sydney which is centred within it and stretches from Newcastle in the north to Batemans Bay in the south, and west to the Great Dividing Range. The basin is also home to the major centres of Newcastle and Wollongong.

 

 

In the past five years, the south-west corner of the basin, as shown by the blue line in the diagram below, has experienced massive, rapid conversion from pastureland to medium density residential housing.

 

 

Not only has this resulted in the majority of the area being covered with impervious materials (roofs, roads etc) but the roofs are generally of a dark grey colour. This area of the basin experiences very high air temperatures during summer, which create a daily air movement cycle.

 

From sunrise to midday, the air is heated and rises. From mid-afternoon a north-easterly sea breeze begins to blow, reaching Camden about 4:00pm AEST. This breeze can be strong at times.

 

I'm wondering if this residential development is adding to the heating of the air, creating a more intense Low Pressure gradient and consequently causing stronger north-easterly winds.

 

I'd appreciate comments on this phenomenon from anyone who flies gliders out of Camden, or has noted any change in conditions whilst flying southwest of Bankstown.

 

OME

 

 

I remember one of these International students, flying out of Bankstown, had the passenger's side canopy come open and the seatbelt whipped around and broke the windscreen. He carried out a successful emergency landing at Camden, right where the Australian version of "Top Gear" was filming fast laps on the main runway.

 

OME

 

 

my recollection is that one of the rules states that you only have to be available for SSAA ...

In this type of workplace drug and alcohol screening, being available for a defined activity is taken to mean, in one sense, en route to a normal place of employment. Recently a local bus driver was detected "over the limit" on his way to the start an early morning shift. He will have his authority to drive buses suspended under the public passenger regulations, not so much under the traffic regulations. The same applies to train crew.

So, following that precedent, "being available" means walking into a workplace carrying your tools of trade, spanners or whizz wheel.

 

OME

 

 

Alas, the George IV was inundated in the winter floods that swept through Picton this year. The local council is throwing up all sorts of minutiae to prevent the restoration of this historic landmark.

 

OME

 

 

Reg 99.115 you've got me

 

OME

 

 

So......, how come a CASA authorised breath alcohol tester can approach a pilot certificate holder doing nothing more than cleaning his aircraft, with NO INTENTION of flying it, & demand a test be submitted to?..

They can't. I pointed out earlier that a person authorised under Part 99 can only demand an employee of an organisation or contractor thereof conducting SSAA to provide a sample. Part 99 only applies in a workplace environment.

There is no power to detain and test in Reg 256.

 

One could draw a long bow and look at Part 1AA, Division 4 Sect 3Z of the Federal Crimes Act. However, that Section applies to an indictable offence, and I think that Reg 256 makes FUI a misdemeanor.

 

OME

 

 

The limit for learners and P drivers in NSW has been zero for some time now, so it can be done but I'm sure an appeal would be easier then say a .03 reading with the previous .02 limit.

That zero limit basically says "No Alcohol at all". It is the same for Heavy Vehicle and public passenger vehicle drivers. Their limit is 0.02, but that really means, in practical terms, zero.

Realistically, if you had only one "standard drink" with a meal, by the time you finished your meal, got back to driving and were screened, you would have metabolised the alcohol from the drink. Even more so if you were taken to a police station, waited the mandatory 15 minutes before the test, and then tested.

 

But who ever has only one standard drink away from home?

 

OME

 

 

Those baked beans aren't Heinz Baked Beans Look at the watery sauce.

 

I just love it that Maccas in England offers baked beans with a Big Mac. At least the beans provide a modicum of protein and fibre.

 

OME

 

 

If there's 0.02 error in testing gear that means every reading from 0.0 and 0.07 should be Ok to drive or under challengeHaving an error around 40% of the legal level to drive seems absurd and if it could be challenged, would be

I think that the error is taken to be + 0.02%. I see your point about challenging a borderline reading, but I think that the legislators have worded the Law to rule out challenges of that type. No doubt that a Court would take into account the accepted error when considering penalty. We should be thankful that the law for all is not zero BAC.

Are you aware that there is a zero limit for drugs? Therefore, if you want to drive, do not take any codeine containing medication as the metabolic products of codeine show up in the tests as opiates. Use ibuprofen or paracetamol for pain relief.

 

OME

 

 

While it is true that the majority of people would not be considered to be intoxicated i.e. slobbering, jibbering idiots, at a BAC of 0.05 grams of alcohol in 100 mililitres of blood, it has been demonstrated in controlled settings that at a BAC between 0.02 and 0.05, there is a discernible loss of eye/hand coordination and other motor and cognitive skills.

 

Why 0.02%, and not zero? Because there are some known medical conditions which can cause some small amounts of alcohol to be present in the blood. However, the main reason is that scientific instruments such as the breath analysis instrument, like all man-made things carry an error range. In this case the accepted error produces a result of + 0.02 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (0.02%). The only time in traffic law that an analysis result of 0.02% or less would be acted upon is in the case of a Provisional licence holder who is supposed to be completely alcohol free. (Not that a reading so low is likely in a young buck who had just been pulled over for some bit of dickhead driving.)

 

Or you could stop being pedantic, consider the intent of the regulation and don't drink and fly. If you're worried about the threshold of how much booze is in your system, then there is a fair chance that you've had to much..

Too true.OME

 

 

Guys, I think we may be missing something! If you read the regs and 0.02% is the limmit, section (1).

Sorry Smurf, Reg 256 does not prescribe a blood alcohol concentration as it is currently worded. That is the problem with the application of the regulation. With the availability of breath analysing instruments, and analytical means to determine blood alcohol levels, the Reg should include an objective level, as well as permitting subjective evidence based on observation and experience of the observer in these terms: an offender is intoxicated if the offender's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected as the result of the consumption or taking of alcohol".

 

 

The Act would also require amendment firstly to give an authorised person power to detain another person for the purposes of undergoing a screening test, then it must set out how an evidentiary analysis is to be conducted. Sounds like a lot of procedures to figure out, but really it only involves a bit of cut and paste from transport legislation.

 

OME

 

 

I know of one of these that was built in Sydney. Recognising the weakness in the front gear assembly, the builder modified it somehow so that the assembly was attached to the the cockpit frame. (Sorry that my description is poor, but I cannot picture the modification in my mind so as to describe it. I think I might be able to get some pictures sometime this week and if I do, I'll post them)

 

As for the fuel tanks, this bloke relocated the tanks to the wings. His biggest problem was sealing the tanks which were made from fibreglass. He put a hatch over the space where the tank was originally so he could have a luggage compartment.

 

OME

 

 

Yep. As I pointed out they throw reg 256 at you if they think you're under the influence - and while it's strict liability' date=' there is not cut and dry measure of what you need to do to be one side or the other if the guilty line. [b']It should probably be turned into a cut and dry measure[/b].

Quite right. As I said, there should be an addition to Reg 256 (2) which prescribes the amounts, determined by analysis of a bodily sample, beyond which the offence is committed. The amounts have already been prfescribed in Part 99.

 

On DAMP I think you're slightly off. Yes you only need a DAMP as an organisation if you meet set criteria BUT once you are required to have one anyone doing one of the specified actions within the operations of your organisation is within the testing regime. That is how an RAAus pilot flying into a licences aerodrome is subject to test because the licenced aerodrome has a DAMP and you are undertaking an act as prep to or as pilot on the aerodrome.

I disagree with your interpretation. Part 99 clearly states that an organisation must have a DAMP if it has an employee, or contractor undertaking SSAA. Therefore, the aerodrome licence holder's DAMP only applies to employees, or contractors doing SSAA, which in that case would probably be limited to construction and repair of runways and taxiways. A person who is not an employee or contractor, i.e.a pilot on a private flight does not fall under the DAMP criteria.

Also, it is not an offence to fail a DAMP sobriety test. The initial response is that the person who fails the DAMP sobriety test has to stop SSAA until it can be shown that the person is sober. If you go right into it, the goal of DAMP is to identify persons with a alcohol or other drug misuse condition and provide assistance to overcome the condition.

 

OME

 

 

Just a couple of things.

 

The requirement for an organisation to implement a Drug and Alcohol Management Program CASR 99.030 only applies if

 

(a) the organisation:

 

(i) has an employee; or

 

(ii) has a contractor (including the employee of, or a subcontractor for, the contractor);

 

who performs or is available to perform a SSAA; and

 

(b) the organisation is listed in subregulation (2).

 

SSAA = Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity

 

(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the organisations are as follows:

 

(a) an AOC holder;

 

(b) a person issued with a production certificate under regulation 21.134;

 

© the holder of an aerodrome certificate granted under regulation 139.050;

 

(d) a person approved as an ARFFS under Division 139.H.5;

 

(e) an ATS training provider within the meaning of Part 143;

 

(f) an ATS provider within the meaning of Part 172;

 

(g) the provider of any of the following services within the meaning of Part 171:

 

(i) a telecommunication service;

 

(ii) a radionavigation service;

 

(h) the operator of a registered aerodrome under regulation 139.265;

 

(i) the holder of a certificate of approval within the meaning of subregulation 2(1) of CAR;

 

(j) a Part 145 organisation;

 

(k) a Part 141 operator conducting flying training in aircraft;

 

(l) a screening authority within the meaning of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

 

That means that, in the GA world, a person who is not carrying out an SSAA for payment or reward (owner pilot) is not required to undergo drug/alcohol screening test under Part 99.

 

CASR 256 (2) sets a subjective limit:

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256

 

Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

 

(2) A person acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or carried in the aircraft to act as a member of the operating crew, shall not, while so acting or carried, be in a state in which, by reason of his or her having consumed, used, or absorbed any alcoholic liquor, drug, pharmaceutical or medicinal preparation or other substance, his or her capacity so to act is impaired.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units

 

The problem here is, how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is in a certain state due to consumption of alcohol or other drug? This is the difficulty in proving "Drive under the Influence" when there are no results from analysis of breath or body fluids. Leaving a discussion of the various facts that may show that a person was in a state of intoxication, it is archaic for CASA to define impaired capacity in this way.

 

The regulation should be amended by the addition of a sub-paragraph that defines minimum acceptable levels for alcohol and other drugs in breath or body fluids. These levels can be found in Part 99, as the levels quoted there are the ones which usually apply in other areas regulated by law.

 

It appears to me that CAR 256 applies to all persons piloting aircraft, be they under the CASA licence system or RAAus certificate, or GFA system.

 

Here's another legal term that needs clarification:

 

(3) A person shall not act as, or perform any duties or functions preparatory to acting as, a member of the operating crew of an aircraft if the person has, during the period of 8 hours immediately preceding the departure of the aircraft consumed any alcoholic liquor.

 

As has been said, is sipping an ale, or glass of Grange permitted while roughing out a flightplan the night before a flight?

 

OME

 

 

PUNCTUATION ! PUNCTUATION! PUNCTUATION!

 

 

Does a magistrate have any say in the fines for CASA offences? Most of the rules are now strict whatever ( I can't remember the exact wording) which means you are automaticaly guilty and the number of points denotes the fine.

The media always reports the maximum penalty, either fine or imprisonment, for whatever crime is alleged. By the time it comes to a Court imposing a penalty, all sorts of things are taken into account in relation to penalty. For an offence such as this, given that there was no actual injury to persons or property, I would suggest that the harshest penalty would be a fine not exceeding $500.

 

The offence might be "strict liability" which means that the rule says either you cannot do something, or you must do something, but the penalty range can be from a caution up to the maximum indicated in the Act of Regulation.

 

OME

 

 

Talk about radio controlled machinery, I spotted one of these being used on a road construction site in southwest Sydney

 

 

OME

 

 

Dropbox - Vtipnejší reklamu jste možná nikdy nevideli!1.mp4

And this is why they have horse meat in Findus Lasagne, eh Phil?

 

 

 

Of course this will be pursued by CASA to the bitter end. Aviation in Australia is not a matter for simple amusement.

 

 

I did my initial training with Chieftain starting in 1970. I trained on C150's and didn't get into a PA-28 until many years later.

 

The school really hummed back then. I was lucky to have been able to fly during the week, so I had the same instructor 90% of the time. The only time I can really remember flying with anyone else was when I was having trouble with crosswind landings. The CFI came up with me and I can still remember his patter:

 

You can drive a car, can't you?

 

Yes.

 

Well, use your rudder to keep the nose into wind, then steer the plane along the centreline with the yoke like you would steer a car along the road. My first landing using that technique was a greaser.

 

I remember the presentation nights when the school presented First Solo certificates and a set of cuff links to the fledglings. I've still got both.

 

The only thing I didn't like about the school was that it was lined with Western Red Cedar, and the smell of the oil made me nauseous. Not a big help to a person who was prone to air sickness.

 

OME

 

 

There you have it - the alpha and omega of advice.

 

Talk to current/past students? Where are you going to find them? If the student is still using the school, then clearly they are satisfied with what they are getting from it. If they are past students who left due to unsatisfactory results, then they will not speak highly of the school.

 

Average hours to attain the qualification? Very much akin to "Can you walk and chew gum at the same time ?" Every person takes to piloting at a different rate. The most efficient way to complete ab initio training is to do it in a block. If you can arrange to take holidays and do at least a solid week of training, you'll be solo by the end of the week with about 15 hours in your book. However, in your case, with 45 hours logged, after a solid week you should be pretty close to undergoing your licence test.

 

Unscrupulous operators? That's true in every endeavour. I've identified all the schools at Camden and The Oaks. As I said, they have all been in operation for many years, and all have good reputations.

 

Type and condition of aircraft? I've identified the general types available. As commercial operations, all the aircraft are airworthy. Being training aircraft which have people in and out on an hourly basis, there are some chips and scratches in the paintwork, and maybe the odd pen or pencil stuck into the side of the instrument cowling. Some are old aircraft, which is a testament to the attention paid to continuing maintenance.

 

Click with instructors? Most of the instructors at these schools are well past the stage of being newly rated instructors seeking to build their hours to chase a First Officer's seat. Most of them are in the "been there, done that" stage of life, and have treasure troves of knowledge and experience.

 

So, this weekend, get yourself out to Camden and The Oaks. Take your better half and make a day of it in the historic Camden/Wollondilly area.

 

OME

 

 

Did you locate the position of the oil filter? If the oil smear is forward of that location, up goes the big red flag. Look further.

 

An air-cooled engine of any type or use is expected to use some oil in its normal operation. Without too much precision, I'd suggest that half a litre after about 15 hours training flying would be OK. Much more and I would be poking around to find leaking seals, or doing a chimney sweep of the exhaust pipe to see what muck was up there.

 

OME

 

 

NK,

 

Without getting into an argument about whether you should go the CASA route or the RAAus one, the steps are the same for either.

 

Get your paperwork started. If you are going the CASA route, get the required medical. When identifying yourself to CASA, your ARN is your ID, so quote it in all communications.

 

As for which airport to attend, I would suggest Camden for CASA training and The Oaks for RAAus training. No matter where you live in Sydney, the Camden/Oaks area is easily reached. The advantage of these two airports is that you hardly waste any time getting from the tie downs to the threshold, as you might at Bankstown.

 

I doubt if so early in your training you would require an ASIC clearance at the two outer Metro airports. You might need to chase it before you start your Navs.

 

Which school? Knowing all the schools at these airports, I would say that each is as competent as the others in providing quality training. Perhaps your choice might be influenced by whether you prefer low wing or high wing. I think the only odd one is Curtis Aviation which trains in high wing taildraggers as well as tricycle types.

 

The schools at these two airports have been established for many years and set high standards in their development of airmanship. Take a derive out there this weekend and poke your head into all the schools. At Camden you have Phoenix Aero Club, Gostner Aviation, Delta Aviation and Airborne Aviation. (Gostner provides training under both banners.) At The Oaks you have Dave's Flying School and Sydney Recreational which are both RAAus schools.

 

Hope to hear you back into training pretty soon.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

Where was the copilot when this was happening?

Going at a hostie?