skippydiesel

When a PIC declares an emergency, they & their aircraft have right of way ie entry to controlled airspace will not be refused. There will likly be an investigation into all aspects of the declared emergency. If the emergency was found to be bogus, I suspect that the pilot may find themselves in very deep manure.😈

RAA pilots wishing to go to/from the lower Hunter Valley will now require a CTA endorsement and all the rigmarole inherent in using it. Thes norther routes are over densely populated parts of Sydney and or heavily treed rugged terrain - Tiger Country There is an alternative in Victor 1, that sort of hugs the coast, that does not require the endorsement but does have the aircraft at 500 ft above the sea and in some places well away from land - wet Tiger Country. Go West Young Man and you wont need a CTA endorsement however it seem you will fly worryingly low over the Great Dividing Range - Real Bad Tiger Country. East is of course your rout to the USA & The Donald - scarry stuff! South is the only "friendly"(the potential for a relativly safe forced landing), way out but will add many minutes/fuel consumption, to any trip.😈

Okay! How do you do a power off approach & landing?😈

Advisory circulars (AC) We published the following ACs in June: AC 139.C-02 v1.1 - Aerodrome personnel AC 139.C-20 v2.0 - Disabled aircraft removal AC 147-02 v8.9 - Approved Part 147 training organisations AC 139.C-14 v2.0 - Airside vehicle control AC 139.F-01 v2.0 and v2.1 - Design and operation of Australian water aerodromes for air transport operations AC 121-11 - Part 121 alternate aerodromes AC 139-10 v1.1 - Guidelines for vertical flight facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes New guide available for smaller aeroplane operators Smaller aeroplane operators now have access to a new Plain English Guide. The guide explains the rules under Part 135, including Part 119, of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. It simplifies complex regulatory language and helps operators meet their obligations. The guide can be downloaded for free. Print copies will be available later this year. To give feedback on this, or any of our plain English guides, complete our online form. Stay OnTrack - Flying the Sydney region We have published a new Stay OnTrack guide for flying in the Sydney region from 9 July 2026. It includes: VFR routes and tracking points airspace infringement hotspots local weather information practical tips for flying in the Sydney region. Use the guide before your next flight from 9 July. This applies to whether you fly in Sydney often or only transit through. Download Stay OnTrack - Sydney region. Stay OnTrack - Flying the Gold Coast region We've updated our Stay OnTrack - Flying the Gold Coast region. The guide now includes the Ballina airspace changes that start on 9 July 2026. Download the updated guide.

FYI; Access to controlled airspace for sport and recreation pilots We have amended Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55. These amendments will allow sport and recreation pilots operating under Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) to operate in controlled airspace and controlled aerodromes, provided: RAAus authorises them to do so they individually meet certain minimum requirements the aircraft meets certain minimum requirements.

BS! CANNOT indicates an inability (as in physical/mental) not a regularity (legal prevention) requirement. Simple Example: You can kill a person. The law / religion etc say you should not. 😈

There is no parallel - The failure of the dozer operator to meet the manufactures standards (assuming your obscure reference to a grease can, somehow caused the damage mentioned) is entirely the fault of the operator. 😈

I believe Thruster 88 has used CANNOT in the correct context because he has qualified the statement with the instructor preventative action. The problem I have with Part 61 (in this context)is that it is preventing the use of RAA registered aircraft to conduct a GA review. There is no physical/practical reason why the RAA aircrafts cannot be used (subject to it meeting the necessary fitout standards, for the review being conducted). Its an entirely bureaucratic restriction. When someone uses a word like CANNOT in this context, it infers something beyond a rule thought up by CASA. It suggests that the RAA aircraft is somehow deficient, such that it should not be used for the review. This is obviously ridiculous, as it has no foundation in reality. As I understand the function of the BFR - It is to reviewed the pilots aircraft changeling skills and aviation knowledge, to determine weather they are safe to operate in Australian skies. ie its a safety test of the pilot, that has no practical relationship to the aircraft flown or its registration.😈

Other than telling some tangential story about heavy equipment - What is your point?😈

Well I believe the the word CAN means its is possible to do it (whatever it is) When NOT is added, it means that its not possible to do. In this context (CASA/RAA rules). This is clearly incorrect - You can do your GA BFR in an RAA registered aircraft. It may not be recognised (as a legitimate BFR) as there is a legal requirement to do it in a GA (VH) registered aircraft it ie may not be legal but it can certainly be done. The miss use, understanding, of the English language is ubiquitous - doesn't make it correct.😈

Now this looks like real fun - not a fake vintage "wonabee". Love all the young fella's in attendance/flying😈

Addition to above post; Most of comment is only relevant to experimental/homebuilt Rotax powered aircraft. Factory or certified aircraft/engines, will have to stick to manufactures instructions/requirements.😈

Hi Moneybox, I am concerned about the Bush Air video. The presenters advise on one aspect of landing is completely absent - the forced one, when you may not have engine power. Much of what he said, was the way I was taught - power controlled landings - won't help you when the power is absent. Yes we did do a few glide approached - however C172 (depending on variant near 1,000 kg )has very diffrent glide to a sube 600 kg aircraft. I strongly advise "getting up to speed" with your light weight aircrafts simulated forced landing characteristics. and through regular practise, maintaining that skill. One day it may save your life. Power controlled landings are the way to go for all of your normal landings.😈

Not a bad idea. Both EFB's use ERSA, so would automatically publish if the information was therin. FYI: Have writen to Airservices & CASA -received the expected polite bureaucratic response - something along the lines of - outside their remit but will file away for future consideration (Ha!) Have now writen to the relevant Minister(s) - will be interesting when The Hon King/Wells MP's (or their lackeys) respond. Working hard to change this annoying & unnecessary deficit in ERSA😈

Where do you get this from; Read & Understand FlyBoy 1960 excellent history of Rotax Oil & AeroShell Sport Plus 4.(ASSP4) If an oil meets or exceeds the manufactures specification, it does not matter who makes it, what its called or the colour if the container it comes in. Sure we all have our favorite (trusted) brands - thats fine as long as the above is met. Rotax were happy to advise the specifications their engine owners should go for. As there was no alternative (AeroShell or similar product back then) thats what owners did and it all worked out just fine, as long as the owner/operator was burning ULP or not more than (if memory serves) 30% AvGas. Those wishing to use 100% AvGas or in excess of the 30% presented a problem, as the motorcycle oils, that met the Rotax specification, were not formulated to deal with the high lead contamination delivered by AvGas. The main, not only problem, with AvGas & Rotax 9's is the build up of lead in the gearbox - hense the 600 hr inspection of the same (1000 hrs for ULP). ASSP4 first became available, in large part to address the needs of owners wishing to us AvGas (I suspect mostly N American) It may be a coincidences but I feel it was about the time that that Rotax started to suggest that not using their OM products may lead to engine failure/shortened service life (scare tactics). The published oil specs. no longer appeared, replaced by ASSP4 For the most part, owners who were happy with the motorcycle oil kept using it to good effect (cant remeber but likly cheaper than ASSP4) and some with particularly long lived engines are still doing so. Much of this went on when a Rotax engine TBO was 600 hrs, with incremental increases over 20 years to 2000 hrs - an unlikly progression if the wrong oil was being used by the fleet. Rotax engines routinely exceed TBO, without costly life extending interventions, in part because owners adhered to the earlier (motorcycle) oil specification advise and have continued to do so, with the advent of ASSP4 (and the no longer published oil specifications). I do not recomend using other than ASSP4, however I do believe that someone who is able to find the earlier Rotax oil spec and match it to a current motorcycle oil, could do so, as long as AvGas is not a significant part of the fuel used. 😈

My guess its oil temperature. Is it possible you have two or that the other (not pictured) is something else like CHT?😈

Its a very old marketing ploy, to claim you are releasing new & improved product onto the market, when all you are doing is repackaging (black- red) - normally just words. Where does it state that the formulation (blend to you) has actually changed ie documented change of standards and or specification sheet (one for the black bottle & one for the red). 😈

FlyBoy 1960 WOW!! Other than the undue emphasis on AvGas use (Rotax 9's are designed for ULP, with grudging allowance to use part of whole AvGas) the above should dispel ALL the weird left of field commentary😈

Thanks Garfy, No, not into "....hour long "Webinar"..". Had a quick brows - very similar to the presentation (in person) we received at The Oaks, from the same crew. Full of jargon, a lot of tangential information, not of help to VFR pilots wishing to transit the Bankstown airspace. I still say the the overwhelming bulk of information Bankstown IN/OUT centric - which I communicated on the day. They seemed uncomfortable with concerns raised about a possible increase in training (& other) aircraft density due to the changes to Sydney basin airspace. No movement on requiring and standardising transponder / radio (2 channel) when operating in the Sydney Basin. I exited the talk/seminar, more confused than when I entered.😈

The problem with ALL the advice & presentations to date, is that they are Bankstown Focused. To some extent this is understandable; Likely to generate the most movements The main rout of entry passed through Bnakstown airspace Aircraft moving from & to the south, using the ( via Bankstown) routs barely get a mention. Even ERSA is scant on details for aircraft transiting, rather than departing/arriving, Bankstown airspace.😈

Your doing its again - Is making unsupported (& unlikly) observations a habit?😈

Dear Blue - You made the claim (s). The ball remains in your court, never to leave it, until you demonstrate the truth (?) in your words.😈

I didn't want this Thread to be about oil, but if you cant beat the divergents, you might as well join in. "......blend of Sport Plus 4 was altered by shell, black bottles to the red bottle." Do you know for a fact ,that the Sport Plus 4 Black Bottle oil, was chemically any diffrent to what was in the Red bottle? FYI: When talking oils its usual to use the term formulation, blending is what they do with wine, whiskey, cake mixes etc. What is "...inappropriate..." about using an oil, which meets/exceeds the specifications set by the manufacturer (Rotax)???? Many of the early Rotax 912's, that used an appropriate oil, are still going today & still using the same oil, that meets the above specifications. 😈

I am concerned about the SCA suction caps. I used a SCA shade thingy, held in place by suction caps. The caps have reacted with the perspex and I now have 4 round "scar's" on the inside of my canopy. I have a static cling shade, purchased from AutoBarn, will try it this comming summer.😈

It has been stated (in another aviation Forum) that China has no private pilots or industry supporting the same - does this tragedy make the statemnt untrue?😈