skippydiesel

3 hours ago, coljones said:

Rather presumptuous - this isn't RAAs fault.

It might be better to beat up on your local member of parliament - they enacted ASIC - they are the roadblock

Coljones,

Those of us who are financial members of RAA, have a reasonable expectation, that the organisation will represent the memberships aspirations and concerns,  to whatever authority is deemed appropriate.

RAA has done this with the aircraft  Max weight increase and are in the process of achieving entry to CTA - good stuff for those who wish to take advantage of these changes..

If we expect this sort of representation, what is so hard/unreasonable about taking on ASIC, as it applies to private pilots wishing to access Security Controlled small regional airports?

As for individuals approaching their parliamentary  representative - "Snowflake's Chance in Hell" of getting any action through this mechanism -I didnt even get a reply to my letter to my member.

Ennui reigns supreme 😈

5 hours ago, RossK said:

I don't like the system either, it's just I have other "fish to fry" that occupy my time.

It's about picking the battles that I'm likely to succeed in.

I acknowledge that your can't be bothered approach, is in the majority - thats why nothing will be done!

I am sad that neither you or your majority friends, care to even try to correct this wrong.

All you have to do is put pressure on our representative body (RAA)  to put this matter "in the book" & keep it there, until is satisfactorily resolved.😈

BurnieM,

"They can of course then implement the bastard factor and refuse you permission to land and try to 'fine' you if you do."

If the PIC declares an emergency, they can land whoever they choose - may be bit of a problem if the emergency found to be bogus.

I agree with you - the market will decide what fees are acceptable.  Unfortunatly there are owners who will try to extort as high a fee as possible, rather than what's reasonable, for the service provided and the ware/tare of their asset. A fee per ton with minimum charge, is not realy reflective of the ware/tare generated by a 600 kg RAA aircraft.😈

3 hours ago, walrus said:

skip, I do as KR Aviator does, usualy deferring to the bigger more expensive to run commercial operators.  What I was saying is that when I go past Benalla, I dont make a separate call for Waahring and the like.

Good man. 

I try to call all airfields I will pass/one side/overhead within 10 Nm. Yesterday, passing about 8Nm to the north of Goulburn, 5500ft,   I had a high performance twin taking off in my general direction. We made pilot to pilot contact. He saw me, I never saw him - all good. Shortly after I passed another aircraft at 4500 ft, several miles to the north - would never had seen him if not for SK2/Ozrunways, he/she made no calls but may have heard me abeam Goulburn/communicating with twin.😈

56 minutes ago, RossK said:

Skip, I don't think anyone here thinks the ASIC has any real merit, it's just the system we have.

That being said, you might get more traction with the RAAus Board members rather than the CEO, they are our elected officials.

The CEO is just there to implement the wishes of the Board.

" ......it's just the system we have."

No offence RossK but I am appalled by this statement. None of us should settle for a bad system or part thereof.

".......more traction with the RAAus Board members....."

Thanks for that advice. I actually wrote to RAA, assuming that correspondence is readout & discussed at Board Meetings (as per standard Club/Organisation practice). The response I received was from Maxine CEO. I am now wondering if the response is her position or RAA's position😈

20 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick with where this discussion has drifted (ie away from Skippy’s original issue with being charged for overflying), but I can’t see any issue with an airport charging whatever they want for you to use it. If they’re too expensive, then you just don’t use them, like any supplier. That being the case, it’s far better for them to bill you based on ADSB data than on radio calls. No more false identification. No possible charging for Skippy’s overfly. Incontrovertible proof that you did or didn’t use their services. 

I guess the issue(s) come down to:

• Who controls/owns the air above an airfield?
• What rights does a PIC have to navigate where /whenever - subject to existing Federal airspace restrictions.?
• Should it become the  "norm" for airfield owners to charge for use of the airspace above - at what point should this charge be levied (height above, distance from, services (if any) provided)?
• What might be the implications eg avoidance leading to fuel exhaustion/forced landing, would declarde emergencies and emergency response aircraft be fee free ?
• Landing fees vary, $0-20 (probably more)/landing for an RAA level aircraft - how can this be justified (greed?)?

I feel that Australian pilots should remember, almost all airfields were owned by the Federal Government / US!. Due to the adoption of the now discredited Economic Rationalism /User Pays economic model, our short sighted Gov disposed of (sold & gifted) most of the airfields. Much like roads, rail, ports, electrical & water supply that are part of our essential (publicly owned) infrastructure, airfields that were completely open, are now restricted and/or being developed for non aviation purposes. Like most of the other public asset, that have been disposed of, this is an evolving  disaster that we the people have allowed to happen (she'll - be right - mate). Public infrastructure/services underpins the economic & social wellbeing of a country, we are the poorer/disadvantaged for the loss of such.😈

3 minutes ago, jackc said:

Don’t need to worry about that, kids long gone. Wife is terminally ill, so only ME to worry about 🤩

I feel for you😈

My faith in humanity is restored - Thanks Jerry_ Atrick.

Seems to me that Australians are particularity uninterested in fighting for their rights " she'll - be -right - mate".

I am not against having my rights infringed/reduced, where it can be demonstrated that there is a greater good .

ASIC not only infringes my rights without a demonstrable benefit BUT also costs me (all of us) as a taxpayer. 

Australia has the unenviable reputation of being one of the World's' least democratic democracies - ASIC is just a small example of this.

It seem that private plots (on this Forum) are quite content with this double rort - if they weren't then their voices would be heard by RAA (our representative body) and something would have to be done, but noooo, all toooo  hard. The fact  is, no one/or organisation has made a significant effort to get this crap law modified. so that it does not apply to small rural airports.😈

Reference ; Trying to get  the need for  private pilots to hold an ASIC card , for access to to small rural Security Controlled Airports, abolished

I have written to RAA - Got a two nice replies from Maxine (CEO)  - in summary,  total abdication of their representative function.  Advised to contact local member.

Have written to local member - as expected no response. If this changes will advise accordingly.

The reality is, any politician contacted about this matter, is likly to do the vote maths v risk  and decide its not worth their time.

31,000(?) private pilots , spread over the entire country, do no represent a significant lobby UNLESS their representative organisations take up the cause.

"'She'll - be -  right - mate" (apathy) rules the day😈

Ground crew and Controller are a long way apart.

I would expect a Controller to be in radio contact and having a role to play in aircraft sequencing😈

19 minutes ago, aro said:

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace.

 

To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.

It seems to me that there is almost never a "root cause" only multiple contributing factors.

Certainly some form of controlled airspace. Given the aircraft movement frequency in a confined airspace, perhaps a company specific, air traffic coordinator, may have reduced the chances of a conflict.

Even a "standard circuit pattern" is not without risk - reference the recent collision of two aircraft, death of three,  at The Oaks,  almost certainly due to failure of communication, along with procedural errors, etc.😈

11 hours ago, aro said:

They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had.

 

I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

As with almost all incidents there are likly to have been many factors (Swiss Cheese) - these were covered in the video. It matters not that the radio was/not working - no call was heard, therefore could not have added to the pilots situational awareness.

I think you can take it as "fact" the neither pilot saw the other aircraft. Any other explanation would have to involve deliberate contact.

The question then is why did both pilots not "see & avoid"? The only reasonable answers are:

• They did not communicate with each other - faulty radio, faulty radio procedure - the result is the same, 
• Procedural failure - pilot failure, badly designed or lack of formal procedure
• Over reliance on the ability of the airborne human eye to detect another airborne object/aircraft😈

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Surely you understand there are parts of Australia you can navigate and there are parts you can't?

There you go again with your selective responses.

"the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law"

Which bit of my comment did you not read/comprehend?

No more. 😈

With reference to the above video;

I have long held the opinion that the "mark one eyeballs" is seriously limited (in airborne humans) thus making the "see and avoid" mantra, promoted by so many pilots/instructors, at best misleading, at worst a danger in itself. 

My opinion, in this matter, is often hotly refuted.

I contend, that good radio communication, procedural adherence/discipline, are likly the greater safety skills, that "clue" the pilot into the location of the other airborne aircraft(s) and thus visual acquisition (not the other way around).

In the above video - dodgy radio (lack of communication), structural visual blocking, questionable procedures and the limitations of the human eye, combined to create a disaster.

The helicopter tragedy supports my argument all too well.😈

Turbs me old mate,

Much though I love a good debate, when the opponent just wriggles & wriggles, going off on ever more irrelevant tangents, I grow weary, not of the original topic,  but of trying to answer on topic (the rights & freedom to navigate, as the PIC determines, within the law)😈

53 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

If you are ever going to have 2 people in this tent do not purchase a 2 man tent.

You need at least a 3 man tent and there are a lot of reasonable but cheap 4 man dome tents.

 

In my dreams  - the opportunities are going from zero to something way less.😈

3 hours ago, PureCaboose said:

Sleeping mat, sleeping bag and a bag liner. The bag liner alternated between a cotton one or a polyfleece one, depending on the weather/season.

 

For camping, I have a 2-person lightweight hiking tent.

 

All my gear is from BCF.

 

Tent: https://www.bcf.com.au/p/roman-cradle-2-person-hiking-tent/653002.html?gtmfrompage=checkout

 

Sleeping bag: https://www.bcf.com.au/p/wanderer-singe-0-hooded-sleeping-bag/636449.html?gtmfrompage=checkout

 

Camping mat: https://www.bcf.com.au/p/wanderer-camp-38-hiking-mat/521022.html?gtmfrompage=checkout

 

Summer liner: https://www.bcf.com.au/p/roman-cotton-sleeping-bag-liner/673055.html?gtmfrompage=checkout

 

I have experienced everything from sleeping in a hole in a bivvy bag to luxury camper trailers, and this is what I use as my go-to camping gear for flying or driving when I travel for work.

 

Greg

 

P.S. The water in the metho for the Trangia stove is to make it easier to clean the soot off the outside of the pots.

 

Hard to compare - Tent same price as Cloud 2 Pro but quite a bit heavier. Sleeping bag 0C  very good value.  Mat, no R rating, but at $90 is a steel, if as good as you say. Nothing worse than a deflated mat in the middle of the night.

Been looking at the  nemo Tensor - All Seams , R 2.4, $200.

22 minutes ago, RossK said:

Hi Skip, this is the gear we camp with from the plane. We try to keep it light weight.

Tent - 2kg

Sleeping bag - 0.8kg

Sleeping Mat - 1.4kg

5kg total.

This is for 2 of us, the tent and mat are cosy at best, you need to be very good friends, but that helps keep warm on colder nights.

Hasn't had much use lately, but was fine at Parkes last year. 

I'm thinking of upgrading the tent to something in the 3-3.5kg range - sheer luxury.

Thanks thats great information.

I think I will be purchasing the  Cloude Up 2 Pro https://www.naturexplore.com.au/products/naturehike-cloud-up-2-pro-tent. 1.53 kg Highly rated on several reviews.

I think they do 3 person tents😈

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

Skippy, Outdoor GearLab is an American review site, they're based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada, and any dollar figures they quote are U.S. dollars., which as you know, is a seriously different amount in Australian dollars!

 

US$199.99 converts directly to AU$333, then you have international shipping charges and local retailer markup to contend with. Plus the Therm-a-Rest NXT is only 75mm thick, whereas the Zempire Monstermat is 100mm thick.

 

Thanks.

I put Australia in my search parameters and thats one of the review sites that popped up - will go back & check again.😈

Monstermat is great IF you aren't baggage  space & weight challenged

Found this https://adventuregearonline.com.au/product/nemo-tensor-sleeping-mat-regular/ $199.99 Albury NSW This is defeinately Australia.😈

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

Skippy, Outdoor GearLab is an American review site, they're based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada, and any dollar figures they quote are U.S. dollars., which as you know, is a seriously different amount in Australian dollars!

 

US$199.99 converts directly to AU$333, then you have international shipping charges and local retailer markup to contend with. Plus the Therm-a-Rest NXT is only 75mm thick, whereas the Zempire Monstermat is 100mm thick.

 

Thanks.

I put Australia in my search parameters and thats one of the review sites that popped up - will go back & check again.😈

Just come from KMart

https://www.kmart.com.au/product/single-self-inflating-mattress-42498575/

Self inflating Sleeping mat $22 - bit thin at 40 mm, bit heavy at 3 kg - would do at  a pinch

https://www.kmart.com.au/product/altitude-hooded-sleeping-bag-42890546/

Sleeping bag pretty good at 1.2 kg , $45. rated down to 4C

https://www.kmart.com.au/product/ridge-sleeping-bag-43491162/

Sleeping bag pretty good at 1.9 kg , $49, rated down to 0C

https://www.kmart.com.au/product/thermal-eva-foam-bed-roll-42305880/?srsltid=AfmBOor0fR9gjiJY05kxk7taXClRkkOG798Fx5PbQHnlGV8DrA4yEI_c

Closed cell mat $15 - bit narrow but again OK at a pinch. You can purchase this stuff, foil one or both sides, from insulation suppliers, I think up to 8mm thick - make it whatever size you want, supply you own packing straps.

😈

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

No you can't say that; you need to research the principle before jumping to conclusions. I only used buildings as an example of where you might own the property, but other laws apply. Out in hilly country you might own a farm but find that you can't build your house on top of a hill; it has to be below the sightlines.

A sight line issue is usually something to do with a visual amenity/historic vista or some such - very long bow, in try in linking that to the right of  air navigation😈

This is where my costing came from;

https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/camping-and-hiking/best-sleeping-pad

😈

Dynon have asked me to;

• Disconnect the ADAHRS
• Check pin 2 & 7
• Report finding to 1/0 of an ohm

16 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

We are now going off at tangents.

 

The law is not clear on whether you 'own' the airspace above your property. 

It allows for you to use it but in many cases also allows shared use by non-owners.

 

Is it reasonable to try to charge for airspace at a significant height above the owners actual use ?

Probably not, unless your objective is simply to repel others.

 

Can we leave it here ?

 

It seems to me that Turbs has "muddied the waters" by introducing the concept of tall buildings and their impact on the freedom to navigate through the air.  

As an intellectual  concept/theory ,this is valid however as a practical application - where the owner of the land has rights to the airspace above therefore can charge/toll passing aircraft its just BS😈