turboplanner

I will give this a look.

There will be a turning back, but not while food is so cheap it's almost free. Bureaucracy grows like a cancer until some big event causes a reset. It is after these resets that progress takes place.In the meantime. I agree it is very risky to employ anybody. The risk doesn't need to be as obvious as a chainsaw, the employee can hurt his back lifting a fallen branch.

And Turbs, the legal profession is free of this duty of care stuff you like seeing foisted on the rest of us. There are several examples of incompetent lawyers and unjustly convicted clients. And examples of people murdered by insane violent people let loose by incompetent judges.

turbs, it's rare that I take a different view from yours but I gotta jump ship on this one. If an ex librarian is so dumbass as to pickup a chainsaw without first ensuring (either thru employer-provided training or self investigation) that he/she is going to be sufficiently aware not to cut their knee off, then they are eventually going to be carried home to their family in a basket for any number of self-inflicted woes. You cannot effectively lecture on common sense. Should the rest of society be held responsible for either an employer's greed or a Newstart recipient's lack of self-preservation? I am not my brother's keeper when it comes to stupidity.

Personally if I wanted someone to cut up trees with my chainsaw, I would ask if he has an ATO (Authority to Operate) for a chainsaw, and if he didn't, I'd say no thanks; so no potential liability.

You have the duty of care to make sure an operation is safe; He has the opportunity to go away and get some appropriate training so he can use the chainsaw safely.

I just hate how the predatory law lot are making everybody responsible for other people's actions.Please leave me alone. I want to be responsible for what I do and be free to go about my business unmolested.

The end result of all this legal interference is poverty as people are deterred from doing anything productive.

On the other hand many more workers are going home to their families each night instead of being maimed or killed, so there's not going to be a turn around to the past.

You need to wax the mould as well as apply the PVA; PVA shears most of the time, but the wax avoids those last few places sticking together,

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

I would like to know the real story around the Jab engine and the clumsy CASA action. No doubt there is a little both ways here but names at CASA need to be named. If this agency coughs, GA gets the flu. This has been going for a long time and it is time for a real reform of CASA as far as GA is concerned. CASA seem to be masters of "overtaking the Minister" or at least maintaining their own patch and agenda. Am I just being cranky? Anyone else want to throw some enlightenment into the pile?

I was asked for two in one afternoon by ATC who were trying to get three aircraft in western Victoria home.

Well that stuffs that then.

Over three hours of silence probably tells the story anyway, and apart from anything else is an indictment on the poor standard of CASA's website.

You're likely to get the call when the weather is deteriorating and becoming unpredictable, and there could be an aircraft or two being guided out of or pointed away from VMC, so there could be an emergency aspect to it.

The key points when a request for a Short AIRP is received are:

1. Cloud type, amount, base

2. Visibility

3. Significant wind variation

Given the circumstances the person requesting it will be looking for a rapid response.

This triggers your MET knowledge, so Elders Weather, Willywinds etc will be no use to you. You will need to be able to identify the cloud

The significant wind variation is from the AFOR you collected before your flight, so another reason to be up to scratch on MET

We can let David off because the perspex on the Auster will be so yellow, that all he can see is a sunset, but the silence does raise the issue of how many people are flying without a Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence.

Ok i'll try, i thought it was 4Aircraft ID

Position

 

Time

 

Altitude

We've heard a lot of comments justifying non compliant use of radio, and quite a few of those have been maintaining radio is just for situational awareness in the circuit.

Can any of you guys tell me the three mandatory components of a Short AIREP. (The first experience you will have of this is an unexpected call from Centre requesting one).

One sequence you could type line by line is from start up.

Pre Taxy

(call phrase)

Pre Take Off

(call phrase)

Circuit calls

(call phrases)

After Landing call

(call phrase)

You scroll down so you see the event and have to call it, then you scroll to see if you got it right (stops you from subconsciuosly reading the answers on a page)

You create the audio for practice in the car going to work etc.

You hear: Pre Taxy

You give what you think is the correct call

The answer is heard a little later

You play the audio in a loop.

Drives you nuts, but you learn fast.

So do we agree that broadcasts are made to satisfy the requirements of CAR 166C?ie: "must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision"

So how does a "clear of runway" call avoid a collision? In general this is a totally unnecessary broadcast.

 

At a controlled airport contact with SMC is made when clear of the runway, it's not telling ATC that you're clear of the runway you are simply establishing comm's on their frequency.

Well that made no sense all

With VHF radio, it's not uncommon to get just static blips representing syllables.

Of course, an instructor needs to be humble in assessing their own competency. If you have litte or no time on the type or operation - don't do it! I've seen far too many bingles where the skygod wasn't up to the task and failed the 61.385 test themselves. (tailwheel currency is a common cause).

This one I will take offence to, Ian. I have learnt heaps from this forum and, if you read my thousands of posts, you might find that I have demonstrated a readiness to learn from more experienced aviators.I have not "refused to listen to any of them".

I am yet to hear a valid reason that calling the word "traffic" before location is a safety issue. To me this seems to be mindlessly following the rules no matter what. Innovation is vital to the future of our species. I am blown away by the strident criticism of my efforts to improve how we communicate, and predictions that I could be endangering lives.

 

I am beginning to understand why many innovators who have left this country in dispair.

If you come in, thinking everything is normal and call "Traffic Parkes", but your radio is on the blink and what comes across is " **. * " I'd judge that to be an aircraft calling a long way off, and so irrelevant to me. If I don't see you, and I won't if you are below me, then the risk goes up exponentially.

We can discount you M, we know your fingerprints.

Just for the fun of I'll throw this in here.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166C

 

Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio

 

(1) If:

 

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and

 

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

 

© the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;

 

the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

 

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

 

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

 

(b) the aircraft's type and call sign;

 

© the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions.

 

Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.

 

Note 2: For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.

 

Note that these are the regs (the compulsory bits), and it direct s you to the AIPs for the RECCOMMENDED format.

Very topical this should come up; I'll give them an E minus, massive fail, for what they've done to radio communications, how the've virtually hidden successive changes fromn pilots, and how they don't seem to even be able to index and explain all the fragmented subject matter of radio communication.

I agree; on final and short final you will know there's an aircraft just landed/landing/on the runway, and your primary go round decision is based on whether he has left the runway, not whether he says he has, because many forget, and some don't bother.

What I believe, and in 15 minutes of searching, haven't been able to find (A CASA search of "radio phrases" turns up "no results"), is that "Base touch and go" and "Base full stop" have been replaced by "Base", and "clear all runways" simply means you're out of the action and gone - no one has to worry about you. That's for non-towered airfields, which still can have six aircraft in the circuit clogging up the radio waves. So I san understand that deleting six "Touch and Goes/Full Stops" and just alerting that you're gone from the circuit will open up the time available for standard transmissions.

I've said a few times CASA are bordering on negligent in failing to group and index all radio traffic.

I'm aware that some of the changes have been for Public Liability protection, where the changed transmissions leave the PL square in the hands, or words, of the PIC, but not hjaving the guts to come out and tell us, and cvreating such a mess of confusion will almost certainly get them into court anyway, with very little sympathy from anyone.

ELAAA still don't have any information, despite a statement on Facebook that it was coming 7th Oct. The only info I have received from them is that they will cover my GA aircraft with a VH rego (VH-numbers) and maybe our 95-10 but nothing of any substance beyond that - eg what licence, assessments, tech manual etc.My concern for years, when people talk about having a separate "minimal aircraft" group is the cost of belonging to so many to fly similar aircraft. I think ELAAA is aiming to be 'everything' for a fee. I am also concerned about jumping out of the pan and into the fire. Going under another organisation may meait is hard to go back, particularly a VH aircraft.

Had it been a Cessna, Piper, Mooney or any other GA aircraft, I wonder what would have been said. Also, how much would it have cost and how long would it have taken to recover such planes. Indeed, would they all survive the out-landing at all? Tough birds those Jabirus.[ATTACH]46591[/ATTACH] Flew again within the week.

The reason the phrase is "Clear of all runways" is it's unambiguous. There could be an inbound aircraft unfamiliar with the field and it's runways. He may have looked up the details in ERSA but not everyone has a phtographic memory. Also, as we know, some people don't use the duty runway, or even know what it is.

But Ian I'm not; other pilots use this form of words, including at least one of my instructors.I just don't get what all this fuss is about! I've heard an awful lot of non-standard radio talk, including from commercial pilots. Seriously, are you blokes concerned that one person chooses, for improved safety, to put the word "traffic" before the location?

Safety really only works with an effective Compliance and Enforcement system; the flowery safety messages of the 20th century just didn't do it. You have to have people on the ground in geographical districts doing audits, and the only way be able to afford to do that in recreational aviation is through a volunteer network.