turboplanner

They'll get there. I can remember when it was only $100.

There are plenty of $40,000 plus strict liability fines already.

For examples of Dick's philosophies, use of his own money, interaction with the flying community, take a look at his threads and statements on prune.

TP, you seem to be assuming that people don't know what the law is, rather than assuming they know what the law is and choose to ignore it.As someone once said... "Laws are for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men" (or words to that effect).

I know why people don't keep a good lookout. The visibiliy from a lot of planes is very poor. When I get in a Cessna I feel practicly claustrophobic and there is very little ability to see above or behind. I ask others when they first see me around our strip and it is amazing how close I get before they see me. The good visibility of my plane far and away makes up for relying on radio.

And you can have difficulty seeing an aircraft below you, particularly when it's flying well below circuit height, coming from an unexpected direction, and with a history of not doing formal circuit pattern.

I don't think this subject is an either or; I was taught to keep my head out of the cockpit as much as possible, scan continuously for other aircraft, but also use the radio strictly in accordance with procedures (which eliminates at least one poster's complaint about people "who talk too much".

OK well there's one black hole in the instructor network.

If students are not made aware of the regulations they are required to fly under, it's not surprising they go to aviation sites for help, or make up their own rules.

Ok, just gonna put my YSSY-based airline pilot hat on here.Bahahahahahahaha!

 

Into wind? Seriously? Change the runway so that it's into wind?

 

Bahahahahahahaha!

Page 14 shows the Moorabbin runways.

If you decide to fly into Moorabbin, you could try asking them, for example, to pick up Runway 17 Left and turn it around for you - we'll all listen to the response.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/pilots/download/melbourne.pdf

Anyone looked up the current procedures?

That's interesting Turbs....I always thought it was the PIC that was guilty, not the 10 yo child(The 10 and 11 yo are both doli incapax so there is a presumption they are unable to differentiate right from wrong in criminal matters. The 9 yo can't be convicted at all

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/cfi/101-120/cfi106.html)

 

Sent from my iPad

 

Kaz

You two should look up the Tiger Moth complaints from the 1950's. They used the same arguments.

It's a while ago now Turbs but I seem to remember quite a big slab of reading and being tested on the cars and the caos.I will admit though that since getting my cert I haven't exactly been flipping through them each night to keep current. I do remember the basics though and rely mainly on my version of common sense (some have said I've a warped sense but I think that was my humour not my common!) to keep me out of trouble.

I simply copied the relevant CAR from the Comlaw site; it's unambiguous, but I note all the clever little techniques used to try and avoid it.

If you want to put the $9000.00 on the table and take the risk of getting caught, or if you think you can argue your way out of a manslaughter charge is up to you, but tell me this Marty, SQDI, and Kasper, did your Instructors ever train you and test you on the Civil Aviation Regulations?

Yenn, I have no objection to training children to fly, just that it has to be with a qualified Instructor.

Let's face it if your 9 / 10/ 11 year old was keen to learn to fly and loved flying with you, would you tell them to sit back, shut up and not touch anything, or would you get to a safe height and teach them to control the aircraft?It's not like letting your kid drive the car on the road where others could be in danger, you have no control, and the cops can see there's a very short driver.

Here's what CAR 228 says about teaching your kids how to fly (unless you are a qualified instructor):

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 228

Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight; and

(b) the person is not:

(i) if the aircraft is a balloon--authorised under Part 5 to fly the balloon or perform an activity essential to the balloon's operation during flight time; or

(ii) for an aircraft other than a balloon--authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

Current Commonwealth Penalty Unit is $180.00, so that's a fine of $9,000.00 if someone posts a photo etc., but if you can't recover the aircraft and one of them is killed, you are looking at culpable negligence and a manslaughter charge, just like the guy who flew low level and hit wires.

Don has mentioned the reasons behind this CAR, or are we now saying we don't need Instructors?

It would be disappointing if someone had an accident and the investigation noted that he had not flown for a couple of years, based on the records.

I'm talking about major city airports with multi-directional runways.

You can request a crosswind runway, and I've done training on one with around 10 aircraft in the main circuit, but you don't get the crosswind environment that you get at country airstrips where often there is one strip only.

Interesting having the radio and crosswind threads going at the same time.

What I have found is that flying out of a capital city airport makes you aware of the huge safety advantages of radio, but because the Tower controllers change runways to keep you into the wind all the time, country pilots will run rings around you for crosswind operations.

So I should dob in those who use the wrong frequency. I have 2 reasons not to.1 I have to live with them and it would make life uncomfortable for me.

2 I believe the rules are a mess and would like to see them changed.

 

Regarding 1 above. A few years ago a local CFI did some stupid flying and was dobbed in to RAAus. It was generally accepted that I was the person who dobbed him in. I wasn't and I didn't even see the stupid flying. It made life so uncomfortable for me that I got RAAus to write a letter stating that I was not the dobber in. I don't want to go through that again, especially for something I consider not dangerous.

I'm a bit like you with reporting. Had a 210 cross in front of me from left to right to beat me to an approach point. First I knew was his tail fin whipping out from under the nose about 50 feet away. I let that one go. Saw a C172 perform a loop in the training area then head for a reporting point. I did phone the tower on that one fearing structural damage, and although it was the only aircraft inbound from that reporting point the tower said they wouldn't be able to identify it, so it's probably still out there waiting to snap a wing.

Yeah, but you have to sit on eggs once a year for 53 days without any feed!

But answer me this - IF you are in circuit or joining circuit and you can visually see three aircraft in the circuit (because they are flying a set and known pattern) and you position yourself within the circuit how is is intrinsically dangerous if one of those aircraft is non-radio? Do you NEED to hear a downwind call from everyone in front of you to be safe to follow the third one in to land?

When there are four or five in the circuit, they don't remain in that idyllic position, some flying high, some low, some close and some wide.

I've been No 5 on final and could see the other four but had no idea if a low one was going to push in from the side.

I've been coming in on final in a low wing, and had the tower controller carefully extract me from a high wing C150 who had come in from a five mile circuit and turned underneath me.

And when you're in the circuit with 12 others, you have no chance of along life without radio.

Putting up an argument based on a few hypotheticals is a bs way of walking away from your obligations.

Radio where I fly is no use for traffic identification. We have a situation where some pilots refuse to use the correct frequency. Last weekend I had to use the incorrect frequency to advise another pilot of my action. Luckily there is very little traffic, so I was not likely to miss someone on the correct frequency. I would consider that is a good enough reason to not mandate compulsory use of radio.

Wrong frequencies, people not sure what to say.... Points to a fall down in training and administration.

I don't think that is a valid set of statistics SQ.

The volume of lives saved will be on a sliding scale from paddocks, low volume country airstrips to city airports.

At the bottom end there's two in the Kookaburra in the 1930's, a few who have become lost and redirected by ATC, and a few round country airstrips, but a lot at City airports.

I used one when I was a kid and my uncle took me up.

The wing over he did set the scene for a very interesting time in a Chipmunk some years later.

There is NO case for NOT using radio in aircraft. Nev

(a) The electrical system of a Tiger makes it impossible to fit a radio

(b) The radio would cost more than the Tiger

None of the arguments were compelling enough for common sense and the authorities of the day.

Short answer to your question - YESSlightly longer answer - where it is very low density air traffic see and be seen has worked well over the year.

 

And for every failure of the see and be seen that has resulted in an accident I am confident I can dig up an equal number of accidents where radio was in use and confusion / reliance on radio to the exclusion of looking was the cause.

 

Radios are absolutely aids to situational awareness but are not the primary and I contend that procedures and operational history supports continued availability of airspace where flight without radio is demonstrably safe

Historically (c.1930's) radio was found to be a far safer option around a busy aerodrome than see and be seen, and maintained its primary position until someone realised that mandating radio for primary separation all over the country at all times with operators who made no mistakes, was clearly going to involve a steady stream of lawsuits when the inevitable failures occurred. By changing to see and be seen, the flame thrower was immediately turned on the Pilot in Command.

The slightly pregnant part comes in when someone involved in a collision is able to prove that if the old, mandated radio system had been the primary system, then the collision would not have occurred.

TP its easy enough to manipulate the selling process.

And in this case Police have a head start thanks to your diligent tracking of the unscrupulous.

Turbo That was regarding usage...a CB'r just recently got nailed in Sydney...what I was talking about was the retailer having to check the user had a valid licence or certificate before you could sell the radio which is what was stated above.