KRviator

But you can use an approved GPS (ie TSO-C129 or better) to move the position fix times from 30 minutes to 2 hours for VFR operations, and a C129 GPS meets the requirements for a positive fix. I'm not sure where your advice that you need a NVFR or IR to use them comes from?

I think you will find the caveat "if practical to do so" in there...Australian Road Rule 118...

Ok, I'll admit the "can't ask for clearance" was a poor choice of words on my part, is that what you want to hear?But, if you DO ask for a clearance through R421A, and it is granted, you are then obligated to obey that clearance, or you will be in breach of the CAR's, and soon as you enter R421A - as it is associated with hazards to other aircraft in flight, you are in breach of CAO95.55 7.1.e. Furthermore, the only special conditions published for R421A is for the VFR lane up the coast, anything else requires the approval of the administering authority. Good luck with that!

So if you need a clearance to enter, and RAAus are not permitted to seek clearances* as we do not have a CTA Endo, just how are you planning on getting said clearance?

You can get RV's in RAAus, my RV-9 is RAAus (one of two, I believe) and gives a me+full tanks payload. Doesn't help if you want another adult + full tanks + baggage though...IIRC, the other has a smaller IO-233 (vs my O-340) that does give a bit more payload.

It's any aircraft you built more than 51% of, or any aircraft that is essentially similar that you own. Exemption is here

So long as you can get from the original builder a build log showing they built (or if the kit changed hands several times, for each successive builder) the majority - 51% - of the kit, it will be eligible for an Experimental - Amateur Built CoA. You just can't sign off on the MR is all, so will have to pay a LAME to do it, or if you are keeping it local, you might be able to persuade the original builder who does have the authority to do it for you while you follow through. If you go RAAus, it is a moot point anyway as a L1 (RPC holder) can sign off on it, so long as it is not used for hire/reward. Truth be told, RV's and their ilk are so basic, the LAME costs for the annual would take years to get back in terms of "build it yourself" savings. 1000 hrs build time at $30/hr is not unreasonable, and that is a *lot* of LAME time! Plus, you would get to fly right now, rather than build for several years. And now your $100,000 RV has effectively cost you $130,000 as opposed to buying someone's already-flying RV and having the LAME do the inspections for you. What sort of RV are you considering, anyway?

It does NOT have to be you that built 50%, rather, 51% must have been built for "recreation and education", but you must have built that 51% if you want to be able to sign off on the annual inspection. RAAus, I understand you can pay someone to build it, as there is no MPC requirement. As for how they prove it? Most builders keep a log, either online or using old-school scrapbooks. An example question that would catch you out might be as simple as "Show me your mistakes?". Now, I have several, with a few in the flying aircraft - none that are unsafe, but I can instantly point them out to the AP. That I know where they are, and can explain how I resolved them before pointing to them shows I know a substantial amount about small details of my RV, that a 'buyer' probably wouldn't.

Without wanting to sound like a smartasre - what is so hard to understand about the AIP reference provided?

Don't worry too much about it. Odds are someone using a mobile device did it without even realising.

If you want examples of CASA bullying pilots, you only have to look at the cases of John Quadrio, or Richard Rudd. And given these are unlikely to be isolated incidents, you could reasonably expect there to be others that aren't as public.

If you want a terrific example of the danger zone around a turbine engine, Google Continental 1515 El Paso. An engineer went through #2 engine. The photos are most definitely NSFW though...

True, but you won't find an Ipad tucked away in a 40lb drone!

Boeing ScanEagle UAV. The Army operates them. Didn't know they had ADS-B though I am not surprised they do.

FML, does anybody actually read the AIP?

But then you are flying under the authority of your FCL, not your RPC... CAR 140 says you cannot fly in a Restricted area unless it is in accordance with the conditions specified in the notice declaring the area to be a restricted area. That notice is given in the AIP, part of which is the ERSA PRD as well as the DAH. The AIP also says you cannot fly through an active restricted area unless you are authorised, or cleared. As RAAus does not currently have authority to operate in controlled airspace, with the few exceptions of FTF's located in Class D towered areas that are covered under specific CASA Exemptions, a RAAus pilot cannot fly in, or request clearance through, an active restricted area. And yes, the AIP is a legal document, referenced by the Civil Aviation Regulations as a place for notices to be published.

It isnt hard to answer. Per my AIP references above, a MIL CTR=Class C. An active MIL Rxxx requires clearance - or "approval" if there is a publishedlocal procedure.Can an RAAus pilot request clearance into Class C normally, or Class D if not a student pilot? No. There's your answer.

It isn't that hard to find the info, you just need to look. If active, you need "Clearance" (So a CTA endo) or "Approval as appropriate".

Could have included staff costs. Was going to cost me $1600 for a CASA AWI to issue an Experimental Cert for the RV-9. $160/Hr x 10 hrs work!

Not negative - realistic... OzR themselves came out with the figure on their FB post IIRC, which is now removed, with the new one simply saying "we're talking tens of thousands here guys and it has really stretched us thin - we don't have any millionaire investors)", though one of the OzR guys does give an insight into the $$ at stake in his Prune post, "$10-20K per sponsor, across multiple sponsors...." It is reported to be a SAAA member (someone quite high up if you believe the commentary on 'Prune)that got themselves into this mess and I fail to see why any of the rank and file members should put their hand in their pocket to bail out an orginisation that would permit such a thing to happen in the first instance. As for why I hold ill will towards the SAAA, I would ask you consider my postings as regards trying to get my already flying RV swapped from RAAus to VH using the SAAA process. In the end I gave up and went back to RAAus, which, given the effective utility I have lost (in terms of payload, operational freedoms/CTA/NVFR/IMC) etc) should speak volumes. EDIT: Apologies - it was RAAus who said there was a $60K shortfall in their FB post - not OzR...

$60,000 from the SAAA membership?? Wow

If you're on a budget, I still use my original iPad - an iPad2 (not an Air2), and it still works no worries at all. If you can find a way to claim it on tax, then get the newest one you can afford!

$20,000 AUD more than the brand-new OX-340 I installed in my RV-9, but it would actually pay for itself in about 1800 hrs based on a 50c/L saving of Mogas/Avgas. Would probably be sooner based on the lower fuel burn of the Rotax, depends how long you want to keep your RV...If I was starting out, I'd still give it serious thought, but in saying that, a low-compression OX-340 with SDS EFI will run Mogas no problems, give great high altitude efficiency, but won't sustain that performance into the flight levels as well as the -915.

VH-BEG, a 2015 Sling 4.

I think the only one airing their dirty laundry in this instance is AvPlan and their dummy spit. OzRunways was the target of much vitriol and threats to go to the ACCC for the commercially-sensible decision to preclude AvPlan from exhibiting at an event sponsored exclusively by them. And now they have published their reasons for withdrawing such sponsorship, which I find quite reasonable in the circumstances.What I do not find reasonable, is the leaking of the commercial-in-confidence contract by someone (pissed off SAAA member?!?) to AvPlan and their petty response "We've been blacklisted because we are AvPlan". This is only a half-truth. From what has been published by RAAus & OzRunways in an attempt to set the record straight, AvPlan were invited to sponsor the event and deemed it not commercially warranted. That is their decision, and one that is understandable, however, failing to disclose as such in their dummy spit has now led to the withdrawal of OzRunways (due to the hatred sent their way for "Banning your competitor") as major sponsor and left the event tens of thousands of dollars short of what it needs to run with only 8 weeks or so to fill the gap, to the point the SAAA is going hat-in-hand to their membership asking for funding. Now, given my past history with the SAAA, and the implication it was one of their members who is responsible for this debacle, I am not the slightest bit inclined to help them out, and I would question if any other member should contribute any funding either... The big thing about AirVenture is its' remote location. Sure, it is handy for those that have a way to fly in, but apart from the townsfolk at Narromine, who else is going to go?!? It's a 5 hour drive from Sydney, and 9+ from Melbourne & Brisbane. That's an awful long way for not much. We are barely 2 months out and there is nothing listed in the AVA website about seminars, what is on for the 'airshow' other than the Roulettes, tucker, or even if an SAAA MPC is going to be run there (and don't get me started on that)...Not everyone can drop everything to attend should somethign pique their interest close to the event - believe it or not, plenty of people actually work weekends, and need to arrange leave in advance. Personally, I need a minimum of 10 weeks notice to get a leave request in and approved... I would tend to disagree slightly, for as above, it is one thing to say "We've been banned because we are AvPlan" - as they did. It is another thing entirely to publish the whole truth: "We were offered the chance to sponsor the event, turned it down, our competition did, and upped their offer when they were were asked and offered exclusivity, and that's why there's no AvPlan at OzKosh." Don't go spouting half-truths in an attempt to undermine your competition, because when you're found it, it is bound to backfire, as it has here, with the withdrawal of OzRunways as major sponsor. I can't see AvPlan chipping in $60K to cover the shortfall...And other than being an OzRunways customer, I have no association or connection with either of them - I simply don't like to see gutter tactics used in our sport aviation environment.