Defence & Civil Registered Aircraft
Moderator
So, I presume we are now talking the warbird fraternity, generally ? While I used to have an involvement as an engineer I am a tad out of touch these days.
I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.
If not then I can't imagine that either OLC or DGTA/DDAAFS would stand by idly and permit the situation to proceed in the best traditions of a rudderless ship ?
.. however, something suggests to me that there is more to your comments than my simplistic view of life ? Perhaps my interest in this thread is about to heighten ?
I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.
If not then I can't imagine that either OLC or DGTA/DDAAFS would stand by idly and permit the situation to proceed in the best traditions of a rudderless ship ?
.. however, something suggests to me that there is more to your comments than my simplistic view of life ? Perhaps my interest in this thread is about to heighten ?
John_T,
I don't know whether you are aware, but quite a few aircraft that are civil types, but operated by the RAAF, are leased aircraft, the legal ownership of the aircraft never passes to the Commonwealth.
As you have undoubtedly check by now, this presents no problem when operating the aircraft as state aircraft.
The ones in which I have had any involvement have been maintained as civil aircraft, with all the usual CASA requirements applying, including all but line maintenance being conducted in a CAR 30 facility, owned by or nominated by the lessor.
This caused civil operators of the of the same type considerable pain, because certain RAAF types knew better than the manufacturer, and wanted certain modification carried out on the aircraft, including the flight control system. The "most convenient" way to do this was to ask former RAAF mates, now working for then, (probably) CAA, or CASA to issue an AD requiring the "modification". Sadly, this required the several of the same type on the "normal" VH- register to comply with the ADs, costing in total more than AUD$1M per aircraft, at the time.
When it came time to sell said "real" civil aircraft, a similar expenditure was required to de-mod the aircraft, so that they once again complied with their certified type design, a necessity for the issue of a C.of A in, say, USA. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer footed the bill for the de-mods, when the ex-RAAF aircraft were sold.
Of course, with executive jets, I continue to be amazed that anyone would put one on the Australian register, if they could possibly avoid it, and thus avoid all the associated pain.
I was always amused by the situation, some years back, when an honourably retired Director of Maintenance at Qantas was on the CAA/CASA board, while employed as head of maintenance for the Packer fleet ---- none of which were registered in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re. a previous post, at least one state government has taken legal advice re. the constitutional validity of the present (or any) definition of "state aircraft" that limits the powers of one of our states of the Commonwealth of Australia.
This was consequent on CASA making it very difficult to adopt modern equipment, in common use in may countries, for many years, in law enforcement and EMS/SAR operations.
The advice provided by the state Attorney_General was that aircraft owned by or operated by a state could be declared by the state as a state aircraft (as applies in the US --- even the FAA aircraft do not have to, and do not in practice, comply with FAA rules, state police aircraft and similar are not subject to FAA rules) and CASA "rules" would not apply. The program lapsed, because the state pollies decided it wasn't worth the cost of the fight with the Commonwealth. Easier to let a few people die, or crims to get away.
I don't know whether you are aware, but quite a few aircraft that are civil types, but operated by the RAAF, are leased aircraft, the legal ownership of the aircraft never passes to the Commonwealth.
As you have undoubtedly check by now, this presents no problem when operating the aircraft as state aircraft.
The ones in which I have had any involvement have been maintained as civil aircraft, with all the usual CASA requirements applying, including all but line maintenance being conducted in a CAR 30 facility, owned by or nominated by the lessor.
This caused civil operators of the of the same type considerable pain, because certain RAAF types knew better than the manufacturer, and wanted certain modification carried out on the aircraft, including the flight control system. The "most convenient" way to do this was to ask former RAAF mates, now working for then, (probably) CAA, or CASA to issue an AD requiring the "modification". Sadly, this required the several of the same type on the "normal" VH- register to comply with the ADs, costing in total more than AUD$1M per aircraft, at the time.
When it came time to sell said "real" civil aircraft, a similar expenditure was required to de-mod the aircraft, so that they once again complied with their certified type design, a necessity for the issue of a C.of A in, say, USA. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer footed the bill for the de-mods, when the ex-RAAF aircraft were sold.
Of course, with executive jets, I continue to be amazed that anyone would put one on the Australian register, if they could possibly avoid it, and thus avoid all the associated pain.
I was always amused by the situation, some years back, when an honourably retired Director of Maintenance at Qantas was on the CAA/CASA board, while employed as head of maintenance for the Packer fleet ---- none of which were registered in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re. a previous post, at least one state government has taken legal advice re. the constitutional validity of the present (or any) definition of "state aircraft" that limits the powers of one of our states of the Commonwealth of Australia.
This was consequent on CASA making it very difficult to adopt modern equipment, in common use in may countries, for many years, in law enforcement and EMS/SAR operations.
The advice provided by the state Attorney_General was that aircraft owned by or operated by a state could be declared by the state as a state aircraft (as applies in the US --- even the FAA aircraft do not have to, and do not in practice, comply with FAA rules, state police aircraft and similar are not subject to FAA rules) and CASA "rules" would not apply. The program lapsed, because the state pollies decided it wasn't worth the cost of the fight with the Commonwealth. Easier to let a few people die, or crims to get away.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st May 2012 at 06:40.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume we are now talking the warbird fraternity, generally ? While I used to have an involvement as an engineer I am a tad out of touch these days.
I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.
I'd have to take counsel from a couple of mates still in the regulatory game but, as a first guess, I would imagine that there ought to be no major problem. If the birds are VH- plated then one would expect the maintenance to follow civil requirements, if ADF-plated then the normal 059/053 requirements.
I recall P51D's towing targets for the Army out of Fawcett's and Lear's doing the same thing for the Navy.
Firebombers can be Experimental as can the Grob high altitude job in Uni SA.
Everything operates on "exemptions or Instruments" due to the inability of the regulator to set up a suite of regulations despite 23 years of trying.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, if an aircraft happens to be entered on the VH register but is flown by PICs that are ADF trainees or ADF instructors, in the course of their duties as ADF members, the aircraft is a state aircraft, despite being on the VH register, and CASA has no regulatory responsibility for it.
Good questions, the implications of which I doubt were considered in too much detail when the change was made to the definition of state aircraft.
Better get a lawyer, son. Better get a real good one...
Better get a lawyer, son. Better get a real good one...
I do think we need to be very careful not to confuse state aircraft that are maintained as if they were civilian aircraft, for aircraft that are civilian aircraft.
If an aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity, it is a state aircraft. The ADF has responsibilities and choices about how to deal with the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of a state aircraft that is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity. Putting the aircraft on the VH register does not change any of that, while ever the aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity: under the current definition, the aircraft continues to be a state aircraft.
In some cases the ADF chooses to maintain its state aircraft as if they were civilian aircraft. There are often commercial imperatives to do this. For example, the aircraft may be leased to the ADF, and the value of the aircraft on the commercial market at the end of the lease would be very low if the aircraft’s maintenance history was not in accordance with, and demonstrably in accordance with, the civilian aviation law. But it’s still a state aircraft, and failure to maintain a state aircraft in accordance with the civil aviation law is not a breach of the civil aviation law.
I’ll use a hypothetical to make clear what I’m trying to say.
Let’s assume ADF members, in their capacity as ADF members, operate 3 type X aircraft that are leased to the ADF.
Fact: Those 3 aircraft are state aircraft, and putting them on the VH-register, the state register or no register at all, won’t change that.
As it turns out, lots of type X variants are operated by civilians as well, and there are a number of maintenance facilities for the type X aircraft operated by civilians.
The ADF enters a contract with Generi-corp, which holds a certificate approval, issued under the civilian aviation law, to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft. The contract includes conditions that require Generi-corp to hold a certificate of approval under the civil aviation law, to ensure that maintenance on the aircraft is carried out only by persons permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft, and to carry out, record and certify maintenance in accordance with the civil aviation law.
Important point: Despite those arrangements, the aircraft are still state aircraft, and the contract does not have the effect of transferring, to CASA, regulatory responsibility for the maintenance activities. That’s why the ADF still has to set up AMO and AEO arrangements under the ADF’s rules. It might look like a paperwork formality, but nobody should labour under the misconception that regulatory responsibility has shifted.
To explain why this is so: Let’s assume that in Generi-corp’s maintenance facility there are 7 type X aircraft. One of them is the ADF’s and all the others are non-state. Let’s assume Generic-corp arranges for a person, who is not permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on aircraft type X aircraft, to carry out maintenance on all of them.
When that person carries out the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, that person and Generi-corp commit offences against the civil aviation law. However, when that person carries out maintenance on the state aircraft, there is no offence against the civil aviation law. It might be a breach of the contract between the ADF and Generi-corp, but it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. CASA has no power to, for example, enter the state aircraft to see if the thronomister has been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data and, even if CASA does determine that the thronomister hasn’t been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data, it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. Remember: these are state aircraft.
The ADF could decide to ask Generi-corp to modify the aircraft so as to strap rocket launchers to the wings, by reference to a design provided by the ADF, and CASA would have no regulatory responsibility or authority in relation to the modification. The modification might render the aircraft valueless on the commercial market, but that’s a commercial/contractual matter between the ADF and the lessors of the aircraft, not a regulatory matter for CASA. CASA might refuse to certify the airworthiness of the aircraft, but that doesn’t matter until the aircraft ceases to be a state aircraft.
Now it might be that the ADF’s (ostensibly reasonable) assumption is that CASA’s regulatory responsibility for Generi-corp’s activities in relation to the non-state aircraft will have corresponding consequences for the same activities in relation to the state aircraft. The logic is that if CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with the civil aviation law in relation to the maintenance of non-state aircraft of type X, as a matter of practicality CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with its contract obligations to the ADF. That’s fine, as far as it goes.
But think about these hypothetical circumstances: Due to the limits on CASA’s resources and its priorities elsewhere, CASA ceases to do audits of Generi-corp. Or when CASA does audits of Generi-corp, CASA only looks at the paperwork for the non-state aircraft. Or Generi-corp uses LAMEs to do the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, but unqualified personnel to do the maintenance on the state aircraft.
If the aircraft were ADF state aircraft when they went in to the maintenance facility, were ADF state aircraft while they were in the facility, and were ADF state aircraft when they came out, I find it difficult to understand how regulatory responsibility for the airworthiness and safety of those aircraft shifts from the ADF to CASA.
But the above isn’t the complicated situation. The complicated situation is where aircraft jump from state to non-state, depending on whether the PIC is a member of the ADF in that capacity. That situation arises when, for example, VH-registered aircraft are owned by a private company and not leased to the ADF, but those aircraft are operated for ADF purposes, sometimes with civilians as PICs and sometimes with ADF members as PICs.
Clearedtoenter’s question seems to be another complicated situation.
As far as I can tell, the regulatory authority and responsibility shifts back and forwards as the aircraft shifts from to state to non-state from hour to hour, or day to day, or whatever.
It was a little clearer under the previous definition of state aircraft. I’m far from convinced that all of the consequences of the change in the definition were necessarily understood when the change was made.
If an aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity, it is a state aircraft. The ADF has responsibilities and choices about how to deal with the continuing airworthiness and maintenance of a state aircraft that is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity. Putting the aircraft on the VH register does not change any of that, while ever the aircraft is of any part of the ADF or commanded by an ADF member in that capacity: under the current definition, the aircraft continues to be a state aircraft.
In some cases the ADF chooses to maintain its state aircraft as if they were civilian aircraft. There are often commercial imperatives to do this. For example, the aircraft may be leased to the ADF, and the value of the aircraft on the commercial market at the end of the lease would be very low if the aircraft’s maintenance history was not in accordance with, and demonstrably in accordance with, the civilian aviation law. But it’s still a state aircraft, and failure to maintain a state aircraft in accordance with the civil aviation law is not a breach of the civil aviation law.
I’ll use a hypothetical to make clear what I’m trying to say.
Let’s assume ADF members, in their capacity as ADF members, operate 3 type X aircraft that are leased to the ADF.
Fact: Those 3 aircraft are state aircraft, and putting them on the VH-register, the state register or no register at all, won’t change that.
As it turns out, lots of type X variants are operated by civilians as well, and there are a number of maintenance facilities for the type X aircraft operated by civilians.
The ADF enters a contract with Generi-corp, which holds a certificate approval, issued under the civilian aviation law, to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft. The contract includes conditions that require Generi-corp to hold a certificate of approval under the civil aviation law, to ensure that maintenance on the aircraft is carried out only by persons permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on type X aircraft, and to carry out, record and certify maintenance in accordance with the civil aviation law.
Important point: Despite those arrangements, the aircraft are still state aircraft, and the contract does not have the effect of transferring, to CASA, regulatory responsibility for the maintenance activities. That’s why the ADF still has to set up AMO and AEO arrangements under the ADF’s rules. It might look like a paperwork formality, but nobody should labour under the misconception that regulatory responsibility has shifted.
To explain why this is so: Let’s assume that in Generi-corp’s maintenance facility there are 7 type X aircraft. One of them is the ADF’s and all the others are non-state. Let’s assume Generic-corp arranges for a person, who is not permitted by the civil aviation law to carry out maintenance on aircraft type X aircraft, to carry out maintenance on all of them.
When that person carries out the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, that person and Generi-corp commit offences against the civil aviation law. However, when that person carries out maintenance on the state aircraft, there is no offence against the civil aviation law. It might be a breach of the contract between the ADF and Generi-corp, but it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. CASA has no power to, for example, enter the state aircraft to see if the thronomister has been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data and, even if CASA does determine that the thronomister hasn’t been maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance data, it’s not a breach of the civil aviation law. Remember: these are state aircraft.
The ADF could decide to ask Generi-corp to modify the aircraft so as to strap rocket launchers to the wings, by reference to a design provided by the ADF, and CASA would have no regulatory responsibility or authority in relation to the modification. The modification might render the aircraft valueless on the commercial market, but that’s a commercial/contractual matter between the ADF and the lessors of the aircraft, not a regulatory matter for CASA. CASA might refuse to certify the airworthiness of the aircraft, but that doesn’t matter until the aircraft ceases to be a state aircraft.
Now it might be that the ADF’s (ostensibly reasonable) assumption is that CASA’s regulatory responsibility for Generi-corp’s activities in relation to the non-state aircraft will have corresponding consequences for the same activities in relation to the state aircraft. The logic is that if CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with the civil aviation law in relation to the maintenance of non-state aircraft of type X, as a matter of practicality CASA is monitoring and securing Generi-corp’s compliance with its contract obligations to the ADF. That’s fine, as far as it goes.
But think about these hypothetical circumstances: Due to the limits on CASA’s resources and its priorities elsewhere, CASA ceases to do audits of Generi-corp. Or when CASA does audits of Generi-corp, CASA only looks at the paperwork for the non-state aircraft. Or Generi-corp uses LAMEs to do the maintenance on the non-state aircraft, but unqualified personnel to do the maintenance on the state aircraft.
If the aircraft were ADF state aircraft when they went in to the maintenance facility, were ADF state aircraft while they were in the facility, and were ADF state aircraft when they came out, I find it difficult to understand how regulatory responsibility for the airworthiness and safety of those aircraft shifts from the ADF to CASA.
But the above isn’t the complicated situation. The complicated situation is where aircraft jump from state to non-state, depending on whether the PIC is a member of the ADF in that capacity. That situation arises when, for example, VH-registered aircraft are owned by a private company and not leased to the ADF, but those aircraft are operated for ADF purposes, sometimes with civilians as PICs and sometimes with ADF members as PICs.
Clearedtoenter’s question seems to be another complicated situation.
As far as I can tell, the regulatory authority and responsibility shifts back and forwards as the aircraft shifts from to state to non-state from hour to hour, or day to day, or whatever.
It was a little clearer under the previous definition of state aircraft. I’m far from convinced that all of the consequences of the change in the definition were necessarily understood when the change was made.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside. Until the mid 80's, RAAF aircraft used 3 letter abreviations for ATC R/T. If I recall, the RAAF had all of the letters in "H", "J", "N", "X", "Y" and "Z" blocks reserved for military use, so no civil aircraft used any of those letters. For example, the 34 (VIP) squadron aircraft in Canberra were NLA and NLB (HS747), NLD, NLE and NLF (DA20 Falcon) and NLG and NLH were the two BAC-111's. At no stage were these letters painted anywhere on the aircraft. The planes still had the A- number on the rear side. "H" was used for Canberras and F-111s, "Z" and "Y" for Mirages and Sabres. I can't remember the Herc's and Caribous. I think (make that "guess"!) that as the VH register became more crowded, then the RAAF was (possibly) forced to give up the "Civil" rego's that they were hogging. I couldn't be bothered working out how many total registration marks were taken up by those letters, but it would be quite a few, certainly 25% of the total letter combinations available for the civil register.
Last edited by Bedder believeit; 21st May 2012 at 10:56.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hypothetical circumstances: Due to the limits on CASA’s resources
(probably more typewriters).
Ironically, Frank, you’ve identified another reason for regulatory responsibility for ADF state aircraft remaining with the ADF. 
The Defence budget in Australia is about 2 to 3% of GDP, or around 20 to 30 billion dollars. CASA’s budget is equivalent to rounding errors on Defence’s wastage figures…
The Defence budget in Australia is about 2 to 3% of GDP, or around 20 to 30 billion dollars. CASA’s budget is equivalent to rounding errors on Defence’s wastage figures…
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to flick back to the start of this.
I was at Point Chook a few years back for the mid week CT-4 demo. At no time did they say it held both ADF and civil rego.
What they said about that particular aircraft was that it was civilian registered, and that they were maintaining the original Military Maintenance logbook alongside the civilian log book.
Apparantly CASA do not recognise the military logbook (citation needed)
My read on what has been posted, is that it would be illegal for it to display a civilian rego if it was not civilian registered. After that, the OPERATOR can add whatever company identifiers they like.
Phalanx system...ARMED
I was at Point Chook a few years back for the mid week CT-4 demo. At no time did they say it held both ADF and civil rego.
What they said about that particular aircraft was that it was civilian registered, and that they were maintaining the original Military Maintenance logbook alongside the civilian log book.
Apparantly CASA do not recognise the military logbook (citation needed)
My read on what has been posted, is that it would be illegal for it to display a civilian rego if it was not civilian registered. After that, the OPERATOR can add whatever company identifiers they like.
Phalanx system...ARMED
1. It can be ‘civilian registered’ and still be a state aircraft. Please read, again, the previous and current definitions of ‘state aircraft’ that I’ve posted in this thread, to understand why that’s so.
2. Can you point to the rule that prohibits an ADF state aircraft from displaying a VH registration?
3. It’s not a matter of CASA ‘recognising’ anything. The civilian aviation law has a bunch of rules about systems and schedules of maintenance, certification of the completion of maintenance, and approved maintenance data including airworthiness directives. If a pile of paper comprising the maintenance records of a state aircraft doesn’t look anything like what those rules require, and include records a whole lot of ADF-specific modifications, the pile of paper doesn’t satisfy the rules or demonstrate compliance of the aircraft with a civilian Type Certificate and STCs.
2. Can you point to the rule that prohibits an ADF state aircraft from displaying a VH registration?
3. It’s not a matter of CASA ‘recognising’ anything. The civilian aviation law has a bunch of rules about systems and schedules of maintenance, certification of the completion of maintenance, and approved maintenance data including airworthiness directives. If a pile of paper comprising the maintenance records of a state aircraft doesn’t look anything like what those rules require, and include records a whole lot of ADF-specific modifications, the pile of paper doesn’t satisfy the rules or demonstrate compliance of the aircraft with a civilian Type Certificate and STCs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bedder believeit:
You are quite correct except for civil flight planning and RT purposes the military used "VM" instead of "VH" when annotating flight plans, so the Canberras planned as "VM-HL* or VM-HZ*" when intending to operate in civil airspace but spoke the last 3 letters only for domestic RT; however the whole group was spoken for international RT e.g. a C130 on an international flight from Amberley to Butterworth would call as "Jakarta this is Victor Mike Juliet Lima Juliet".
Hercs and Caribous used the "J" series of callsigns with Hercs invariably flight planning as "VM-JL*" and Caribous as "VM-JM*
I can't remember the Herc's and Caribous
Hercs and Caribous used the "J" series of callsigns with Hercs invariably flight planning as "VM-JL*" and Caribous as "VM-JM*
On a lighter note for a moment, that reminds me of a story I heard about one of the old and bold RAAF Herc blokes from before my time in the service, which went something like this:
The Herc crew were outside military airspace somewhere, talking to air traffic as you do, and this particular pilot, no doubt more used to using a Stallion 123 type callsign or whatever, came to a bit of a mental blank mid-sentence when it was time to say the letter 'P' in his three letter VM- callsign.
Rather than stop mid-stride and sound silly, he kept going and used the word 'pineapple' as a substitute, which was obviously much more dignified...
Maybe someone remembers this and can confirm or deny.
The Herc crew were outside military airspace somewhere, talking to air traffic as you do, and this particular pilot, no doubt more used to using a Stallion 123 type callsign or whatever, came to a bit of a mental blank mid-sentence when it was time to say the letter 'P' in his three letter VM- callsign.
Rather than stop mid-stride and sound silly, he kept going and used the word 'pineapple' as a substitute, which was obviously much more dignified...
Maybe someone remembers this and can confirm or deny.
Folks,
For most "long haul" operations, the RAF had/has a much more simple system, sound just like an air line callsign, such as "Ascot 123".
The "good book" says that radio call signs VH/VI/VJ/VK/VL/VM were allocated to Australia in the mid-1920s.
The relevant ones, VH for Australian civil aircraft, VL/VM for Australian military aircraft were adopted by ICAN (predecessor to ICAO) in 1928.
Tootle pip!!
For most "long haul" operations, the RAF had/has a much more simple system, sound just like an air line callsign, such as "Ascot 123".
The "good book" says that radio call signs VH/VI/VJ/VK/VL/VM were allocated to Australia in the mid-1920s.
The relevant ones, VH for Australian civil aircraft, VL/VM for Australian military aircraft were adopted by ICAN (predecessor to ICAO) in 1928.
Tootle pip!!
During 4 flights over 4 consecutive days in 1977 I was aboard RAAF 11 Sqn's then P3B Orion A9-298, for a FISHEX around most of the Australian coastline. The callsign used was Juliet Charlie Lima (as in VM-JCL) for the whole trip.
