turboplanner

It could also depend on what they found out and decided for themselves as competent adults. I think we need to give ALL those who voted credit for some level of intelligence and perhaps accept that they made their OWN decision as to how they would vote. I didn't see many members being bussed to the meeting and I certainly wasn't canvassed, other than through the candidates statements in the magazine. Was I one of the few who escaped the attention of the headhunters?

Hope the guys okay. What a scary experience! Looks like an RV6 or 7A, never liked the training wheel on the front of an RV.

Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

I did 20 hours 20 years ago. No instructor yet. I'm just learning stuff so that I can concentrate on learning to fly when I get to learn to fly.

In the light of this debate seeming to move (at least a little) toward low usage/long storage aero engines, I would like to make a slight addition to my earlier comments, which assumed normal/regular usage (ie operations to & within manufacturer's recommendations/expectations) -The problem of low usage engines is not confined to aviation. I suspect (speculation) that the almost infinitely varied environments/conditions of a low use/stored engine make it almost impossible to come up with an oil that can be run in normal operations and at the same time preserve the engine in pristine condition, so as to enable it to be started and used without further maintenance input.

 

Further - it would seem to me that relying on an engine oil, that is designed to be used in an operating engine, for intermittent or distant future operations, with or without additives, is " pie in the sky".

 

If you want to preserve an engine for future use, ask the manufacturer to recommend a procedure for "mothballing" your engine - this will include advice on how to bring it back into operation (draining the "pickling" oil will be part of this).

Just to clarify Turbs - there weren' t 9000 votes cast. The majority of members of the RAA didn't vote either for or against anything. The majority of members weren't bothered to vote at all.

I wonder how many of the 9,000 actually knew what they were voting for or against.

Of the members entitled to vote, which may or may not have amounted to approximately 9,000, i wonder how many knew what they were voting for, for or against.

I wonder how many of the 9,000 actually knew what they were voting for or against.

Nice to know that I would be able to fly a Drifter if I can fly a Corby. I wonder how I would cope with nothing in front of me to relate to an aim polnt on finals. Will have to try it one day.

A good example of the benefit was when I was endorsed on the Grumman Tiger after a few years on Cherokee 140s.

It only had an additional 10 hp, but could climb at 850 ft/min vs the 140's 690 ft/min - a 23% improvement.

It was ideal for strips where there were power lines, trees, hills off the ends; also had a faster sink rate from memory.

What I hadn't counted on was the correct attitude on climb out; the nose had to be held way up, and a lot of your weight was on the seat back, by comparison with the sedate ride of the 140. I never would have pulled the nose up that far for the full climb out if I'd just taught myself as pilots have to do today.

Here's the link Frank:

That is true , and I expect the "New Look management" people would have expected a better result in that area. I'm more concerned to see where CASA will go. That has the biggest effect on people staying or going with Non Airline aviation.is the impression I'm getting. Nev

They remain an arm's length organisation overseen by a diluting government department, committed to ICAO compliance, and except for the few rule flouters who get into trouble, and a laziness in tidying up their explanatory mess, don't really feature in the day to day issues of pilots of today.

By would you be wanting to check this by correspondence, and on a forum at that? What happened to the Instructor who trained you? Or was there one?

Gee Frank that's even more a concern especially with your background!Reminds me of Part 61 & CASA's CASR's, 20 yrs of confusion & an utter waste of public money wth CASA themselves having little idea what's going on there in Fort Fumble!!

Please elaborate. Does RAA not like converted diesels?

With a converted diesel engine; GA Experimental

Once again Statistics at work.Maybe a true account, but the "Combat" area may well have been defending Mawson Base in Antarctica (Just in case the enemy showed up there).

There is a big difference between being paid to operate someone else's very expensive equipment to deliver hundreds of people safely at a destination thousands of miles away and someone that flies their own inexpensive machine just because they enjoy being airborne.Sometimes I'm not sure if you're autistic and genuinely don't know what fun is, or whether you're just a fun hating, sad human being that feels the need to drag the whole of society down to your misery.

Falling out of a window doesn't kill anybody either for the same reason.. Genius. Fancy actually mentioning that.This post sat for a while' And.....

CASA and associated entities, love the ground. It's where the safest planes sit . Pilots are the problem . They want to take the planes off the ground, where they were safe and make mistakes putting them back there occasionally..

 

" Grounded" is the fix . So simple when you think about it..Nev

The very first area mentioned, the area you used to fly in, says "pure jet-powered aircraft has a fatality-free safety record in Australia."

That's the area spending LEAST time the ground, but with the least people failing to keep up their currency, not learning or following safety regulations, not staying within their FVR rules, not forgetting to do their checks, not forgetting to calculate their fuel burn, taking of at the beginning of the run way, not doing low level beat ups, not flying at power line level, not cheating on airworthiness requirements, not flying over loaded or out of balance, not flying a non-airworthy/out of hours aircraft, not flying an aircraft they've never flown before without instruction, and so the list goes on.

Notice that there is hardly ever an incident where a two aircraft collide in the air. Nearly all incidents involve an aircraft being flown in isolation from all others.Ergo, CASA must, in the interests of air safety, regulate that all flights must be undertaken by aircraft operating in close formation.

The ATA did a fine job in WW2 without endorsements. A bunch of women flying whatever they needed to mostly without anything more than some pilots notes. We really are dumbing down the population.

I wasn't told verbally it was in writing which I may still have somewhere but I don't have time to go looking for it.

I don't make the rules up just saying what they are. If you trained in a C150 do you think anyone would let you fly a Tiger Moth?

Bear in mind this may have nothing to do with the cause of this accident, which could be anything including a medical episode.

Nevertheless I think you are making a good point Richard.

What are you talking about? . Where did the idea of engine failure or other practice come from? Nev

I always find it hard to see a crash like this in what looks like a clear area where a survivable out landing could have been made.

I drove past that spot twice last year, and while the street-view photo looks good, a lot of those paddocks are very rough.

Although it is reported that his instructor found the crash site, this was an early morning event, and it's not clear yet whether he had taken off with the permission of his instructor, or whether he had just decided to go off on his own.

Using Google Earth to measure the runway length, I get 1500 mts overall length, 1000 mts overall for the black surface and 920 mts from taxi entry point on 02.For that type of aircraft the way I see it is, assuming the take-off was from the entry point on 02, there should have been enough runway ahead to abort and land if a reasonable climb rate wasn`t being held and if the climb rate was acceptable, the AC should have had more than enough hight, at the end of the runway, to clear the surrounding obstacles` safely.

Even allowing for wind sheer, I find it hard to see how the AC ended up where it did if the take-off was from the beginning of the runway.

 

Frank.

It’s your right to miss the point of the examples I give. Just remember I didn’t make them up.