Leaderboard

Hi all, this site, and all sister sites will undergo some changes over the coming days as we remove the need of all US services. This includes our server in the US which will now be in Australia through a French provider which will actually end up a little bit cheaper as well. We are also looking at dropping all US produced software and minimising all US manufactured products sold in Clear Prop. This is my way of putting my own tariffs on US products and services and supporting Ukraine. It's not much but if everyone just looked at what they buy from the US and US companies and reduced the money we give to the US then collectively it just may send a message. Besides just my US server costs were around $250 a month to the US, now they will be around $200 a month with some of that staying here in Australia and NONE of it going to the US. Oh, also the server admin person is no longer someone in the US, but an even better guy that is in the UK. He will start setting up the new server tomorrow and will migrate the sites over. Thanks for your understanding and your continued support of the sites over the 20 plus years we have been going, helping you to fly safer and learning from each others experiences.

I see that Cessna are now 'officially' junking their remaining inventory of unsold Skycatchers - stuffing them into garbage skips, without even (it appears) stripping them of useful parts. Cessna had earlier stated that they would be using their unsold inventory (about 80 of the apparently around 280 produced) as spares to support the poor bloody 200 or so actual owners.) Cessna says there is no future position for them in the LSA-class market. Since they now own both Piper and Beechcraft, that's it for the three major players in the world market for smaller aircraft. Piper rapidly abandoned their 'aftermarket badging' sales of the Czech Sportcruiser (??) thing, and Beechcraft never even tried. SO: the world's largest and most successful light aircraft company cannot make a decent LSA-class aircraft... yet a small Australian company has produced almost 10 times that number of LSA-class aircraft.. Sold world-wide, and with a superb reputation for the safety (in particular) of the airframe, but also admirable for being an honest, competitively-performing, no-vices for flying, cheap to buy and maintain, all-around decent-thing, aircraft. Jabirus aren't 'sexy', and the performance figures for their advertising are rock-solid honest (you can cruise at a decent speed in Australian rough-air conditions at usually better than a heap of the Euro stuff). . If you own a Jabiru, you don't get people in the Clubhouse drooling over the looks. BUT: they do the job. A Jab. 430 will haul a load equivalent to a C172 as well, or better, than a C172 - at a price of 1/3rd a new C172 if you are willing to build a 430, and WAY lower running cost. And it will tolerate rough strips and take a bulky load easily. In the strictly LSA class, the Jab. 230 has NO competition for overall utility. No, it isn't STOL, nor does it cruise at 125 kts (in smooth air.. flying off and onto bitumen strips). But you CAN chuck the camping gear contents of the back of your Prado into it and head off around Australia.. SO: can anyone answer me this: why does it seem that so many Australians want to tear down Jabiru, when no other company world-wide can match its basically good features? Cessna could not build a decent competitor. Are there any other competitors out there that I have missed?

My plane has been at my local airfield for several months since I 'finished' the build. I have used the time in finishing all the little fiddly bits, making some improvements, running the engine, etc. I've also learned to taxi it, using the 5700' tarmac runway. Eventually I got to be able to taxi tail-up the full length of the runway (though not always in a particularly straight line!). But I did not want to do first flights off tarmac, which is of course much less forgiving than grass for low hour wannabee taildragger pilots. But by the immutable Law of Sod, the grass strip has been closed for months due to unusually high winter rainfall. So I resigned myself to waiting until it was open to go beyond taxiing for my new build. Last Friday it was at last opened - hurrah! And the forecast for yesterday morning was for calm weather early morning. So Sunday I put some fresh fuel in both tanks, & did yet another full-on preflight. I arrived at the airport early, & wheeled my plane out. I chocked the wheels, warmed up the engine, then ran it to full power. All good. I did a couple of tailup taxi runs the length of the grass strip. Partly to check out the runway (bumpy), partly to test the new composite tailspring I had just made & fitted (works well), & partly to see if I could still do it (much easier on grass). Then I lined up for a fast taxi/crow hop. After a few yards I was going quite fast, & when I hit a small hillock, I let the plane take off. I flew for maybe 100 yards, at up to 3 feet altitude. Then I slowly eased her back onto the grass. It went ok. So I turned round at the end, & tail up taxied back to the downwind end. Checked everything 8 more times. Lined up, gave it some gas, gritted my teeth, and took off. :)) I climbed at about 600 fpm, maybe 3/4 throttle, about 55 mph. The plane was very steady - much nicer to be in than all that lurching about on the ground! At 1000' agl I turned crosswind, & kept climbing. I stayed in the circuit pattern the whole flight. At 3000' agl I tried a stall, but I must have had too much power on, because I got to a crazy angle of attack, down to 30mph ias, with no nose drop. So I levelled off, & did some turns, left & right, maybe 40 degrees of bank. Then I did some slips, left & right. The plane was totally predictable, felt very smooth & steady, with tiny control inputs. The pitch trim is very sensitive, & the plane responds quickly to throttle inputs. The cht's & egt's were all below limits. I tried a very gentle dive at 5500rpm (max 6000), and saw 80 mph on the ASI. It all felt good. The air was very calm, no clouds in a very blue sky. Wow!! I did a couple of descending circuits, & came in for a touch & go. I had to slip it a bit to lose altitude. The view over the nose at 55 - 60 mph is excellent - no danger of not being able to see the runway. I held a steady descent, and held off to let the speed decay. But by the time I settled (ok, bounced) onto the ground, I was too close to the end of the runway, so I made it a full stop. I turned round, taxied back to the start , & did another circuit. I made it a bit bigger all round, but still had to slip to get to 600' on turn to final. It slips very controllably: no drama at all. There was a bit of low level turbulence on late final, but it was easily dealt with due to the very powerful ailerons. I did a fair landing, about halfway along the strip. It was sort of a 2.5 pointer - neither 3 pointer nor wheeler. I think perhaps I stalled it about a foot too high. I don't really remember. Anyway, only a minor bounce that soon stopped. I was so excited about my flight that I lost concentration, & did quite a large swerve. Fortunately I managed to catch it before it ground looped, but it was a good reminder to keep flying until the engine is off. I'd been flying for 40 minutes, so I decided to quit while I was ahead. I taxied back to the hangar, took the cowl off, & had a good look over the engine. I took 2 spark plugs out - they look a little rich to me, & my temps were all below limits, even in a long descent at small throttle opening. But I will leave the jets & needles as they are for the moment - better rich than lean. I'm stoked to have finally flown my plane, after the long road from thinking about building, to doing it, then eventually getting to make my maiden flight. I am very impressed with how beautifully the Max flies: it is so controllable, & gives a great feeling of confidence. I'll build on this first flight, & try some more stalls, steeper turns & slips, power off landings, etc. But for now I'm on the beer! A very happy bunny, me. Bruce

And precisely where is this political tribal warfare - entertaining though it may be to watch people parade their political prejudices - taking us in relation to the issues facing recreational-class aviation in Australia? A rough estimate of the impact on employment suggests that the production of Jabiru aircraft and engines provides direct employment for in excess of 60 people in the Bundaberg region alone. Then add the FTF's, the L2s etc whose main income derives from the operation of Jabirus. We never had a viable 'indigenous' motor vehicle manufacturer, unless you count Lightburn, Buckle Motors and Bolwell. None of those were exporters. References to the automobile sector are simply invalid (not to mention ingenuous) in relation to our aviation 'industry' - such as it is/was. Jabiru is the most successful - by an exponential amount - of Australian aircraft manufacturers, and the ONLY Australian true aero-engine manufacturer. Jabiru is a world-recognised and highly-respected airframe manufacturer and the manufacturer of the second most populous engines in ultralight aviation after Rotax. Is anybody so simple that they don't notice that the two recent major competitors - UL Power and D-motor - engines have bolt-in mount spacing for Jabiru engine mounts? When Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth embarked on their enterprise to create an Australian aircraft manufacturing company, they decided on a business model that has withstood the vagaries of changing circumstances. Their abiding principles were: that the product had to be commercially viable (we call it 'price-point' nowadays; when Rod and Phil started up as Jabiru, it probably had no definition other than a feeling of what the market could bear) and that it had to be as reasonably safe as possible. By both counts, it is impossible to fault Rod and Phil's vision. The Jab. airframe is world-recognised as extremely safe - both in terms of its aerodynamic performance and its structural integrity. That story should be embellished with reference to two extremely competent (and world-recognised) engineers that Rod and Phil bought in as consultants; however that is detail. Jab. airframes are manufactured in what is essentially a 'cottage industry' scenario made possible by the basic design philosophy: simple, relatively 'low-tech', undemanding of high-spec processes/equipment, yet capable of sustaining QC to the required standard for the product. That is why Jab airframes are cheap to repair - and extremely repairable (at very reasonable cost), to boot. Probably the most directly comparable aircraft to utilise such a manufacturing philosophy was the DH Mosquito. Anybody want to postulate how many of Jabiru's subbies are/were Union members? Bidding starts at 0% Jabiru airframes are low-tech products, reliable by design and suitable for the real manufacturing and operating environment. If you have a rough landing, maybe ding a wing l/e on a fence-post - it can usually be repaired by your local L2. Hell, fin replacements from overturns used to be done by Rod Stiff flying out to you, done on the beach, you fly it back home.. At a pinch, you can replace a Jab. fin using a hacksaw, a file, a piece of string for alignment purposes and some 'glass and resin. Try THAT with a c/f European plastic fantastic. By comparison, the engine manufacturing carried out by CAMit is done in a high-tech factory that produces components equivalent to the best anywhere the world. Yet BOTH the airframe and the engines are produced basically by skilled tradespeople: there are no HR divisions, no PR units. Just people doing their jobs, skillfully and with care, pride and loyalty to both their employer and the end consumer. I've spent time in the CAMit factory, and unless they have done the same, I frankly won't entertain adverse comment from anybody who is relying on second-hand scuttlebutt for their opinions. Reciting dogma derived from second-hand rumor spouted by disaffected persons who heard 'from someone', is not a basis for the communication of genuine information, it is the basis for a witch-hunt. See also: the Witch Trial in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. Far too many electrons have been needlessly slaughtered on this site by those who have been turned into newts, but got better. Some, evidently, have not yet rehabilitated. As for the overall picture of public safety from ANY Jabiru accident: at least as many people are reported to have died on the south-East Coast of Australia THIS WEEKEND from accidents in small fishing boats, as has happened in the entire history of Jabiru in this country. Jabiru accidents have produced precisely ZERO injuries or deaths to the 'general - (i.e. non-involved) public. The 'which political party is/was worse in government' argument is a ludicrous diversion from the current question of the reasonableness, appropriateness and indeed effectiveness of the CASA action. That action is a real stab-in-the-heart to recreational aviation, generated by motives that have nothing to do with a reasonable response to a perceived problem. In the simplest of terms (that have precisely zero influence from the personal agendas of those who have persistently attacked Jabiru): more recreational aviators die each year from bad pilot decisions, than from Jabiru engine failures. If actually reducing fatalities/injuries from recreational aviation activity is the objective, then there are higher-priority targets than Jabiru engines. The question has to be asked is: are those who focus on Jabiru engine performance in the name of safety genuine, or are they beating their own drum?

There is something seriously wrong with the world's priorities when bank execs value themselves at millions per annum, yet farmers who feed us are financially starved out of existence. And there is more, much more but you all know what I mean.

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA. Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

Ive had a few calls, texts and emails form people, looking for...I dont know, encouragement, answers, some sence!. I dont have much to offer them. Its times like this we all have a look at it apply our own mortality to the equation.We wouldn't be human if we didn't. Ive chased the rabbit down this hole several times before, and the inevitable question arises: If old mate, with 20,000 hours cant survive this sport, then what hope do I have? Ive heard it a dozen times this week, and its echoed in my own thoughts. We need to be realistic. Theres plenty of posts here about the odds being in our favor etc, and thats very true, but as I keep saying, we can minimise the risk as far as humanly possible through solid, safe flying. Every flight MUST be flown on its merits, there is no such thing as routine, not at this end of the spectrum. Q.If I toss a coin 99 times and get 99 tails, what are the odds I will get a tail again?.... A. 50/50.... Exactly the same odds as each one of those 99 coin toss's that came before . It matters not what you did in the previous 10..100..10000 hours leading up to THIS flight.. This next flight carries all the same risks and odds as every flight hence. "The plane landed fine, taxied in fine, ive only been sitting having coffee for an hour, no need for a walk around"?? How many of us are guilty of this thinking? " Fuel quantity checked.. Yep, I checked it this morning, all good" " Should we run the engine up again?"... "No it should be ok, It was fine this morning. ".. Examples of trying to carry the odds into this flight, trying to maintain " 99 tails, this one HAS to be heads"... I would never presume to speak for the deceased. But I reckon if I know one thing about Graham, its this.. He would absolutely cringe if he knew his dimise was causing some of us to question our future in flying. It would sadden him NO end.. He devoted a life time to Instructing, mentoring, and sharing the passion. Thats what drove him, thats what got him up every day. Thats why he had little money.. Its the infectious love of flying that defined Graham as a pilot and a human being, and knowing this, im sure he would be telling us to have a beer for him, and get on with it. Do it good, do it safe, only do it in CAVOK if you want to, but for god sake....DO IT!!!

I added this post to another thread but it was suggested I start my own thread about my engine so here it is: Perhaps a realistic alternative to a Rotax will be the engine that I have been developing and am in the process of launching. It is still at least 2 years away for first deliveries but we are making steady headway to that target. The engine shown in the above video is our Proof of Concept engine. It uses a gas generator designed by us but for cost reasons, off the shelf components were used for the interstage, power and gearbox sections. These OTS components are by no means optimized. Indeed, our computer analysis determined that the power turbine section would be offering significantly lower efficiency than needed which proved to be true - the good news is that the design optimization program will result in a power turbine that will deliver the required performance to meet the target specifications. The POC engine is shown on its dyno in the video and the video is of an early test run that validated the theoretical analysis that had been completed on the POC engine design. The engine is only being run to around 70% gas generator capability in the video. The entire engine is undergoing a full redesign, based on the results of our testing/analysis and also to incorporate some technical innovations that will significantly enhance fuel efficiency and reliability/TBO to achieve our target specifications. The anticipated specs for the commercial engine are T/O power 120hp, optimum cruise power (best SFC) 100-110hp, installed weight <120lbs/54kgs, fuel burn at 100hp around 8gph. The prop will be a constant speed unit and engine/prop will be controlled by a single lever (very simple). The engine's ECU/FADEC will automatically ensure no engine limits are exceeded and will also offer full data acquisition to facilitate engine health monitoring. Here are some additional details that I provided in answer to some queries on the other thread. Answering in no particular order, unrecuperated, the best SFC that we would likely get for this small scale turbine engine is around .60 lbs/hp/hr. If recuperated, we could be close to .55 lbs/hp/hr (so 100hp optimized cruise power setting = 55 lbs/hr @ an sg of 6.76 lbs/gal for JetA = 8.1 gal/hr). We plan to recuperate to get the SFC down. So its not sipping fuel at 100hp but at the same time, the Rotax 912iS etc. cannot run continuously at 100hp but the 914 at 100hp isn't burning that much less fuel. The Rotaxes only start to sip fuel at their lower power settings. Ultimately, we'd like to get the TBO out to 3000+ hours. Given the simplicity of the design and the lower acquisition/manufacturing costs for exotic and conventional materials these days, we anticipate an overhaul cost of around US$5-6000, so probably less than the cost to overhaul the Rotax at 2000 hours. Routine maintenance is expected to be significantly less than for a piston engine. The actual materials to be used, the cooling requirements and the need for ceramic coatings on the hot section components is being investigated by our engineers as part of the optimization program for the design. Ceramic coatings may not be required but if it is, a number of recently developed cost effective solutions are available. The addition of a recuperator to our base design will result in the usual re-analysis of all components and that exercise is about to be commenced. Material requirements will be identified as part of that process. Current power turbine/NGV assembly cooling on the POC engine is from bleed air tapped from the compressor. We did a low-key introduction of our engine to the experimental/LSA airframe manufacturers at Oshkosh last year. It was an interesting experience observing their attitude change from our initial introduction where we advised them that we were developing a small turboprop engine (skepticism/disbelief) to when we showed them the video and explained where we were at in our development program. The excitement that was evident from the manufacturers was validation to us that there is a strong desire for such a product and the offers of support from those manufacturers in the form of test airframes to flight test the engine in as well as offers to provide airframes as demonstrators for the engine was very pleasing for us. A number of leading manufacturers expressed their desire to work with us through the development program such that when the engine was ready, they would have designed a totally new airframe to take advantage of the distinctive features of the engine, i.e. low weight, small size, low frontal area etc. Dave

Back in August/September after reading the types of posts that were being made it got to a point where I just didn't want to read what was being posted as the site was not what I developed it for, I didn't even want to log in any more...it was very political with users attacking each other, nastiness, antagonistic and no longer were we basically discussing our fun flying times, and our aircraft. I then recalled what I created the site for and the site objectives from day 1 were always: 1. Increase our flying skills through information exchange 2. Help each to perform correct maintenance on our aircraft 3. Improve our flying safety by exchanging information about our own flying experiences So, the moderators and I have been working very hard but slowly to change the entire culture of the site back to one of why it was created, that is very friendly and helpful, talking about our flying fun and to uphold our site objectives. I am reading every single post again and enjoying what I am reading and seeing the types of posts that are being made and I personally thank you for helping to resurrect the site in this manner. The site figures have made a u-turn over the last few months, more posts are being made, the number of registered users that login each day has dramatically increased and many more new users are registering to use the site than before. We have turned the site from a continual downward slide over the last couple of years back to very positive increases in all metrics over the last 4 months. What is also pleasing is the increase in the site's Australian and world rankings and even more pleasing when you compare this site to RAA's own site...we are streaming ahead to the point that Recreational Flying is now ranked around the 6,000th web site in Australia and 300,000th in the world (that is 300,000th out of around 1 billion): Thank you to all and please be assured that we will continue our diligence in making Recreational Flying .com the most friendliest and helpful resource to all recreational aviators...keep posting and above all, help each other in our recreational flying endeavours

Fully loaded. Weather overcast at 600 ft in rain showers all day. Hit the water hard. Eyewitness heard "roar" of engine. No distress call. Seems to have been VFR (no flight plan). All "experienced" weekend pilots. Hmmm. Jesus, people. Sometimes when you've planned to go flying in a small plane you need to look outside and say: "You know what? It's not that important. Why don't we go to the pub and have a countery?" If you don't make that decision, you get another chance. When you're 400 ft above the water or ground and you still have minimal separation from the cloud, and conditions ahead are not getting any better and there are no gaps of any description to be seen and there are rain showers everywhere, it's time to take your second chance to say: "you know what? It's not that important. Let's turn around and go back, and have a countery."

Gavinthobavin said: "I do notice things on this forum but I must note that when I attempted to open a line of communication with the forum I was personally attacked for my efforts. The last straw was when a person claiming to be a lawyer demonstrated that they either had absolutely no idea of how legislation works, or intentionally disregarded the way legislation works, just so they could try to belittle my comments." Dear Gavin I have noted this comment and your closely following threat to mount defamation actions in relation to comments some contributors made to this list that you believe impugn your reputation. Like you in your situation, I haven't been specifically named as the person referred to in the above quote, but I guess there aren't many here who might claim to be a lawyer. The post I made, that you apparently took umbrage with, followed two posts by you in particular: in the first you collectively referred to us as "cowards" and used other such unpleasant terms to express your opinion of us; in the second, you made statements regarding purported requirements under the Commonwealth Corporations Law that you assert have to be complied with as a necessary precursor to the resignation of a committee member. I responded to the first in a way that I hoped might take a little of the sting out of your words recognising that you are a relatively new member of the committee and, apparently, are well regarded by your State's membership. In the second, I tried very hard to point out the obvious errors in your assessment of the legal situation without heaping ridicule on you for making them. I provided you with references to legislation, model rules, and the manual provided by the Registrar-General to help people without legal training know, understand and discharge their obligations under ACT law. I quietly pointed you to the fact that RAAus is incorporated under the Australian Capital Territory's legislation, not Commonwealth legislation, in the process. I particularly drew your attention to that clause in the manual making clear that there is no requirement for a registered office and that this, in itself, should be sufficient to apprise you of your erroneous view that notice of a resignation must be delivered to the registered office. This should have been so, even if you couldn't see the lack of a link between the Commonwealth and ACT Acts in that instance. If I am wrong in my view, please point me to the authorities upon which you rely. Surprising as it may seem to you, I am a lawyer. As I said in my previous post to you, I have largely practiced in the criminal law and my last position was as A/Principal of a well known criminal law firm supervising 10 emplyed lawyers and supervising a large number of volunteer lawyers engaged in delivering a night service 5 days per week. My legal background commenced when I worked in law enforcement, first as an investigator (I completed VicPol's Detective Training School course in 1995 under DI David Sprague -- he who led the team looking into the Eyre/Tynan murders) and then as a prosecutor working in the Magistrates' Court. I subsequently completed an Hons Degree in law (my thesis won me the Supreme Court Exhibition Prize) and a Grad Diploma in legal practice. My practice today is as Managing Lawyer of a small but very busy generalist firm, however, and I have to read, understand and apply a wide range of legislation in the course of my professional duties. I am assisted in this regard by my time spent as a Legislation Officer in the Victorian Public Service and as a Research Fellow at my university's law school. I haven't seen anything posted here which I would have thought defamatory of you, but I lead a very busy life and I don't get to read everything. If you have taken particular offence, I for one am sorry that is so. I appreciate that committee members are doing their duties as volunteers and should be given all reasonable encouragement for doing so. Unfortunately, your comments about the destruction of evidence appear somewhat vacuous to me as there are no proceedings on foot and, in civil matters, it is incumbent on the parties to a claim to mitigate matters betewen them, including by removing offensive material from a publication viewable by others. Threats of defamation have been thrown around previously in the heat of the moment and it is my experience that, whenever this occurs, everyone is diminished as a consequence. Gavin, I am offended by the aspersions YOU have cast on my professional ability and ethics. in the quote above. I'm not that thin-skinned or stupid as to start throwing around threats of civil litigation, but I am offended and I think you owe ME an apology in the circumstances. But none of this is addressing the crux of the issue. What has occurred with RAAus, especially in recent times, is quite deplorable in my view and major steps need to be taken to prevent such things happening again. The very future of the organisation and the reputations of all those who fly or own aircraft under its banner have been seriously damaged. We don't even know how damaged because so little is communicated from the committee back to the members of the association who fund its activities. My real concern is therefore that you and the rest of the committee still appear to be oblivious of the constraints under which you act or the consequences for failing to observe them. You owe it to yourselves, as well as the members, to be properly informed and surely that must be apparent right now? I implore you, as a matter of urgency, to convince your fellows to engage a suitable professional to provide you all with training in the legislated responsibilities imposed by the Act and the Constitution so that you do not fall foul of the Regulator-General or other authorities. I also urge early involvement of all committee members in training in governance, policy formulation and audit processes so that all know what is expected of them and are better equipped to lead the Association to bigger and better things in the future. Kaz Karen W Gurney LLB(Hons), BAppSc, Deakin; GradDipLP, CoL; DippAppChem, SIT; ADASC, CertAppSc, CIT; DipPSM, RMIT, DTS; CMedn, DSCV

My flight, this afternoon,in memory and honor of Ross. Mt Bellenden-Ker Graham Range. Frank.

RIP Ross, This video inspired me to to follow my dream...

Well.... I had a blast! Me and my wife traveled from WA to make AUSFLY this year. We got held up by weather for 2 days, and we still made it. It was a great event and great success! and the adventure getting there was what it was all about. I was probably among the youngest builder/pilots there. There is nothing worse than grumpy pilots whingeing and complaining about these event, that's what turn the younger generation away.

Today I was going through some old photos I took, back in mid 1980, came across these and started this thread in the hope that others might have some Ultralight photos and stories to share. On the beach at Russell Heads...Steve Ridley with his Sky Dart and the one I built that started it all off for me...Steve was originally a Hang Glider pilot and had already gained a fair bit of experience in the Dart...I hadn`t long learnt to fly and had a grand total of ten hours in the air, in mine.... I went on to instructing and Steve eventually decided to obtain his AUF pilot Certificate, in the Drifter with me, then purchased and flew a Challenger on floats. Perry Harvey with his Wheeler Scout, at Mission beach...Perry loved nothing better than flying twenty feet above the beaches and over to Dunk Island...Perry told me this story... He was flying to Dunk, with the Scout on wheels! Half way across, he had an engine failure and being so low he was in the water before he could do anything! He was knocked unconscious and woke up on the bottom,10 meters down...Perry was an experienced diver and made it back up! It didn`t deter him! He retrieved the Scout, put it on floats and continued to fly but from then on, he always carried a pair of goggles and flippers with him...Perry passed away several years ago. First Ultralight I ever sat in and taxied...Jack Stuart in his Jackaroo, on Jim Sabin`s strip, on the Atherton Tablelands...Jack was a member of our local club, the Far North Queensland Ultralight Association, and at that time, he owned a Grass hopper, a Wheeler Scout and the Jackaroo, years later, he purchased and flew a Quicksilver Sport 2S... Jack was a vegetable farmer who taught himself to fly from his own property,he was also a great story teller and he`d have us in fits of laughter, with the stories he`d tell, of learning to fly...Jack passed away in his eighties,several years ago. Franco.

Due to the continued discussion on the possible cause of the fatal accident in the Ultralight at Emerald I thought it best to start this thread on the subject of engine failure in Ultralight aircraft. I`ll start by saying, engine failure in itself does not and should not cause a fatal accident in an Ultralight aircraft, it`s the chain of events that occur before and after the engine failure that determine the final outcome. Frank.

Facthunter (Nev) is not on line at the moment, as a believe he may have ducked down to the bottle shop to get something to celebrate with? If he gets back before drinking the contents, he should tick over the 20,000 post's mark this evening, which currently stands at 19,995. What an achievment! and may it continue for many moons to come.. I for one, would like to pass on my sincere thanks to you Nev for all the knowledgable tips and wise contributions that you've posted over the years, which help us be a safer community and better pilots. I can assure you it is very much appreciated. Good on you mate, your efforts are worthy of some recognition. Well done! Kind regards Planey

Not sure why you say it's a rant. As far as I'm concerned Australia would be a better place with more people like Dick Smith.

Hi all. Here's the highlights from our recent trip from Watts Bridge to Great Keppel Island. Hope you enjoy it.

This is the second time that I have had the misfortune to start a thread in this section. After the last one I had actually hoped never to start another. Anyway I made a booboo and this is my story. I was away on a flyaway the week before Easter and having a ball. Flew down on Friday and did a few landings at a couple of strips. These were private strips on a property but well marked and used. On the Saturday morning I awoke feeling a little off colour (1st Warning Human Factors not 100% do not fly) and decided to stay at the campsite as everyone else went flying. After an hour or so I started to feel a bit better so decided to follow the rest of the guys. As I came in for this landing on a strip that was not difficult and I had landed on before there were quite a few other aircraft on the ground either side of the strip. As a result on final I actually started to feel cramped (2nd Warning Not comfy, go around or go somewhere that you are) Although the strip was plenty long enough for me to not only land but also come to a full stop and take off again I have no idea why but I got it into my head that I needed to land and stop before I reached the other aircraft. (3rd warning same as second really) All I had to do was keep on the centre line and land. Well I decided to land short and pulled 3rd stage of flaps. I had only ever landed twice before with full flaps on a strip i knew well under ideal conditions. Well from the minute I hit full flaps I was behind the airplane. It was like being on an elevator. At the end of the day I stalled it at flare height and dropped it onto the runway. In hindsight I probably needed 1000 more rpm which I should have applied at the same time as the flaps. but by the time I registered that I was flaring/landing. I do not remember it but I hit the magnetos as it stalled realising that I was to late for power I must have decided to protect the prop. As I say I do not remember doing it but I came to a stop in about 3 inches with the magnetos off and the fan stopped. So the damage. Alright I bent my plane on a strip the 1000 pilots had landed on and were standing watching me. OK maybe it was only 10 to 15 guys. So damage to pride huge. A bent nose wheel, a couple of bent fittings to the under carriage. Airplane 2 inches lower on one side than the other. Some brackets bent which means breaking the aircraft in half to replace and to date about 9 weeks on the ground. The good news is the parts should arrive next week and then hopefully 2 weeks to repair it but then I said 3 weeks to replace the motor and it took 7 months. In the short term it took me 36 hours and 2 round trips of 16 hours to get her home. That was a hectic 2 days. The most valuable lesson from it all to me is if it does not feel right than it probably isn't but more importantly is to take an instructor with me and actually learn the full capabilities on my airplane before I try them on my own..

Hi Dazza, I think Ross would be greatly saddened to think his accident would prompt people to give up the pastime he loved. I think he would be saying "Learn from my mistake - NEVER turn back, but don't give up flying...." He knew flying has risk associated with it - but so does just about everything else. Driving a car, riding a motorbike, hell, in Australia doing the gardening in your back yard there are spiders and snakes that could kill you! He would probably advocate that instead of doing that scenic coastal flight you had planned for next week you should grab an instructor for an hour and head to the training area to practice stalls, steep turns, etc, then head back to the airfield and practice go-arounds, sideslipping, EFATO, or just about anything you haven't done since your last BFR, or even since getting your certificate. The more we practice doing stuff we might need for real when the mud hits the fan the more likely we are to react under stress as per our training. I will not be giving up flying, but next time I take off I will be thinking of Ross, in fact I will probably be thinking about him every time I take off from now on... We are all on this site because we love flying, it would be very sad if we stopped. Cheers, Neil

Well, after a long and arduous process, I did my PPL flight test on Friday, and the end result was a good outcome. Even two days later, I'm not sure it has all exactly sunk in, and I'll try and go through some of my thinking. My trajectory through the system has been a somewhat painful process. Some will probably remember the thread I started about the Royal Queensland Aero Club going bankrupt. I was caught up in this mess, fortunately not in a financial sense, but it definitely hindered my progress. I started training at Archerfield with the RQAC (strictly speaking their training subsidiary, Airline Academy of Australia or AAA) in November 2015. My logbook is packed with entries from the basic handling stages in November and December 2015. I did my first solo during this time. Then things got very busy for AAA as they were taking on lots of VET FEE-HELP students (what eventually sunk them) and they were preparing for an influx of Griffith aviation students. I had started off doing all my flights with one instructor but I quickly found myself flying with different instructors pretty much each flight. This was OK for me, and I met lots of good pilots that way, but I can see how this would be problematic for some people. Now, AAA sold me on the idea from the new Part 61 rules around granting licenses and endorsements on demonstrated competency and that I should try and expedite matters by not sitting an RPL flight test. This was almost certainly a bad idea. Anyway, as planned, in January 2016 I started navigation training. Things slowed down here a little as I had booked a summer holiday many months before and it's a notoriously busy time for conferences in my work (at the university, people schedule workshops and conferences whilst teaching duties are less). So I had to take some time away from flying but I did complete a navigation flight every few of weeks. This was also one of the times where I had a lot of "what the hell am I doing?" moments, al la Mythbusters. I would complete the Nav, which would be roughly a 3 hour flight and they were generally pretty awesome. Then get an invoice for ~$1500 and think: "How on earth does anyone afford to fly?" or more precisely "How the hell am I going to afford to fly?". I had gone into this with a plan for how to manage the costs of flying after getting a licence, but I think I just told myself that my training would soon be over and I just concluded that I would probably be flying a lot less than I expected initially. I was endorsed to do my first solo navigation during March 2016 and I had booked the plane for my flight and shortly afterwards I got the news. The flight school would stop all operations immediately. I really had no idea what to do (and subsequently posted a thread on here). I pretty quickly called a number of places to see what they could offer. I ended up talking with the guys as Southern Skies who I eventually completed my training with. The sticking point was the lack of RPL. They really wanted me to do that, and maybe I should have. But after considering the opinions from here (another thread) and talking with others I tried to push them to stick with the initial plan. We managed to transfer my training records but, understandably, they wanted to see where I was at. So we had a few steps backwards. What made things many times more difficult was that AAA had a way of doing navs which was different to how the guys at Southern Skies operate. Not having seen what they do, it would have seemed to them as if I hadn't actually been trained on how to navigate. Anyway, what transpired was a drastic slowing of progress. But then the my deadline loomed. Due to the way universities are funded, many who work there find themselves on short term employment (even if you have been around for a decade or more). I am no exception. My job was to end in September 2016. As the year went on, I had to dedicate more time to sorting that out. I eventually sorted out another 12 months, but my teaching doubled and I had little time to do the work required for flying. Then the university semester ended in November 2016 and I pushed myself hard to get over the line for PPL even if my calendar would soon be full again. Navigation solo was finally achieved. I was to head to Gympie, then on to Nanango back to Archerfield. It was on the cruise from Gympie to Nanango where I had time to reflect on what I was achieving. There I was, just me and the plane, a view like you'd never believe and a feeling of understanding of what was going on and realising that I _could_ do this! I also had a couple of commitments in December 2016 and January 2017 which, even if I wanted to fly, I couldn't. But I tried to sick with it as best I could. If I couldn't fly, I could read the VFRG, or plan out a "fake" nav of my own doing. End of Jan early Feb I did some more dual flights and given I didn't have an RPL, we did lots of practise of stalls, steep turns, etc. It was Monday last week when doing a "pre-test" nav when I felt like it all came together. Managed controlled airspace with ease. Used the navaids without drama. Diverted from our plan, no problem. Did the IFR component and quickly figured out where we were after being "lost". Did some perfect stall recoveries and beautiful steep turns. We did a forced landing and PSAL and sometime after that my instructor turned to me and said "Oh! Send me home!! We're done!" I think that was the official sign that I was ready for the test. I had it booked for Thursday, but due to some unfortunate circumstances with the testing officer, we had to change who was to do the test and the day. So Friday 8am it was. I did lots of practise going through the Part 61 PPL test checklist so that I covered everything that I thought may be covered. But when I went into the oral component, the questions I got, were not those that I expected. I spent some time thinking about what the right answer was in each case, and I think I'd pretty clearly demonstrated that I had read and understood the VFRG. But the questions were tricky and needed some knowledge of the wording in the CAR or CAO. So I wasn't awfully confident about that, but the thing that kept me going was that I was learning a lot just in this short time and I could converse about the topics from my own knowledge base and understanding. We got to the end and I was told that we should get ready for the flight. So I took this as a good sign that I wasn't going to fail from the oral component. Things went pretty well for departure, I thought. When we got back I was told of a couple of things I could tidy up on. I had also rang the tower the day before and told them that I was going to do my test and in which plane. I also asked them a few questions about some oddities of procedures in Archerfield which I really wanted sorted out. I'm not sure if they knew or not, but things went perfectly on the taxi call and getting ready to depart. We departed the zone and there is lots of opinions out there of leaving the zone at Archerfield and how to stay clear of the CTA above it. I was told when we got back that I should have climbed earlier, but I was so concerned about not busting into the CTA steps I delayed the climb until I was more than doubly sure that I was clear of a step. We headed into Sunshine Coast and I was already a bit flustered from the experience and I needed to confirm a couple of things with the tower. Did they actually clear me for a visual approach? Did they want a left or right circuit for runway 18? Anyway, I have always been told to ask if unsure, and it didn't seem busy there so I don't think I caused any dramas in asking. It wasn't mentioned when we got back, so presumably I did OK. Being a student pilot, crosswinds and gusts on final have always been difficult for me. And we were to land on runway 18 with a easterly wind of about 12 knots. I saw the windsock, knew exactly what I had to do, and after my checks on final I said to myself, "left wing down, right rudder" over and over. On short final I put in the slip, and I amazed myself at just how well it all happened. I felt the left wheel touchdown, a second or two later the right. I thought to myself "that's exactly how it _meant_ to be". And in that moment, I released the crosswind correction. Very little happened, maybe a slight lift up of the left wheel but it was just a little bit. Once the nosewheel was down I realised what I did and put back in the aileron correction. Not to mention this was talked about when we got back. We taxied to the GA apron as required, and I pulled up in the short term parking area. Then one of the most embarrassing times in the test. It was put to me that we have flown here for some friends to catch a flight and I should describe what I'd to do get them to the terminal. So I look over to the terminal building looking for entrances. I say something like, "well, the terminal is that way". The response was a little laugh. I did see the big sign saying "security controlled area". I had never been posed this question before, though I had thought about it. It was put to me that this was "Ground Navigation". I admitted that I had never heard of this before. I said that if I was actually in this situation, I'd call ground and ask for advice. This was an OK answer, but answer that was required was to go to the gate and read the sign. I think this is a really good question, particularly if you have passengers. What do they do? Where do you go? Nobody had explained this to me before. Then we departed, crosswind takeoff which seemed to go well. I was to depart by the VOR but I got so caught up in making my departure report (not required in Archerfield when going into class G) that I took up the track without intercepting my track early enough. I did realise this and deviated to line up the needle and when I did the departure report, we weren't actually tracking the track I reported. So it was all a bit of a mess. Needless to say, this was mentioned when we got back and I got some questions about what the rules are for taking up your outbound track, which I answered. It was one of those "in the moment" brain fades. We departed the zone and I started navigation on my WAC. We went right over Kenilworth, which was where my line was and I marked it down on the WAC. Then the difficult DR navigation began. After Kenilworth, there is really nothing to use to find your location. The terrain is just rolling hills and nothing stands out particularly. There is a road, but good luck finding it. I took my best stab at it and thought we were slightly slow and maybe on track. I was then asked what attitude I was trying to maintain. I said 3000 as we have cloud directly above us. The reply that came from that was "nah, you have another 2000 feet to the cloud." I didn't really believe it, but I climbed and sure enough the clouds were higher than I thought. Then I found we were heading right for a town. I noted the power station and tried to orient things relative to it on the map. We were getting close to the time for an inbound radio call point and I kind of freaked out a bit. Were we at Kingaroy? It didn't make sense we should need more time and the power station was in the wrong location. I saw another town on the map, Nanango. That was my guess and it seemed to work. I declared that we were almost certainly over Nanango and that we will have to make a significant heading deviation to head to Kingaroy. There he said "you bet, but you figured it out." I was then asked to divert to Watts Bridge. Was this the "go home" point? Presumably he would have asked to go direct to Archerfield if I'd failed. I thought it couldn't be so I tried to forget it. It took me a while to do the diversion to Watts Bridge. The conditions were bumpy and the thought of failure was in my mind. We did 4 orbits of Nanango whilst I did the planning for the diversion, almost 10 mins!! But we were on our way to Watts Bridge. There we did some IF which I found OK. We did some unusual attitude recoveries and they were OK too. So we ended the IF and simulated engine failure. I picked an obvious enormous clear paddock which we were almost directly over the top of it and executed my plan. Did the restart checks maybe a little late, but I did get through things. As we were over the top of the paddock I found myself a little high to land in it, so I did a sideslip and we looked like we were going to make it and we did a go-around. When we got back, he told me that we were well in range of Toogoolawah field and that was clearly the best place to go. I just didn't see it. Then we did some low-level navigation to Watts Bridge where I did a PSAL. This went OK but I kind of stuffed up the short field landing. Then he asked me to divert via Amberley restricted airspace back to Archerfield. Well, I knew we didn't have much time. It wasn't too many miles to the boundary of the airspace. I dialled up the NDB and heard they were still active. (Some other bloke should have done this. Every minute or two they were trying to get hold of someone squarking 1200 and not on frequency in the restricted airspace.) I had my plan to go via the Wivenhoe dam wall to Goodna so I called up the clearance delivery and asked to do that. He gave me a squark code and then didn't get back to me! I didn't know what to do so I thought I should orbit. Then it was pointed out that the airspace I was avoiding was above 4500 and we were at 3500, so we progressed forward. And just before the boundary he gave us the instruction to contact approach which I had already in the radio so managed to do that very quickly. Then we were going home! So I asked if it was OK to dial up goodna in the GPS and go direct there using that. Not only was the answer yes, but I got shown the usefulness of OzRunways! It all went pretty well going in, but I just needed to confirm in my head the runway assigned. Sometimes things go into my head and straight out again. I definitely don't remember the words "change of runway" and we were going to be coming from the west so that'd be runway 10R (I remembered the 10 bit). So that's what we went for. Sure enough the clearance for 10R came through. Back on the ground, I parked and shutdown and suddenly felt kind of exhausted. 3.6 hours on the engine. But I did mention SARTIME as soon as I saw my phone. As the plane was to be packed up I said I would do everything and meet him inside. But he wanted to hear me do the SARTIME phone call as he was listed as PIC. Whoops. Anyway, back in the room, we discussed many of the above issues and started filling in the paperwork. I must have had a confused look on my face as at some random point I heard the words "Congratulations" and saw a hand being extended in my direction. That was it? It didn't hit me like I expected it to, it just kind of happened. I had passed the test. My mind was almost exactly like the training flights, thinking about what I could improve and when I should book the next one. It didn't dawn on me in that moment that I didn't need to think about when to book the next nav flight. So here I am, downloading my thoughts into this document. The paperwork needs to go through CASA before it's all official. But I'm trying to get my brain into answering the question of what am I going to do from here. There is time, and I still have other part of my life that need more attenuation than I have been able to give them since perusing this dream. But one thing that does hang over my head is the cost. If I were to fly just the C172 my budget would allow for only about 10-15 hours of flying a year. Is this how much other people fly? I was kind of hoping to get to 300 hours in a reasonable time frame. Now it looks like I won't get there for another 15 years!! Anyway, I have achieved something significant for me. I promised myself when I was about 13 years old that I would one day learn to fly. Pending paperwork, I'm at the stage where it is an official documented fact. That, is really quite extraordinary.

So after 21 months and some 2000 hours I have now officially finished my MiniMax. Here it is in my front yard, just after I did the W&B measurements. It weighs exactly 180kg equipped, dry. I will be registering as a 95.10 Bruce

I would completely refute that. Having lost businesses myself, I feel very bad for them. Further, makes me angry that Australia's manufacturing slice of the GDP has gone from 30% in 1970 to 12% today and shrinking. But hey, lets talk about Gay Marriage, you know, really important stuff.

Some things have been brought to my attention and I wish to make an apology. I agree that I jumped to a conclusion to soon in relation to this tragic accident, an in fact I did something that I tell everyone else not to do. I understand this could have brought distress to people involved with the aircraft that's registration I posted earlier. I saw this aircraft being mentioned on the news and looking at the data logs it seemed to fit, but yes I was wrong and I admit that, I apologise. I say never listen to the media and on this occasion I have fallen into there trap. I was advised by a friend that it was a red and white aircraft (in this case it was) but once again I should not have made this public. It has also been brought to my attention about the way I come across in response to regulations and other topics, I do not mean to "shoot down" members responses. I seem to put things the wrong way when I am typing in a hurry, so if for any reason you think I have personally attacked your responses this is not the case. I don't know everything and never will, because everyday you learn something new in this industry. I have taken the comments on board and will refrain from "speculating" in the future. Once again I do apologise if you have felt I have "attacked" any of your responses. Take care everyone, and please keep safe when flying. Blue Skies

Flight to the Far Corner of OZ

Finally got the plane painted. Been working on it 3 1/2 years so far, but the end is nearly in sight. rgmwa

Hi, JRCC Australia here (Joint Rescue Coordination Centre). We are the guys that recieve the EPIRB alerts and coordinate the rescue. Ref the initial thread above 1, 2 and 4 are all partially correct. This guy had two epirbs, an old 121.5Mhz beacon which he beleived he activated that night but it turned out he only pushed the "test" button (they are actually illegal under the communication act and should be disposed of properly). When nobody arrived to help him the next day, he swam under the boat and retrieved the 406mhz beacon and activated it. He was rescued within about 1.5 hours of the activation. He probably would have been rescued half and hour earlier if he had a GPS equiped beacon as the first detection was via a GEO stationary sattelite which does not provide any position unless the beacon has a GPS chip. About 25 minutes later an orbiting satelite went overhead and gave us a position that was passed to the WA water police (who were already looking for him) and there search helicopter flew straight to him and rescued him. The message is very clear: Carry a 406Mhz beacon, GPS preferred. Make sure it is registered with AMSA. Know how to operate your beacon. Let someone know where you are going (this applies to flying, boating , bushwalking, 4WDing etc.). Cheers

Hi all I have proposed the following Censor motion against RA-Aus President Ed Herring Motion. - RA-Aus President Ed Herring is to be censored for his recent action in unilaterally, and without any involvement of the full board, and total disregard for our Constitution and rules, made a new salaried staff position, and committed the Association to an un-budgeted financial commitment that he, or the Executive had no power to make. Further, against good judgement and perceived nepotism he appointed the previous Treasurer to the new position. Moved: John McKeown Seconded: Jim Tatlock We all belong as individual members of RA-Aus. We are, or are suppose to be a democratic body with elected regional representatives. I am one such elected Director, or Board Member, representing the members in SE Qld. I have put in my past election statements that I stand for Honesty, Openness, Transparency, and ACCOUNTABILITY. Sadly this once great Association has been brought to its knees over the last few years, and there is no doubt in my mind of the cause. The cause, was and continues to be that attitude displayed above, together with excessive secrecy. There are some who will be violently opposed to me for informing the general membership what they have a right to know. They will use the term "dirty linen", "wrong timing", and "not with CASA watching" to cement their argument. They may very well be right, but I must call it as I personally see it. But to me you can only do bad things in secret. Openness and honesty provides the much needed checks and balance required by society. It is with great distress that I find myself writing this at a time we most need stability, but to do nothing now, will only create far worse issues for us later. Below is an edited post I have made on the RA-Aus Board Forum in support of that motion. "Hi All, First my apologies for the delay with this. After a recent boating accident I find myself in a Turkish Hospital partly paralysed down my left side and until now I only had email access and no web access on my mini iPad. I proposed this motion as this was no "error of judgement" that all of us make from time to time, but a considered, blatant and wilful violation of our Constitution and rules. Ed was advised by Rod and others, I believe, to do it properly. This could have been easily done with an emergency vote on the matter. Only a simple majority was needed and it could have been done in a day or so. As for the appointment itself, this also could have been done in a day as a temporary or interim appointment. There is also no need now, or in the future, as Ed has stated, to to go through the long and costly service of an employment service for the employment of our Managers. Only the CEO appointment needs this more formal process. Ed has stated that we all must agree to do it "His Was". This is Dictator stuff, and our rules and constitution just do not allow for this to occur legally. If all of you want to be "yes" men and rubber stamp everything the new President asks or demands, that is OK by me, provided you follow our Constitution and rules and vote formally and correctly, even if you all just tick yes as demanded. I would also have no issue with a one person "Elected Dictator" running RA-Aus, provided the Constitution was changed by the Membership to reflect this in a formal and legal manner. Let us not forget, that our current problems can be traced back to similar actions by former President Reid and his executive, where out of expediency and nepotism, they appointed a totally inappropriate person to the position of our CEO without prior Board consultation or approval. ST is a lovely guy, and I understand he is highly qualified in Ops, but he was an absolute disaster for us as our CEO. Couple this with the secrecy and and lack of information to the Board from the Reid and Runciman executive where they ran the show with a minimum of full Board involvement or dissemination of information. (As an example, Reid and Cabin ran the show for some two years without an approved budget, and for the life of me I can not comprehend how the Board under Runciman were not informed by the Ex for a full five days about our fourth audit failure, and the CASA withdrawal of registration authority. To say nothing of our staff being told to lie to the members about our registration issues) Might I remind you gentlemen, that we are a democratic aviation association, and each of us is elected, or should be, to represent the interests of the members of our particular region, and we are individually responsible to the members in our region. If you so choose to be total "yes" men to the President of the day because he demands it, then you should say so in your election statement. But this matter goes well beyond that. As I have stated previously this action was a considered and a blatant violation of our Constitution and our rules. A society, Association or even a Country has rules that must be abided by or you have anarchy. If the rules are restrictive, or stupid then change them. I also acknowledge that all things in life are not black and white, and there are many shades of grey. But in my moral code there are some things to me that are pure black and white. When this occurs I feel duty bound to speak out. This action by President Herring is one such an occasion. His action cannot be condoned or let slide. A censor motion must be actioned Ed has stated if he doesn't get his way he will resign from all positions. My view is never give in to threats of this nature. If that is his choice, then so be it. We have some capable people on the Board who could see us through on a temporary basis until September. As I said previously, if the Memberships wants one man rule, I will support it, but currently we have an elected Board that is paramount, and it is not only there by Constitutional rule but to also to provide checks and balance to the Executive actions. My other concern is this attitude of Ed's shows "form" I feel this will not be the end of Ed ignoring or defying our rules to get things done "his way", and I believe we will see more of this from him in the future, if we do nothing now.(To curb this tendency) Also remember it was Ed, who was the prime mover for the massive pay increase to our past (non performing) CEO, and he also pushed for, and achieved large increases in salaries to the Managers, (perhaps deserved) but without any trade off's in efficiencies whatsoever. It was also Ed who was charged to look into a problem, which directly relates to this current matter. What has been done? (Note. In Ed's defence here there appeared more pressing issues at the time, and our accidents hadn't spiked at the time) Even if this new position was so critically important to CASA at this very moment, Ed could have told CASA he will immediately recommend an urgent Board vote, and proceed lawfully. Ungerman, being a past CEO knows RA-Aus procedure and would accept this. My view is it is a bureaucratic move by CASA on us, using our recent spike in accidents, without any evidence to the contrary. The average Government bureaucrat tends to empire building, and using the "Safety" or "national security" word seems to be able to achieve these goals with no checks or balance. (Look at the Iraq War) My personal attitude would have been to be totally open with CASA and show them the causes of the recent fatalities. It may just be a statistical spike, as the information I have to hand would suggest, or it may be from some deep underling problem we have. Whatever the cause, we must be totally open, honest and transparent to CASA and our Members about our accidents. I would have asked CASA to come in and show us where we were going wrong, and get them to recommend a course of action. If they said "Training Manager" (Actual part Ops Job) then I would tell them we just can not afford the added expense of a special Training Manager at this time, but could when we resolve our other problems. I would ask them to allow us more access to their current training staff. Many of our clubs are currently doing this. If told we must have our own person right now, I would ask for full CASA funding. Alternatively, if this was denied I would go political. I would go to the Director the Government, the Opposition and the media and show what we are achieving with a pittance from CASA, (around $100K /year) and when we need this vital "safety" facility CASA will not fund it or allow us more access to their safety person, and I would make it known they are even withdrawing the level funding from us at a critical financial time for us. (Because we have failed to meet the requirements of the Deed of Agreement. And they are totally correct. We have failed here dismally. I also really believe, that Lee and the Director do not want us to fail and would come on side if put our problems and issues to them in an open and honest way. I would also ask them to cut us some slack on the Rego issue and allow us far more access, or funding for the safety issue. But full honesty and openness must occur, and I believe the Direcor would not condone the violation of the Associations as has been recently done ) As for the person selected, Myles might be the most perfect person. I am not qualified, nor do I have enough information at this time to comment. But I will make this one statement. There is an old saying that goes something like this. "The right course of action must not only be done, but it must be SEEN or PERCEIVED to be done". Myles appointment, where as an Executive Member, he was fully involved in the discussion and approval, of a decision to have a new Staff position created, and one where he was to be personally given this unadvertised and paid RA-Aus staff appointment, shows a gross lack of judgement on Myles part, and it will be seen and perceived by the Membership to be pure NEPOTISM, Sadly, I don't see this motion being passed, But in conscience I must move the motion and vote for it. John McKeown" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All RA-Aus members have been really let down by the the Board as a whole in recent times. I have personally witnessed members suffering verbal and written abuse and good people being bullied into resigning or retiring from the Board. This is totally unacceptable. But I must remind all of you, as I have been saying for some years now, that final accountability for this Association lies with YOU. - Yes, You, the general Member. You must take an interest in your association and stop this member apathy where half the Board are not even elected. (Because no one could bother to nominate) You must also demand honesty , transparency, and above all accountability of your elected member. You must demand to see the Board minutes which is where the main business of your Association is carried out, and demand to know how your representative voted on important matters. Those of you who are capable must put up your hand for a Board position and give something back to the Association that has given us all so much. The attitude of "I am not interested in the politics, I just want to go flying" is the real cause of our current mess. Lastly, I say to those who do get elected to the Board, do the right thing by the Members who voted you in, and apart from serious health or financial issues, see out your term. You must never, never, ever, ever, resign if all does not go your way (it never will) and never resign from bullying or intimidation. That is the best way to allow a dark side to win. John McKeown

I suspect that this thread has just about reached its useful conclusion. However, there is still one aspect that I do not understand. To explain this I will have to give some history: I was the very first AUF Technical Manager (when the technical issues were formulating something more or less along GFA lines, of which I had some experience), and in those days the basic legislation was the Air Navigation Orders, under which the only way the AUF could have existed was via an exemption. The AUF HAD to be made to work or the entire activity would have been exterminated by the Dept. of Transport; those were the days of HORSCOTS. It was a case of getting things out from behind the gum trees and allowing two-seat trainers to exist so people did not kill themselves trying to learn how to fly 95.10 single-seaters with zero instruction. Hardly the "golden era". There were wire-braced Drifters and Thrusters and the first Lightwings, which were tolerated via CAO 95.25. Flying was finally allowed above 300 feet. Most people regarded the AUF as something that the CAA had foisted on them, which they would prefer to go away. However, in those days, the official attitude was that idiots who flew aeroplanes had to be protected from themselves even if it meant amputating their arms, so there had to be some sort of identifiable organisation about the movement. Then came the CAA, and the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and CAO 101.55, which allowed the under-450 Kg Skyfoxes and Jabirus. This started the rapid growth era, and also the arguments about "affordable ultralights" versus "real aeroplanes". The Morris enquiry into the CAA ("Plane Safe") revealed (1993) that the CAA was in a state of "civil war"; the Keating Govt. created CASA and Leroy Keith set about putting it into some form of order. Attitudes slowly started to change. Dick Smith published "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" - which pointed out the mess due to "regulation by exemption". Minister John Sharp started the Review of regulations in 1996, to completely overhaul the Australian aviation regulatory structure, to get rid of regulation by exemption - "you can't do that unless. . ." became "you can do that provided . . .". Certain people realised that the ultralight movement offered them a private empire, and the RAA was formed. People like Bill Whitney and myself started pointed out that the 450 Kg limit made the aeroplanes too fragile, and that they were mainly operated overweight anyway, so in due course the weight limit went up to 544 Kg. Jabiru and Lightwing up-graded their aircraft to that weight limit. RAA flying schools started to pop up all over the place. CASR Part 21 came into effect in 1998, and paved the way for a truly bilateral airworthiness agreement with the FAA (finally achieved in 2005) which finally dragged CASA into the 21st century. It's still blinking its eyes and shaking its head. The Review of Regulations went off the rails after Part 21 was achieved, mainly due to Dick Smith, and has still not been fully sorted out; but there has been an enormous change in fundamental attitudes since the AUF was first formed. We are at last recognising that the rest of the World exists. During all this period of turmoil, the recreational aviation sector was most definitely better off, away in its quiet corner under the 95-series CAOs. However, the ultimate push for a part 103 would have put it in a straight-jacket (two sizes too large to be constricting at the time, but a straight-jacket just the same). That was set aside, so there is still room to breathe. It needs to be re-thought. The 95-series CAOs represent the last remnant of the "regulation by exemption" era. The "time of isolation" is obviously going to come to an end, one way or another. In sensible places like NZ, it never existed. The pattern of the RAA pushing for increased limits (weight, airspace, whatever) belongs to the "isolationist" era. So what I do not understand, is why people want to continue with a structure that belongs to the past? People talk about fixing the ship, rather than sinking it. I see that the "ship" is a figment of the imagination - and an expensive one, at that. People talk about CASA not wanting to "take over the RAA" - when that is meaningless- the RAA is a myth that exists only in your minds, and is for the moment enshrined in CAO 95.55. If the RAA goes bankrupt, CASA will have to cancel CAO 95.55 - and the myth will disappear like a soap-bubble. Do you want to blow another soap-bubble, or grow up?

Today was the day. Reaching across and locking the passenger door made it very real . Taxying down to the numbers - nice turn. On the centreline. Scan & flaps set. Pin it. Fast - and I'm off the ground - I'm really doing this . Flaps Clear left , centre, right. Turn. 1000 feet. Level , fuel pump , throttle , trim . Clear left , centre , right. Turn. Airspeed. Carb heat. Fuel pump. Throttle. Flaps. Clear left , centre , right. Flare. And land.........I have no words to describe how I felt . The circuit felt like i was in slow motion , but it passed in the blink of an eye . Why not learn to fly at 57 ? Took a lot longer to pick up than I thought it would - but - already I am measuring age in before I flew an aeroplane , and after I flew an aeroplane . It's an amazing , special feeling - and I get to do it again tomorrow . 🙂

After grounding myself over 2 years ago for medical reasons, and only having flown 2.5 hours in the last half of 2018 and 1.6 hours last year accompanied by an instructor and having sold my plane. With no recurrence of my medical condition for over 18 months, and the approval of my Doctor, I decided that it was time to try again. In the last 4 weeks I have flown 5.8 hours in 2 different aircraft and am feeling confident in both my health and my flying. It is wonderful to get back up there a do what I love doing. I do not regret grounding myself or selling my plane, as both were done for the right reasons, but I did not realise how much I missed flying. But I am back now and looking forward to the next chapter of my flying journey.

Hello interested humans only ! I'm writing to be informative and not argumentative ! I am a CFI in my own school due for an inspection and have already been sent an extension ! I'm not a busy school, I'm semi retired and I enjoy teaching, I hold many endorsements and hold a PPL too , I have never been told or given any indication they want to close me down and for that matter I'm probably not worth it to them as I don't bring in enough new members but I'm like a service ! I can train, BFR's, endorsements and keep an eye on this part of the world because if you read the Ops manual CFI's report things back to RAA Ops ! The truth be known as a business it is not viable, owning a hangar, plane and school, maintaining all these things, advertising, cleaning, paperwork, etc ! If I was closed down they probably done me a favour but I didn't start a school and become an instructor to get rich ! And I get very offended by those who think instructors and schools charge too much ! There is a lot to just owning a plane as many of you know but a school adds a lot of responsibility with little renumeration ! Some time ago a lot of damage was done to me and my school by a few big mouth experts, a couple posted on this web site, one has retired from flying as he realised he is not as good as he thought he was ! And another has slowly disappeared after not being as smart as he thought he was ! Raa supports it schools very well in my opinion and will talk to me if I have any questions or if they have any, I have never felt threatened by the system but only by a couple of students would felt they knew everything before they could fly properly ! A CFI has a tough job as he has to recognise if the person is safe to go on their own and they have to have the skill and the passion to get better ! , if they think they are already too good and bagging the system then you get a little worried ! So far I have been able to recognise instant geniuses and those with the passion to get good at stick and rudder flying ! A guy who I thought was a buddy and I got into flying GA many years ago back stabbed me to no end when I went back to ultralight flying, saying things like they are not real planes and just toys, this guy was only interested in his image and had no passion and was one of the worst pilots I have ever known and witnessed several near misses he made including entering a runway when a plane was landing and ignored all radio broadcasts and warnings ! Those who think training is not as good in RAA are very wrong as ultralight are harder to fly than larger GA planes, I hope those who read my post take my opinion seriously as it is very sincere ! Hope the beginners learn to get the passion for aviating and try to get good at it ! Without the passion it's just spending money ! Enjoy !

The user Capt Wally has been given a 2 week site suspension for antagonising other site users. The user has shown no respect of the site rules Members should not post messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate other members whatsoever. Posts which can be considered rude, unfriendly, angered, ill-mannered, inappropriate, uncalled-for, gratuitous, disturbing, un-respectful, unjust by other site members or site administration are not to be posted. Replies and Questioning to warnings, notices and reminders of site administration and moderators, criticism, complaints, discussions of site administration, site rules or the site itself, are to be sent via the private message system or email system to site administration. Such discussions can not be pursued inside the public forums or existing threads.

One of my finest achievements in anything I've ever done, ( Apart fro siring two of the best Daughters in the known Universe, ) was taking amy Mother and Father for a flight in an aeroplane, flown by Me. These wonderful people, had nurtured my interest in aviation from as early as I can actualy remember. . .you know,. . the usual stuff,. . little tinplate aeroplanes, with friction drive, which emit tiny sparks as you run them across the floor of the living room with the lights turned off. . . . to purchasing Airfix, and other brands of construction kits for years and years, and helping me when things wouldn't stick together properly. . .add to this the arrival of 'Rival' siblings, who also required 'Nurturation' in their respective demands and wants. . . . ( Warning ! - some of this stuff has been posted here before ! ) In 1955, my Father 'Chickening out of a flight in ( I found out later ) a DH Gypsy Moth. . from the seafront of a popular Southern British seaside resort ( Yes, Really,. . .flying from the esplanade ! ) by a Company owned by Alan Cobham's travelling flying Circus . . .He put ME in the front seat as he didn't think his stomach would take it,. . .My mum said many years afterward that ths was because he had witnessed a previous 'Passenger' being helped out of the aircraft, being rather unsteady on his feet,. . and then regurgitating his Fish and Chips lunch all over the pavement. . . . ( How she knew his lunch was Fish & Chips. . .I never asked. . .) I have no concise memories of the flight, as I couldn't see much 'over the side' until the pilot rolled the aircraft. . . but I Did see some sepia Photographs, taken and home developed by my Dad from Kodak 120 film. . . of the aircraft as a bluured dot in the sky,. . then of me sitting in the aircraft, grinning like a Cheshire cat, and wearing a leather helmet five sizes too big, complete with the classic 'Stadium' motorbike goggles . . . .( even they were far too big. . ) bear in mind that this 'Flight' probably lasted around Ten minutes. . .as Petrol cost a whopping ninepence a gallon back then. . . I later discovered that it was possible to buy 'Kits' of parts, so that the aspiring aviator could build aircraft which could actually FLY. . .with a big elastic band which you had to turn backwards using the propeller to achieve a few seconds of powered flight. . .. all mine crashed BW, but none burned. . .( ! ) Mother and Dad bought all of these kits. . .maybe just to keep me quiet ?. . .I became a fan of a Company named Keil Craft. . .as some of you may remember. . . Followed by Cox glow plug engines, then diesels,. . . but all free flight. . lost most of the buggers I did. Never advanced to remote / radio control. . . sad that. . . . Then in 1957, after returning from a trip to Baghdad, and Teheran with Dad on an engineering sales trip, ( I could write a short story on THAT alone ! I went with him a few times after that, also to Israel. . . ) Mum and Dad allowed me to be taken care of,. . by our 'Weird' neighbour 'Roy'. . .a lot of the local kids reckined that he was an oddball,. . lived all alone, ad drove weird 3 wheel cars, loke Morgans and stuff. . .but he was really OK,. . none of this kiddie fiddling stuff that we read about lately ( ! ) He owned a half share in an ageing DH82A at ( Ex- RAF ) Pendeford Airfield near Wolverhampton. I was taught to maintain and fly this aircraft from 1957 until they sold it in 1961. . .I was taught how to sideslip a 'tigger' into a field by the age of Nine. . .mainly by Roy's partner in the project, an Ex- Hurricane pilot in ww2. . . This began, all because of Mum and Dad.. . . It was with immense pleasure that, on my Dad's 72nd Birthday, I took the pair of them to Halfpenny Green Airport and hired a Piper Arrow 3 to take thm for thier first ( And last - sadly ) light aircraft flight ever. Dad,. . being an Engineer, was astonished at the complexity of the 'Dashboard' as he called it, in this ageing aircraft.. . . 'Why so many instruments ? was his first question after the briefing and strapping in ceremony. . After my explanation of what everything did and was for and why, ( 20 minutes ! ) he seemed pleased and we proceeded to fly. 'Mum' just sat in the back and didn't say much, even though I'd plugged in a headset box so that she could hear us yakking.. . .My most difficult explanation, was about Manifold pressure, and RPM . . .he asked me numerous questions about this 'Constant Speed' aspect,. . maybe I approached it the wrong way . . I dunno. . .He was a 'Technical Engineer' and didn't like half hearted descriptions of ANYTHING ! We had a marvellous 90 minute flight, over all our old well loved areas. . . to them I'm certain,. . .and planned to do it again SOON ! but things happened,. . .as things tend to do. . .and further flights never were. Dad was diagnosed with aggressive, degerative Alzheimer's disease only nine months later, and his memories decayed so rapidly until he didn't remember any of his progeny nor know any fve of us. . . . Mother died one year after Dad. . . broken heart more than anything else I think. . . More than Sad. . . .Horrible. Beatrice May and Walter Henry. . . .wherever you may be. . . .I thank you for giving me the nurturing, help and support to have spent a long time Flying. ( AND of course, . . .for albet unintentionally. . . causing me to meet a load of other odd people worldwide who also have their stories ! )

On the weekend of the 6th and 7th of August, a memorial in conjunction with a fly-in, was held for the late Ross Millard,at the Ingham, North Queensland, aerodrome! Ross was a passionate pilot, member of this forum, RA-Aus NTH QLD area rep and board member. It was well attended by fly-in pilots and passengers, members of Ross`s family and friends! My wife and I attended also. Photos taken by Julie Hands. This is the plane Ross built, back in the mid eighties,while he and his partner Deb were living in San Francisco,USA...The fuselage was built in the basement and the wings were built inside their apartment...Photos taken by, Tracy Parsons. This memorial was constructed by Ross`s brother Bernie! It is a symbol of a plane, constructed with horse shoes...Photo taken by me. RIP. Ross. Franco.

Sincere condolences to family and friends. Regarding the objections to discussion of the circumstances, speculation or otherwise, as far as I'm concerned it's another example of political correctness gone mad. It's perfectly natural for humans to be inquisitive and curious, and if we weren't we wouldn't have developed to the extent where we have produced machines that can do all manner of things, including flying. Should there be such a thing as the afterlife I really can't imagine anyone having any objection to a bit of conjecture over how they got there. We all know we have insufficient hands-on crash investigation in most cases, and without peer-discussion of likely scenarios our safety record would never improve. It's not just a case of discussing the actual issue that caused the crash, it's also a case of people giving thought to all the other possibilities that could affect each of us at any time in the future, if they're not regularly brought to mind. We can never have enough reminders because the sky isn't a place that's very forgiving of even the slightest errors. In the unhappy event that something should go wrong with one of my flights, and if I end up on a similar thread, I certainly hope and invite that the discussion about it would be lively and wide-ranging and that it might lead to someone else avoiding the same fate. I'm sure my friends and family would see it the same way.

Onex VH BHU took to the sky yesterday with test pilot Chris Kelly, and again early this morning with me at the controls. 3 years since ordering the kit! Over controlled it enormously on take off, stick forces are so light it is amazing. Took it up to 3000 ft and ran it hard then eased back for some slow "approach speed" runs with 1 and the 2 stages of flap then some gentle turns, climbing and descending and straight and level, topped out at 120 knots IAS, 14 degrees OAT. Landing view is different to say the least and just touched tail wheel before the mains. Great machine, well balanced, will not need any trim tabs, flies with 2 fingers on the stick. To say I'm delighted would be a huge understatement. Peter

Ross's funeral was held yesterday in Townsville. It was standing room only, and I was so pleased to see the President and the CEO there to pay their respects. A statement in itself of how much of a 'contributor' to our sport Rossco was. Surveying the accident site, talking to the witnesses, and seeing other evidence, I am quite sure the RAA will be able to provide us with some compelling feedback to the cause of the accident. Maybe not the engine failure itself however. I wish I had been able to visit this little airfield in better times. Its a fantastic little flying community there, all with the same 'addiction' to flying, much of it grass roots too. It was so refreshing to see, and very reminiscent of the early days of our Organization. I can fully understand why Ross spent so much time at this little strip, helping people out, doing maintenance, giving advice, flying, and no doubt being the sh!t stirrer that he was. There are some bloody nice people, hurting like christ up there at the moment and my heart goes out to them all.

Good onya Jex. What a nice thing to do. Grahams loss will be felt for years to come, there are very few of his kind left. A humble, quietly spoken, gentleman Instructor. Of all the flying I did with him, he would not take a payment. I insisted several times but out of respect to a fellow instructor, would not take a cent. I can sum up Grahams personality with one quick story, A friend of mine was booked to do her CPL flight test with Graham, some years ago. She was incredibly nervous, like literally shaking in her boots. I pulled Graham aside and explained that she was probably not going to perform well while she was so nervous. He just smiled and told her to add 20 minutes of fuel to the flight plan. They took off and returned some hours later. She passed with flying colours and I asked her what the extra fuel was for, she replied " before we started the test he took me whale watching, and the dolphins were running up the coast, it was awesome to see...." Later I thanked him for his efforts to calm her ( which worked a treat I might add) and his reply will stay with me forever, he said: " Mate, never ever forget why you are here. Never forget what brings people to your school, its the love of being in the air. Never lose sight of that, it doesnt matter if its a TIF or a CPL test, never forget how cool flying is." Thanks for everything Graham. God speed mate...

I thought I could fly a plane, I had nearly 70hrs logged on RA and am a dab hand at floating in a Jab into a G Class airfield. Now I have a reason to move to PPL. I read / heard somewhere that a PPL CFI can just check your Nav and Radio endorsements, confirm you can do some circuits in that C172/Piper Archer or whichever and after "5 or 7 hours" (noted somewhere here on this forum) you are good to go for PPL. If only it were that simple. After numerous hours in a big and ungainly C172, completely different to that little Jab, I was still working on circuits and crosswind landings. The added minor complexity of a CS prop probably didn't help. This C172XP is a Ferrari/Sherman tank compared to the Vespa/Mazda2 I'd been flying. 10 hours down. After some Nav demonstrations the CFI worked out I can 'mostly' find my way around to their satisfaction but not, with any regular competence, successfully navigate and communicate through Class D or Class C airspace. 15 hours down. The PPL theory test requires solid knowledge of height and pressure density, weather, C of G and all sorts of details that as an RAAus ab-initio you kind of learn (enough to pass the test) and consider but tend to gloss over - the limited envelope of flying RA means that simple loads, always a full tank, light winds and other mild factors* allow you to fly, relatively safely, without giving much thought to the operational envelope extremities necessary for PPL. Another 10hrs of study and practice before the theory exam. *Mild factors...like revisiting the wing loading and stall/spin considerations under, what I thought, were relatively benign conditions, little did I know how close I am to stalling, spinning and dying on that base to final turn.....read up on that folks ! Let's not forget the joy of the Class 2 medical, which in many respects is some anachronistic over zealous medical fraternity strangeness, that often achieves nothing useful, especially if your young and healthy it's a complete waste of time. If your a little older and are honest about medical history it can be a logic bending nightmare of strange medical investigations and decisions. My personal experience was frustrating and I can understand why people say 'just lie'. So is RA Aus still a great entry point to flying? Sure. Is it advantageous to start with RA and then move to GA? Mostly. But don't be fooled. If you have learnt to fly a simple RA aircraft and completed your Nav and Radio endorsements in some backwater airspace across mostly clear skies in mostly fine weather...then your PPL wont necessarily take you "5 to 7 hours" of some simple conversion. Me? Topping out over 22hrs, PPL theory exam soon and then the full test, another 4 hours of all the same stuff you thought was easy in RA - except now you have to navigate into Bankstown / Moorabbin / Canberra / Gold Coast etc etc. Suddenly flying aint so simple! And to get the most out of your aircraft, to maximum extent, you need to know the numbers, work the calculations and understand those limits. Enjoy and fly safe ! Ramjet

VH-ABA rebuild is done. Quite a few people asked to see photos when done so here it is

Lots of very informative posts here - at least there doesn't seem to be the same attachment to downwind turn theory as some over at the wrinkled plum have. I suspect that a majority of pilots pay close attention to an incident like this, not because they are ghouls or want to outdo the ATSB, but because learning to fly is a never ending process and even if a particular post later proves incorrect in relation to the incident at hand, the discussion can highlight gaps in your own knowledge or root out misconceptions that lurk in the aviation undergrowth.

Went solo today totally out of the blue just thought it be the norm days flying out to the training area then back for circuits. Being reminded to keep the ball centered. Well that did happen and a how do you fell bout doing one by yourself put to me by my CFI. What a way to start the year.

Hi All, I have been taking a break from the site for a while now but back again. Yesterday Corrine and the Kids put the Christmas tree up and hasn't the year gone so quick...must be our age. Corrine and I along with our kids Caitlin and Lachlan, would like to wish every user of Recreational Flying, their family and friends a very very merry Christmas and a fantastic New Year. I would also like to take this opportunity to express a sincere appreciation and thanks to the site Moderators, Sue for keeping the Event Calendar populated for everyone, and everyone else who helps to keep this incredible resource alive for every recreational aviator. I hope the site has helped in some way to keep you safe and provided you with a wealth of information that helps you in your fun times of flying...that is what this site is purely for, for you! Please stay safe and have a great time with family and friends over the Christmas break

The daily Telegraph today reported a new policy announced by the Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott plans to dramatically increase sales of Jabiru's announcing today his new " No Jab, No pay " policy. Rod stiff was not available for comment. Details are as yet unclear but it would appear that recreational flyers who don't have or soon get a Jab will be denied government payments. Mak, Dazza and Merv could not be contacted for comment. Oscar scheduled a press conference but he was banned from making any comment or offering an opinion by media Chiefs.

Much to my distaste, I have a question. It may at first seem irrelevant to the subject, but it is not: Just how worried are the contributors to this thread, about the wings of their aircraft falling off? I've not heard such a commotion as is evident on this thread, about that risk. In fact, I'd venture that nobody here has any idea of what the statistical probability of that might be, or even thinks about it. So if we're going to make such a fuss about statistics, let's put them into some sort of perspective: I note that the CASA document refers to "an extraordinary high rate of partial and complete engine failures". Pray, what is the statistical rate that is "extraordinary high"? I see reference to a rate of engine problems per aircraft movement, for Jabiru aircraft, from RAA data, of 0.03% - is this correct? How does this translate into a rate per flying hour? If, for example, the average flight time per movement were, say, 20 minutes, then the rate would surely be 0.09% per flying hour, would it not? For the sake of this discussion, let's round that off to 0.1% per flying hour , i.e. a probability of one in one thousand per flying hour. How does this compare with other relevant probabilities? One that is surely relevant would be the probability of a wing falling off due to a structural fatigue failure. The liklihood of surviving an engine malfunction or complete failure is vastly better than of surviving a major structural failure, so this is a conservative comparison. The "safe life" criterion that applies to the majority of GA aeroplanes flying in Australia to-day, was CAO 101.22 Appendix II (No, you won't find it on the CASA website, it's been superseded - but it was relevant up to about 2004 or thereabouts). That specified a safe life of one fifth of the calculated mean time to failure, and was supposed - if I recall it correctly - and taking into account not only the variability of the fatigue life of a structure, but also the inherent inaccuracy of estimating the loading spectrum that causes it, to give a probability not exceeding 1 in 1000 per flying hour - i.e. 0.1%. More modern standards set the bar a bit higher, but they are not yet in general application for the GA fleet, let alone recreational aircraft. Standards for recreational aircraft such as CAO 101.55, BCAR S, ASTM F2245 etc, do not even mention fatigue life. There is no requirement whatsoever in these standards for any estimate of the safe structural life to be calculated. So the possibility of a structural failure may well be higher than 0.1% per flying hour - yet all you people blythely ignore this. RAA is, I can just about guarantee, completely unconscious of this. The airworthiness authorities that drafted those design standards were not, however - they knew the score; but they did not consider it sufficiently important, for a recreational aircraft, to bother with putting such a requirement into the product safety standard. So how consistent is it for the RAA to protest to CASA about a failure rate for the Jabiru engine, that is of the same order as the probability of a catastrophic structural failure, which they considered insufficiently important to bother about? How consistent is it for the protagonists on this thread, to focus on the engine alone? I would suggest that nobody here is exhibiting anything remotely able to be considered either competent or logical. This being the case, I do not see that the rate being reported by RAA for Jabiru engine issues, warrants the action proposed in the draft Instrument. It would seem that the sports office in CASA is equally ignorant and inconsistent. You can vote with your cheque books, after all. Isn't it about time people started to look at the big picture? And be just a little bit consistent? We are, after all, talking about a recreational activity that has been defined as "inherently dangerous" by the courts. How does 0.03% compare to other "inherently dangerous" recreational activities? I would be obliged if the moderators could refrain from interfering with this post. (Ok so far we wont, however we reserve the right to edit any post that contains material contrary to the rules as per our brief....mod)

Last Sunday my plane took to the air for the first time in the very capable hands of `JB', while a group of us looked on and enjoyed the show. The flight took place at Serpentine (YSEN) in WA - just a couple of circuits to break the ice and make sure everything worked. Nothing fell off and there were no leaks, so now the real test flying can begin. I'm still grinning. rgmwa

DLW, I think it is important that you have the facts at your disposal before making assertions about what I've been up to for the last, say, three years. I earnestly hope that you are interested to know the facts and that once in possession of the facts you might be prepared to revise your concerns about what you think I've been up to. Unfortunately, I can't suggest a useful way for you to discover what went on in the period between September 2011 and May 2012 on the RA-Aus Board or from May 2012 until the present in RA-Aus governance matters, in particular. You seem to be ill-informed at the moment and I grant you it is not easy to find out what has been going on at the core of RA-Aus. What I can tell you, and you can accept it or not as you choose, is that from 2010 I had become quite concerned about the poor governance of RA-Aus. A few concerned members, including myself, attempted to find out what was going on by putting questions on notice to a meeting at Natfly 2011. The answers to the questions were most unsatisfactory particularly from the then President Eugene Reid. In the end, Steve Runciman (recently elected Treasurer) stepped forward at the Meeting and agreed that the "Board had got it wrong" and that it would all be fixed. Sadly, nothing material ever came of that promise that I'm aware of. It seemed to us that it was going to be very, very difficult to get any change in the Board's lack of respect for the Constitution of RA-Aus just by asking pointed questions and so I was nominated to run for a "seat" on the Board for NSW/ACT Region. I was successful in that election in no small part due to the support of members of Recreational Flying and the many other members in NSW/ACT who were very unhappy with what was going on at RA-Aus HQ in Canberra. In that election, the sitting Board Member had been on the Board for some 12 years and his unseating was a clear expression of the dissatisfaction by the NSW/ACT Members who took the trouble to vote. At the Board Meeting immediately following the AGM, I was elected to the role of Treasurer and became, thereby, a member of the three-person Executive that ran the Board's business between face-to-face Board Meetings. In my relatively short time on the Board (8 months a little longer than an "instant") we achieved some useful things including upgrading of the Office computer hardware and telephone systems. I also proposed and had accepted that a Constitution Review Committee be commissioned with reviewing and proposing a re-write of the Constitution. I was appointed to Chair that Committee and went on to commence that work but the Committee was canned by the President after I resigned from the Board. I frequently found myself being overruled (2 to 1) by Runciman/Middleton in matters where I considered RA-Aus was not acting in the best interests of the Members. Matters became very difficult when the Insurance that covers Board Members Liability was allowed by the the CEO to expire for the second year in a row. Last minute, week by week extensions were advised by the Insurer with no real guarantee that the extensions were worth worth anything at all. For about six weeks Board Members hung by this thread risking their houses and superannuation. In the end, two of the Board Members who properly understood this risk resigned from the Board. The remainder, to this day, I believe did not comprehend the risk they were running. I had repeatedly requested that RA-Aus obtain formal legal advice on the nature of the personal risk for Board Members but that was not acted on by the President of the time. It was untenable to remain on a Board that was, in my opinion and to put it mildly, not risk averse and when there was no certainty of insurance cover. I was happy to serve the members of RA-Aus but not prepared to bet my house and superannuation against predators like Slater & Gordon. Despite having resigned from the Board, I continued to actively work for the Members of RA-Aus to bring the Board to account for their failings. This involved proposing changes to the Constitution to make the Board more accountable to the members and culminated in the extraordinary General Meeting in 2013. That Meeting precipitated the resignation of an ineffective Treasurer, exposed serious deficiencies in reporting of Membership numbers by the Secretary and lead, I believe, to the eventual resignation of the then President Runciman. Since that extraordinary General Meeting, there has been a strong trend for improved performance by the Board. Since the Board Elections in 2013 we have had the basis of a competent, responsive Board and I am confident that with the retirement of some of the old guard at the coming election and the election of new blood like Andy Saywell, we will have a Board that is well fitted for meeting the significant challenges RA-Aus is facing. My offer to assist the new CEO is just a continuation of the work I did for Mark Clayton. Mark recognised that the 25 or so Amendments I had proposed to the Constitution had merit and he could see I had a fair understanding of the RA-Aus Constitution and the Act which governs that Constitution. As such, I was able to advise him in matters relating to elections and meeting procedure and proof read notices being sent to the membership. While I had problems with the Board in 2011-2013 and I had no regard for the work of the previous CEO, I recognised Mark Clayton as a person with considerable ability and as somebody who had a good strategy in mind to bring RA-Aus into the 21st Century. DLW, does this answers your question about what I meant by offering to assist the new CEO? DLW, I'm sorry you find my colourful language offensive. However, I can't think of a better way to describe the mess RA-Aus found itself in in 2013. Years of mismanagement had membership and aircraft records in disarray. Members were facing months with their aircraft confined to hangars as a result. Flying schools were unable to operate for months at a time yet still had to face ongoing costs for their aircraft. This is not a situation that developed overnight. It took years of mismanagement for it to get to that state. Would a "steaming pile of excrement" be more accurate/acceptable? How would you describe it? I have never backed off from my drive to have RA-Aus Board respond to the Constitution. The Constitution embodies the Rules set by the Members as to how RA-Aus is to be operated. As mentioned above, I have been involved in a mountain of work to put to the Members and obtain a 75% "Yes" vote for changes to the RA-Aus Constitution to improve the way the Board operates and communicates with Members. For example, this year, for the first time ever, Members will receive the Annual Financial Statements at least 21 days before the Annual General Meeting. Go back to 2012 AGM and you would find that a Treasurer Eugene Reid offered a half-baked, one page summary of the financials to a fraction of the Members who attended the AGM, during the AGM. A vote was then called for the Annual Financial Statements to be adopted by the AGM, virtually sight unseen. At the same Meeting the then Secretary (Middleton) assured the Meeting that RA-Aus had a rapidly increasing membership approaching 13, 000 members and asked that his report be approved by the AGM. Subsequently it was found that the Membership was closer to 10,000 members. This year Members will have been able to give full consideration to the Annual reports of the President, Secretary and Treasurer well before the AGM commences. Members will then be in a position to ask questions and satisfy themselves on the reports before voting for their adoption by the Meeting. That's what I've been "playing at" and I hope you don't still consider that to be "throwing stones . . from the sidelines". So, tell us DLW, what have you been doing for RA-Aus for the last three years?

How I spent Easter - filmed on my iPhone 5s.