kasper

Note - at the moment that will mean that recreational flying businesses where social distancing cannot be maintained in an activity will not be able to continue those activities where social distancing cannot be maintained. They have not been ordered to close but practically they will find it impossible to operate flight training. Rec Flying as a business activity of renting out aircraft could continue as you could manage social distancing and of course private flying is not a business and so can continue. On the area of BFR it will be interesting and necessary to see what RAAus come out with as the BFR requirements are in the Ops Manual and not the CASA CAOs/CARs. It will reuqire both RAAus and CASA to act as RAAus cannot unilaterally exempt/exclude/modify part of the Ops Manual without invalidating the entire Ops Manual - its a CASA approved doc. Not a great deal of help but: - Group A&B - single seat flyers can do an observed BFR that will allow continues compliant flying - Group A&B - two seaters without full dual controls do an observed BFR that will allow continues compliant flying - Group A&B - two seaters with full dual controls BUT with which the examiner is unfamiliar can do an observed BFR that will allow continues compliant flying - Group C - if you have a combined controls aircraft group you remain exempt from any and all BFR requirements due to issues with the Ops Manual so you can continue flying whever combined control aircraft you have eg flying fleas and Ptyradactyl - Group D - afraid you need to look that one up - I do not hold it so am unfamiliar with the requirements

Yeah Remos g3 or gx

Gotha go146. Unsuccessful mid 30’s fast transport from Germany. You can just see the swastika on the tail.

Beat me to it by a minute. Innmy opinion the only floatplane that looks worse on wheels than floats.

Aeroprakt a24 Viking

In the Uk the Thruster T600 was the one developed into a nose gear. It’s quite a bit heavier than the T300 and even the T500 from oz. it’s nice to fly and with the jabiru engine quite pleasant to fly. I did my UK licence cross countries in one and pootling along around southern UK and the Isle of Wight . In oz the name thruster was controlled so when Wade Mahlo started up the idea of building the T600 in orange he chose to use Vision 600 as the name ... and he fitted the 582 and the hks from memory.

I’ll guess that it’s the Phantom II

All members who joined RAAus after incorporation have consented to electronic communication. all members who were members of the incorporated association had a choice at conversion to accept electronic communication or to refuse ... it was one of several very poor drafting areas in the changeover ... there are members who elected not to accept electronic comms. as all the rules and policies only have authority under the constitution for those members nothing the RAAus can do will ever force electronic comms. This is why there will NEVER be a fully online election process or any other fully electronic constitutional process. due to poor drafting that was not fixed a few years ago there will always be a requirement to have all official notices and processes in written form lodgers by snail mail.

No need to apologise Bex. I’m in Sydney for Mardi Gras ... there are a sufficient number of gay spider men here to go around ?

Well then it’s the Meyers 400. It kept annoying my that there is an extra frame in the side window for the Meyers 200 I know but it’s a turbine development and they added that extra frame ?

Well wingtech will not lend a template Which is pretty fair in all honesty - it takes a few hours of work and materials to create them even off an old set. BTW It’s a t83 and after the last set of t83 skins I made I didn’t keep my template as I wound up my sail loft so I’m afraid it’s over to anyone else with either the correct span/no of batten pockets that has a template or a set of old skins to lend.

Well if you want a two seater then the even more complex to built with more build hour is the Taylor Imp that preceded this ‘Simplified’ mini imp

yes and no. TPG as a concept was Molts development. It was used in part of the Imp (two seater) but very minimally in the MIni-Imp (single seater) which is basically a stressed skin aluminimum sheet airframe.

It will come from the RTO who are required to have teach out plans for exactly this situation. Will not help all - if you’ve had training and failed you’re out of luck - but if you’ve unspent VET training loans then the RTO is liable. box hill is a big organisation and the RTO so expect it as one defendant. Then it’s the company that sits behind Soar aviation and lastly the directors of That company if they are trying to get really into digging. but as business development and cashing out goes it would seem an entrepreneurial individual who cashed out half the shares prior to failure of the RTO status that appears to support Soar aviation will likely walk away.

Indeed it should go quickly. aerosport scamp. we had its brother the quail on here a couple of years ago

Well aware of the challenges and costs of RTO registration - which is why I framed it as linked into the existing RTO of TAFE etc. Its much easier to get a flying instructor certIV to deliver the training under the TAFE/RTO which lowers the barrier to entry for the TAFE as they do not need to take on staff to deliver training but instead focus on central oversight of the courses and delivery.

The shame is there are already dual RAAus/GA schools on good airfields dotted around Australia in towns with TAFE colleges. If the diploma training materials are well designed they can be delivered by pretty much anyone - getting your certIV in training is not particularly challenging and it’s relatively easy for an academic oversight of delivery to be remote. it’s a win win IF the instructors at the flying school also do academic delivery - small towns benefit. Small flying schools benefit. Students benefit. but that does not appear to be how Soar have set themselves up.

If you want to see time comparisons that may be a little more free of time here are mine: Early 1990's - AUF training in LSA55 Jabirus in Sydney (the Oaks) AWOTE (average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings) in Australia would have covered 6.7hours of flight training Current day - RAAus training in an Evektor Sportstar (Armidale NSW) AWOTE (average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings) in Australia will have covered 6.8hours of flight training So on these the average cover of flight training by average earnings has not moved much over the last 27 years If I look at the advertised prices of Soar Aviation the RAAus coverage today they are $50/hr more than similar training in Armidale - they are in Sydney at a major airport but coverage falls to 5.6 so they are quite a bit more expensive.

Gyros less affected than trikes by turbulence and that airfield generally has a gale straight down one of the runways most of the time anyway ?

Very sad. And to watch the flight radar track with the last report at 3.375ft and 174kts when it is over ground at around 3,300ft is just horrible ... and to watch when 2 min before it was at 4,000ft

Woo hoo! Mooroopna rules.

Yes and no. The Soar Aviation/Box Hill aviation training VET course up has two aspects: 1. Overall potential of poor quality and/or poor value training 2. AUSTRALIAN students accessing VET fee help to gain a loan to access the education in 1. No overseas student can access VET fee help so the graphic is in no way related to the comments on how much $$ the Australian Govt has forked out in loans to people within Soar/Box Hill or how much debt has been left with Australian VET fee students where their training is incomplete and/or they have washed out. In terms of 1. I have no knowledge of why ASQA cancelled the accreditation ... but I've previously worked within a VET provider and ASQA do not take it away from a minor technical breach - its taken away only with VERY good reason and LOTS of evidence. The real problem with VET Fee help is the way payment of the loan amounts comes to the provider ... its pretty much all up front for each period of study ... and with an aviation practical course oh my thats a lot of money. Note - the VET provider I worked at made a concious decision at board level NOT to allow VET Fee loans to students, everyone had to either pay their fees (or get their employer to) and we provided payment plans to allow direct payment to us in installments without interest. Not all VET providers are ripping the system off.

Then RAAus when doing this had best consider how to register aircraft to companies as is available for the VH register to allow people the possibility to not have their private home addresses published against the fact they have what undesirable individuals in society see as a clear sign of wealth. pretty much time for RAAus to break the service provision to membership in relation to aircraft registrations. keep the membership link to the pilots certificate if necessary but to be frank I’d rather see the lot turned into fee for service and no membership requirement meaning membership is optional and all those who don’t give a flying fig for governance and voting can just buy the services and those interested in managing the company pay towards that.

And in every BFR in the UK on weightshifts you are required to do a level steep 360 turn and you HAVE to hit your wake and demo recovery from it ... in a Quantum it was benign, usually just rocking buffet, one time in a Quik it shoved me over into a spiral. In UK weightshift training it is good practice taught that you not to do more than 270deg of steep turn because you will hit a very messed up bit of air that really can mess up your wings lift and control responses.

Looks like a Waco cg-4