coljones

Not a great deal wrong with that sentence although I am not sure that your choice of "more correct" is appropriate. "more appropriate" would have been more appropriate.

As my good friend Dazza said you should consider your sink rate and speed to pick your circuit. If you have a sink rate of 500fpm and a ground speed of 60kts then on down wind at 1000 feet you will last for 2 minutes, or 2 nautical miles and even less on climb out. So if the donk stops you never want the midpoint on the strip to be less than about 5 degrees (1000/12000*60) below you and for safety more while you work out what went wrong and set up for a glide approach. The end of downwind should be no more than 2 NM from the threshold or, better from the midpoint to give yourself some elbow room. So, maybe a mile is good, and as Dazza says burn into your brain a ref point on the wing or strut so that you stay close and safe. One of the rules in GA is don't turn back under 700 feet so that should give you an idea where you crosswind leg should be. But follow the advice of your instructor - they have either had more EFATOs or know about other EFATOs so that they have a real good feel of where a circuit should be. An aside - the safe angle will apply at any height as the higher you are the further you can glide which is why it is wise to avoid scud runs because low level flying may put you below the safety angle to a good landing spot. If you are further out and not close to the strip the safe angle to a "potential" landing sight should be much steeper as you need to consider using up more time setting the plane up for an outlanding and then working out if you actually want to land in that nice, green, level, large cleared space that is full of crocodiles. Ouch. Isn't maths fun

?

Yes but - if the sh((t hits the fan do you want a trained fireman or a part time radio operator? Do you want a trained plumber to fix your gas or do you want a spotty yoof from Maccas to do the job. Just assigning a person to load up on their job is not the solution + there needs to be a clearly articulated task evaluation. In the case of the NSW Docks, there were a lot of shinyar))ses sitting around sipping tea screwing over all the blue collars - sometimes the only way to get attention is to work to rules and demark jobs. NSW Docks came a gutser beacuse the shiny arses and politicians could not plan, bid or exercise a project if their lives depended on it and their Industrial Relations was pure Attilla the Hun. Unlike private enterprise there was no ever suffering shareholder to do the lifting in the case of NSW Docks. There are few heroes in private enterprise either - remember 2007-08 But we digress!!

The CAAP 166-1 on Non-towered airport procedures caused much confusion and debate There is also a note "Note: Read this advisory publication in conjunction with the appropriate regulations/orders."

A CAAP is just an "advisory" and should follow the underlying law.

Ah the beauty of RecFly, grows a life of its own :cheezy grin:I didn't feel any thing personal in Madges comments. I just thought that I should indicate that there are many reasons NOT to nominate other than the fear of putting your hand up. Australia has many people who go out each day and do other things for other people with little reward but there are many more who don't. Madge, Don, Barry et al I salute you for putting out so the rest of us can sit back (and some of us can even do other things for humanity)

No "Flight Review" should be simple. Every flight review should be a comprehensive review of the competencies under review. You won't lose your PPL or RPL (or whatever) if your review tu does not meet the standard - but you will not be able to fly until you do.

John, thanks for the analysis. How accessible is the raw data you have extracted your stats from?

Not at all Maj, maybe we have the inside story on who is going to stump up. All sorts of people nominate for all sorts of reasons. All sorts of people don't nominate for all sorts of reasons. Maybe this time I have faith in Michael, Don and Barry and having my hands otherwise full on rec flying matters I let it go, this time. That doesn't mean that I am happy with the board or the performance of RAA or CASA. It just means that, at this time, I think someone else from NSW can do the job on the board better than I can, at this time. The board, exec and CEO should always remain under intense scrutiny as they are not gods, far from it, and I do wonder about some decisions you all make. I don't believe we have a degree of transparency or collegiality that is demanded of a Advocacy organisation such as RAA. I read that Theresa Avila does have some experience in Not-for-profits, done some heavy lifting in business and is an engineer - welcome Theresa.

https://www.raa.asn.au/nominations-for-board-positions/ - amazing what you discover in the danish newspapers

Nominations for Board Positions unopposed - no election required; Michael Monck (NSW) Tony King (SQLD) Trevor Bange (SQLD) Ed Smith (WA) Teresa Avila, a new board member to the Victorian region, Election required South Australia - 2 Year Term Barry Windle Jim McDowell NSW - Casual Vacancy - approx 1 year Donald Ramsay Barry Wrenford

It would be nice if Boyd gave someone in CASA a kick up the bum over the Jabiru debacle. And saw off the ASIC stupidity.

Where did you do your RAA Cert? In what plane? Where did you do your conversion (Gostner, Camden), in what plane? What endos in the conversion? How many hours prep? How long was the Flight Review? What was the total cost of the conversion at the school?

Schofields Flying club at Bankstown 9709 8488 does a full range of training through to CPL. They also have a comprehensive Red Bird Sim. It is expected that you can fly the plane you are doing your instrument in so you might need some extra hours. In order to be allowed to fly with an RPL you must do a "flight review" so you should plan on doing more than just the instrument time in isolation.

but you can't fly otherwise than under instruction till you have done the review. This is where, having due regard to the part 61 MOS, an instructor will assess your fitness to pass the review and give you a tick.

Somewhere in the rules it says that an examiner can't do a flight test unless the examinee has a class 1 or 2 medical. Yes stupid because it also says that you can hold a PPL with just a RAMPC. The flight review for an RPL will also test your competence to manage a VH plane in flight so it might take a little longer if coming over from a drifter to a warrior.

We expect many things in life, having that expectation met is a different thing (human factor). Part of that knowing is hopping (or getting someone else to) onto a computer and reading the weather and NOTAMS appropriate to their proposed flight and incorporating that info into their plans.

Air Law says that if you are going to do XC then you need consider Wx and NOTAMS and come to an informed decision. Do you have a non-computer related solution? Or do you get a computer literate person with access to a computer to do it for you? If I were to be running an FTF, accessing and interpretation of Wx and NOTAMS would be on my syllabus. If I was renting a plane to a qualified pilot I would want to know if they understood what they were doing before I handed the keys over.

Having a computer gives one the collateral of being able to call up and read all sorts of publications, including Air Law. We don't, now, have time (so I am told) to stand around and trade war stories and fixes so a good place to do that is here, using a computer. There is probably an argument that those on low speed, low capacity links should get a better deal, maybe a text only electronic copy (I don't look at many ads). But low speeds/ low capacity is more a question for OPTUS (as the cando carrier) to answer as RAA and its members are just meat in this commercial sandwich.

The one without the "inc" appears to be a Facebook corporate hack "This Page is automatically generated based on what Facebook users are interested in and not affiliated with or endorsed by anyone associated with the topic."

Randwick, Canterbury, Rosehill, Warwick Farm, Harold Park, Menagle, Penrith and Bankstown all have race tracks which would make excellent industrial/commercial centres as their currents useage is quite low

Lots of info - no not really. I understand that they have been building engines for Jabiru and on their own but I haven't seen a history of engines built under a CAMIT brand, free of the CASA restriction, and their history, performance, TBOs etc. I keep getting told that CAMIT engines are NOT Jabiru engines but does this make them better or is the jury still out because there is insufficient data to form an opinion because the quantity, hours and testing are too low?

Has CAMIT got history? How many engines and how many hours? and how many have reached what TBO?

Has Jabiru indicated why they are the reason for refusal by CASA to release?