dodo

I think everyone has checked the NOTAMS... As for the disadvantages of Goulburn, that is why I posted looking for alternatives, but as anyone using the airport must know, there aren't many. Polo Flat would be attractive if I lived a bit further south. Its a pity, as the airport and location has considerable potential. dodo

One other GFA practice that might avoid turn-backs is to have a plan of what to do if the engine fails: before this point, the runway ahead, after that to 200', that paddock. Above that, to the right, that paddock...etc. Obviously, GFA clubs fly from fields they know well, and have good alternatives ahead, so it isn't always as easy for us... BUT I think one reason people turn back is it is the one obvious useful landing area. With a plan before take-off, you have better chance of getting better decisions. dodo PS one place I fly from has little postage stamp horse-paddocks all ahead after take-off. I still have no useful plan for that particular scenario until about 500'. There isn't always a good answer!

I agree. I interpreted the question as to aircraft that could be registered, but were dubious on the grounds of specs and/or maintenance complexity. So with an empty weight of 420 kg, we can have pilot, a passenger and about 65 litres of fuel, if you accept a 70kg person weight. I understand there has been some consideration that 90kg is more representative, in which case, you get about 30l fuel. Alternatively, with the recommended 24 US Gal, you have 70kg fuel, 50kg baggage, and just the pilot (70-90), giving you a weight of about 610-630kg with no passenger. In other words, it is unlikely the aircraft would be operated within legal gross weight. And you have a relatively highly maintenance complexity, dodo PS ...and it looks like a very nice aircraft

Just make sure any project like this doesn't end up like Human Factors - a good idea turned into an acadaemic exercise which appears to have achieved nothing. dodo

carbon cub

I will reply with rather more courtesy than you display. I suggest you count the turnover in tech, ops and general manager positions over the last few years. If you think it is satisfactory, I will leave you with your delusions. As for the particular reason for any one departure, that is not necessarily relevant. What is relevant is retaining good people long enough for them to be effective. dodo

It isn't very comforting to find we still can't keep people in key positions - especially as Mark was making a very good go of it. I hope Major and the Captain are right and we can get someone as good - and keep them, this time. Anyway, I wish him the best wherever he goes from here, dodo

I am verry ipresed by Majors report, and also b the comments by Flying Visla and Keith. All good comments, but on the SAA question, I would suggest that the cultural differences between SAA and RA might make a combined organisation less than the sum of the two might suggest. RA has a lot of members, but RA is about getting a certificate and flying, but SAA is about builders, who probably have individually on average have greater knowledge and experience and commitment than the average RA member. I would want a lot of confidence that the combined organisation would serve it's members well. I'm not against it, just thinking fairly critically about the suggestion. As for moving out of Canberra, I am all for it, BUT.... where to? Agree totally with Keith on that one! dodo

I don't think there is any question of the pilot being distracted, or otherwise inattentive in this case. But I agree that it can be devastating, dodo

Most of us were trained to do that on any landing, but especially if it isn't a local flight. It doesn't mean you will see a Ferris wheel, amongst the other odd stuff going on a festival - it would have been in the middle of a pile of amusements, dodo

Unitl you ask about the Ops or Tech manual updates. There, you hit a brick wall. dodo

I imagine the GM takes his day job seriously. Checking forums is likely to be something for the evenings. If so, this forum would take considerable time; more than I would be prepared to spend. Qick question - what other forums are interesting on ultralights in Australia? Pprune would be more time-consuming for less information... which forums are interesting? dodo

RPL is a CASA license, so you would need some CASA qualification - presumably just a normal instructors rating, as it should be no different to PPL instruction. However, to fly an RA aircraft from a PPL or RPL, you need and RA certificate, so you do an RA conversion, instructed by an RA instructor, to get the RA certificate. dodo

Don, thanks for that update. I have made it to every other GM for the last few years, but couldn't get to this one. Your precis is very informative, and relevant. I can't say the financial position is a surprise, but it gives everyone impetus that we must change, and I think Jim Tatlock has the sense to make a good go of it, dodo

I started learning on a J170, then continued through to certificate and cross-country on an LSA55. Other than that I have have a very few hours on the J230, Eurofox, Tecnam Sierra and Gazelle, so I am not very experienced. I prefer the LSA55 to the J170, and enjoy flying it. All the criticisms earlier in this thread are probably true to a point, but it is nice to fly, keeps you engaged, and rewards your better efforts, without the consequences of your lesser efforts being too bad. Certainly, it encourages constant pilot attention, and good speed control on approach. I haven't tried exceeding crosswind limits, but on a bumpy day with a cross-wind, circuits are good fun. Maybe not the easiest aircraft for your first few hours of training, but a good one to continue learning with, even after certificate. dodo

Keith, it isn't all about North Queensland. At least, not everything is! dodo

Do you think anything will come of it? The safety issues identified were RA and the FTF for training, Councils and committees for airfield, so won't it just fade away? Any systemic issues that appeared were not listed as requiring action. I suspect that the footsoldiers will suffer, and everyone else will move on dodo.

ATSB noted all other pilots used the opposite direction, but they noted that in one case the pilots decision was based on which way the windsock fell across the supporting pole, so they didn't seem to be too fussed - I can't remember whether ATSB called it a duty runway - there may not have been enough traffic to establish a duty runway (I don't think ATSB felt that was a significant point). While it made a big difference to the outcome, I don't know whether choice of runway was bad - more that ATSB were interested in his decision mking on these sorts of points, which is fair. dodo dodo

I have doubts about the check-box style of safety which an SMS can encourage. In this investigation, everyone with paperwork filed seems to have been accepted by ATSB. To summarise the ATSB perspective on CASA and RA: RA audits of the FTF have been properly done, but the FTF used ticks rather than a 1-2-3 system, and further scrutiny of the FTF is an accepted safety response from RA. The emphasis was on planned processes (the audits) been done as planned: the effectiveness or relevance of the process was not considered. If the FTF had complied with the letter of the RA syllabus paperwork, the FTF would likely have been off the hook, too! How does that work? But the diffusion of responsibility for having that obstacle there never is resolved by the report or even identified as a major contributor. We had an ALA with no real binding effect (guidelines), no real NOTAM capability, and a committee that didn't care enough to place a requested NOTAM, the festival dodging the risks and benefits of having aircraft around, no one responsible, not any of the committees, not CASA .... but the ATSB fluffed off in the wilderness of what paperwork was filed (or not filed). Checkbox safety doesn't work dodo PS The Ferris wheel operator seems to have done his best - he did comply with the standards (I went and read one lot, and they have a lot of good stuff about setup and operation, but nothing about placing obstacles in the air - just about making sure they don't fall, and if they do, don't hit anyone on the ground). I note the ATSB doesn't refer to those (non-transportation) standards. I imagine the ferris wheel operator probably wasn't covered by insurance under the circumstances, despite his (or her) honest efforts.

Did you notice how skilfully RA and CASA flick-passed blame downwards? Who would want to run an FTF? dodo

As I heard it, the seagulls were considering suing for pain and injury watching their squatting space so shockingly disfigured. Everyone else within 10km had already engaged a lawyer. Note: for those without a sense of humour: first sentence untrue. Second sentence largely true. dodo

A pretty depressing process - late, later, later, and now leaked. Delayed from November to Feb to April, and now released to a news organisation. And while it sposhes the blame around... but from what I heard of the draft, it seemed to be avoiding some aspects fairly carefully. I wonder if it will add to aviation safety, or just be the basis for endless litigation? dodo

The legal profession, and general public don't understand because it is too bloody complicated. Or to put it another way, the aircraft design and manufacture may be "fit for purpose", an the standards themselves, but the accompanying legislation is NOT. Unnecessary complexity cause confusion, and then causes costs and un-antiicpated consequences. dodo

Daniel, It's a bit hard to take seriously someone who shows such contempt for the opinions of others, so I won't bother to correct you, beyond the blindingly obvious. Getting a PPL is not that hard; it is more expensive, and you need to follow the GA maintenance and medical requirements. I'll just point out a lot of our RA exemptions were based on our lower risk to the public. Once we start flying in areas where we present a risk to that public, we should expect the equivalent responsibilities - medical,maintenance etc. At that point, there doesn't seem to be much difference to getting a PPL. I will say one thing again for clarity: if you so such contempt for the opinions of others in poor English, with an absence of reasoned argument, I am not sure your opinion is worth reading. dodo

Harv and 10.5, thanks for that. I got hold of Tony Lamarra's phone number, but I think he is off overseas today or yesterday, so if you know anyone who would be acting for him, that would be handy. John 10.5, I'll give you a ring in a day or two, and thanks to both of you, dodo