dodo

Unfortunately, I will be in Canberra for the foreseeable future. I would prefer to fly from the Oaks, and have suggested to David that he move it an hour to two in my direction. I don't think he took me seriously. dodo

I think Mike Apps owns the airfield, so in many ways it wouldn't be a bad option, but the travel time and getting to other places are not so good. I think I will investigate Goulburn - I was hoping someone on the forum would have up to date information. The other good option - finding a relaxed property owner who would like to be paid for the use of a paddock occasionally, is probably too problematic, and could take forever, dodo

Topographically, the easiest way to get from Polo Flat to anywhere is probably across the Snowy's to Tumbarumba or Tumut. This may be challenging in some weather, especially at lower speeds. Canberra CTA makes northern routes more difficult. 1 hour 10 from Tuggie is 1 hour 30 from Canberra. For comparison, Cootamundra is probably under 2 hours, Tumut and Temora just over 2 hours I agree that local flying would be good, and it's not impossible, but any aircraft over an hour's travel away is not going to get flown enough. dodo

Currandoolley near Bungendore, Collector 2 near Collector, and Dick Smith's strip at Gundaroo are all private,and happy to stay so... I assumed glider strips wouldn't normally be available for keeping an ultralight - or have I missed something useful there? Polo Flat at Cooma might be OK but is a bit more than an hour, and topographically poor, especially for winter in a rag and tube. As noted earlier, the two requirements are distance/travel time - and availability. Any ideas? Or knowledge of what goes on at Goulburn now? dodo

I am looking for somewhere to hangar a rag and tube aircraft within about an hour of Canberra. Goulburn may be an option, if pricy - does anyone know of availability and costs to hangar a plane(and fly from) Goulburn? And who I could talk to? Does anyone have any other ideas? - access to a paddock with a shed would be fine, and quite happy to pay for that? The main requirement is within about an hour of Canberra, and available. It would be a rag and tube, so no need for long or sealed runways, so maybe a paddock and temporary hangar? any ideas appreciated, dodo EDIT - Bugger - I can't fix the typo in the subject! (Sorted - Mod xox)

Best wishes to you both. You won't regret it, dodo

...behind the banana curtain

Sorry, I have been reading too many lunatic ideas on pprune dodo

JORN is an OTH-B radar working ina very different frequency (HF), where the signals can be reflected off the ionosphere, allowing the OTH bit to work. Now, unless you send the transponder query on an HF frequency it won't go OTH, and aircraft transponders interested in HF don't exist. SO IF (and it is a big if), JORN has the range, it will see a great pile of blips around Singapore/KL. Which is your missing airliner? Your resolution is going to pretty poor once the signals have bounced three times before they meet the receiver. And HF won't get you great resolution anyway. Next, have a think about why Oz is about the only country still serious about OTH-B... it is because AEW aircraft to patrol northern Australia is impractical, due to the size of the place. AEW works a lot better, which is why everyone else uses it. All other OTH are from an era or location where ground radar and AEW aircraft could not give satisfactory coverage. Please stop imagining silver bullets and magic solutions to find this aircraft. Anyone who can help probably is (or has good reason). dodo

No

The problem comes in practical use, not in later legal action (so far). Some things are obviously confidential (staffing issues, personal information, etc.) Everything else should only be confidential by general agreement or for a very good - and clearly stated - reason. For example, why is the draft Ops manual "confidential"? It may be impractical to send out every revision, but not one has been provided to members. And if you ask why...you don't get an answer! Why was the confidentiality document confidential? That seems ridiculous to me. It looks like everything is confidential, unless explicitly labelled "for release to members". dodo

Jihad isn't the first thing that comes to my mind.I thinks that is just you.

Perhaps I am a bit slow, but what is the definition of confidential, and who decides what is confidential? I am have signed so many confidentiality agreements over the years...but I haven't met one before which doesn't give SOME indication of what is confidential. dodo

"Approved" engine - not "certified" dodo

jetjr In a general sense I agree with you, both on owner responsibility, and that RA shouldn't have to pay for every fix to a mistake... but in this specific case, I disagree totally. Having advice by Lightwing, the Rotax distributor and RA, it would be a very suspicious person to seek another opinion - and where would you have found it? Most most GA engineers would have said "Well, normally, umm...but this is a strange exception where 25 reg ultralights don't have a type certificate, so I do not know". So where else would you go? CASA would probably refer you to RA. You could pay a lawyer to research it for you - at rather more than the cost of a new engine! I also don't think RA should normally pay for such mistakes, but in this case, they seem to be brushing it under the carpet and making it an individual aircraft problem, rather than seeking a general solution to what was a systemic problem. And they did get 10 years of rego money for every single aircraft, where just one crash could have exposed them/us to a very expensive court case. Lightwing haven't come out of this looking that clean either, as far as I can see. As Dafydd says, it is very much caveat emptor, but you would have hoped RA would be less secretive about the issue, and more involved in a solution rather than just telling owners their aircraft is unregistrable. Dodo

I think the medical requirement still represents something of an obstacle, as it has the same problem all CASA medicals do - once you have any hint condition or exception, you are probably up for months of no flying, and significant costs. Otherwise, the RPL looks pretty positive, especially with the CTA endorsement, which would then allow you to fly into controlled airspace with many RA aircraft. dodo

Jetjr, it is inconceivable that at least one of the owners did not ask both Lightwing and RA what approvals was necessary. There are a reasonable number of aircraft concerned, and anecdotally I have been told ALL GR532>582s are affected - which implies RA said it was OK. Or did they miss every plane that changed at registration, and not one owner asked what the rules were? There is nothing in writing because if no approval is required, nothing needs to be recorded. I know a number of the aircraft files have a notification of engine change on them, and there are no comments on the file to query this or suggest that this was an issue. Or are you suggesting individual owners should have a level of air legislation knowledge equal to Dafyydd's, which would make the technical manager's position rather redundant? The point is, individual owners did ask, and did do reasonable due diligence. They were given incorrect advice, and are now being called to account - for the errors of people who were paid to know better. Note flyerme's new prop last year for an engine for the aircraft, while he is now told is the incorrect engine for the aircraft.

Yes, it would be ...disappointing(?) to get taken for another ride. However, finding someone who can give a correct opinion seems to be one of the difficulties in this saga. Even if you find someone who can legally give that approval, will it stand the test of time? dodo

I would be tempted to pay it, and send to the bill to RA, with a note pointing out that if they don't like it, they can either recover the bill from the original modifier, or take it off ten years of illegal rego payments. dodo

This is the sort of approach and advice RA should be providing. RA must be well aware that a number of aircraft are now un-airworthy due to an error which was largely NOT the modifier's or current owners fault, and which is almost certainly not deliberate. And it is unreasonable to expect owners to have a better knowledge of the legislation than CASA and RA (I note that this issue seems to have been missed in the CASA registration audit - only found later!) So why not use RA's expertise and organisation to try to get a simple solution? Instead, RA seems to be shovelling it under the carpet and blaming owners. dodo

Accountability has improved. Communications have improved. From pathetic to poor. Some information is provided on important issues, but sporadically, late, and without much context. Board member representation of members varies, but is still poor in terms of information to members. I am pretty unhappy that we have improved so little from a situation that required an EGM to get anything useful from the board on the registration débâcle. dodo

Yes, but no one gave me an aeroplane ride like that. I now believe I had a deprived childhood. dodo

Yenn, the problem had been there, and growing for 5-7 years, which you would think should have been picked up (but I can understand how that could be overlooked). The ongoing audit starting 12-15 months prior to the shutdown was a loud and clear warning to the board and anyone else who saw those audit reports. Each subsequent return to the audit made it clearer and clearer that action was necessary. CASA shut down registrations because no one would act on the audit findings. The shut down was a direct consequence of the RA refusing to act on CASAs audit findings. In your example, the parent was told of their children's misdeeds, repeatedly, but chose to ignore or overlook these. dodo

Disappointed! dodo

Where? I can find very little. The only thing I can find is http://www.raa.asn.au/2014/01/proposed-operations-manual-changes/ Is there more - either on the substance of the changes, or the detail? dodo