jakej

Ralf, I'm out of town at moment, call me 0412 624723 - I have the test capability.

I find it incredible that a radio has to be re aligned ( if in fact that is what is required in this case) as I have never known this situation to happen on any radio, maybe the few 100 or so I've installed were all good. If it was an early cavity type transponder then I would understand. Reminds me of another brand Radio, the faults were always blamed on the installation, never the factory's fault - yeah right. Most of the others work well & I see that Trig also have a new one, haven't seen one & don't know the price. 3 things I suggest are important for the enjoyment of flying. 1. Engine keeps running when you want it to. 2. Radio works. 3. Good audio - ie headsets & intercom In the above 3 YGWYPF generally. ( you get what you pay for)

get a better one.

It's a case of technology available, at a low cost, being way ahead of the regulators. I know of a case way back in the late 90's where we were able to get the data from a Gps that showed the pilot was using it to have his own homemade Gps approach, crashed into ground way before the airport. So, although I ocassionally have a go at the regulator, it's up to all of us to do the smart thing & hopefully show that we are not cowboys/girls. The 'glass' technology can be a very good tool for accident investigation , after the event, but it won't stop some idiots from making our industry look real bad. End of rant.

Fuel Log - I agree with the idea but would the way a glass cockpit handles it be a better method ? Example - most good 'glass' detect when you have added fuel, ask you to confirm, then gets you to accept what you've entered. Then the fuel flow sensor does it's job very accurately as the 2 units mainly used are Pma'd & used in certified aircraft. The 'glass' screen can show any of these or all at once, Fuel Remaining, Fuel Flow. Fuel to next waypoint, Fuel required, Fuel at destination etc etc - now tell me, is this ok or do we have to write up a Fuel Log ? "I don't think my attitude is either belligerent or obstinate I think intolerant is a much better description. Intolerant of the ******** CAsA serves up on a daily basis. " You would understand a comment like that if you have been a victim of the bastardisation by some CASA employees. Example - an NCN (non compliance notice) was issued because a repair facility did not use a particular brand of torque wrench despite the one used had required calibration & records kept. That just one of heaps of situations that have caused grief to many.

A LOT of sport aircraft do not need/have a POH & are not required to have one, I believe one of CASA's AC (Advisory Circular) made recommendations to have some sort of info/checklist. As for - "just to keep CASA happy" why ? I'm certainly not going to 'roll over'

not good forum etiquette to have multiple threads for the same thing, you risk people ignoring you & therefore lose out on what you wanted to achieve - just saying.

First chop should be at the neck, then the minions - no DAS will survive until that is done IMO.

FYI - spiralling is identified by an increasing airspeed. That does not happen in a fully developed spin in the aircraft we mostly fly.

Mriya - call me I know of someone but depends on engine/equipment etc. 0412 624 723

Sir ? - I think you are referring to DJP.

Oscar, I did post a warning:celebrate: DJP may want to pitch in here but the ASI is the give away ie it's not increasing in the turns & ball is off centre while thats all happening - pretty basic really Fullscreen display is better.

If some posters knew of DJP's background they would be embarassed by their posts, he is one guy you SHOULD take notice of when it comes to aeros & aerodynamics.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/239.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Johanson

IMO DAS is NOT the problem here, it's the beaurocrats & the legal department - they "control" government department heads/ministers & no real improvement to the aviation industry can be made until they can be sacked or held accountable. It's really sad that nearly all those who TRY to make a living out of aviation feel intimidated by CASA & therefore cannot speak up for fear of retribution through bastardisation by some there. I believe the behaviour by some in CASA is actually causing the accident rate to go up. Maybe it's about time this was all brought out in the open to the public?

IMO, until SAAA & RAAus have the guts to stand up to onerous & over regulation from CASA, we don't stand a chance of surviving let alone combining resources. Both organisations have the situation where they accept (the carrot) funds from CASA but then are not in a position (if they want to keep receiving the funding, regardless of the level of it) to say no to any unreasonable request from CASA. They're not going to 'bite the hand that feeds them' so CASA can & will keep ratcheting up their demands base on either an increase in the aviation accident rate (or regulation transgressions) or their opinions or perceptions. Do CASA have to justify their demands of us based on a Safety analysis ? I think not. Until we have a situation where both organisations are operating cohesively & FULLY COMMUNICATING with the members then any advancement of shared or joint resources/facilities & ideas will fail. FV you have a great idea, in my opinion, but I think it's a case of the cart before the horse. The way the RAAus & SAAA hierachy have been fractured & scrambling around does not give one any confidence in the future direction for any of us. But the 'heads' of both organisations are not completely to blame here as there are some members who make life difficult for us all by not complying with the basic regulations. They put us all at risk of more regulation, IMO. The ones that do comply spend the time, money & resources to do 'the right thing' & you thumb your noses at either the rules required by our organisations &/or CASA because you think those rules are unjust or aren't anything to do with commonsense. That last word is not in the CASA dictionary & won't stand up in court, it can't be used as a defence that you didn't know or understand the regs - they are like the 10 commandaments, your excuses are no defence against them. Also, just because our own organisations can't police the regs doesn't mean that CASA won't & you bring us all under the opinions that some have that we are cowboys. It makes me wonder sometimes whether those that those that are so vocal on forums, against more regulation, are actually the cause of it. IF you feel so strongly about your ability to be able to afford to continue flying, without too much restriction, then do something about it by supporting your industry instead of whingeing. Maybe I've said too much here but I feel it had to be said, you may not agree.

IF they were supposed to be contributing but didn't then that's another nail - somebody please tell us this scenario did not happen.

Did RAAus actually contibute financially at all to Ausfly last year ?

Andrew - re your post # 28. It was not meant to have "funny" from me on it - don't know how that happened, sorry.

Exactly !! We've been through this all before. Given what's happened (& is still going on) to both organisations in the last 2 years especially, don't hold your breath.

One big hurdle here, IMO - EGOS

Of course, it's Chinese made

About 150mm minimum is the recommended distance from a Compass, from memory.

Commonsense is not in CASAs or Lawyers dictionary