gandalph

You DO have a day job don't you bex?

I wasn't speculating. I was asking if you were. Simple sentences sometime obscure complicated meanings. Are you privy to special information about the CASA "secret" data or not? Simple question. Let's not deflect from that simple question by trying to divert attention away to Facthunter. It wasn't he who made the cryptic comment, it was you. That's why I asked you. This is not a trivial matter. It has had a huge negative impact on recreational aviation. If you do "know" something, it would be good manners to let the group know. There is no court case yet so the matter can't be sub judice nor can it be commercial in confidence, so how 'bout fessing up?

Turbs?

an "As required" consulting contractor would be much less. Could be done remotely. No need for a permanent on site IT guru. Sad but true judging from recent history. Obviously transparency in any decision to engage someone would be an absolute must have. But I suspect that I might have inadvertently triggered some thread drift here. Apologies for that.

Turbs, that sounds like you know something. It appears from your post that you have information about data that CASA holds that either the RAA doesn't have or isn't disclosing. Would you care to share? Or are you simply speculating?

Key words FT: "if set up correctly".

Andy, Nomad Pete has said everything that I wanted to say and he's done it better than I could. Thank you for stepping up to the plate when needed and thank you for taking your time and effort to communicate reasonably and sensibly with us here in these forums. You are a great example of the type of representative we need on the Board. I wish you well. Regards Charles

Nev, I'm beginning to suspect that under that gruff, bluff, crusty exterior you are actually hiding a sense of humour.

One of the consequences of announcing to the world that you're travelling before you have both feet on the bus.

How did you know my dog's named Russell?

Yup.

Agreed Nev. I hope I wasn't taken as being negative about Oscars post. I certainly did not mean it to be taken that way. As I said I think he made some very well reasoned arguments and I support his view on this matter. My comment about rousing the dogs was directed at the baying pack that although quiet of late seem, intent on removing Jabiru engines from the skies and, as a consequence whether intended or not, CAMit as well. Perhaps I am being too negative with that view. Time to mellow with a nice red.

Aaarrrgh! Your puns are giving me the pip! Time for something fresh.

A very pithy reponse Bex.

A well reasoned argument Oscar. Sadly though, I suspect it will once again rouse the hounds.

Maybe true Daz. But if that happened CASA would be unlikely to publish either version of the Mag. What would we have to complain about then??? Ah I know... we could go back to Jab bashing... Just sayin....

I wonder how to quantify "so much dissention"? Should it be the ratio of forum members who have voiced their concerns compared to those who haven't said anything one way or the other? Should the ratio be those who have voiced concerns here compared to the sum of RAA members? How should one judge the validity of any survey, past or mooted. Should it be the number of Aye's vs No's, or the number of members who respond vs the number who didn't or couldn't be bothered? A further question: Is the RAA about flying or about publishing? Suppose the Board buckled to the pressure of 'so much dissention' and decided to axe the magazine entirely but reduced the membership fee by say $48.00. How many of us would resign in disgust and stop flying? For my part, I enjoy and prefer the print version over the digital version. Will I pay the extra to keep receiving the print version? Yes probably, for a while at least, but more than likely only until the cost of providing the print version to an ever decreasing number of subscribers pushes it from an emotion decision to a rational economic decision. I have enough confidence in most of the Board to believe (hope) that they have fully investigated the pros and cons of contracting the Mag to other publishers and have also exercised due diligence by examining ways to raise more advertising revenue or get a bigger share of the existing revenue. And having done those things they came up their decision to change the Mag format and try to hold fees down. Isn't that what the Board is meant to do? Plan strategically in the best interests of the membership? The Treasurer, at the last NatFly, spelled out the financial future of the Association pretty bluntly. If I recall correctly he said the Association would be broke in 3 years if no changes were made. ell the Board is making changes and those changes will cause some pain to members. But how much more pain would be caused if/when the Association folds? I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon and I probably only have about 20 years left before my Parent's genes play havoc. I enjoy reading about flying but if it comes to the choice between having a magazine I can hold in my hands or not having my flying curtailed because the RAA has gone belly up, I do believe I'd rather be flying. I can always continue to subscribe to Australian Flying Mag.

We know. It shows.

What's a mandarine sound like?

Didn't you say Mrs Phil was scared of snakes?

Mount it facing rearwards and it could give the trike something approaching JATO capability! BTW just in case you got them confused, the SSA is a different beast entirely to the SAAA.

Dazza, Good point. Your comparison between SSA and RAA demonstrates concept of economies scale. A print run of 170ooo+ means the production cost each mag is an order of magnitude less than that for a print run of 10000 or so. Perhaps that's another reason why RAA should be looking to strengthen our links with the SAAA? One mag covering the Recreational aviation field? I'm going to withdraw to the bunker now before the firefight starts.

They have Joe, its called a CAE engine. CAMit builds (most of) the component parts for Jabiru engines. (Can't comment if that's still the case for the 2210) Ian also designs builds, assembles and dyno tests CAE engines. They look similar to Jabiru engines because they have a common genetic heritage but they are diverging fast. The Australian regulator CASA has recognised that difference by acknowledging that CAE engines are NOT covered by the flight restrictions they recently imposed on Jabiru engined aircraft. Hope Oshkosh helps solve your engine choice dilemma. Wish I was going again.

Would be interesting to get Dafydd Llewellyn's input as well. I understand he also has much experience in that field. Shame we can't seem to coax him back to the fold.

Well that conclusion requires a goodly leap I think. It's quite possibly one of the reasons Turbs, but as nobody seems to do more than a superficial investigation into engine incidents, we don't know what role UCL's play in the alleged flood of Jab failures do we? Still, caution would seem to be advisable