ExJourno

Neither of those are strong enough... I likes my magazines delivered nice and early! I'm on the hunt for a plane, and seeing the adverts two weeks after everyone else boils my blood, steams my brain and my fury makes the hulk look like an anger management specialist... got one that depicts that?

May I make some observations and then ask a question about this incident? The letter written back regarding Ian's application, on the face of it, doesn't appear to me to be as out-of-line as it is being made 0ut (note, I am new to RAAus and do not come with an already-formed cynical view of the organisation or its execs). The letter, to me (ignoring the statements of fact not being phrased as allegations), gave the reasons for referring the application to the board and invited submission. It could have been worded, shall we say, in a manner which was more politically correct, but the core message wouldn't have changed. And while the writer may have had a known personal grievance, for reasons below, I can see how he may have had the resonsibility to be the signature on such a letter - let's say there was a genuine reason to refuse Ian (not saying there is or isn't, just posing hypothetical for my own purpose here) and there is a conflict, the writer would still have had to refer it to the board - then it would have gone, "I can't defer your application due to conflict of interest so I have petitioned the board to decide whether this application should be referred to the board for consideration". For the board to excercise its constitutional ability to refuse a membership, it needs to consider the application prior to the membership being granted - ie, the provision doesn't apply once you are a member. Certainly, the argument raised regarding freedom of speech is very valid (in rebutting the claims Ian's comments bring RAAus into disrepute) as is the request for complaints etc to be provided for proper reply. But I would have thought the process would have been to make a submission to the board and then involve lawyers if there was no joy and the application had actually been refused. Unless I am missing something, the application was never refused, but rather only deferred to the next board meeting. Naturally, a quick solution is good. However, a great many questions posed here may have been answered by waiting for the board to consider the application. Now, it can't be known what the board would have done had this situation been seen on an official agenda. I can see where there would be opportunity to assert the stated conflict of interest, but because the board didn't end up considering the application, again, you will never know whether anyone on the board would have declared a conflict and removed themselves from the process. From Ian's point of view, I can understand him wanting the fastest result possible and his being incredibly pissed off - I would have too, admittedly. But and this is what leads me to my question, I don't actually see what was so wrong with the process taken by RAAus in delaying the decision and defering it to the board - personal feelings and stress-caused, aside. I see comments regarding unilateral decision-making, but that would come from a standing order deferring responsibility to a staff or board member to alert the board of potential applications refusals may apply to, wouldn't it? Raising the health issue posed a prime opportunity for RAAus to backpeddle - my reading of the constitution shows a very different method to kick members out than it does for refusing initial membership. Raising the health reasoning for lapsed membership effectively gave rise to an argument which was as much emotional as it would be legal, but regardless the reason was one which had the potential to be a PR snafu for RAAus. As it stands, I can see how this smacks of an opportunistic ploy to be rid of a person who may not quite qualify for disiplinary action of a member, but might have simply copped being refused membership (try to think like YOU were trying to oust Ian for whatever reason). What I can't see, outside a poorly thoughtout letter, is how the process was any more unfair (in strickly operational terms) than any other process in which you can be vindicated at the end (in which case you should not have been subjected to it - an inccocent man should never have even been tried, but was, type thing). So, can some-one explain to me what it is I have missed when I read through the reply to the application, the solicitor's letter/email and the reply? Because what I see (rightly or wrongly) is an extremely stressful situation that was set in motion but which was never seen through (ie. the board didn't get to make a decision).

Is this the September issue we are talking about? Because I still haven't received mine <insert furious smiley face thing here>

The Mini Max planes have options for much smaller and cheaper motors though.. that alone could make a rather significant difference in cost. But I take your point... at one end of the scale there isn't much difference...

Didn't mean to steal your find. But yes it is a very interesting little commuter. Cheap, fast, cool looking but probably outside my skillset to built a good one. Me and composites... it would end up with a lumpy finish. Acutally, anything I built would either take a lifetime or would be crooked on completion.

I had a bit of a look at the SD Mini Sport... mostly out of curiosity. However, I don't know that the MiniSport (Mini Max) planes and the Mini Sport are really comparable... maybe the full enclosed Eros is, but really, they are different classes of machine (in my mind, at least). Personally, I will buy a two-seater something (already built) later this year or early next. A build will wait until I have something else already flying... and then the motivation must also be there. But for straight up cool-factor... if you are interested in single seat and the SD Mini Sport is of interest... then so too might the Pro Composites Personal Cruiser But hey, only the MiniMax are offering free plans... and the other two are no-where near as cheap as the MiniMax.

I have had a look at the 1550 V-Max and Eros... I am unlikely to bother, but I did ask MiniMax a few questions regarding powerplants... given my stature and availability of smaller Rotax engines (new) in Australia, I asked about using the Aerotwin turbo engine (4-stroke) or the Rotax 582, given both are above the 60hp max stated for the Vmax and well above the 50hp max stated for the Eros. Sacrilegiously, I also asked about tricycle undercarriages. The reply from Mini Max is below.

Just a heads up... there is a 65hp 4-stroke engine on the market. Quicksilver Aircraft is marketing a twin cylinder with 1000hr tbo for $9000 (intro price) with everything. Harking it as a viable replacement for a Rotax 582. Might be too powerful for some of these plans... but it might not be too. http://quicksilveraircraft.com.au/AEROTWIN.html

Did the daily on a Lightwing GR 912T on Friday. Didn't find anything during the daily/preflight... but what I found when shutting down gave me a chill. Mag 1 off. No problem. Engine settled. Mag 2 off... let's try that again, Mag 2 on and off... engine still running. A bit more force on the Mag 2 switch lever, engine starts to shut down, release pressure engine stays on... force the switched down engine dies. A short somewhere, clearly. During the pre-takeoff sequence the mag switches had both seen about 100 or so RPM drop when turned off. But is was still chilling to have one switch fail on shutdown. You can swing start a Rotax 912, can't you? I'm calling it a coincidence that after checking the mag switches were both off during the daily, I couldn't stop wondering how badly I'd mangle my hands if the engine fired while I was rotating the prop to get the oil to burp/gurgle. Until friday I hadn't given it a thought.

Ham-footed drivers are better off relying on ABS... but only until the day the fuse melts when they least want it too. Take it or discard it... but it is a proven fact that burying the brake pedal and activating ABS function in your car versus holding the brake at the edge of skidding sees the car without engaged ABS outbrake the other in a straight line. If you have a third with no ABS it will slide well past both. A bit of time on Google with find you plenty of credible material supporting this. It does not take an overly skilled driver to learn to feel how hard the tyres are working. A few simulated emergency stops will allow anyone to see just how much force they can use before the tyres start to lock up. If your ABS is kicked in you can ease off slightly and ease pressure back on (and repeat if needed) with a faster stop than if you ignored the pulsing pedal. This is a skill easily self taught on a quiet stetch of road. ABS really comes into its own allowing you to steer around something. Though, advanced driving centres commonly teach that you should crash straight and slow rather than potentially lose control steering around an obstacle. The best traction control systems in the world can't compete with a truly ham-fisted wrench on the wheel. Back to the ABS debate, the science is easy. In theory at least, an "ABSing" vehicle applies brakes up to and then past maximum braking force available then locks the tyre and enters a skid then releases the brakes until the skid stops and, assuming the brake pedal is still on the floor, so to speak, starts the process again (allowing the pads to pressure up onto the disk to the point of lock up) numerous times per second. It does not actually hold the car close to the maximum braking possible. This is just not true. THe car not relying on ABS holds itself close to the verge of traction and never releases. The skidding car... well... it just slides down the tarmac with little force being applied between the tyre and the road because the tyre is not "gripping" at the road but rather skating along the top of it. In the earlier days of ABS becoming very common on cars I had a debate (as a newly graded journo back when I was silly enough to be in that profession) with an advanced driving instructor. I argued that ABS meant the fastest possible braking. He proved me wrong by doing three stop tests at willowbank in some grande version of some cheap malaysian/thai/something car. With me in the car to ensure he didn't cheat, he ran down the strip whilst other course participants went to play in the wet braking demo. At 100 we used used a marker line to apply the brakes. Test one was no ABS... except it did kick in slightly near the end but he eased off and reapplied. Next was bury the foot and let the ABS go mental. This resulted in dead stop several metres further. Next was remove the ABS fuse and do a full lock up. As we skidded well past the second marker we'd left, I suggested he had proved his point. THen I repeated the test doing the driving. Same result. This test only works when the same car is used. If you put a Porsche 911 GTS up against a Hyundai Getz and attempt to get the porsche to use ABS versus no ABS but not locking up in the Getz, the Getz will still lose. Incidentally, on this day, I did a 120km/hr to dead stop test in my Holden Barina (Opal Corsa). I was impressed to learn it did a 120 to 0 in 55m dead with a one-wheel lockup during the final two metres... most of the distance used in real life braking was me realising I needed to brake, then moving my foot. It woke me up to some hard facts, some-what. WIth a little thought, you can replicate the test. About a year later, I had an argument over motorcycle techniques with another advanced instructor... he insisted I attend one of his sessions and provided me free passage. A few weeks later at MT Cotton, he proved me wrong too, but that is a story for another day.

Which John is that? Does this John have a Jab 400 per chance?

I'm a big boned, tanned, Sagitarian 30-something, who likes long walks to..... ....do stuff. I hang out with Louis lately. It's the cooking. I am also into road bikes, trail bikes, kayaking, camping, cooking, Scotch, red wine, shooting (at cans, no so much animals), good food and other things. I have a 5yo daughter who I intend to be my co-pilot and most regular passenger. I told her I might buy a single seat plane... she was all excited until she realised one seat meant no seat for her. I am now "NOT ALLOWED to buy a single seat plane", apparently. Will do. We can have a 'who f"""ed up the most competition come first solo'. We missed eachother by a decision to head to Pitty with Louis on Saturday instead of Sunday. But yes we will have to catch up. I want to know just how squeezy that Solitairre is for someone my size!

Oh... I no longer feel special that I got to wear them. Good thing I didn't say anything about them working better then hey!

I'm going to take a wild guess here... Louis and Thomo equalled a shorter landing and significantly more climb rate and MUCH more comfortable flying than when it was me getting taken for a joy flight by Louis the day before... just a guess. Hey Thomo... the Auster really is a lovely old thing to fly, isn't it?

Too much to read Louis. But now I understand what you were going laying all over the tarmac with the camera on Saturday... and here I was thinking you were just trying to be artistic with the setting. Didn't you make another set? The set I wore? PS... these headsets did actually work. Well.

Hi, Hailing from Toowoomba I have recently gotten around to undertaking some flight training. I am going the RAA route through Coominya Flight Training and learning in a Lightwing GR912.