Gentreau

David, whether you happen to like it or not, the setup you have is the only one you currently have available to manage your association. You can complain about it all you like, but that doesn't change the constitution as it is and the powers of the GM in February. If you are not able to attend, then give your proxy to someone you trust who will attend. Those are your choices as I undersatnd them. .

And if not, why not ? .

I believe the problem with his proposal is that he is asking members to support a change to the constitution of the association without following the rules for so doing. The constitution allows for the special meeting to accept motions from the floor and for the decisions of the meeting to be binding. Where does the constitution say that a national referendum is required for any and all decisions ? I'm sure those attending the meeting would love to announce the proposals beforehand, but that can only be done when the full situation is known, when board and executive members have had the chance to explain themselves and their actions or inactions. If the association had been clearly communicating with members, it would be much clearer what motions need to be raised. As it stands the waters are so muddied (and that email simply tries to pour more mud into the water) that it is impossible to know what motions need to be proposed until the meeting is in progress. If you are not personally able to attend the meeting, which has been notified to ALL MEMBERS some two months in advance, then you need to find someone who's judgement you trust. If you choose not to do so, then you must accept the decisions of the meeting. The email reads to me, as the writing of someone scared sh*tless he's going to be castigated and sacked at the meeting, I wonder why he might feel that way ? .

However a lot of French microlights have them installed as standard, especially the 'hot-ships', in order to meet the empty weight limit. When you install a BRS, you get 22.5kg additional MTOW, but the chute only weighs about 12kg. For some of the carbon wonders with empty weights around 300kg, that extra 10kg of payload makes the difference between being classed microlight or LSA ! .

I believe that's only in Germany, certainly not the case for France or the UK .

So he left the recipients addresses visible ? That means that anyone who received that email could send those same people some contrary information. Just a thought .......

All those statements are true, but the one that matters is the last one. A great way to express it, well said. .

And as of yesterday evening all Dreamliners are grounded for the battery problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=169569221 .

Normally the only possibilities for a board member would be to vote for, against, or abstain, in which case they could be seen to have some responsibility for the outcome. However, it seems there is a fourth possibility on the RAA board, that of being excluded from the vote by not being informed by the Secretary. Difficult to see how anyone could be held responsible for a decision they did not get to voice an opinion on or vote on.

I've just read through this thread for the first time and above all want to say to Viper, BLOODY GOOD JOB MATE ! Remember the Royal Navy Air Arm saying: "A good landing is one you walk away from, an excellent landing is one you walk away from and can fly the plane again within 24hrs" I don't know you Viper, but I'm very glad to hear that with only 100hrs, you had the ability to save yourself and your daughter, as someone else said, call your instructor and congratulate them on doing a good job. I'm sure there are things you could have done differently, but those don't matter a toss, as you made the decisions you did while in the situation with limited time, and you clearly made good decisions judging by the result. To those of you who are posting on procedures with hindsight, be very careful what you say. It's way too easy to criticise the actions of someone else from your armchair. How many of us have actually been through a real engine failure ? Also remember that only Viper has been through that particular failure at that particular place.

An engine giving 80HP and weighing 27kg - interesting ! http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M5ed36d72c53.html .

Having never flown anything with a mixture control, perhaps someone can enlighten me. Would you be able to set the mixture at the time of the run-up checks ? I'm imagining setting the normal run-up rpm and then adjustng the mixture to get max rpm ...... ??

Regarding the second video my question would be, did he take off with mixture fully rich as you would normally do at sea level and as is probably written in the checklist ? If so then he should have leaned the mixture to match the thin air, if he had realised that and adjusted it, he would have climbed out better. .

Thanks Windsor, I see from the aircraft for sale ads that you have many of the same types, I was just trying to understand which ones are allowed for training. The difference in France is that any legal two-seat microlight can be used for training at the instructors discretion. .

Not necessarily, but I'm not aware of which aircraft are 24 registered in Oz, so I was wondering what common types are also available to you. For example, Fly Synthesis, ICP, Zenith, Flight Design, Remos, Ikarus, Evektor, CZAW ???????? .

I see that. Looking at the POH for the 160, it gives minimum landing distance at sea level in ISA at 464m which means that most people will be over 500. Dunno if you guys call 500m a short strip, but over here 300 or 400m is pretty normal, 250m is a short strip. Bearing in mind the legal restrictions on trainers, what other aircraft are available for training in Oz ?

Thanks again Nev, actually your statements about low speed control authority bothered me too. I am surprised that a training aircraft has poor control authority at 11knts above stall speed. It must make stalling (and not spinning) practice interesting for instructors. In fact it sounds to me like the bulldozer driver would be OK, flying it with 25kts of speed margin, but anyone wanting to finesse the aircraft close to the edge of the envelope would get bitten by it.

Thanks Nev, it get's hot here too and we get some smashing thermals in summer especially when the farmers have only planted every second field, you you get a patchwork of dark green and light brown fields !! Even in summer and thermally, we would use VS0 x 1.4 on finals, that's standard teaching here, which helps when you have to land on a 300m strip. That applies to the slippery ones too, like a CTSW and an ATEC Zephyr which we have at out field. they both land at 90kmh for a VS0 of 65kmh. David, those statements certainly don't give me much confidence in that aircraft, especially if they are sold for training. .

Actually it's just clicked as you guys are talking in kts and I'm used to km/h and just did the conversion, 65kts is bl**dy fast innit ? VS0 for the J170 seems to be 39kts / 72kmh (wikipedia) which means you're using an approach speed of 1.66 x VS0 !! That seems crazily fast. We normally teach 1.4 x VS0 for manoeuvering in the circuit and 1.3 x VS0 for finals, that gives 55kts in the circuit and 50kts on finals. Is there some special reason that you would be taught to fly such fast approaches ????

Have you tried doing it in a Land Africa / Savannah / CH701 (all the same) with a big flat fuselage side to slow you down, it's like flying into a wall (of air) !

Couldn't agree more, and I'd add "learn how to sideslip and be comfortable doing it". Great feeling descending at 1500fpm, at approach speed and under control !

If you start your descent late enough you can. It's a compromise between approach angle and power. You could come in at 65kts with full power and a very flat angle and no forward visibility if you wanted to. Alternatively you could be at 1000ft AGL with les than 1NM to go and still descend at 65kts and hit the threshold. What's important is that you understand the effects of the controls on approach and can vary them accordingly to suit the conditions. Flying by the numbers is mostly for commercial and fast jet pilots.

One of the issues surrounding BRS chutes is the rocket used to deploy them. In a lot of basic aircraft, the fuel tanks have to be protected from the flame (I wonder if that video started like that). Recently a russian company called Mven have produced a chute which is ejected by compressed air, completely removing the risk of fire started by the rocket. The important point about chutes is that they are not an altrnative to a forced landing after engine failure (if you have somewhere to land). They really should only be used in the case of structural failure or engine failure over tiger country. As mentioned, the vertical descent rate is about 500 fpm, enough to total your aircraft, but survivable in most cases.......

What if someone bought a 5% share in an 19 reg ? Presumably they then become a joint owner and can train in it ..... ? .

Oops, must learn to type what I've just read, thanks Arron :)