DrZoos

In the accident above , the student sued and lost , Rods case was the one that got the nod from the judge to say that trainee pilots accept they are doing a dangerous activity...

Oscar i legitimat ely think you ought to request a 20 min phone interview to brief the senator

RIP Fellow aviator and sincere condolences to friends and family.

Im sure RAA are lobbying hard...its not in their interests to be publicly slanging CASA, as we know CASA likes to club baby seals to death with a big stick. Im sure they are working behind the scenes on this and thinking along the same lines as us. Sent messages to several

wow great find...... those clowns where evasive , tried to cover their ineptitude and made O'sullivan look like a fool for listening patiently for so long I think in the end he could see they were absolutely spinning complete BS... I would think his threat at the end was a very serious one... Now you guys need to poke him with a stick, keep the fire alive, congratulate him, but also infuriate him with the facts that they should have known and chose to hole back or cover up...

Its not a shoe in for Joyce...Hertseyker is a good chance as many regard Barnaby as a tad too out there...

Great but i seriously think you should charge at least $10pm for an aircraft or part worth more than $1000 Who in their right mind would object to that

Some good points on bad reporting to misdirect blame... I know of two incidents that persons involved story seemed to drastically alter...

I think you need to agree to disagree....its now getting ugly for spectators

The reality is Turbs, you cant beat CASA at anything....they simply cant be trusted, they have no interest in promoting or even fostering aviation.... They are the most inflexible, difficult, nonsensical, self contradicting, and ridiculous organisation I have ever dealt with or will ever deal with.... If it was 1950 or i was in a corrupt dictatorship I would understand, but how this inept behaviour has been encouraged and funded by an Australian govt is beyond me... Im giving it two years and if things haven't changed dramatically for the better...im selling the plane and giving up... Cant be bothered dealing with this crap for another 30 years.... where there is smoke there is fire.....one only has to read any thread on here or that other forum about CASA to know its a bush fire!

My aircraft clearly states , not to be flown in ambient temps above 40c...when i enquired why they said the "resins and glues " used lose strength while at higher temps and regain strength after they cool again

agree Pearo but, unless your the actual builder with many many many years of personal experience the biggest issue is still delamination..... As we don't know the quality till it lives on or fails....and even within great companies, quality of components varies....as two aircraft may have different tradesman or even two wings or parts of wings etc.... learn how to check and check regularly, especially on structural or critical parts...do not trust reputations or rumours of quality and strength when it comes to checking continued airworthiness of any component When i made the choice to buy carbon , i did so on the assumption i would not fly it in extrme heat or leave it outdoors except when travelling

Without a fuel stop? At 4000 calories per hour i doubt they have much range ...

Biggest con in any climate is de laminating n, or invisible structural failure Biggest pro is lack of corrosion Be cautious with max ambient temps as certain glues in any aircraft go soft or lose strenght with heat

800 ft and 0.9 miles at 500 approach is too close with 500+ pax... At night As a regular flyer im not impressed... Sure it wasnt an iminent disaster, but this is not good enough

Jetr I think CASA strongly disagree with you...they do think RAA makes an event more likely and they do think certification makes events less likely.. The Jabiru instrument clearly indicates they think Jabirus have a higher likelihood... Whilst i disagree with the Jabiru instrument and how it was imposed ....i think its clear CASA look at it this way and until you can somehow convince them that the frequency or likelihood has been or can be lowered, they have boxed themselves into a position where they cant remove it without either looking incompetent or reckless should an event happen. If an accident does happen of this nature, its a lawyers dream down the track should CASA remove it without significant change...because it either makes CASA look negligent or incompetent. Either way it will make their approach to safety look inconsistent at best. My point was not to argue they would/should use this approach or to argue about risk modelling, but simply to highlight how i think they are currently viewing it... I think they have elevated the likelihood and until you convince them those chances have been reduced your pushing stuff uphill.. Nothing has changed in the severity of injury, so if they are making a case for elevated risk, then it has to be based on a likely frequency of occurrence basis.

I would think that perhaps CASA uses something remotely similar to this , if not a printed version, a mental version, and irrespective of our view, they have placed Jabiru in the highly likely or medium likelihood category which they deem unacceptable. For whatever reason they have increased their perception of its chances of occurring and it wont be till Jabiru or its owners can shift it down the likelihood that the instrument will be changed.

If you want the best people for the job, yes you do need to reward them in kind or financially. This doesnt need to be massive, but it should at least pay approximate wage for time spent away from family and work, otherwise your asking them to take a financial hit just to be on the board and serve... This will generally attract better skilled board members then getting only people who are willing to give away free time. More importantly the board members need to be completely insured from all personal liability and have their personal assets protected , otherwise smart skilled people with assets will simply avoid these positions.

2 hours ago on google news SBS

"Just the way it is" doenst make it right, good or acceptable...

"Reporters submitting eligible reports can claim protection from administrative action by CASA, in accordance with section 30DO of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, once every five years." Only once per 5 years - doesnt exactly inspire you to wnat to use your one and only get out of jail free card!

Geoff thats the entire problem with CASA's big stick , ban everything approach... I have heard repeatedly of what seem to be extremely reliable stories from multiple very reliable people of unnamed things like people who are in control of rather large items with lots of lives on board ...who seek medical treatment for cash in Australia from medical professionals not at work or who seek treatment overseas simply so they can avoid scrutiny and unwanted headaches from organisations who do things exactly like CASA... These are not isolated cases... the CASA big stick approach simply forces people to find ways to hide what really should be reported and dealt with. I have no personal knowledge of any person who has breached any rule law or similar... But i have been reliably told it does occur on mass with regularity ...i cant remember who told me or when though... CASA has me so scared that i have lost all recollection of the details of these events other than Im sure they possibly did occur... Last time i made a post like this i got a horrendous phone call afterwards... so this time im not so certain about anything...

Had a mate cook a rotax this week...we are tearing the heads of in an hour or so to send to flood for hardness testing. You could easily cook my Rotax in the Alpi as its a tightly cowled little thing that doesnt like having its nose high for too long... carefully managed its not an issue, but on hot days wtih high loads it needs to be step climbed or it too would cook and fail.

No we have already clearly stated that is not the case. What we are saying is that the current system ensures that those few members in small member states are massively over represented on the board for no logical reason... Even you yourself have said "funding travel from the eastern states is expensive, especially to WA. " So why enforce that we must have a board member from there and NT and sA and TAS , when perhaps a far better person may be available from another closer state that lives near 5 times as many members ??? There is no black and white answer, we are just hypothesisizing that the current state based system is not as fair or necessary as people would like to think it is. In a sport like soccer where you ahve state titles and state sporting organisations competing for resources and allocation of funds, its crystal clear why it is necsary. But in RAAus we need the best people for the job and that is not necesarily state based. In fact if for a moment we assumed a hypothetical situation where we had 5 members. and they ended up being one from Melbourne, two from Sydney, One from Brisbane and one from say Adelaide...can you imagine how much easier and cheaper board meetings would be to the organisation... They could fly in have the meeting and be home that night.. Im not suggesting thats the best outcome, I am merely proposing that insisting they come from every state may in fact be counter productive to a nimble foward focused and more streamlined RAAus

Frank for us as RAA members its very different...they are basically just administrators... On the State or federal govt stage, they collect huge taxes from us and then redistribute that in the form of payment, grants and infrastructure. If RAA redistributed huge amounts of money or provided infrastructure I would agree, but they dont... They administer rules that apply Australia wide ... the argument of needing geo specific representation is a little on the soft side compared to having members equally represented based on their percentage of membership... This is way over simplistic and only very briefly and poorly explained, but it highlights a large part of the problem of using the old state based voting system. Take this scenario just as a crazy example. Íf for example Sydney and Melbourne and SE QLD had 70% of RAA members and CASA made changes to laws banning RAA aircraft from those areas. We have the potential situation with a state based situation where NT, WA,SA TAS, ACT could vote and say, now doesn't affect us we don't want any resources spent on fighting this... The potential to end up with decisions that do not favour the majority of members is heightened. Secondly when you have areas with small member numbers and large voting rights eg: FIFA it invites corruption and horse-trading, as smaller areas use their disproportionate power to influence outcomes, achieve greater benefits for their local members than the majority of members can achieve in much more population dense areas... A simple example of such a thing is say RAA wanted to run an L2 maintenance course across the country. and they had enough money to run only 7 workshops in 7 locations... is it really equitable that say QLD with its vast spaces gets one workshop for say 2500 members and NT gets one for say 150 members... (numbers not accurate, just used to highlight a point) or should QLD get two on the first year so that we can serve the majority of members better and NT gets one every 2nd year starting in the 2nd year. That way we as an organisation could not only serve more members with the same amount of money, but we could also achieve higher safety outcomes for a higher percentage of our members and aircraft. I really do feel for members in remote areas...but if we are to truly raise the bar and be the best organisation possible, we cant be dictated to based on equal membership for states when member numbers are so drastically different. Our resources are heavy in the populous states and our efforts need to be as well. VIC is slightly different due to its compressed geography... but NSW and QLD are special cases due to high member numbers and huge sizes of the state with members spread out from one end to the other.