Nobody

You have hit the main issue on head in the first part of your post. Too much politics from too much empire building results in too little focus on aviation and away from the lime light CASA does what it wants. As the cost, I am not talking about a TIF but the casual participation that is missing in Aviation in Australia. If you regularly fly a GA aircraft you cant have an RAAus aircraft on the side for a bit of fun without membership and a second license. People just dont want the hassle. edit. At one time I held the following memberships: GFA+Club ~$500 RAAus ~$200 SAAA ~$200 AOPA~$150 When I realized I was paying over a grand for these I cut back substantially and so no longer have AOPA or the GFA.

4. It discourages people from trying differing forms of aviation. Say an RAAus pilot wants to try gliding. They are up for the cost of GFA membership before they have even started. Say a GA pilot wants to have a drifter to float around the sky on those magical summer evenings(before last light) when the air has gone glassy smooth. They are up for the RAAus membership cost before they have even started. This "barrier to entry" means that many people do not look "over the fence" to see what the other parts of aviation are up to. They stick to their isolated silo and denounce any thing that is different. This means that Australian pilots are more likely to squabble about what the other parts of aviation are up to rather than directing their attention toward the regulator.

I think it is a ducted fan not a true jet. Hence the good fuel flow but also the modest performance. ie cruise is only about 120 knots.

A second engine failure?

Any proposal for a merger is likely to be divisive with some strong support and some strongly against. Is this really a great topic for discussion at a meeting to discuss what is in effect a split of the NC? Surely the purpose of the meeting is for those on the NC to explain what has happened and in what direction they plan to take the organisation. A lengthy debate about an amalgamation will prevent that from happening. If you are going to bring it up at least talk to those who remain on the NC to get their views and so they are at least aware you are going to bring it up.

This makes a lot of sense. Legally the two are separate but sharing office space leads to shared ideas and the good bits of each organisation can be seen and adopted by the other where is suits their operation.

Fly vulcan, Under your proposal the economy of scale saving that you mention needs to be offset against the lost income from those who are currently members of both orgs as well as those who choose to leave the combined entity. I dont think that the savings wont be anywhere near as much as you think. SAAA's total admin costs are only a "few hundred thousand" so to get the benefits you claim the admin function would have to be bundled into the RAAus system without any increase in cost. Is that really likely?

The British "permit to fly" system is very restrictive for home builts. As I understand it they need an engineering approval for every design and changes from kits are discouraged. Yenn, I didn't mean to imply that AOPA were effective, just that of all the organisations in Aviation in Australia they were best placed to have "full and frank" discussions with CASA because CASA have nothing to take away form AOPA. SAAA are at the moment relatively free to push CASA and have to an extent on medicals but as they move towards part 149 their ability to lobby will be diminished.

Nev this is an important point. RAAus can't get too upset at CASA. They cant write very nasty letters or resort to lawyers. They exemptions permissions and delegations will be removed or allowed to lapse. This gives CASA a significant advantage in pushing greater regulation into the bodies under its administration. SAAA is moving toward a similar situation with part 149 but at the moment SAAA really doesn't hold many CASA permissions itself. The permissions rest with individual APs. AOPA has complete freedom to lobby CASA or politicians effectively. They have nothing (that CASA grants) to loose and so can go as hard or as soft as they want. This is also the situation in the USA. EAA have no "self governing" at all. As far as the regulations go they dont exist. All of licencing and regulation rests with the FAA. But if EAA don't like something they can have a chat to the FAA. If that fails every politician hears about it and there is nothing the FAA can take away to keep the EAA in check.

I don't believe so but I am not on the "inside" and so haven't seen the books.

In effect the two organisations do run Ausfly together in a sense. There was very good representation from RAAus in the participants, exhibitors and the organisation. The member discount on entry was available to RAAus members and SAAA members. There was some RAAus delivered events on the speaking program. The biggest risk/cost with running an event is the financial underwriting. There is always the risk that no-one turns up and you make a huge loss. To date this has been taken on by SAAA but I am sure that if RAAus were keen to underwrite....

I am not opposed in principle to a merger but it only makes sense to do it if there are clear and well defined benefits to the members of both organizations. I am not sure that this is the case in this instance. A few points to consider: There are a significant number of people who are members of both organizations. Therefore the combined organisation will have less total revenue than the sum of both at the moment. While there will be economies of scale will these be enough to compensate for the reduced membership income? Even if the leadership were to agree there are some in both organizations who hold irrational grudges from times in the past. I feel that some SAAA members might let their membership lapse if there was a merger, especially if there is no regulatory burden in the way of them continuing to fly. Will CASA actually take a combined organisation more seriously? Having two organisations to lobby possibly makes just as much noise as one slightly bigger one. The organisations are quite different in nature. RAAus is based around the FTF while the SAAA is based around chapters and each chapter acts as an individual club, in most cases as a separate legal entity. Many of the chapters have substantial assets in their own right. How would these cultures be merged so that one wasn't just subsumed into the other? The turmoil in SAAA at National Council level is disappointing but hopefully in time those that remain and the new NC members will be able to work together to give stability to the operation. While a full merger may be a bridge too far a closer operating relationship might be a sensible approach. Homebuilding within RAAus seems to have almost died out. If the RAAus paperwork process was modified so that the SAAA paperwork was accepted without further inspection then an aircraft could be built under the SAAA and then flown under RAAus. Nobody

Red, Benalla looking south over the road into town. No?

EGT probes are therocouples and are sensitive to methods of joining/splicing the wires as well as the wire type. Have you changed the wire type and the splices since the last time you ran it?

So instead of politely posting your differing opinion so that others can learn you behave like a child in the schoolyard.

Many thanks for the a replies. I will continue asking for it when appropriate and if it isnt available then so be it.

He was pretty lucky not to spin it in with the fairly aggressive maneuvering close to the ground, as he admits that his speed was low in the last few turns. . I kind of think that in many situations you are better off slipping aggressively and landing into a space that is 50m too short than competently botching it. You may roll into a tree but at least it will be relatively slow. In the screen grab below he could have rolled wings level and gone straight ahead and likely would hve bene ok

Can one of the ATC guys here clarify how common/preferred it is for VFR aircraft to request flight following. I have flown quite a lot in the USA and only a little here in OZ. In the US I would request flight following almost all the time when transiting like Scott asked about above and never had the controller refuse. I would just call up about 30 mile out on the appropriate frequency and request it. Some times they would give you a transponder code sometime not but they would hand you off to the next controller at the boundary. The controllers over there tend to encourage it as it means they can pass you as traffic to other IFR aircraft certain in the knowledge that you are listening and talking and they know your intentions. If they know where you are aiming for they can manage the airspace better. Here in Oz on a cross country with an instructor doing the conversion I called up and asked for it and was given it too. The instructor had a mild panic as it was something he had never done. Is it common? Is it encouraged?

yep, all legal over in alaska: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.272.pdf

Yep, but very different to the HP-18/HP-15 of the past. New people and new techniques. It is a shame that gliding and home building have diverged. Not having to buy an engine decreases the cost and the firewall forward takes a lot of time.

David, Great news that another aircraft is about to be reborn and fly again. Hopefully not to long for the W+B and paperwork to be done and she will take to the skies. I have to admit though, that the videos made me nervous for 2 reasons. I had bad images of the canopy cracking it was moving so much and had the aircraft jumped the chocks and got away from you it could have been nasty.

As opposed to helicopters, gyroplanes and gliders.

Carriage of goods, yes. Not flying the whole aircraft!!!!