Powerin

While I agree 100% it is hard to make a case to the powers that be to spend the money when RAAus pilots represent 0.05% of the population. It is a travesty that RAAus rejected the ATSB's recent offer to investigate our accidents for us.

At the risk of putting a damper on an otherwise good idea...shouldn't the actual petition say something better than "Remove ASIC cards entirely." I know if I was a politician I wouldn't place much importance on a statement like that. A bit like saying "Remove speed limits entirely". Surely you need to make a case on the grounds of saving taxpayers money, public perceptions of safety, restrictions on rights etc etc. It would be better to do a bit of research and to speak politicians language in terms of money, risk and public (or media) perceptions...such as: Country X has a lot higher risk of terrorism but they don't have an ID card 60 tonne B-Double semis pose a far greater threat to airport safety in terms of what a terrorist could do than a 600kg aircraft. Truck drivers don't need ASICS. The costs outweigh the benefits Studies show that...... It's unconstitutional because it restrict trade between the states ( ) etc etc In any case, in this day and age of interconnected information, I can't work out why a "background check" is needed any more. Surely if Joe Bloggs commits a suspicious act any law enforcement agency could look up a file and see that "Ah ha, Joe Bloggs has a heavy vehicle drivers license, he has a permit to use certain fertilizers, he has a firearms license, and horror of horrors, he has an RAAus CERTIFICATE!!....bring him in for questioning!!"

Back before the days of GPS you used to stand in the paddock and mark where the spray plane needed to go. There is nothing in the world like watching a plane barrel towards you at 100kts and 5ft AGL seeing first hand the skill of side slipping around a tree and tucking the wing under the branches. Worth every bit of the chemical spray I inhaled. Mmmm...2-4D Ester

Very true. But as I have said before, democracy is still alive and well in RAAus. If the need arises the next election is available to make your wishes clear if the President or any of the Board does not meet your expectations. Furthermore, any RAAus member can become a candidate in the elections. Remember that RAAus is no longer a "club" (rightly or wrongly) but is bound to uphold the aviation laws and enjoys several exemptions from those laws. CASA holds the cards in the end. Let's not stack the deck in their favour.

I think you have it in a nutshell. Very occasionally democracy fails and autocracy needs to step in (some may call it benevolent dictatorship).

The constitution does NOT require a vote from all Board members for decisions that need to be made between Board Meetings. The Executive (President, Secretary and Treasurer) is given power to act, especially in an emergency. The constitution is silent on how this achieved...eg a vote by exec members. Ironically the Treasurer himself could and should not have had any influence on this decision due to conflict of interest. So that leaves the President and Secretary. In a tied vote the President of any organisation is often given a deciding vote. I think if the President did make this decision unilaterally he is skating close to the edge rather than being blatantly in breach of the constitution. The President has made it clear the decision, the position and the new employee will be reviewed at the next full Board meeting, as it has to be. I believe the RAAus has been in breech of the "Deed of Agreement" with CASA for some time with regard to aircraft registrations and safety and that some funding from CASA was either being or about to be withheld. We have been complaining for some time about the tainted culture and mismanagement in the RAAus and calling for action. If the President is indeed trying to bypass the entrenched culture and carry out decisive actions to raise the association from the ashes then I'm willing to wait and see what happens. At this stage anything is better than drifting along from crisis to crisis as we have been. If it all goes bad then we have the power, as always, to vote Board members out at the next election.

Sigh....I knew I should have qualified my questions. It must be the way I ask questions that people think I have an agenda. I was proposing nothing and there was no thrust. I was simply seeking answers that I genuinely didn't know and hoped that people wiser than me (such as you Nev) might enlighten me, and perhaps cause others to think about the answers. I'm like you Nev, a fact hunter. I often hunt by asking questions. Thanks Col for your insights. I guess in a nutshell I'm asking what wishes of the membership can RAAus fulfil, or actually do anything about, given the legal and regulatory role they have? By extension I'm also asking if the whole idea of "membership" is an anachronism? Does it serve any purpose in today's RAAus? I'm not advocating any particular model. Just asking if what we have serves us best and do we honestly have any say in what RAAus can do. Your opinions?

Stopping to think about it, what actual advantage do we get from having proportional representation (or for that matter ANY representation) in RAAus? In an organisation that is required by CASA to certify pilots and register aircraft in compliance with the law how much input can the general membership of any particular state actually have? Can any state's members gain any advantage (or be put at a disadvantage) in such things as funding through their state members? What do RAAus actually spend money on other than compliance and administration (and legal costs)?

Excuse my ignorance.....how do you have a cylinder head with valves on an OP engine?

How about this configuration?

The Savannah just looks "right" as a taildragger.

Warning...off-topic content follows.... I find off-topic posts a little bit like Douglas Adams' concept of "Zen Navigation"...."I rarely end up where I was intending to go, but often I end up somewhere that I needed to be." Sometimes off-topic gets you where you need to be. As an owner of an International Harvester truck who is greeted by a "EPD Electrophospheric Deposition Protection" sticker every time he opens the door, and having seen International trucks that don't have it, it is great to know the story behind it. Thanks Turbo!

That's probably the case. However the problems are real such as out-of-round components with tolerances way out of specs, like valve guides. But it is a bit perturbing when an owner doing due diligence and innocently asking advice from a manufacturer receives a threatening reply from legal.

From what I have researched Rotax and Lycoming are the most reliable piston engines. There has been a claim made on another thread that Rotax are good at hiding warranty problems. I'm not sure, a good search around the web is hard pressed to find many complaints about Rotax. As an aside, a friend flies a fairly new GA aircraft with a Continental engine. Apparently there have been a few problems with the quality of the engines. The friend had a problem with the engine which was repaired under warranty. Wanting to know a bit more about the problem, and if it could be avoided in the future, he sent an email off to Continental asking a few questions. The reply email came from the LEGAL department of the company.....

It seems like the "database" might be the dead trees in a metal cabinet type?

Back in the 70s we had a tractor of Czech origin (with all the trimmings of an eastern bloc manufactured tractor). I remember vaguely that it had a very simple cable/gravity operated plastic radiator blind which we, of course, never used in our Aussie climate. The cable simply pulled a roll of plastic up over the radiator. Here's a pic I found of something similar on an old Lanz Bulldog tractor. Maybe something that could be adapted for an aircraft?

I only attended about the last 20 minutes so I can't say much on what was covered, but I was a bit disappointed that the President hadn't brushed up on how to actually run a meeting and on meeting procedures since the Canberra GM. For the one or two motions I saw moved, the President did what he often did at Canberra: A member would move a motion from the floor and then the Chair/President would immediately launch into a speech as to why the motion wasn't necessary and try to shut the motion down without testing it with a vote. It would be far fairer to ask for a seconder to the motion and then ask for debate on the motion. Then put it to the vote. As it turns out, for the motion I heard, the President was entirely correct in what he said (IMO), but it is not a meeting chairman's job to make speeches against a motion from the floor before the membership even has a chance to consider it and debate the pros and cons. It's not a fair and proper way to run a meeting and just puts everyone offside.

Ah yes.....I would have a one of those in a heartbeat (like in your avatar). I think of everything in terms of AoA. But I thought a stick position indicator might be a poor man's LRI. And yes...the mods are having a sudden awakening

Thinking aloud....would a simple forward/back stick position indicator serve as a rudimentary AoA indicator? Perhaps something similar to a Jabiru flap position indicator and have a red line where the stall position is?

I know nothing about flying LP. Isn't the main issue with flying LP aircraft that the cruise and stall speeds are relatively close together? And with high drag you can go from cruise to stall in a short amount of time after loss of power or in manoeuvring? If that's the case wouldn't a good formula for HP or LP be the time taken to go from cruise to stall after loss of power?

As DP says, the video is fine, it was another post which has since been tidied up Perhaps my post could now be removed as it no longer applies...but it is worth keeping in mind.

Beautiful. Sorry to put a damper on things though, and as noted in the latest Sport Pilot mag, keep in mind the following regulation...especially when posting evidence of past transgressions in a public forum: CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 228 Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls (1) A person must not manipulate the controls of an aircraft in flight if the person is not either: (a) the pilot assigned for duty in the aircraft; or (b) a student pilot assigned for instruction in the aircraft. Penalty: 25 penalty units. (2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

Aviation is a lot like farming...there must be some reason why we do it...but money isn't one of them!

As far as I can tell it's all in the RAAus Technical manual. You can find it online here if you don't have a paper copy.

Here's an example of what I mean.....http://www.thepetitionsite.com/970/629/308/say-no-to-jaspers-brush-airfield-proposed-rezoning/ It is a petition set up by the group against Jaspers Brush. It is a joke. Out of the 68 that have signed the petition NOT ONE is from Australia let alone the Shoalhaven. Beware of losing credibility when mounting an Internet campaign...whichever side you are on.