Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    But you can't allow those who didn't vote to be used by those who didn't support the proposition as part of the anti team. If we used that logic the board election for RAA would be regarded as inconclusive and no-one would get elected. I don't know how many voted but probably less than 10%. By the same token I haven't seen a huge (if any) write-in vote for Team ELAAA.
  2. 2 points
    Those who voted Yes, did at least vote. I wonder how many of those simmering sceptics voted. I had my say here and directly to RAAus in the run up to voting and it did not one iota of good.
  3. 1 point
    Not necessarily; it would depend on what they were told, and the circumstances.
  4. 1 point
    Apart from not changing because of your past issues with them, why would CASA be "going" anywhere. They remain an arm's length organisation overseen by a diluting government department, committed to ICAO compliance, and except for the few rule flouters who get into trouble, and a laziness in tidying up their explanatory mess, don't really feature in the day to day issues of pilots of today.
  5. 1 point
    Call Doug at The Ultimate Thrill Ride | Sports/recreation/activities | Mount Archer he has a 7ACA.
  6. 1 point
    Wow, so many stupid comments it's embarrassing, clearly you don't have to be smart to fly a plane.
  7. 1 point
    Yeah, real world tests, phttt, he would have been far better off arguing about it in a forum somewhere with a bunch of experts.
  8. 1 point
    Maybe we could do some more research into creating a more flexible "ground". Once we have found the best balance between rigidity and flexibility, we could then create a standard to which all "ground" must be made. This may be difficult, so an alternative would be to assess all ground and develop a rating for the survivability of the ground. Using this rating, we could then make legislation determining the acceptable rating for taking off and landing as well as perhaps a softer grade of ground for flying over, with obvious rules for having to be able to glide clear of ground that exceeds the hardness spec. Alternatively, we could legislate that we all have to fly so low that it's impossible to impact the ground at an angle steep enough to kill you. That, I suspect will be like our police. When they have a horror road toll, the public need to lift their game, when they have a good run (or a pleasant statistical plateau) they will go to the media saying how it's the result of their fine police work.
  9. 1 point
    Must we persist in dumbing down the essential skills of safely flying an Ultralight? I Used to teach low flying and haven't looked like killing anyone yet. It helped ME but I' not allowed to help others. Unless they do mustering. The last part of a forced landing. (or any landing for that matter) is LOW flying. so do we conveniently ignore that.?.Nev
  10. 0 points
    You've taken it too literally Skippy; there are less hours per year compared to most cars, but a lot more than the average Header or Bale loader. If you stick to Onetrack and Facthunters comments, you'll be reading about people who have accumulated practical knowledge in the field.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00
×