Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 26/09/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I can't see how access to CTA would be done without charging some or all of us for our share of the cost of the entire system. But I completely agree how staying out of CTA forces us into unnecessary dangerous situations. What I would like to see is corridors enabling VFR to safely come and go from their home bases without using CTA at all. We only fly in clear weather during daylight so see and be seen plus our standard radio procedures would work just fine. And we could fly with enough height to have the time and glide distance to cope safely with an engine failure.
  2. 1 point
    This move to the higher weight limit also puzzled me. That is until I looked at it through the administration's eyes. Consider the decision between the two objectives, which to pursue first. Higher weight limit: A higher weight limit will capture some of the smaller GA planes thus increasing the membership count and consequently an increase in revenue for RAAUS. The benefit to members is limited to the new ex-GA owners and those with deeper pockets who want to buy heavier, more expensive aircraft. CTA access: Benefits all existing and potential members, but after all the effort to be expended, only increases RAAUS regulatory obligations without any increase in revenue or membership numbers. It's pretty obvious to me why the RAAUS administration pursued the heavier weight limit first and has put the CTA access in the "too hard" basket, the administration is looking after the interests of the administration first, members second.
  3. 1 point
    I have just tried to complete the RAA online survey most appropriately named as managed by "Survey Monkey". This is typical of a managed survey that is designed to provide a known out come, the following question must be answered or the survey can not be completed. Quote: 18. Sport Pilot is currently delivered to 1500 paying subscribers. The production and distribution of the magazine is subsidised by the membership at large. This is not sustainable. I believe: RAAus should increase the cost of the magazine so subscribers pay the true cost. RAAus should invest in other delivery channels to ensure all members benefit from the content End of Quote: I DO NOT believe either of these is in my interests yet the only way to complete the survey is to agree with either one of these items & as a final insult, prefix that with an "I Believe" I will let RAA know that I think they are conducting a very shonky survey. I hope other members will do the same
  4. 1 point
    AusFly again promises to be a great! Hopefully meet some of you there.
  5. 1 point
    Well.....decided not to go all the way up.....
  6. 1 point
    I wonder if Sport Pilot magazine actually advertised itself? In a 4x4 magazine for example. I've always believed the RAA and aviation in general have always "preached to the converted" rather than seeking members in other sports and hobbies.
  7. 1 point
    Suggest that you fix the spelling of the hotshot star aerobatic pilots - Jock Folan and Gerard. I can't make it as I have a birthday party to go to. I was in Narromine last weekend however so caught up with other hotshot aerobatic pilots.
  8. 1 point
    My question was whether anyone had anything in writing about whether the potential airfield closure was about: (a) An unacceptable level of risk at the airfield, (as asserted by a press report), OR (b) Agistation by developer/residents who want to build around/on the airfield. (as asserted by a couple of people from hearsay. I suspect that answer is no, so everyone has started to go off in different directions on their favourite themes (and I admit I often do that myself) If it's (a) there should be documents available from the Council which can be read and discussed and answered by the airfield stakeholders. So far I've seen nothing from the Council or the Airfield operators. If it's (b) there will be plenty of consultation material from the Council about any proposal or location. So far nothing has surfaced. Too often we've had debates on here that have raged for weeks over something that was never going to happen, or we haven't been given critical facts which might have helped us save another airport. There's nothing wrong with talking about risk evaluation etc. but it's pointless if (and I'm not saying this is the case here) a Council has issued several warnings for an Airport to address known safety issues (ie beyond doubt), and/or cover their operations with a suitable insurance policy, and been met with a brick wall, for months or years. In that case it's also none of our business.
  9. 1 point
    Personally, I'd like to see the hardcopy format magazine continue, even if the cost rises a little. And if RAA move away from a hardcopy magazine, would the same arguments apply to the various glossy safety brochures and advisory materials we receive? Back in the AUF days, our magazine felt rough and ready, with a distinctly amateurish feel to it. It may not have been the glossy product that Sport pilot evolved into (don't get me wrong, I loved the direction the magazine was going in!), but it was just as well thumbed in the flying club tea rooms. Could the magazine be produced more cheaply, if we accepted that we didn't need such high quality production values? Its essentially a club newsletter. For a couple of years I've also subscribed to 'Australian Flying', which I think has been an excellent publication.... Perhaps Sports Pilot has been trying too hard to compete with other publications which have much broader subscription bases? Cheers Alan
  10. 1 point
    Had a great Sunday at Parkes. Saturday was insane weather. few pics from the day.
  11. 1 point
    We use these all the time. I think they are extremely subjective and depend a lot on the imagination of the author. For example most people use the most conservative scenario they can imagine, so when we do an off site recovery, the most dangerous parts is the drive there because the person doing the assessment thinks a vehicle crash is quite possible, and if it happens, could result in multiple fatalities. Yet the same people drive to work every day and think nothing of it. They are a joke, yet industry runs off them.
  12. 1 point
    When making parts for the inside of the aircraft be aware that PLA (made from corn starch) will soften an temperatures that are common in summer. ABS is the plastic often used in motor vehicles, use it by preference. I used PLA for some support pieces for a bird restricted system, a week later had to make the 50 odd pieces out of ABS
  13. 1 point
    Some years ago I was involved in risk assessments for mines. You know, likelihood and impact/severity. The airstrip was usually the highest risk activity on site with potential for multiple fatals. Worse than underground or open pit operations.
  14. 1 point
    The SAAA is there to help people build, maintain and fly amateur built aircraft. I have been a member for many years, but you do not have to be a member to fly an experimental aircraft. Once an aircraft is registered and has the Experimental COA, it is a VH aircraft. You do not need to be a member of any association to keep it registered or fly it. That was one of the attractions of Experimental to me. If RAA screw things up badly all the members and aircraft could be grounded (see the registration debacle). If SAAA cease to exist, all the aircraft can continue flying regardless. People building an aircraft to fly in the RAA system would also benefit from SAAA membership. Building is the same regardless of the eventual registration, and SAAA can provide support and advice. (There have been numerous changes since 1998. I have a feeling that was about the time the current Experimental certificate came in so I don't know whether you would have built under Experimental rules or the old ABAA system, which was much more restrictive.)
  15. 1 point
    I still don't get the "subsidise a few" bit in your last line. It can be more than halved quite simply. It's the run you pay for and if you halve the number of runs you halve the total cost. . Since it doesn't have to be marketed publicly the paper and inking/ laser? can be cheaper and if you reduce the number there MUST be savings available for smaller numbers with less "Mainstream" Copiers.. If there's a will, I'm sure there is some way. As I keep saying I am in various clubs that have NO problem doing what we are talking about. Nev
  16. 1 point
    So... If there are 10,000 members And we sell 1750 annual subscriptions to the paper version paying an average of $44pa And it costs $72k to generate content and put into electronic form And it costs an additional $140k to print and post the paper versions Then Members are paying $7.20 per year from membership fees to get a "digital magazine" that is NOT designed as digital mag but is instead an electronic form of a print mag (not the same thing at all) Members are paying $6.30 per year from membership fees to not get a paper magazine In total each member is paying $13.50 towards the magazine If this is correct then around 10% of the member fee $131 is being used to provide each member with a digital magazine that is not designed to be a digital magazine! I use the non-flying member fee as the last we knew the difference between the two was supposed to be insurance costs If we are now at a point where we need to address the subsidy to the paper mag then I think its time to: 1. go back to printed paper for all and acknowledge that this is expensive and either number of mags per year must reduce or costs in membership goes up (or maybe both - I do not know the break even and cost steps that exist fro print and post on this area) ; or 2. we go to digital ONLY and change the production and layout to be a true digital only publication; or 3. abandon a 'magazine' and invest in a digital stories and information repository with a "publication" front end so people could access the full history of content as a database of documents but still have a 'latest months' content update In my iopinion we cannot keep going as we are. But I did not get any survey monkey link so I am not someone RAAus consider they need information from.
  17. 1 point
    I was referring to accomodation; cabins at the airport get booked out early.
  18. 1 point
    No need to book, this is not run by RAAus.. That means among other things that you ill be able to hear at any of the lectures, rather than having a bloody big generator bellowing in your ear as happened at the last RAAus event I went to.
×
×
  • Create New...