kasper

22 hours ago, KR2 Alan Middleton said:

Several axes to grind.  Firstly, could someone please explain why Michael Monck is allowed by the current Board to run again after 3 consecutive terms, on the face of it against the Constitution?  I think needs an urgent explanation but I cannot seem to get one out of the Board or RAA.

Well yes and no to the three years.  
 

you can stand as many times as you like and there is nothing to make you say anything about the 9 yr rule when you stand.  
 

the issue is that the elections is not the appointment as director it’s the process to nominate to the board someone to be appointed at the AGM in November following the election.  It’s that AGM that has a Special Resolution attached to it under the constitution. 
 

so you CAN stand for election as many times in a row as you like and you don’t have to disclose anything at the election time about your appointment.  
 

it’s just that when the AGM happens and he is appointed that appointment must be by special resolution … and it always will be as any hint of members actually planning to turn up and vote it down or gather proxies to do that same will - based on past experience- be met by incumbent directors and management ensuring they either hold proxies to support it.  
 

and as fewer people attend the AGM than vote you are pretty much going to get a special resolution through

so until there are a proper set of rules that make people state if they need a special resolution to be appointed and that is in place for the election you will see on the ground process that you may not expect and which will be difficult to avoid/challenge/change. 
 

and that is because as a company in its current form ASIC will not involve themselves in breach of constitution as they expect that the members through the AGM are actively involved and will do it themselves.  
 

failing that as a member you are limited to instituting at your own cost legal action agains RAAus and they have all the member cash behind them. 

18 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Meta Sokel was similar.  Nev

Very similar - because is IS a Meta Sokol 😉

😪

1 hour ago, spenaroo said:

So what's this classified as?

Tailwheel clearly.  And from the one flight i had in one quite a nice one 🙂

On 15/08/2023 at 1:47 PM, Thruster88 said:

How flaps work

 

True BUT...

If you have no flaps set and are in steady straight and level flight application of flap will initially create a significant increase in lift to 'pop' you over an imaginary treetop or fence ... the drag from the flaps that slows you down lags the lift in time of arrival so this is a just a blip because with fixed power and higher drag you will settle to a different airspeed and your climb gradient will return to that of your graph where you are at a lower climb gradient than than you could in theory have if flapless.

Whilst I do not wear helmet over headset I do own and fly with headset in helmet for all open cockpit flying. 
 

by choice I fly with this setup in open cockpit 2 and 3!axis because I have better comms… and warmer ears.  

 I fly with the helmet in weight shift because it’s a requirement in the Uk where I started flying ws and I fly in Oz with them because they are comfortable and add safety.

I have not flown closed cockpit 3axis with helmet but to be frank I have not had a cockpit on any plane I own for the past decade so I’m a full face helmet man

for lookup I use Flycom helmet and comms equipment

flycom.co.uk 

1 hour ago, coljones said:

In what way was the call for nominations not in accordance with the rules?

Two simple ways 

1. the RAAus is not permitted to have any action required under the constitution purely online.  There are reserved members who on conversion refused to permit online therefore RAAus cannot ever do anything purely online until the last of those members ceases being a member. 
 2. Where are the written and published - not online - rules of the election that comply with the constitution?   A nomination pack does not comply - that’s a description of a process that is supposed to comply with the rules. 
 

And a simple test of the adequacy of the rules is to say where does it give anyone the power to appoint a returning officer or set the timetable of an election?   There is no written rule set approved by the board in compliance with the constitution nor had there ever been.  
 

These basic faults in the process were pointed out every time RAAus held an election for the past 5 years by me .

directly with the ‘returning officer’ and by email direct to every board member in an attempt to get some actual process in place.

this year I am not bothering because it’s just a. Waste of time and effort. 
 

but given that every single director has been appointed by a flawed process I’d really wonder what the concern that a person in that position should be for personal liability in the case something actually goes wrong and an unhappy person starts poking into how they weee appointed and if there are faults in that process. 

I’ve always said to the previous CEO and directors that I was trying to HELP and not just causing problems and stirring.  I even nominated one year to get ‘appointed’ so I could sort out basic compliance concerns from the inside but I’m just over it all. 

Shame raaus   this time did not even make an attempt to call for nominations in accordance with with requirements of the constitution.  
 

real shame is the govt corporate regulator has directly said that it’s up tot the members to hold the company management to account and after 6 years of asking I’m over it.  
 

maybe one of the actual board members might take an interest in running elections correctly … and can pm me here - I have up sending all board member emails.

A little jet is not a practical nor cost efficient way of getting around ... but that's NOT what you build a little jet for it is?

Were I have the spare $$ and time I might be tempted to do something like in retirement just for the heck of it.

Mind you I'd still have a flying flea or two, the electric sapphire and a single seat thruster and a couple of mid spec trikes to play with ... they all do other things that separately put a smile on my face.

... but I could imagine a different smile from hooting around at 300+kph at 1,000ft AGL  ... I would not go high to get the 'efficient' flight of the jet because that would not be my reason for having it.

Fair play to him and its a nice looking little speed machine.

Sorry but RAAus is not a body that has to negotiate.  
 

they set their fees and that’s that. 
 

and whilst I agree that they appear to be poor value they are at least open on MARAP - their published fee is a minimum cost of $660 so that’s just life. 
 

MARAP when introduced was a horrible structure in my opinion - search for MARAP on here and my name and you can waste some time  reading many problems with it. in my opinion.

so just to summary - MARAP is a real disincentive to remain legal as EVERY change to make on an airframe subject to it is a seperate MARAP.

prop change MARAP

change wheel rims and/or brakes MARAP

recover with a fabric paint system different from the original MARAP 

change the instruments MARAP 

change from r532 to r582 MARAP 

change from one gear ratio intbeh r gearbox to suit new prop MARAP 

put spats on an airframe that didn’t have them MARAP

now how many light wings and thrusters have NOT had at least a few of these over the past 30 years?  

Glad the 10yo video from YouTube got posted … I am by far not the only only who has and can start them by hand AND you are not the only one online saying it’s not possible.  
 

Ita about the same as hand propping a VW conversion without an impulse mag.  
 

frankly I always go for a battery but if I or a flying mate have a flat battery hand prop is entirely available. 

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Without significant modification (if at all) Rotax geared engines can not be "hand propped". You just cant get the engine turning fast enough to start. In a car you can (if on a slope or willing helpers) role/push start through the gear box (manuals only)

 

In large part this is why I am intersted in a back up power supply. They promise to be light/small enough to carry for away trips, should a weak/drained start battery threaten to maroon me. 

 

Some of them offer several additional features where electrical power would be helpful:

• Phone charging
• Running small appliances
• Torch/strobe

 

 

Utter rubbish.  All rotax two stokes I have flown can be safely hand propped- breaker points or cdi - both. 
 

think about it - you are actually spinning the engine 2-3 times your prop speed making it easier 

and on the four strokes I have successfully hand propped both the 80 and 100hp 912

my main concern on the four strokes is the usually very thin and weak trailing edges on the  prop and being careful to flat hand the surface of the prop on them.  

17 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Let us know in advance so we can get the fire trucks to form a water cannon arch over the taxi way:)

Don’t do that - it’s open cockpit and it would be a bit nippy in winter

On 01/06/2023 at 8:21 PM, spacesailor said:

Not quite !.

He provided the information to Re- register , the  already registered " 10-1103 " ,

As a 19- xxxx aircraft .

Also VHE XXX ( experimental ) .

No one has found a way to keep it's original category 10 designation. 

IF I put the wing of a " pegasus trike " on the Hummel. It CAN still stay in the 10 category. 

But ! . being SO blooody ugly , I loath to put my name on that register. 

spacesailor

 

 

Just to recap:

IF it was registered in the 10- before the change to the CAO that introduced the wing load requirement then it can be re-registered in teh 10- category with a grandfathered entitlement (just like my sapphire that does not have to comply with wing load because its been on the register since Adam was a lad)

Its a matter of what paperwork was issued by AUF and when as to this being viable.

BUT if it was not registered in 10- before the cut off date then it will never be registerable in 10- as it has no way enough wing area ... but it can go 19- any day of the week and the same pilots certificate will then let you fly it.

Cheers

My beef with RAAus on 95.10 as they manage it

1 annual cost to RAAus of $390 for member and reg

2 they as an organisation ignore their own constitution and just do what they want eg elections

3 the tech manual has been incorporated into 95.10 … and despite knowing sweet FA about the concept of deregulated self design the tech office can now ground you for any mod

4 the whole direction of RAAus is toward GA or high end speed/weighty/airspace.

5 you have to do a BFR is an airframe hat bears no resemblance to your 95.10 at quite a bit of $$.  Especially if you are not where an RAAus school is … for me it’s a 4 hour drive to get to a school that remotely has an airframe like mine
 

95.10 has been effectively leveled up to way beyond experimental GA under CASA governance.   It bears pretty much no relationship to what it was 30 years ago when created - compared to the US where it’s remained pretty unchanged in its operation. 
 

I really prefer the 95.10 definition of the airframe and operating limits - it’s just RAAus has sucked ALL the fun out of it through its tech and ops manuals. 
 

and before anyone blasts

me on this that CASA required the changes to the manuals in part yes but is a large part it’s been empire building in RAAus that offered up more and greater limits that effectively entrench them as the sole controlling body to ever greater numbers of airframes.  
 

44 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

I am becoming very interested in building a D1.  It has a retractable steerable   monowheel with a tail wheel and small wing wheels.  The way that I read this thos aircraft cannot be registered in RAA and the pilot needs a tail wheel endorsement.  Am I correct in this?

No reason why it can’t be RAAus registered.  Int eh 19- cat it would be easily within the stall limits and undercarriage config has no impact on registration just who can pilot it as there may be a need for endorsements on the  certificate.

if you were looking to squeeze it into 10- reg then you are up against it.  As designed with the ea71 engine it’s too heavy for 10- and with a lighter engine you will need to deal with cofg 

Well US FAR Part 103 vs Aust CAO95.10

what we have they do not

Speed - we have no speed limits

weight limit - theirs is empty ours is MTOW - ours moved from empty to MTOW to provide safety

Operating envelope - much wider

Pilot requirements - we have training and ongoing they have none

what they have we do not - manufactured airframe complete ready to fly or assemble without 51% rule

What I would see as a mid way

Remove RAAus from the scene as a requirement for single seat 95.10 ops

remove from 95.10 the ongoing pilot training and airframe maintenance requirements and all reference to RAAus and HGFA leaving it an airframe definition and airspace operating cao.

what this would look like is

1. single seat 300kg MTOW

2. can be operated from self build, kit, manufactured

3. must have been trained at a point in the past to pilot level

so you must get trained to fly - that was the original person problem before 95.25 and AUF training. So if you have ever held a GA licence or RAAau or HGFA trike you have been taught to a level and you are on your own after that 

ongoing single seat ops should be allowed at your own risk so ongoing oversight and training is not critical - allows you to self select your risk 

any breach of air laws sits with CASA. You break the airspace requirements and you answer to the govt authority through the courts

any manufacturer of airframes has their own liability for product to meet.  Let them deal with their liability issues. 

reault would be you could start within RAAus or GA and semi retire to single seat and withdraw from them or stay if you want to have passenger carry privileges.

under this structure you are putting your life primarily at risk at your own risk.  Airframes can come from anywhere you like and can operate within the operational limits of current 95.10 with the 

22 minutes ago, Chris_LSZO said:

What about Wilton Airport?

 

Chris

Wilton is a skydive site - not really practical to operate out of ... unless you are jumping from one of their planes.

Oaks wins hands down on outdoor parking for aircraft and low cost - against is the balance of the the strip becoming unusable following heavy rain events and outdoors.

Operated and based my aircraft from there for years and its not only a nice field they are a nice bunch of people.

Camden is also nice but much more expensive and depending on what reg you are having on the aircraft you may/may not be able to operate in tower hours (8am-6pm)

I flew from there with school aircraft but never based there even though I lived in the town.

And I had a lead on a Canberra bomber many decades ago ... alas as a teenager my parents were not understanding and my backyard not big enough. 

Fact Hunter.  Nope.  
 

the hornet and sea hornet had bonded metal skins on the bottom of the  wings which were wood and skinned in wood in the upper.  
 

whilst looking familiar to the mosquito and sharing many construction features it was a blank sheet design and not a derivative or development of the mosquito 

I'll stick a thumbs up for Enstone.

Lovely place to fly out of and I had my plane based there and did some training years ago out of Enstone before moving south of London.

Best bit of Enstone is that its far enough away from active military routes and generally busy airfields so you can pootle around without having to know EXACTLY where you are

It's not so much fun when you have to maintain accuracy of nav over unfamiliar land to within 200m lateral and 100ft vertical as you do in much of the south east around London operating into/around airspace.

Well yes the bigger the better is a core rule spoken of ... BUT you are setting a limit of the same number of blades which makes it less different and smaller changes are expected.

Overall:

The lower the number of blades the fewer leading edges and tips involved and as as result the lower the drag from blades.  On this basis the best prop is a single bladed prop as it has only 1 leading edge and tip producing drag and all thrust (lift) coming from the blade area/pitch that is set to absorb the power applied.

When you have a compare of two 3-blade props on the same power engine on an airframe of equal drag you are looking at small changes.

A three bladed fixed pitch prop of greater diameter MUST have a lower pitch as it has a greater blade area available without more power so at any rev it has to 'bite' less air as there is more blade absorbing the same power.

A lower pitch blade can be spun up from lower speed more quickly as the excess power allows for that - the increased 'bite' from each increased rpm is less for the same increase in power

That is the reason the lower pitch prop will accelerate and climb better than the higher pitch lower span prop.

The reason the general spoken rule of bigger is better is that GENERALLY when people want to maximise lower speed performance you add prop blades and reduce span ... if you want to go as fast as possible reduce your number of blades and increase the pitch - in all cases subject to the power requirements ... you may be forced to have more blades to absorb all the power because you run into airframe clearance limits and/or speed of sound issues where at transonic speeds the 'normal' drag laws get screwed up.

end of lunch break - Over the hive mind

Larger prop = lower blade pitch = better acceleration and climb at the expense of high end speed

smaller prop = coarser pitch = slower acceleration and take off and climb but higher top end speed and efficiency at higher speed. 
 

up to you which flight performance end of the envelop you wish to preference . 

2 hours ago, Carbon Canary said:

Hmmm, you motivated me to check the PDS of my policy through Super.

 

The only specific cover exclusion for death, terminal illness or TPD is from an act of war, or service in the armed forces or if a payment would expose the insurer to sanctions under UN resolutions.

That's it.

Be aware that super fund insurance is almost always just a group policy with their insurer and that insurance policy will have exclusions and/or additional premiums that your super fund may not cross add or even link to in their materials to you as the super fund provider.

eg.  My super fund as Life/TPD insurance with Zurich - my super fund fail to mention anything about exclusions but refer to Zurich as the insurer and that their policy applies ... Zurich excluded activities is a lovely fun list of exclusions and escalations of premiums - take a look at page 4 of the attached for general information - its not actually my coverage exclusion as the super fund negotiated an amended list for the members.

But looking at the general info I find it a bit harsh to include fixed wing pilots up to 100hr/yr as standard for all insurance but have added premium or exclusion for ultralights, microlights and hanggliding ... but its their sandpit and they set the rules.

In reality if you want to rely on super insurance to provide the 'top up' to super core lump sum you need to talk to your super provider and get them to confirm what is included/excluded.  I say this from personal experience having worked in a superannuation consultancy to superannuation funds as a legal adviser and for an insurance company.  It is was not unknown in the past for the super fund to have contracted coverage to their members under their cover when they have no coverage from their insurer for the same risk.

And before the boos and hisses I left insurance/banking/superannuation consulting years ago and have been doing good in the charity/not for profit sector for the past decade or so ... I am a semi reformed character despite being a solicitor, actuary and accountant.  😉

zurich-activity-guidelines.pdf

26 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

What Council area is the airfield in? I’ll see if I can get a link.

Wonondilly shire council covers The Oaks