kasper

Doesn’t look like a minicab with that canopy but hey there were multiple variations on the gardan minicab as well.

Looks like a Piel Emeraude... ish. But there were so many variations on the original cp-30 it could be one of them so I’ll stick to Claude Piel as the original designer.

Looks like a snowbird which is an ugly duckling in my opinion

Like the Venturi setup to exit the excess ... but installation must take into account the semi-vaporised spray and where it goes ... wee is rather corrosive and I’d rather the metal in my airframe remain rather uncorroded.

Barlow Acapella

Have done. 1. Rang RAAus and spoke to our Michael - he thinks the policy is all fine. I noted my renewal did not include any consent to disclose. 2. Have raised this with information commission as a report of breach. Up to them as to how they approach RAAus. 3. If I ever get an invoice from an airfield operator that I think came from RAAus improper disclosure I will commence action - can’t raise an action until I have standing. 4. Each and every board member of RAAus will be getting yet another email from me on what I consider to be illegal activity asking them directly to respond. In sure board member are heartily sick of me by now but until RAAus starts behaving as I think they should I’ll just have to keep sticking emails and letter to them as and when.

Or - rather than dealing with the result by disconnecting you deal with the causes ... like data security and privacy ??

Oh dear. Just had had a look at the online membership application screen and the privacy commissioner is going to die laughing looking at just how informed your consent is on the RAAus form. Screenshotvhelow is where they have slipped it in .... after the payment options without ANY opt out even though there are 3 screens of opt ins and outs to tick before you get to the payment and I’m not a robot bit. Sorry RAAus but THAT is not informed consent and they way you did it you KNOW it’s not legit. When there are 7 tick boxes getting various consents and even allowing an opt out but you do not for this.

Interesting. If they want to try running that one they will be on a hiding to nothing for anyone who joined before they put it in the joining form ... like everyone who became members on incorporation from the former incorporated association and have never lapses their membership. certainly hope they have flagged as not searchable ALL the ones who never agreed and do not allow access to any records for them.

Completely agree that people who use facilities with landing fees should absolutely pay. I always have. But equally i find find it offensive and just plain wrong for RAAus to allow access to member and aircraft owner private data to third parties. The two two issues are not necessarily exclusive of each other however the existence of one does not nevesesitate the access that is he issue in the second.

Not an HM14 but a Crosses EC-1 Criquet. The 14 has a sloped pointed nose with engine above. The keys to EC-1 are the squared and flat wing tops and the very robust tail wheel attached directly to the bottom of the rudder.

In my view this thread has drifted into collapsing two related issues into one and ignoring the original point- 1. Right or wrong there is a perception that RAAus registered aircraft operators are not paying landing fees AND unlike GA the register for RAAus aircraft are not visibility to airfield operators to seek recovery of landing fees claimed 2. In an attempt to address the perception of 1. RAAus management wanted to make thecregister visible to airfield operators to allow them to directly seek recovery from RAAus members of landing fees claimed. This thread was about the actions of RAAus in agreeing and facilitating 2. By allowing third party access to RAAus database data of RAAus aircraft ownership and address details. If if you put aside the rights and wrongs of 1. And focus on 2. Only the issue is much clearer - access to personal information about RAAus aircraft owners is being made available to people outside RAAus for which there is no legal obligation in law to disclose nor direct consent from members. Put aside the moral or political “right” of aircraft operators paying landing fees and you have a clear issue. As a parallel- your doctor is asked by your insurer to provide them directly with your medical history so they can decide on your premiums at renewal. The information is potentially beneficial to you ... should you object if you were not asked? Similar - you are working part time following an accident at home and you are getting income protection payments from an insurer - your employer is asked by the insurer to provide your payslips to your insurer to allow them to pay the correct part pay each fortnight ... feel you should be asked? And this is without ANY consideration of will the data RAAus allow others to see be held in their IT systems and how it will be used.

That would be a start. When I had to renew my rego last week I called RAAus to advise them that I was renewing the rego BUT not giving any consent to my details being provided ... unsurprising I was transferred to Michael to talk ... I asked they note my no consent which he said he would then I renewed. Not that i consider they have any leg to stand on legally at least they know absolutely that I have specifically stated that they do not have any consent from me.

Unfortunately the data is not collected on membership renewal it is collected on initial membership application AND in initial registration of an airframe to a member. So so it cannot be consented to by adding it to a membership renewal. Plus us you can’t deem or imply consent by changing the privacy statement and/or policy. Anyone attemptimg to defend RAAus on this area really should read through the privacy principles ... implied consent or slipping it onto a requirement that is not legally required is not looked favourably upon ...

Butt ugly mk.1

Possibly the difference is that a govt department applying laws passed by an elected parliament accessed information collected under legal means ... rather than a company that collected your data for one purpose the turning around and allowing another group of people to access your data for their financial benefit despite their being federal privacy laws that specifically prevent a company from legally doing that exact thing. and to be clear I have NEVER in 25 years of flying ultralights, Microlight’s it GA not paid a landing fee. BUT I absolutely do not want my personal data being made available to groups just because it is simple and it I might get a group to support the RAAus.

I’m guessing the ’members’ are to a large proportion foreign students being put through RAAus initial training to certificate and then moving into GA and commercial ... there are a couple of very large training organisations that are doing this staged training to lower their overall costs. But what it means is the members are only ours for 1 year and they never invest in airframes. if this is is the case then we will not see year on year increases continue unless more schools move to this model ... but overall it’s not true recreational training but commercial wrapped up in recreational to lower costs. And if large the training schools are the growth area for member money then think about where priorities for a company will sit ... align with GA and just stay lower cost than GA and you have easy money ...

Well it’s “only” inflation again according to the board communique but $5 on your membership and $5 on your rego are here again. And yes yes that’s the cost of a cup of rather average takeaway coffee ... but if after 5 years of management improvement you are never able to have less than inflation I question the value of the improvements to our systems.

Yes 95.10 has NO stall speed restriction. It is NOT defined by stall speed at all. It is wing area limited. 95.55 IS stall speed restricted. It give not a damn about how you achieve that stall speed just that you claim to meet the stall speed required. If you use 15m^2 of wing without flaps or 9m^2 with really complex flaps does not matter so long as the stall is low enough. End of. Can’t be clearer. The two registration series are measured for compliance in completely different ways.

Nope. If you are 95.55 you are not wing load measured but stall speed restricted. And if it’s 2 seats and RAAus ultralight it’s got to be 95.55.

Well RAAus have done a deal now with AAA. 1. All AAA members will be able to access full member name and address so reassurance Frank had they would not see personal data not Bourne out. 2. They appear to think that adding a line to a privacy statement saying private info will be shared “for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access.” Makes it permitted. On no.2 it would be lovely if as a holder of private information you could legally avoid problems by changing the rules to deem consent to use after you have collected the data ... privacy commissioners might not share that view.

Well looking up through the links to the aero friendrishaven page this IS the same group that was asking me to do plugs and molds for what was at the time called the HO3000 ... it did not have winglets but the plan form and undercarriange look very Ho3000/Nike/Pul 10 so IF it is not just a nice photoshop image and is a real airframe it WOULD be Hortn derived ... the PUL9 and NIKE/PUL10 were the last designed by Walter before he died in 1998 ... but he will be rolling in his grave at the existence of winglets ... as he was adamant that it must be wing only ... and the virtual span effect of winglets is less than actual span so the ONLY aerodynamic reason to have a vertical is to provide directional stability ... which can be achieved through an appropriately matched flight profile and wing twist ... but the image shows control surfaces on the winglets so they are actually vertical controls not pure vortex management winglets ... fun fun fun

Not on hols... but the pul9 and nike10 modern builds were both winglet free. The nike /pul10 was two seater with retracting undercart but we’re side by sue two seaters without winglets and without two piece canopy. As as far as I know the ho3000 development came to nothing ... the guy building the scale model asked me to do the plugs n moulds for the full size about 6 years ago but was not willing to pay a reasonable amount for the work so I left it go. So so if you say that’s a Horten derived it’s one I’m not aware of.

Safari is a development of the bushbaby. The bushbaby is a development from the kitfox4 and avid flyer per the website of the manufacturer ... so all birds of a common ancestor.

Medway SLA executive. Can’t tell if it’s the 80 or the 100 ... not the Clipper because the dihedral is not reduced. Based on the rainbow cheetah from south Africa this one is BCARS compliant and built in the UK. Differences to spot include the drag links on the undercarriage going to the firewall not to the middle of the cockpit floor. ?