kasper

I doubt it would have been steel recovered. Aluminium is more likely to have been the salvage given the limited supply of it at that time.

Fisher Celebrity?

Sorry red. You are wrong. That is a escapade without question just from the picture. Checking g-info for the reg of G-PADE it’s a 912 powered escapade. Clearly airport-data is not without error ?

But without looking he’s running through the UK Microlight’s ... that’s an escapade.

Huntair Pathfinder 1(h)

Wouldn’t want to be in the passenger seats on this ?

Yes and absolutely no. The wrights has the CofG set up so that the canard was not loaded sufficiently to have it stall first - deliberately so as their aircraft were deliberately UNSTABLE in all axis. Any modern canard is stable in all axis and CofG set to mean canard stalls fort and main wing never should. Modern canards are not particularly sensitive in pitch just limited in pitch range. And a few have had issues when using laminar flow sections on the canard and losing pitch authority but I’ve not found/heard of pitch sensitivity on any of the ones I’ve flown or the owners of ones I’ve not flown.

Looks like a Culver Cadet

Phantom x1 ultralight from the mid 80’s. Still made today http://www.phantomaero.com/

Humbert Tétras from France. Really nicely built - took a short flight in one about ten years ago when I was weather grounded in the Loire valley. Easy giveaway is is the two overlapping arrow heads on the tail - it’s the company logo

Well if the unique feature is rear facing rear seats then it’s not unique because that isn’t a white lightning. ..

Yep that’s what I was getting at. Until turnover hits $3m - probably this year anyway - the continued acceptance of CASA cash means they are within the privacy act ... and that will mean that the board should fairly rapidly get a grip on management and possibly set out that breaking the law should not be part of their management plans.

Ah but you see as a not for profit company with turnover under $3m taking the govt money for activities that are within the scope of the govt authority is what makes RAAus subject to the privacy act ?. Take the money RAAus and you will find the information commissioner VERY interested in any agreement to hand over private information ... and that’s an address not just the name so any RAAus staff or board members reading this please note that by excluding the name of the registered owner does not remove the breach ...

I have no interest in his personal life provided what is said in public around others personal lives is consistent with his own. He called for Barnaby to resign based on his personal behaviour and I now see that mr Broad has resigned so at least the behaviour once made public has a consistent outcome. And as Barnaby is my local member maybe he could reflect on both his behaviour and failings AS a local member and do the decent thing and retire from the field. But I’m a realist

One of: - Kappa 77 KP-2U Sova - Jihlavan KP-2U Skyleader - Jihlavan Skyleader all basically the same depending on who built it,

Yep. There were monospars with gypsies and even whirlwind engines ... all built by General Aircraft not Miles as there were around 10 different models based on engines and undercarriage retracts etc. And my rather battered copy of two men in a flying machine is re-read by me every year or two. ?

Nope. There are and have always been numbers issued in seperate sequences that are the same.

On rego numbers in RAAus 9,999 in each sequence 10- will never hit the limit as very few go there any more 25- are a closer favtory group so no issue 28- as old 101-28 homeguilt saaa aircraft will never hit their limit 32- trikes will never hit their limit - the hgfa trikes have T not 32 leading so no practical reason duplication can’t occur now we have 18- 19- 23- etc all with 9,999 options. I dont see that that RAAus really needs to recycle numbers any time soon because there are large gaps in sequences when over the years they have done odd sequence blocking’s. moving to VH-1234 would actually substantially reduce the total available and don’t forget we have to label them 6” high with proper gaps so racking on extra digits is problematic.

So it appears the DRAFT magazine was also sent to the printers and distributed ... great to see the quality systems at RAAus extend to the main external communication tool.

Perfectly happy to be grumpy when there is a piece of legislation that provides for the provision of personal data to groups as exists with registration details of motor vehicles. Equally I’m Perfectly happy to call out breaches of legislation protecting personal information when there is no legislative or permissive need for that information to be transferred.

Well the magazine with the column has been pulled from the RAAus member website and the magazine on Issuu has a totally different column. Wonder what went out in the printed magazine for November ...

Turbo, I would accept that drafts get written all the time within companies for proposals and were that the case I would understand ... however the best we can see from this is that it is a draft final communication for post agreement communication and it is evident on the face of his words as they appear in the magazine they know how unpopular this will be - not a draft of a possible but a draft of post execution with complete clear expectation of unhappiness. And yes, I was one very vocal opponent to the structure change in RAAus for pretty much every reason that has appeared to be an issue over the past years since the change.

Well I did get a written response from Mr Monk to my two direct questions of date of agreement with AAA and when was data first shared. It was not marked private or confidential so here it is: "At this stage RAAus has not made a formal comment or officially published anything to members on this matter. We continue to work with the AAA on this matter. The article you read was a draft and was not intended for publication. It has since been removed. At this stage no information has been shared. Thanks Michael" draw your own conclusions/speculate as to how the member response has gone down with the board.

Back to the core issue of RAAus disclosing private information collected legitimately for one purpose to a third party for a different and unrelated purpose without consent of the individuals ... Comminwealth Privacy Act - not legit for the purpose Mr Monke put in the magazine. So if RAAus are covered by the act the directors might like to gird their loins for answering the questions that will come from Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. They may may not have $3m of turnover to bring them within last year but once it does they are within ... and arguably the payments from CASA being them within the Act even when turnover is under $3 m. And yes Mr Monke. I am one member - or client as I’m referred to in your policies - who is more than a little angry. And given im just out of hospital after a car crash I’m stuck twiddling my thumbs looking for things to do for a couple of months and pi$$ed off with RAAus big time now.