Keith Page

In the case I just mentioned,, old mate was not a member of RAAus.. Yes pmccarthy ...... I think it is a case of ... if people wake up and have the courage to take the authorities on the results could be surprising.. But have the PPL with all the i's dotty and t's crossed. I like, "Skerrick of supporting legal evidence".. Tells a story.. Regards KP.

This fellow was flying a registered RAAus aircraft. He had a PPL.. But no tail wheel endorsement. That pilot if he has a PPL and the aircraft was registered he has grounds for appeal as the precident has been set. Regards KP.

In the April addition of "Sport Pilot" the RAAus magazine. The is an article written by Dafydd Llewellyn and at the end of the article there is a reply by the CEO. This article brings with it, a lot of history and I will add my part by mentioning this history. Beginning....... A few years ago this gentleman was flying a RAAus plane without a pilot certificate how ever he had a PPL hence everyone near and far got to hear about this even CASA. So the next chapter there was surveylance set up to catch the culprit. After a bit of chasing the culprit was apprehended. There was joy in both organisation that they had caught their bad person. So here is funny bit --- so once caught.... "What will be the charge?". There was a lot of discussion by the capturers so they went and asked the "Department of Public Prosecution" for advice".. Their advice from the DPP ---- "Drop the charges or you will make fools of yourselves." There is no charge for that crime. The only wrap over the knuckles the pilot got was a letter put on his file for flying a plane without an appropriate endorsement because the RAAus plane was a tail dragged and he did not have a tail wheel endorsement. The RAAus board of that day made the comment to keep that one quiet as usual all secrets leak out. This case is archived somewhere so there is a president sent. Just remember some of these regulations are just a wish list. Hence the CEO may be being a bit foolish as well,with that reply to Dafydd. Regards KP.

Russ...I have red stumpy here,yes he does command caution. Regards KP.

Russ seeing you are thinking about all those animals with an aim of wrecking an aircraft. Just for those which continue to insist I am thinking of an electric fence would be good. We can get 4 specialised very lite posts for electric fences, small energiser which runs on torch batteries they will run for about 5days the string is not a burden all that will pack in a little bag when you get there not much work to construct that fence. I am in the process of putting all this together just for aircraft safety. I hasten to add three more animals to the list:- goats, horses and pigs.. Electric fence keeps all at bay.. Regards, KP.

Yes news paper and a loaf of fresh bread will do the trick. Watch out for the house dog he will rush and greet you. "Shut the prop down QUICK" KP.

Here is another. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=noccundra+hotel&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dTAfVZHME-XBmwWwroDYBw&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQsAQ Regards KP.

There is a strip nearly beside this pub.. Then you have Birdsville to the north and the strip there is in front of the pub. http://www.mungeranniehotel.com.au/ Regards KP.

Here is another --- out near the "Dig Tree". https://www.google.com.au/search?q=noccundra+hotel&biw=1366&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CC4fVZHzGIXZmAWol4C4Dg&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQsAQ regards KP.

Yes Yen What then when CASA interprets the rules to suit themselves keep in mind a great deal of CASA regulation is only their wish list. Regards KP.

Yes Jake We do not know who is friend or foe. They just push their own agenda and hope we are all gullible and hand over fists full of money for the frivolous fixes. Just like the Jabiru engine issue it is not what went on this site that is just pub talk ------- but -------- go and find the spark which started the fire, we will never find it in the short term however we will all find out later. How it all started and who are the main instigator. Regards KP.

Here is a link for the new Levil products.. http://nebula.wsimg.com/79c719c6558b98c26d9ba21ab0e120f1?AccessKeyId=25B2510C35AB96A7E02E&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 I think they are great, something -- we can use in our experimental home built aircraft. Do not tell CASA. Regards KP.

that a person of reasonable intelligence has no chance of full compliance with CASA's rules (Quote:- Turbo). I just wonder it someone said to CASA "How do I weigh my project".. Instead of just going and weighing it. Then this rot has surfaced --- a great deal of that wake me up stuff starts in an office with someone trying to justify their existence. Remember a lot of CASA regulation is only a wish list because when it is challenged in court it falls over. Regards KP.

An extension from my last post:- A great deal of these advancements are developed and designed by some special people in the aviation industry "not" your usual bush barrister, hanger/pub/club bar engineer and etc., etc.. The good one I do bring up and it is usually "game set match" with a lot of spluttering.. Where was the glass screen concept trialled? What about the Burt Rutan designs and concepts? I know who I will listen too. It is the intelligent ones not the ones with an ego and or a personal agenda mixed with their ego. With that said --- fancy having the 19's restricted, a lot of them are more special than the factory built and safer. Regards KP

Hello Kev You are on to it -- at times I wonder where the tech team has their allegiance. We have to consider and keep clear in our minds RAAus is a member's organisation not an off shoot of CASA. Hence the rules must be interpreted in favour of members not CASA. To me the tech team are interpreting in favour of extended regulation if we get to much regulation we will all be grounded and the tech team will be out of a job. In my view the 19's are so special they are the proving grounds of a lot of aviation advancements. Regards KP.

Yes Kev, You are correct about "subjective" if you followed through with that thread regarding the 95.55 amendments I have a suspicion that most of that noise was generated after someone gave their interpretation without getting their mind around the facts or a wish list of the said person wanting to be a hero. My wish is 19 is experimental and is left alone and not bogged down in wanting to be heavily regulated. RAAus is minimal regulation not getting more regulated like this somebody is suggesting. Regards KP.

Told you ages ago that the small one would be going in and out of Welcamp. Wait for the next chapter. regards KP.

Good oh! Oscar I am not sure ---- however there are some home builts out there which are of far superior build and more geometrically correct than the factory built aircraft. They are supposed to be bullet proof that is one end of the scale and at the other end of the scale they are just horrible. So all 19's can not be put in the same pond. Just because it came from a factory it is great and just because it was built at home it is rubbish ---- I am not going along with that line of thinking. Regards KP.

facthunter is on to it. He says buy a pile of crap and you not aloud to make it safe, hello -- come on. I agree some of those kits are a bit tough to construct and one needs to have a lot of good knowledge to put it together. What facthunter is on to -- say a tough kit plus a lot of rip tare bust plus no thought going into the construction, then the builder is overwhelmed then they sell it on. The new buyer then has a big task of undoing and reconstructing almost the whole project. So where dose the CAO 95.55 amendments and advice from the Tech department fit into the dilemma? CAO 95.55 has some new amendments that is good but who will be interpreting these new amendments there is my concern. Because now when one calls up for an interpretation the answer is "That is what CASA said" or Is it? One of those old standard answers "That what they said" I am bit of cunning here -- all those theys have names. or Is it a case of over regulation? Looks like RAAus is letting over regulation creep in. Regards KP

What about Masters? KP.

Oh so true rankamateur ---- even get a job as a 1st. class pollie with the highest distinction that could be handed to a pollie. Regards KP.

Hi All I have just read through the whole thread and I have detected a couple of inaccuracies namely:- (i) Part of our membership funds go to the mag --- this was the case when I joint the AUF. The deal was -- part of the membership buys the mag as yet I have seen where that is rescinded. Have you seen that Andy? (ii) In the AUF days it was an arrangement with CASA that the mag was the instrument to inform member of safety briefs and all other briefs associated with aviation interests. The other good thing as I see the situation --- it was a good idea to develop a surplus in the yester years. Imagine the mess if there was no surplus. Regards KP

OK Frank ---- go along with that. The other point does he have a PPl? If so -- then he can not be had for unliceneced flying --- "only thing", depending on which endorsements he holds on his PPL. As I see it not a RAAus problem, only a case for civil aviation to sort out. Regards KP.

You know action will speak louder than words,, then just sit back and listen to the excuses. I will love to hear the "whys" why it was successful. Best of luck "Narromine". Regards KP.

A very good point, if that is the case could even be an unregistered GA (VH) aircraft. KP