dodo

Jim, thanks, - my comment was because reads a bit like a formal press release as required by the ASX under their disclosure rules, which a firm then designs to say very little and yet comply. I will be interested when we do get an update on what the issue is, and thanks for your reply, dodo EDIT Sorry, to clarify, I am not criticising,just explaining my response to the website announcement

From the website: Does anyone have any idea what this means? With some accounting background,it still doesn't mean much to me. Have we a problem with leave or super liability? FBT? Or has someone a dispute about an expense account? Any ideas? It isn't very informative. Any idea why it couldn't just a bit clear as to what the "inconsistencies" identified are? Dodo

No, I don't know about stopping renewal notices. I think many may have been delayed by having their files checked before posting the renewal, but I don't really know...I was contributing my effort, and trying not to get in the way, so I don't know all the process and decisions made. dodo

I think that is not quite correct. Some 95-10 have a different MTOW (eg the Tyro is generally 280kg). In that case, you should have an MTOW sticker. And that is where the confusion came in, I suspect. At first it was everything should have a sticker, then 95-10 didn't need it, now some 95-10 do need it...but as builder, you are the final authority, so if you tell RA that your MTOW is a number up to 300kg, that is the MTOW, and therefore, what should be on the sticker (but if it's 300kg, then that is assumed and no sticker required!) dodo EDIT - you can change the MTOW only if you are the builder (ownership irrelevant)

That email complaint must have been replicated dozens of times - or hundreds of times. I find it very difficult to understand the approach of the board. I am pretty sure that they are well meaning, and those I have met (only a couple) are hard working. I believe that goes double for both the secretary and president. But they believe the current level of information provided to members is satisfactory, which I can't understand. I know they must have been told often, by enough people. I suppose my point is that I would rather change some of the policies and practices of some board members, rather than change the composition of the board. But it looks impossible. dodo

If anyone needs to know the wording for the placards, or needs a checklist of what is required or anything else, as far as I understand, it all comes from the RA technical manual. If you have sent in the correct information for first registration at some time in the past, and the correct information for renewal now, that should be OK, unless there is some underlying problem (eg something like the type certificate is no good, or something else beyond your control). So if you want a checklist, look at the RA technical manual for your aircraft's registration type. See section 7 http://www.raa.asn.au/safety/technical-manual/ The Annexes show the wording to be used for the placards , although the MTOW one is pretty obvious ("MTOW number kg") On the MTOW placard issue,it is clearly required in section 7, but isn't spelt out in the checklist for amateur builders in section 3, which might be why that is so often a problem. dodo

A thumbnail dipped in tar will do. Accurate and legible are important. Just because your rego type allows 544kg or 600kg doesn't mean your aircraft can carry 544kg. The MTOW should be the registered MTOW, so use the factory figure, or if 19- or 95-10, the calculated MTOW. Some 95-10 may be only good for 280kg, not the 95-10limit of 300kg. Some 19- may have MTOW well under 600 or 544 dodo

I am not a reliable source (I just tried to provide more help than hindrance). My understanding, which might be incorrect, is that flying school aircraft and new registrations get addressed as soon as possible, but this doesn't slow up the others as they are a tiny minority. There isn't any explicit prioritisation because it isn't practical, and might be unfair. Transfers got sort of left on hold for a period, but I think transfers don't get treated as registrations (for the purposes of the audit), so go through OK. As far as I know, nothing is on hold (except possibly registrations where there are real problems, not documentation issues). One of the reasons I can't provide definitive answers to a lot of things is that I was trying NOT to ask questions unless absolutely necessary, so I wasn't a drag on the process. Even so, I think the first couple of days I was a net neutral, possibly negative,then I got enough understanding to be positive, but never fully effective. My knowledge of the tech manual requirements,and the intricacies is limited, whiles the tech manager and a couple of others had very comprehensive knowledge. And Captain, I agree on the information issue. I really think that is the biggest single problem, and I don't know why they are not more open. But as I said, I was in trying to help with an immediate issue. I wasn't there to advise or criticise, so I just worked. dodo.

It is relatively complex. Some of the files are 25 years old. Some of the requirements have changed. Some of the files contain contradictory information. For instance (not quite real examples,but close) 1 an aircraft imported from South Africa, with SA de-registration cert, reference to a type certificate in Czechoslovakia... umm, would that be the Czech Republic today or the Slovak Republic? What do we accept from that country? Can I read Czech enough to confirm it is real? 2 Or how about an amateur built 19 rego - MTOW question, cockpit placard is 544kg, rego form and subsequent documentation say 384kg, but the ADS says 348kg? ADS should be definitive,but this leaves a payload of 20kg fuel and total crew weight of 95kg. Does it fly with two midgets? Suspect transposition error. 3 Or a 95.10 trike, built in the early '80's by Airborne, purchased about 1985, registered in about 1988?Have a look at the 95.10 requirements. 4 How about an aircraft with the rego photos showing the wrong number (forgot a digit!) ? It flew around for years like that! 5 What is the stall speed of an aircraft that doesn't really stall? Minimum controllable speed or canard stall speed? Tech manual just says stall speed, and the main wing doesn't stall. Basically, you have to fully read through every file, and have a competent knowledge of the requirements. The average RA pilot does not have this knowledge. Plenty do,but it would be a minority. And the work started after aircraft started being grounded, so you start with a backlog, phone numbers on file are 15 years old, some people you phone can't get to their aircraft until the weekend etc. The real issue is how we got into this mess. The way it is being handled now isn't too bad, considering the situation. Not brilliant, but with everyone overloaded, constant phone calls, I find it hard to criticise the effort. Again, the real issue is how we got into this mess. dodo

Bugger. I missed it. Will someone repost it? (You'll get in twouble!!!!!!!!) dodo

CFI, tech manual was 2007. Maybe RA-Aus didn't ask for the right stuff. Maybe things weren't checked to the letter, but to the spirit in the past. Or maybe it was poor administration. But the tech manual sets out the requirements. Basically, no goal posts have moved. But we are now being checked on stuff that is basically trivia. It is important that a pilot getting into a plane gets a clear MTOW, expecially where it might be ambiguous (544kg or 600kg). But it isn't important that anyone has a photo of that placard, in my opinion. And I believe the warning sticker is to protect CASA from litigation, as the sticker does nothing for the structure or design of the plane, and anyone flying an RA-Aus plane without knowing the RA standard shouldn't be in it. So this is petty, following rules to the letter. But that is a function of CASA pulling the pin on RA. Why they did that, and how we got into this position, how we failed three follow-up audits etc. are questions I would like the answer to. In short: 1 provide what is requested if it is a genuine requirement (see tech manual) regardless of how petty it is. OK, then you can fly. 2 get answers from the board. What is going on? Who knows? Why aren't we told what is going on? dodo PS one example is non-LSA 24 rego requirement for original rego7.4.1 Photographs, para 12 12. Each aircraft applying for registration shall have registration markings applied to the aircraft as per Operations Manual. Photographs showing the registration numbers on the port wing, on the appropriate vertical surfaces, as well as a cockpit photograph showing the warning and weight limit labels as per Section 7.4.3 Annex C for CAO 95.55 para 1.5 aircraft, shall be submitted with the registration application.

Check the tech manual. If it doesn't say a photo is required, it isn't. But I think you will find the tech manual requires it (it depends on what you are registered as, as to which section, but I think they all require it). You need to check: - the renewal requirement; and - the original registration requirement. If you didn't send a piccie when you first registered in 2002 (or whenever), and the tech manual says you should, they will probably want it now, dodo

Centre of gravity and centre of pressure have to be at the same point for the aircraft to be maintain stable flight. By introducing an imbalance where the two are not at the same point (you lean forwards, or increase lift at the tail), you pitch your aircraft. The position of the two will still be so close it makes no practical difference as to which it rotates around (but in theory, it rotates around the cg). dodo

I would see it as a shift change - one day I surround the office on my own, and the next day I will be inside, cowering (or laughing at) the threatening mob of one peasant. dodo

Gaivn, I posted a comment suggesting your opinion of which legislation governed RA-Aus was rubbish (rough summary). I didn't see that as an attack on you, but it was less than polite about your opinion. If you saw that as an attack on you, I am sorry. I think the posts on this site are often very blunt, and often inconsiderate, so as a forum, that makes it about normal on the internet. I don't think everyone will agree with you (or me) on every matter, so we do need a fairly thick skin. I would suggest that you contribute your views, as this is a useful communication medium, and I think ignoring it has it's downside (people will still discuss issues, but without the perspective you can offer). Yes, some people disagree with you, but that doesn't make the forum a conspiracy to shout you down - readers will form their views based on content- that is,they will consider what is said, not how loudly it is said. But they will still read the posts on this forum, as it remains one of the better sources of information as to what is happening with RA (that shouldn't be so, but I won't repeat my views on communication again) As for a freemason conspiracy theory, frankly, I thought that was hilarious (as in ridiculous). I think legal action is probably a bit over the top, but that's not my decision... best wishes, dodo

I did offer (the last time this was raised) to take a home-made torch (I don't know where I could get a pitchfork) and surround the office on my own. I thought it would probably raise morale in the office - a home made mob of one peasant would have trouble being taken seriously. dodo

I wasn't at the AGM, and it is with the wisdom of hindsight that I say this, but as the Treasurers report didn't meet the basic requirements (eg presenting a complete set of financial statements), it would have been a good idea for those that picked upon it to speak against the resolution to accept the report. I am very clear in my own mind that I wouldn't have thought of it at the time, so I am just suggesting that next time that reports shouldn't be automatically accepted (or automatically opposed). dodo

The logic is that you either buy an aircraft that has been designed and tested thoroughly, or you go off on your own and build "stuff". Your options are: 1 If it is factory built, the design and engineering is tested (g-loads, spin recovery, etc.etc.), the factory is responsible for the type, and you can, to some extent, rely on that. 2 If you built it, you are responsible for design, engineering, and subsequent problems with it. There isn't any room in that paradigm for something you built similar to someone else, and want it to be considered 'factory' and thus trustworthy, or for you to build a few identical aircraft of your own design, and want to call them a 'type'. It is either type-certified, or it isn't. LSA is supposed to be an option to bridge that gap, but to me, it seems likely just to confuse the distinction. The core principle is that the designer/builder is responsible. so you can build your own for fun and fly it, but if you want to build and sell a series, you have to take responsibility, and also, set up a system to support the aircraft you built. For an instructive example, check out the history of the Thruster aircraft and it's derivatives. TOSG was successful after the failure of the type holder. Vision wasn't. dodo

No, the Ferris wheel did that bashing. However, I heard that the Morgan won. It's back flying, while the Ferris wheel was rumoured to be a write-off. dodo

Interesting that the rego is 28- Back in the day, they were 25- But I thought both 25- and 28- were no longer used for new registrations. Anyone know why a newly registered aircraft would not be 24- for factory built or 19- for amateur built? Or more to the point, why 28- ? I thought 28- had been superceded. dodo

I regret my humour on that subject. I wasn't aware of that accident, and I am very sorry for the skydivers involved and their family and friends. dodo

From memory, after chute opening it wasn't fast - but the skydiving people will undoubtedly put me right dodo

One more point... if the drop target is known (eg the airfield), the they will be dropped so the predicted wind drift lands them on the target. So if you know the wind,you can calculate their time on target by the drop position and opening height. If you know the drop position and opening height, you can calculate the wind. dodo Note - Edited to remove a humorous comment that was not funny in the context of a recent fatal accident.

Jill Bailey took me through this at Temora, when there was a drop in progress. A couple of useful things to know are: - The drop plane will say at least once prior to drop (and I think twice), what it's intentions are ("x canopies from y feet in z minutes) - The drop plane will call when it drops (same info); - You can spot the canopies relatively easily, and they are SLOW sideways, and descending at about 500-1000' per minute (if I recall correctly) - it is illegal to land if there is anything or anyone on the runway. So if someone lands inside the runway markers (NOT the bitumen,the markers!), you legally should not land until they have exited outside the runway markers. This can take a while (see the final point); - once the drop plane has evicted it's cargo, it then behaves normally, and should be treated like any other aircraft (although its descent profile may be like a glider tug); - skydivers leave their brains in the air. Once on the ground, they pick up their chutes, and wander vaguely to wherever they wish, oblivious to anything around them, including runways, aircraft, and vehicles. The brain returns from the air some time later, but in the first few minutes on the ground, these are not self-aware, intelligent, life forms. So the best approach is to gain a situational awareness by listening on the radio, remember that at 500-1000'/minute, it will take minutes for them to descend once the canopy opens, and land before them, usually, or identify where the canopies are and land between and past them. I would be cautious if the number of canopies exceeds your ability to identify and track them, or if some are already on the ground, as it becomes impossible to count or track them once they have landed. Generally, stooging around until they have finished will take longer than you expect. A reasonable number of canopies is not a big problem in practice - individually, each is much easier to track than an aircraft, so six canopies requires less concentration than three other aircraft in the circuit. I hope this helps, and some of the skydiving people may have an interesting (or conflicting?) perspective. Any inaccuracies are not Jill's, but my recollection, dodo PS edited for terminology

95.10 doesn't limit number or type of engines - but you need to stay under 300kg gross,and keep the wing loading under... ummm...I think 30kg/m2? dodo