dodo

I don't think anyone has criticised the design, or even that particular aircraft. It is the actions of the pilot that are at issue, dodo

In a brown landscape, green is not always good. Identify why it is green before you try it. Just because irrigated fields will be flat, doesn't mean a green area is a field. Irrigation drains are bad!

You see aircraft doing this at Temora sometimes, very quiet, minimum lights, grey painted C130. Flys out of Wagga, I think. dodo

It may be relevant to RA, and it may be fascinating, but it isn't relevant to the thread. dodo

This thread was about a requirement for pilot training for each type. Maybe another thread could be used to discuss RA vs GA maintenance standards? dodo

RA does regular FTF inspections, and I know of FTFs being asked to modify things to RA requirements. I am aware of one CFI who threw in his ticket in frustration after an RA inspection, but I don't know the request/requirements, or if RA were being unreasonable or not (I know he thought so!) I think, like CASA, RA try to keep standards by asking FTFs to modify how they do things, but like CASA, it is hard to see how reasonable the requests are, or effective these are. The SMS requirement is one which springs to mind... dodo

They fitted bigger engines, and a had a stockpile of existing props...so just bolted an extra prop on each engine! It isn't efficient, but it used existing inventory, so kept the costs down. dodo

After finding the battery flat, I asked my instructor, as innocently as possible, if we could push start the the aircraft. His expression was priceless. dodo

I understand and agree..mostly. My comment related to media opinion vs real safety, and to the importance of cooperative use of airspace, rather than a pecking order of importance. dodo

Oscar, I disagree with your approach on this. Worrying about media opinion distracts from the safety issue, and is incorrect for the following reasons. The various regulations and regulators exist to ensure air safety and air services. The system is set up to avoid right of way or right being a matter of someone being more important than another. If fire-fighters or the RFDS or the RAAF, or anyone else needs priority, or exclusive access, they have a number of means to get this: - Controlled airspace, restricted areas; - NOTAMS (which are quite flexible - during the recent fires around the Sydney area, the NOTAM basically exluded non-emergency services from within 5miles /3000AGL of any observed fire. In other words, if you can see it, get away NOW) - Immediate or individual requirements can be effected by use of Pan or Mayday calls. And anyone can use these, or break any rule (can't remember which CAR says this!), so long as they justify it afterwards. Use with care. So the emergency services already have mechanisms to allow them to acquire priority as required. If, in the doctor's scenario, there was a collision, the media would show prurient clips of grieving relatives and solemn uniformed funerals, and the coroner would come out with a cause of death and some good or bad recommendations. These would then be ignored (they usually are). But the ATSB report would not be ignored. The ATSB investigation wouldn't put much emphasis on: - the radio calls (radio assisted see and avoid is fallible and this is well known); or the choice to turn left or right (superb judgement and ability should not be assumed available to rescue a situation that just should not have occurred) but the ATSB would put a lot of weight on the systemic issues - whether procedures in use were dangerous; and - what mitigation measures were in place if the procedures had risks So the ATSB report would: -put shovelfuls of blame on BOTH pilots, as normal; -cover platitudes about the need for pilots to keep a good lookout; and -a minor comment at the end about the procedures. The obvious conclusion would be that it is not feasible to close airfields for weeks at a time, so procedures must accommodate other aircraft. Then the real recommendation would be to CASA to avoid practices that are dangerous. And CASA would change procedures, because a further crash would make them look negligent. Either requiring a NOTAM, or exclusive access, or no crossing active runways. my apologies for the thread drift, but I think over-concentration on media opinion detracts from safety. dodo

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that the older non-stainless stays tended to "whisker", before they should be replaced, but stainless just breaks without whiskering. I have experienced this in a 14' catamaran, and it is sudden, complete, and entertaining. The effect is pretty much what you would expect: a loud crack, and then a pile of mast, rigging and sail in a heap next to you. If we translate that experience to effects in an aircraft, I would replace stainless wires at any time you have any suspicion they are not OK, for example: on purchase of a second hand aircraft (unless you intimately know who has flown it, and how they flew it), at a certain number of hours or years, and if anything looks odd or wrong. dodo PS - that experience is using using 7 x 7 wires - 1 * 19 is only good for applications where the wire stays in place and is not flexed or bent too much.

Well done. It's a nice feeling. But don't take the passenger endorsement lightly. I think instructors have some common characteristics, and one of these is ensuring you do not become complacent. It wouldn't be a problem in a J160, but in an LSA 55, a "passenger" can (not can...the BASTARD did!) "accidentally" close your throttle on climb out by knocking the throttle with their hand or foot... dodo

I have flown a Gazelle and a Eurofox. The Gazelle feels like a 3/4 scale model of the Eurofox. You should fit OK in a Eurofox, but I can't remember the weights. dodo

I was pretty unhappy with it, but I was impressed that RA dealt with it promptly and publicly - and the GM took responsibility. This is an improvement on the past, when motherhood statements of regret and vague explanations were the standard (I don't know if mistakes will remain standard, or if corrective action will become standard!) But I never got a reply to my complaint to PSB insurance, so I am pretty unimpressed with them! dodo

Yes. This is normal. dodo

Well, our last CEO was hired as a contractor to update the Ops manual, then hired as CEO before he finished, so no update on that since 2007... In other words, don't hold your breath. It isn't just writing a draft, it also involves getting it agreed with CASA, and that is probably a marathon in itself.

I emailed PSB a telling them it was SPAM, and copied in RA-Aus I am very impressed by the prompt response from RA - a reference to the web page below: http://www.raa.asn.au/2013/10/members-liability-insurance-update/ dodo PS I am less impressed that PSB did not acknowledge or otherwise reply

As we don't have a real business relationship with them (they have one with RA, not the membership), I think it is SPAM. It is possibly in the grey area, in that they do provide a business service, but it is indirect via RA. I just hate this stuff, and the arrogant attitude that comes with it: "We have a business relationship with you so we can".

Major, you are getting interested rather late. Your inference of four audits since 2011 is incorrect. One audit, followed by three follow-ups ... Usually, if you get audited, you get some recommendations, and you work through those, fix some things, write up what you changed. If the auditor says a follow up audit is required, you FIX EVERYTHING NOW. A second follow-up would be unusual, and a last warning. A third...well... I commented on this on this forum when the audit results were considered secret by the board in late 2012. If you think it necessary, I will find that post. The audit results were published by the board two or three days before the February EGM. I questioned the board at that February's meeting (Queanbeyan Feb 2013) on why they thought the result was surprising... you can check in the minutes if you choose to. And read the answer. very grumpy, dodo

Update - apparently the props are not certified by the prop manufacturer as ASTM compliant, therefore cannot be certified by the manufacturer as compliant...pretty much as Dafydd said. dodo

In the RA cases, I think the aircraft were supplied as compliant with the prop from the manufacturer...so that sounds OK However, if the US doesn't accept LSAs with IFA props, perhaps the ASTM standard doesn't allow for IFA props? Otherwise, I can't see why CASA would have a problem with these. dodo

Frank, I accept your observations. But the few times I have met military traffic, they have not made normal calls (and there were no NOTAMS, if that matters.)

Frank, that is true, but if I am flying around the local area, having read the NOTAMS, doe that mean that the military helicopter I see just isn't there, despite my seeing him? The problem is that they appear out of nowhere - sometimes with radio - but even then are difficult to understand - they don't use our terminology, callsigns, or landmarks. I haven't come too close to one, but their radio calls are close to useless. dodo

Ben was a good bloke. I will miss him. I don't know any more than what is reported in the news. dodo

He was an engineer who worked under Barnes Wallis building the R100, and then a founder of Airspeed. He knew his stuff on aircraft design and manufacture ,and a keen private pilot. He was also an author. dodo