dodo

avayner - the gliding suggestion is a good one. I went gliding for exactly this reason. The only downside is the danger of acquiring another expensive hobby. dodo

I think the Jabiru went through the full spin test - and failed. I heard a similar story of about 100 spin tests, two of which were unrecoverable, requiring use of the spin chute. That's why they come with a placard "no intentional spins". Again, that means a developed spin, an incipient spin is OK. But - be careful. Legal is good, safe and legal is better. dodo

Correct. Stalls and incipient spins are permitted in RA, and are part of the certificate syllabus. Fully developed spins are not permitted. dodo

It it really drivers license equivalent? Or drivers licence extra thorough plus a bit? Is it just a doctor signing off you are OK to drive, or are ther specific requirements and the mention of aviation? dodo

I doubt it. I suspect he cares more about RA. Keith, the membership has been told bugger all about why either Wayne or Adam Finn got the flick. If you know more (about why Wayne was removed), it would be interesting to see if you could find out why Adam was removed from the job. Same reason - or even what reasons!? I am concerned that we can't keep tech managers, especially through the current debacle. dodo

Yes No One of Ed's actions was vehemently opposed by much of the board. To depict Ed as a failure as a leader on that basis is ludicrous. dodo

Rewrite of Treasurers position, I think. Yes - the only reasonable interpretation I can put on Ed's rationale is that he may have discussed it with the members whose proxies he held, and perhaps he thought he would be letting them down. Any other explanation would be unpleasant. I didn't get that inference. I think he is just tired, and wants a break from the exec responsibility. I had to leave early, so missed the questions on notice and the open forum questions: did anything interesting come up? dodo

To both soilmaster and volksy68, many thanks for everything you have posted. I am very interested in hangering an aircraft in the area, but have had serious reservations about Goulburn airport (and council). I am very thankful for the helpful information you continue to post. Please keep it up, dodo PS honourable mention to Ian for the site!

Yep. Hangarage anywhere close at less than $2500 pa is pretty much a dream for most of us. Once you are paying $2-3 thousand pa, you migth as well buy a relatively expensive aircraft (>$50,000), then insure it for another couple of thousand a year, and you are spending real money before you even fly it. The lack of somewhere to hangar and fly from, within an hour or so at less than $2K pa is why I haven't bought an aircraft. dodo

I wish I could fly like that. Or even nearly that well. dodo

If you think it is too good to be true, it probably is. I'd suggest paying for a webmail account. dodo

It looks like there was a fair arrangement on extra work, given that long hours were inevitable. That Wayne worked like a horse doesn't surprise me - even with extra staff, you would work very hard until the situation returned to something like normal. But...given the likely short tenure of any future technical managers, who would apply, and what will we have to pay them? If it was me, I would be asking for some sort of exit payment if my employment was terminated for ANY reason other than criminal behaviour, even if I voluntarily quit! dodo

About a mile out we turn the music on?

Turboplanner, I am aware of (some of) the history. The core problems for council are that it costs them money to run, and they can't sell it except as an airport. So the best solution would be to resolve either of these problems, either by getting interested parties to help them run it without cost, or by selling to someone who will run it as an airport. However, the council can't bring themselves to realise that if it makes losses, it isn't worth much, and therefore, no one will pay much money for it. With any common sense, they would lease it to someone for a dollar a year, to be reviewed every year or two with conditions that ensured reasonable access and use to the community, but room for the incumbent to make it profitable (and incentives, preferably, to improve the place). Or get the local interested parties to find ways to make it cost neutral, again while making sure the community gets a non-commercial benefit (airport use for fire-fighting, medical transportation, training & recreation, etc..) Expecting someone to buy it and somehow turn a 30-40,000 loss into a profit of 80-120,000 in order to service a million dollar mortgage implies someone else must have a magic touch. Fantasy! dodo

http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/1746456/airport-sale-nosedives/?cs=180 I thought the comments about both the lack of skills to run an airport & the necessity for a locum service may be an opportunity for local flyers or the aero club. You could probably get assistance through RA or AOPA Also, someone should ping the council on their need for a budget. If a private operator can't make a go of it with council goodwill, the council needs to see the asset as of little saleable value. The council couldn't run it except at a large loss. A private operator can't run it except on a peppercorn rent, and certainly can't afford to run it while paying off a million or two. If you want to sell it for a million or two, work out where the value to the purchaser is. Or just work out where the value in the airport is - and forget the millions. dodo

There wasn't much definite in there - criticism of security measures at minor airport (ASIC, I assume), and promising a review... Otherwise, mainly generalities. Not much wrong with it, but not much that was very definite, dodo

No, some of the arguments that can be inferred make sense, but as a piece of writing, or a train of logic, it is obscure, and is not a document an educated pilot would necessarily understand, let alone an educated non-pilot. Hardly a good basis for a discussion document. No, some of the arguments lack both clarity and logic - for example, the paragraphs on competition, indemnity and funding. And to repeat an example, could you make logical sense of this paragraph, and do you think an average interested member of the public could make sense of it? "As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at affordable prices." If written clearly, the discussion points, options and arguments would have been rather more useful. In the current form, obscure in both language and logic, it doesn't make a clear set of options available, nor is it accessible to the supposed target audience. dodo

Some or many RA aircraft are indistinguishable from GA in performance, usage, and so on. There isn't much ultralight at 600kg, and the usage is often for fast, comfortable transport, with good avionics and nav gear. There is nothing wrong with this, but if there is little difference, then there will be little difference in regulation, which seems inevitable to me. The converse is that light, low speed, low density aircraft away from populated areas present less risk to the uninvolved, and therefore, require less regulation. dodo dodo

It all adds to the profile

No. Minimising personal details posted is to minimise the risk of identity fraud. dodo

I am starting to understand - I assume that the GFA, and possibly other (the Balloonatics) may be operating under CAR 262AN. It looks sensible, and the non-exemption approach has nothing wrong with it, except that as a simplification, is is likely to backfire by requiring a lower minimum standard, but a complex series of higher standards added, causing more complexity. For example, only a minor medical required to fly, but then a complexity of successive higher levels of medical depending on apparent risk, with the responsibility and litigation risk of the medicals hopefully passed to a medical profession...who have well-founded and painful experiences of such responsibility being foisted on them. So it may come to pass legally, but it may not work in practice. Likewise, the reference to the PGPA Act made me wonder if it would not be possible to flick pass the funding & responsibility issue as easily under the FMA Act. If most of this occurs, CASA will then hand off the administration of the legislation & regulation to a number of organisations that then perform the hack work of licensing and registration. But if the organisation they delegate stuffs up big time, they still authorised it. You can't outsource responsibility. And pushing the financial relationship off elsewhere, and pretending they can limit their own responsibility by indemnification is fantasy. If their indemnifications are effective, why then did they settle the the Carol Smith case? I don't think the paper was subtle. It stinks of sophistry. The high point for me was that it is not a discussion paper, but a "paper in the nature of a discussion paper". But for what it means for RA, I think the core principle must be the freedom/responsibility issue referred to. If we want to fly into controlled airspace, we will have to meet the reasonable requirements. And more weight means more fuel, and more mass at more velocity. RA has been pushing for more freedoms, and we will get hit with more responsibilities. The way to avoid regulation is to keep the possible consequences minimised, and to have CASA happy that they are not administering you. CASA do not want the hard work of administration - they want someone else to do it under their rules. Any one else, so long as it gets done. But once RA starts mimicking GA, then it is obvious that the responsibility and regulation should be to GA standards. So if we want higher weights, access to CTA, maybe night VFR, then we are GA in the risk and regulation area. I assume the AUF exists because CASA were more scared of lunatics outside their control, than inside their control. This suggests to me that light and anonymous has a lot going for it, which would be consistent with the shift in popularity from ultralights to hang-gliders, and then to para-gliders. dodo

Thankyou - now it makes some sense. The author still needs remedial classes. As far as the suggestions go: 1 - sounds like a good idea; 2 - sounds like idealism, rather than policy, and more respected in breach than in practice; 3 - good idea, probably (even if I don't want to pay more!). Either RA should be paid fairly, or maybe not at all. Confusing legal responsibility with paid service is not good policy or good practice; 4 - umm...and how will that work? I think CASA don't really know either! If the rest of the document is predicated on that unknown, it puts the lot in doubt. And point 4 seems to be both the focus, and the weakness in the whole lot. Until that change is clear, and the real (rather than intended) effect of that is known, what can the rest of the document do? Or have I misunderstood again? dodo

I couldn’t understand it. Whoever wrote it should take remedial English lessons. What I did get from it was that changes were being suggested, but in such a way that it was not clear what was suggested. For example: "As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at affordable prices." Frankly, this seems to be weasel words that could be used to support, or undermine, any position. Having watched "Yes, Minister!", I suspect St Georges Island is mentioned on about page 232, in one paragraph. My attempt at translation: "Competition will not occur if you are so good no one can compete". However, "mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety" means nothing in this context, except perhaps they think competition decreases safety? Or increases safety? And this paragraph was put in a sequence that suggests that it was intended as an excuse to not allow overlapping or competing organisations. But maybe someone smarter than I could translate the intent of the document? dodo

The thread should be closed. It has become a series of tawdry allusions. dodo.

!!! Surely, it would be of more interest to RA members if your aircraft had somehow sailed through registration smoothly? Why would you need to disclose that you owned an aircraft which had RA rego problems? Should candidates also disclose they they hold a pilots certificate? Or don't hold one? As for bloodlines, I too would be interested if airsick was Michael Coates long lost son or lover. But I don't suspect it. What is going on here? dodo