greybeard

about 453grams

The Butler done it

Omni-Vision is a rear window ;) If you have a look at the early 172s the rear fuselage went up to the back of the wing. he later 172s had a rear window and the fuselage wasn't as high.

I'm guessing the 'no claim' bonus is feeling a tad shakey at the moment.

go on Phil, spill the beans , we're all fellow aviators , what did happen to the 777?

Finally, someone has spotted the elephant. Why is the role of President of the RAA a revolving door?

I'd have thought that the primary requirements for a head office are: A venue of appropriate size and cost. ( Why waste money ) A decent place to live for the employees. ( Keep them and their family happy ) A place with reasonable access for board members ( ie cheap short flights ). ( Why have the board spending precious time flying in to meetings ). Having a head office in upper whoop whoop with a nice view and no commercial air access and/or direct flights would be a waste of time and effort. It's a head office not a retirement home for an annual fly in.

The person who castigated the original poster and accused them of 'premature speculation' seems to be the one who should be getting their knees dirty with an apology. Since when is the resignation of a board member of an incorporated body something that involves 'secret squirrels'? The resignation would have to be made known to the membership ASAP. So all the huffing and puffing is because the board didn't get to sit on the information for a couple of days. Bah, maybe there should be a tad more focus in why the role of president is a revolving door than on faffing around with delaying the disclosure of information to the world. To make it easier next time here's a procedure. 1/ President resigns by advising secretary. 2/ Secretary advises rest of board and membership. 3/ Board elect new President. NB delay between steps in this world of electronic communication should be in the order of several hours plus/minus time zones. As soon as step 1 has occurred, vice president assumes the role until step 3 occurs.

Errr, the original post was dated the 7 march, the 'official announcement' stated that the resignation occurred on the 7 march. The only thing that the dates don't match up on is the 3 day delay for the official announcement. Nothing premature in that. The only 3 days involved was for the board to decide on a replacement. Sorry, I think your conclusion about 'premature speculation' is 100% incorrect and very much out of order.

Why is this thread still going? Has the TV broken simultaneously in forum members homes?

They may need to be a bit older than 40, does the 14th of February 1966 bring back any memories apart from flowers?

I was taught an incipient spin not an incipient stall. ( PPL never been through RAA apart from having flown a Skyfox under GA )

Ok, fair enough now that you've explained the small print regarding an RAA CFI providing actual engine out training. That constraint didn't leap out in what I'd read in previous posts. I've learnt something. As far as general consensus is concerned I stand by the accuracy of my point. Aviation is rather larger than RAA. The learning outcomes aren't in dispute, the requirement to stop the engine is. And the general consensus in the aviation industry is that the risk/benefit isn't there. Understanding how a machine behaves in all realms of flight requires a risk/benefit decision, since aviation began this has been an ongoing process. I'm still not hearing an argument that makes deliberately shutting down an engine in an RAA machine any less risky or providing any greater benefit than how the rest of the aviation industry has been providing training for engine outs. Just because you can isn't an argument. You're obviously comfortable with the risk/benefit, I'm not. I'd hope any prospective training participants would have risk/benefit and the information regarding how and why the greater part of the aviation industry practice doesn't actually stop the engine explained to them so they can make an informed decision regarding their participation.

Nope, not a CFI. And I don't see the relevance unless we're heading to arguing the man instead of the point. I've been following aviation related topics for a couple of years and in most parts there seems to be a general consensus regarding most aspects of aviation, be it training, rules, airmanship etc. But, like most things there is conflicting opinions and ideas. Nothing wrong with that, nor in discussing them. Logical argument is good, we can all learn from it. However, if for example, the general consensus for bungee jumping is to have the rubber band tied to both ankles and someone stands up and says that they are a bungee jumping instructor and it's safe to only tie the rubber band to one ankle as it's good practise then I'm wanting to know how the cost/benefit has altered from the general consensus. If discussion brings up conflicting points then I'm asking for clarification.

Funny how the written word can be misconstrued, I thought that was exactly what was being recommended. Not sure what you meant when you said

I love the advice on this site. With so many real world experts in the aviation industry, who knows how many millions hours of collective wisdom and experience, incident investigations, knowledge etc and every now and then a little gem of wisdom pops up on here that refutes it all. sigh Sort of like practicing knife throwing and using yourself as the target, yes, you'd hope to get pretty good at not hitting yourself but the downside would be a bummer I'm more than happy to practice engine outs, but if you're in an aircraft with me and you deliberately put me at risk by stopping the engine, we're going to have an exchange of unpleasentries.

Here we go, here we go, here we go. Roll up, Roll up, everybody put your best guess down on a piece of paper and we'll go through them all and see you can come up with the best story on what didn't happen. Roll up, Roll up................ http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=internet+hobbies

Click on their avatar and select the 'ignore' link then hope you're forgiven:pope:

Then just argue the point and don't distract from the value of the discussion by implying that the duration of membership has anything to do with it. Same as suggesting that an academic has anything to do with the point. It might be an academic argument or an academic point but it's attacking against the person and not the point being argued. We've most likely all argued 'the man' rather than 'attacked the ball' at times but it's 'attacking the ball' that achieves the result. Which is exactly the point behind what I saw in the moderation of the posts. upto $0.044 ( inc gst ) now

Doesn't a free and open discussion allow for a newcomer to communicate on a level playing field with other longer posting forum members? Opinion and knowledge doesn't just reside in those who talk more often. There is a message count alongside each forum members name so people who wish to judge forum content on post count can do so. I'm not condoning or making comment on posters comment, just that in my opinion post count should not be a prerequisite to how one is perceived or treated. Civility and robust debate should help the cause. my $0.022 ( inc GST )

Ignoring the fact that this is unqualified advise via the internet, get the aircraft checked out by a licensed AME before anyone flies it again. It's someone's real rear end at risk not a virtual rear end.

Funnily enough if you expand ELB it gives a little hint as to when it may be required and when it is most effective in increasing the safety of the participants indulging in aviation, above or below you! As far as trust goes, maybe in utopia and maybe for most people. In reality some people aren't licensed and some aren't responsible. Maybe people who push the 'trust everyone, they're all responsible and always do the right thing' are fuelling the lack of trust

Just so we're all clear on this, if you have an incident and end up in a situation where you and the pieces of your conveyance aren't wrapped neatly in a self addressed parcel, you're satisfied that the community should leave everything where it ends up. Or that the community should be required to spend what ever time, money and effort to locate and assist you even though you believe that you should not be required to pay the few hundred $'s and trivial effort of carrying a PLB that may expedite the delivery of assistance? And that any requirement to provide proof of compliance to safety regulations is unnecessary and a waste of your time and effort? Seriously? May your aviation experience be forever perfect with other licensed, trained, medically fit and airworthy participants who shall only ever descend from the heavens at a location of their choosing.

cool, a plastic simulator. wonder what you log the hours as? Bakelite?

Aren't the skills transferable? I did my navs in a C172 and have managed to navigate anything from a skyfox ( rag and tube ) to a C177 ( alloy ) using the same skills. I haven't flown anything made out of plastic and/or fibreglass so is there something special about them as far as navigation and skill transfer goes? Do I need a plastic navigation endorsement?