gandalph

If you are of a certain age or you've been around aircraft for a while then Reg 256A (2) should let you self classify your pooch as an assistant dog..... The reason squares were invented was to give people something to think outside of.

VH-DFR is registered as a Robinson Helicopter VH-OFR perhaps? That rego is shown on the register as a QLD I see that that the Jab knockers are maintaining their support for the sport with their usual style and flair. (Sigh)

I guess the only positive thing one could say about that string of bad luck is that the owner has FT advocating for him here.

KP. Hello Keith, you make a good point there, and with it you've illustrated a key difference between the structure and operational philosophies of RAAUS and the ELAAA.

True Nev, but all of those external excrescences you mentioned would (or should) have been fitted when the aircraft was being built and their effects taken into account when the plane was in the test flight phase. Fitting extra bits & pieces out in the airstream means that the pilot becomes a test pilot. Maybe the worst thing that happens is that a small change to the POH might be needed, or maybe not. The problem is that no one knows what effect the extras might have until the next flight after fitting them. There have been a few cases where people have fitted, for example, vortex generators because "they are supposed to work", and found that their plane behaved differently. Not all of them were pleasantly surprised. Lots of people fit Go Pro's with no apparent ill effects. It's a suck it and see sort of exercise, but if it were me I would be very tentative flying until I had checked out the plane's performance at all edges of the flight envelope.

ASN Aircraft 05-MAR-2017 Ragwing Stork 19-8556

Geoff 13 is being quite ruthless but very accurate when he said that being a nice guy is NOT one of the factors needed to succeed in business. However I would say that to succeed in business you DO need to have what I call "Client Focus". I'd describe that as a business' ability (and desire) to establish a good working relationship with it's clients, make them feel that they are valued as customers and that the business understands (or at least appears to understand) the clients needs/demands and goes as far as it can to meet those needs/demands while still maintaining sound economic business principles. I have done business with Jabiru and I've done business with CAMit and I have had nothing but good experiences with both companies. Both companies and their staff have been very accommodating and met all my needs and apart from being roasted by Rod once because of my links with a third party that he was in disagreement with at the time (a clear case of shooting the messenger but I'm used to that now.....) I'm happy to say that we parted on convivial terms. However if one was to trawl though these forums and other's from the US & Europe, I'd suggest that my happy experiences with Jabiru Australia hasn't been shared by everyone else, whereas pretty much all of the posts I've seen here and on other sites relating to dealings with CAMit and with Ian Bent have been very positive. So perhaps while Rod and Sue may well have lots of business acumen - I hold back from suggesting that they may have a bit of the mongrel in them - I'm pretty sure that if a poll was taken as to which company embraced the concept of client focus best that Jabiru Australia would not fare well. I think we'd all agree that since the CASA debacle, Jabiru Australia has lifted it's game in respect to better communications with it's client base so maybe they've learned some lessons from CAMit there. If they are to survive they will need to. All the above may sound like twaddle but I speak from some experience: I was business for myself for 15 years some time ago in an industry that was declining. I made it a point of honour that all my clients and staff understood that if there was a fault with a product or a problem with a service we would fix it. The end result of that policy was that while all of my competitor's business' shrank at the rate of at least 3-5% annually my business grew by 5-7% annually. I don't think I had a better product but I'm damn sure I had a better relationship with my clients. There's a lesson here for the RAA and for the E&LAA as well.

Test bed or test cell? I may be being pedantic but there is a significant difference between being run at full revs for 3 days on a test bed and being run run through a documented certification test regime in a fully instrumented test cell. I seem to recall that Oscar has some knowledge about test requirements in a test cell and may have posted about those differences here earlier. I am only aware of one fully instrumented test cell for this class of engine in Qld. There may be others that I don't know of but I don't believe that Jabiru has been using that one.

Go get 'em Kaz!

FV - Love it! That is about the best analogy I've seen. Can I borrow it?

Absolutely! There are many who worked very hard to head this off and they, as you said, should be proud of their efforts. There is a much bigger back story here and this probably isn't the time or place to tell it.

IF it is true, then there are many who should hang their head in shame. It would be a big step backward for Australiam aviation and manufacturing.

For me it would probably be a target rounded on my forehead.....

Probably correct Yenn, lack of resources and the fact that in the scheme of things RAA would be a very small fish for them with no perceived public or political benefit to ASIC

True, and if the CEO doesn't normally have a vote then the deadlock situation doesn't arise and it's early days yet so they might be planning to appoint more MD's and solve the problem that way. Nev, I think the word you're looking for is Directorettes said he ducking for cover.

With 1 CEO & 3 (edited...mod) managing directors, I wonder how they will break a deadlock should there be a disagreement within the Board? I can understand why they didn't go with just 3, the irony of risking shouts of "Troika! " from the masses would not have escaped them.

Sorry Keith, but I just don't understand your logic there. Can you explain what you mean?

Thanks Keith, I have been considering what Frank posted and it causes me some concern. There is probably the guts of a very sound question to be asked at the next General Meeting. I wont be able to get there but I hope, as previously the meetings, are video'd and made available. I'm not going to comment other than to say that I don't share your opinion. I have and I don't have a problem with the number of Board members. My opinion is that the change in the number of Board members was a good one, We might have to agree to differ on that. I don't know about "desperate need" those are your words not mine, & as for rats.... I have a touch of hay fever so my nose is not all that responsive. I think I've got that pretty well nailed Keith, but I still think Skeptic's post was pretty funny.

Yep

No Keith, Rod said: I think that the words "initially" conveys more meaning that you are willing to acknowledge. Note: the underlining was added to the quote above by me for clarity.

Just a thought... Could the Board have had some knowledge that there was a rival group forming and decided to initially produce the draft Tech Manual as a confidential document. Wouldn't that suggest that the Board was acting in the best interests of the membership? Given that there is a CASA employee with, I am told, strong links some founding members of the new E&LAAA group, perhaps the Board was applied the confidential status to prevent any perceived conflict of interest becoming apparent between that CASA employee and the new group. There's some wriggle room between Rods statement that the Doc was "initially produced as a confidential secret document" and Jetjr's statement that "it was shown to members and was back and forwards to CASA over a longtime". Can Rod tell us when the confidential protection was lifted? I guess if JetJR is saying that the draft was made available to (obviously some, not all) members - then, if he's correct, there must have been some sort of consultative process involved. Whether the consultation was wide enough to satisfy the majority of the membership is yet to be determined. If Keith and Kirk are correct in their assessment and enough members agree with them, then the question of whether that consultation was wide enough to satisfy the majority of the membership could be settled at the forthcoming General meeting. We live in interesting times p.s Keith, Jetjr said you misquoted him when you said: You may feel that I'm nitpicking but misquoting can be misleading. Whether the mods take offence at "gulable" (sic) is another matter.

I guess different people have differing views on what constitutes a crowd. "None of them were really listened to." Really? Is that verifiable or an opinion. Keith, I'm not saying you are wrong -I am now very careful about appearing to criticise anyone these days . If you have some facts to back up your assertions than I'm sure we would all welcome the chance to see them. It might make it easier for members to make their own minds up as to what's true and whats conjecture. That would surely be a good thing yes? If you are simply putting forward your opinions then there is no need to trouble you for verification. p.s.I hope you don't feel threatened his post, or that I'm baiting you in any way, that is not my intention, I just expressing my opinion, and I'm sure you'd support Napoleon's dictum on opinions.

That would've been a much better idea but it's a bit late for that now. The whole shebang has had more leaks and leakers, over a longer period, than a federal budget.

Ian's post # 108 makes reference to the CEO being a solicitor. History is made today Turbs! I completely agree with your 2nd para!

You could be right Rick-p time will tell. Better communication might also help their cause.