Head in the clouds

Yes, Inglewood has certainly come a long way over the years. Was just a dirt strip in a paddock when we had the first fly-ins there in the mid/late 80s.

To do please - Clearly it's been a tough time for you to keep this forum up and running to your high personal standards, so - take a few moments to give yourself a big pat on the back for your hard work and determination, we all appreciate it very much Ian, thank you!

Awesome. You guys are all gonna end up in surgery. It'll be the only way to get the smiles off your faces!

320kg FH, not 320lbs ... even if it goes to 350kg I will still have a very useful payload at 600kg MTOW, but it looks like the weight increase might come through before I register it so I will probably build the spars for at least 6G yield at 750kg because at this stage all the rest of the airframe is good for way over 750kg MTOW, and the extra spar strength would permit fitting a much larger engine in the future. The engine fitted now is a 100hp 912ULS. I couldn't agree more about strong planes. It's all very well planning to be a fair weather flyer but it's the unexpected bad weather or mechanical turbulence or wake turbulence that can get you. I was doing a constant speed endorsement out of Coolangatta in the 1980s in glorious weather although with strong westerlies, when we hit a mountain wave that had both the instructor and me with significant head injuries and the instructor (a well known former RAF jet jockey) declared an inflight emergency with priority landing required. The plane was inspected and the mainspar of both wings was damaged with rivets torn out of the top skins. Piper Arrow IIRC ... And as for thermal/storm turbulence in the north in summer where I intend most of my flying again, well as you say "I like strong planes", and willing to add a little weight here and there to be happy and relaxed while just riding out the rough air when necessary.

Hi FH, well the long wait is frustrating of course. The weight is always going to be more than we would like, and I'm a conservative calculator, so I'm sure there are a few kilos that a more determined Eng might be able to do away with. The wing and strut attachment are quite solid chunks of metal because of all the articulation required for the wing-folding method, and even more so because the struts still carry the full weight of the wings while folded and even while trailering though the wings will have some extra support for that. I'm willing to wear that extra weight for the convenience of a two minute folding system and the saving on hangar costs. In flight the extra weight will be compensated for by huge slotted flaps which will keep the take-off and landing speeds quite low, even though the span is reasonably small (29ft) (130sq ft area). And the one positive about the extra weight is it should make the cruise more comfortable and increase the Va in turbulence. I've lost track of what the actual weight will come out at but if it's not too much over 320kg I'll be happy enough. Doing too good a job? I've usually found it takes me just as long to make a mess of something as to do it right - even not taking into account having to do it over again. Either way, I enjoy the flying most but the building is a pleasant hobby too, and the flying is certainly more relaxing when you know all the components are built right and will hold together ...

Well, I'm back on the case with DooMaw at last. Some while ago I made the front spar attachment fittings and installed them as well as the rear spar fittings shown in post #255. I'd also started to make the parts for the aileron and flap torque tubes in the cabin roof which provide for the automatic connection and disconnection of those controls when the wings fold. They're the bits that go with the 'dogbones' that some may recall I made from the drilled balls in rodends, described in posts #175 and #176. Coincidentally, that was two years ago today! Last week I made the rest of those parts and welded them onto the ends of the cabin roof torque tubes and cross-drilled the fittings on the other side to bolt them on. I also made the flap control handle and the spring-and-detente mechanism and fitted that to the flap torque tube. Then made up the short pushrods that connect the aileron bellcranks to the aileron torque tubes and fitted the whole lot together. A few small adjustments with shims and it all moves very smoothly and freely without any discernible play or lost motion. Some pics - Another 19hrs for the log making a total of 1899hrs so far.

Yes, it looks like 7 registered, 3 pending, 1 cancelled and 2 never registered. The last application was just in the last month - so it seems our RAAus IP advisers consider this exercise to be a worthwhile plan for the future. Bull, I guess you're one of the fortunate few who never makes mistakes, or who corrects them before anyone ever notices. I, for one, give credit to RAAus for responding to criticism quickly and appropriately, hopefully they are also in damage control behind the scenes. So - whilst my first reaction certainly was 'heads must roll' - on further reflection I wondered what it might cost in money and lost time if they sack the one who made this mistake and have to train someone new into the position. Not to mention the compensation for unfair dismissal, because a single mistake is not sufficient cause for dismissal ...

Well, I couldn't find any means on the ipaustralia site to cancel an already approved Trademark, however I'm humbled indeed, there must be ... Here is a link to the cancelled trademark. And here is a screenshot of it - I think we'd probably all agree that we all make mistakes at work sometimes and most of us don't have to repay the direct cost of those mishaps. Those of us who are self employed need Professional Indemnity insurance just in case. In the scheme of it $500 is a mere bagatelle, probably the waste of admin time is more of a concern considering that regos and processing times from the RAA online store are still an embarrassment, let alone the time it sometimes takes to process specific operational or tech enquiries. Anyway, I'm sure it'll be a lesson learned. And - as for those who still refer to themselves as shareholders of this 'organisation' - anyone got a share certificate to prove it? We're no longer anything more than clients methinks. Perhaps that's necessary though, I really don't know either way, but I'd hate to be trying to run an organisation like this with more than 10,000 interested parties all hell-bent on criticising every move. If they answer every question on every issue whenever they frequently pop up (employment of a Tech Manager is a current case in point), then there'd be no time to get anything meaningful done.

That's really sad, sorry to hear. Deb was always such a cheerful person. Condolences to family and friends.

Oh man ... those freaking flux capacitators again ... when will they learn they just shouldn't be installed in skydiving planes? They're only suited to Airbuses with Lithium batteries FFS, doesn't everyone know that yet !!!?

Yes, it was all pressed through very quickly and without the members of the former association having much time to consider the implications. Off the cuff I thought it was a good concept but I'm not so sure now! I've spoken with numerous 'former members' since the Inc became Ltd and asked their opinions 'one year on' and surprisingly (and I think it's 'in their ignorance' because the majority of 'former members' have so little or no actual involvement with our 'sub-regulator' that they don't really have a clue what's actually going on ...) ... I say again, surprisingly, they are still in full support of the movement from Inc Assoc to Ltd Co. However - I don't think any of them are aware that we are no longer 'members'. The only reference to membership that remains is their/our membership number, we are now nothing more than clients - as someone mentioned previously. We're not even shareholders as far as I can tell - certainly no-one has sent me a share certificate. So - whereas I used to have a share in the proceeds of the Incorporation - such that if it was wound up, I and other members would have been entitled to our share of the unencumbered funds, that seems to have been skillfully usurped and absorbed into the new Company's account. I'm no accountant, although my wife is and my father also was, so I have some basic understanding of the processes, and as far as I can determine in a simple manner, the funds of the former Incorporation should have been offered to be distributed to its members prior to their being a request sent to those members, to which they needed to have agreed, before the new entity (the Ltd Co) could take possession of those funds for that new entity's use to carry on the business of the RAAus. As far as I can determine that didn't happen, although it may well have been couched in the miniscule print of the legalese that no-one had time to peruse in the apparent urgency to move from Inc to Ltd. I wonder if anyone can explain that extreme urgency for the move, except to shorten the time for people to consider the implications and examine the possible outcomes.

Ummm - ever seen a committee in action

Having checked as best I can on ipaustralia site, and having never heard of a situation where the applicant wishes to cancel a completed trademark registration, I cannot find any means offered for that cancellation except by objection through 'non-use'. So what will our illustrious CEO (or perhaps it's an illustrious director) actually do? Will we now see the ridiculous situation where the Applicant makes an application against his/its own registered/protected trademark for non-use, claiming it hasn't used it? There may be some other method of cancellation I'm not aware of, but I'd suspect that the notice on RAAus FB page that the CEO 'has taken action to cancel the registration' was a premature knee-jerk without any action having actually been taken yet, because I'd like to know exactly what action he has taken, ... just my opinion ... but time will tell, tangled webs we weave when we seek to deceive and all that. And - as someone else commented on the RAAus FB page - when will RAAus 'fess-up' and stop claiming it was all for the good of all aviation bodies? It was clearly and very embarrassingly a dumb attempt to usurp someone else's well established trademark. Typical Canberra, on the night when we have our ... what 7th PM in as many years (or similar) ... too many wine parties in Canberra methinks. EDIT - I think 'normal people' at this stage would just say "sorry folks, we had an idea that we thought was right at the time but it obviously wasn't, our mistake and didn't mean to cause offence, how can we fix this now?" Instead we see backpeddling, excuses and self-righteous comment.

I don't think that's the point. If RAAus was really concerned for AOPA's welfare they should have approached AOPA and suggested AOPA register it themselves. The issue is about the damage done to the relationship between the two aviation bodies. AOPA is bound to feel incensed, in the same way that the Australian Ugg proprietors were when some lousy other mob usurped the trading name that they had been using for decades.

OK, thanks gents. However, at this stage we only have that on the interpretation of an Australian Flying magazine reporter who just might not have worded it quite correctly. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely appalled that RAAus would even consider registering someone else's slogan as their own trademark, that absolutely beggars belief and I think heads should roll. BUT - we haven't actually seen this letter of demand for payment of a licence fee. Is it possible that in the heat of the moment either Ben Morgan overstated the case, or that the reporter hyped it up? I think we all know the reliability of anything we read in Aussie papers or journals. In IP cases like this - where various entities need to share the use of patented products or trademarks it is quite normal for the other entities to be issued with a licence without any fee being paid. Is it possible that RAAus' initial contact might have been misconstrued by AOPA staff amid the very understandable indignation of discovering that their slogan had been usurped? All I'm saying is that perhaps RAAus said something more like "you'll need a licence to use the phrase, which we will issue to you", the point is, was there any actual mention of a fee? It's noticeable that Mr Morgan isn't reported as having said how much the fee was. Perhaps it was the nominal $1 which is frequently required to validate a licence in some States and Territories. I think we need more specific facts rather than assumptions. In the meantime I think we should pressure for answers from the RAAus Directors.

I am completely against what RAAus have done in registering a trademark of words that have clearly been in use by another organisation, apparently for nearly eighty years. I think it's along the same lines as the underhanded yanks who effectively stole the Ugg brand by registering their trademark both here and in the USA - and the ensuing battle that reigned when the rightful owners tried to have the registration cancelled just shows that prior use doesn't guarantee anything at all. It's also similar to the greedy low-lifes who tried to register the Smiley symbol, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie and similar icons. However - I must have completely missed something here because I haven't seen where RAAus have asked that AOPA or any other bodies/entities should have to pay for the use of this trademark. Can someone point me to a reference please, because if they have done so it puts a completely different and much worse light on an already very messy situation.

I would treat those VG numbers with a pinch of salt because quite clearly the tests were not done in anything like a controlled environment. If it was anything like possible to achieve the stated 15mph/50mph = 30% improvement in stall speed simply by fitting $50 worth of plastic bits, then every aircraft would have them. Certainly VGs can provide some improvements in both stall speed and handling close to the stall but nothing like that claimed above. One of the big effects of installing VGs is that the pitch angle at, or approaching, the stall increases quite dramatically and so unless you fit a swivelling pitot and use a trailing static, the angle of the pitot relative to the airflow increases significantly. When that happens, and particularly above the angle that air is willing to 'bend' readily around a sharp edge (max about 7°), the pitot error increases exponentially, so using the ASI with the standard fixed pitot and static for trying to measure improvements in Vs at higher deck angles is a complete furphy. Though not really recommended, for a simple check of the pitot/ASI error it would be much more accurate to measure the stall speed changes by conducting stalls into the wind and downwind using a GPS and averaging the readings. Best of all though, is by using the standard test equipment which includes a swivelling pitot which always points into the relative airflow, and a trailing static which is not affected by cabin or probe pressure changes caused by deck angle changes.

In any case 'Freedom to Fly' seems, to me, like some sort of lamentful cry for the return of the 'apparent' way of the past. As if we have, or had, some sort of inalienable 'right to fly'. Anyone who's actually been through the process of being permitted to fly in this country surely must know it's regarded as a hard-earned 'privilege' which will be whisked away at the slightest suggestion of anyone's failure to abide by the volumes of seemingly deliberately complex Rules and Regulations foist upon us by the Regulator. There was a time when we did have 'Freedom to Fly', it started in 1976 and ended in the mid 1980s when AUF capitulated to DoA (or was it DCA or CAA at that time ...) and agreed to introduce pilot certification for flying mimimum aircraft (CAO 95.10 types, mostly disregarded by RAAus now). I guess some of us are aware that good ol' US of A still does have Freedom to Fly under their version of our former 95.10 (called FAR Part 103 over there) where they don't need licences or certificates to fly ... I really don't think RAAus members need worry that this will cause an out-of-control Court battle with dire financial consequences. If anyone challenges the trademark grant, there's no need for RAAus to defend it at all, they can simply sit back and await whatever decision comes about, with absolutely no costs incurred as long as they just accept the eventual decision, it would be the other parties that incur costs. The damage would be, and probably already is, the relationship between RAAus and our brother sport aviation organisations. I think some very pro-active damage-control needs to be put underway very promptly and I also think the members should know which megabrain thought up this ridiculous nonsense in the first place, and which others supported the idea. @NSSupersonic - we need to remember that trademarks are rarely global unless deliberately registered in other countries, hence Airventure may be just registered in USA but unprotected in other countries.

Yes, the application fee is $250 per class if you apply with Picklist but without using the Headstart process, RAA protected it in 2 classes so the fee was $500. I've never come across a process by which you can cancel a trademark once it's been registered. There's no 'dept of trademarks' - patents and trademarks and other Intellectual Properties are managed by IP Australia. The only form of cancellation I have come across on the ipaustralia site is whereby a person can apply for cancellation of a trademark for non-use, i.e. when someone else has the trademark but are not making use of it, and perhaps the applicant wants to make use of it themselves. There are frequently applications made in that manner but it's certainly not free.

They can't 'remove their claim' to the trademark, the process is complete and already approved without opposition and so it has reached the Registered/Protected stage, where it will remain for the next ten years unless contested in Court. Anyone contesting it would have to demonstrate continued use of the phrase/words (which AOPA could easily do) and they would also have to explain why they didn't become aware of the application in the seven months or so of publication during the opposition phase. Frankly, I can't see why RAAus made this claim in the first place, what would they plan to do with it? They've protected it in Classes 35 and 41 (publicity/advertising and training/instruction). I can't imagine any other bodies that would want to use it, or where it would disadvantage RAAus if they did do so, which then makes ownership of the IP worthless to RAAus since they are very unlikely to prosecute (and/or gain from) any breaches of use - quite apart from clearly having caused a rift between them and other sport aviation organisations. Whilst RAAus can't now 'cancel' the application, they could sign it over to another ABN holder, probably to AOPA would be the sensible thing to do before this blows up a storm. Brings back memories of the Ugg fiasco ...

Well, much as I started in fixed wing and will end my flying days in fixed wing, I'll still have ten times more rotary hours, so I can quite understand what you're saying about willingness for radio checks. To explain it ... we heli-fellas are just grateful for any excuse to have a chat

M61 is spot on. I conducted a series of test when this was discussed on HBA. If the poly sheet was not curved the petrol did not attack it whether fully immersed or whether sprayed on/spilled on and allowed to evaporate and there was no sign of any chemical attack (mistiness/cloudiness of the surface etc). However some products, acetone maybe, (I didn't find Xylene to be a culprit but one of the paint thinners was), would attack the surface slightly even when the product was not under bending stress. When petrol has been spilled on curved/stressed polycarb sheeting and the stress fractures have appeared, there was sometimes evidence of the spill on the surface and sometimes not. This wasn't as a result of my experiments but shown in photos sent to me by others, of typical fuel spill damage. I was not personally able to replicate the surface evidence with petrol (such as FH described earlier), however, on the windshield of the Kestrel ultralight I bought recently there is a small patch (100mmx50mm) of stress cracking which is directly below one carby overflow and it does show some surface degradation. Perhaps that is from aromatics in a different grade of fuel from that which I used for my tests a few years ago.

It's caused by spilling fuel on the windshield. The rapid cooling of the fuel evaporating on a curved (i.e. stressed) polycarbonate windshield wrecks it in seconds. Generally they don't break inflight afterwards but would need replacing asap.

OK, doesn't sound too bad, but understand where you're coming from. The offer of help stands, if you need it. I have a good selection of 3/16 and 1/4 AN bolts if you need some. All the best.

Yes, I would probably know a few of them, and others by reknown - all very fine of course! Sadly many of those I knew have passed on. I actually had my earliest flying years in the south of France and then UK. By the time I was in Australia, in 1980, Australia was leading the world in ultralight and microlight (trike) flying, and was just then overtaking the world in hang-gliding too, courtesy of Mr Moyes ... so it was a great time to continue my aviation interest here. It would be a great idea to have a 're-union' of some of the pioneers and early flyers before we all get too old to remember the stories and/or fall off the perch. How would be go about getting a list together of the 'old-boys' contact details so we can arrange something? It might be good to combine it with a fly-in or something perhaps?