rhysmcc

It's not the controllers job to make sure or police whether you are operating as per the regulations. How would they know what engine is in a RV or any of the home built kit aircraft that operate in CTA. They don't know whether a C172 has the correct MR nor do they care.

Had a quick read, didn't see anywhere about members voting for directors other then for more then 3 terms. Are they meant to be selected by just the board or is it going to voted on at the AGM? What is considered a pass for AGM resolutions, didn't see it defined? Also is a single year off considered a break in consecutive terms in which case 9 people could keep them self in power? To me it doesn't seem very representative, but will need to sit down and have a more detailed read, is there particular clauses covered by other legalislatiob that should be read in conjunction (i.e. Electronic voting not being allowed for AGMs, docs legally viewable by members etc)?

Well i hope you got that in writing. I wonder if it's been confused with Restricted area conditional status, that is RA1 RA2 or RA3 (RA1 allows flight planning through restricted areas). However RA1 is still controlled airspace so would be off limits to RA-AUS pilots (unless they have a CTA endorsement).

No, the suffix (A B C etc) is used to seperate the restricted area into smaller blocks, normally based on altitude. Unless you have CTA endorsement or approval from CASA you can't access an active restricted area (it's class C airspace) regardless of being given a clearance by ATC.

Clouds, military airspace is considered Class C (or CTA), by asking for and accepting a clearance your actually breaking the regulations set for RA-AUS. While military aircraft don't fall under CASA, civil aircraft operating in military airspace does (as too military ATC and the airspace).

Head in the clouds, how do you think ATC know that the c172 flying in CTA has a current MR, or that the required SIDS has been completed or even that the pilot has a current medical. They don't and really don't need to. They trust the pilot and aircraft operator are meeting the regulations in regards to the aircraft. This would be the same with RA-AUS aircraft, they would trust if you are operating in CTA that you have all the required equipment. Aircraft designators isn't really an issue either, most ATC wouldn't worry about recognition and performance other then the fact it's a Single Piston.

And what's so dangerous about asking to taxi back to allow getting off the runway?

And as PIC of your aircraft you get to decide what is sufficient or not. But because the PIC of another aircraft decides he'll use the 300m that you leave behind doesn't make him less of a pilot. Simple priorities really, first to use the runway has right of way (in this case departure vs departure). If you can follow the aircraft and depart before they are "ready" at the end then great, but to block their departure just because your happy with 1500m would be very poor airmanship.

because then maybe you wouldn't need to be a member of SAAA

I didn't say it was required, but they are still entitled to use it. A lot of schools use full length so if there is an engine failure they have more runway to put it back down, you'd look a bit stupid crashing off a 1800m because you only went back 600m.

The issue would be that 2 aircraft can't use full length at the same time, yes one could taxi a couple of aircraft lengths to allow another to be behind them, but they are also entitled to use the full length of the runway, it would make sense for all parties on the field to sit down and work out a suitable outcome for all involved.

Id be asking the aircraft owners to provide the cleaning products (of their choice) and they would be paying you just for the labour. Best of luck

that's doesn't show very good airmanship though, considering there isn't a taxiway for you to get off at the end so they can depart, you will basically be holding them from departing until after you (assuming your not going to pull off onto the grass or "get around them" to be behind. Other then sorting out the departure order, nothing really prevents more then one aircraft back tracking (taxiing) on the runway at the same time. At controlled aerodromes we are prevented from having multiple aircraft back tracking to line up at the full length but to other points along the runway it's all good.

Cirrus is holding their "conference" this weekend at Hamilton Island, lots for the partners to do there if your after an island location.

I don't mind the electronic version or the fact members wanted the paper should pay extra for it although I do have to agree that it seems strange to pay someone to print the magazine and then let them earn further income from advertising. Another consideration would have been a reduction in membership fees to counter some of the extra cost but maybe the CEO didn't think it was doable

I think they can do that was issuu. Also with 10,000 views surely that's more then 60% of the members?

Settle down Don was just giving info on another standard, your not the only one taking part in this thread.

Yep only bonus with 1500kg would be giving all the guys at SAAA another option to going VH with their RVs etc sling 4 looks sweet too at just over 900kg

The MTOW restriction is on the aircraft registration though rather then the Pilot Certificate. So if we could introduce the EASA VLA under RA-AUS (a new CAO or in the new part 103?) could be the way to go. If aircraft are already built to the higher standard then could they be moved over? Do VLA have the same restrictions a LSA in terms of modifications needing factory approval? PS the j160d is only 540kg still. (At least the one I've flown in)

By recertify I meant from LSA to VLA etc. yes if 750kg hasn't been proven in the testing then it couldn't be used (wasn't that the same from going 450 to 600?). When the sling went through testing they did 700kg, believe jab did the same on some models.

I dunno Ada, how does that help LSA owners? They will still be limited to 600kg unless the manufacture certifies them for something different.

I think it was more for partners of the pilots who may not be interested hanging around an airport all day.

Don i'm sure the Sling isn't the only aircraft that was tested to greater then 600kg and that the MTOW is only set to that due to the LSA limit, i.e. the airframe being certified to a higher MTOW. But sure if FAA/EASA also went to 750kg a lot of manufactures would get onboard then if it's just us Aussies (small market).

Got a flyer for the Whitsundays air show the other day, they have a list of day "trip" activities over the course of the week, basically getting everyone out to experience the region and spend some dollars for the locals. Some were "fly aways" others in a bus provided. (Not sure on fees). Could be an idea either side of the weekend for those who have the time to hang around.

That's the FAA, they don't set the requirements for LSA here in Australia. CASA have set the requirements for LSA and you'd find a lot of countries have set different rules regarding what is an LSA or not. What we should be asking CASA to do is to lift the limit they put on LSA to 750kg. (One example in the US they have a max speed in level flight of 120 KCAS, no such rule here in Oz).