Oscar

Yeah ... well I have always wanted to fly the Auster to NZ, im sure it could easily do it ... BUT, Shirley said ...not while you are married to me ...

David - my brother used to fly his J1 (G??) as a daily commuter from Mittagong strip to Bankstown (before your time at YMIG, but you may have seen his old hangar there..).. One time, oiled plugs forced him down on the top of Razorback. He arrived at Bankstown with branches from his departure still lodged in the U/C.

 

How many croppie strips are there East of Mallacoota???

 

 

This event ( and I would add my condolences for the poor victims) has very large potential ramifications.

 

ICON managed to wangle out of the FAA an exemption to the basic limit to MTOW for LSA aircraft to allow it to meet the spin requirement characteristics - on the basis that their 'improved' design for meeting the spin requirement characteristics provided greater safety. AFAIK, no other LSA aircraft has had this dispensation, so all the rest have had to meet the spin requirements and provide adequate safety within the LSA rules. There is already an additional weight allowance if a BRS is installed to 'add' safety.

 

HOWEVER: the fact that the basic design of this aircraft could NOT meet the spin requirements, then it is evident that the basic design had flaws that could not be rectified within the LSA rules. Here is the subtext: the basic design needed additional MTOW to meet the aerodynamic requirements that every other LSA manufacturer has to meet and the MTOW increase did nothing to add occupant safety.

 

Given the circumstances of the accident, it is probably unlikely that we will get a definitive answer as to whether the fatal consequences were a result of a pilot-error induced out-of-condition arrival with the surface or an aerodynamic problem resulting in that arrival.

 

The potential outcome of this accident is, that for any manufacturer to propose an increase in MTOW for their LSA-class aircraft on the basis of safety, they will have a more difficult path. That is a major pity for the improvement of occupant safety. In the automobile world, we have seen vehicle weights increase significantly with the introduction of stronger cabin strength, air-bag inclusion, side intrusion bars, roll-over protection etc.

 

I suspect the FAA reaction to this accident will take some time to eventuate, but I also suspect that it will retreat to 'behind the standard', and that does not bode well for improvements to occupant safety of LA aircraft.

 

 

There is a very, very old saying: 'A Fool and his Money is soon parted."

 

The modern version of Fooling, is a major virtual product presentation using CAD graphics and CGI presentations of something that does not exist, with a major surplus of words such as: 'breakthrough', or 'new vision', or other similar blather.

 

All designed to seduce you from your usual prudence.

 

Recreational Aviation potential aircraft purchasers would be so much better served if there were reliable aircraft testing reviews ( and NO, not Dan Johnson, he's a BS merchant) that they could use to make their decisions. Sort of a 'Choice' panel of reviewers.

 

George Markey - one of the most experienced 'small' aviation exponents we have had ( RIP, George, and many of us will hope you remain RIP, you old bugger..) once remarked to me that 'aircraft buyers buy the paint job, not the aircraft underneath it'. For all his iconoclastic and abrasive nature, he had that one right: some Rec. Av. owners ( and a whole lot of GA owners) look at the piccies, the advertised specs, and make their decision. If they had been exposed to the FACTS of testing etc., such dangerous abortions as the Lancair 320-360s would never have gained a customer.

 

IMHO, the Icon is a con-job. I agree that it LOOKS like a great thing - but about 150% overpriced.

 

 

Nev, I agree - but in a circuit ( in my limited experience, being almost all gliders.). you have familiar clues as to what the wind is etc. Over water, I suspect it's a whole lot different: as a yachtsman, I am familiar with differentiating wind direction from wave/swell direction, but I'd not like to have to try to make 'informed' decisions in an emergency situation.

 

 

I am not conversant with the regulations here, so hopefully others with better knowledge can elucidate.

 

If the ASI was non-functional, then this pilot continued a flight with a primary instrument out of commission. Is that an offence under the regs?

 

Even in a Thruster, the ASI is necessary. To fly without that working with any conceivable degree of safety, you would need to have at least very, very good knowledge of the thing - sufficient to be able to feel through the controls the incipient stalling characteristics of all control surfaces. Hell, in a Thruster, you could fly without the altimeter and maintain a respectable safety envelope by eye, but flying with no operating ASI is just Russian Roulette.

 

I do NOT join with those who suggest that this was not an example of culpable stupidity on the part of the pilot. There is a bigger picture here.

 

If we as Recreational pilots are to be considered as socially-acceptable - and that has huge ramifications in terms of holding on to access to airfields etc, within reasonable distance of populated areas - then we do NOT need to have self-evident f@ckwits amongst our ranks. To allow these intellectually-compromised cowboys to continue to fly is to hand to those who would joyfully restrict our privileges to airspace, airfields etc. ammunition that would amount to suicide for the decent enjoyment of Recreational flying.

 

Every report about this flight shows an egregious level of lack of respect for safety, common-sense and respect of the regulations. To use a pop-culture phrase, this person needs to be cut from the herd for the common good. That they lived to tell the tale is good for them - but the lack of a decent penalty is NOT good for Recreational aviation.

 

 

With you on that one. Often only hear "traffic" no location. I plead guilty to sometimes forget ing to repeat location at end of message but I'm getting better. Another problem, which can happen on any frequency, is commencing a call and having someone transmit over the top of you!

I commend a read of the attached submission from the DDSAA:

 

If you agree, then make the effort to report that to the CASA submission procedure.

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

 

CASA Submission for Frequency use at lower levels -Multicon March 2017-1.doc

Frank , It's a pretty much accepted thing that they are easier to control when the weight is kept off the nosewheel. I thought all instructors on Jabiru's emphasised it. Might be the rearward location of the mainwheels and small wheels generally but students having difficulties with steering it on take off do better with the stick back on initial take off roll and of course land on the mains unless you want a problem. Nev

Nev, the mains on the LSA55 are about as far forward as it's prudent to have them with a full tank in the back. I can vouch for the fact that even without a tank in, they are very easy to raise the nosewheel off the ground with maybe 20 -25 lbs down force on the tailcone just ahead of the fin, I have to move mine in a tight workshop quite frequently using this technique..

 

The LSA55 is a bit marginal in both rudder and elevator control; Rod wanted them compact ( and road-trailerable, which they are), and in fact it is lack of elevator authority that is the limiting factor on MTOW - due to stall-speed - not structural requirement. I know the bloke who did the certification performance testing on the LSA55, and he found that the best technique for short landings was second-stage flap down to about the last five feet off the ground, then dump to first-stage flap -smartly but under control!!- which moves the c/p on the wings forward and lets you keep the nose high and removes a bit of the downwash effect from the wings that makes the rudder less effective. When mains settled, dump all flap. Old Glider Tuggies trick, and you can't do that very promptly with electric flaps...

 

Get all of that co-ordinated and he says you can land an LSA55 pretty short under good control - not STOL performance, for sure - but not an unguided air-to-ground missile. However, as you have pointed out in relation to ALL aircraft - it's knowing the best technique and being competent to use it, that's the key.

 

 

Nose gear is never the strong point, but is there any other aircraft that ends up on it's back with the frequency of the RV 6-7-9A?

I don't follow RV accidents with any much interest, but I know of one brand of aircraft that does tend to play 'dead ants' quite a bit. As it happens, I own one of these, and have been repairing it for several years now following an overturn as a result of a hard landing following an EFATO ( not mine!) - and as regular members of this forum will know, I am a staunch ( some would not unfairly suggest I am a 'tragic') 'defender' of the brand. However, fairness suggests that the facts should not be ignored.

 

I refer to Jabirus. You don't have to do much searching on the web to find piccies of Jabs displaying tendencies more usually ascribed to attention-seeking young ladies with few (if any) inhibitions and possibly an elevated level of PCA.

 

A few years ago, I did a private 'research' project on light aviation accidents and found a disturbing proportion of landing incidents had resulted in overturn. I don't recall Vans 6-7-9 aircraft being over-represented. Of Jabs. there were a-plenty.

 

As a result, I intend to add five-point harnesses to my own aircraft. That may seem to be anticipating 'closing the gate after the horse has bolted'. However, bear with me here a moment.

 

The ATSB report on this accident includes comment on 'serious injuries' to the occupants - which I suggest can only be a result of the intrusion of crash damage to the occupant area.

 

Without wishing to be macabre, pretty much the worst sorts of injuries are injuries to the cranium and the spinal chord. In a low-wing, bubble-canopy type aircraft, those are the most vulnerable areas for injury in an overturn - and the u/c configuration makes no difference to that vulnerability.

 

Despite the many incidences of Jab. overturns, there have been remarkably few occurrences of serious injury. That is a result of the fact that the Jab. cabin structure is an extremely strong 'capsule' protecting the occupants - and there are other high-wing aircraft with similar characteristics, though the Jab. is somewhat famously 'tough' in occupant safety. Bex's post #61 encapsulates my own concerns.

 

Overturn in a landing incident is a definite risk for all light aircraft flyers. I would not be looking at the VANS aircraft as a risk beyond others due to that possibility - but I WOULD be looking at any low-wing, bubble-canopy type aircraft as an increased risk of serious injury IF that happens.

 

 

I don't know how Turbs connects what I am saying about distractions with taking maintenance away from owners and giving it to professional shops. The opposite conclusion could be drawn but that would be just as wrong. Personally, I reckon that owner-maintenance needs defending and expanding, and I would like to see more schools conducted. In fact I would help organize and contribute to this activity and the RAAus has been told this.In my many years of experience, owner-maintainers are as good as professional shops but in a different way... the owner is not under the same pressures of time and money and so tends to be more thorough. As long as the owner-maintainer sticks to the areas where he is educated to operate, there should be good work done, as Nev points out.

 

I have noticed that the best maintainers, both amateur and professional, are humble enough to seek advice and help when they are in any doubt about what to do. This site is a wonderful place to get good stuff from experienced people.

 

An arrogant attitude is dangerous I reckon, even in an otherwise smart bloke. And a distraction-rich environment is something to watch out for too.

Bruce, could not agree more that owner-maintenance BY KNOWLEDGEABLE OWNERS is a good thing. I don't wish to go int the details, but refurbishing our aircraft has shown up so many bits of dodgy work by an L2 ( and ex-LAME) that it would make your hair drop out. We have discussed some of this directly with RAA, and produced the log-books, which shocked Jarred. - And the entries and examples we showed, were from an L2 held in high regard by some of the RAA community (though GA owners operating at Bankstown knew his reputation as a LAME and many steered clear of him).

 

But: 'by knowledgeable owners' is a key factor. I believe (though have no first-hand knowledge of this) that the SAA provides far better training and information than is readily available to RAA owners. I used to hold an approval for both minor repairs and CoA inspections for Glass and Wood gliders from the Dept. of Transport (yes, there's a clue to how ancient I am!) - and they did not hand those out with Weeties packet coupons, I had to be trained to an acceptable standard. FWIW, none of my repaired or CoA'd aircraft had any problems.

 

RAA is slowly moving towards generating the sort of information that Owner-Maintainers need to have on hand. But, I have to say as a personal opinion, that an on-line questionnaire is simply not sufficient evidence of experience for anybody.

 

There is a phrase that we all know: 'Lover's Hands'. It is applied to those who 'F@ck everything they touch'. And we all know such people. They wouldn't recognise when they have stripped a nut on tightening it. They tend to believe in 'urban myth' more than science or physics. They are the sort of people who say: 'VNE is always conservative, I've flown my XYZ 10kts in excess and nothing happened'. They are the sort of people who will tell you that 'if the oil isn't black or creamy-coloured, the engine is just fine, sport'.

 

It would be a significant step forward for Owner-Maintenance, if regional centres could hold training courses to cover maintenance beyond just looking at things to see if they are still apparently attached..

 

 

Woman who flew spitfires during WWII celebrates her 100th | Daily Mail Online

Bruce, I have no issue with your comment (basically) that 'over-maintenance' may introduce problems that did not exist.

 

HOWEVER - lack of proper inspection and rectification of problems is more than equally dangerous.

 

As you may be aware, I have been re-furbishing / re-building a post-crash similar Jab to yours, though mine is older ( airframe #50) and with more hours ( around 2700, mostly in flying school use). It was originally VH-reg ( the first VH-reg Jab. built, in fact) so it had been either LAME or L2 inspected every 100 hours.

 

That's 27 inspections.

 

In the last couple of weeks, I have been re-installing - with re-furbishing- (amongst other things) the flap actuation mechanism. I think your aircraft will have the same set-up: a manual flap handle with three detente positions: zero flap, take-off, and landing. There is a linkage rod between the flap handle and the flap actuation cross-tube - the one behind your head - horn.

 

When we dismantled the crashed airframe (an EFATO), we noticed that the rod-end at the cross-tube horn had broken at the shank - which we put aside for later work- and assumed it was crash damage. Didn't take any attention to it.

 

When I came to re-assemble, I looked at the mechanism - and it was immediately apparent that there were serious problems. The rod-ends at BOTH ends of the linkage rod between the flap handle and the flap actuating cross-tube were being badly fouled through lack of proper installation. There are witness marks on the linkage rod and wear on the cross-tube horn, plus breakage of the 'shroud' on the inner face of the flap handle.

 

The thread on the male rod-end at the flap cross-tube horn was so badly bent that it was at best hanging on by a straw. This is not trivial: the first fatal in a Victa air-tourer was caused by exactly the same bending failure from an improperly-installed rod-end.

 

Also, the 'button' on the backside of the flap handle that engages with the flap detente holes, was badly distorted, with very little engagement with the detente holes in the back-plate. Not quite as likely to be a critical failure if it disengaged - but if you are in a tight situation, you'd like your flap setting to be held properly - yes? Especially in an EFATO situation where you grab full-flap to get the bugger on the ground where best possible..

 

This is what had failed to be noticed by proper ( and professional) inspection and rectification:

 

 

 

Outlanding!I thought that term was reserved for glider crashes/paddock landings.

'Outlanding' for a glider, is landing when there is no more lift available to sustain progress. It is NOT a 'crash'. It is a routine occurrence, where a pilot has to select a landing site that is not an airfield and it happens all the time in cross-country flights when the conditions are not as expected ( or hoped for..)

 

I have ended up sitting discontentedly in fields on a number of occasions, beside a perfectly serviceable glider. 66% of those, I flew out of with the assistance of a noisy aircraft at the other end of a rope, the rest I had to be trailered out. NO GLIDERS were harmed in any of those incidents.

 

Glider pilots commence learning about the inexorable connection between their height, speed, glide angle and point of arrival with the earth from their first flight - and every landing is an affirmation of that knowledge. It's no 'accident' (pun intended) that gliders are almost NEVER 'crashed in unaccessible terrain', 'lost in the trees' etc. - they don't go where that could happen.

 

The noise out the front, isn't infallible. The laws of physics are.

 

If you are flying in a powered aircraft and you are reliant on that power continuing for safe transit of the extremes of your glide angle/point of arrival, then you are gambling on the reliability of the source of power. In a single - any single- that's a 50-50 bet.

 

How many power pilots fly over unlandable terrain for their position on the assumption that they have a revolver against their temple that has two chambers and only one of them has a cartridge in it?

 

 

...A truly impressive achievement, to have put men on the moon despite being handicapped by archaic measurements.

Be fair - it's a fine example of achievement by people with 12 fingers..

 

 

I disagree slightly, the issue is making the "Fools" understand that EFI and CDI are now virtually bulletproof, and that you don't have to touch a darn thing, that's the hard part.Yet the very same people will jump in a modern 10 year old car with 250,000kms on the clock and drive it to Perth and back without even thinking about it.

No, they aren't 'bulletproof'. The controlling electronics are now remarkably good, but there are external factors that influence the reliability of the system.

 

The electrical voltage supplied by the battery/alternator, are more critical. For some 12V systems, if you drop below about 10V, they degrade - injectors don't open fully, and efi's can drop into 'limp' mode'. A voltage spike can scramble the EMS. A system sensor going 'out-of-condition' can scramble the EMS. A control valve problem - e.g. the fuel rail return line pressure regulator - can seriously bugger your day: ask me how I know, having been dropped half-way up the first Moonbi Hill out of Tamworth with a Jab. on the trailer..

 

I am a huge fan of modern EMS - but it is NOT intrinsically 'bullet-proof'. It needs a very carefully considered installation to make it as reliable as the 'steam-age' stuff. Witness the problems with the Rotax 912 eis ( is that the first 'electronic' one they delivered? - I don't keep up much with Rotax).

 

Computer-controlled EMS WILL be far superior to the 'steam-age' stuff when there is intelligence applied to installation. But we are not quite there yet, so it's premature to just say: 'this is the answer'.

 

 

Harleys aren't noisy as supplied, SOME people modify them. Generalising isn't nice to the ones that do the right thing. A noisy motorcycle or plane is a total pain, especially on a long trip. Your hearing is precious and you should protect it as much as possible. Planes need some sound deadening . You wouldn't buy or drive a car that made as much noise. If you ever drive an out and out rally car you will find out how awful such a thing is from that point of view, but you are wearing a helmet.Wouldn't truck compression braking be a high level noise? Nev

There's a bikies club ( yes, bikies, not motorcyclists) that does a run past my place every Sunday morning - about 30 mostly Harleys, and most of those with shotgun pipes etc. Yes, they create a deep rumble, that lasts for about two minutes.. But - and as a long-time motorcyclist - the thing that drove me to consider taking a gun out, was the couple of kids on the place about 500 metres away with a moto-cross training track (not an official one, just a track on a 10-hectare block) with no mufflers on their MX'ers, going around and around and around and around for 8 - 10 hours a day in summer, with the typical spasmodic throttle wrenching from fully closed to WFO every 10 seconds. I've lived under the Sydney flight path (near Rozelle) for several years and I'd take that over the bloody MX-ers every day.

 

 

years ago I got involved in some noise certification tests for airplanes in Europe - our focus at the time was propeller noise so engine rpm and propeller diameter/number of blades. Longer exhaust was further down the list - a bit of googling revealed this interesting guide:http://www.akletnany.cz/cs/letiste-w9/hlukova-zatez-w83/?stahuj=47

Noise reduction in our aircraft is a very good ambition, to keep us socially acceptable for operating near centres of population. If we want the convenience of access to towns, services etc, we have to play our part.

 

However, as DJP has indicated, exhaust noise may well not be the critical factor. In the case of the Seabird Seeker - a pusher - it was prop. noise that determined its conformance to noise limits: a two-blade prop. close to the wings sets up a 'chop' noise pulse that is way more than the exhaust noise. That limited engine rpm ( well, actually prop. rpm, since a Lycoming and direct drive) and affected climb rpm settings ( and therefore climb performance).

 

The gearbox whine on Rotaxes can be an annoyance: there was a float-equipped trike that used to fly around Pittwater, that was like a leaf-blower gone thermo-nuclear - now banned by Council. It would make your teeth fillings ache.

 

However, there is a further consideration one needs to be aware of, if thinking about changing your exhaust configuration. That is back-pressure from the exhaust system.

 

Engine certification / certifying ( if ASTM self-certified) includes the maximum back-pressure from the exhaust. If you increase this, you will invalidate the manufacturer's warranted performance (TBO etc.) and you are on your own from there. Lycoming - for one - REQUIRES a factory-representative inspection (and sign-off) of installations before it will accept warranty responsibility.

 

I applaud all aircraft owners who seek to reduce the noise from their aircraft - but they need to be aware of all the potential effects. Seek professional ( aero-engineer, mostly) advice before you go changing anything, lest your best intentions end up in tears.

 

 

Austria puts Australia to shame when it come to manufacturing, it is well worth a google to see just how much stuff they actually produce.

Yes, that is true. And New Zealand puts us to shame for its carbon fibre expertise ( with the exception of McConaghy, arguably the best in the world if you want an ultra-competitive, mega-$$ racing yacht - or bits for the Space Shuttle).

 

But: be fair. Rotax are owned by Bombadier.. a multi-billion $$ turnover company, that makes some of the best 'second-level' commuter jets. Rotax ( Bombadier) makes the most-sold LSA class engine, by a huge margin. But can you buy a Bombadier-produced LSA class aircraft with a Bombadier engine installed?. ( Hint: the answer is NOT yes.)

 

Textron, another multi-billion $$ turnover company, owns Lycoming and Cessna. The two largest - I think - numbers of engines and aircraft produced - at least in piston engines and light-medium aircraft. But can you buy (now) a new Textron manufactured LSA-class aircraft with a Lycoming installed? ( Hint: the answer is NOT yes.)

 

There is only one company in the world - as far as I am aware - that pushes out the factory doors an LSA-class aircraft complete with an engine that it makes.

 

You know who that company is. And it's not far from you, you can fly /drive there within one day for your parts - every parts...

 

And, it sells all over the world.

 

 

If it wasn't One Nation it wouldn't be on the front page.

Agreed - but it IS on the front page, and it's a story about an RAA aircraft doing a good job, rather than crashing..

 

What's not to like?

 

 

Oh, FFS.

 

The Jabiru per se is not an issue and in the mainstream press there is NO - repeat NO - suggestion that the aircraft, or the manufacturer, are in any way implicated in anything 'dodgy'.

 

Whatever one may feel about the 'politics', the ethics or the legality of this whole situation is an entirely separate matter.

 

What Hanson and Ashby have done, has - unwittingly, I believe, but remarkable effectively as it turns out - promoted the good qualities of good RAA aircraft, as useful, reliable and generally safe transport. It is especially 'good' that that aircraft is our home-grown product.

 

And - as a further point: it has demonstrated that an RAA aircraft, operated sensibly and safely, can 'get the job done'. It appears that Ashby (whatever one may think of his character etc., and I dislike the man greatly, I will say) - has flown the thing properly, safely, and to great effect for the 'mission' for which it was chosen. I am reasonably sure that had there been any 'hairy' moments, they would have been widely reported.

 

The question of possibly bending the definition of 'airwork' rules by CASA is another matter - but one that has been shown to be, in my view, of questionable 'safety' value. That is an important demonstration that CASA's rules are unnecessarily restrictive and need refining to allow the newer generation of 'Recreational' aircraft to be used to their full potential.

 

Excise, for a moment please, the personalities involved here. Look at the damn basics of the situation.

 

There was a defined 'job to be done': an extended period of personal transport around Australia, in a pressure situation. An RAA aircraft was chosen to be the best option for that job - and by all reports I have seen, it did it well, safely, and effectively. It was flown - apparently - within RAA operational limitations. It sat on the tarmac between uses, was filled with fuel, took off, went from A to B, landed, no dramas. It was used as a tool - just as a 'Tradies Ute' is a tool.

 

Recreational Aviation has been handed a high-profile endorsement of the fact that our aircraft and our operational regime, are (generally) safe and effective forms of moving around this country when used with due respect.

 

THAT is - I believe - where we should be looking here. We can drive this example for our benefit - IF we stop the 'political' BS that now permeates this thread.

 

 

Can we move beyond the 'politics' here, for at least a moment? Because there are actually some other serious and meaningful issues that I believe should be considered.

 

Lest my comments be placed in any 'political' context, I state that I have absolutely NO affectation for anything to do with 'One Nation'. This commentary - if you can accept that it is looking at issues OTHER than the 'politics' - is intended to look at issues of interest to RAA owners/operators/pilots.

 

First point: the fact that an RAA-registered and operated aircraft was a valuable and viable tool for conducting a heavy schedule of travel around Australia - and it did that with no 'aviation-related' drama - is a pretty convincing example of the fact that a good RAA aircraft is a competent device for travel. I suggest it has shown that, when used intelligently and within the regulations (more on that below..) it is NOT necessary that an IFR-rated GA twin is the minimum level of aircraft for reasonably reliable transport around this country. Yes, RAA-reg aircraft have additional limitations - we all accept that - but I posit that this example has shown that RAA aircraft are not just 'toys' - they can fulfill, to a decent degree, an extended 'mission' - if used within their limitations.

 

Next point - and before anybody jumps down my throat, pleas READ and CONSIDER the actual point I make.

 

It appears that the aircraft was 'hired' from the owner for travel: that is what I interpret from the media reports, taking the point that an electoral expense was claimed for its use..

 

IF that is so, then the flight(s) claimed for by the HONP are 'airwork' use of the aircraft. That is a total NO-NO for RAA registered aircraft other than for training. YET: absolutely no harm was done by that work. I assume that all the relevant flight conditions were observed and that the flight was conducted with all due respect for safety - surely, we would have heard if it had been otherwise?

 

SO: here is a fine example of apparently safe use of an RAA aircraft for 'airwork'. Yet, CASA has stamped on humble tradespeople for using their RAA-registered aircraft to transport them and their tools of trade to a remote site. Not for any 'safety' ssue - beyond a nebulous esxcuse that they 'might' breach safety regs to get to the job on time..

 

There is a huge whiff of 'one rule for the great, one for the rest' at play here. I believe that this situation is well worthy of more play in achieving a sensible regulatory regime for RAA aircraft - and Senator Hanson might just have dealt us all a winning card!.

 

 

look at the pic, the rear door is behind asby,so this looks like it is a mirrored pic(facebook does this) so she is definetly in the right hand seat

Aha, ok, yes I agree.

 

 

So - unless Ashby is a certified Instructor, and they are on AT LEAST a TIF - what is Hanson doing n the LHS?: Labor refers One Nation to Australian Electoral Commission

 

This looks like a definite breach of the regs. to me.

 

 

Lovely work as always, HITC - and I note the Resident Inspectors have bought the apprentice in straight out of the nest.. In my experience of them, the apprentices never bloody stop asking questions - mostly: 'where's the food, Mom?'

 

 

Done but Recreational Flying is also a Social Media site...there is no difference so I can delete you from here as well if you like!

Thanks Ian - yes I recognise that Rec Flying is 'social media', but it has a narrow interest focus and I have some faith that fellow aviators have some scruples. However, if you wish to have me not contribute any more, feel free to delete me from here as well.

 

 

As a poster in some of the threads migrated, I understand that I am automatically a 'member' of this new site.

 

I DO NOT wish to be a member of any general social media site, I avoid them like the plague.

 

Please remove my details from the membership of this new site.