SDQDI

10,000 feet is a lot of height loss!

I think you will find the majority of false alarms are caused by incorrectly disposing of them once out of date. DO NOT JUST THROW THEM IN THE BIN!!!!!

OME I think this is an off topic thread and you should have started it up in the new what's up Australia site!

I'm still here! Oh wait, what? Lol

I wonder if it was just coincidence that it happened at such a close time to the opening of the what's up Australia site? Maybe a competitor fishing for stuff? Anyway it's good to see Ian on it so quick.

I am sure he wouldn't mind that testimonial being put on your advertising:thumb up:

So if the 35 didn't fly what was that vid of to start with?

It's a complicated subject and one that definitely needs talking about. I agree wholeheartedly with your experience PMc and that has also been my experience. But we have to remember depression isn't the same from person to person nor is it always at the same strength, we have to really understand the difference between a simple (as if there is such a thing) deep depression and a suicidal deep depression. Flying can certainly help one but could be disastrous with the other. It is a shame that suicide has such a stigma, so much so that incidents of it are suppressed and not spoken about which is the exact opposite that needs to happen if we are to learn anything from them.

You have to be careful what you wish for. The best way to get something investigated is through the atsb BUT it would come at a huge cost to investigate every little prang and that cost would have to be payed by someone. Most taxpayers couldn't care less about little planes and people flying for fun and there is always the perception that anyone who flys is rich so they will not want to foot the bill for us and any pollie with their head screwed on right can see that sooo the logical way would be for a user pays system. That would not be good for us as a whole imo. I DON'T think that the RAA should be aloud to publish investigation reports as that will open us up to litigation that will increase costs which again is not in our best interest. I do believe they should pass on any information on defects that have been identified but nothing further to that. So I don't think there is a perfect solution, it would be nice to have the atsb investigate all prangs but it just isn't economically viable.

You fellas obviously haven't flown with a nose wheel pilot, some I have seen are quite capable of flying all stages of flight without a rudder! Elevator would be my pick, although it depends on what you mean "lose" as if it is a broken control you can still fly quite happily with trim but if it is a jammed control then you are stuck with relying on power and it certainly isn't foolproof whereas losing/jamming either rudder or aileron isn't a biggie (unless of course they get jammed at full deflection) and you should still be able to fly and land quite safely.

We should think ourselves lucky that they investigate the few that they do. Compare it to road prangs, it would be nice if we got detailed reports on each road prang so that we could become safer drivers but in reality it won't happen.

That's a very neat way of doing it Bex, it would make flatpacking of a kit a lot more efficient. I am surprised that more mobs don't do it that way:spot on:

Would you be able to explain the 'caution' @Zodiac

I am sorry to intrude but I believe differently to your first point skippy. I certainly don't mean to be antagonising but I believe that you CAN fly an RAA aircraft with a rec flying certificate. At least I hope that is true as that is what I do.

Edited by Mod

As far as sids goes maybe there could be other solutions. Maybe Non sids compliant aircraft could be limited to non populated areas and limited to no more than 2 pob. maybe it could be feasible to have a brs retrofitted to non compliant aircraft, at least you would think that would have a more sure cost rather than the totally unpredictable sids costs. I have no real knowledge of these things but maybe a few owners would accept changing their aircraft to an 'experimental' (whether with RAA or not) if it meant they didn't have to mothball their aircraft due to lack of funds or whatnot?

Or 4 or however many issues there is.

Just to be a pain I think you need to either do it as three seperate polls or allow multiple answers:wave:

Also not sure if it is possible but there should have been an option for those that are happy with the limits as they stand.

I still think in an ideal world all rec flying under 6ish seaters could be run with much reduced rules to commercial for the huge benefit of private aviation. I do think it is a bit of a shame that I can't take my kiddies and wife for a 'recreational' flight. Having said that I don't believe that should be all up to RAA, in an ideal world the regulator would have it sorted. Anyway I selected the 1500 mainly because I think extra numbers in RAA would be a good thing, the 750kg limit would be enough of a help to me to get me to 700 with my hornet but i don't want to be selfish in my thinking, also I would also like the CTA option.

Reminded me a little of the cartoon pic of a few people watching someone drown while all recording it on their smartphones.

I first saw that idea here Seems like an awesome idea really.

Thanks for the gold star Litespeed:wave: I would still consider a nice Cessna. I would love a nice taildragging Cessna although a J430 with a 914 rotax up the front would make the decision harder!

Well personally I reckon good on them for having a go. And to say that we can do nothing to stop them because we don't have regional representation is ridiculous, what the lack of regional reps means is that we can each use any or all of the reps without being limited to the one from our area. And on top of that it is still a member organisation so anyone can put forward changes through the correct channels and if enough members agree things happen. If these changes mean someone with an older ga plane can have access to cheaper flying isn't that a good thing? I hear a lot of moaning about ga flyers having it in for RAA and looking down on RAA pilots but I think in reality more RAA pilots look at ga pilots as rich snobs and don't really consider the fact that maybe they are no different to us, maybe they would love to be able to do more of their own maintenance on the family 182. Now obviously I am not saying that we should change anything for the rag and tube people, I think rag and tube will always have a place and should always be looked after to maintain cheap basic flying without needless regulation but what I am saying is why not allow more rec flyers and more planes to enjoy the same or similar benefits. Surely the more recreational pilots there are in the same mob the more weight our voice carries which could/should benefit us all.

While the 370kg payload is nice I think your four fat blokes must be a lot lighter than what I class four fat blokes. I think though that a J430 would be perfect for a family of two adults and two kids, then the sums seem ok to me with room for full fuel plus an overnight bag.