DonRamsay

"Clone" is probably a bit strong. I believe he had built a Morgan from a kit previously and this one had some similarities but plenty of differences. Looks like he was a long way downwind past the end of the runway and a bit wide as well. Could have been turning base . . . but as Pylon says, "We'll just have to wait." And you could add "we'll probably never know" Speculation is not a waste of time as it is a bit like thinking out loud. Questioning how it might have happened is a bit like asking how could I avoid getting into this situation.

The number "60" came, I think, from the fact that the people at the Cafe were celebrating a 60th birthday. The plane came down in a very dense stand of trees not very far (approx 150 m) from very high voltage power lines and on the other side of the road to the cafe/shop. The 10 metres is ridiculous that would have had the plane crashing in the carpark in the front yard of the Cafe. The cafe/shop is set back about 50 metres from the road and the plane crashed on the other side of the road some many metres into the bush. There is no way you could see the wreck from the cafe. Trust the media to get it wrong.

Designed and built by the pilot. Said to have some similarities to a Morgan.

Left. Both 17 and 35 are left circuits in daylight hours.

While he was a fellow club member, I didn't know the pilot personally but I know many who did. Even still I am deeply saddened to hear of this terrible accident. How his close friends and family must feel I don't want to imagine. For all that, I think it is important that, when you get the facts - and they are not available yet, to ask yourself the question that I ask myself: "Could that have been me?" I do that every time I hear of an accident and particularly a fatal accident. As a pilot, it is only natural human inquisitiveness to want to know what happened and how I might avoid a similar fate. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to know facts and do some analysis. I think it perfectly reasonable for somebody to offer broad based urging to take being PIC very seriously and to thereby minimise the chances of becoming the victim of misadventure. Somebody like Andy has special credibility in doing so as he has demonstrated he cares about the welfare of fellow pilots by working his butt off for us all on the Board and taking the time to post here despite the outrageous "slings and arrows". We do need the sort of non-final, non-binding report from RAAus that the ATSB generates within 28 days of a crash. To be able to do that, RAAus would need to come under the sort of legislative protection that the ATSB enjoys. AS it is RAAus does not enjoy that protection and is not the lead investigator even. That duty of course falls to the Police. We need that sort of prompt report because we will learn from it soonest and be most interested while it is still current. RAAus recently published something relating to the LW Speed 2000 accident - specifically that there was no concern about the particular make/model that contributed to that fatality. That at least is a good start.

It all comes back to a very simple fact. RAAus needs to raise more revenue from its members or cut costs to avoid continuing to trade in deficit. Unlike the ALP, RAAus can not count on being able to run deficits forever. So, how do you do that? Well, you could simply raise the fees for all members. That would seem fair. But, what if you had some members who were prepared to have a low cost magazine and some who want to continue to receive the high cost magazine? Then you are in a position to offer all members to have *no* membership subscription increase and a low cost magazine delivered over the internet while also offering to all members to receive the high cost format but with their having to cover that high cost with a higher subscription than those willing to go the low cost way. This is the classic "user pays" approach. Where I come from, low cost users of water pay low water rates. High water consumers pay more - a very novel concept when first introduced. What could be fairer? With regard to the fact that some people in Australia have high speed internet available and some live in locations where that is not currently available is very unfortunate. However, if you want that problem fixed, you might want to have a word with Malcolm Turnbull because it is a bit outside the job description for the RAAus Board. It would not be fair to those who are happy to accept a low cost magazine to pay for those who want (for whatever reason) a high cost magazine. If the Board tried to do otherwise, it could be illegal on the basis that the Corporations Law prohibits the oppression of minority members by majority members. Board Members could be in jeopardy of breaching their duty as a Director to inflict costs on members for a service enjoyed by other members. Just my 'umble view.

Au contraire! While not in your league Andy, after I finished my Commerce Degree, I went to TAFE and did a Radio Trades course. Sadly, I had to pull out after just 18 months of the 3 year course but I certainly enjoyed it. I had an interest in things electrical and electronic from early childhood starting when I cut through a 240V extension cable with a pair of (uninsulated) garden secateurs and lived to tell the tale. That is exactly what he told me on the day. However, had he attempted to use the antennae from the western side of the Clubroom, he would have got nothing. It was at my suggestion that he set up on the Eastern side and direct his antennae to the North East towards the 4G tower.

In the light of these awful experiences I'll keep quiet about living 400 metres from the exchange and get respectable speeds most of the time. A couple of years ago when we lived more than 5 kms from an exchange we got ADSL 1 at yo to 3.5 Mbps. Now we average 15 mbps. The NBN is due within 12 months but won't make a lot of difference. The recent webcast of the GM from Cessnock was interesting. The technician had two antennae and a fancy looking 4G modem. He was getting >60 Mbps down and >25 Mbps up. According to the Telstra map, he was outside the 4G area but the antennas made reception good and speeds like greased lightning.

You can read a printed copy at your nearest affiliated FTF or AeroClub.

To my way of thinking, there have been very few decent oil paintings done in the last 150 years. But, what would I know? Depends how good the synthesis is :-) it could end up better (health, taste and texture) than real meat. If it is only demanded by a few, it will become very expensive and only a very few will be able to afford it. The many drive the market not the few. Or a world driven may by god-fearing people? For a full and entertaining discussion on that topic see: Atheist knowledge http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/atheist-knowledge.124895/ Nobody forces me to eat either halal or kosher (regardless of branding) and eating meat on Fridays (even that one) doesn't bother me. Similarly I am not a vegetarian as required by some religions. Again refer to humorous thread nominated above.

Incidentally, I had the pleasure of meeting DWF and his wife in the Hunter Valley when they were over this way. We have a very pleasant lunch together and I'm keen to pay them a visit on my travels west that I hope to do later this year after the new Sling arrives.

When I investigated with the Lake Macquarie as to where in the rural zoned part of the "City" an airstrip could be built. They had two Rural zones, R1 and R2. R1 was essentially small block rural residential and the other was ordinary rural purposes. Happy for me to build an airstrip in R2 as long as I did a full DA for an AIRPORT! Frightened me off from ever considering and now live in an apartment and drive to the airport. But, an Airpark has some advantages over your own airstrip. Apart from the possibility of a better airport facility (all weather, lights, length, cross-runway etc.) there is the camaraderie of living amongst fellow aviators. Chances are a non-aviator partner would find this more acceptable than living remotely in the bush with not much access to neighbours and shops. For all that, I'd prefer a 100 acres and my own strip. I think the liability issues can be reasonably well sorted with some legal advice and the right disclaimers, etc.

Dear oh dear, rick-p that is a massive stretch and is bordering on Godwin's Law. Any moment now somebody is going to bring the Nazi argument and bring this discussion to a shuddering halt. Just as sure as the horse & buggy had its day and faded away and petrol fueled cars are moving inexorably towards the end of their product life cycle, print magazines are equally doomed to become collectors items and curiosities. Lament that how you will but that is the certainty for the 21st Century. I don't see that as a bad thing as I'm a fan of digital magazines and not just because they save trees and reduce the need for polluting paper mills. The capability of digital when more fully exploited and enhanced over time is going to make paper magazines look very much like a 3rd rate communication medium. The possibilities with digital being immediate and not having to suffer a two month lag is a great step forward. But then there are the possibilities of live links and video and, one day perhaps 3-D. The possibilities of digital are breath-taking whereas the tw0-dimensions of print media are fixed. Can anyone seriously see print newspapers surviving more than one more decade? Fairfax's "rivers of gold" dried up years ago. Can Australia Post still be delivering handwritten mail in ten years from now? Where is the Telex these days? Ask your grandchildren what a Telegram is and how they were delivered and they won't believe you. Whatever happened to carbon paper? When will cheques finally be phased out? How long has the Fax system got left? Check your desk calendar rick-p, you'll find the days are rolling forwards and, as King Canute declared, "time and tide wait for no man . . . . ". Canute was so eloquently seconded by Cher who wanted to but realised she could not "turn back time". Good luck with that. This movement forwards is inevitable and it's driven not by politicians or technicians but by ordinary people acting as consumers.

A good friend of mine modified his Jodel in some very dramatic ways including a complete redesign of the wing and its reconstruction. This is not just amateur built from a kit or even plans, this is in the ordinary sense of the word, aeronautical engineering. In this case the engineering is being done by a very intelligent school teacher and a self-educated but not qualified "aeronautical engineer". How could it be to his (or his wife's) disadvantage to have an L2 have a look over his shoulder?

Thanks Kasper, that is the clearest explanation I have ever read of this concern that more privileges for RA somehow hurts rag and tube. I think I finally understand it. If I read you correctly, it does not necessarily follow that fast RA aircraft and pilots gaining access to CTA would affect the RA rules for more basic aircraft still restricted from entering CTA but you suspect that that could be the outcome. More privileges often come with more restrictions. But it is not obligatory for RPL pilots to fly in CTA - they have to do an endorsement for that. Surely it would be the same for RA pilots needing an endorsement on their RPC to have access to CTA. The same restrictions would apply to RA pilots as to GA (RPL) pilots. They would need to be flying an approved aircraft (including avionics VHF & TXPNDR). Why would any of those requirements be applied to somebody who wants to fly more basic aircraft in Class G under 5,000 ft AMSL? The Tech Manager does not act without the approval of the CEO and, on matters of policy, the Board. This is a significant change from the old days when the Tech Manager considered that he had a one-on-0ne relationship with CASA. If you have a problem with anything he does, give Darren the courtesy of a chance to make sure you have the full, correct facts and the reason for his decisions. Then, if you consider it necessary, progressively elevate your enquiry by talking to the CEO and then to Board Members if you don't like his answers. You could be doing us all a favour. These are just people with a job to do. Darren has impressive qualifications and experience and and I've found him easy to talk with and helpful.

Maj & Andy, I think Board Members should pay *double* registration and membership fees. That would give you extra incentive to drive these charges down . . . . . . . . NO, not really. Joking . . . really. (OK not very funny . . .) In truth, most Board Members work very hard for no return other than the satisfaction of taking Recreational Aviation forwards. And think of the "help" they get with their thinking from the odd keyboard warrior. Some being particularly odd. I'd advise anyone thinking of running for the Board just for the "exalted status and the right to wear epaulettes" to find some other way of overcoming their inferiority complex.

This thread began if I recall correctly with Kasper saying, in essence, that the growth of what he calls GA Lite has somehow caused a detriment to the Ultralight movement. I would dispute that 100%. People started flying ultralights for fun and because it was affordable by just about anyone. I will never have the courage if that is the right word to fly such aircraft. A lot of people died teaching themselves to fly in single seat R&T aircraft that they designed and built themselves many with little or no technical training. There were extraordinary restrictions on that sort of flying. 300 ft, not over public roads, etc. Do you really think that being allowed to fly to 10,000 ft and have 600kg MTOW is somehow stopping you from flying ultralights around the back paddock? I just can't see it. Yes, we now have to have radios at most airports. Yes, if you want to go above 5,000 ft you may be required to have a transponder, yes, if you make alterations to the flight controls you need to have a second inspection, and yes to a heap of other things that just might save your life or the life of somebody you fly over. There are more aircraft closer to 600kg MTOW in RAAus than ultralights because that's what people can afford and want to fly. I'm keen to fly to Horn Island and I want to get there in my lifetime so 100 knots and 100 litres of fuel and being enclosed has quite some appeal. But I don't see how or why this is impinging on the rights of R&T flyers.

Bill, I am not in a position to give you an expert answer to your questions - for that you should write to the CEO - but I'll have a stab at a few: RAAus went into crisis mode when CASA dropped the bombshell. RAAus has fought tooth and nail (and continues to) against the action taken by CASA. To the best of my knowledge the opposite of what you suspect is true. Plenty of people have been concerned about the quality issues with Jab engines but no RAAus person that I know of has ever agreed with CASA's action. Fairly simple answer: RAAus is obliged by CASA to perform a number of functions that cost a great deal of money to achieve. In recent years CASA has increased their demands substantially. In previous years, as was evidenced by four sequentially failed audits, RAAus was not doing what CASA required of RAAus. CASA pay RAAus a bit over $100,000 p.a. to do work that costs RAAus $millions p.a. You can work it out for yourself by deducting the things we get (or used to get) good value for in particular the Insurance and the Magazine. RAAus has pointed this situation out to CASA VOLUBLY but CASA has been happy to ignore any demands for a better deal. RAAus Board and Management are now taking the same issue up with CASA's superior. Refer to the previous answer plus inflation. Refer above answers, I think it is covered. The concession is that they won't have to pay more this year if they are happy to have the free digital version. You are entitled to know that as a member of RAAus. The staff are not overly generously paid when compared with the Public Service. If you want to know the fine details, the books of RAAus are available for your inspection at any reasonable hour at their registered office which, being in the low rent district of Fyshwick, you can top up your video collection while in the neighbourhood. Wages, Insurance and the Magazine. Office rent is not an issue as the building is owned by RAAus. Wages can be looked at by function of Safety, Technical, Operations and Administration. Some great work has been done by Michael Linke in bringing down the numbers employed by three. When the new computer systems have been implemented there could be further reductions in wages costs.

I believe the did say it " as it is" at the General Meeting. He said that they could avoid raising fees for everybody by charging for the home-delivered, paper magazine. I agree that it would be unfair to put up the fees for every member when many (most?) are prepared to have a digital version for the current fee. The decision to allow a printed version at all is very considerate. If you really do value a paper version you can have one - at a price. But, my suggestion would be subscribe reall soon or else it will be gone. In terms of the magazine not being read because it is on a screen and not on paper is a personal choice and may reflect the demographics of Recreational Aviators. It may also reflect on the product life cycle of printed magazines being in the decline stage. Instead of reading magazines (passive) younger generations are into more active pursuits with interactive communication via Facebook (useful), Twitter (even CASA uses that abomination) and other forms of media usually prefixed these days with the word "social". Were not newspapers and magazines (and broadcast radio) early forms of social media? RAAus has made a spectacular entry into Facebook with the site booming. Information is right up to the minute not lagged by two or three months as is the case with the home delivered paper magazine. And the equivalent of "Letters to the Editor" (how 19th Century can you get?) is handled by "Comments" which are instantaneous. My rash prediction, not my desire necessarily, but just the reality, is that there will be such a small take up of the printed magazine that it will be very difficult to justify printing any copies at all. Aviators are not known for being free spenders on anything that does not involve defying gravity. Who would have bought a copy of CASA's "Flight Safety" magazine if they had offered a printed version along with the free digital version? Only Sweet Fanny Adams I strongly suspect.

Turbo wrote " I haven't found a Clause in the Constitution authorising the employment of a Chief Executive Officer . . ." The CEO is an employee not a Managing Director. The Board has the power to employ people under 11(i) The Business of the Association shall be managed by the Board which may exercise all of the powers of the Association.

A very large part of the problem here and one of the reasons this discussion goes on are the RAAus membership fees. As far as I'm concerned I get good value for the component that goes towards the Magazine (digital or hardcopy) and the Insurance (pax cover is very low and low risk for the insurers). If the other bit was funded by CASA/Dept of Transport as it is for GA then there would be no issue worth spending time on. I take Andy's point: it should be a question of competency on type not what organisation you do or don't belong to. For all that, it is what it is. Them's the rules. If you don't like the rules and I don't and it really bothers you, campaign for the rules to be changed. There is an excellent good argument for PPL's to fly RA aircraft on their PPL - once they have demonstrated competency to a CFI. In the meantime, you don't really have a choice unless you have very deep pockets and are prepared to take it to the High Court.

The one that went in North of Sydney a couple of years back was a fuel starvation issue. The aircraft floated - being a low helps in a ditching.

Anyone know what sort of aircraft that is?

Those are indeed the rules that I do and will follow. I'm not sure it is as clear cut though as that. It may be dreaming but I just feel that somewhere buried in the legal system at the highest level there is room for common sense and the striking down of administrative arrangements that are just plain ridiculous. After all, it's the vibe!