DonRamsay

I'm working on that . . . Getting the line between RA and GA redrawn as Commercial Aviation and Recreational Aviation - get rid of "GA" altogether. Might take a while . . .

When F_T does his stirring he is up front not vague waffling.

Along those lines I love the French Cri Cri. Two engines and unbelievable performance.

For the last 5 days I've been flying around SE Qld and NSW. I've met lots of joyful aviators and had a truly wonderful time. Then I come back on here and find a bottomless pit of loathing, carping, keyboard warrior criticisms. What a delight! I'm currently in the process of winding up 6 years of intense, personally expensive, emotionally draining activism on behalf of the members of RAAus. Six years ago, I saw an organisation that was headed, in my view, for oblivion due to years of neglectful management and poor governance. I did something about it and got the support of the overwhelming majority of members and I am now satisfied that RAAus is on a sound footing and headed in the right direction. So now I've just read this entire thread and I have to say my head hurts. It is so difficult for a person with a generally positive, optimistic outlook on life to encounter such unbounding negativity. Some people are just not happy until they are totally miserable and have dragged everybody else down to their level of despair. On here I get served up accusations of every low motivation imaginable and of utter incompetence. What a joy. But, rather than admit my many failings, I think I'll accept the vote of confidence from more than 80% of the members who are not asleep at the control column and leave the small squad of naysayers who seem to love the sound of their own "voices" to continue to whinge to each other. There was a democratic process and a democratic decision was made. If you don't like the outcome, the democratic process is open to you just the same as it was to me. The delay from ASIC is nothing unusual and is undeniably temporary, very temporary and almost certainly will be over this week. When ASIC does grant registration, RAAus Ltd will be ahead of the game because of some energetic and industrious people. Sorry for being efficient and wanting to get on with it. No doubt if the Board had waited until registration was finalised there would have been whinges that RAAus was trying to spin out the time that the three initial directors could cling to power. In six months from now the issues you raise as enormously important will be seen for what they are, a typhoon in a teacup. If you love RAAus Inc. so much, why not form it up again after RAAus Ltd is underway and run it the way you'd like it to be run. But, you won't be able to use the name, you'll have to come up with your own name and take your proposal to the ACT's Office of Registry Services.

Too lazy for that sort of waffle Keith. You'll have to spoon feed me if you really want a response.

Wouldn't it be good to have one minister responsible for both? He/she has to balance one against the other where as a Minister for Energy could ignore environment and just go full bore on energy from any source and a Minister for only the environment could have us freezing in the dark with a perfect score on the environment.

Col, I understand you like to stand on the pinker side of politics and I know Howard/Costello were far from perfect but can you recall any other Australian Government in living memory (or ever?) that delivered 10 budgets in surplus and paid the Fed debt down to net nil and put a heap away in the future fund to pay for my pension when I run out of my superannuation? Please give us a break! The pinkos are very good at promising surpluses (Wayne nil from 4?) but then he was the "world's greatest treasurer". I wonder how many schooners that one cost him?

Such as . . . .

Can't say for certain but I'm pretty sure RAAus has commuted to be there. A phone call to the RAAus office would clarify.

I know I shouldn't laugh . . . but I did.

The key word here is "Recreational" i.e. not for reward (flying schools aside). The argument I have put to anyone who'll listen including the Deputy PM is that ALL aviation that is not commercial is recreational. We need to see that recognised in the regs and it is heading that way especially with getting rid of Class 2 medicals for recreational pilots (with a PPL). Happy to leave all commercial aviation with CASA but everything that is in the plain english meaning of the word "recreational" should be administered like RAAus aircraft are now. Part time low-end GA pilots and maintainers have an horrendous level of regulation imposed on them as if they were running an airline. The RAAus experiment has proved over 30 years to be no more dangerous than recreational GA. There is no reasonable safety argument to sustain the level of regulation of recreational GA. I know the heavies at CASA have this in the back of their minds and would love to see the back end of recreational GA. RAAus may have started as admirable maverick aviators doing some amazing things with very little dollars involved but it has evolved into something else. When I look around the local aero club, low-end GA aircraft are used for pretty well exactly the same things as RA aircraft. Rag and Tube has just about disappeared or is collecting dust in the back of the hangar. This may be sad but it is real. The essence of RAAus aircraft is still low regulation, low cost, flying for the sheer joy of it - they just go further and faster than they once did and most were either factory built or based on a factory "quick-build" kit. Don

Nev, It is indeed a brave ex accountant who would argue anything aviation with you. So, please treat the following as questions more than an argument. I imagine you could get flutter at just about any airspeed depending on how the aircraft was designed, built and maintained. The Pipistrel Virus has a VNE of 163 knots and with the 100hp Rotax and an IVP Prop it can achieve that straight and level. I imagine some aircraft could have a VNE below 80 knots. Setting an arbitrary max of 120 kts is, well arbitrary. Flutter, I imagine, should not be an issue at say 120 kts for an aircraft with a VNE of 135 kts. Many LSA have a VNE stated at or about 135 kts and perhaps this was in the FAA's thinking when they set the 120 kts max cruise. To keep within the requirement for a 120 kt cruise, the Arion Lightning, for example do things like remove spats and undercarriage fairings to make the aircraft less slippery (and waste fuel and reduce range). Then they put on a ground adjustable prop with the pitch set very much over fine so that at cruise revs it is not overstepping the 120 kt mark. Alternatively, they set the pitch to a normal optimum and specify the max revs for the Jab 6 at a silly low number. All crazy stuff for an aircraft with a VNE of 180 kts and an engine that needs higher revs than that. I used to think they set the max for the reasons that road authorities set speed limits - ordinary people cannot drive safely at a higher speed but perhaps they did have avoiding flutter in mind. Still think they are mentally lazy trying to make a one-size-fits-all rule that suits almost nobody.

pmcc, I find your comment about stall speeds being not the big issue it is made out to be, very interesting. I'd not heard that before and just presumed that a slower landing speed would result in more controllability and fewer loss of control on landing incidents. Coming into land a bit hot is perhaps 10 knots above ideal and of concern. Coming it at 75 kts instead of an ideal 55 kts is a real eye opener and could call for a go-around. But, I can see your point that an aircraft at 70 kts has good aerodynamic control available compared with 40 kts and a tiny nose wheel to steer by or differential braking that can go horribly wrong quickly. Landing at say 25 kts could leave you exposed to crosswinds or sudden gusts with less straight ahead momentum to counter the sideways forces. The USA LSA standard of 45 kts clean Vs the Australian LSA standard of 45 kts in the landing config reflects the FAA's view of keeping all speeds of LSA very low. Their super-stupid max speed of 120 kts at altitude is the clearest example of regulations made by somebody who has only ever flown a desk.

That has to be a bit of a stretch - we should try to keep it a bit real. There may be one person in Aus who might achieve something like that but even that I'd doubt. Speed in the air is of little consequence until you get down to circuit height and below - stall speed is the key issue for low skill occasional pilots that we all are or the rules at least were made for. I guess my point here is that there are a lot of examples where 450 kg or 540 kg or 600 kg has been insufficient to build a decent 2 seater that stalls below 45 knots and has a good fuel range and survivability. The aircraft under 600 kg are mostly built down to a MTOW. Nothing optimal about that. In any case we are getting academic as in the not too distant future RAAus pilots will be able to fly aircraft up to 750 kg and eventually to 1,500 kg. To ome VLA makes a hell of a lot more sense than LSA. Don

That presentation looked pretty accurate to me. A few minor details not quite right but overall he hit the nail on the head. Very interesting stuff about Casting and nikasil barrels. Should make owning a Jab engine a lot easier.

I run OzRunways on the iPad Mini with the display and an old iPad. 9.3.2 works fine on both. Good idea not to let your iPad get too much stuff on it. I like to leave a minimum of 5GB free and feel 10GB free is better. Not a lot of science in that. I got caught out badly by, I think it was 8.3. It took Apple months to fix the problem which of course they denied was a problem until after they fixed it. Despite having two iphones and two iPads - I hate Apple. But for OzRunways, I'd never have gone there. Don't love any of the big boys for that matter. Don't mind Android and Samsung.

This is a form of evidence as it quotes an actual situation. Not an opinion. Opinion but reasonable. It also points to how silly targeting MTOW was and is as it only limits structural strength, less exotic materials and fuel carrying capacity. Insane regulation - worldwide. Sensible = 2 pob, Day VFR, VMC, 45 kt stall. Why care what it weighs? The stall number and 2 pob will keep the size to something reasonable. If a 450kg aircraft falls out of the sky its going to do a lot of damage. A 750 kg aircraft would do more but in either case it would not be good. However, a 750 kg 2 seater has the potential to be a much safer aircraft with good fuel reserves.

Well, my longest flight, recently was London to Singapore, a little over 12 hours and 5,846 NM. No, I wasn't piloting nor was it my aircraft . However, I didn't need a pit stop for the entire flight though I was glad to find one in Singapore. In my own aircraft, Cessnock to Holbrook into a 40 knot headwind so 4 hours for just 326 NM. I did take and use a bottle and it made my entry into Holbrook in difficult weather just that bit less dramatic. The Sling is the most comfortable light aircraft I've sat in or flown in and 4 hours in the seat was a doddle. Very important safety message is keep hydrated. Your ability to concentrate and make good decisions and perform complex physical tasks declines rapidly as you get dehydrated. This was a lesson hammered into us by the professionals at motorcyle ride days at Eastern Creek. The big boys don't carry a camelbak for fun - it is critical to their good performance. By all means avoid diuretics like soft drinks and coffee but don't stint on water. Take two bottles one at least with a large "mouth" like one of the Gatorade style bottles. You'll be very glad you did. Also, I plan to get on the ground every two to three hours if possible. We do this for fun and spending 4 hours with your legs crossed does not sound like recreation to me. And making bad decisions is the reason for >80% of pilot fatalities.

I am staggered that people are prepared to offer a view or an opinion on something for which they have exactly zero facts. This is not a matter for opinion. It is a matter of fact. The seller of the aircraft will have evidence of its allowable MTOW in Australia. There is an issue of WHEN. It may well have been first registered in Australia at 544 kg and then been down-rated back to 450 kg and then, once the right evidence was in place, re-rated back up to 544 kg. I don't know and I doubt any poster above knows other than AAAA. Suggesting that a potential purchaser check the availability of spares could be good advice if it were offered with full bona fides. Again no evidence is provided to prove that it is a problem. Similarly, no evidence is provided that the undercarriage is "problematical" - whatever the scientific definition of "problematical" might be. You don't need a degree in aeronautical design to know that at 450 kg MTOW it would be quite limited but when the 450 kg is a just an assertion from an unhappy camper and not a fact supported by evidence, the advice is very questionable and perhaps not worth the paper it's not written on. Getting involved in a commercial dispute that you do not know the facts of is a good way to be taken for a ride by one side or the other. Personally, I believe this thread should be taken down as it is not in the good spirit of Rec Flying.

The airport is walking distance to the centre of town though I wouldn't want to carry 2 full jerry cans that far. Just a hop over the hills for me so no need to refuel at YNRM.

Its a big flash one on the Eastern side of Cessnock Airport. Now owned by Cessnock Council.

We sold our Tecnam Sierra yesterday and I've been flying my Sling LSA for the last 12 months.

YMND is easier in a strong Westerly or raging NE winds but YCNK with RWY 35 (default) and RWY 17 for Southerly winds is pretty good.

Been freezing for several days. Mind you, anything below 15 deg C is considered freezing around here. We had a day at Newcastle Beach where the temp never got above 13 deg and everyone was shocked! Rod, if you ever want to come down to the Hunter Valley, let us know you are coming and call in to YCNK Cessnock. Don

Not so much a Federal election as the appointment of a DAS who was, it seemed to me, quite openly hostile to Recreational Aviation. The current DAS appeared to me very supportive of CTA and keen for SASAO to work with RAAus to ensure an acceptable proposal is made. I have heard it said that Lib/Nats Coalition Governments are more supportive of GA/RA than ALP/Greens Coalitions but I wouldn't want to start that sort of a fire this close to a Federal election. (I would actually :amazon:but will refrain in the hope of avoiding WWIII and a lot of thread drift )