Jump to content

Mriya

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About Mriya

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 06/07/1971

Information

  • Aircraft
    Various
  • Location
    Moorabbin
  • Country
    Australia
  1. From the range of responses so far, it seems to be decidedly unclear. You can go fishing, you can play golf, you can go for a drive. These common activities have all been approved under the latest lockdown. This isn't about pushing boundaries (although it is clear that some do), but rather understanding how the rules should be applied to recreational flying in a considered and conservative manner. I think most people would agree that a private aircraft owner who goes for a local flight on their own or with someone else from their household and applies appropriate social distancing is not c
  2. Jokes aside, can anyone point me to any guidance material regarding what specific limitations currently exist for a Melbourne based flyer. The 'four reasons to leave home' rule is probably the biggest hurdle, although based on other allowable recreational activities, it is not exactly clear. I'm guessing that a recreational flight that takes you beyond the metropolitan lockdown zone is not acceptable. Any thoughts, preferably backed by government guidance material or specific rules are welcome...
  3. I think you will find that the aircrafts maintenance schedule will include a 12 month (annual) check. Normally the inspection schedule will be triggered by flying hrs or calendar time (whichever comes first). Typically, private owners will fly less than 100hrs in a year, in which case the check is based on calendar time. A lot of misunderstanding surrounds maintenance requirements of RAAus aircraft.
  4. Not sounding good ? https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  5. Just saw this one. Any more info out there? https://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  6. Congratulations Bruce. Sounds like this will simplify the parts supply chain considerably, thus providing better support to Tecnam owners in Oz. I have always found the Tecnam LSA engineering support your provide simple and effective. Quick and easy access to parts, while not discounting the considerable efforts of people involved in the previous supply chain, will be good step forward.
  7. Hi Geoff, Guess who.... Happy to chat and answer any Q's, just that I am not at YCEM this week (In Wollongong for a few days). Yes it was a nice Mooney. Hope your search for a new aircraft, gets you back flying soon.
  8. Coldstream have just recently got a Tecnam P92 back on line for RAAus and have quite an active social group which catch up most weekends.
  9. So it appears that a chute has been fitted at some stage. Can anyone definitively confirm whether it was still there yesterday? The non-deployment of the chute if fitted remains a mystery.
  10. Well that would be a 1st, the media not getting the facts right! Given the circumstances if a ballistic chute was fitted, this would have been the perfect time to use it. I did suspect the media report was wrong at this point. We will still look forward to answers on how this did happen. Very sad for everyone.
  11. Having read all the news articles and comments here 'Mystifying' is an apt word to describe this one. - Two pilots, at least one with vast experience. - Some type of control difficulty from altitude. - One article mentions a ballistic chute, yet not deployed. - Circumstances don't match expected outcome from an engine failure. There appears to be more info that is needed in order to 'join all the dots' on this tragic event. Can anyone confirm the one media report that this aircraft did have a ballistic chute? The non-deployment of that if the aircraft suffered sustained control
  12. OK.. I'll bite.... Care to elaborate Windsor? The article did highlight that it was not technically illegal, but from all I have heard it may as well be. Do women drive in Saudi Arabia? If so, what practical limits do they face?
  13. I suspect we are on the same page in reality. I am not necessarily arguing that the Maintenance Record as supplied by RAAus should be mandatory, but am suggesting that each aircraft owner be required to have an effective system that lets them track, document and demonstrate the ongoing airworthiness of their aircraft. A byproduct of such an effective system would be that airworthiness status can also be simply demonstrated to any friendly ramp check personnel upon request. The Maintenance Record form is one way of effectively doing this. It is a simple form and when used properly contains
  14. Agreed... If you have a ramp check without a form such as this maintenance record how can you demonstrate that maintenance is up to date. Personally, I think it is not so important which particular form is used. If you can develop your own system to document and trace required maintenance then great. However in lieu of reinventing the wheel the RAAus maintenance record form provides a convenient solution where you can track maintenance and record daily inspections. Yes it does look a lot like a CASA maint release, but I guess this is inevitable, given that it is providing a way to record an
  15. The form is buried in the RAAus website. I am aware that our Tech Manager is including a condition on (at least some) new aircraft CofA's that he issues that all flights be recorded on this form. In effect he is slowly implementing this as a mandatory form to use. I support this move, given the lack of adequate records and ability to track required maintenance that I observe from time to time. maintenance-form.pdf maintenance-form.pdf maintenance-form.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...