Mike Borgelt

As an individual shareholder the only action you can take is to sell your shares. Otherwise you have zero influence.

Read Mike Busch on engine reliability. He has an interesting seminar on engine failure rates. Significantly worse in first 500 hours after new or re-build, settling down nicely after that to well past recommended TBO. I'd not replace a well running engine with good compressions, oil pressure and no metal in filter, just because it hit TBO. TBO is to cover the manufacturer's and CASA's backside, not yours. Mike is a very experienced U.S. A&P (LAME).

"Submitting a CAIR to ATSB will get info to CASA without identifying yourself." Where CASA will then put it in the day VFR private/recreational/sports file and forget about it. You've heard the joke about Write Only memory? Neither CASA nor ATSB cares what we do to ourselves as long as we don't fall on people on the ground or run into regional airliners. That much is abundantly clear. The regulations are there to keep them in the clear if that does happen. When there is a political/public outcry as a result they will point to the voluminous body of law and regulation and say " what more can we do? We've already made it as difficult as possible for these people to operate". This is how much of government works. Solutions that don't work for problems that mostly don't exist, all brought to you at vast expense.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Alternatively - You bought the ticket, now take the ride. Tell CASA? Likely not interested and it may focus their malevolent gaze on you. Tried reporting dangerous driving to the police? My wife did once and was made to feel like a criminal. If people do stupid things in aircraft and won't take the hint just encourage them to do something stupid where it is unlikely to harm anyone else and let them go for it. The sooner they come unstuck, the better. Nev, pal of mine who has been flying airliners for 45 years and still is, reckons it was the invention of runways instead of all over grass, when things went bad.

Radial engines are good. Next time you see one have a careful look. Most of it is power producing bits (cylinders).

New student rocks up to instructor for first lesson. They shake hands and introduce. Instructor sticks his leg out trips student who falls to floor. "What did you do that for?" " That was lesson number one - the ground is hard. Imagine what it will be like hitting it at 50 knots plus".

Proper design will allow a hexacopter to fly with one or two electric motors out of action. These guys did all the sensible things with unmanned testing etc. The only EAA Chapter in Australia has voted to give them an Experimental Aviation achievement award. CASA is going to have some trouble prosecuting. The pilot is unidentifiable and I doubt his mates will dob him in, unlike people in RAAus and GFA who seem to be dreadful busybodies worrying that somebody may be having fun without their blessing. Forget about all electric quad/hexa/octacopters. What the concept is useful for is a VTOL light aircraft. Imagine if small aircraft can be freed from large aerodromes. Use the distributed electric propulsion for takeoff and landing only. Doesn't need large batteries and you can use an alternator on the piston or turbine wing borne flight propulsion unit. The high power to weight and very small wing area (you don't care about stall speed) will mean very high cruising speeds. Nothing to stop anyone building one as a VH Experimental. Say a Jabiru with a smaller wing chord , smaller span and two long pods on the wing tips with a contra rotating set of props on each tip for an octacopter configuration. Build 1/3 scale R/C model first. The algorithms and control systems are off the shelf. If you can't fit a triple redundant plus one backup channel auto stab in a 50mm cube you aren't trying. I suspect you can find off the shelf motors, batteries and motor controllers too. There may be more optimum configurations for the airframe. I keep looking at tandem wings. Fun project.

If you are routinely flying with someone it is irresponsible to not make sure they have at least a reasonable chance of landing the aircraft in the event of pilot incapacitation. Any law that limits or prohibits this is likewise stupid and irresponsible. Besides unless someone is stupid enough to use electronic means to record and publish the event of someone "not qualified", "touching the controls (the horror!)" the law is simply not enforceable, hence also stupid. But what can you expect from the intellectually challenged workers in the sheltered workshop that is CASA? I see Carmody is whining that his organisation is getting bashed on social media. Well, suck it up Princess. Perhaps he should have a look at why this is so. Nobody minds rational, evidence based regulation that aligns largely with common sense and safe operating procedures developed by over 100 years of aviation experience but that is in very short supply from CASA and its minions like RAAus and GFA etc. Much of regulation has nothing to do with safety for anyone but is there to demonstrate to politicians and the public that "something is being done".

The biggest mistake in regional Aviation policy was Malcolm Fraser's decision to hand Commonwealth owned aerodromes to local councils, thus destroying a part of the national transport network. Of course this was but one of many, many bad to disastrous decisions made by him. Leasing the major airports to large overseas corporations was another extremely bad government decision. You might not want public servants running them but you could just ask for tenders to run them according to reasonable rules. Finding public serants to write the agreements might be problematic. See Queensland Health computer pay system. We're coming close to "Failed State" status.

In a rational world nobody would be designing aircraft to an arbitrary, legislated, weight limit or stall speed. BTW the 61 knot stall speed limit is based on experience of numerous forced landings as a result of WW2, I believe. There is a knee in the curve of risk of death vs stall speed right at 61 knots. Hence the Part 23 61 knot max stall. It is perfectly rational, unlike a lot of regulation. I don't believe glider experience has much to do with powered aircraft forced landings. Gliders are MUCH easier. (based on 62 real, personal, land in paddocks events in gliders. Numerous more on other aerodromes/airstrips). If you want to survive a powered aircraft engine failure, practice in a powered aircraft.

Oh well, it seems that RAAus, GFA etc have fallen in to CASA's Part 149 trap. Once an organisation takes on a government function it becomes the government. RAAus, GFA etc are in fact now mini CASA's but with "plausible deniability" by CASA when it comes to liability. The rather silly and limited people, who take themselves far too seriously, running the recreational aviation organisations, have only one question for CASA when CASA says "jump". "How high, sir?" This is after they have sold out the interests of their members to get a pat on the head by CASA and a "good, dog, sit, have a treat" which they take as an invitation to hump CASA's leg. CASA enjoys this. Looks like RAAus HAS shot itself in the foot over medicals. They should have got behind AOPA and most of the other responders, including the former CASA Chief medical Officer, when the medical standard consultation was done instead of taking their disgusting, stupid, narrow, self interested approach. Might be smart for you RAAus members to call a special general meeting and replace the board, fire the two M's and get rid of the substantial numbers of hangers on at HQ, all of whom are costing you your hard earned money. RAAUs doesn't even need to exist as a regulatory body. Two small changes to CASA regs are all that is required. Maintenance can be done and signed for by the owner if the aircraft is under 600Kg gross weight. Pilot medical standard if the aircraft is under 600Kg is self declaration or holding a State Private Motor Vehicle Driver's licence. Then RAAus can be a promotion, safety education and advisory body as well as an effective political lobby. See EAA in the US.

You all might like to contemplate where, when and how ultralight aviation got started in Australia. Hint: It wasn't with regulatory approval.

Well good on the bloke/blokes/blokettes who organised this. Truly in the spirit of all the early aviation pioneers, including Henri Mignet. The only clowns are those here who think regulation and CASA approvals make things "safe". As for RC fields, there is the official hobby and the at least 5 times the size unofficial one. The "consultation" on increases weight limits for RAAus is out. I'm going to suggest it be increased to 300Kg and be de-regulated. Only pilot quals under 400 feet be similar to CASA drone licence (knowledge of places you can't fly), RPL or higher if you want above 400 feet. The rest of the nonsense about running several general aviation systems when we all fly in the same airspace can be consigned to the rubbish bin, where it belongs.

Heavens, "undiplomatic", I think I'll faint. RAAus is CASA's bitch, doing their bidding while screwing the membership for money. AOPA has legitimate grievances. CASA has said there was medical reform for private pilots. There was no effective medical reform. CASA lied. Again. We now have the ridiculous situation where you can build an under 600Kg Experimental Amateur built VH registered aircraft and need a Basic med or Class 2 (exactly the same medical standard) to fly and yet if RAAus registered you don't. This is because CASA is too bone idle to regulate properly and wants to shove its responsibilities and work on to private people. So in exchange for protection money to RAAus you get to be exempt from a requirement that CASA considers essential if the aircraft has letters on the side. You can decide if this is corruption or not. Nowadays there is no reason for RAAus to exist. It no longer deals exclusively with rag and tube ultralights and the vast majority of the aircraft are, rightfully considered, GA aircraft.

Fuel system malfunction? Too much air in the tank? Seriously, he did a fair job getting it down and stopping without hitting anything but it should not have happened in the first place. Bad publicity really and can have legislative repercussions down the track as well as putting innocent people on the ground at risk. Look at it on Google earth. Where he landed there was an airport about 3nm to the south and a larger one 1.5nm to the west with a golf course between where he landed and the larger airport. Sounds like tea and bikkies with the local Friendly Aviation Agency office coming up.

I think the first glider is a french aircraft called a Wassmer Bijave, the second is a Schempp Hirth Janus and the last is a Grob 103 Twin 2. Yep, here's the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassmer_WA-30_Bijave

Read the rule about last light carefully. You can legally fly within 10 minutes of last light, it is just that you aren't allowed to plan to leave the departure aerodrome unless your plan says you are going to get to the destination 10 minutes before last light including required holding. Arriving 5 minutes before last light because of unforecast winds in the latter part of the flight isn't actually breaking the rule. Anyone got an opinion on what happens when you fly over someone on the ground who is signalling an emergency and you do a couple of circles overhead to check it out?

"There's probably a few "seconds" from Boeing Max 8's on the market soon... " Sicko. How about poorly trained crews who haven't taken on board the memory item that is action for runaway stab trim? There are 5 other methods that actuate the stab trim motor, 4 of them automatic. Any one can cause runaway trim. Just hit the two switches to turn it off.

There is nothing to prevent multi - engine Amateur built Experimental in Australia.

The joke here is that CASA wants to give dysfunctional organisations like RAAus and GFA monopoly control of their respective aviation activities under Part 149. So much for aviation safety and "safe skies for all". Some years ago GFA hired a professional sports administrator out of the UK. He lasted a few weeks beacsue he found out how it dysfunctioned and fled back home. The full story was never revealed to the members. Time to end this farce.

Suuuuure it does.

The ONE instrument you might want a steam gauge for is the ASI. Doesn't matter much in most phases of flight but for takeoff and landing it does and the airspeed should be scanned often. A round dial with a highly contrasting pointer is highly intuitive and gets a close enough answer for you in a fraction of a second as it shows an angle. Digital gets a more precise answer but can take longer particularly in turbulence when the value is changing. This is the same reason that glider variometers aren't going digital anytime soon. It isn't about glass, steam or anything but deciding on the mission, what information you need to accomplish it and the ergonomics of getting it accurately and quickly enough.

That would be INS not GPS which wan't in service at the time.

Didn't you guys know that Australia consists of Sydney and "the bush"?

I'll bet he can't flap his arms if a wing falls off either. The "old way" of doing things was a result of the limitations of the technology of the time. Use the new tech, just plan to have enough backups and battery power. That's the way things are done now. It sure is better. You have far more knowledge and up to the moment information from web connected data, traffic information, fuel state (if you have fuel flow and totaliser) position, storm/rain location etc etc etc. Far better SA and a lot less time spent with maps, E6B and other relics. Sure if you are flying around on Sunday mornings or evenings for an hour or so in your local area you don't need so much.