jetjr

I dont agree but lets say you are correct Youve outlined why more restrictions and rules doesnt work and stifles innovation At some stage of development safety systems can become counterproductive

It also relies on a private company having their act together and your subscription right for it to save your life A nice tool for sure but not in the same game as a PLB despite what the marketing says

I reckon this does flag a cultural problem in safety management. Suddenly an activity becomes unacceptably dangerous once it becomes work related. It admits that either risks are unknown and acceptable (otherwise it would be commonly know you could get hurt doing it) OR the risk assessment process is flawed and real risk is lower than portrayed OR The people take higher risks under a stricter safety web In any case it means the system is based for the dimmest participant.

Driving to and from work is definitely part of the work day and as such is included in fatigue and safety management

Yet it is but so far no plans to include experimental and unlikely you will have ability to self maintain or modify unless you built it Id expect something like this is years away

The recording of training and clear training syllabus makes sure nothing is missed in bulk training Id say this is the reason behind RAA L1 exercise

A large portion of the money is to set up bases able to handle the operation and maintenance of the aircraft. It also is for operations for some time. Still a lot of money

JAbiru state minimum 50 deg before take off, maximum continuous, 80-100 C and max peak 118 C These relate to a probe in particular spot in sump With such a small volume of oil, temps are sensitive to oil level load and cooling capacity.

More certified aircraft options, spin training permitted, easler transition to std aircraft types It is a step and good to hear CASA is changing but not sure this first step does much for existing RAA members

How is allowing training in heavier aircraft taking over GA? At this point it seems you can train in a heavier aircraft but then have nothing in that group to fly afterwards Whats going to happen later is anyones guess and it wont happen soon

Heard a little more today The new catagory is only planned for training aircraft first up. Only factory built Lame maintained After RAA has a more comprehensive maintennace training management system it could be taken more seriously by CASA No scope for experimental in group G yet but its a logical step later Summary is no change for existing aircraft in RAA for the time being

Group G are the heavier types, will remain LAME or now can be L4 maintained. Current aircraft will continue as currently, self or L2 for training Distributed FAQ to members via email few days ago Few interesting points is the inference that Group G, by the fact they don't just say "training" MAY be used for hire or reward Also that current experimental can maybe move to group G with increased MTOW and stall speed, these could maybe be self maintained yet. Wont know anything until CASA releases their plan, could vary from rumours and what RAA expect.

I think some others were tried but Ian reverted back to original valves are as said the original English produced version Jabiru claim they had more failures with them than the chinese version......... some doubts on that Id think. not sure they are able to be exchanged, I think CAE valves can go into Jab but not the other way. Likely to be fixed by new seats.

They made the decision to cancel printed magazine and revert to online only to save money The board (i have to assume) decided it had to remain and based upon member backlash, it was. Last time I heard it was $180K per year i think, purely for those few members who cant or wont use electonic communications Same for paper mailouts , they were cancelled which saved heaps in printing and mail costs, yet some demand it. So it remains and so do costs. the staged membership increases are likely to cover these continued costs.

No, members demanded they KEEP the printed magazine, which remains one of the largest cost items RAA has.

Hardly a "truckload on new regulation" Plenty will like the ability to modify cert and LSA aircraft - they previously couldn't - and keep them flying. For others is only major modifications 10 min online quiz for L1? not that tough

See dsam message above, you need a medical Doesn't say you need any CTA training? which is odd. Also says "airspace related to the FTS" so not all CTA at all

Not quite sure what the gain is here, the FTF aircraft would already have been OK for CTA being LSA or cert models (unless they cant get CASA approval for some reason), the pilots should be CTA trained and theres a medical anyway? Only difference is they don't need RPL or PPL "endorsement"

like what?

Yes they do, and experimental VH are allowed in CTA too but not all RAA aircraft. Only LSA or cert models. RAA Experimental need special approval from CASA delegate and "unapproved" engines also not permitted. This is the basis for RAA looking to harmonise these exceptions and weight limits. Yes its a waste of money, bit like ASIC cards but theres an industry built around it and with it being so easy to argue "safety at any cost" its unlikely to shrink away quietly.

No way will CASA give CTA access to RAA pilots without a medical. Maybe one with a new name but it will amount to the same thing so old GA pilots will be disappointed. With only LSA (or the few certificated models) permitted @ 600kg, not sure what great attraction there will be. The increase in MTOW an other changes doesn't have to influence others in RAA, just like LSA etc doesn't effect the older types. More charges etc to exercise the extra options. Even more GA pilots will stay there if RAA costs go up to cover them.

This idea that each type, colour, material aircraft needs its own self managing organisation will see the death of light flying. It is exactly what CASA wants as they can palm off responsibility and cost and each group will fight amongst themselves for coins it offers to run it all and wear the risk. Without the bulk of new RAA pilots and aircraft funding the exercise, Id suggest costs for running AUF in todays safety environment would have sunk the few remaining rag n tube participants some years ago.

yes they look good and that's what I had in mind too. Another link on their site - http://www.transtainer.com.au/products/aviation-ibcs/ Im not sure that once you get to bulk sizes (larger than 205L) that you don't fall under DG rules for road transport means vehicle and driver must be DG qualified Cannot transport any of these with pump fitted so must be removable I think

I recall the case discussed was a very serious business and RAA was highly exposed. Didnt even CASA try to walk away? RAA (members) was close to having to pay out for someone elses problem with aircraft documentation etc. Its common after something like this to have legal advisors go through and identify all the holes and risks.

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Transporting-containers-of-3214.aspx