Ungrounded

Don't like it much - sorry.

Perhaps if there were some gun sight cross-hairs in the middle?

Are there some Cessna's without starter motors?

Or just a case of accidental start while moving prop during pre-flight inspection - live mag?

Doubt they'll hack into all of them.

Perhaps use a weighted metric of say number-of-likes/number-of-messages*100 ? Perhaps too simplistic and would result in people being court martialed for lack of likes and sliding back down the ranking scale. But take the idea and play with the math. You should be able to find a metric formula that ranks Forum users by both quantity (number of posts) and quality of those posts (likes).

Why does it even have to be changed? I wouldn't give you $5 for that.Bloody Government just have to spend money - that isn't theirs.

And 'yes' I wouldn't give you $5 for one of the garish collideoscopic mashups either.

There is now a meeting on the 6th where the woes of the SAAA NC will be explained and the way ahead will be revealed...

I'm also a member of both organisations. A very recent *new* member to both. As such I have no lengthy historical involvement with either. So what follows are some impressions from a somewhat bemused johnny-come-lately to all of this. These are just my *own* views from someone "outside", looking in. Views possibly flawed, likely inaccurate, but I'll share them anyway.

1. RAAus had it's roots in building/flying Ultralights (originally the Australian Ultralight Federation - AUF). But this is no more. The current focus is all about flight training and then flying very sexy, very expensive 600Kg factory LSA's. The recent rapid growth of RAAus seems likely attributable to a large influx of more senior gentlemen/ladies taking refuge from GA medicals. These people bring with them a GA view of the world.

2. RAAus looks on track to becoming a very professional organisation. But sadly somewhere along the road they seem to have stopped listening to what a large section of its members actually want. While still continuing to act in the best interests of "Recreational Aviation". Does anyone else see a problem here?

3. RAAus didn't seem much interested in builder assisting someone constructing an aircraft.

4. SAAA also had it's roots in building/flying Ultralights (originally the Ultralight Association of Australia - ULAA). But this is no more. The SAAA reputedly has a very professional focus on aircraft construction. But the aircraft today mostly seem to be very high end kits. The resulting aircraft are of course GA registered and often even more expensive, more capable and as a consequence heavier than the 600Kg LSA's.

5. The SAAA has in recent times has been so dysfunctional that even a simple e-mail to head office requesting information regarding the Builder Assist program went completely unanswered.

So with this overly simplistic view of the current state of play. It makes sense to this newbie to at least discuss amalgamation. The SAAA could look after building, construction and maintenance and the RAAus can look after flight training and aircraft registrations. Excepting this isn't really an amalgamation but rather a re-amalgamation. Given that the RAAus was originally a break-away group from the SAAA ("...so just where are the Judean Popular People's Front?". CASA playing the part of the Roman's of course :-).

Now here's something else that may (or may not) be of interest. I'm also a member of another Aircraft related organisation, the EAA. For the princely sum of $40 a year I think it was, they quite happily answer my technical questions. Recently the EAA even sent me an e-mail invitation to take part in an online survey. I can't believe that such a survey would have been created just for little 'ol me. So I'm assuming that quite a number of people reading this may have seen the same invitation. And the thrust of that survey? It was:- "Why are you a member of the EAA?" and... "Would you be interested in joining or establishing an EAA Chapter in Australia?".

So maybe there are other opportunities for mergers/amalgamations? Or perhaps just even greater impetus to consider local options?

Kind Regards All,

Steve.

Yes you can.https://www.service.transport.qld.gov.au/checkrego/application/TermAndConditions.xhtml?windowId=9a7

Same NSW.

https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/check-registration-and-history-vehicle

If you seriously think anything from messrs Airbus is or should be a RECREATIONAL aircraft then I am glad you are spending time in China

Apart from all the obvious issues of build quality done by someone else. I'd be worried about registration issues. Looks suspiciously like it might need to be registered "Experimental" and that you may need to prove that you constructed 51% or more of the aircraft yourself.

What sort of aircraft is it? A Google of SportAir locates a company in the USA that sells multiple aircraft types (including the Sting). But this airframe doesn't look to be one of theirs. Looks to be wood and fibreglass construction.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/skydiving-cessna-crash-landed-in-adelaide-when-fuel-ran-out-atsb/7121110

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-115.aspx

Fuel exhaustion apparently. Two fuel dip-sticks in the aircraft with different calibration marks.

Hi Mark,

Was it you or someone else here that mentioned TX watchdog timers? Is this the only reason why the Icom airband radios/handhelds are no longer compliant? Because that lack such a timer? Or is there some other compliance issue?

And if I am getting my head around all this. Then does this mean that the IC-A15 handheld has received special CASA/ACMA dispensation for continued sale because there are no other ground options available. Even though they are still strictly non-compliant (for some reason). Further, that if you already have an IC-A15 installed in a fixed ultralight installation then it is alright to continue using it. But that any new fixed installations of an IC-A15's would be verboten?

Steve.

Yep I've got a plan. Staying out of the clouds!!!

Here's another good video on the topic.

Question guys: There isn't any legal problem or impediment with using a hand-held radio in an ultralight or homebuilt is there? I know CASA has a list of "approved" radio equipment that I've seen somewhere for VH registered aircraft. Is this applicable to RAA rego as well? Or are you OK to use a hand-held?

Someone (Spacesailer I think it was) made the comment a while back that there were no "approved" handhelds and I'm wondering what was meant by this.

Given that I fly in an open cockpit, rather than the expense and unreliability of modern electronics I may decide to use other methods of signalling my intentions in the circuit. I have found a Very pistol, semaphore flags and smoke grenades on EBay.

Not sure how these would help in a circuit though. Maybe there are others?

Steve (being silly).

One also wonders if he has a radio ,why on earth wouldn't he legalise its installation/operation.

So suffering a bout of insomnia tonight I've been reading up on the various bits of Radcom legislation. The results of which have surprised me.

Turns out (my reading/understanding) that it is in fact illegal to be in possession of an air band handheld transceiver unless you already have the Radio Endorsement. I don't think it has always been this way. In fact I rather suspect that this has only been the case since changes made to the Radcom Act back in 2007, but have not verified this.

Reading between the lines my interpretation is that ACMA only cares about people illegally operating transmitters. But that the law has been structured such that they don't have to prove you were the one transmitting. Just having a piece of radio gear capable of doing so in your possession is enough to convict you of an offence.

Another revelation is that it is a legal requirement for a business selling said communications gear to verify that the purchaser is suitably licensed prior to sale and then hold a copy of whatever documentary proof was used for a period of two years after the sale!

Steve.

That "low time pilot " should not be anywhere with a radio ( borrowed or not ) without an authority to use it , particularly where the carriage of an operational radio is mandated ....Bob

Granted they could not use air-space that required them to transmit but outside of that?

Motorbikes and bicycles both steer the same. They are both two-wheeled. They both require counter-steering. When you ride a bicycle (or motorbike) and steer without holding the handle bars you weight-shift the handle bars in the correct direction(s) as required. Counter steering is still happening. The second "Kieth Code" video about counter-steering posted above by Pearo shows a clear demonstration of this happening.

I saw recently that to turn a bike you had to push the handlebars in the opposite direction to which way you wabt to turn. What load of rubbish that idea is and no doubt some will believe it,

Actually it's quite true. Although it might best be said that a bicycle or motorbike turns because it is banked-over and that to bank the bicycle we *briefly* initiate a turn in the opposite direction to establish the desired bank angle in the desired direction.

Since this is an aviation forum then this then will seem appropriate. One person who did believe this would appear to have been none other than Wilbur Wright of "Wright Brothers" fame. Wilbur had this to say on the subject:-

I have asked dozens of bicycle riders how they turn to the left. I have never found a single person who stated all the facts correctly when first asked. They almost invariably said that to turn to the left' date=' they turned the handlebar to the left and as a result made a turn to the left. But on further questioning them, some would agree that they first turned the handlebar a little to the right, and then as the machine inclined to the left, they turned the handlebar to the left and as a result made the circle, inclining inward.[/quote']Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering

Another group of people who seem to believe it are the Motorcycle Council of New South Wales. They thought it important enough to make it the topic of one of the 'Rider Risk" video series:-

 

Often a battery powered radio has a cleaner sounding signal. As they escape from unwanted noise entering the radio via the main electrical system. They can still suffer from RF interference but often electrcal noise rides the power supply lines.

Very much in agreement that a portable radio needs a good external antenna to perform well.

You may also need to be careful with the headphones and microphone (headset) being used. In that they should be electronically "matched" (suitable) for the radio in question. Using a genuine manufacturers accessory for the radio is the safe way to arrive at the desired matched condition. Use something 3rd party and you may need to be careful/experiment with matching the microphone type/impedence and the headphone impedences. Low TX audio and/or RX volume is the common result of a mismatch.

Version 2 has been "Removed by user".

What was the difference?

With regards to the "backwards bike". It probably doesn't help any that most people (including me) learnt to ride one without ever realizing that to make a left turn you actually turn the handle bars to the right, even if only briefly (and vice-versa for the other direction). Bicycles turn because they are inclined or banked over. To cause a bicycle to bank left for a left turn you have to steer to the right. The process is called "Counter Steering".

Not suggesting that if you did understand "Counter Steering" you would be able to ride that infernal backwards bike. But the knowledge may speed the process of re-learning how to ride.

Interesting video/experiment!

A statement on Humberside Fire and Rescue’s website said the wing and roof of aircraft was removed to assist in removal of casualties on spinal boards.[/Quote]Appears the that physical damage has been compounded by the excellent efforts of the rescue team. So the actual "crash" may not have been as bad as the debris would suggest.