Powerin

I think the Belites I mentioned earlier start at US$8,500 plus engine.....US$3500 for a 28hp Hirth. So reasonably cheap flying is still possible.

No qualms at all with that Maj. While I may not agree with everything he's doing, it is clear that the GM is taking decisive actions within the parameters and policies set for him by the Board. This is exactly how things should be done and bodes well for the future. I wish you well for your future endeavours as a member representative Ross.

There are quite a few of us here that do have experience on one board or another. When we see statements like these we shake our heads and sigh..."if only you knew what it was like". Maj has been critical of our board in the past, and rightly so, but now that he is on the inside I get the feeling he is realising just how much is involved and how little it is possible for a board member to divulge on an open forum. There is a lot of (sometimes useless) information a Board member has to absorb and then make informed decisions which affect many 1000s of people. It is a heavy responsibility for little reward. But if you take on the job you have to do it to the best of your ability without fear or favour. To those board members that are doing just that...keep up the good work!

It wasn't really the point of my post, but the GM's letter says: Emphasis is mine. My point however was actually to agree with the need for board confidentiality and used this as an example of confusing mixed messages. If you look at your statements here and those of the General Manager's they are somewhat different. I'm not having a go at you here at all Maj. I totally understand what you have said here and applaud your efforts to keep members informed....but I would class the GMs letter and your followup posts here as far from clear as to the current status of FTFs insurance cover, if any, by the RAAus.

The current policy says $10m but is due to be renewed soon I think? This is an interesting statement Maj, because that's not what the General Manager has written. It was a conscious decision of the Board according to him. I'm not worried either way and am not claiming anything untoward. But it does go to show the reason why board members from any organisation are often subjected to confidentiality agreements and why it can be a good thing. Sometimes misinformation can be spread by different interpretations of the same message. So it's sometimes best if information comes from a single authorised source such as a CEO or GM. Again, I am NOT saying either of these statements from the GM and a Board member are wrong, just that they give different perspectives which may lead to confusion.

This is a very good point and one I have made before. What type of aircraft we fly is often not only a personal choice, but something that significant others in our lives need to be comfortable with as well.

I don't pretend to know exactly...but my take would be this: A plane crashes into a house. The passenger of the aircraft and the owners of the house can sue the PIC for damages and injury. RAA insurance will cover the PIC for up to $10mil. If it is later found that the plane itself was defective and caused the crash then the pax and house owner might also sue the owner of the plane for negligence and damages. What I am assuming here is that if the owner of the plane is an affiliated paid-up member club the insurance policy will cover them, and also USED to cover commercial FTFs for free as well....but not any more it seems. I agree that it is biting the hand that feeds them. I'd interested to know how much premium saving there would be, if any, by dropping coverage for FTFs. If it costs members a dollar or two a year for the extra insurance I wouldn't mind that if it helps learning to fly to be a bit more affordable thus growing the organisation. The way the GM is talking it seems subsidised RAAus ASICs will be the next on the chopping block. There are less and less benefits flowing to members and rising membership fees.

Going to become a dealer and import some Belites or Air-bikes FT?

As far as I can tell from the insurance documents, the insurance covers the pilot for whatever aircraft they happen to fly. Note however that the insurance ONLY covers the pilot for third party liability....injury or property damage to others. As a pilot you are not covered in any way for your own loss or injury by this insurance. A payed up affiliated club hiring out an aircraft is covered...but again only for any liability to the club from third parties. It seems FTFs were once included in this cover.

You can call it quasi all you like....but the fact is they are not GA prices. Why do you think LSA is as popular as it is? I still struggle to understand this animosity some have towards LSA or larger ultralights. It's a bit like blaming the Holden Commodore for the demise of the original VW beetle...and then going on to say people have too much money so we should ban Commodores and make everyone drive BMWs. But if they can't afford that they should buy an old VW beetle. If pilots really wanted to fly 95.10s they would. There's absolutely nothing stopping them....except for the fact that, despite the low cost, the demand is getting less, and less manufacturers can afford to make planes that people don't buy. Back in the day any ultralight pilot worth their salt would build their own anyway. Why doesn't that happen much anymore? Time marches on and perhaps the 95.10 aeroplane will go the way of the steam locomotive or the horse and sulky limited to those who have the time and motivation to build and fly their own. That would be a terrible shame...but it's not the fault of those of us who want to fly something faster and more substantial but still can't afford GA.

My recent flying test certainly included several variations of engine failure in the circuit and subsequent landing. I also had the opposite...a throttle failure stuck at full power. You have to decide where in the cct to cut the mags and successfully land.

Perhaps...but I also think it is an indicator that purchase price and running cost is not necessarily the biggest part of owning and hiring out an aircraft. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen many CFIs driving around in BMWs. I don't get the feeling there is big money to be made in hiring or training with any sort of aircraft.

Well, off the top of my head I thought of a school that offers Drifters to train in. A quick look at their website reveals that it costs exactly the same price to learn/hire in their Drifter as it does in their Foxbat.... I'd be happy if a special low cost or free membership/rego was offered to LP rag and tube pilots. But it would have to include all the restrictions they once had- single seat, 300ft max alt, no crossing roads, no insurance etc etc. As in the past, they could even teach themselves to fly if they wanted, reducing the cost even more. Also, aircraft would have to be clearly marked as belonging to this class so that they could be easily identified if they flew outside their restricted areas/heights and couldn't take advantage of the flying privileges full paying members enjoy. I wonder how many would take advantage of this? The world is a different place from what it was in the 1980s. It's much more risk averse. Sometimes you can't wind back the clock to the good old days. Cheap motoring is a thing of the past too. Car registration is fast heading towards the $1000/year mark. But if someone wants to fly their own aircraft over their own property below a height which affects any other type of aviation I can't see how that would hurt anyone.

Yeah....sorry. I was genuinely curious and a bit concerned. I started a new thread to hopefully start a discussion separate from recent events, but failed.

Looking at the website of a flying school that had a recent fatal accident, I was a little concerned at how TIFs were being advertised there. There was the TIF where you took the controls, but you could also choose to sit back and enjoy the wonderful sights of a "scenic TIF". It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what's being offered. On the one hand I'm happy for as many people as possible to enjoy flying and perhaps go on to learn to fly. But on the other hand there are companies that have to employ CPLs and go through the cost of having certified aircraft and the red tape involved in having an AOC to legally be able to conduct "joyflights", and the public has a reasonable expectation that when they go on a flight it is conducted safely and legally. How common is the practice of "Scenic TIFs"? I have a feeling it could bite the RAAus hard if investigations showed it to be common practice...especially when overseas tourists are feeling the sudden urge to see what learning to fly in Australia is like.

A look through patents at Auspat shows no patents held by Jabiru that I can see. Remember patents only last 20 years. In any case, as has been said before, what is there to patent? A conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, probably both copied (legally) from previously designs (Jabiru even claim to have copied Cessna). You cannot patent something which is obvious or based on prior art:

As far as I remember turbulence penetration speed is calculated from stall speed more than anything else. At this speed a potentially damaging gust from below or a vertical updraft will stall the wing, unloading it, before the structural G limits of the wing are reached. Turbulence penetration speed provides an automatic safety net to prevent structural damage. Go faster and the maximum structural limit of the wing can be exceeded before the wing stalls.

Just wondering, as I fly planes with stabilators.... A stabilator on its own induces very little stick force and so the trim tab is also an anti-servo tab to increase stick forces in pitch. Therefore a mechanical breakage of any of the linkage or trim motor would actually result in a lessening of stick forces. So a sudden increase in stick forces on a stabilator equipped aircraft would be caused by the trim motor itself physically pushing the tab in an unexpected direction. Is that correct?

I was taught to make radio calls on every leg and it seems to be the culture at YSWG. The RPT boys and girls especially like to know where everyone is and will try, from at least 20 miles out, to get a picture of where everybody is going to be when they join the cct, or more often land straight in and often on the reciprocal to the active runway.

I have a memory like a sieve when it comes to remembering aircraft callsigns and intentions as they come in on the radio. So a knee board is standard equipment for me with a pencil tied to it. However, as others have said, the A5 size is a bit big in a small cockpit and with a joystick....sorry, control column between your legs. I bought a wooden clip board and cut it back to the width of the clip (about 10cm wide), then added a strap and velcro. Ends up about the width of a small notepad and doesn't get in the way.

It is the eternal dilemma. I'm not sure what the answer is.....in our busy lives volunteers are getting harder and harder to find. However, being a volunteer is not an excuse for poor performance. If you put your hand up you do the job to the best of your ability. When you volunteer as a bushfire fighter you are expected to do the training and safety courses or they don't let you near a fireground. The same should apply to RAAus...a multi $million organisation. By the same token, volunteers should not be taken for granted. They need recognition and timely reimbursement of out of pocket expenses. We should be prepared, as an organisation, to spend money to thank our volunteers....whether that be an end of year bash at a fancy restaurant or whatever. Volunteerism is still alive and well in Australia...but so is volunteer burnout. We must guard against that.

Something like this doesn't need member input...it is basic governance 101. This is on PAGE 1 of one Governance training manual I have (from the Australian Institute of Company Directors): And that's it. Pretty simple stuff to understand (but not always to practice). Seeing we in aviation love our acronymns, here's another golden rule for our board to remember: NIFO......Noses In, Fingers Out. It is the board's job to keep an eagle eye on the running of the organisation (down to the last detail), but keep its fingers out of the running of the organisation. Not having a go at you here Jim, I realise you are on the same page with all this. This is just the way an organisation should run, regardless of members' opinions.

I have to agree. While I'm all for proportional representation it's difficult to see how this helps RAAus. Do the needs of a RAAus pilot in NthQld really differ from those in Victoria? If a clique of well qualified Caboolture (Qld) people were elected to the board I fail to see how this would harm the interests of myself in Sth NSW (apart from Natfly being held at Caboolture airport ). RAAus and it's members are bound by the regulations in its Ops and Tech manuals, which in turn are controlled by aviation law. The main problem we seem to have at the moment is actually complying with our own regs and the laws that constrain them. Let's get the outfit fixed and running properly. If that takes cutting back the board to a manageable size where important decisions can be made in a timely manner then so be it. I'm rather surprised that Jim has said that the newly accepted model is one where the board is "to set policy and strategy for the organisation". Jim also says this model is used widely in the "outside world". Is this really how the culture within the RAAus thinks? Are they that insular from the "outside world"? Have they really only just now realised that perhaps a governance model that most organisations in the world use might just be something that RAAus could also use?? If true, therein lies much of the problem with RAAus.

Yep...been there done that. My last break was close to 12 months, but this time I remembered to bring the clicker with me. So maybe you reach a point went flying becomes innate and you don't forget?

Yeah...well....gotta give the guy/girl SOME hope for the future