Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

jetjr

Members
  • Content Count

    3,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

jetjr last won the day on October 16 2018

jetjr had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,806 Excellent

About jetjr

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    J200
  • Location
    NSW
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How significant is the risk to others of recreational aircraft hitting them? has anyone not involved ever been hurt? would they have not been hurt if aircraft was 100kg heavier or traveliing 3kt faster? Risk assessment appears often based on what someone or public thinks might happen
  2. I have no problem, so long as those who need paper copies pay for it all, printing staff, postage etc Right now they don't.
  3. Yes that's right, I read it incorrectly $144K is the net cost to members for the magazine in both formats Still a lot of members money to subsidise a few
  4. It means I trust RAA looked hard at how to keep it going cost effectively - raising fees to cover it isn't a fun decision to make Printng for thousands of pages and the people to do it and get into envelopes and post is far from cheap - reckon this was all outlined at some stage too regarding renewals and rego. I don't have an issue with doing that so long as those who require it pay for it.
  5. As presented earlier in this topic, presently costs $72 K to produce the content and run online then $140K per year for the paper copies going to 1750 members Id expect ways to reduce cost of paper has been investigated, everyone wants to keep it going. Printers have minimum run costs.
  6. Everyone loves the magazine, its just who pays for it The PAPER part of the magazine was/is costing ~ $140K per year Anything you do to reduce print numbers, ie less editions etc raises cost per issue A Biannual magazine information would not be that relevant, late and have to be done with such a lead time as to not much use. Still need frequent newsletter, people who want paper versions can pay the actual cost.
  7. How about a posted newsletter/circular/update at the same frequency for a cost per letter, maybe $4 per mail out, full cost recovery from those that want/need it? Magazine with articles, advertisement etc online Or simply cost recovery from those who want paper magazine $10.86 ea copy, potentially higher as subscribers drop off Rest of membership gets $60+/yr off membership fee?
  8. membership fees went up - end of story, if they had just raised fees would that have been OK? All members were paying for magazine and still are. Magazine costing us all a fortune, only maintained because of vocal members who somehow thought it was free before At $10 per copy subsidisation "included in membership" today - drop it! At some point paper communications has to stop and email become acceptable main form of communication. Many larger places still offer paper at extra cost.
  9. I recall cost of PAPER magazine was like $100K to members we are all paying for it now even if we dont get it, they were hoping for much wider subscriptions, to lower subsidisation but seems it hasnt happened online version would remain and how glossy it is depends on you ipad condition
  10. Amatuer built stall is declared by builder/owner. MTOW is also declared and if under kit manufacturer limit whats the problem? Empty weight is pretty easy to check. Will need Weight cert by approved person Does get review by tech dept and there are minimum usefull loads. Stories this has been abused in the past
  11. There are plenty designed and DERATED to 600kg to meet RAA regulations to meet min stall, they are built for higher weight already i discussed with MM, more than a year ago, that without increased stall the 760 wouldnt achieve much for members
  12. The paper magazine is one of the largest expense the organisation has, it is not sustainable if there was other options other than stoppong the print or raising rees the answer would be there or more likely already under way
  13. yes however as you correctly said "If you have a figure you stick to it. No ifs or buts. If you aren't happy with the principle by all means talk about it. . No "I'm only a little bit over so please make an exception" situations . Nev" Whats the good of a rigid stall speed if aircraft don't meet it or its too hard to validate after certification PLUS the whole overloading issue, if fuel is the main weight it may have excess stall at take off but not later.
  14. CASA words not mine Wouldn't VG constitute a change? Reckon owners wont have the choice to vary from builders numbers however plenty wont have full flap stalls at lower than full MTOW id have thought? Determining accurate stall speed isn't easy. Its been mentioned the minimum stall speed was argued to be deleted due to difficulty in testing it
  15. No stall increase, not many 4 place conversions, no owner maint unless experimental 1250 might be eligible although many of these wont be???? As Jaba and Bruce indicated, a claytons change. CASA has identified 1250 aeroplanes that would fit into the new category that are currently on the Australian Civil Register, but points out that many may be disqualified due to the stall speed limits. One such is the Piper PA-22 Tomahawk, which has an MTOW of 757 kg, but stalls with full flap at 47 KIAS. The DP also proposes that the very few aircraft with four seats that come under the new MTOW limit could not be modified to fit the new classification by removing two of the seats Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-releases-mtow-discussion-paper#KFy41xmOYJ1I2oFA.99
×
×
  • Create New...