frank marriott
-
Posts
2,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by frank marriott
-
The fees associated with landing/parking at Kingsford Smith would be enough to keep me away.
-
Only when the other members were not prepared to get off their arse and call them to task. MAY have happened but should not have been tolerated.
-
Kas My problem as well. It doesn't clearly explain especially with the * and I can't see where to ask a question. Sounds OK but one may not get what you think you are getting.
-
The answer is in "politics" but I won't go there on a flying forum as it only produces individual rants - right V left etc - and achieves nothing.
-
I am confident we will all regret giving total control of the board to 4 people. Greater input produces better decisions - not minority control. Expect more restrictions in the name of safety - sound familiar !!!
- 47 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
I suspect the number of recreational aircraft with mode S would be relatively small, a large portion (majority I would expect) do not have transponders.
-
Thanks
-
Shags Where do I go to see the options?
-
P4D, bit out of date there, we haven't had local/area reps since the new "improved" constitution .
-
It might be informative for some people to read CAO 95.55 particularly section 7.3. The fact is certain RAA registered aircraft already have CASA approval to and DO operate in class C,D & E and have been doing so prior to me buying a LSA in 2008 (and using it in class C since then). The debate should be confined to whether RAA certificate holders are able to get a CTA endorsement or not - the aircraft are already covered and have been for years (not all RAA aircraft but certainly qualifying ones).
-
HIC My fault, had to go back to see what you were talking about. Bloody iPhone and big thumbs - I have removed it. Sorry.
-
You are correct Don, you and I don't agree on much but I give you credit for being polite about it, I did wonder how we would interact when I first met you - but that's life, you will certainly be rembered for you input.
-
With the approach of the current RAA admin with emphasis on academic qualifications and nil on aviation experience/knowledge it is difficult to see how sensible and informed discussion can occur about aviation topics and all the time I thought we were an aviation organisation, silly me. The more informed opinions brought to the table results in better final decisions - maybe in time this will be realised but I suspect it is a while off, hopefully before the BS approach destroys RAA as we have known it. I get the feeling that more political type hype is necessary before enough of the members who bother to vote realise the obvious (to some) outcome. Plenty are discusted but are in the "I just want to fly" group and don't get involved until they are personally effected. The difference this time around, should it happen, the money will be gone.
-
Replica mustang down,pilot killed
frank marriott replied to bull's topic in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
How tight is tight enough. When I was doing my aerobatic endorsement the standard call for the seat belt was once it is as tight as you think necessary, then another 1/2 inch should be about right. -
The ops reply will certainly be interersting. To me,at least, it is quite clear but that's just another opinion. Nothing to stop you advising heavier/faster traffic that you will track as number two - airmanship and generally appreciated.
-
My point was that the certification requirements for CTA in the old manual were adequate, safe and approved - no need to impose greater costs for no justified reason or because someone 'thinks it is a good idea'. I have been legally operating my LSA in Class C D & E for the last 8 years without any problems, as have others. (Transponder certification was always there) The proposal for CTA for pilot certificates has nothing to do with increased certification requirements of the aircraft instruments - the instruments always needed calibration testing (12 monthly for CTA) just not by a GA licenced business operator. The risk of conflict in "flying along at 3,500 feet in class G" is far greater with many/some not using area QNH then it is in controlled airspace, but again that is a pilot issue - nothing to do with instrument calibration. Anyway no point in carrying on here, I just wanted to make my point clear that this is further costs imposed on an area that was working fine already - my frustration at trying to have V4 addressed "before" being submitted to CASA compelled me comment, fully aware that it will achieve nothing constructive.
-
Not true currently, a vacancy exists in the northern region - currently. As the current RAA does not support a regional representative, I resigned as I fail to see how one can realistic be a RAA regional representative for an organisation that is against regional representation - most people know it can not work without it, but that is the facts. I was appointed as the rep before joining the board.
-
Don As you are fully aware, the new 11.4 of the tech manual makes GA certification of Raa registered aircraft (without even touching on non TSOed instruments) unrealistic for MOST operators. Has been operating for years by virtue of CAO 95.55 without any issues but introduced anyway by a couple of people. I know you are aware of my submissions (with support by other board members) but completely ignored by the CEO. This is a major problem with the current approach, but I am aware that you know this, I have to raise it to keep things in context. I would suggest some people will be extremely disappointed to find (after CTA approval is achieved for a pilot certificate) that they are up for another roughly $1000 for instrument certification annually/biannually- making the proposal unrealistic in real terms -remember this for day VFR Operations only - to suit 2 people in RAA, NOT for any other reason. I realise that you (like myself) are no longer on the board, but some things cannot be overtly supported without including the FACTS. Very sad outcome.
-
I suspect weight would also be a consideration.
-
CTA has been available for RAA registered aircraft for years by virtue of CAO 95.55. The only restriction was licencing and certified aircraft etc. Nothing new there other then V4 of the Tech Manual introduced by RAA for NO justified reason - simply amazing.
-
The only 8 I know anything about was Rob Pavan's RIP, in a J230, and his opinion was nothing short of glowing, quite opposite to the posted problems. Unfortunately as he is no longer with us so can't be called on to argue/refute any allegations. Certainly one owner/builder was happy. I can only reflect his statements to me in answer to questions.
-
From the people I have spoken to Yenn, it is more than just you. But as you say "time will tell" - I would like to think that RAA administrators would look at the disquiet created over the last 12 months and consider what is best for RAA as an organisation as opposed to this is the way we are going, but I don't have a crystal ball, only an opinion, and to repeat the phrase "time will tell" - individuals will certainly be remembered for their actions - whether in a positive or negative way - at this stage everyone has their own opinions.
-
I would advise caution there. It either is CTA or it is not - no inbetween - temporary or not. Then look at 4.2.4-6 of the tech manual and compare it with 11.4 (I think - too pissed off to even look it up) of the New manual (introduced by RAA NOT CASA and supported by the president because he thinks it is a good idea-his words). Would not be many RAA registered aircraft I would submit, quite apart from the requirement of a minimum of a PPL as well. I would suggest everyone read closely what EXTRA conditions this current administration is doing, and if you agree good for you.
-
Jab 230 Accident South Grafton
frank marriott replied to kgwilson's topic in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
Down wind ops of a few knots (not large numbers) is not unheard of at larger airports e.g. my local Townsville. Naturally the duty RW is changed after a certain limit (which I forget). You don't have to accept it if you are concerned, but I suspect your clearance would be somewhat delayed if you wanted to operate opposite to arriving and departing traffic. I have never heard anyone refuse it, you are generally (possibly always?) asked if it is acceptable. But with a 6000ft RW, in a light aircraft, just fly the numbers and you wouldn't know. There is of course a 3000ft cross RW as an option as well - often requested in high Xwinds. -
RAAus AGM member resolution - request for proxy
frank marriott replied to kasper's topic in Governing Bodies
Interesting to see the pro and against opinions. Whether it is a good move or not is up to the individuals opinion. Whether creating such a division in members is a good idea - well time will tell. Personally I have reservations but that is just another opinion.
