frank marriott

Poteroo, whilst I agree with your statement, and have been involved with this rubbish with GA over the years, it does come to the point of reverse onous i.e you have to prove your innocence. The suggestion has been made on numerous occasions that the approach should be to ignor false billing and wait for the summons, prove your innocence in court and claim costs. Naturally nobody does this as they just want the rubbish to go away. Why RAA has gone down this path is up to the individuals opinion whether it is acceptable or not and outside of a few overt “followers” I believe the action is that of an administration not interested in the wishes of members. The issue is not about paying landing fees BUT the method and the releasing of personal information. The comment of Linke in Sports Pilot relatively recently that he knew it would upset some members but he didn’t care speaks volumes about the CURRENT administration.

Have a look at CAO 95.55 - 7.3 .

For those that might be unaware AVDATA bills are now arriving. I do wonder what money changed/is changing hands for this little gem.

I have completed 1. Face to face RAA L1 course ($100.00) run by RAA & sponsored by CASA. - now not recognised by RAA & claimed by ex Tech Manager that there is no records? 2. Two online examinations. 3. Manufacturers engine course - also not recognised by RAA according to the ex Tech Manager. 4. Been maintaining my aircraft for the last 11 years (since joining RAA). I tried reasoning with the now ex Tech Manager & President at the time of the introduction of the current Tech Manual - no interest in input, we know best attitude. I am over the rubbish, not playing their game anymore. Maintain my aircraft in accordance with current law but more importantly in accordance with manufacturers specifications.

Comically the same number of CFIs as was on the last representative board (or possibly even 1 more). Not that I believe that is a problem as they generally are more informed on what is happening & what is needed in the FLYING industry, at least in their own area than weekend academics.

There appears to be some lack of understanding that R/W numbers are not some number thought up by some airport CEO or equally unqualified individual, but actually a magnetic heading to the closest 10°. OR maybe I am reading it wrong?

The last from Keith about this they are still being held up by CASA, this doesn’t surprise anyone who has had much to do with them (CASA).

I also find some of the actions “amazing” but probably not in the same context as yourself, but that’s life.

After reading Monk’s sermon in the last Sport Pilot one thing jumps off the page: “So why do we end up with a board such as ours that isn’t representative of our membership” Surely as a major proponent of the current constitution the question should be self answering.

Depends on how one structures their business. E.g. in the club I was a member of for many years we charged VDO for training and tacho for private hire on the singles. CHTR profit was also used to subsidise training as it was a club. As djpacro stated you have to cover the costs of running the business (both staff & aircraft etc) or you won’t last long in the business.

Most fuel flow gauges I have used were pressure gauges calibrated in fuel flow. Don’t know about the latest electronic stuff but I “suspect” they would be similar. It is of interest to know what a gauge is actually reading e.g. a fuel blockage can indicate a high fuel flow when using pressure as its source. The location of the gauge in the delivery system is important.

As Nev states : the A36 I used to operate had yellow bands on the fuel gauges, not to be used for take of or landing as per the POH. I can’t remember the actual quantities but about 1/4 tanks from memory. If you were arriving with min fuel you just burnt into the yellow on one tank in cruise/decent and kept the other above the yellow for circuit.

One thing is consistent over the last few years ‘consideration of members views is not necessary - I know best so there’ Dare I say it again, as was predicted. As in politics we get what we vote for.

Couldn’t argue with that Kaz but still embarrassing

Might be some sort of record for the number of glaring mistakes in a short post.

Yep didn’t even notice “site”.

Lose - must proof read!

Don’t loose site of the fact that 95.55 complying aircraft ALREADY have CTA access (with owner maintenance) with a GA licence pilot. It won’t be automatic for Raa certificate holders anyway - it would appear it is all about increased weight with LAME maintenance and CASA medicals aka mini GA. I would suggest when people have a closer look at what is being sort the reported “support” may well be overstated.

Not as simple as that. GA by use of incorrect call signs or non use of radio already rife in some areas, Charters Towers a prime example. I am “informed” they now use camera information at the terminal for these offenders. I would not like to see the non use of radio become anymore prevalent. I have had a light twin taxing towards me down the runway at YCHT when I was on short final & only turned off just before I did a goround. No talking, in fact not even listening on CTAF or AREA, then departed and still without a call. AVDATA introduces its own problems along with costs.

Think about the intent of the English language test. I gained the impression when doing the test for the part 61 licence conversion that it was more about understanding calls that were made by people not speaking correct English. To have to do a test when your first and only language is English is at best questionable and probably more correctly labeled stupidity but then again this is CASA so unnecessary rubbish is the norm.

An indication of the value placed on member’s views by MM. i.e. Stop criticising and just cop it as I know best. (Extract from March SP comment) “with this in mind, this year we need to ignore these self-contradicting comments and not allow ourselves to be distracted by the noise.”

Transponder required for class C but not for class D.

A 95.55 compliant RAA registered aircraft can & have been able to do so for years. The CTA restriction is on the RPC.

The real issue is MOST testing etc is competency based as there is always variables, but RAA moving from a competency test to minimum 5 hours is a backward step IMO. Does not concern me as I did my RAA certificate when it was competency based so the “real” reason for 5hrs minimum is debatable, I call it BS.

He was ineffectual on the board (other then supporting M & M) before he was “voted” out, now appointed, why would there be ANY difference.