frank marriott

I'm informed that it is 40%

 

BTW, if you believe that Avdata, or any airport owner, have billed you for ops that you didn't do - then simply photograph your M/R, or logbook, to show that neither you nor the aircraft were the identified party. Never had it disputed.

 

happy days,

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.

I guess what I'm still trying to understand is whether the restriction for "no flight over built-up areas" apply to non-factory built RAA aircraft only? i.e. does this apply to 19-xxxx aircraft but not 24-xxxx aircraft. Well specifically if I wanted to purchase a 2nd hand RAA aircraft, but wanted to be able to fly into Class-D airspace/aerodrome without problems can I basically do that with a 24-xxxx registed, but not a 19-xxxx registered? (still haven't been specifically able to see this distinction in the regs...)

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.

Having a bigger board or geographic representation won't necessarily reduce the overabundance of CFIs.

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?

I believe there was another organisation mooted but it seems to have dropped by the wayside, nothing like having options eh?

but still doing an amazing job

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.

When sideslipping any plane you must realise the fuel tank openings may allow air into the system. An airline pilot should know that "low fuel" go arounds may limit the pitch attitudes available for the same reason. (air in fuel tank pickups) Suitable tank selection for approach may be a consideration also. The "best " fuel system would have non return valves at each tank pickup/outlet and with all pumps on any tank will provide fuel and no air will get in until that stops happening A Bonanza engine is fuel. injected, pretty much eliminates icing as a cause. Nev

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.

It’s all the fault of predictive text, Frank...at least that’s my excuse.

We're not picking on you Frank, but that should be "look at what is being sought".

"Lose sight" - now proof read.

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.

yawn.......only a matter of time with all the moaning about landing fees and RAA aircraft reluctant to pay, that councils and the like will simply deny access to all RAA unless they ( RAA pilots ), conform to the requirement. When that happens, and it will, then you'll have something to really bitch about. Personally if i'm asked to pay a fee, i'm only too happy to, for the "priviledge" of using someones elses property ( council ) RAA pilots want to be real carefull they don't end up shooting themselves in the foot re this matter. Just last yr we needed to refuel enroute, ersa said non VH registered were denied use, after protracted tooing and fro, i managed to get ongoing use as required. ( they were ANTI   RAA ) i now treat that permission with great care. The GA pilots know RAA evade these fees, and it rightfully erks them, my guess they feedback to local councils etc re this matter. 

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.”

Without a transponder?

Can't go into controlled space though.

You find it is the same requirement with the GFA, HGFA, and warbirds. Insurance is a big part of it. To convert, there is a 5 hour requirement. Before we argue if this is required or not, I have done a few with GA pilots converting, biggest issue is getting use to a lighter aircraft. 

At least the new board member flies a weight shift so that could be a good thing for the lower end of the membership. I mean in numbers not in Status. We now, at long last have someone to lobby on our behalf.