frank marriott

(d) That's what appears to be the aim.

I'm sure that it's only 'medicals' which is creating such an increase in enquiries about converting from GA to RAAus. Poteroo Whilst I have no doubt that medicals may have a part, in 'my' experience the major reason is the affordibility of owning and maintaining a what some would call a "useable" aircraft [for travelling distances] is the main force. By way of explanation - in my immediate area there are 6 RAA owner/operator/pilots all converted to RAA certificates from various levels of CASA licences and all still hold Class 2 or Class 1 medicals. This may well change with the current CASA proposed restictions as they all own Jabiru aircraft. Another 6 RAA pilots who purchased and operate their aircraft [also Jabirus] based on observations of what we were enjoying. Although I appreciate the operators of 60/70kt machines, and their enjoyment of flying their chosen aircraft, it is not of interest to everyone.

Nev, I am not knocking the Camit mods etc. by any means the point being that without "runs on the board" what proof is being used - Automatically accept it is better, over one I have no problems with anyway, It it just stated over and over like it is accepted fact. I am not knocking the work in any way just the apparent "approval"

"& modified to the reliable Camit engine standards " Pretty big statement. I admire the followers absolute commitment to an uncertified and unproven modified engine. Whether the statement above is correct or not, it is not proven by numbers and hours (that is after accepting the emotive bias of some, 4 so far in this thread )

manufactured by Jabiru: in relation to an engine, includes an engine that is wholly or partly manufactured by a person under licence from, or under a contract with, Jabiru Question: Is the Camit engine outside this definition?

Kaz There is no current restriction, only a NPRM.

As usual hearsay is not a reliable form for facts, and can be dangerous. Like downwind beat ups, low flying and low level turns.

post removed because of personal attacks. If you dont like the statement someone makes, play the subject not the person...mod!

Nothing to stop you getting "an endorsement" on every aircraft you wish to fly, and getting an insturctor to write something along these lines in your logbook, if that is what you want. Just that it is not required by law and many prefer not to go down that line. One doesn't need every detail layed down in a manual to use commonsence.

So you know something the rest of us don't????

If there is "evidence" to support this Keith, I believe it should be documented. We have 3 Qld reps. and all are suspects at present - maybe all 3 are above suspicion but at least 2 are being unfairly defamed. I am too far north to have any idea what the facts are but certainly interested if the comments can be substantiated. I believe it is only fair to nomitate the alleged offender in order that he can refute/justerify the alligation and the other 2 be removed from suspicon.

Col., That's the way I read it anyway - three axis/Tricacle. Others may not agree, but that doesn't bother me.

If there is evidence of "and a board member" then this should be addressed immediately.

Try reading it as TYPE of aircraft and not BRAND or MAKE. It makes more sence then, even though some opinions expressed here are much more restrictive - doesn't automatically make them correct.

When?

I would read it as for example : group A - Three axis control Type - Tricycle undercarriage. There is no LP/HP seperation now. I don't know what is intended but that would be my take in the absence of anything specific, and would be in line with a GA licence I.e. Any SE <5700kg MTOW.

Think DH for performance, not elevation.

The rules!!! Sudden increase in cruising speed in a lightwing with a Dash8 up your rear or even a J230.

That would be interesting to see how the "not for hire or reward " fits into the scheme of things. I suppose it happens now with RAA.

Helpful??? If you make enough noise about an aircraft that "slipped through" for whatever reason it will most likely only result in it being deregistered, not helping another with a registration issue. I wonder with some people, actively trying to hinder rather then be helpful or shut up. Time to think about whether you come to this site to be helpful/informative or just to create as much trouble as you can?

Geoff The choise of aircraft is an "individual" thing and obviously go with whatever you are more comfortable with. The point I will mention with reference to fuel levels varying so much is related to the other point you raised - use of rudder. When flying "in balance" in the 230 etc the fuel burn is even. Even if you let it get out of balance then opposite rudder (even as little half a ball) for a few minutes will fix that problem.

Print v paper problems. I prefer to work from a printed form. The big "but" , as mentioned earlier, is amendments to paper docs. My approach is, for example, a maintenance manual - print out only the few pages applicable the the job being done at the time. For the ops manual I treat it more as a "read & remember" document, or to refresh the memory. Committing to memory only those sections that are applicable to your own type of operation.

What about the 4 option, one for crap, by whatever name?

Madge at her best!