Downunder

I'm a bit surprised as well....As there still continues to be interest in the design and active flyers worldwide. From memory, a few very old threads covering the topic of re manufacture mentioned alot of fabricated parts required and the labour out weighing potential sales costs. The only way I can see it made new is in a lower labour cost country under "special" low taxation rules devoid of import/export tariffs. I have a few ideas on that. Ideally with a 4 stroke engine, which I think is possible in this day and age, matching cost, power and weight requirements.(even electric?) I believe the manufacturing rights are held by an Australian company and they are pretty much just sitting on it?

Sounds like the young ladies involved are well aquainted with "country members" as well......

From a November flight from WA to SA ......Nullabor and the "bight".

A couple has survived a light aircraft crash in the outback WWW.NEWS.COM.AU A couple has survived a plane crash after their aircraft plunged in the outback.

I'm thinking the last four digits have to be unique across all prefixes. You cannot have 19-1234 and 24-1234 as the callsigns only use 1234....

Not informing buyers of the new systems was also part of their marketing I think. .... Boeing wanted to present it as the same as previous 737's so existing 737 owners would view it as an "upgraded" model rather than "new" and therefore it was implied it would cost buyers less in crew training, maintenance etc. Introducing it as a different new or completely new model with different systems and crew training, widened the market for potential buyers into other brands (Airbus). I fully blame Boeing's marketing for leaving out important info altogether or suppressing it's importance....

This is the status quo. Nothing is being changed. You know what you are getting into with an expired meter. The RAA on the other hand are REVERSING previous policy without member/ client support or authorisation. And in fact publically approved and acknowledged this previous stance. Almost claiming it as an " advantage" to the RAA membership. This is the difference.....

"We are pleased to announce an agreement HAS been struck....." Past tense, not future intention....

"At this stage the agreement is limited to the members of the AAA." Trying to downplay and mitigate the fact that the members of the AAA (including avdata I assume) probably cover most, if not all, charging airports........

The irony that the RAA wants to give our details to a "company" that won't give out their members details ......

I don't think it was a draft when published. But now it is...... as a bit of political backpedalling from the backlash against it.

It seems balck and white to me. Either the RAA retains your details exclusively, and they remain PRIVATE. Or they give them out, and so are NO LONGER PRIVATE. There is no wishy washy mix of the two.....

I've always wanted to do the armchair with balloons thing....... Just once. And with a parachute. The "sound of silence" at 8 or 10 thousand feet would be just awsome...... perhaps even emotional.....

In situations like this, are twins actually safer than singles.....? With a single and an engine failure, you KNOW you're going down and prepare and plan for it with a controlled glide to impact. In a twin at low level, with single engine failure, there are a lot of unknowns and it seems when they do go down (most cases?), it's a larger aircraft under a lot less control with a more devastating impact, fire and crash, putting more people on the ground at risk........ often with more people onboard the aircraft as well.

I guess that if an RAA instructor refuses to sign that a brf has been conducted/completed, and it has been 2 yrs or more since the last, you cannot fly....

It burns 145 grams of turbine oil per hour? I think there is a post somewhere about the cost of turbine oil (it's not cheap). So there's an added cost in that. Do all turboprops ( turbines) use oil or is this just a "total-loss" system in this application?

Looks like they will be used more for regional to city transfers from their bases with multiple patients, rather than actual outback pickups...

Keep us informed how you go.....

It would be good to analyse the hours per year and cross country capability of the pilots in these accidents. I believe those pilots doing 20 odd hours per year, mainly around the ctaf or home are more at risk in unfamiliar situations/weather. Those doing 80 -100 hours and trips away to new and unfamiliar fields are keeping their skills up. Perhaps an annual bfr for those with low hours?

I wonder if a system is possible where a small lead acid/agm is used and this charges the lithium? The lithium can discharge on start up but when running, the lead acid is the "duty" battery.

Thinking about this some more. Perhaps the RAA push into cta is nothing to do with existing members and their wish to enter controlled airspace. As has been said, any member with ppl can fly their approved RAA aircraft in cta. The cta push maybe intrinsically linked to the weight increase ( which is a very narrow specification and also benefits very very few members) and the primary purpose is to capture the commercial training market, including foreign students? Where students are only members to complete basic training. The RAA are chasing the money.....

Yes, but you have the GA LICENCE Frank.....I have no problem with that.

Personally, I don't there is much wrong. I'd probably like another 100kgs but am pretty happy as we are now. But I do want skyrocketing costs and fees to stabilise. The corporate mentality is that "it" must expand or will collapse and die. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could expand on that.... The RAA is a bit of an oddball company being a quasi govt arm and a monopoly. Unfortunately there is a not so secret agenda of empire building and expansion into areas the RAA was not designed for. As has been said many times, there are ways and means already in existance for those wanting to fly heavier aircraft and into CTA. My worry (as FH sort of alluded to) is an RAA regoed aircraft/pilot having an incident with a major rpt aircraft at a cta controlled airport. The reputation of the RAA and it's pilots down the drain.

It's ironic that identity theft, online privacy, security and personal details in general is a hot topic these days. Main stream media is straight on to any large company with data breaches. Yet here we have a "company" that intends to reverse previous policy, without member/client approval, and hand out what was previously private information. Sounds like the AOPA patent saga mark two.....