gareth lacey Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I think Ada is trying to impress us all with what she thinks she knows, i for I do not get impressed that easily, there are many forum users here that i would listen to first , then get the facts for myself ,i have also flown 4 different Jabs and as with ALL planes there are things about each that you may not like and as Facthunter said there are other type engines that are iffy cheers gareth 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 now I'm confused .... Don't be confused......we are still pursuing both CTA access and weight increase but the point I was trying to make is we need to tidy up our current safety record to show that we are capable of handling either. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, and without tidying up as above I wouldn't put money on either happening soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Don't be confused......we are still pursuing both CTA access and weight increase but the point I was trying to make is we need to tidy up our current safety record to show that we are capable of handling either.Don't count your chickens before they hatch, and without tidying up as above I wouldn't put money on either happening soon. And therein lies the rub ... is the safety issue that is the potential CASA block related to airframes, engines or pilots? Our current CAOs are a mixed bag on this one as far as current permissions go and it can be a very complex checklist to ensure compliance: - some airframes come as SLA or kit and end up with different potential operating limits - so airframe is part - same airframe with different engine that is not certified ends up with different potential operating limits - so engine is part - and then you get to the pilot - is is certificate/licence, is it type of medial, is it endorsement limited? - all of these are mixed up in the current. It would be really helpful if CASA across all recreational flying (from gliders - rotorcraft - RAA and GA) could come up with a logical and supported basis of restricting access to airspace on a consistent and logical basis. As an example UK microlights with self certified/doctor supported declarations of medical flying homebuilt 2 strokes are permitted to request transit of controlled airspace ... all they need is permission and the controllers capacity to deal with it. Yes, they might need a Mode S transponder for some of the really big ones around London and that is not cheap BUT its a very simple set of requirements to understand and checklist - I have a current licence - Tick - I have an aircraft in permit - Tick - I have an operational transponder - Tick OK - I can ASK for permission, if capacity is there fine, if not I have to go around ... and then its an operational question for the pilot to decide if they want to accept the risks that may come with tiger country 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Getting ready to sit back and watch the speech. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 And therein lies the rub ... is the safety issue that is the potential CASA block related to airframes, engines or pilots?Our current CAOs are a mixed bag on this one as far as current permissions go and it can be a very complex checklist to ensure compliance: - some airframes come as SLA or kit and end up with different potential operating limits - so airframe is part - same airframe with different engine that is not certified ends up with different potential operating limits - so engine is part - and then you get to the pilot - is is certificate/licence, is it type of medial, is it endorsement limited? - all of these are mixed up in the current. It would be really helpful if CASA across all recreational flying (from gliders - rotorcraft - RAA and GA) could come up with a logical and supported basis of restricting access to airspace on a consistent and logical basis. As an example UK microlights with self certified/doctor supported declarations of medical flying homebuilt 2 strokes are permitted to request transit of controlled airspace ... all they need is permission and the controllers capacity to deal with it. Yes, they might need a Mode S transponder for some of the really big ones around London and that is not cheap BUT its a very simple set of requirements to understand and checklist - I have a current licence - Tick - I have an aircraft in permit - Tick - I have an operational transponder - Tick OK - I can ASK for permission, if capacity is there fine, if not I have to go around ... and then its an operational question for the pilot to decide if they want to accept the risks that may come with tiger country Kasper, NZ also operate as you have described. Mike 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 imagine grandad adding another 100ltr fuel tank to the J230. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 ft hates Jabs & OLD people. Nev 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 ft hates Jabs & OLD people. Nev But if you are an old person in a Jab with an extra 100L of fuel are you likely to have the bladder capacity to actually need it? ;-P 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 5.5 hrs @ 120kts = 560nm : hardly needs more fuel, the statement makes no sense to me. I feel like having a break after plus 4hrs hand flying, especially in the northern summer heat/turbulence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 The original Brakes on the Jab aren't that good so you might go a little further anyhow. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Read better now Nev? Doing a Dazza on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Now you have rendered my post of no significance. Good move, frankly speaking.. Them's the breaks. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 But if you are an old person in a Jab with an extra 100L of fuel are you likely to have the bladder capacity to actually need it? ;-P Make it an extra 98 L of fuel and 2L for the catheter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Get some of your own back with a catheter. The pressure is lower inside than outside of the plane. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 5.5 hrs @ 120kts = 560nm : hardly needs more fuel, the statement makes no sense to me. I feel like having a break after plus 4hrs hand flying, especially in the northern summer heat/turbulence. ......... 660 mn Frank ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 ......... 660 mn Frank ! 660nm biggles. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 660nm biggles. Lol Yeah , twitchy finger ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 As an aside, and nearly totally unrelated, it irks me when people say "what's the point of more fuel than your bladder can handle?) I love being able to cart lots of fuel, for sure I need to stop for a toilet stop most times between here and the inlaws but I don't need the hassle of organising fuel at each tinpot airstrip I pull into. Reliable Mogas is hard to source at airfields and generally requires a long walk or expensive taxi to get delivered whereas having the capacity to go further means being able to choose more user friendly fuel stops. Anyway I don't mean to interrupt the discussion but I'm of the opinion the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire (disclaimer! Within MTOW and takeoff performance requirements!!!!!!!!) 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 As an aside, and nearly totally unrelated, it irks me when people say "what's the point of more fuel than your bladder can handle?) I love being able to cart lots of fuel, for sure I need to stop for a toilet stop most times between here and the inlaws but I don't need the hassle of organising fuel at each tinpot airstrip I pull into. Reliable Mogas is hard to source at airfields and generally requires a long walk or expensive taxi to get delivered whereas having the capacity to go further means being able to choose more user friendly fuel stops.Anyway I don't mean to interrupt the discussion but I'm of the opinion the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire (disclaimer! Within MTOW and takeoff performance requirements!!!!!!!!) well yes, I can appreciate that. My Raven 912 1 up had, at eco cruise of 11LPH, an endurance on fuel tanks full of over 9 hours plus reserve ... and it is great to plan a whole days flying and only really need to worry about fuelling up at the end of that day - having said that I cannot remember once actually starting off full and ending up empty or at reserves ... strangely I tend not to fly past a refuelling opportunity so topped up when available and most time ended up carting 60+litres of fuel in the tank around all the time ... now that is 40kg of load I could have had as luggage or lowered the fuel burn a little by flying lighter. Horses, courses and making your own choices. I now run a 447 with lower fuel capcaity and higher fuel burn than the 912 ... if I have a lead foot and want to push it up to over 65kts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Kasper, NZ also operate as you have described.Mike I am aware of this ... but I have no personal experience of NZ so feel unable to comment for fear of putting my foot in it by saying something that is actually not correct. I find myself in an odd situation when looking at OZ RAA operations: The Australian airframes situation is still (until and unless RAA tech completely GA us up the wahzoo to placate CASA) better than the UK as we have experimental two seaters BUT I fear that the gobbling up ambitions of RAA into recreational GA will see that disappear; however The UK operational situation in their aircraft is fundamentally better than the Australian ... and having flown in and around Sydney and into around and over London the UK airspace situation is much more congested and compact than the worst of OZ yet we have an access issue wherever we have an airport with passengers. And having/holding both UK PPLM and OZ RAA and having undertaken training for both in the respective countries there is from my own knowledge fundamentally no difference in the training and airmanship between the countries so fail to see the logical reason for the OZ airspace issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 When I was being trained in GA the tanks were always filled overnight. When you are working for a living with planes it's quite rare to fill to capacity, because other factors will weight limit you. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 With ops into Primary airports cost is a big factor. I have no idea what landing a Bonanza at Kingsford Smith would cost these days, and if you mucked up and sent an A-380 around I imagine someone would want some cash from you to cover the expenses. Have most of you had a look at radio fail procedures at these places? I imagine they still have them although a mobile could serve a useful purpose if you were on the ball. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Without actually knowing the costs I can only go on the extreme cost measures the guys from the golden donut (Macquarie Bank) build into Kingsford Smith. The cost of flying into, fueling up and leaving again may be more than the aircraft is actually worth. And that is assuming they will give you permission to be shafted financially. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Looks like its $66 for GA parking per day Runway $4 Pax security 87c per pax each time https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/~/media/files/corporate/terms and charges/airline operators/conditions of use/tableofcharges.pdf But , Im not sure even if we where granted permission If i would ever go near that place... Im more interested in safe flight up and down the coast without getting pushed into mountains or out to Hawaii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Looks like its $66 for GA parking per dayRunway $4 Pax security 87c per pax each time https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/~/media/files/corporate/terms and charges/airline operators/conditions of use/tableofcharges.pdf But , Im not sure even if we where granted permission If i would ever go near that place... Im more interested in safe flight up and down the coast without getting pushed into mountains or out to sea. Have a look again. The rate you have quoted is for a regional airliner. The GA rate is the next column over. The rate is $60 for the landing and then $132 for the parking, though is is not much more than parking a car there. During the curfew small aircraft are still allowed to use Sydney and so getting a landing at that time is possible however at other times it isnt that easy. You also have to pay the airservices terminal charges which they may waive for occasional use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now