Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/07/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    There are a couple of fundamental flaws in the RAAus safety system: 1. Those responsible for the development of procedures, training syllabus and other facets related to producing a safe operating system are also the same people who investigate incidents. This has the potential to bias the investigation process / findings. I’m not suggesting any deliberate manipulation of findings, but they’re may be blind to the deficiencies in their systems. There needs to be an independent set of fresh eyes looking into incidents. 2. There is no apparent analysis of incident data, directing people to review the incident data base and come to their own conclusions as to how to they might avoid having the same issue is wrong. There is no need to publsh individual incident reports for all and sundry to see. Proper analysis of data will reveal problem areas in operations. This information can then be used to develop appropriate training to reduce incident rates. People don’t go flying with the intention of hurting themselves, it’s generally the result of a lack of awareness or poor skills - these can be corrected with proper training. I recently saw the logbook of a pilot who had just passed his RPC flight test. His whole 20 odd hours training consisted circuits according to the entries in his logbook! RAAus should publish a syllabus of training, at present there is a table of competencies but not a syllabus. Student need to be aware of what their training path looks like and be actively involved in planning it, this is a basic adult learning principle. A lot of information is hidden in a CFI portal. This should be shared with all pilots rather than the old “knowledge is power” approach, that went out years ago thank goodness.
  2. 2 points
    Where is the suggestion of problems in America in the linked article kaz? The federal regulator they talk about is CASA not the FAA. Sounds like the NT fuel supply changed from 100/130 to 100LL and the problems began. There was a discussion on the BD-4 group a while ago and there were problems with old fuel tank sealant. Seems some of the older sealants had troubles with 100LL and no problems with 100/130. If 100 LL indeed has higher aromatic content this isn't all that surprising. This is a pretty good survey of Avgas lead content etc. Avgas - Wikipedia onetrack, your earlier article referred to problems when the lead was removed from petrol. As Avgas has not, in most of the world, had the lead removed, it clearly refers to cars. As do your latest links. They are talking about PoS Ford or Holden motors or similar which run the valves in cast iron heads without valve seats (cheaper to make) which your later links also refer to. Lead in the petrol let the manufacturers get away with this. Aircraft engines with aluminium heads have proper valve seats in the heads which may explain the Swedish aero engine experience with unleaded Avgas. Refer to the Wikipedia article on the Hjelmco fuel. To sum up, yes, lead prevents valve seat erosion in engines running the valves in cast iron heads without hardened valve seats. With hardened valve seats it seems there is no problem, as attested by the Swedish unleaded Avgas experience. "after 25+ years has flown for millions of flight hours in thousands of aircraft and in any weather /technical condition. Removing lead from an engine improves life time of the valve system. An engine using 100 LL may have 2000 hours for TBO. The same engine using our unleaded grade 91/96 UL usually runs 3000 hours between TBO" In aero engines lead deposits can build up on valve stems leading to sticky valves which can lead to the valves burning as they don't seat properly. The contact between the valve seat and the valve conducts head away from the valve during combustion.
  3. 2 points
    Well, we did fly today and, although it pains me to say it, a day late is better than not at all.
  4. 1 point
    Sat, Oct 06, 2018 LSA Shakeup! EAA Confirms Major Changes to LSA Weight/Speed Criteria Out Of Right Field, EAA Confirms Massive LSA Reg Change For January NPRM The first hints of an interesting rumor caught us a little off guard, but EAA's Jack Pelton has confirmed that massive changes are coming soon to an LSA near you. The details are still sketchy, and a few text messages have confirmed the basics, but the initial reports indicate that the maximum weight criteria for a Light Sport Aircraft will be increased in a January NPRM following cooperative efforts by EAA and the FAA--who are starting to look like they really want GA to succeed, after all. We don't know a lot... but we do know (via EAA) that the max weight limit will skyrocket to 3600 pounds (nearly triple what we were saddled with a few years back), and that some form of maximum speed limit (as yet to be defined) will be increased to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 mph (the text says, specifically, 'mph' but we're seeking clarification between mph and kts...). If that wasn't enough to shake things up, we've also had basic corroboration that an announcement of some sort of renewal of the ADS-B rebate program that expired in February is in the offing... We're awaiting callbacks from some of the major players in this and will fill you in as soon as we have more detail.
  5. 1 point
    Gunna have to come up your way one day Mike.. :) David
  6. 1 point
    Putting engines and fuel in the wings actually helps the design from the structural point of view You have to have gaps to allow the wings to bend especially with Carbon fibre. My main questioning was regarding the fuel consumption and 4 engines gas guzzling. IF the bigger engines are more high tech. then they want to sell them and they are probably marginally more efficient but two engine aircraft have flight planning restrictions in excess of those on planes with more than two Maybe pressure on the regulators has watered that down somewhat lately, but the reality is when you are back to only one it's a situation that one is all you have for maybe another 5+ hours. It also reduces your max flight level for cruise a lot .Nev
  7. 1 point
    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-85-024-issue-1-piston-engine-exhaust-valve-and-valve-guide-distress&ved=2ahUKEwjjnYuO0_LdAhVVFogKHcmTCfUQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw388Xh-XB7WJiJZyZdPvGKY Awb-85-024 explains the problem, if lycoming is having trouble I wonder how others are getting on in the top end (NT).
  8. 1 point
    I would have to check the part numbers although I am pretty sure that these Avdel rivers are in our extensive Tecnam parts stock and have supplied to LAME’s in the past. We air freight these in so they may be a little more expensive than bulk rivets by sea container. Regards Bruce
  9. 1 point
    One only needs to reflect on the recent Air Crash Investigation series regarding the Columbian Air Bianca disaster that crashed when it ran out of fuel when they were put in a holding pattern by ATC.The pilots did a great job in this case,putting peoples lives first.
  10. 1 point
    Facthunter, I didn't advise you to Google anything. You're confusing someone elses posts, with mine.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00