Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13/06/19 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    For anyone interested I checked the pressure relief valve & it was perfect. A new oil pressure sender has solved the problem.
  2. 5 points
    Most of us can't afford that luxury. You have to weigh up cost for benefit, and usually unless the penalties are massive, the cost always exceeds the benefit by a long shot. Even with undisputable evidence and a positive outcome, generally you will be out of pocket for more than the fine.
  3. 3 points
    After talking to others around here I agree totally. One bloke replaced 3 electric oil pressure gauges/senders before he went to a capillary type. It cost a lot more apparently but has never failed. It also has a restrictor built in to stop all the oil disappearing if the line fails. I could have thought "Its just a crappy instrument" & flown anyway but that would be just plain dumb. It may be the instrument 99% of the time but even at those odds I am not going to take the chance.
  4. 2 points
  5. 2 points
  6. 2 points
    Incorrect indications are a constant issue in aircraft.. Do you trust them or not? It's possible to have more likelihood of the indicator failing than the system it's monitoring, failing. That's clearly not a good set up when such is the case. Glad you fixed it.. Bit of a relief? Pun intended. Erroneous indications have happened many times in my career, so it's not just a hypothetical. Puts you in a great quandary. Many fire warning systems are duplicated and frequently tested.. to try to avoid false warnings. Nev
  7. 2 points
    C'mon OME, you know they work on the presumption you won't contest it, because it's easier and cheaper to just pay the fine. It's not cheap to have your day in court and you will pretty much never be awarded costs and often the outcome is anyone's guess. depending on whether the judge likes the look of you or not. Courts are places where you can lose your faith in Justice. Just don't go there. I recall one" good" one where the judge said I was the ONLY reliable witness and on my testimony brought the verdict against the lawyer equipped group of lying conspirators and an old couple they went head on into in front of me got justice.. I took the trouble the day after to go to the spot and measure marks in the road in relation to the centre line. The Police didn't do it. I was the only person at the accident for quite a while and got the old folks out through the windscreen of their HR station Waggon smashed and on it's side and disconnected the battery.. A rare good outcome with a significant element of luck. Pensioners like these cannot afford a Lawyer. They were going to cop the Rap for the accident for sure. Nev.
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
    There is a critical mass. We often fly to Maryborough Vic but there is never anyone there. So many times we just overfly, look down and see no cars or planes, and go somewhere else. But if you can land and have a chat, a coffee or a pie, then you are building critical mass. At Kyneton we have lots of drop ins and a good social scene, with potential to build it further. It would be great to attract a permanent business like a LAME. The more traffic the better in my opinion.
  10. 2 points
    Does this mean that every "Uber Air" pilot will need an ASIC? Good luck making the rooves of the chosen buildings becoming a secure site. Puddles
  11. 1 point
    Maybe, but more likely we value safety over individual rights. I’d much prefer our problems than theirs!
  12. 1 point
    Interestingly, Roland Berger noted that 50% of the Urban Air Taxi development announcements it tracked in the last year to 1st May - just the development announcements, mind - were from one company. Roland Berger noted that Air Taxi feasibility in non ICE propulsion starts at 500 Watt Hours per kilogramme. Telsa car batteries are ~250 Wh/Kg when new, experimental batteries are nibbling at 350 Wh/Kg. In 2016, the Battery 500 consortium got together to (you guessed it) make a 500 Wh/kg battery. A Lithium Ion Polymer battery is basically a bomb that has the useful side effect of being a rechargeable battery. It still only holds 265 Wh/Kg or about 1MJ/Kg. Petrol is 46 MJ/kg as a minimum. Ammonia is 11.5 MJ/L when stored under pressure. Ammonia works in a fuel cell the same way as hydrogen but fuel cells are a bit like the Uber Air super battery. The theory is demonstrated, but mass production and longevity require a bit more magic. Fuel cells in particular are made of really expensive stuff and are really easy to poison. The Battery 500 consortium is a bunch of USA Department of Energy funded labs and universities. They gave themselves five years to deliver something and so far have delivered a cheap organic replacement for vanadium in grid scale flow batteries. The prototype is about the size of a dress watch. Lies, damned lies and charts some forum user plucked off the internet without providing context. Maths, so hard! Anyone seen sodanrot _ylf unicorn? I think it ran off taking the Uber Air super battery plans with it. It heard its name on the ingredient list
  13. 1 point
    Add it to your personal aircraft maintenance schedule, replace every 50 hours. Cheers, Jack.
  14. 1 point
    Hi all Just looking through the Aviation-Safety.net site which covers most aviation accidents/incidents world wide and searched just the Australian fatal accidents for 2018 & thus far in to 2019. 2018 we lost 20 people just like you and me. GA accounted for 5 RAA accounted for 4 Gyro’s accounted for 4, 2 from a mast failure & 1 from low flying hitting a harvester & the other unknown. Helicopters accounted for 5 Gliders 1 & Trikes 1 (unknown) 2019 thus far 11 GA 5 RAA 1 (mustering) Gyro’s 3 ( 2 from mast failure while aircraft brand was grounded and pilots new better than manufacturer & 1 from low flying ferry flight catching a wire across a river) Helicopters 1 Gliders 0 Trikes 1 (passenger) low flying in to a lake). As you can see recreational type flying accounted for 5 needless deaths (not counting RAA mustering) from the start of 2018 up until now, 3 from low flying cowboy activities and 2 fatalities were from an owner thinking he knew better than the manufacturer and the authorities, both were pilots that knew the brand was grounded. RAA has faired pretty well in those stats compared to Gyros & trikes as reading the reports didn’t seem to dictate low flying activities that contributed to our fatalities we had other than the mustering one which I haven’t counted as a cowboy activity. So well done!!!! If you wish to read the causes of any of the 31 fatalities or any of the incidents that have happened in Australia from the dawn of aviation just go to the Aviation-Safety.net site and see for yourself. Just a bit of useless information above for some and a valuable tool maybe for others like me that like to learn and try to continue to survive doing what we love, I am only human just like you and any of us are capable of it, many think it always happens to someone else. Remember one thing, your surname can change to that someone else in the blink of an eye when you decide to do something you know you shouldn’t really be doing. Take care and keep a fair bit of air between you and the trees, as it’s not only tigers down there, there are things that can trip you up, actually there are a lot of things down there that can kill you when you least expect it. Cheers Alf
  15. 1 point
    Background info: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-results/uber-posts-50-billion-in-annual-bookings-as-profit-remains-elusive-ahead-of-ipo-idUSKCN1Q42CI Uber Technologies, not publicly listed, booked $11B USD earnings before interest, tax depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) last year. Its shares are held by 7 investment funds and a mix of others including the people who started it. To do that it spent around $13B USD and has never made a profit in 10 years. In contrast, Tesla has had one quarter of profit in the same period. I really expected it to by two quarters but I was being hopeful. Summary: Both companies excel at incinerating other peoples' money. Only Uber Technologies is partly owned by the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. Say what you like about the technology and its viability, that's not the real story here.
  16. 1 point
    As far as Uberplanes flying all over Melbourne in every direction rushing people to the airport, taking them home, if you’ve ever flown, or planned to fly into Tullamarine, remember that fateful transmission; “Requesting airways clearance” and the answer you usually get after you've already phoned ahead for a slot Now multiply that queue by several hundred.
  17. 1 point
    A pub in Fitzroy in I think if I remember correctly
  18. 1 point
    Subscribe to read | Financial Times Air safety agencies rush to draw up rules for flying taxis Several companies aim to begin services within the next 5 to 10 years Lilium’s battery-powered, five-seater prototype air taxi, which it hopes to bring into service by 2025 © Reuters Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Save to myFT Josh Spero and Sylvia Pfeifer in London and Nicolle Liu in Hong Kong June 3, 2019 Print this page 31 Aviation safety agencies around the world are rushing to draw up regulations for flying taxis, with a wave of companies promising to be ready to launch services within the next five to 10 years. In Europe, aviation regulator EASA said it was preparing a set of tests to ensure the safety of both the vehicles and the software that will run them. It said its approach to flying taxis, which is at an early stage, would cover operations and maintenance, the competence of operators, noise pollution, and making sure that the software used by the taxis is scrutinised “with the level of robustness needed”. “This new certification approach would allow EASA to understand how the software behaves in different circumstances,” it said. In the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority has set up a virtual space where flying taxi companies can test their technology, while China’s regulator has authorised five companies to explore airworthiness standards and certification by the end of the year. The market for transporting humans around cities could be worth $674bn by 2040, according to a 2018 study by bank Morgan Stanley, and transport company Uber wants to launch an “Uber Air” aerial ride-sharing network by 2023. There are more than 170 companies developing aircraft powered by electricity, consultancy Roland Berger found earlier this year, half of which are for urban air taxis. Manufacturers say that the first air taxis will have human pilots, before they create artificial intelligence powerful and safe enough to fly the aircraft by itself. The Civil Aviation Authority of China also recently issued draft guidelines that suggested China will develop regulatory standards and co-ordinate demonstrations of UAV by 2020, then build an actual aviation management system by 2035. Regulators are also giving developers the ability to explore how their tech will work in cities. In May, the UK’s CAA announced it had created a virtual “sandbox” for organisations to test their technology. Of the first six, one was innovation charity Nesta, which will explore the future of urban drone use in the UK; another was Volocopter, which is developing its own urban air taxis. Another project in the CAA’s sandbox was from Altitude Angel, which is developing an unmanned traffic management system for automated drones, akin to air traffic control for aeroplanes. Lilium launches city travel electric air taxi The Morgan Stanley study envisaged the market starting as “an ultra-niche add-on” to established modes of transport, before becoming “a cost-effective, time-efficient method of travelling short to medium distances”. Richard Aboulafia, analyst at the Teal Group in the US, said cost will be a key barrier, noting that the market for helicopter travel remains small. “This is not a question of regulation or technology. It’s a question of economics. Very few people can afford to use vertical flying technology on a regular basis,” he said. Companies from Airbus to Uber have announced plans for flying vehicles, or aircraft that can hop from one building to another, driven by breakthroughs in electric motors and battery power. The four-passenger CityAirbus electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft made its first tethered flight on May 3 in Germany. Uber does not want to build its own vehicles, but has recruited manufacturers including Bell, Boeing and Embraer to develop Uber Air. Embraer is in the early stages of developing its eVTOL through its subsidiaries EmbraerX and Atech. Last July, the UK aero-engine group Rolls-Royce announced plans for an electric aircraft with rotating wings that could take off or land vertically, and which it thinks could be available by the early to mid-2020s. Recommended Lex Lilium/electric aviation: wing and a prayer Lilium, a Germany-based start-up, last month unveiled what it claimed was the world’s first all-electric, five-seater plane that it plans to use as a public air taxi service from as early as 2025. The company is already in talks with EASA about certifying the plane. But a spokesman said the aircraft, which will be piloted and has a fixed wing, is designed in such a way that it could fly under existing certification that covers “light aircraft”. “We would prefer not to do that and EASA are working on a specification specifically for our sector,” said the Lilium spokesman, adding that “whichever certification route we go down, it will be as rigorous as today’s large commercial aircraft”. Elaine Whyte, UK drones lead at consultancy PwC and a former safety and airworthiness engineer in the Royal Air Force, said air taxis would need the same safety standards that a century of aviation had already established. “This is likely to be a significant barrier to entry and require different skill sets for those potential manufacturers new to this sector,” she said. Anita Sengupta, co-founder of Los Angeles-based start-up Airspace Experience Technologies, which wants to popularise “private air mobility”, said: “Cyber security needs to be sorted in the air just as it does on land . . . Currently you would be cleared by air traffic control but in future you could imagine a different system” involving AI and machine learning. Additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw and Leyla Boulton in London and Andres Schipani in São Paulo
  19. 1 point
    You can back who you like, and you can hate me too. Police are not always right and don’t like being questioned on anything. It seems that trying to contribute on some subjects ain’t worth the grief. Leave you with it OME. Cheers, Jack.
  20. 1 point
    I would have thought that having such a sign on your person would be more sense than having it on a car seat belt. It is far more likely to be correct, than if it is on a belt worn by someone else. Also not everyone stays within their seat belt in an accident.
  21. 1 point
    I'll back Turbo. What I posted was straight from the ADR. I wish people would stop sprouting off about things they have no experience of, especially correctly interpreting and applying legislation. And I hate people who insist on painting police as automotons with a strict black and white application of legislation. If you haven't been a Copper don't expound on the process of policing.
  22. 1 point
    Re reading ALL of this topic just now, you have put down many, so I'm in good company. I stick by ALL I've said . Also. I have NO axe to grind. and not really interested in trading insults with you. You may well be better at it than I wish to be. Nev
  23. 1 point
    PR stunt to raise investor funds. Cheers, Jack.
  24. 1 point
    Did you get that from looking at the ADR on the link?
  25. 1 point
    That's not a story, it's the legal process for ADR items in a car. I haven't bothered to check if this item is ADR compliant, just provided the link for the person who came up with the idea. The police will be assessing the compliance on the same basis as the supplier so there should be no problem there. Let's say this produce complies with the applicable ADR. There may be some initial confusion by police, but a stamp saying "Complies with ADR XXX" should fix that on the spot, and internal police memos should provide a permanent fix. Like any part of human society, about 5% will not be complying with anything including the Vehicle Modification Scheme, and they are destined for the love/hate relationship with the Compliance and Enforcement community.
  26. 1 point
    These ideas are hard to hold on to in this internet age. Clever people in China are beavering away, as we speak, to bring the same product to market without paying any royalties or fees. Count on it. While this may result in the product being brought to market quickly and cheaply, it will also introduce chinglish misspellings etc., that whilst hilarious, may not offer much in the way of health advice. In fact I foresee a whole new market of gag or novelty health advice warnings including : Do not treat, I always look like this, Allergic to plasma, must be given alcohol, and so on.
  27. 1 point
    Unfortunately, if Police want to be picky you can be nailed for them. Cheers, Jack. https://www.legislation.gov.au/details/F2019L00026
  28. 1 point
    What about the sheepskin seatbelt pads? Are they illegal, too? My missus demands them, she reckons the seatbelts cut into her. https://www.goodwool.com.au/product/sheepskin-seat-belt-cover/
  29. 1 point
    It is a daily ritual Ian. A terrific site and yes I contribute to it quite often in tell us about your last flight, incidents and accidents and quite a few others on your terrific site, still sad to see quite a number of contributors on here have since passed, some through stupid risk taking activities and some through bad judgment and bad luck. Yes I may be vocal at times and straight to the point regarding some accidents, but I’m a realist and sometimes you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out how they met their maker, I am with you all the way to try to help people survive the sport and passion we have for aviation. Keep up the great work as hard at it is.
  30. 1 point
    You are good at taking things out of context yourself SD. No one HAS to send their motor to Jabiru for a rebuild It can be done any way you like. but it's a GOOD DEAL the factory OFFER. which I have just explained.. IMMEDIATELY above your last post. and you are quite happy to disregard.. (probably because I wrote it). The Jabiru motor is lighter which mitigates against using another motor in a Jabiru aircraft as you need weight in the tail to convert. People are free to make their own choice in a market. You like your choice (that's nice) but some will go the other way and many are happy with their choice. The amount of Jabiru bashing going on here over the years hasn't been very informed or productive. I suppose you would like the CASA to ground them? Well they sort of did that in a very controversial way that didn't enhance their reputation and damaged people financially who had not committed any crime. Now good people are bankrupt. There are plenty of engines flying that have a much worse likelihood of engine failure than a Jabiru and how you look after any of them has a big effect over the longer term, rather than just who the maker was . As far as I'm concerned the more motors available the better . The "perfect" one hasn't been made yet. Nev
  31. 1 point
    Jaba, this was probably a ova a year ago and I could not buy an engine, I couldn’t even buy parts for my blown up jab engine, I needed new heads and Jab couldn’t supply these so was told I’d have to wait for a new head supplier or go on a waiting list for a new engine that was to be called gen4. this flying school engine was a engine you could not yet buy so us students were testing them for Jabiru, weather it was approved, certified or wat Eva by jabiru, it was a new proto type engine, being tested by students !!!! shame on Mr Jabiru
  32. 1 point
    I would equate the cross section of dogs to being similar in character to humans, most are friendly and reasonable, and then you get your a-holes as well.
  • Create New...