Jump to content

aro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,007

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Everything posted by aro

  1. aro
    Rotax do allow Lithium batteries and even sell them under the Rotax brand - so in theory it should be OK. But Rotax specify max 22 amps from the regulator, and the batteries list charging current as 5-15A recommended 60A max so I'm not sure how that works together. Is there something that reduces charging current to keep the maximum load under 22 amps?
  2. aro
    If the failures are being discussed on the Rotax forum, that's probably where you will find opinions on the alternatives. If there are few people here who have failures, no-one is likely to be able to make a comparison. One thing I have heard is that high load isn't good for the Rotax regulators. One of the characteristics of the EarthX batteries is a high initial charging current, which seems like it might overload the regulator.
  3. aro
    Couldn't you drop the 95.10 registration and register it under 95.55 e.g. change to 19-1103? What was the obstacle?
  4. aro
    Join the SAAA and learn?
  5. aro
    The standards you refer to don't exist for GA experimental. They are a figment of your imagination. A large part of the problem is that so many people make up rules that they think ought to exist, rather than refer to the actual rules. I'm not actually sure why this Hummelbird can't be registered under 95.55 instead of 95.10. Amateur built? Less than 600kg? Stall speed less than 45 knots? Why does it need to be 95.10?
  6. aro
    Inspections are recommended and there is builder support to help it happen, but it's not required. The airworthiness is 100% the responsibility of the builder and later operator. If you wouldn't trust the builder to build an airworthy aircraft, don't fly in it. SAAA are not in the business of assessing airworthiness, otherwise they would get dragged into court to justify why they didn't reject particular aircraft.
  7. aro
    The SAAA Authorised Person does the inspection. But they do not inspect for airworthiness, despite the certificate name. They will inspect for documentation, passenger warning, EXPERIMENTAL placard etc. The special certificate of airworthiness does not in fact certify that the aircraft is airworthy.
  8. aro
    They are not supposed to assess airworthiness, so it's hard to see how they could reject it?
  9. aro
    That's for ABAA aircraft, which is different to Experimental. I'd be surprised if anyone is going ABAA anymore. It's a lot more restrictive.
  10. aro
    SAAA very explicitly DO NOT assess the airworthiness of the aircraft. Only the eligibility, paperwork etc. Airworthiness is up to CASA, and CASA do not set airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. Neither do SAAA. You're Mr Public Liability - if SAAA start assessing airworthiness and rejecting aircraft they deem as unsafe, someone is going come along after an accident and say they should have rejected the aircraft involved. Much safer to just handle the paperwork and let CASA determine the airworthiness standards or lack thereof.
  11. aro
    The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia. SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA. So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.
  12. aro
    That's an owning vs. renting comparison, not RAA vs GA. I fly GA because with a GA license, RAA just seemed to add a layer of bureaucracy on top of what CASA already provide.
  13. aro
    Over what period? A quick search on the ATSB website showed 10 helicopter investigations at Moorabbin, so you have to be pretty selective on the timeframe to come up with only 1.
  14. aro
    There was a ground crew, and they did indicate to the pilot that the airspace was clear behind them (the helicopters took off backwards then turned around, is my understanding). The report concludes that the second helicopter was too far away to be visible when they checked.
  15. aro
    I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace. To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.
  16. aro
    I think charges against the organization become irrelevant. But RAA pilots and aircraft would be grounded, so that's the worst case scenario. If I only had a RAA license, I would be applying for a RPL ASAP.
  17. aro
    If a negligence case goes ahead, it is against the organization. The referral to the DPP could be for an individual, but I think the organization can also be charged. I think in a case like this they actually prefer to charge the organization, because they are then seen to do something when charging an individual might seem overly harsh.
  18. aro
    They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had. I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.
  19. aro
    The problem with sacking the board is that it doesn't make the legal action go away. So then you have to find volunteers to eat someone else's shit sandwich.
  20. aro
    No minimum to solo, but that is strictly supervised by the instructor. From RPC through to ATPL, there are minimum hour requirements - it's not just skill and passing the test.
  21. aro
    His skill isn't the issue. The requirements for a license/certificate have 2 components: skill, measured through the test, and experience, measured as a number of hours. I've never seen a suggestion that the required hours should or could be waived for a particularly skilful pilot.
  22. aro
    It might, but even then the presumption of innocence is required from the judge and the jury. Anyone else is free to draw their own conclusions. From the Coroner's report: I am compelled to conclude that RAAus engaged in a deliberate strategy to hide these key issues from the Court. Ms Bailey gave evidence which was false in material respects, which also served to hide these key issues. There's no reason to presume that to be untrue.
  23. aro
    Presumption of innocence only exists in the context of a criminal trial and applies to judge and jury. Outside of that people are free to hold opinions and express them within the limits of libel/slander etc.
  24. aro
    The airspace you're flying through now requires more attention than the airspace you're planning to fly through in 2 minutes. Pilots tend to worry more about ATC but that is a mistake. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - ATC comes last in that list. But I think really, if The Oaks has more than very occasional traffic it is unsuitable as an approach point. Maybe when it was originally designated it was very quiet, but if traffic patterns change, airspace and procedures need to change.
  25. aro
    That is not true. Camden is a towered airfield, so the Camden frequency is for communication with ATC, not between pilots. Camden tower do not want The Oaks users on their frequency. Aircraft in the vicinity of The Oaks are well outside Camden airspace, they should be monitoring The Oaks frequency if they could be in conflict with circuit traffic. Melbourne ATC also does not want Penfield & Riddells Ck traffic transmitting on their frequency, unless they are transiting CTA. In the unlikely event that an A380 was OCTA and passing through the Riddells Ck circuit, yes they should announce it on the Riddells Ck frequency.
×
×
  • Create New...