aro

Licensing and maintenance are CASA functions - not something SAAA can enforce. ATSB discontinuing investigations where there doesn't appear to be anything to be learned is probably a good thing - hopefully it helps concentrate resources where there might be something to learn. They sometimes seem to spend a lot of time investigating the obvious.

This isn't how CTAFs work. If the traffic is students under the supervision of the CFI, this sounds OK. Otherwise it's basically unauthorised air traffic control.

I don't know the rules in NZ, but in Australia you can't practice emergency procedures with a passenger on board. I have also done a check at MTOW in a 172, but it's not required for the PPL. Technically you can do your PPL in a 152 or even a GA reg Jabiru and then fly a 172 with 4 people on board. Checkout flights and all up weight checks are generally a policy of the aircraft owner or the insurance company - they are a good idea, but not the law. The passenger endorsement in RAA seems to be a hangover from the early AUF days when most aircraft were single seat and training was minimal. 2 seat aircraft for training or carrying passengers would have been unusual at one point. I think when I first flew with AUF you also needed a medical to carry passengers, which wasn't required for solo flight. RAA do love their endorsements though - last I checked there were several RAA endorsements that don't exist in GA.

As long as you find the right specifications. Engine oil pressure is not relevant - the Rotax specification is negative 500mb (7.25 PSI) at 150C without collapse.

The fittings supplied with my oil cooler were push-lok, so I make sure that the hose I use specifies that it is compatible. Maybe any hose is compatible with those fittings - I don't know.

The problem with the oil hoses is that they attach to parts that are not necessarily Rotax provided e.g. the oil cooler. Are the Rotax hoses compatible with all oil cooler fittings?

The Rotax installation manual specifies capable of withstanding a negative pressure of 7.25 psi at 150C. Thats about 15 in.hg so the GTH-08 meets it at 18 in.hg but I would prefer the margin in the G3H-08. The G3H hose seems to maintain 28 in.hg (i.e. 1 atmosphere) up to 3/4 inch, where the GTH only specifies 28 in.hg up to 3/8 inch. So the G3H looks better for suction applications.

Rotax oil pressure is all inside the engine. The hoses see suction not pressure - so you need to be looking at the negative pressure ratings. It also makes it important to respect minimum bend radius, to minimize the possibility the hose will collapse.

On the other hand, for our aircraft, grass strips where virtually the only thing they do is mow can be the nicest airfields to use. As long as they don't get so much use that the grass wears away.

I'm not saying they're all the same - just that they should meet the standard as a minimum. E.g. I don't think there is a separate standard for 98 octane, but 98 octane should meet the 95 octane standard. I tried BP/Shell 98 octane in my Rotax, but it runs much better (smoother) on 95 octane. I asked Bert Floods about it, they said if it runs better on 95 just use it - it meets the requirements. I suspect it is borderline too rich, and the higher density of the 98 octane fuels exacerbates that.

There is a standard for unleaded petrol in Australia, it is reasonable to assume that petrol sold meets that standard. While there are always rumours that petrol is adulterated, it seems unlikely. You would need thousands of litres - literally tanker loads - to make it worthwhile at one servo. Millions of litres at a distributor. It just seems impractical. Most people run their Rotax engines on mogas, if there was a problem we should hear about it.

Unlikely. If there is a leak in the fuel line before the engine driven pump in a low wing aircraft, it will suck air and the engine will lose power/stop. At which point the first action is turn the pump on... If there is a leak after the engine driven pump e.g. carb float valve, it probably doesn't make much difference if the aux pump is on or not because the engine driven pump is supplying fuel pressure. You quoted the actual reason from the POH in your post. What they are taught isn't always correct - it seems like there are as many myths in GA as any other level of aviation.

At the end it's just "Edenhope" not "Edenhope Traffic". Lots of people do it, it doesn't matter, but if you're going to nitpick final vs finals... The format is: - who is this transmission intended for: "Edenhope traffic" (used to be "All stations Edenhope") - Your type & call sign "Jabiru 1234" - details i.e. position/height/intentions etc "Turning base runway 36 full stop" - location "Edenhope" I think the location was added to the end when the format was changed from "All stations...." because the location became the first word and was likely to be clipped by people who start talking before they push the button.

UNICOM isn't a controller. UNICOM just provides information. Pilots are still responsible for their own separation.

The location is supposed to be the last thing in the call. Probably doesn't make much difference in practice, but if you are going to pick on other peoples calls you should make sure your own are correct.

China has apparently banned exporting it so that it can be used in fertilizer in China. I hare to think of the urine consumption required by a truck to replace it!

Yes. China has banned exports of urea (80% of Australia's supplies), and there is a global urea shortage. As a result, there are reports that Australia will run out of Adblue in February.

Meanwhile, there are reports that Australia will run out of Adblue in February. Maybe those electric trucks weren't such a bad idea.

Practicable: able to be done successfully, possible. So you need to prove that it was not possible to fly at the correct cruising level. Not that it was uncomfortable or unsafe - that it was not possible. It would usually be possible to fly at 2500 (a specified cruising level) when 4500 was not possible, even if it is e.g. turbulent. The fact that it might be only 1500 AGL and not as safe as flying higher doesn't come into it. Also, it appears that it is technically illegal to give a 1-200 feet buffer below the lower level of CTA. There are many places around Melbourne where the rule requires you to cruise exactly at the bottom of CTA (or below 3000MSL/1500 AGL).

Not mandatory you say... 91.275 Specified VFR cruising levels (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a VFR flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight on a track, the aircraft is flown at a cruising level that is not a specified VFR cruising level for the track. (2) Subregulation (1) does not apply if the aircraft is in uncontrolled airspace and any of the following apply: (a) the aircraft is below 3,000 ft above mean sea level; (b) the aircraft is at or above 3,000 ft above mean sea level but below 1,500 ft AGL; (c) it is not practicable for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft at a specified VFR cruising level for the track; (d) the aircraft is a glider in soaring flight. (3) Subregulation (1) does not apply if: (a) the aircraft is in controlled airspace; and (b) air traffic control has given the pilot in command an air traffic control instruction, or an air traffic control clearance, to fly the aircraft other than at a specified VFR cruising level for the track. (4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1). Penalty: 50 penalty units. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subregulation (2) or (3) There are interesting intersections with cloud clearances... if there is cloud below 5500 it is effectively illegal to cruise westbound above 3000 MSL/1500AGL.

The number of people who actually need that is a small proportion of the population. By the time that becomes an issue, EVs will be a the vast majority of the market. Globally, the current demand for EVs is far greater than the supply. Why would you sell cars for 26K when there are people who will pay 40K, 50K, 75K+? As manufacturing moves away from ICE and supply starts to meet demand, prices will fall. In theory EVs should be cheaper because the engine and transmission is far simpler. Many people are already saying they will never buy another ICE car. They are either driving electric cars, or waiting until they become more available. That trend is only going to accelerate.

The ones on my engine look something like these: https://au.rs-online.com/web/p/spade-connectors/6805921/ positive lock female spade connector looks like a promising google search

I saw a figure recently (I haven't tried to do the calculation myself) that "20% of Australia's grazing land covered with solar would provide the whole world with carbon-free energy". Of course, a) that's a lot of land and b) transport and storage is still a problem but the energy seems to be there. Mike Cannon-Brookes is aiming to export renewable energy from the Northern Territory to Singapore via undersea cable - helping countries without Australia's land area to meet renewable energy obligations.

The amount of fossil fuels being burned and the rate of change has increased markedly in the last 50 years. So it doesn't matter whether you pick a baseline of 50 years ago or 250 years ago, the change is very similar because most of it occurred in the last 50 years.

That's not how it works. 1.5 degrees is the average over the globe, not what is experienced in particular locations. Weather is driven by the heat and water vapor in the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere has more energy and more water vapor, and weather in general is more intense. Storms are more powerful, winds are stronger, rainfall is more intense. Some places will be much hotter. Some places may even be colder at times because stronger winds are bringing colder air from the polar regions. But when that happens, the warm air goes to the polar regions which end up much hotter. The average is still higher. The big problem for humanity with climate change is not the absolute change in temperature. The big problem is that civilization relies on so much immovable infrastructure (cities, transport, water supplies etc) that has been built based on current weather patterns. If we were nomadic and could pick things up and move them when the weather becomes a problem, it would not be such an issue. We can't.