aro

Rejecting a takeoff after rotation would be considered a different kind of emergency... it gets significantly more difficult.

FAR part 103 is totally different to anything we have here. It is for single occupant, <254 pounds empty, <5 gal fuel capacity, 55 knots max speed and 24 knots stall speed. As I understand it, no license or training is required. It is probably closest to the pre-AUF ultralights in Australia. Not really what anyone is talking about.

Can you be specific? You quoted an EO to put a GoPro on a wing strut, whereas in the US it's a '337 Canada has 'owner-maintenance' for a range of basic GA certified aircraft right up to 172 variants Consider that you can go straight over the top of LAX, JFK or SFO in Class E in the US were you referring to any of those? Or anything specific in the post you quoted?

Which "things" have you searched for? I am not aware of changes in the US regulations, but Australian regulations seem to be going backwards e.g. maintenance on Experimental aircraft.

I'd prefer to leave the politics out. I think I'll give it a miss.

Is it a fly away or a political rally?

Rotax SI-912-016 has the answer: https://legacy.rotaxowner.com/si_tb_info/serviceinfo/si-912-016-r12.pdf

I doubt that semi synthetic motorcycle oil has any additives that fully synthetic oil didn't have that made it more suitable for leaded fuel. Or that any effort has been put into synthetic oils to make them more suitable for leaded fuel. The Shell website description of the Sport Plus 4 oil says it "blends high-quality hydrocarbon base stocks and incorporates synthetic technology" and "combines synthetic and high-quality mineral oil". So it is not fully synthetic. The bottle says "Synthetic Technology".

I don't know the chemistry, but I have seen many different sources saying that synthetic oil doesn't hold the lead in suspension the same way that mineral oil does. (One source says mineral oil molecules have more branches which mean they bind better to deposits.) Synthetic oil results in more lead sludge being deposited in the engine rather than removed when the oil is changed. Looking at old versions of Rotax SI-912-016 where they recommended motorcycle oils rather than only the Aeroshell oil, it specifically listed synthetic oil for use where only unleaded fuel is used. E.g. 1 Fully synthetic motorcycle oil with gear additives. Highly recommended for high oil temperature operation (higher than 120 C / 250 F) using only unleaded fuels ... 3 Semi synthetic motorcycle oil with gear additives. Highly recommended for normal (lower than 120 C / 250 F) and high oil temperature (higher than 120 C / 250 F) operation using leaded or unleaded fuels Fully synthetic oils were specifically listed for only unleaded fuels.

Rotax 912 oil is typically semi-synthetic. Fully synthetic is OK as long as you don't use avgas, but fully synthetic oil does not handle the lead as well as mineral oil. So if you use avgas, oil with some mineral content should be used.

Yes. The requirements for cloud clearance are to (in theory) allow you time for visual separation from IFR aircraft popping out from the cloud. So, (my understanding) special VFR means you don't have to comply with those requirements, but then ATC must separate you from IFR - i.e. by denying special VFR if there is conflict with IFR.

Rules for helicopters are significantly different, but I'm not sure what the point is?

Special VFR makes a certain amount of sense I think - although I haven't used it myself. It's VFR, but ATC provide separation as if you were IFR.

In Australia, Class C and E are 1000' vertically, 1500m horizontally. Class D is 1000' above, 500' below, 600m horizontally. Because they wouldn't be Australian regulations if they were consistent and logical.

RAA fly in Class G not Class C and the rules haven't changed for as long as I can remember. Below 3000' or 1000' AGL the rule is "clear of cloud" e.g. if cloud is 2050' you can fly at 2000' (you must have a radio on the appropriate frequency). Above that you need 1000' vertically and 1500m horizontally. In both cases minimum visibility is 5000m. 5000m is extremely poor visibility. It will probably feel like IMC even at only 1000 AGL. Just because the regulations say you can do it doesn't mean it is safe. We only report visibility less than 10km, but the reality is that anything less than 10km is very poor, and a VFR pilot should be careful.

I don't really understand the purpose of the lengthy wing down approach. The wind at runway level is almost always totally different to the wind at e.g. 200', so why put in the slip so high? it's not like you can hold the same correction all the way to landing. With the crab method you are working with the natural stability of the aircraft. Momentum keeps it travelling in a straight line, which means that as the wind changes with gusts etc. the crab angle changes automatically to compensate. The drag is the same as normal, which means that you fly a normal approach, with the runway in a different place in the window. When you round out over the runway, you align the nose with the runway and kill any drift with aileron. "Kick it straight" is not a good description. I don't understand the concern about timing either - how do you judge the timing to round out and stop the descent? If you don't do that before you hit the runway it would also be bad - but we manage to judge it OK. With a wing down approach, you are fighting the stability of the aircraft. Every change in the wind needs a change in the amount of slip. Every change in the amount of slip changes the drag, which changes the rate of descent, which changes the power required. Then you fly through the low level wind gradient and most of it goes away. It just seems like a lot more difficult approach for no benefit.

Just don't wear it when you have a passenger... they don't like it.

Names change, there's usually a reason. People don't always agree with the reason, but the name still changes.

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate. It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

I don't know how the rules work for 19 reg. My understanding is that it is for Amateur Built, i.e. not built to a specific standard - even if most 19- aircraft are common designs built from kits. In theory that might mean more freedom to modify. I don't know how you classify a 25- reg aircraft as amateur built though.

25 reg aircraft were certified to a particular standard. The RAA's job is to make sure that the aircraft continues to meet that standard. If you want to modify it, someone needs to make sure that it still meets the airworthiness standards for 25 reg. That might include flight testing (if there are aerodynamic changes e.g. an external canister), weight and balance, and structural assessments. Among other things, 25 reg is supposed to provide an assurance that the aircraft has not been modified without that level of scrutiny. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to have a qualified person do that type of assessment and sign it off was in the 5 figure range. That's not what your RAA membership is paying for.

I wouldn't recommend Experimental category, you are likely to spend too much time learning about the builder's idiosyncrasies. Every instrument panel is different etc. The RV-4 would be one of the least practical because the rear seat probably doesn't have full dual controls and instruments. Based on the original criteria I think either Cirrus or find a flight school that uses new C172 etc. Cirrus is probably closer to the original intent. Learning in a twin is probably impractical because as well as the added complexity there is too much you can't do. Plus most twins used for training are probably old and wouldn't be considered fine machinery...

That might apply if you only fly day VFR over open country, but people do fly single engine aircraft at night, IFR, and out of suburban airports like Moorabbin. In any of those circumstances a BRS chute is good insurance. Even landing in a paddock after engine failure... in something like a SR22 the landing speed is 80 knots so you're doing 150 km/h over a paddock you've never seen before, with tiny wheels, rudimentary suspension and lets face it, not much in the way of steering. If all goes well that should still work out, but the parachute might be the higher percentage play. Just because most aircraft don't give you that choice doesn't mean it's bad.

If you are looking to learn at the higher end I would see if there are any schools doing primary instruction in the Cirrus SR20 or SR22 (I think there are). They sound like the most realistic path to do what you are describing.

No. It only means that preserving is considered too much trouble for less then 30 days, not that flying every 30 days avoids the problems prevented by preserving. That is under the heading "ACTIVE ENGINES". Your logic is circular. It's only ACTIVE because you flew it instead of preserving it. If you're worried about your engine in lockdown, preserve it. That work is clearly on the authorised list.