aro

And yet they regularly end up on their back in the middle of a runway after what should have been a routine landing. Or even on their nose during takeoff. Is it just that nose wheel RV pilots are a group of particularly bad pilots? That seems to be the suggestion. I don't actually think it is nose gear strength, I think it is the geometry. From what I can see, the whole gear leg is supposed to act like a spring and flex upwards to absorb bumps. However, the upward arc also requires the leg to move forwards. That's fine for undulating bumps, but if you hit a large enough bump with a sharp enough edge the wheel can't move forwards to roll up and over. Imagine a ramp sloped so that it is at 90 degrees to the angle of the front gear leg. Put it in front of the aircraft so it touches the front tyre. The small wheel and steep angle of the leg means that the contact point will not be very high up on the wheel. Any bump that contacts the wheel below that point is OK, the leg can flex so the wheel rolls up and over. The force from a bump that contacts the wheel at that point will act IN LINE with the gear leg. The leg can't be a spring in that case, it is just a steel rod in compression. All bump absorption must happen in the part of the leg that bends for the wheel attachment - where the first failure is occurring. This will create a bending force in the leg that will try to curl it backwards. A bump higher on the wheel is even worse - the net force acting on the leg is backwards. What is required is a spring that can absorb the bump without requiring forward movement of the wheel. Almost anything would probably do - look at Jabiru nosegear for an example. Have a look around at other aircraft. How many have nose gear where bump absorption requires forward travel of the wheel? Most have gear where the wheel travels straight upwards or even backwards when going over a bump. A flatter leg angle e.g. RV-10 also helps, because it means less forward travel for the same vertical travel.

Nose gear is never the strong point, but is there any other aircraft that ends up on it's back with the frequency of the RV 6-7-9A? I know a couple of aircraft that have had nosegear collapses, I am trying to think if I personally know anyone with an A model who hasn't... (maybe it's me?) According to the report, the video showed the main gear did touch down first (seeing the actual video would be very interesting).

A couple of things about the chart in that report... The VSI appears to be lagging. It shows a descent for several seconds after the altitude is zero so that is unreliable as an indication of the actual rate of descent at touchdown. Airspeed is shown in TAS so IAS might be lower 1.3 times stall speed is a good starting point to determine approach speed, however aircraft characteristics might show something higher is better, e.g. low aspect ratio wings where drag increases rapidly as speed reduces. I haven't flown a RV, I don't know what the recommended approach speed is. It is obvious to me there is a problem with the RV nose gear, based on the number of collapses & flips. They aren't all solely the pilot's fault. I believe there was a RV nosegear collapse on takeoff at Avalon. I like RVs, but would only own a tailwheel RV-6-7-9.

I think the lack of stretch in glass is what gives fibreglass it's strength, so I wouldn't expect good results from a stretchy material.

I'm pretty sure that is the rule for Experimental in the USA, not Australia. In Australia it is much more restrictive. The CASA instrument spells out exactly who can do what, my understanding is that if it is not in the instrument the normal rules for GA aircraft apply (Schedule 8?). In the USA, many of the regular GA maintenance requirements do not apply to the Experimental category. In Australia, the normal maintenance rules apply to Experimental, hence the need for the instrument to allow builder maintenance.

They are the subject of the discussion paper. Because CASA has made a rule that the transmissions must be on Area, due to some ridiculous perception that there is a danger of collision between someone using their unmarked strip and aircraft in cruise.

Fields that don't appear on charts are the least likely to get (or require) a discrete CTAF frequency. The issue is e.g. if you have a private strip and invite a few friends over for a BBQ, what frequency do you use when everyone is arriving? CASA say Area. The rule used to be 126.7.

I have skimmed it, based on the amount of space they used getting stuck into RAPAC I think the result is a foregone conclusion i.e. keep the current changes.

The change already happened, however CASA received a lot of criticism from RAPAC and elsewhere about the change so they are starting a "discussion". The change was simply that aircraft operating at unmarked strips should make their circuit broadcasts on area instead of 126.7 - because apparently people listening on area need to know.

From a societal point of view you're probably right, but they might be the only people keeping the airport open? If they take their money away, all of a sudden it looks easier to the Commonwealth Govt to close the whole airport and sell off the land. Currently you have people with money and lobbying power who want to keep it as an airport - because they are making money from the DFO etc.

Interesting discussion with some town planners, they have no say about developments on the airport. (Because it's Federal land?) The style of development at Essendon would not be allowed in other developments in the same area. That may actually be an incentive to keep it as an airport - while it's an airport the lessee can collect rent and develop whatever they like without planning controls.

I doubt it. That track probably isn't the actual track, it will be created by drawing straight lines between recorder radar points.

I have been told that fuel injection hose should not be used on carb systems, the lining doesn't have enough stretch for some barbed fittings (needs specific fuel injection fittings) and can be damaged during fitting. No idea how likely that is bit I used the Gates Barricade hose for carb systems last time I changed it.

No piano keys on that runway, runway numbers are white on white concrete going by the Google Earth picture. If this works:

These regulations are very confusing in the way they are interpreted. I am not even convinced that CASA's interpretations always follow the actual regulations. CAR 2(7) and CAR 206 are different things. CAR 2(7) defines private operations, i.e. what you can do with a PPL. CAR 206 defines operations that require an AOC. Totally different things. In this case, CAR 2(7) is easy to satisfy. You don't have to satisfy ALL the conditions, so flying in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft ticks the box as a private operation. No need to look at schedules, advertising or who pays what etc. So why can't you advertise and sell tickets on a flight in the course of the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft? It must be that CAR 206 also applies, regardless of whether CAR 2(7) classifies the flight as private. So you need to satisfy CAR 206. In this case I would suspect that 206(1)(b)(i) carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward and possibly 206(1)(b)(ii) carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers might be a problem. I don't know the legal definition of "hire or reward". I suspect CASA don't actually use the usual legal definition, but I don't know whether their definition is actually recorded anywhere or whether it's just their opinion at the time. Ultimately CASA's definition is really what matters, unless you are in court.

How do you know the right size?

Lawyers are familiar with the concept of blood from a stone, so if the insurance only pays out 250K and you don't personally have 18 million, they are unlikely to sue you for 18 million. If you do have 18 million, you probably shouldn't be relying on the RAA insurance policy... The real purpose of insurance is to convince the lawyers that they will be better off going after whatever the insurance will pay than you personally. 250K may or may not achieve that, based on personal circumstances. You might recall the recent case where a woman was injured by a light fitting while having sex in a motel on a business trip, and sued her employer. Why sue her employer not the motel, who presumably had more responsibility for the light fitting? Odds are, the motel didn't have an insurance policy, or the employer had a much bigger limit...

It is important to compare apples with apples... GA aircraft typically use avgas and (according to my understanding) the main reason for the fuel return is the greater likelihood of vapor lock when running mogas. Avgas vs. mogas also affects GA aircraft, e.g. there are more mogas STCs for high wing aircraft than low wing due to the increased concern about vapor lock when drawing fuel up from low wing tanks.

I'm still looking for evidence that the fuel pump can be operated incorrectly. I think the Vans RV12 also uses these fuel pumps, hard wired to run when the master is on. They state that the pumps are designed to run all the time, and there is a safety benefit when they are running and no benefit from turning them off.

The cooling is happening all the time - I suspect the thrust of the question was what is the difference between conditions where you get carb ice and conditions where you don't?

True. Ultimately, it is the airframe manufacturer's job to deliver an uninterrupted supply of fuel at the correct pressure to the carb. How they do that is up to them. Older 912 installation manuals don't have the instruction for the return line, unless you used an engine with the Rotax fuel manifold which included a return fitting. Obviously then you need to connect it to something. Changes beget changes, so adding a return line if it wasn't originally fitted creates other complications. For example, some fuel is returning to the tanks, so obviously the fuel system has to be able (and tested) to deliver more fuel upstream of the return line. How much more? Well, now you might need to measure how much is being returned to the tank... and so on. This I doubt... do you have any reference, e.g. Facet specifications or installation information? The Facet pump is automotive in origin, correct? No-one has a fuel pump switch in their car, they typically run continuously. A 912 at idle is still shifting a lot of air - I am sure it is using substantially more fuel than a similar size car engine idling at 1/2 the rpm without a big propeller on the front. I think the recommended fuse size is 3A, so that's only 40 watts or so of heat at 14V before the fuse blows. Shouldn't need much cooling to prevent damage.

I hope that is correct. This is an area where I am not comfortable interpreting the regulations. 99.465 Approved testers’ powers to access premises (1) Subject to any aviation security requirements, an approved tester must, at all reasonable times, have access to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers and functions under this Part. (2) A person must not prevent, or hinder, access by an approved tester to any place to which access is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any of the approved tester’s powers or functions under this Part. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) An offence against subregulation (2) is an offence of strict liability. So if CASA can't access your premises without either your permission or a warrant, is denying permission considered preventing or hindering access? What happens if you refuse permission to access your: hangar where you are performing an oil change? hotel room where you are planning your flight? home where you are building an aircraft? I agree it is very unlikely to be an issue, but I am wondering what these powers actually allow? e.g. if your neighbor gets fed up with all the riveting noise and reports to CASA that they have seen you enjoying a beer while you are building...

I think 2(a) is where you run into trouble. It seems to apply to anyone (except passengers) doing anything in an area accessible to aircraft on a certified or registered aerodrome. So not only can you be tested, but your friend just having a look could also be tested unless they are specifically there as a passenger. (3) is interesting - it seems to extend CASA testing to anywhere, e.g. your hotel or even home if you are performing a SSAA (flight planning, building a kit aircraft...). Not to suggest that it is OK to drink and plan or build, but it does seem a very broad power.

That's what I answered when I was asked that question by the testing officer when I did my PPL test. However, it is wrong, according to the testing officer. If the aircraft is provided by the employer and the employer does not charge anyone to be on the flight, it comes under CAR 2(7)(v) i.e. a private operation: (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made I think this must be a favorite question. However, if you own the aircraft and the employer reimburses you 3/4 of the cost, you are charging for the carriage so it is not private. CAR 2(7A) doesn't apply if it is the employer not the persons on the flight paying you. Most of the confusion seems to come from people applying "the vibe" rather than looking up the actual rules. PPL and RAA are restricted to private operations (plus a couple of additional restrictions for RAA). Private operations are defined in CAR 2(7)(d): (d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of: (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft; (ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted; (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft; (iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted; (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft; (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A); (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade; (vii) flight training, other than the following: (A) Part 141 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 141.015 of CASR); (B) Part 142 flight training (within the meaning of regulation 142.015 of CASR); © balloon flying training (within the meaning of subregulation 5.01(1)) for the grant of a balloon flight crew licence or rating; or (viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive); shall be taken to be employed in private operations. It doesn't appear too confusing to me if you look at the actual regulation.

Recordings of the transmissions were played on the TV news - I suspect someone recognized the voice. That seemed the most likely way at the time.