RFguy

yeah it just goes around the loop..... I had a problem where I had air occassionally getting into the system around a seal.... so its a quick bleed.. when done, tighten nipple, and holding pitched tube high , let go let rest run back into the resv or bottle. anyway, you get the idea. but but when you use bottom up, you have to watch you dont overflow it.... so the lid is involved?. on mountain bikes, we used to just open the recv up, and pump the brakes while tapping the lines with a back end of a screwdriver, that brought bubbles up the round the loop method I first learned on mountainbikes...

I'm told that a good way is to attach the output of the caliper nipple to a long length of silicone tubing, take it all the way up and (back) into the master cylinder resv. (be sure resv is full). and just pump using pedal/park brake ) around the system around and around until all the air gets pumped out, bubbles going into the resv of course just bubble off. I keep writing resv because the word reserviour etc the spelling has forever elluded me.

That was a very interesting and thorough report, - the wing analysis. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ebbb40f0b613460000a7/dft_avsafety_pdf_025533.pdf essentially, the only think that could cause the wing outer to fail was the simultaneous input of pitch and roll, a quickly rotated and pushed or pulled yoke, (putting it into some 2 axis rotation) and then the corresponding 2 axis reversal (that breaks the structure) . "It is, perhaps, less well understood that large control surface deflections, applied simultaneously or in rapid sequence in more than one axis, are far more damaging than such inputs applied individually. When such single or multi-axis inputs are applied and rapidly reversed, even higher loadings result. Although the manoeuvre speed, Va, is described as the speed above which full deflection of aileron or rudder or approach to the stall should not take place, it may not be appreciated amongst all pilots that flight at airspeeds below Va does not provide protection from control induced structural failure. Should excessive simultaneous and/or reversed large control deflections be applied, the results can be catastrophic, as in the case of G-BKCB. This is all the more significant when it is noted that the structural strength of the wing of this aircraft type in download, far exceeds the requirement specified for its certification."

no transmission reported. They were high, has hypoxia been ruled out ?

well, you dont need much, you just need SOMETHING that changes as you get closer to the ground. Rob, my instructor was saying the same thing happens with a glide onto flat or glassy water- no visual clues to descent rate/ height when near to the surface results in " poorer than expect outcomes " When doing water training, abinitio, they dropped floaties onto the water so the pilot could get some idea . Nev, please chime in

Mike, it gets lighter with the rotax.... can have some ballast removed from the tail...

but.. if they permitted rotax engines in their airframes, they'd sell more airframes than they could build.... and apparently there will be no changes. So, perhaps he's not fully informed.

6 circuits. 4 normal + 2 glide. both glides from downwind went well in Xwind. which means the work I did 2 weeks ago on them was useful . (were I failed on the first 3 glides from downwind) . Observation : 2nd glide was onto the grass cross : - feeling of loss of depth perception about 100' up down to flare height on featureless wide green carpet. The grass cross at cowra is 90m wide and 1km long , and the edges are not marked, so it might as well be 500m wide.... . out the sides, you see same green world. Now what is interesting is when you get close to the large wide strip that looks completely featureless -- IE no visual differences in my whole field of vision. - I felt that I lost vertical speed and depth perception when I got close to the flare. Of course, coming down at 850 fpm the ground comes up fast. BUT - compared to coming onto a narrow strip- IE narrow strip with various visual cues, edges, maybe edge markers strip lines, these all assist in providing spatial cues for height and location. IE narrow strip I feel better depth / height perception. Landing was fine, smooth.... there's another weird thing also, there's a (not sure if it is good) part of me that enjoys the rush and adrenaline of the ground coming up quick at the same time you must execute a precision maneuver to get right as you turn straight and throw out all the flaps with a very serious feeling of commitment to land without option. The feeling of it all happening very fast in the last few seconds may be reduced by doing this more regularly. (IE becoming more adapted / current by repetition) .... I do - do glides once a month....

number of satellites is not so important as to where they are in the sky. Think of multiple rubber bands pulling the one item around. and how biases pull the fix - specifically items like ionospheric delay, sat drift, height in the sky. 8 sats is fine if they are well distributed. ....the shading you describe isnt too bad for shading. and horizontal posititive errors are different to vertical position errors. again, diversity of what you can see.

just filled out my two casa surveys- class C/D for sport and the class 5 medical OMG what a smouldering turd the class 5 proposal is ? OMFG. And std medical- a heavy vehicle driving medical should be sufficient to fly anything anywhere except ATPL.

You're not considering that if the GPS antenna cant see a considerable portion of the sky, errors can be significant. 200-300m easy. That goes for ANY GPS, doesnt matter how good it is. If it cant get diversity of SVs (spave vehicles) , it will result in poor transliteration solutions. "Every consumer GPS I have seen calcuates its own potential error" - YES, HDOP and VDOP some only show HDOP, most consumer stuff wont show VDOP, and also, there is a stat associated with this number. Different engines report different stats (IE % confidence that the displayed fix is within xyz)

""Just confirming I have got this right; there was a 1500 ft vertical error in the GPS position sent from the Skyecho ?" YES that easily can happen. I have seen up to 500m error. Skyecho can be TERRIBLY inaccurate- the GPS antenna has a terrible look at the sky in general and can be hundreds of meters out in any direction.... It depends whether the accuracy metrics from the skyecho are interpreted, or not. Same could be for a tablet GPS accuracy is transmitted on adsb, but many apps like FLight radar, flightaware ignore these values, also.

AND when route flying, ideally should be flying (with validity period) AREA QNH. Skyecho does know baro pressure. - IE absolute pressure. just like a normal transponder. Ozrunways I am pretty sure says GPS altitude. When I have been flying through busy routes 6k-10k feet with other traffic around, ATC always provides me Area QNH to set my altimeter to (they request) . This way, we're all flying withing 50 feet of where we should be for separation.

Well. I just found a small mudwasp nest up behind my Directional Gyro !!!!. way up behind everything.....A 1/2" cube of mud.... During the annual , we found one fuel tank breather was partially blocked with debris.....

For anyone interested, I have found a new perfect replacement for the display for this autopilot . Backlight function is OK . Display contrast is good and is a transreflective display so it can work in full sun. Fits just fine, just reverse the standoffs (order = SCREW > washer > plastic standoff > PCB ) and put the display against the panel. chop/ disconnect pin 1 on the connection (backlight aux ctl) Display is a NMTG-S12232CFYHSGY-10 by Microtips, AVBL from Mouser. You'll need either magnification or a microscope to change the LCD over since the flex cable is 1.27mm and quite tight on spacing.

The locals tell me they overfill the tanks daily and spit fuel out the breathers which kills anything living in there....

Jabiru's are readily repairable by those moderately competent with fibreglass. Carbon fibre is NOT, it requires specific layups and (usually) ovenized, resin cures , and an non factory repair likely requires a ultimate load stress test. You dont get something for nothing (IE super light weight for no down side ) and just remember, for a given load factor, the slower the stall speed, the slower you need to fly in anything but super smooth air. A 140 kts indicated aircraft is not much practical use if it needs to slow down to 72 kts in moderate turbulence.

Skippy said "I would speculate that laser v punch likely have diffrent metallurgical outcomes " Skip you are fantastic at stating the obvious. You should go on Mastermind and give Barry Jones a run for his money. Certainly there is heat treatment going on. The internet is full of stuff on this- all metals LASER cutting leads to substantially reduced fatigue life compared with other (cold) subtractive processes.... there are advanced post LASER cutting heat treatments but they are exotic.

I dunno if you can blame them that much for this. If it was to get volumes up, not prices down. More interesting, what's the issue with the laser cutting ???? That's interesting. I gather prior kits have been stamped/ punched ?

I'd say I was fortunate that I had a headwind, which slowed down the transition of descent , to following the runway up-slope . Although that has to be traded off with the hazard of the abrupt wind gradient .....but I was anticipating that one... Try to to do this though with a shorter runway, say half , well that would have a high degree of skill and danger, not for me..... Certainly, a hazard checklist is a good thing. I can see how this though is rolling a dice. if you didnt think about it before you tried it, that could be trouble. A couple of years ago there was fatal nearby to here (Combing Park) - a fatal GA accident , was a training touch and go, where they attempted a go around with a hill ahead just like this one and crashed. The report concluded they tried and failed to outclimb the hill. I am beginning to think , it was as simple as they just didnt think about it , before doing it , didnt do the numbers and consider the possibilities. IE not a flying skills problem, a decision making problem.

Bush strip today. 650m long. DA=3000' OAT 6 ....Piper nice and light today. Deep valley at the approach end, obstructions at the other end, top of windy hill. half of runway is 'uphill' at 5% ! rest is 1%.... all in the lee of a big mountain , lots of turb. but turb was OK once I slowed down in the vicinity, 90 kts 1st stage flap. I calculated the hell out of it before setting out. rehearsed a few scenarios in my mind. final was into 15kts I guess wind .. Landed into the ~ 10kt wind, on the uphill section about one third off the way in. (on the steep bit) . no issue. Experienced high wind gradient as got into the flare and aircraft went below the top of the hill - experienced down draft as I got near the ground and also sudden 8 -10 kts ish loss of airspeed (as expected so I came in with 10kts to spare) . I had done a PSL immediately before on it so I had some idea what the wind was doing over the hill. complex. nose down , jesus the end of the runway and obstruction is coming up brakes on ...... and taxi , hmm with 300m to spare, (used half the runway) . so that was good. Went for a walk with my GPS and barometer to meausre height one end to the other...., measured strip length and surveyed the height and gradients and estimated tail wind speeds at different regions for takeoff downwind. Determined a 'decision point' . ....wind now 15kts minimum. on my tail. Did what I needed to do at the site, back in the plane.... went off with a short fielder , 25 flap..... got past the decision point with only 55kts. geez we use up runway fast with 15 kts of tailwind ! Back pressure and now flying but not climing, still acceleratinginto ground affect, flying down the hill. golly does the speed build.. climbing.... 75 kts time to dump some flaps.. 85 kts, dump last 10 deg. climb more .... off we go. Colleague made an observation that the other hazardous thing about taking off downwind AND downhill is that once I climb from the 'sheltered' region where I have say 10 kts of tailwind to where I suddenly have 20 kts of tailwind, and consequently 10 kts less airspeed, that is potentially hazardous and a good reason to continue to accelerate to and beyond the T.O.S.S in ground effect flying down the hill to have plenty in hand..... Go around probably couldnt be done if it was hot. photo of hill.... doesnt look like much but downdraft from wind over the hill and hot weather would be trouble looking downwind, and down hill. You can only see HALF the runway before it heads off the side of the mountain . uphill , and upwind. Top is 500m away from strip end. needs greater than a 1 in 10 climb to get over it.

yeah if you are both connected to the radio and you can both talk OK on the radio, then all the connections are OK, seems odd, will have to read the manual later. I have one to install in the next week or so.

good stuff. Sounds like the SIDETONE etc in the intercom setup is not right. You are using the TRIG internal intercom, yes ?

Suggest gettintg them on the phone, or going down and seeing them in person.

yes.... An IO-360 is pretty simple and reliable...