BrendAn

21 hours ago, jackc said:

Word on the street is……no one has applied for. 760kg yet, if it’s true?

There is a Cessna 150 advertised ATM with raa rego. So at current 600 kg mtow it has a 120 kg payload.

50 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Have you had the gauge tested for accuracy? The first thing a Lame will do when looking at cooling issues is check the gauge.

We did a 50 km flight this morning and oil temp went to 90 and stayed there so I will leave it as is. It is  a hot day , I have never seen it come up to 90 before . Cooler did its job.

Old thread but interesting.

I am thinking I might tape over the cooler on my j2200, the temp needle barely makes the bottom of the green ever.  The cooler is also mounted flat across the front of the sump so I wouldn't think there is much airflow through it. On the xair the engine is fully exposed to the air.

If I can remove the cooler after testing it would get rid of potential oil leaks.

Looks like 8 runways to me. Lots of choice is good.

19 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Yep agree; if unflyable the seller completes a form 26 and the buyer arranges the condition report (form 013) at a later date then gets registration and can fly. 

you can still do a condition report on an unflyable aircraft and register it. 

24 minutes ago, FergieFlyer said:

To the contributors of this post I am pretty disgusted.  I can assure you that I am live and well and my Zenith 750 Cruzer (vh-8ct) still yet to be completed is safely sitting in my hangar.  To place the name of a deceased person on this website is totally unacceptable.  To get it wrong is even worse.   This post has caused my family and myself major stress.  This will be reported to the controller of this website.  Never post this type of information unless you are 100% certain of the facts, and never under any circumstances report a name.  Shame on the lot of you.

 

For the record, the aircraft that went down was a Zenith 801 and was built and flown by a friend of mine, and right now this is a difficult time.

 

 

rediculous carry on. if you read the posts you know there was nothing but compassion for the pilot involved. the facts were as reported by casa and the news channels.

14 crashed out of that list. 

9 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I don't think so as its who did the annual maintenance IAW manufacturer, and the engine service IAW manufacturer, and propellor IAW manufacturer, etc. It's a condition report as presented that includes an engine run etc and flight details by the PIC.  Some things will stand out some wont.  I did an inspection (not a condition report) for a guy for a Sav VG; I listed 20 odd issues I was concerned about and advised him to show the images and report info to his instructor CFI who was also an L2.  I said his Inst / L2 will be able to further advise as some things may not be necessary to do now and others immediate and may amount to at least $6K.  He did not buy the aircraft. The seller later asked for a copy and I did not give it to him as was drafted by me for the prospective buyer.  I had told the seller of the issues as I went over the aircraft and told him to make notes so he knew. (No free lunches from me with poor aircraft and have a copy if RAA ever needed it) In short his L2 may say some of my comments are a bit harsh; although my standard. I'm an L2 so need to always protect my reputation.  I've been asked to overlook stuff or tick sighted for documents or log entries; my reply is always 'Nope' I don't want my name tarnished or highlighted at RAA or elsewhere.  I call it as I see it presented. Cheers.

So if  you do an acr  and ignore a wing bolt missing a nut for an extreme example as turbs mentioned. And wing falls off two days later who's fault is it . The owner is dead and that leaves you to face the music.

The whole point is to get rid of dodgy acrs. I know of l2s who do them by email without even sighting the aircraft.

As I mentioned the other day. Those head tracking RC models are looking pretty good. Get the view and the sensation of flying without leaving the ground. A large lake buccaneer model I could fly while sitting on my boat .😁

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

You don't GET my point.  Nev

sorry, 

1 hour ago, jackc said:

I don’t see this enforcement is a real possibility, so someone dumps on an L2, is RAA going to inspect said aircraft and audit logbooks?  IF someone reveals a dodgy job, will that person be prepared to give evidence in court of law and provide evidence to the prosecution?  What will RAA do?

This could turn into a minefield in more ways than one.  If an owner does work, under the table…..they simply deny it and it’s  up to someone in authority to prove  they actually are guilty.  RAA is a company,  what authority do they have in this instance? 
Does CASA become involved?

This whole thing is a giant mess, perpetrated by a slow loss of L2 and L4 from Aviation.

NO organisation wants to train any, so the shortage will make problems worse over time.

So, the peak bodies need to get off their a……and work out a training regime.

otherwise the availability of qualified people will simply dry up, those remaining……will give the game away, from too much stress. 
And, more people will undertake work on their own aircraft, some at great risk…….

 

l4s wouldn't care about raaus. plenty of ga work to do.  if the l2 is responsible for what he put on the condition report they are going to be looking pretty hard at it if the ac has an accident within the 30 day period.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Lots of people don't want any restrictions to apply to them.  Nev

i am sure they don't , but they won't get into any country if they refuse.

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Campaign against " having" to be searched. Nev

I am not sure I follow.  

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

What about the people who try to sneak processed meats etc through customs and resist any search  on a "restriction of my freedoms" etc? Mabe you have it ar$e about.  Nev

Anyone who refuses a search would not be allowed entry to the country would they.

If labour didn't waste all our money more could be spent on important things .

55 minutes ago, jackc said:

When I complained about my ‘historical’ condition report and detailed some of the deficiencies, no one cared at RAA. 
I think the whole system needs an overhaul and a regulations rewrite.

To make it clear, simple and unambiguous. 
Next, can RAA demand to see a copy of an aircraft log book?  Under what documented regulation.? 
 

I guess there have been enough complaints like yours to get them doing something. 

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased.

 

My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account  (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? 

Now I have learnt more it seems quite simple. Basically aircraft condition reports must be accurate. 

 the L2 that fudges them loses his L2 authority.

My friend who is an L4 and L2 is quite happy about it. He does things by the book and does not like half arsed L2 condition reports. He is happy to stand by his work.

36 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

We are doing 3 ACR's this weekend, so we'll see how it all goes.  2 planes returning to the Register after years non-flying and one sold.  Two owners who don't believe in Log Books will complicate things.  The other owner got caught up in early RAAus log book audits, so that one "might" be OK, but there's no serial number for the engine installed, or any entries for the last 4 years.  "Trust me, I did what needed doing..." no longer cuts the mustard.  When were the hoses replaced?  Dunno. 

 

Fingers crossed.

Engine log books are a big part of the blitz in acrs. 

7 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Agree; would be responsible for the correctness of inspection and it is good that its being checked by RAA; need to eliminate dodgy work regarding these inspections; like RAA reported finding dodgy bfr's (400kms between the instructor and pilot as one example) and like dodgy car road worthy's being picked up and actioned.  Will make things safer and compliant.  

Sorry, I should have read this post. I just said the same thing.

7 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

Were they saying they are changing the tech manual in this area?; I wouldn't think an L2 would take on any owners responsibility; only responsibility for maintenance work that they perform to an aircraft.  Regarding the condition report it specifically states wording about responsibility - "The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner."  Any detailed attention to ACR's is good I reckon.

I think it may be that the L2 will be held responsible for what he puts in the report for 30 days. Raaus get a lot of complaints about condition reports stating things are in good condition when they are not.  So the aim will be to get rid of dodgy L2 s that look after mates by writing bullsh#t to help sell an AC.

10 minutes ago, jackc said:

Has this always been the ruling?

I don't know but the new office lady told me they are going through every acr with a fine tooth comb from now on.  The L2 responsible thing may well have been there before and they just decided to enforce it.

Latest info is raaus are going to make L2 responsible for aircraft for 30 days only after they do acr then it reverts to owner.   

the topaz looks like a nice aircraft. fast too. i watched a u tube of one flying from riddells to torquay.

24 minutes ago, jackc said:

RAAus can make new rules to suit themselves where they believe deficiencies need to be addressed, but there is a major problem.  A lack of trained people to do inspections, work and sign offs etc.  Because, there is is no plan for training people by RAAus.

Sure, you can do an L1, IF someone decides to run them.  I did one in early days run by Darren Barnfield and it was hosted by Dan Compton at Wings Out West.

Good, informative and well run course, too. After that, I thought…….whats next?

NOTHING?  Cant do an L2, can’t work on someone else’s plane?  It’s a dead end for training and upgrading qualifications?  Soon there will be no one left to work on aircraft, many retiring.  Many aircraft owners will not have access to an L2 within a reasonable distance. 
So RAAus can make all the rules they like and……….there will be no one to do the work, so what then?   Maybe RAAus need to do cooperative training with SAAA?  but I doubt that will ever happen. 
People will have no choice but to break rules and work on their own aircraft, I was told a horror story last week, by someone who did just that, said person was that useless they could burn toast……yet own an aircraft, their aircraft?  Was well how should I says it……maybe a death trap, due to poor work. 
So, where to now?   Backwards, unless something is done quickly.   

 I did my L1 online. There is not much too it. Raaus know they are running out of L2 people but either don't care or can't do anything about it.  An L2 can't sign off his own plane so he needs access to another L2 anyway.  All the expensive certified aircraft go to GA workshops and L4,s