Ian

A simple test for ethanol is to get some food colouring, put it in pure petrol it should remain unmixed. If the fuel has ethanol it will colour the fuel. To be sure test first with some e10 and pure fuel. I'd be interested if someone finds contaminated fuel. https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/using-food-coloring-to-test-for-alcohol-in-gas-11431 Our airplanes engines are really dumb and unreliable compared to car engines however low levels of contamination shouldn't impact the RON to any significant extent, air temperature has a greater impact on RON and you don't complain about contaminated air. Unleaded AVGAS is expensive and unlikely to appear, why would you use it if mogas is fit for purpose for 80% of the fleet? https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/16/10-mogas-myths/ The bottom line is phase 1 is that some people will adopt avgas early and leverage the benefits they perceive and gather knowledge. Phase 2 will be those watching the first group and will adopt their practices if they don't see them falling from the sky. The Phase 3 group will never be convinced and will continue to put avgas in their tanks until it is phased out. From what I'm seeing, phase 1 has occurred and we're in the middle of phase 2. Actual infrastructure is being built out and at some point will likely dominate 100LL. The main driver will be price without excise mogas is currently about $1.30 L which looks pretty attractive. I thought that I read somewhere that some engines were being given an extra 1000 hours TBO when run on lead free fuels.

The testing which was conducted found that this wasn't necessarily as requirement for the Lycoming engines which were approved. Testing was conducted over a range of temperatures where fuel was heated in the tank prior to the flight. My understanding is that the EU provided blanket approval for all planes to use mogas if the engine was approved and there hasn't been any significant impact as a result. Someone with more knowledge than me might be able to comment. The requirement for in tank pumps relates to the engines which aren't on the approved list such as IO360 with bendix injectors. The high temperature associated with these were found to cause vapour lock.

It's a market, there are a number of flying schools which run mogas using very large volumes. If it works for them and is an approved fuel so be it. They keep a pretty close eye on their supply chain. If you can afford to buy avgas and can manage the negatives both in terms of costs, health risks and deposits so be it.

It's what you believe. Not what's supported by science. In an engine designed for it, each octane rating number increase will provide an efficiency dividend of approximately 1%. The key word in this sentence is designed, you need to increase the compression. My wife used to own a Subaru B4 which was designed for 100 Octane and detuned to 98 for Australia. At full boost with twin turbos in hot conditions it would ping and retard the timing so I would put some e85 to increase the RON. It was a fun car however turbos, RON and power go together. Non turbo vehicles are a different matter. The energy content of 91, 95 and 98 is essentially the same, E10 has a slightly lower energy content however it increases the RON. Your car is designed for 91 octane and might get a tiny increase in efficiency due to ignition advance however not on the scale that you're talking about. It is was actually true the fuel makers would be trumpeting across the airwaves as their margins are higher on 98. What you're seeing is possibly what's called a confirmation bias where you see what you want to see. A better way to test would be to get your wife to fill the car up and not tell you what fuel is being used. That being said, your car might be different from all the other cars but it's your money and if it makes you feel good do it. Personally I don't like parting with money when there's no logical reason. Alcohol in fuel can make sense at a particular price point and if rated to do so it doesn't hurt your engine using it, in fact it has a number of benefits such as lower EGT. It's not the devil, just another fuel. Also real studies indicate that he impact on range isn't as high as the figures you believe. This this link provides also provides a good summary. By the way the boiling temperature of Ethanol the alcohol that is used in E10 is about 78C, so boiling in the tank might be a bit of a stretch, vapour lock maybe. Now to counter your argument I've give you a bit of maths. On average 98 is 20% more and to travel 335000km you would have put about $50,250 of 91 fuel through it as $1.50L. If you put 98 through the engine it would have cost you $10,000. Now a RAV4 with the 6 cylinder engine with only 200,000km is being advertised on carsales for $14,000 and they might accept $10,000. So by using the cheaper fuel you could be driving a car with 140,000 fewer km and you also get to pocket whatever you sell the car for. That's the logical and rational choice. However we've digressed a bit from the key issue of a list of where you can get Mogas ;-)

The key rule is put in the engine what the manufacturer says is OK, you might take a risk based upon a risk/value assessment to vary from this however Avgas isn't magic. There are people who believe that putting 98 Octane fuel in a car that only requires 91 is a good thing. This view isn't based on science it's based on a feeling just like people who think putting Quartz crystals by their beds protects them from cancer. If people want to spend money on bits of rock so be it. Similarly people who put more expensive blends into engines can if they want. But is may not be a view supported by science or the manufacturer. However Leaded fuel is toxic to the point that children raised near leaded fuel outlets had significantly lower IQs than those who lived further away so it is a bad, bad thing, if you can avoid it I think you should. If you think it's good you've probably spent too much time near a bowser. (Oddly enough the guy who invented leaded fuels also invented CFCs) Now those of you who can claim tax credits for mogas can also save another 43 or so cents per litre which is significant. Also contrary to popular belief Australian auto fuels are standardized and conform to international norms.

Attached is a list of Lycoming engines approved to run Mogas. Given the current state of affairs I suspect that Mogas is the fuel of the future as it Suits most engines in common use Is easy to test for ethanol contamination. (Just use food dye) Has a higher energy content than AVGAS Is not a neurotoxin For engines which can't use Mogas due to octane requirements I can see STCs for MW-50 in your future. For engine at risk of vapour lock, positive pressure fuel pumps similar to the automotive ones are also in your future. SI1070AB_Specified_Fuels.pdf

I'll use one of the online dictionaries definition which probably aligns with what I was thinking, "characterized by grotesqueness, extravagance, complexity, or flamboyance", I could l have used baroque, byzantine, complex, complicate, complicated, convoluted, daedal, elaborate, intricate, involute, involved, knotty, labyrinthian, labyrinthine, sophisticated or tangled but you get my drift. It appears to be significantly more complex than it needs to be to perform the function which is required, especially given modern technology.

Yes, the principles are applicable to piston aircraft. If you need more range your best bet is ground effect. :-) The pilots of WW2 knew this.

Thanks for the input and information, I'll have to do some reading, It would be nice to see some research which indicates that there is actually a quantifiable benefit in this regard. From what I've seen there's the hypothesis that "Integrated training" provides an outcome however I haven't seen anything which indicates that this is actually true. If there's no supporting evidence it would be nice to see both sets of requirements aligned. Simpler, less paperwork for the bureaucracy to maintain and lower cost. Given the recent experience with building inspectors the separation of functions would provide a benefit, especially if testing the school didn't have the ability to cherry pick testers. For example CASA should provide a pool of independent examiners chosen at random based upon location and availability. I also noted that ICAO Annex 5 is related to units. I'd really like to see this area progress and the imperial spagetti go down the toilet. I do understand that there's a lot of people who are used to dealing with these things however once that bandaid is ripped off things become much simpler. When I was at Uni many years ago I worked with a surveyor and had to deal with miles, feet, chains, links, inches, decimal inches and a whole other lot of rubbish. It still pains me when I seen calculations based on foot pounds, gallons and other rubbish. To me that all belongs in the "Vintage Aviation" category.

So from the above, there's no research demonstrating the advantages of either approach, so logically they should have the same baseline requirements. The fact that they don't would indicate it is most likely to have occurred as part of a sweetheart deal to advantage section of the training community and disadvantaging others. The structure that I was alluding to was the whole requirement for a "school". The reality is that to fly a plane I need two things, an understanding of the theory and practical instruction. Theory can be imparted using a variety of methods using textbooks, classroom time, videos or other mechanism. A variety of mechanisms can be used to assess this knowledge however examinations are simple and accepted practices. Personally I prefer reading textbooks and journal publications however other learn most effectively using other methods. Flying instruction is performed by your instructor (who CASA agree is competent and up to the task) and assessed by a flight test and practical examination by an assessor, there's no requirement for a school per se. With COVID the concept of what a school is has become far more fluid as more online resources have been used. For instance one piece of knowledge which appears to be poorly understood by a number of pilots is fuel consumption optimization and how it relates to altitude. I've attached a good paper on the subject, the issues is confused by turbine engines because these engines can't throttle efficiently. Piston Airplane Cruise Performance.pdf

In relation to the Integrated vs non-integrated for PPL and Commercial licences their appears to be a theory that schools operating "Integrated courses" can train people better with reduced flight time. It may be simply due to the fact that they acknowledge that a compressed, regular learning schedule is more productive however that has nothing to do with "integrated" nature of the package. Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 35 hours of flight time, including 10 hours solo, five hours solo cross country and two hours instrument time. Non-integrated courses require an additional five hours flight time (40 hours in total about 15% more hours). For a commercial licence Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 150 hours of flight time for the aeroplane category rating and 100 hours for the helicopter category rating. Non-integrated courses require 200 (an extra 33% practical flying time) hours for the aeroplane category rating and 150 (an extra 50% practical) for the helicopter category rating. Have there been any studies which suggest that Integrated courses of study develop flying skills better and faster than non-integrated or was this approach the result of lobbying by those running integrated courses? Given that there are two components of the courses and that the theoretical knowledge is tested by an examination process it doesn't appear to make sense

If you're sick of piston engines you might want one of these. Ex RAAF PC9, It will be interesting to see what they sell for. Though the running costs might be a bit high.

Is there any fundamental requirement for the baroque flight school structure in Australia or is it simply a relic of the days of yore? I'm not sure of the approaches which other countries have taken however other flight programs such as RAAUS appear to do without the structure so why hasn't it been reformed? You have people of talent bound to a structure which artificially limits their opportunities which is always a poor industry practice. From a learning perspective they aren't required, the instructor instructs depending upon his skills and qualifications. Flight examiners are effectively the delegates of CASA so they're not impacted. From a management perspective with the wonders of modern communications it doesn't appear to be required. With online technologies the physical classroom doesn't need to exist anymore. Of course new skills are required. The owners of flight schools may be impacted, however if the structure isn't providing any useful outcome that's a pure business risk. I'm also curious about the concept of some programs being able to shortcut the hours required for commercial pilots. Are these programs better or is this simply the result of industry lobbying? Anyway if you're aware of alternative approaches adopted in other countries I'd like to know.

Does anyone know what alloy Jaribu use for their heads? That would at least provide some basis for picking temperature limits. Also have the alloys changed over time?

I've flown into there a few time and it's been really nice. The local Government appears to have slowly grown the capability so it's become a bit of an aviation hub as opposed to some other councils. While there are very few traffic lights there's a lot of bitumen between Canberra and Cowra. I understood that the flight schools use tankers full of Mogas which they go through very quickly. Doing those kind of hours any issues with the approach would become apparent very quickly. Happy for someone to correct this viewpoint if it's incorrect.

I did, specifically about the reduction in CTR airspace. It would have been significantly stronger with local knowledge of the terrain and the weather conditions around that area. as it would provide additional airspace and associated flightpaths for GA providing some mitigation against the type of accident which occurred in Coffs a few years back The initial study recommended a smaller CTR airspace in line with International standards The initial study was a joint study which Defence participated in and they couldn't provide a justification for a larger CTR. What I suspect has happened is that Defence, while not being able to justify the existing CTR was an unwilling participant in negotiations. To comply with the recommendations they needed to reduce the CTR and the reduction from 12 to 11 was the smallest reduction that they could provide and still be seen to comply with the recommendation. You also have to view the public service in the context in which is exists. There are a group of people who care and work very hard, there's a group of dead wood and there's a group who are happy to box tick and close off projects and issues regardless of the outcome simply so they can say the case it closed. The third group tend to move up in management simply because they're perceived as kinking goals (even when they're own goals). For example the "Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour" in 2010 identifies Coffs as having a population of 20,000 and being a resort town. The population is about 75000 and it has a pretty diverse industry base. It has also been filed under Tasmania. CASA also is an acknowledged poor performer in the Federal Public Service and hopefully they can improve this status over time however they have been somewhat disinclined to remediate what ails them to this point which is disappointing. They are also at grave risk of regulatory capture as their focus is primarily on RPT and associated lobby groups. However that being said I'd encourage everyone to respond to these issues and cc their local member and the minister for transport. The public service is at heart a political beast and politics is about people. A key advantage is that flying has is that it exciting and that there are a lot of people interested in it. I'd like to see more people offering to take their local member or local council members up for a flight, it gives you the opportunity to point out the holes in the runway and show them the view that visitors to the area might get. As they say a picture speaks a thousand words. Also the spelling of embuggerance wasn't quite correct, it's not my word and seems to have come from the UK where the Government is similar enough for feelings to translate well

Any thoughts on the contents of a first aid kit in a plane. It might be good to look at what caused pilot incapacitation and see if the contents of a first aid kit would help. Should you have an epipen, as it's a broad spectrum treatment for a number of ailments though they're a bit difficult to get over the counter.

I'm not against medical assessments per se, as the person with the risk factors often doesn't perceive the risk well. However the reverse it also true where it's often difficult to discount a condition with a demonstrably low risk. There is often an issue of perceived risk vs actual risk and this appears to be significantly higher when dealing with medical issues. For example I have very mild asthma, which tends to only flare up when I am ill and leads to me feeling uncomfortable rather than suffering respiratory distress. During my initial medical assessment my DAME agreed that it was so mild as to not present an issue and not to require any special controls. CASA required further investigations which led me to spending many hundreds of dollars which demonstrated that my Spirometry results were normal. However the recommendation was that I am to carry an inhaler when I fly. While this is a fairly minor embuggerence, I did review the literature as published by ATSB and FAA relating to the incapacitation of pilots during flight which spans over 50 years, both in Australia and the US and could not find a single case of pilot incapacitation due to asthma. Heart attacks, stroke, multiple instances of food poisoning, aerobullosis (the bends), nausea, respiratory infection etc but not asthma. I did point this out to both CASA and the specialist however to no avail. So apparently statistics is no match for the vibe when considering risk so I duly pack an asthma puffer in my flight bag even though I don't have one in the house, or car or when I travel. pilot-incapacitation-atsb.pdf faa-in-flight-incapacitation.pdf

One thing that I was wondering about, the initial proposal for the Williamsdale strip was prior to the creation of solar farm. Has any of the infrastructure associated with the solar farm impacted the viability of the proposed airstrip. I noticed that the substation and the associated High voltage wires about 2k to the south. There also appears to be some new power lines between angle crossing and the site that weren't there previously. It does seem a bit odd reading through the history that the local Government suddenly cooled on the idea of the airstrip and then the solar farm pops into existence shortly after. Were they mutually exclusive?

All Good, I've done that more than once myself. So far I'm happy though I do get a bit envious of the STOL capabilities of something like the Foxbat. If only I could justify two planes 🙂

Thanks, how recent is this info and do you know if there is actually any space available. Not that it's within my budget. Where have you ended up housing your plane?

A Rutan Defiant, as with anything it's a compromise, hopefully they're compromises I can live with.

Yes apparently he needs more stables.

Noisy, inefficient and limited yes however remember that the wright flyer only went 36m. As a kit you might be able to squeeze this into an experimental category. Ducted fans/bigger props could probably significantly increase it's efficiency so it might be able to lift Clive Palmer or blow its range out to 50km. If I lived in Sydney or Melbourne I'd be more interested. For instance, working at Macquarie Bank HQ, I could live on the Northern beaches and get to work in 10 minutes. At least until the neighbours complained about the giant hornets or a storm hit. With ADSB and a single guidance computer with autopilot you could have a 1000 of these in the sky safely.

Back to the topic at hand, the point mentioned earlier related to the proposed 11nm CTR vs the recommended 8nm CTR. Does the smaller CTR free up addition flight paths which would provide safer routes through this airspace? Would anyone familiar with this airspace and associated terrain be able to comment? If there are benefits send an email to Airservices [email protected]