nomadpete

Dafydd, If you intend to go with a linear voltage regulator, please get some advice on cooling. The heatsink required to cool your 18watts (in still air) is quite large. Whilst the linear regulator is a great way to smooth the pulses out (as long as pre-filtering prevents any spikes exceeding the regulator's max input spec), you will find that the same pulse suppression can be achieved with a normal good quality switched mode design. Also, the switch mode unit is available 'off the shelf' with all that suppression built in. Well, at least that is true if you buy a quality unit. I have not yet seen data on the Jabiru or Rotax regulators. However, the Rotax 912 coils that I replaced were a three phase type branded Ducati. "Normal" motorcycle regulators ( and I expect that Ducati would design their coils to suit this) rely on a 'short circuit' type regulator. I have tested these on motorcycles. NOT in ROTAX. These work by triggering a SCR to short each coil when the terminal voltage reaches 14 volts. It does this each cycle of the output voltage. So you get pulses of 14 volts going to the battery and the battery 'holds over' until the next pulse of 14 volts. Any excess power is dissipated in the coils themselves. I have put a oscilloscope across it and there are spikes of about 20 volts superimposed on the switching instants. You will find that any good automotive plugin device should not be bothered by this. I am aware that other small engines use single phase of the same concept, and similar regulators. Note that this is not a true switch mode regulator. Maybe it could be called a shunt regulator. If a true switch (series) mode regulator was employed, the potential generator coil voltage could spike much higher when the regulator pulses off. I would expect that the coils would have to be designed with better insulation to withstand this. Also there would have to be a spike suppression of some sort, but that is just an assumption. Pete PS don't use cigarette lighter sockets

Hey, where's the "CYNICAL" button? Turb, you have my sympathy. BTW, thanks for all those times when you do research for us. It's nice to be able to anchor a discussion with facts.

A big THANK YOU to those who are working at bringing us the transparency that we asked for. It ain't perfect, but we are on our way to better times.

So, if the POH has listed 'demonstrated' numbers which leave the choice up to skill level of the PIC, is it still possible to have a problem claiming on insurance if you break the aero at or below those numbers - If you come to grief then you have proven that you, the PIC are clearly 'Not yet Competent' to land under the prevailing conditions (regardless of what the xwind number is). Note that our pilots certificate is not a certification of competence to land in a crosswind of 'X' knots in 'Y' aircraft type. Is it possible that the insurer could deny payout due to the claimant not being competent? Pete

Attitude indicator? Wow, what will they think of next? What sizes do they come in? I want one of those for my wife.

Congratulations Ross. I am not in your area but I support you and wish you well anyway. Pete

Aah, Beeswax! The world's best moisture proofing !

Sometimes it is better to have management where knowledge exceeds ego....

Kaz, So well said. You got me salivating. I need a fix. Right now. Pete

Dafydd, My interpretation of that is that we are not required to carry markings under the wings at all. And we are only required to carry 150mm+ markings on the side ? Or did I miss something there? If that is so, then it follows that there is little need to send in a photo of the wing, with the next registration renewal? Pete

Yup. She did !

And they are hoping that next week's spot landing competition is as much fun as the last one

Back in the early 70's I "almost bought" a new '42 WLA Harley from a chap who was assembling them from crates of parts that he had bought at auction. Then I thought to myself "Who, in their right mind, would spend that money on a dangerous, poorly braked, non-suspensioned, gutless heavy bike?" Instead, I went out and spent my $450 on a quick Japanese bike which had suspension AND brakes. Hindsight: " Who, in their right mind, would pass up the opportunity to spend $450 on an investment that would grow to maybe $30,000 now?"

Maybe you just needed to discharge the hairs on your leg !

As Andy said, now that we have drawn attention to ourselves, we have to show that we can jump through simple hoops before they ( the regulator, who rule us) will let us have any extra rope. Maybe after RAAus show they (we) can follow the rules, then we might be in a position to bargain or lobby them for our freedoms. To continue with someone else's analogy, if I repeatedly get caught breaking the road rules, I lose the privilege to drive. What's the difference? Pete

So, Bluey, was the flash at the instant of putting the nozzle into the fuel tank opening? Or was it after the fuel started flowing?

Just to add to this very valid discussion... I have heard of two instances of fuel ignitiion whilst refuelling - as retold by witnesses. These were whilst refilling boat tanks but that really doesn't matter. The common factors were: 1. low humidity. 2. both persons were wearing their spray jackets. In each case the ignition happened during the fuelling, not at the moment of putting nozzle to tank. At the time the blame was put on the static from synthetic spray jackets. This suggests that ignition was caused by something that occurred after the nozzle contacted the tank. So the usual suspects were already at the same potential. It is all very well to provide a leakage path between airframe - ground - jerrycan - body. But it is equally important to avoid creating static on your insulating garments. I like the idea of wiping a plastic tank with a damp rag, while your other hand is in contact with the airframe. Bluey, were you wearing a synthetic jacket?

Way back when we worked with electronic components, we used to go to great lengths to prevent static discharge from destroying integrated circuits. Simply walking across the room was enough to create thousands of volts of static. Ideally one should bond all mobile metal parts to a common potential. Planet - Airframe - funnel - jerrycan and spout, prior to opening any caps. Note that although your Mr Funnel is plastic, I believe that it is carbon impregnated to make it mildly conductive. So your crocodile clip (we don't have alligators in Australia) should successfully 'earth' it. What worries me though, is whether those ever popular plastic jerry cans are conductive. Almost certainly the yellow plastic nozzle won't be conductive, and this could bring about the static spark problem. Now I'll have to get the multimeter out and go looking for some facts. A resistance of some megohms is enough to discharge static.

Wow, it's nice to see some open communication (even though it was not from our board). I liked my email about the insurance. It answered some questions that were lurking in the back of my mind. Pete

Briefly, RAAus have achieved: "An affordable safe way to fly for recreation" Now, haven't I seen that statement somewhere else? Also, the RAAus standards of training have improved greatly over the years. Pete

Specifically, I did say: "ability to operate successfully within the framework of the organisation," In my opinion, that covers what you are saying.... If the tech manager is unable to operate successfully within the framework of the organisation, that definitely includes the possibility of him being (for instance) hamstrung by the board. I am just pointing out that there are multiple factors that must be allowed for when selecting a man (or woman) for the job. Did you consider the possibility that maybe I was hinting that the board could benefit from making changes to the framework in order to keep staff? From what I have heard, there are changes happening to the framework surrounding recruitment. So I am confident that things are improving. Positive that RAAus is working to overcome the problem Pete

Turbs, With all due respect I was not in any way denigrating anybody. I did, in fact say as much in my post. I was suggesting that there has historically been a mismatch between our needs (regarding the role fulfilled by the tech Manager) and the combination of technical skills, knowledge, ability to operate successfully within the framework of the organisation, etc... presented by each successive person who has been a tech manager. Otherwise, there would not be a turnover of staff in this job. We have had (unfortunately) many good people put a lot of effort into the job. But we still can't keep a tech manager for very long, can we? Why is that? How do we overcome the problem? Pete

My biggest concerns about the "New Tech Manager Search" are: 1. Is anything being done within RAAus to target qualified and suitable persons for such positions? (to avoid a repeat of the high turnover problem) 2. Is anybody writing up a comprehensive list of KPI's for the position? (to ensure they know what is expected of them, and for us to know if they are performing as required) 3. Is there a proper job description, with a detailed list of duties / accountabilities? (so they know what is expected of them) The above are essential for an incoming person to be able to do the job, for RAAus to be able to see that they are doing the job (these days everything must be measurable), for overload of work to be identified in order to provide support when needed, and in the event of any shortfall of performance, for some control and if need be, a clean termination of services if necessary. Please note I am looking forward, not backwards. I am not suggesting anything about any particular person in our past, but unless all job details are laid out clearly at the recruiting time, sooner or later there will be problems. Anyway, I recently raised these concerns with a local rep, and I am happy to say that I am now reassured that the above steps are under way. That is a big step in the right direction. Pete

I retract my comment about why we lost our Techman. In the absence of direct information, I was alluding to a previous post by someone else. Suffice to say "We lost our Techman." No offence was intended to anybody. Particularly Wayne. I appreciate the sincere effort that he put in to a very difficult and complex job. Apart from that, nobody seemed to agree or disagree with the rest of my post?

Profound. Very profound.