Jump to content

seb7701

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    558

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by seb7701

    RAA L1 training assessment thing

    in Just Landed - Welcome

    Posted

    Yes, I have a different view. I reckon you could have completed the assessment in the time to took to provide 'considerable thought' to so many points of complaint.

     

    First up, yes, it is an assessment, so yes, a time limit is generally applied where I come from. Three hours is plenty of time I would think, even if you are a busy person providing an immediate response to matters requiring your attention! Remember of course that you have already had UNLIMITED time to peruse the study guide, so the exam is just the final step.

     

    Secondly, yes, as you have already mentioned, the purpose of this assessment IS for no other purpose than maintaining your own aircraft from what I understand. Many people are indicating that they shouldn't have to complete the assessment when they have been undertaking this maintenance for ever already. I can understand this frustration, however luckily, those that already have a vast knowledge of maintenance should find it an absolute snap to complete the assessment. Those that don't may just learn something - I'm sure I will!

     

    I'm afraid also that from where I stand, it is possible that some students may be taught to fly with very minimal attention to maintenance, so I see it as a valuable safeguard with very minimal tradeoff in the form of some time.

     

    If the website does the job, then how about you just do it? I'll bet if they spent extra $$ on a super flash website you'd be whinging about that too!

     

    It is impossible to please everyone, but if makes far more sense to try to ensure some form of minimal standard of knowledge than to assume a level of knowledge to avoid offending anyone. In this day and age, people lacking knowledge who later become involved in an incident are usually very quick to try and shift blame and complaint that they were never provided with sufficient knowledge to save them from themselves.

     

    As for the workbook vs assessment business - surely the word 'assessment' isn't too big and mean? I hope this isn't one of those times when people complain that the red pen on their school exams caused them issues, such that things should now be marked in green instead.....

     

    Incidentally, the last (QAS) first aid course I completed had a (gasp) written assessment, (undertaken in less than 3 hrs). I think the underlying idea was safety and thus saving lives, much the same way that aircraft maintenance knowledge is aimed at further preventing your aircraft from suffering in flight issues which may therefore........save your life??

     

    And yes, I'm sure others may have a different view to me also!

     

     

    X-Air Standard Performance?

    in Other Rec Aircraft

    Posted

    A few questions:Would you consider an X-Air with flaps (F model) if it came up second hand?

     

    How about the X-Air H?

     

    How do second-hand X-Airs compare to new? How much are X-Air Standards new?

    Sure, I would consider any of them, as they really do seem like good value and are at least still in production in terms of parts etc, which always griped me with my Drifter.

     

    I think I read a Dan Johnson report where the F model wasn't really worth it due to the shorter wing?

     

    I think the H model seems just terrific overall in terms of performance, accommodation etc. I am really curious though in the fact that the vast majority have Jab engines and cruise at a speed that is no more than most Jabs on climb out (at least the way I am told that they should be climbing out, namely 80kt) As such, I wonder whether they get enough cooling? That being said, I am aware that most around the world seem to have the Jab engines, despite a R912 being just perfect for them.

     

    The standard kit price is around $16500 and the H kit is around $25000 according to Michael COATES, so a kit still works out quite a bit dearer, as I would love to build my own.

     

    I can get engines cheap enough, but have to add around $1500 worth of instruments and $1300 ish for a prop (I believe?), as well as all other little items I have omitted. I think they are the only aircraft I would be game to attempt though.

     

     

    X-Air Standard Performance?

    in Other Rec Aircraft

    Posted

    Thanks gents - I appreciate some real world experience, as I did want to make sure that 50kt was assured. What sort of climb are we talking and what is the carry capacity? I saw one for sale at present with an empty weight of 244 and a MTOW of 544!!!! That's impressive, even if if climb is sacrificed a little. Michael COATES has indicated that a 3:1 gearbox ratio and decent prop is important for good performance also.

     

     

    • Agree 1

    X-Air Standard Performance?

    in Other Rec Aircraft

    Posted

    Hi All.

     

    Still plane shopping. Can anyone verify the 'real world' cruise and climb performance of a standard X-air with a 582 Rotax fitted? From what I can gather, they generally cruise at 50 knots?

     

    They do look like a fun machine. Interested if anyone knows of a neat one for sale in southern Qld....

     

     

    Wellcamp

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted

    There are two types of Australians:Those that sit and whinge that we are going down the drain and that everyone that actually does something is an idiot.

    And those that actually take chances, look to the future, and live life.

    To take a chance and 'make a lemonade stand' is one thing, but to tread on so many others and utilise backdoor methodologies to get there is surely cause for curiosity??

     

     

    Wellcamp

    in AUS/NZ General Discussion

    Posted

    From memory I was of the understanding that the Wagners used a loophole related to the council amalgamations (which occurred in around 2008 (?))which did indeed eliminate the requirement for public consultation. Either way, they seem to consistently have one priority in mind - themselves. Seems wrong that their self-serving little venture can be allowed to stuff up nearby properties which were no doubt (and rightly so..) bought without the assumption of an airport ever being constructed, as well as chopping into the airspace of a miltary base? Someone correct me, but I heard they encroached largely on Oakey airspace?

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...