sain

I've been daydreaming a bit today about places I'd quite like to fly over and see one day. One of those things is the Marree Man Geoglyph (image from stolspeed aerodynamics site: http://www.stolspeed.com/coober-pedy-trip ). I was wondering if anybody knows or has flown over any other interesting geoglyphs? I believe there are a few in WA, but I have not been able to locate any pictures.

I really like using a GPS, for the convenience and ease of it. I do use the map and compass as well, and check off on landmarks/waypoints as I pass them. The reason I use both is for those occassions when the GPS goes a little haywire, or has a broken power connector or dead battery. I've had all of those happen to me in flight, and its something that doesn't bother you in the slightest if you've got the map already out and your current location, heading and (updated) estimated arrival time marked.

The suggested mod is far from impossible, but as it would essentially involve redoing the aircraft design and engineering from scratch to ensure that the result is a safe and flyable aircraft the question needs to be asked: is it worth your time and effort? Given that you've stated you want sun protection and easier access my personal choise would be that its not worth the effort.

check out a decent faq on aircraft radio noise and inteference and work out a checklist of things to try before you head up next time. It'd be really helpful to have somebody else up there with a radio so you can diagnose the problem. A second headset would be useful too. This guide would be a pretty decent starting point: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Mods%20and%20Repairs/TL%203.14%20Radio%20Interference.pdf. Some of the others here with more knowledge than me may be able to help you work up a checklist of things to test so you can figure out whats happening.

Hi Deon, have you checked out the BUG (basic ultralight glider), GOAT (no idea) and PIG (primary instruction glider) gliders over here: http://m-sandlin.info/ They are all extremely basic and often foot launched.

Thanks David and djpacro... FT I can't see RAA not yanking the privileges from a tech if they felt the need. Didn't they even shut down a flying school up in QLD? anybody who remebers/knows details care to comment?

Thanks David and djpacro... FT I can't see RAA not yanking the privileges from a tech if they felt the need. Didn't they even shut down a flying school up in QLD? anybody who remebers/knows details care to comment?

FT i'm aware of a number of pilots being asked to explain their actions to RAA in the past. I believe some have been required to undergo retraining prior to flying again, others have had their pilot's certificates revoked. I think there were even some comments in the RAA mag back in 2007 or so by the Ops Manager about him disliking doing it and would we all please behave. RAA does take action, but due process and ensuring procedural fairness takes time. Put yourself in the pilot's shoes - would you prefer to be delt with fairly and impartially, or would you prefer to be delt with by the mob?

FT i'm aware of a number of pilots being asked to explain their actions to RAA in the past. I believe some have been required to undergo retraining prior to flying again, others have had their pilot's certificates revoked. I think there were even some comments in the RAA mag back in 2007 or so by the Ops Manager about him disliking doing it and would we all please behave. RAA does take action, but due process and ensuring procedural fairness takes time. Put yourself in the pilot's shoes - would you prefer to be delt with fairly and impartially, or would you prefer to be delt with by the mob?

I'm quite supportive of giving people the ability to report things anonymously. As FT has just experienced, a person standing up and saying "hey, something is wrong" will typically lead to that person being ostracised. The downside to it is that you get an increase in the number of complaints that will require investigation to determine if they are credible (i.e initial "is the complainant B.Sing?"), then investigation to determine if the complaint is accurate and actionable. That requires more cost and skilled staff, which I suspect RAA doesn't have. I may be doing them a disservice there. I think amongst the aviation community that the Ferris Wheel incident has done us a lot of damage. I'm gobsmacked that the existing processes didn't catch the issues, but I think what RAA can do about it is fairly limited. After all, the existing processes should have picked up the issue surely? Perhaps some of the more experienced people hear can enlighten me - would it be normal to take the inspect plates off the wings and empennage and to examine the internal structure for flaws? Would this normally happen during a 100 hourly? I think amongst the non-flying community that know about the Ferris wheel incident the impression is that those ultralights are built tough. Certainly my mum is happier about me flying after having seen the pictures and learn't that the pilot and passenger walked away . I have been told to keep a good watch out for low flying carnival equipment however. Another thing that has me curious is that neither CASA or RAA have issued an AD for aircraft built at that factory requiring a visual inspection of the riveted structures prior to the next flight. I suspect thats either because they consider all relevant aircraft grounded anyway, or that the problems from the prelimanary report are isolated to a single aircraft. or they are still making up their minds about what to do. That has me thinking that the best thing to do is await the outcome of the CASA and RAA inspections and the RAA audit, see what action RAA takes then, and do something about it then if I don't like it. That'll be either suggest something to my state's board member, run for the board myself, or vote with my feet.... or sit round in puzzled confusion. In the meantime, I intend to go and fly!

I'm quite supportive of giving people the ability to report things anonymously. As FT has just experienced, a person standing up and saying "hey, something is wrong" will typically lead to that person being ostracised. The downside to it is that you get an increase in the number of complaints that will require investigation to determine if they are credible (i.e initial "is the complainant B.Sing?"), then investigation to determine if the complaint is accurate and actionable. That requires more cost and skilled staff, which I suspect RAA doesn't have. I may be doing them a disservice there. I think amongst the aviation community that the Ferris Wheel incident has done us a lot of damage. I'm gobsmacked that the existing processes didn't catch the issues, but I think what RAA can do about it is fairly limited. After all, the existing processes should have picked up the issue surely? Perhaps some of the more experienced people hear can enlighten me - would it be normal to take the inspect plates off the wings and empennage and to examine the internal structure for flaws? Would this normally happen during a 100 hourly? I think amongst the non-flying community that know about the Ferris wheel incident the impression is that those ultralights are built tough. Certainly my mum is happier about me flying after having seen the pictures and learn't that the pilot and passenger walked away . I have been told to keep a good watch out for low flying carnival equipment however. Another thing that has me curious is that neither CASA or RAA have issued an AD for aircraft built at that factory requiring a visual inspection of the riveted structures prior to the next flight. I suspect thats either because they consider all relevant aircraft grounded anyway, or that the problems from the prelimanary report are isolated to a single aircraft. or they are still making up their minds about what to do. That has me thinking that the best thing to do is await the outcome of the CASA and RAA inspections and the RAA audit, see what action RAA takes then, and do something about it then if I don't like it. That'll be either suggest something to my state's board member, run for the board myself, or vote with my feet.... or sit round in puzzled confusion. In the meantime, I intend to go and fly!

I've been staying out of the feris wheel incident posts for the most part (until today), but: As an organisation we need to be, and be seen to be open, transparant and accountable. If questionable practices are identified then they need to be rectified. Only if this is done can we continue to survive. There were a number of construction/manufacturing issues identified with the aircraft involved in the Feris wheel incident. Apparantly this was a factory built aircraft, so this shouldn't have happened in the first place. This aircraft was apparantly being used to conduct flying training, and so should have been subject to regular inspections and, more importantly regular maintenance. This maintenance should have identified the issues with the control column and the rib attachment/construction. Finally, if this was also the aircraft that was used to achieve type certification then we need to know why RAA hadn't identified the issues themselves prior to allowing the aircraft type to be used for training. Thats the worst of the 3 failures, in my opinion, and I think it'll be the one that does us the most damage. This needs to be investigated and the results acted upon, not with a view to allocating blame or shutting down a manufacturer, but with a view to establishing processes to ensure it never happens again. A mistake has been made. Lets not make the mistake of not fixing what caused the damn thing in the first place.

I've been staying out of the feris wheel incident posts for the most part (until today), but: As an organisation we need to be, and be seen to be open, transparant and accountable. If questionable practices are identified then they need to be rectified. Only if this is done can we continue to survive. There were a number of construction/manufacturing issues identified with the aircraft involved in the Feris wheel incident. Apparantly this was a factory built aircraft, so this shouldn't have happened in the first place. This aircraft was apparantly being used to conduct flying training, and so should have been subject to regular inspections and, more importantly regular maintenance. This maintenance should have identified the issues with the control column and the rib attachment/construction. Finally, if this was also the aircraft that was used to achieve type certification then we need to know why RAA hadn't identified the issues themselves prior to allowing the aircraft type to be used for training. Thats the worst of the 3 failures, in my opinion, and I think it'll be the one that does us the most damage. This needs to be investigated and the results acted upon, not with a view to allocating blame or shutting down a manufacturer, but with a view to establishing processes to ensure it never happens again. A mistake has been made. Lets not make the mistake of not fixing what caused the damn thing in the first place.

Read the ferris wheel incident thread, and have a look at the preliminary report. From the prelimary report it appears there were a number of manufacturing defects with an aircraft that was supposed to have been factory built, which you would not expect to see in a factory built aircraft. In those circumstances I'd imagine that CASA and RAA would pull the type certification for the aircraft (particularly its ability to be used in a flying school) until such time as the extent of the problem can be determined and the aircraft's suitability for the role can be assessed. I also imagine that it would be economically painful for the aircraft manufacturer not to be able to sell an aircraft for use in its designed for role.

mine was earlier than usual too: it arrived before the November issue! avius's column a waste of space as usual (no suprise).

Oh.. that explains it. It does look a lot more like the usa-27 airfoil. There is some data available here: http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html and there are .dxf files of the raf-15 profile here: http://isoar.ca/~andrewm/rc/airfoils/200.html if your still looking for it.

Hi OME, Looks like a nice job on the CNC cut. Is it still a RAF 15 profile your using? It looks just a little bit different to my eyes, although it is hard to compare. I was trying to compare it to the one from the UIUC Airfoil data site: I'm also curious if your doing your test wing section full scale, or if you've shrunk things down a bit. Any chance you could enlighten me?

There is a design forum already. only the one post in it at present.

OME have you considered vacuum forming the aluminium flashing to shape? I'm assuming this stuff is just thin aluminium sheet? you could use a similair method to the one a lot of sonex builders do to form their leading edge skins. Essentially the method is you put a thin perforated pipe down the middle of your aluminium sheet, which you then bend up and tape the edges together. Then you wrap it in drop plastic sheets (forming an air seal around the ends of the pipe, and the ends of the sheet). Connect the pipe to your vacuum cleaner, and then switch it on. The vacuum will pull the aluminium sheet together around the pipe, forming a nice bend shape for your leading edge. After a couple of minutes you switch off and the sheet will hold its shape pretty well. There is a nice video of a couple of guys forming the leading edge for a whole wing that way somewhere on the net. Oh look, found the videos: http://sonexproject.com/Builder Resources.html The vids are kind of big, but are worth a look. *edit* okay, I really should have read your pdf's in your other post on fairings before I posted, vacuum forming is probably way overkill. my bad.

Hi OME, This method might be simpler and lighter: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/light-stuff-area/4669-lexan-strut-fairings.html

Any chance of an android version down the track?

my bad... i remebered seeing an article somewhere where metal bits (possible rib and wing skin) were being rivetted. obviously a different plane. stupid memory.

Hi Ian, I was saddened to hear you'll be stepping away from the great forum you've created here. Some of the things that have come out of it over the last few years have been simply fantastic, and they wouldn't have happened without you. All the best

I went back and had a look at july's ra-aus (still waiting on octobers) the other day and had a read of avius's column in that. It was an article on what to do on a student's first solo.... wow. really really useful stuff in there, like making sure a storm isn't about to arrive, or to tell the student to only do one circuit and then do a full stop. I'm sure all ra-aus instructors will be greatful to receive those useful tips that never ever would have occured to them on their own. I'd really like avius to move away from trying to teach the instructors to suck eggs, and change over to providing advice to the students and pilot certificate holders on things that arn't well covered by the standard study material, and that arn't that common, but are useful to know. After all, the vast majority of the magazine's readers won't be the instructors and its not like he/she is providing anything useful to that audience anyway.

you've gained slightly over 4 litres of avgas. Avgas weighs 0.72kg / litre. So your formula for finding out how much avgas you've gained is: litres of avgas gained = weight loss in kg / 0.72 another way to think about it is in how many minutes of flight you just gained, which might make you feel pretty good too. the formula for that is time gained (in minutes) = ((weight loss in kg/0.72) / fuel consumption in litres/hour) * 60 so assuming an approximate 10 litres/hour = ((3/0.72) / 10) * 60 = 25 minutes additional flight time Which I think you'll agree is a damn good start, unless my maths is bad. Congratulations on the 4.17 litres of avgas and have a wonderful flight on the weekend. *edit* bugger, the j170 consumes about 15 litres/hour, so you've only gained 16 minutes extra flight time. thats still a bloody good start though.