Jaba-who

Guess it depends on if you can make fixed changes to the aircraft or not. If you can there are a number of automotive "organisers" that can be either used as is or modified and hard-attached. I got some from autobarn or supacheap which I've attached to the inside of the doors in the jab 430. I must admit haven't seen the same model lately but I'd guess similar ones will do the same job. They are a couple of layers of pockets with some mesh and some fabric. Have worked well for 10 years.

We have been talking about O2/lambda sensors installed in the common exhaust pipe - a single one and further went on to mention attaching it to an oscilloscope to detect the pulses from individual cylinders (have been not talking at all about cht or egt).

I wonder what help it would be in an air cooler aviation engine though. Particularly jab engines change dramatically in flight. What's happening in cruise changes in climb and at changes of airspeed and oat. Needing an oscilloscope etcmakes me think it's a workshop only monitor so limits its use.

As jetjr says not much use in a jabiru. The major problem in Jabiru's ( and probably other engines too but we tend not to be monitoring all cylinders on a lot of certified engines) is that the individual cylinders can have quite a wide range of fuel mix but it's all mixed together on the output side in the exhaust. So unless you had size or four of them each close to the cylinders all you get is averaged out data. Which begs the question - in the auto field where this is apparently popular - how are they accounting for this phenomenon. Or are they not? Are they just kidding themselves? If they have injectors I suppose you can hope the fuel mix will be the same in each cylinder but if it wasnt - say a (partially or fully) blocked jet to a cylinder you'd be back to guesswork and assuming lots.

You've obviously never seen these kids wandering around stoned out of their heads. They hang a cut-off soft drink or beer can on a string and hang it under their chin. They put a hundred ml or so of whatever fuel they have in it and breathe it in. I can attest from medical experience in managing these guys in the acute intoxication phase that they are off their faces, unco-ordinate, slurred speech, often laughing and smiling and when they can, they report euphoria. Put them on an ecg monitor they are often racing heart rate with abnormal electrical patterns. When you see them you really are left in no doubt they are high. The obvious reality is that if they didn't get a positive high effect they wouldn't take it. They'd be using something else. The only plus we used to cynically laugh about was we preferred them high on petrol than when they were drunk. Far less violent.

I think you must be confusing avgas with something else. Its extremely volatile and has a large number of low molecular size components that are quite neuro-active when inhaled. They do have a significant high-inducing effect. The volatile nature can be seen when you spill some avgas on the ground - it evaporates really fast. Spill some opal on the side of your shoes and while its not strong it is noticeable for days. Drop it on the ground and its there till you drive away and probably lots longer. One of the things I really hate about mogas is that if you get it on yourself it stinks for hours but spill same amount of avgas on yourself and its gone in seconds or minutes. The shell documents available on their webshow show the constituents of Avgas 100LL as : Contains: Chemical name Identification number Concentration [%] toluene 108-88-3, 203-625-9 5 - 25 Xylene, mixed isomers 1330-20-7, 215-535-7 5 - 25 cyclohexane 110-82-7, 203-806-2 1 - 5 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4, 202-849-4 1 - 5 n-Hexane 110-54-3, 203-777-6 0 - 5 Trimethylbenzene, all isomers 25551-13-7, 247-099-9 0 - 5 cumene 98-82-8, 202-704-5 0 - 0.5 Naphthalene 91-20-3, 202-049-5 0 - 0.5 On the other hand lead poisoning is not high-producing at all. Most people have no idea they have it - when at lower levels (need subtle testing to pick it) or have debilitating not euphoric effects when its severe.

Reds post seems to indicate he is not only a "proper" pilot but also endorsed on Fokkers and is going to cross over to be endorsed on 737s. This seems to indicate he is quite entitled to be there and as capable as any other co-pilot. Have I read this correctly?

Yep. But he has a low value aircraft so if it's dinged or lost it's not the end of the world. He no longer flies to events where CASA guys are likely to be. So that's been a big loss to him cos he used to like going to airshows Etc. Otherwise he just carries on.

Not all; in fact from the stories we hear - very few people echo your experience. In my neck of the woods is a guy who never had a heart attack, but had some coronary narrowing, had stents and now is symptom-free and while nearing retirement still works hard daily strenuous work ( far more than I could do and I have no issues with my medical). Every day is a coronary stress test for him and he passes it every day. On his ecg has a normal variant change. Despite multiple letters from multiple cardiologists casa has continued to refuse to give his medical back because their rules state "no ecg changes" and doesn't even allow for a normal variation. With him they have been totally unhelpful, sent him for multiple costly tests and specialist consultations and then ignored the results of those tests and consultations. And what has been the result ? He now ignores them and flies anyway. No medical - no worries. Been flying for a number of years with no medical. Makes me wonder how many people there are doing the same around the country. Well done CASA that was a success!

It's highly likely it could but we'd have to see a circuit diagram of both the current aircraft light and the new one. Reading between the lines it sounds like the new light has its own battery - which needs charging intermittently. You could probably rewire it with a seperate switch that allows it to recharge off your aircraft circuitry when it's not being used. But need to see the circuit diagrams.

Neil, From your statement suggesting that no beacon ( of whatever type the aircraft may or may not have had)- that no beacon signal equals none on board - perhaps you are not aware of why it is legal to carry a personal manual triggering beacon and not a requirement to have a fixed, auto triggering beacon in all aircraft. Several years ago CASA commenced a rule change requiring that fixed beacons be mandatory on all aircraft. However in the responses from the recreational and private arenas particularly it was pointed out that the data clearly showed that fixed beacons triggered and remained signalling in only just under 50% of the times an aircraft fitted with them crashed. ( the figure of 47% is rattling round my head but I can't be sure that I am recalling exactly correctly) The figures showed the failures involved a significant number where the equipment simply did not trigger. But the clincher was that a big percentage of failures was that it did trigger but then was rendered inoperative due to fire, immersion in deep water or other events which would have been averted had the pilot had the ability to remove the beacon with him/her when they exited the aircraft after the crash. Because of that fact it was concluded that some aircraft were required only to have a beacon of whatever type the pilot chose to use. So just because there was no signal does not in any way mean there was no beacon. And p.s. - can you please use punctuation? Honestly it makes it very hard to work out what you are saying and mean sometimes.

Saw a news report where they said that Elcho island had now a security guard with a dog and there had been no issues at all since then. sounds like problem solved ( albeit at great expense to us). That's of course ok at Elcho but was also a problem at Milingimbi and they named somewhere else I've forgotten.

While I agree that often you can't see the flashing lights until you see the rest of the aircraft I still work on the principle that you should have a bit of everything working for you.

I don't think an ASIC is needed even to fly in and out of most of them. No RPT, just charter flights for the commercial and government stuff and private flights for flying padre, occasional visitors and the like.

Opal ( the non-sniffable petrol available through most of NT) is not suitable for aviation engines. I can't recall the issue but I think it's multifactoral. Doesn't have enough octane rating, the stuff in it degrades seals, gaskets or other components. Can't recall exactly - I did know once when it first came in. Most of the small aircraft in charter category have Lycs and conty's and can't run on anything other than avgas. The aviation fleet using avgas is too small to sustain any major changes in engine types etc. it will gradually go the way of Europe where engines will be made to run on diesel or turbine fuel but in a place like Oz that will only happen with the gradual attrition of the current fleet not a wholesale legislated forced change to new engines. As I said this is a social problem and at present avgas is just one of the drug issues it faces. Ice is a far bigger problem affecting far more across a bigger age range and more communities than avgas. But so is marijuana and alcohol ( in some places - many communities are alcohol dry but replacement drugs are rife), narcotics and cocaine apparently aren't as big but still existent in some communities. I suspect this is a bit of slow news day stuff as it's being going on for more than 20 years or so. That's why OPAL was introduced and avgas has been stolen frequently for about as long. I recall someone got a star picket through the wing tank at Mataranka at least 10 years ago and probably more. Problem may have moved across the territory a bit to the north east.

Umm? You have to remember we are talking about arnhem land here. Not Archerfield. The fuel is not regulated - you can buy it from airport bowser, refueller or roadhouse ( with prior notice mostly). There are drums sitting in sheds and outstations. These kids steal it from the plane tank so it's often not acquired by the pilot from anywhere near where it's stolen so " regulation" is non existent. The aircraft are parked on the line, parked in a bare spot near the runway or sometimes pushed back under a tree on a dusty bare patch that could possibly be called an apron if you were being generous. The airstrips are sometimes " regulated" by having a fence around them to keep out the Roos but often nothing else at all. Some strips have a terminal and some facilities - some have a dirt track heading over from the nearest community. As for doing this to oneself. It's no different to doing any other drug. All have risks, all have some degree of illegality and all are done with no consideration of what it's doing to people's own health. It's not a regulator ( CASA) problem. It's a social issue of the communities and the individuals.

Jab engines seem to have a vast array of symptoms to carb icing. (Though they are not alone there either ) have friends who have described typical gradual loss of power, rough running after heat on, sudden missing without prodromal change. I have had only one where I suspect it happened. Same sort of scenario as BT described. Long descent at lower power ( although it wasn't at very low or idle. ) Descent was only a couple of thousand feet and was not a particularly cloudy day but was in the tropics (Cairns area ) so humidity was usual moderately high. Levelled out at about a thousand and back to normal power (2900 rpm) few minutes later a single miss in the engine then normal. I waited for a bit before applying carb and nothing happened so didn't bother. About ten minutes later another miss. Applied full carb heat but still nothing different. Another few minutes later a single miss then normal again. Ran on carb heat for about 20 minutes and then off. No change no further misses. Since then nothing abnormal. No real definitive proof but couldn't put it down to anything else.

Bex, The problem is your idea has been tried before ( ok in helicopters rather than autogyros) and not resulted in workable aircraft. So despite the seeming practicalness of it it doesn't seem to work. The nearest "big wing" area gyro I am aware of is the Cartercopter although it's a pusher type prop. But it seems to have gone quiet now for a few years. There are a number of negative interactions that happen between the wings and the rotors ( at least in helicopters - not sure about autogyros) and as best I recall the effect induces lots of bad effects when the wings are much more than stubs. The wings cause Interference with air flows off the rotors. Rotors can't maintain safe lift patterns at speeds above that at which receding blade stall starts so you have to include mechanisms to slow or stop the blades as the wings take over the lift as speed increases. Apparently that becomes increasingly complex - Sikorsky and others have spent billions trying to develop slow rotors or stopped rotors in various positions and seem to have given away the idea. Despite protestations about safety I did some reasearch a few years back and when you look at the stats of hours flown to crashes and deaths in crashes and gyros are actually bad compared to helicopters and disasterously bad compared to fixed wings. Lots of things contributing to this. Low hours, amateur pilots, limited experience are big contributors but the other is that flying in autorotation actually has very narrow limits to the safe envelope. All the margins are contracted and risk of straying outside them is high especially in some parts of the flight. Gyros were popular in 1930s because helicopters weren't invented ( essentially) then. Once they came along the benefits of the gyro disappeared.

Prior to ASICs coming in there were several "tag along" tour companies who took foreign pilots on safaris round Oz. They supplied the planes and did all organising. As far as I know they all closed down after the ASIC came in because it took so long to get them it was not viable.

Yep Wal, that's another problem that is of CASAs making - the actual content of the radio call - but that's probably worthy of another thread itself. Personally putting "location" then "traffic" is stupid to the n-th degree. Many pilots start to speak then after they start chop the mike button having cut off the actual location or part of it. And even if they do co-ordinate the button press the first another pilot hears is "crackle-muffle-something Traffic" and then by the time your attention is grabbed the important information ie the location is lost. And many people don't state the location again at the end. That bit would all be solved by reversing the order so it was "Traffic" ( grabs your attention and allows for the button press) then "location". The discussion here so far is that it has highlighted several sub-areas of the discussion but still doesn't address some others. But a major problem is the rule which which separates airfields according to their being published on a map. Problem is that many airfields appear on some maps and not others. So under the current rules you may not even be aware that some map somewhere shows an airfield and so redefines what frequency you should be on - whether it's a good idea or not. Then there's the principle about which frequencies are more sensible for particular airfields. Making a blanket rule has failed and can not be made to work. There are so many variables about airfields.

Very nice But they don't always have a happy ending. Have a look at this one.

Have to agree with most posters- highly variable as to when people are ready to solo. Also highly variable as to when schools send people solo. I've heard some horror stories of schools who send people solo before they can do any of the emergency procedures adequately. Just a single go or demonstration at the procedures and off the student goes. If a problem happens the student is flying hopeless. All in the name of being able to tell prospective students they can teach in minimum time to save money.

Getting back to the point and sticking to the details in the question ie: private pilot Company owned aircraft in a company with no AOC not conducting aerial work of any kind. Paid as an standard employee not as a pilot The basic answer is YES they can. How do I know. - I did it for about 6 years until a few years ago. Basically my company owned the R22, I am employed by my company as a sole employee doing medical work. I flew my aircraft around to various places to conduct work in the medical field. At times I flew another doctor as we were both working at the one place and mostLy I flew myself. I took myself and my briefcase and some hand instruments. I carried no stock, freight or other commercial items. I was not paid in any way for the flying. As far as the practicalities were concerned it was a means of transport. CASA were not interested when we checked it out, the tax office was a little more interested and I had to keep records of flights that were business related and what was Private related. The yearly costs were then proportioned and the company got a tax deduction for the percentage that was company related.

Ok - too many assumptions going on here. Ranger_10x, can you refine your statement a little. Is the aircraft a turbine or a piston engine? Or are you limited to only knowing it's prop driven? If it's piston - is it radial or in-line? How do you know? Visual or sound or both?

Original post says piston. "Piston/prop". Not sure if that means it's prop driven and he's sure it's a piston or that's he's sure a prop driven and assuming piston but could be turboprop. However I'm assuming that viewing an aircraft at 10 - 20 k feet from the ground "prop" could mean either piston or turboprop though. May be difficult to tell it's either type except it's a prop driven. If it was a radial you could be pretty sure but a thin nacelle could house an inline.