Jaba-who

This seems to be a common perception of the proponents of RAAus CTA access etc. seems to be a feeling that the additionals should be granted without the additional training, cost or without expectation that CASA will say that all the other things that GA require to fly in CTA ( medicals, equipment in aircraft etc) will be ignored for an aircraft with 24 or 19 xxx on the side. If anything CASA will go the opposite direction. To get it you will either have to straight out up-grade to RPL or PPl ( personally I suspect that's what CASA will say eventually) or at a minimum upgrade your medical, upgrade your aircraft equipment and probably have some log book endorsing like 3 flights into CTA every 90 days (or something like that) to retain validity. Given the number of problems that RAAus pilots have now ( roughly 1 fatal a month for the last few years), the high accident rate, the frequently cited less than ideal radio skills and usage etc and the low hours ( thus low rate of keeping up ofCTA skills and procedures ) I suspect that CASA are not going to go for this at all let alone with any standards less than GA. Could be wrong but given their intransigence on everything else I can't see them being different for this.

I saw this guy doing this act in Oshkosh and he lost progressively more and more bits. Unfortunately I can't remember which bits but it was quite a lot.

jabiru did a great job with the design. No particular consideration in the build needed to be made for the rear weight. Though total weight in the back depends on weight in front seats. basic rule of thumb is if what's in front is heavier then what's in back it will be within the envelope. obviously if you have people in the back you need to run the W & B chart. but only time I found an issue was with four full sized adults which I have rarely needed to carry.

You may be right but I have not seen anywhere that CASA does. CASA also state figures ( at least not in CASA IA 15/16 - they refer to the majority of the construction. I'm not sure if it makes a difference. I bet a legal eagle could find some way they are not the same. CASA makes a point of not using FAA stuff to maintain the impression that they make their own rules. However they do expect us to use some of the same stuff. Eg we are required to use techniques for maintenance as described in AC 43.13 which is the same document that the FAA refers to for US maintenance guidance, so it's not absolute that CASA disregard all FAA stuff.

I think the studies looking at safety have shown Australia is much less safe than the USA, (I forget the quoted amount but it is significant) and we have a much smaller fleet and greater open and unoccupied airspace.

I don't think I'll I'll ever get into a tilting canopy aircraft again. A member of our saaa chapter flipped his RV a few months back. While it was on its back he was unable to be extracted for about an hour. While in that position became increasing medically unstable on final extraction had cardiac arrest, because of the extreme urgency at that point was expedited to a position for resuscitation and destabilised an otherwise probably stable spinal injury. Now paraplegic ( well was last time I heard ). Needed prolonged ICU - all the really bad stuff would/couldhave been avoided if the lid could have been opened and extracted sooner. Side doors or at sliding lid would have made a huge difference to his extraction time and handling.

Includes another bizarre reporter statement "the glider-like aircraft". It clearly has an engine and a prop and fuel tank visible so I guess it's not a glider so it's not a glider-like aircraft.

Your initial statement is/was once absolutely true. The only original inhabitants in the world that have ever been truly original were the earliest hominoids in Africa - as far as we can tell australopithicus aferensis. From there every hominoid-group who colonised anywhere else in the world did so by expanding out to some other place thus being denied the label of native ( to the purists). Every place was at some time taken over by some other more capable species, then once we became Homo sapiens, by the stronger race. No matter where you call your original cultural home - by your implication, you too aren't a native of it but (the offspring of) an invader. Your second part is neglecting the fact that in last 200 or so years humans have advanced past the notion of that anyone can invade another country. Generally people now don't invade other countries to settle in them. But if they try to, this is stopped now by diplomatic or martial means ( although admittedly sometimes the world looks on and wrings its hands in impotent dismay).

They are still trying to fix up the disastrous results of the conversion to Part 61 from last year. But CASA doesn't learn. They will not adopt FAA rules. They consistently feel that "our situation is different" and feel they have to start everything from scratch to suit Oz requirements. A fine sentiment if you get it right. But so far they have neither got it right, nor get it done on time, nor have been able to fix it when they get it wrong.

Mmm this is the vexed question which we ask ourselves and don't dare ask CASA. the old rule of "its better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission" . The exact wording from CASA IA 15/16 ( the instrument that gives experimental builders the right to maintain their aircraft) says " fabricated and assembled". there has been much debate as to whether taking an engine out of a box and dropping into the frame and connecting up the control cables and sensor probes constitutes "fabricating and assembling". there are multiple other paragraphs that discuss levels of training and skills required and these may or may not be covered when building an aircraft. to be clear of the most restrictive rules you need to satisfy the Authorised Person that you built more than 50% and that construction of the engine is not part of the 100% otherwise none of us would reach 50%. you have to remember that there is quite a lot of an annual inspection that is allowed to be done by a pilot even in a certified aircraft under schedule 8. changing oil, filters, inspecting airframe etc. there are obviously some bits that aren't, and some that appear to be open to interpretation. of course the individual bits still need to be signed out at the end. these are not always signed out by the person who did the actual work. so at present we all do it, but a very officious CASA person could, if the desire were there, interpret some of that instrument in a very different and restrictive way.

you are thinking about ABA aircraft. Experimrntal class initially was quite liberal with building and further maintenance. ( in 2007 when i started mine there was no requirement for any of the approvals or test pieces you mention. ( and never had for experimental class ) since then there have been requirements additional stuff added. there was a requirement confirmed for a part 135 maintenance certification on the place where you were building to jack all wheels off the ground at the same time. there is now a limitation requiring the builder to have a maintenance procedures course to do the final inspection prior to c of a being given and ongoing maintenance and now you can only do ongoing work in those parts which you actually built ( no matter what percentage you built) and now you must have a Weight and balance qualification to do a w & b on your aircraft. the Saaa has on multiple occasions had proposals within its ranks and at various levels within the national council to embark on becoming the controlling entity for ( discussions and proposal levels only) everything from just experimental class to raa and VH experimental to private and light Ga. just as RAAUS has done. ( I am a chapter president and technical councilor and have personally been involved in discussions with members and hierarchy but these proposals have not really gone anywhere. in significant part due to the constant difficulties and walls put up by CASA.

Convert it to VH registration. You then get immediate upgrade to 700 kg. It has been murmured that if you approach Jabiru they will up grade to 760 kg - if you buy one in South Africa it comes out of the box with 760 kg limit. But I must admit I have never bothered asking them.

There were never any restrictions about flying in CTA in a Jabiru. There were restrictions about flying over built up areas but that was only limiting where you might be over wall to wall houses etc. I flew in and out of Cairns controlled airspace and into Cairns international airport all through the restriction period. Most of the CTA is over open space, bush or ocean and is often not even an issue to think about entry and exit over non-populated ares. You cannot excercise any ppl privileges in an RAAUs registered aircraft ( factory made or otherwise). You must have an RAAus pilot certificate as well.

If CASA send out an AD its absolute it must be complied with. Manufacturers often send ou Service Bulletins and if in the wording of the bulletin is says the action is compulsory then it carries the same legal weight as an AD. If CASA also send out an AD and it covers the type of aircraft or engine then that AD applies to all aircraft no matter what category they are registered in. The stainless steel control cable AD as already mentioned is a good example. It just happens that CASA don't often do that but rely on the Service Bulletin sent out by the manufacturer. But they have done some in the past ( some concerning Jabiru that I recall)

I think this is a very naive view point. CASA has shown no inclination to anything other than retain control over everything. They retain control (and empire build which is the main goal of all beuracrats). CASA are laying all the foundations to take over recreational flying (and to set up an empire and command more money from the government. They never had control over the ultra-light fraternity but are gradually increasing the allowable complexity of who and what flies and at some point will say - "You are guys are flying complex modern aircraft of the same nature (speed, size, weight and capability) as GA so where you once were able to claim that separate simple types, flying under 5000 ft, outside of everyone else's sphere of influence once meant you could "fly under the radar, , now you are mixing with the rest of the aviation - so you will be under our control". They have made the SAAA rules and restrictions more and more difficult - and have done exactly as you suggest - turn the SAAA into a big brother clone. The same is likely to go on with RAAus - you can do more, but you have to control yourselves ---(using our rules and by turning your own leaders in to CASA deloegates who will work for CASA not the members). The guise of self control is actually to give you the same restrictions but make you do it to yourselves and its much harder for members to complain against themselves. Its the old story of "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!" CASA has not budged an inch on - SAAA taking the reins of GA registered experimental private operations. Not an inch on AOPA getting more control of GA, steadfastly dug its heels in on medical changes for the Class 2 medical. They (I suspect on purpose ) changed the name of the Restricted Private Pilot licence to the GFPT to confuse people and then to completely confuse everyone changed it to the Recreational Pilots Licence ( which has confused everyone as to what is Recreational Certificate and Recreational licence.) Confuse everyone and they stay divided and remain under control. They further muddied everything by introducing the GP certified (Drivers Licence equivalent) medical to which you allude but which you have also got confused with the RPL - which is a pilot licence and which can be flown with any class of medical (1, 2 or Drivers licence type.) (And a PPL can ALSO be flown with ANY type of medical - Drivers Licence type, Class 2 or Class 1. ) Although there are internal restrictions such as numbers of passengers etc That's how confusing they made it. Even pilots have no idea what the different types are.

That's the problem - none of the mandated stuff will be cheap home-made stuff. There will be a requirement for the certified device and it won't be just ads-b in it will be out as well.

Yep. Landing beaches is passé up here. (Qld) Done with care etc but is common when you have lots of beaches with no one on them and no access apart from by air.

I'm not familiar with rotax so might be talking out line but I am pretty familiar with fuel flow sensor systems. Something that can be an issue is that some brands of fuel flow sensor require physical positioning of the sensor so that the line leading in or out or both has a straight section for some defined length to reduce turbulence or pressure waves that will introduce inaccuracies. So that's something you'll need to consider. I suspect that the cheaper you go the more this may become a consideration.

Ah. Ok. I've managed to miss that mod. Done lots of work on 3300s for over 10 years and only a few 2200s of fairly recent (last 5 or so years) vintage.

What is a "flattened cobra head?" The standard cobra head for over 11 years (at least) is a circular cross section cylindrical short piece of fibreglass pipe (Just a bit over 40 mm diameter) bent in a shallow curve. It connects to a piece of 2 1/4 inch scat hose that goes to the airbox. Nothing "flat" in the pathway. You need something flexible in there because the carby is attached to the engine (notwithstanding its by a rubber flange) so will vibrate when the engines running while the mixer box stays static on the firewall. I have heard or read of people using a smoothed out inner surface scat hose to try to get rid of the roughened surface. Some say they have had success. Other had troubles. One that I only vaguely recall was a type of scat hose that was either manufactured with an inner smoothing lining or was custom modified - but the lining degraded with time or use and broke up or folded in on itself somehow. I have no idea how or why. The other issue was kinking but dont recall if that was in a jabiru setup or another model with a sharper bend from mixer box to intake of the carby. The idea sounds OK as long as: Will smoothness fix the spiral flow or will it make it worse?

I think that's a generalization that can't be supported by evidence. I've had plastic fuel line in the cabin for 11 years and never a single leak. Jabiru have had plastic in-cabin fuel lines since they started selling aircraft and there has not been a problem that I have heard of or has been mentioned anywhere in forums or by word of mouth among the many owners I converse with. They not only have never changed away from it in their aircraft , they don't even have a time life to change it out. (Unlike firewall forward which has a 2 year change out time.) They have gone from rubber hose to plastic hose on the other side of the firewall but has not changed anything on their maintenance for it.. So perhaps it was a dodgy single batch or something that you had. But I do agree that firewall forward hose should have fire sleeve on it.

Jabiru use three different fuel lines. The cabin ( firewall rearward) is clear plastic which doesn't seem to allow anything perfuse through it. There is no time life limit on it. The firewall forward hose comes as two types - old version is black rubber tubing and newer stuff is bright red plastic looking. Both of them have a two year replacement life. None of them seem to let any smell through although I have read somewhere that there is a slow constant proportional loss of fuel through the wall of the tubing. They are quick at sending stuff ( I ordered a new tacho on Monday and it arrived today)

Not sure if you guys ( Bruce and markdun) are aware of the role of the rotating vortex of air that goes through the scat hose and the carby throat and the effect it has on one side of engine running hotter or cooler than the other. My apologies if you have already considered it. Essentially the air flow goes through the carby and picks up fuel. If it is vortexing (usually in the direction such that it tends to load the cylinders usually on starboard side but I would be happy to accept you could get it swirling in the opposite direction ) it loads one side of the engine with rich air. The port side then gets lean air:fuel. The vortex is caused by normal flow dynamics in tubes especially if they are very bendy or have sharp lips or ridges in the pathway through the scat hose and hot air mixer box. So jabiru recommend a baffle in the intake of the throat to stop the vortex and straighten the flow. I did a heap of trials and found a crossed baffle worked best in mine. But just to complicate matters is the aerofoil shaped post in the induction chamber. That further effects the split and flow by the Coanda effect. Such that if you have a hot side ( after adding a baffle) tilting the carby ( and I forget if it's top to hot side or cool side - I did it ages ago and it made a big difference) but tilt the carby to one side will change it further. Then the next complication is that if you have a jet with big space around the needle you can get bigger fuel droplets in the air and the inertia tends to throw them further forward and give leaner air at the back. So that can affect front to back lean/rich difference. Lots to consider and to effect the egts.

As for no medical Do as many hours as you like. But you can't go solo. The benefit of doing the medical early is you know you have it/l pass it before you spend too much money and find out you will never pass it because you are colour-blind or have some disorder which precludes you ever getting it. As for ARN I think it's basically you can't do a medical unless you have one. So same issue.

The whole icon contract thingie has been strange from an Aussie point of view. But to play devils advocate for a little while. I have a number of friends and acquaintances from the USA and they are far less reluctant than most Aussies to talk about their incomes and how much they are worth. So while it's a bit weird to us to be asked that maybe it's not so much for the Americans.