Jaba-who

Interesting. But you can't be sure thats from in flight. Bit like spark plug colour. Its possible it does but it might also be related to what happens during the low speeds of landing and roll, taxi and getting back to the hangar etc.

Doesn't really mean much in terms of true poor operating. When a bad event happens CASA will always find something wrong - no matter how insignificant. Pulling an AOC is how CASA shows the world they in control of a situation. Even if what they cite is not an issue. CASA has been known to pull an AOC for the heinous crime of operating without a chief pilot which actually was: A local helo charter company chief pilot went on holidays and company couldn't or didn't get a replacement chief pilot ( but the original was still in town and was still contactable and said he would come in and do anything required) BUT the company didn't have a replacement on the books and they had paid the chief pilot holiday pay so as far as CASA was concerned he was not available. Therefore the company operated for two weeks without a chief pilot - AOC pulled.

This is partly probable but is not strictly correct. Unfortunately for us and the current argument is a very convoluted story with diabetes nowadays. for all intends and purposes type 1 (T1) and type 2 (T2) are completely different diseases whose common thread is the final denominator of high blood sugar with its concomitant side effects. The old rule that T1 was treated with insulin and T2 was treated with diet and tablets no longer holds true. Many many T2 are now treated with insulin ( usually as well as tablets) Both types can have coma and both types can have coma from either too low or too high a sugar level. The higher risk of coma is with patients on insulin - whether they are T1. Or T2 ( relative overdose causing low blood sugar) and this can happen rapidly from a reasonable normal feeling state. There is less risk in a T2 person just on tablets. Both types can have coma from from too high sugar levels but in both cases it is a slower onset and associated with being unwell for some time ( often days). Not commonly would a pilot going high feel well enough to go flying in the first place.

Read an AVweb article which says they were both listed as a joint display at the same time.

Your expirement has gone too far. Your oil temps are now too cold. Shell used to have a really good video discussion about aviation engine oil temps and jabiru have several times advised people to look at the video and ensure their temps reach Into the mid 90 degrees range. Engine oils collect a lot of contaminants and water and unless they get to these temps they don't evaporate out the water and volatile contaminants. This is the same reason you should not simply run your engine for a few minutes on the ground in times when you can't fly if. You need to run it at full temps for long enough to get rid of the water etc.

More and more servos up in my neck of the woods have signs saying " sorry but we do not accept xxx fuel cards" or similar. So I think that is a disappearing system as well. The only sensible way forward for everyone is convert them all over to normal credit and debit cards.

The trouble with these cards is they change so often. The cards themselves go in and out and the discount systems chop and change ( mostly stop, lately). I had an aerorefuelers SAAA card but I think all the discounts have now been removed from it. Don't even know if it is valid anywhere anymore. Shell cards are pretty much extinct now. Almost all ( if not all) of theirs accept standard credit and debit cards. Mobil still have some bowsers that run on their cards. I haven't used my BP card for years but it was an SAAA linked one and I think it's dead. I do lots of long tips and my SOP is to phone all the likely fuel places along the way and find out what their current set up is. Even the ERSA is often wrong about current state of the art.

Ozrunways, avplan (and a few of the other efbs like AirNavVFR) will download the ersa into the app. So you can always access it and have an up to date version on your iPad. If it can be downloaded into the app I can't see how it could be illegal. They would not allow the app writer to do it if they wanted it to be illegal. But as you said. It's a very old thread so I suspect it's irrelevant now.

This is an ongoing problem with the ATSB and subsequently CASA who use their data inappropriately and classify events in inappropriate ways to (suspiciously) develop a spurious argument to bolster their preconceived position ( very similar to the Jabiru debacle where they used fuel exhaustion, airspace incursions etc as incidents of engine failures). Makes you realise that you have to always read the actual studies not just the conclusions that are put forward. Or at least read other people's interpretations as well not just he authors opinion.

Dutch, Mike Borgelt is correct. Although I too don't have the studies available at present but I did read the statements by the EAA and American AOPA which summarised them and which used them as evidence when driving the American reform process and the results were undeniable and were the prime reason the US congress forced the FAA to adopt the essentially no medical position. The FAA did not dispute the studies beyond an initial and subsequently dismissed negative response. The congressional committee agreed with and believed the studies so I am prepared to accept they were adequately performed. Essentially there were several studies which showed: Medical incapacitation was extremely rare in all pilot groups. The rarity of the events makes it difficult to say anything about causes or preventions. Because of the rarity even single events cause mathematical skewing of results. But: When only medical incapacitation were considered - Almost all incapacitation were as a result of factors which would NEVER have changed by having a medical at some time prior to the event. Almost all were acute events that were completely unrelated to the pilot's general health such as food poisoning. As I recall the rest were related to things like respiratory tract infections and acute illnesses that were not present at the pilots medical and would never have been predictable. There was in my recollection a very very small number of cardiac events and as best I recall they were all in people who were commercial pilots and had actually passed their last medical. Again as best I recall - There were NO cardiac events in any of the medical incapacitations of any pilot who was NOT required to have a medical. BUT I have to stress that the numbers were so so incredibly small that the numbers were statistically not significant. What they showed basically was that in the real world the effect of of having passed a medical offered no statistical safety benefit because the significant cardiovascular and cerebral events just happened to happen in the guys who had previously had a medical. The numbers of medical events were when you consider the hours flown and the numbers of pilots involved, is as good as zero in both groups. That's the point of the whole thing - the immense cost, effort and inconvenience of medicals has been shown to not change anything. There is no gain in doing something that doesn't have any effect no matter how much we would like to think it seems like a good thing to do.

Yep you are right about the lowering the TAS for planning - Which is what I do. I drop it to 100 knots and that then generally buffers for small headwinds and gives a reserve. (added to which I have set up my fuel gauges so that even when they are showing empty I actually have about five litres in each tank (usable) plus the header tank of 6 litres (usable) so I have about 35 minutes at 2900 rpm. Using the 100 knots for planning has an added bonus. At a quick glance of the planning table its easy to calculate cumulative distances or times across multiple legs and flights (do the whole 10 day flight as one flight of a series of legs and you can easily work out total flying times and distances. Distances or times - every 100 miles is an hour and every hour is a 100 miles. Have to admit I don't fly any distance often without starting with full tanks. Allows plenty of scope for holding, diverting etc.

Cruise TAS at 110 knots. Climb at 90 knots indicated. Most legs I do I only travel about 2-3 hours at a time, on long trips. Sometimes 3 or 4 hours without a break, but not commonly. When it comes down to holding planned track. Whether it was forecasted and its wrong or whether I plan on still wind and its wrong - it's still wrong. But Even If it the forecast wind is right you still have no more certainty that it's right than comparing Map-Ground as you do when you use still-air planning. But I use the dynon/GPS, ipad (Ozrunways), hard copy map with a line drawn on it and bounce the info off all of them against each other and ineveitably follow the line on the GPS and have always got to the required spot at the other end. The old hoary argument of "what if your GPS fails" is redundant now. If my GPS fails I go to my ipad. If that fails I go to my second iPad if that fails I go to my iphone and if that fails my passenger has their ipad and then their iphone. I haven't flown (apart from local stuff) with less than 4 GPS in the aircraft for more than a decade and often 6 to 8 GPSs.

In reality the altitudes I fly at mostly mean that climb is not more than a few minutes. I reckon I fly most of my flying at 3500 to 5500 ft So it doesn't change things much. But if I was spending a lot of time in the climb or descent then I'd answer your question by limiting it to en route. As for planning - I now ignore winds completely in my planning. I used to consider them if there were forecasted strong headwinds ( in the days when my previous aircraft had limited endurance so fuel was a real consideration). Now days my fuel tanks far outstrip my bladder for endurance so I rarely have to consider the effect of headwinds on fuel. But in reality the errors were so frequent in forecasted headwinds that they were no more helpful to consider them than not. I plan using my still-wind TAS.

I think you are saying that forecast winds could be more accurate than the Dynon. Sorry but that is not reflected in actual outcomes or measurements over hundreds of hours and thousands of miles of flying. Experience vividly shows exactly the opposite. I have flown many many trips where the GPS is able to calculate to within seconds the correct actual arrival time at destinations and maintain the correct heading and track throughout the whole leg by taking into account the winds it calculates. so one has to assume that by its very outcome it was correct and displayed little or no variance (inaccuracy). The Dynon has sensors for all of the parameters needed to calculate the wind aloft. Static Air pressure, temperature probe, indicated air speed, compass and GPS location ( track) at fractions of a second intervals and a clock. While there are intrinsic variation in the accuracy of the sensors you have to keep it in perspective. These are minute, comparatively. The variability of the outcome of a formula is more accurate when more of of the parameters are actual measurements and less accurate when it relies on more derived parameters. Most of the parameters needed are measured not derived. Apart from the minimal variability of the relationship between altitude and air pressure so there is likely to be no or negligible variance ( accuracy ) in the TAS. I don't understand what you mean by "heading not held". My understanding is that until you hold it it is not a heading. A heading is not a derived direction it is a measured direction by the compass ( magnetometer in the case of the Dynon) so except for the minimal intrinsic inaccuracy of the magnetometer it is otherwise a fixed measurement. The track is derived from the GPS positioning which is these days mostly within an inaccuracy of about 10 metres or so. So overall within the minimal amounts of inaccuracy of the sensors the winds aloft is going to be accurate and has been shown to be accurate in use. On the other hand. Forecasted winds are hugely broad estimates derived from measurements hundreds or thousands of kilometres apart and calculated according to guesses of temperatures and pressures which generate the air pressure differentials. They have been shown over and over again to be inaccurate, in actual use. So much so that there are a myriad of well described techniques for working out errors in flight, for mitigating errors in flight and for salvaging poor positional outcomes once the hoped for destination has not hoved into sight at the expected time.

Sorry I don't understand this statement. As stated by ben87r - What the Dynon does it uses the GPS it is slaved to to calculate your changing position, your TAS and your heading. From this it calculates your drift and coupled to these is able to calculate the angle of force being exerted on your aircraft to make it undergo the changes in direction. That is, it calculates the wind aloft, actual, as it happens at the time. It then gives you the calculated wind at your level only, at that time in degrees and knots ( along with a little line diagram. It does not use any forecasted winds or data bases. It doesn't generate any table for comparison. It's a real time event. It certainly tells you the degrees and velocity of the wind on the screen Which easily allows you to compare it to the forecasted winds. I guess it gives you a record if you want to write them down as they happen I suppose ( as far as I can tell it doesn't record the winds aloft so you can download them later - allows saving and downloading a lot of parameters but I don't think it does that.

Yep, And backs up my statement exactly. This activity is legal and can be used to minimise tax legally. The law allowing it needs to be changed. Until that happens there is no hope at all that any company will not do what they can to lower their tax.

Don't trust any of them. Pick any of them for your planning but don't rely on it. The GRIB winds are still guesstimates. They calculate the expected winds between one side of the big area and the other. But instead of giving one for the whole area they break it up into 5 or 2.5 degree squares. Then they calculate the estimated wind at the centre of the small square and give you that. All sounds fine but it still is entirely dependant on if they have it correct in the first place. I have been using a Dynon D180 for about 10 years which gives true wind aloft as you fly it. Comparing the actual to the forecasts gives some surprising results which show you should not get too worried about any of the forecasts winds. Ok if they re forecasting cyclonic winds etc then yep take note but as far as trying to compare say 10 knots vs 15 or 20 knots - don't get too stressed over small amounts. Have done multiple long trips around Oz ( 10 days at a time with anything up to 6 or more hours in a day ) every year for over 15 years plus lots of standard local flying. Have done some where not a single forecasted wind for the entire trip was correct. The good thing about using iPads/ozrunways or avplan ( and having multiple devices in the average aircraft) is that the planning exercise is really just an exercise now. You will find you will be modifying the plan according to the real world so often that the planning will mostly be redundant.

The reason they don't pay tax is NOT because they have to, and don't. The reason is they don't have to. The game of tax, for everyone, is entirely made up. Figures and formulae are plucked from the sky. Unlike life which requires a fixed amount of oxygen, water and nutrients or you die, the tax we owe is what we calculate it to be using the formulae hatched from the minds of politicians and given to us. The game of tax is one of rules which are set, overseen and modified by parliament. It is parliament who decide how to calculate tax owed. The deductions that allow these big corporations to trade off losses and costs against profits are decided on by government. The fault that a company pays little or no tax despite seemingly large profits ( profits then traded off against dodgy expenses, costs or cost shifting from overseas branches of their income stream ) is entirely with those no make the rules of this game we all play. As Kerry Packer once said ( paraphrasing it) "if the rules say you must pay a certain amount then thats what you pay. You would have to be a complete idiot to pay more than you are required to pay. " So instead of bleating about corporations who pay what they are told they can pay we should be directing our anger at the government who dictate that they can pay so little!

Are you suggesting registering it as a RAAus aircraft? What is the weight of a cub? Is there not still a weight limit for RAAus. If you're suggesting leaving it as a VH registered then that's basically no different from the mooney. But from my interpreting of his original post he wanted to go to RAAus. Which I think ( might be wrong here) means not a cub but a a/c registerable as an RAAus. Assuming a piper cub is not registerable in RAAus. In the same vein- a question - under RAAus rules can you buy either a 19 or 24 already fully built and then do your own maintenance? Is their a 51% build rule before you can do your own maintenance like with VH experimental class?

It's ok if you stick it to a thick enough layup of fibreglass. most composite aircraft have foam sandwich construction - but I guess it's usually not polystyrene foam but the principle is the same.

Leave out the words "RAAus" - that's purely an admin thing. Take same J230 and register it as VH and its 700 kg MTOW. Take same J230 and register it in Sth Africa and its 760 kg. The selection of legal weight limit is not a function of the aircrafts capability in this case.

I have a standard iPad and an iPad mini and have been using them interchangeably for a few years. ( don't know exactly how they equate in size to the Samsungs). I have not till now mounted either -just hold it as I use it then put it aside when not in use - slide it down the outside of my seat or on copilot seat or lap etc. Anyway yes the big one is a little easier to read but it's actually a minimal difference which you get used to really quickly. The needed info is still visible and you can scroll around easily. The size difference effect on ease of use is quite a lot. It is easier to use the small one and getting used to the bigger size is not so easy as the small one. Enough that personally I think ease of use trumps screen size/visibility. Enough so that I am in the process of building a fixed mount for the mini iPad. It will attach to the door sill and swings the iPad front/left side of pilot but closer to the door so it's out of way of the dash. Just my $0:02's worth.

As best I recall the rotor rpm was in the usual position for an auto ( at the "top of the green". I think that was the point of him demonstating it - That is: for a normal auto if it is done smoothly and without delay there is a lot of inertia stored in the blades. (Contrasting with the 22 which even if you do a really smooth auto you will be running out of rpm as you touch down.)

Not quite correct. You have to specify which type of robbo. For instance R 22s are very different to this model (R 44) 22 blades are very low inertia ( later ones heavier than early ones) but 44 blades are quite high. About same as a jet ranger. When I was doing my 44 endorsement the instructor showed me a "re-take off" on the stored inertia. Landed a smooth and no delay auto - then pull pitch and bought it back to a two foot hover for a few seconds then it settled back onto the ground. He used to fly Hueys and said that in those you could pull back up to the hover do a 360 degree pedal turn and set it back down again.

Plus some very real risks. Kids can become greedy and want to take the assets for their own use prior to you wanting to hand them over. But the absolute worst I have seen was when the asset ( family home and farm that had been in family for nearly 100 years) were given to the son but parents still lived in it so they could get pension. and then the son and his wife ( with a bunch of young kids) divorced very bitterly and the wife got 82% of the family assets. She then kicked out the parents as well ( now essentially destitute) and sold their farm!