Jaba-who

Ok. A bit hard to follow but I think I have what you are getting at. You can definitely start off and get an RPL and then add endorsements, and then if you want add more time and instruction and get a PPL and then add more time and instruction and get a CPL. Or you can just jump in and start and do the instruction and the hours and just do the exam of any of those licences if you figure you'll just go straight to the licence you want to finally end up with.

What's a PPC?

To put Zika in perspective. Are you concerned about German Measles? If you aren't ( for most people ) it's about the same. For adults - getting Zika disease is very much like German measles. A rash, a mild fever and a self limiting usually very to fairly mild viral symptom spectrum. So mild that a large percentage some studies about 2/3 don't even know they had it) Average time 5 days - worst case 21 days. The issue is if you are pregnant. And then the problem is not for the mother but the baby. There are a spectrum of congenital abnormalities that can ( not always but can happen) the worst being microcephaly. small brain and small skull with mental retardation. If you are a male and and you have it there is a small risk it can be passed to a female through sexual intercourse. ( not certain about reverse direction but they are saying probably. ) The effect on the female is benign ( as above) but only an issue if she is already pregnant. Some uncertainty about the risk if she gets pregnant from THAT encounter. Seems possibly ( probably but not certain) no effect. Once the illness is over - that's it. It's done, gone and finished. No future transmission or baby defect risks. The adult develops antibodies and can't get it again. No defects in future babies and no transmission to sexual partners in future. The significant difference from German measles is that there is no vaccine yet. The minute a vaccine is developed ( it's in clinical test phase in a number of countries as we speak) the minute it's developed it becomes just another German measles again. The reason for the comparison with German measles is that the disease in adults is very similar in minimal seriousness. In babies - if the mother has it at the similar times of pregnancy there are a bunch of brain deformities that can occur ( although not quite same as Zika but devastating none-the-less). In both ( and many viral illnesses and also vaccinations) there is a very very small risk of a strange paralysing illness called Guillane-Barre Syndrome. Rare as rare but can happen. But not any more likely than a bunch of " normal" viruses we have here now.

By in "front of the distribution box" do you mean between immediately after the carby and before the manifold induction chamber? Just wanting to be sure because I might try it myself. I've got cylinder 3 and 5 running hotter CHT than the rest and egts also a bit hotter. ( CHT only on climb but EGT all the time. ) I've already got a crossed baffle on the inlet into the carby. But if yours worked on the outlet might try the same.

Well actually even that statement is not true - depending on your terms of reference. The studies which found no bias that I read were themselves biased in their set up and terms of reference. For instance one reported that in over two days the same air time was given to both the opposition and liberal ( who were government at the time). Therefore there was no bias. The report further stated - The reporters asked the same number of questions on the same topics - therefore there was no bias. But when someone else reported the actual content of the interviews - That spoke a different story. The labour person in one interview was asked the questions and allowed to answer the questions in full and given time to make a coherent reply to all. The reporter came up with 4 questions derived from the content of the answers and did not interrupt the spokesman. The liberal person was asked similar questions and was interrupted 17 times and was not allowed to complete the answer for any question before being interrupted and redirected to another topic or another slant on the original topic. It is this form of derailing and reporter interruption and hostile bias that is repeatedly quoted as being evidence of political bias of the ABC. It depends how you want to set the terms of reference which means you can set up any study to find what you want.

In answer to my own question: From another aviation website - I obviously have no idea whether this is correct or not: "Initial report from another pilot very nearby. Landed very hard Rejected landing Airborne Go around actions commenced Gear retraction commenced Settled back on the runway"

Getting back to the landing and fire itself. Anyone heard any details on the landing and fire. I heard that one set of mains were intact but the other mains and the nose wheels appeared to be either not lowered or missing (?? ripped off due to heavy landing). That was just a media statement so probably not true.

We ( society, not necessarily the forumites reading this) have to stop lumping suicidees in the one basket. Many are very very rational. Some go to very complex and highly organised planning. Their usual mindset is that life is not worth living and usually that their loved ones would be better off without them - and sometimes that is understandable when you hear all the background. The rest is of us might say we don't agree with that hypothesis but that's always taken from our own position not theirs. Some are very spontaneous and disorganised and many are somewhere between.

But equally I have heard of a number (local ones) where the person just quietly went off and did it without fanfare etc. Had an engineer of helicopter company just didn't turn up for work one day.

Getting onto censorship etc In oz we have a funny system. No tv licences but the ABC ( our version of BBC) is paid for by the tax payer out of general revenues. But the ABC is incredibly biased and very left leaning. Some of the reporters and journos are Labour Party members with quite high profiles in the party and one even went to contest and unseat our recent conservative prime minister. Their bias is legendary but attempts by the conservatives to rein in the very obvious biased Labour Party use of tax payers money is howled down and very vocally fought here. Not the slightest chance of any censorship happening to the ABC here.

Are you seriously asking for an answer or is it a rhetorical question?Just in case you are asking a serious question. ( just ignore this if you aren't) In the UK now and in Australia up to the 1970s ( as best I recall) you had to pay a licence fee to the government to own firstly a radio, and then when TVs came along to own a TV. No kidding - this was absolutely true. They could detect the device by running around the streets in a van which had electronic gear in it that detected the electronic noise emitted by the inner workings of the device ( in those days all the devices were driven by glass valves that were noisey, and one of the stages that was used to return the electromagnetic radio wave to audio was a beat frequency oscillator and the BFO could be detected by the gear in the van. But it was also a dead give away if the lights were out and the flickering glow in the window looked like a TV was on. Imagine the uproar of they tried that on here now! And how about if you don't watch the TV but watch all the same channels on your computer. Addendum: Just had a Google and was shocked. About half of Europe still has TV licences. Some you have to pay even if you don't have a tv, but if you have an Internet connection which allows you to view TV content on-line ( some you pay a reduced fee in that case).

I'm not absolutely certain as I was very young but I have a recollection that in the early days Australians also had to pay a to licence. Same sort of detecting vans too.

Yep. Maybe I should temper my remarks for fear of litigation.

Absolutely. Could be something. Even a heavy vertical drop may not look bad on the photos but create spinal compressive forces that cause serious problems. On the medical front its best to keep a very open, but somewhat conservative, mind when anything from the media is presented. Their knowledge of medical matters is even less than their knowledge of aviation facts.

The "injuries" could be anything or nothing. Don't believe at this stage the "spinal injuries" or the "serious injuries". Not saying they have none or something but just saying don't believe anything you read/hear in the media. Anyone with back pain is always said to have "suspected spinal injuries". And of course spinal injuries are serious, so ipso facto a sore back after an impact is "serious injuries. " Even when "confirmed by a hospital spokesman" usually means someone who looked like they might be hospital staff was cornered on the footpath outside the hospital and asked what they knew. Which of course is usually nothing because firstly very few people are usually involved with direct care of the patient and anyone who actually looks after the patient is bound by patient confidentiality. One hospital I worked at the media used to hang around where the wards men walked out the back gate to the staff carpark. But of course the wardies had no idea themselves but they just relayed the murmurings around the hospital but were often quoted as "hospital spokesperson".

I see ATSB has started a case file but I am personally very disappointed it is heading "collision with terrain". Yep it was An engine failure, a forced landing into paddock with what looks like minimal or no damage. The reports of the injuries are just onlooker guesswork etc but all in all it was not a collision but a landing. Is this a new level of sensationalism creeping into ATSB?

The reality are there lots of different situations - some of which it is prudent to line up prior to the landing aircraft vacating. If it is one of those situations - The safest thing to do is to hold crossways off centreline so that you can see both down the runway and back up the glide slope. That way if you suddenly spot someone on final who has managed to not be on the radio, or right frequency and not see you lining up you can scoot off.

Oops!! His only problem is getting an inflight tanker when he needs it

Only flown as passenger in one. We have a guy in our flying group has one ( actually it's his second). Took him over ten years to build ( but he's a perfectionist and essentially rebuilt it and painted it 3 times before he was happy. ( but it's won numerous awards for best aircraft at shows etc) but the point is if you're going to build it expect it to take you a long time. Some other thoughts - he can't go everywhere we go on a lot of the trips - small wheels don't do well on anything but the smoothest of gravel with only very small size stones and he won't land on many grass strips. Pusher prop has been minor dinged several times from stones thrown up by the wheels. Passenger essentially can't see a thing. The wings block all view downward and you can only see a small triangle down and forward way out to the side. No room for anything much apart from people. His first one had some baggage area in the wing root -accessed from in the passenger seat. But was still fairly minimal compared to most 2 seater aircraft. His second he made the space even smaller by filling in part with extended fuel tanks. So his trips are extremely travel-light. In its favour. It goes like the clappers! I think he cruises at 160 knots and it burns about 17 litres a minute at altitude and cruise. I think he has about 8 hours endurance. In his first he could fly Cairns to Melbourne non-stop with 45 minutes holding. Has a pee tube for the necessities.

I'm not familiar with dual carb systems - a question for the masses. Are dual carb systems typically split to have 1 carb feeding just half the cylinders or do they mix their outflows and feed all cylinders.

While I sympathise with the issue of a carb float that doesn't work the broader issue of warranty on our engines is probably one of " be careful what you ask for". You can bet that should the usual rules of warranty and recall and replacement be demanded and enforced there would instantly be a LAME only rule for maintenance of any sort. And probably include even stuff that is normally allowable under casa allowable pilot maintenance.

Duly chastised. Climbing back into my box.

Probably but I thought it might be public knowledge.

No I don't that's why I asked.

So how does Camit fit in - not as the fabricator of genuine Jabiru bits which they pass back to Jabiru - but as the maker of knock-off clones (with some slight variations). I remain totally astounded that Camit are legally able to produce an engine using anything that looks even remotely like a Jabiru engine. Its a completely bizarre situation where one company who has been contracted to build something for someone else is able to build their own version it. Its all very weird.