skippydiesel

I am considering a fun headset project using Peltor/3m ear muffs as the base. I did this once before with an old pair of Peltor ear muffs - worked out okay. From memory the only new part I purchased was the electret microphone. IF this project goes ahead, I will splurge - new high end Peltor Optime III ($51) OR X Series ($60). + about $100 in new parts, supplemented by odds & end I have already. Should be able to deliver a nice height end passive attenuation headset for well under $200 (not counting the fun)😈

Trig TY91VHF Transceiver - I can confirm that when entering a new frequency, the monitoring function goes off automatically, when entering in the lower "window" display. The monitor button must be pressed again to monitor the second frequency . This about entering a new frequency, not doing a" flip" between active & monitored.😈

Kyle, Do you know the radio failed or are you speculating? "The dual runway operation was always a bone of contention..." As it should be - "The ATSB/CASA are removing references to the use of the term "active runway" ..." IF YCAB had a known "Active" this incident may not have happened with or without communication between the two aircraft. What is stopping the owner from designating a preferred runway ?? Given the poor visibility (trees) from one threshold to the next, would this not be a sensible safety precaution???😈

You seem to be focuses on this idea that the student will cover the cost of an accident (hull insurance). This is implausible. The rest of this insurance "stuff" you are going on about is RAA 3rd party - assuming the student is a member he/she will have some cover from this but will not cover the aircraft for damage. This has little to nothing to do with airframe/aircraft insurance as such. The aircraft & its insurance is the responsibility of the flight school/owner. The flight school/owner may include a charge that compensates , for the cost of providing the insurance, along wit the rest of the aircraft & its running cost. If they are smart this would just be part of the hourly aircraft charge & not a separate cost to the student. 😈

Thanks! Very nice visual representation BUT would I notice a 2 dB difference in noise attenuation??😈

I am not sure that I understand how the Decibel scale is applied to earmuffs/headsets. Example; Comparing two ear muffs, one with an Attenuation rating of 35 dB and the other at 33 dB I take it the 35 reduces sound better than the 33 dB BUT is the 2 dB difference significant? ie would I even notice it?😈

"Unless the student has signed a rental or training contract that specifically states they are liable for the excess in case of damage to the aircraft I would be telling the flight school the liability lies with them" Once again - I doubt that the principal of PIC being responsible, can be undermined by an individual signing a document doing this or a flight school attempting the same. The concept of PIC being responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft he/she is in charge of goes way way back to the law of the sea. The PIC (like a sea captain) has extraordinarily powerful authority and with it responsibility. This "tradition" exists in international law as well as domestic law. Cant see this arrangement being changed any time soon. A document signed by a student accepting responsibility for the aircrafts safe operation, is unlikly to be worth the paper its writen on. For the most part, Australian law does not allow an individual or organisation to sign away (agree to) reductions in rights & responsibilities, particularly when it comes to questions of safety/liability😈

My point is that the requirement for communication, has been watered down, by CASA, to a ridiculously low level. While communication alone will not "fix" every potentially dangerous situation, it goes a long way to informing pilots as an aid to making the safe decision. The, at pilot discretion, communication we have now, is just a recipe for on going disasters. Pilots rely on known standards/actions - its called consistency. There can be little/no consistency in placing the essential tool of communication, at the discretion of pilots - some degree of standardisation need to be brought back.😈

Student pilots are not the PIC. The PIC is the instructor - he/she is legally responsible for the safe operation of the training aircraft . Ergo the PIC?/instructor is responsible for any damage to the aircraft. Any flight school that tries to undermine the above, is fighting a seriously uphill battle - which I think they would lose.😈

Thruster/Kyle, Recently at The Oaks; A many thousands of hours ex airline pilot/instructor, conducting a final (?) check ride for a CPL student (many hours/) in a C180, failed to broadcast/monitor our CTAF. This communication failure, for whatever reason, combined with them being within our circuit, opposite direction to Active runaway, resulted in a mid air with a Jab - All three pilots died needlessly. You may speculate to your hearts content, as to the failure to communicate (wrong frequency/radio failure/etc) the fact remains, communication failed with fatal consequence. I know nothing of Caboolture however(from the video) there are similarities with The Oaks & both incidence - Failure of; Airport management to establish published rules about when a runway direction is preferred . Camden bound/departing aircraft to respect/communicate with The Oaks CTAF. Of some Oaks pilots to use the Active, when its more convenient (shorter taxi) to Take-Off/Land down wind Good communication (in/out) is one of the cornerstones of air safety & pilot responsibility. IF?? the Caboolture Jab radio had a problem why did the pilot continue with the Take-Off. IF??? 06 was the "Active " runway why was the Jab pilot using runway 11?? IF??? 11 was the Active why was the Tug using 06?? While both the Jab & Tug pilots were within their rights to declare which runway they preferred to use, this privilege comes with the requirement for good communication, to minimise the chances of an incident. 😈

I find it extraordinary that; Its down to the airfield owner to "mandate departure calls" - This is as a result of the communication pendulum swinging to far from its earlier regulated call regime, to one that is at the pilots discretion. The Jab pilot may not have broken any rules/regulations, under the current discretionary communication regime but certainly displayed a failure of airmanship which was the primary (not only) cause of the incident. The authorities, are at fault here - need to wined back the relaxation of communication requirements to something not as regimented as the past but giving more guidance than it does today. The ATSB/CASA are removing references to the use of the term "active runway" Yea Gads WHY??? This is a useful term that departing/landing/inbound pilots use to describe the runway in use. A pilot disregarding the current active runway does so at considerable risk to one & all. While its the PIC's prerogative to decide on a TO/Landing direction, it behoves the PIC choosing not to conform to current traffic movement, to alert all active aircraft as to his/her intentions. It would seem, from the video, that CASA/ATSB are seeking to distance themselves from any responsibility in this communication failure.😈

Thanks Underwood, It took some reading and I probably only understood a fraction of what was being discussed back & forth. What I took away: Avoid charging my SE2 in the cockpit. If I must charge in cockpit, do so with SE2 OFF and then only from a USB-A source delivering more than 1 Amp, using the correct USB-A to C charge cable. The reason for my question is simple - I intend to tour in my Sonex. Opportunities to charge my SE2 from a 240V source may be limited. My Sonex is fitted with a Guardian Avionics, Panels mounted, Dual USB-A, 2.7 amps/5 VDC Output / For 9 - 48 VDC Systems - with my limited understanding, this should be able to charge the SE2, should no 240V system be available.😈

I am aware that the instructions for charging SE2's is via 240V transformer. Just wondering if I turn my SE2 off & plug it into ship power ( USB) will it : Charge satisfactorily Do no damage? 😈

I have a Trig - Works well BUT I don't like; Volume control is way too "light" - very easy to inadvertently turn down below audible. Just a finger brush, in turbulence, will do it. Selecting a new frequency automatically takes it out of monitor mode - need to press Monitor again for each change of frequency. 😈

In theory, possible. In practise, unlikly. The return, to -battery terminal, is connected to all major metal components (airframe in a metal aircraft, engine & subframes in composite). All electrical systems are connected to the return (various ways eg buss) & by default, airframe/subframes. Most home mechanics, working with 12V systems, are unaware of just how little corrosion can increase resistance or even completely interrupt a connection, making a system operate below optimum to not operate at all. They tend to pay more attention to +posative/power connections, not realising that for the current to flow (well)/ system to work, the -negative is just as important.😈