skippydiesel

Speculation:

• The decline in interest in aviation seems to be consistent with the  distance, in time, from the second World War.
• Post War babies/adults, were fascinated by the booming mechanical technology of the recent past and their present - As this (my) generation fade away and cutting edge technology moves, ever more, to computer based innovation, so does the level of interest in aviation fade - also in all sorts of, formally well patronised, technologies eg steam/internal combustion engines/etc.
• In the wealthy West, the young of today are gripped by computer provided/generated communication & innovation, in much the same way as we were about mechanical devices. It manifests very differently (low levels of interpersonal contact being the most obvious) but I suspect is a similar phenomenon - while many/ most? of our generation, had some level of understanding of the ICE/jet engine/road vehicle & aircraft /steam/ 240/12V electrical reticulation /etc, the young can babble on, in a completely foreign language (to me) about computing and associated technologies. They are unphased about not having a depth of general knowledge (about anything much) as Google/etc is literally at hand, a resource completely dwarfing anything we may have stashed away in our puny brain.
• Future flight/travel is likely to be dominated by autonomous aircraft/ships/vehicles - much safer/efficient than having a pilot/crew/driver. The transition to this has already well advanced with drones and all sort of computer aided fight systems.  I suspect that many of today's commercial pilots are in it for the $$/prestige (fading), if they have a genuine interest in flight, they may fly small recreational aircraft/gliders for fun. 
• I don't see this trend changing any time soon - small (than the major city ones)  will no longer be the hive of activity that our parents and we experienced in their hayday. If they continue to exist at all, it will be as commuter ports for autonomous aircraft.

Nev, it's a question of priorities. 

It's got very little to do with tax revenue, other than where best to invest it it, for the betterment long term of our country.

In most instances adequate quarantine, surveillance, enforcement, can & should be paid for by the importer, who then passes on the cost to the consumer - no direct tax $$$

Equine Influenza entering Australia was a direct result of the thoroughbred (race) industry, being given permission to run its own quarantine system - guaranteed to fail, due to financial self interest and blatant disregard for the integrity of our boarders. I don't recall any of the guilty being fined/jailed. Could it be they have mates in high places?

Politician want attention grabbing, vote getting, topics/situations with quick solutions. In general they are not good managers (managers being a profession that should have strategies for the short/medium/long term) so biological imports that should be stopped at our borders, are not, due to a failure to prioritise the tax dollars. When a newly arrived pest is discovered, our leaders should throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at it to prevent it becoming endemic but Nooooo  -States  & Feds squabble about who will take charge/spend the dollars and in the mess the bug/weed/virus/animal/etc gets away.

Our boarder's should be a National/Federal responsibility ie the quarantine system should be run by the Feds but once again it's a mish mash of State/Fed implementation (eg NSW Ag being responsible for CV19 infected people departing a cruise liner).

Complacency/Apathy Rules - we will find out, only when we have lost this once wonderful environment.

"They are ALL a BUZZ around orchards here.  Nev"

Not for much longer - the State & Federal Governments have let Varroa Destructor Mite & Small Hive Beetle into the county. Our World leading bee industry is going to go through some very hard times. Many aperists will lose their livelihood. Bee products will become very much more expensive. The use of bees in commercial crop pollination, is likely to be diminished, impacting on agricultural productivity. Lower yields means higher prices in the shops, hitting your pockets.

Our leaders are more concerned with illegal drugs than with agricultural/exotic pests entering the country. Illegal drugs are a tragedy affecting a few - agricultural & exotic pests entering Australia, will be (are) a financial & environmental disaster for generation to come.

I wonder, at what cost in $$$ and pollution.

Bees may be slower but they don't pollute & they provide honey & wax.

55 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

RAA Ltd whether you agree or not or like it or not is permitted to conduct recreational flying by CASA on a self administration basis. No independent administration? RA flying ends.

I have no wish to undermine or see RAA disappear and doubt very much that, in the unlikly event of it doing so, "RA flying ends."  - this is hyperbole. Should RAA resign/be closed down, the flying members & their aircraft, would be accommodated under GA.

55 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 

Under self administration RAA Ltd has some obligations to maintain safety. I would say safety standards, which do not require RAA to become a resource for people selling/purchasing aircraft Whether you agree or disagree with how they are going about it, it is what it is. There a ways a substantial bloc of members can get together and do things a better way if there is a better way, but the its clear and unmistakeable that the majority are quite happy to go along with it, Are you sure about that ? - People go along with many things, that is until it affects them personally, in this case it would likely be a sharp increase in membership and other fees, resulting in acute pain in the wallet and you've got two good examples in the posts above.

Further to the last point in blue - cost of flying is already a disputed point between RAA & GA. At the moment I think, when all is taken into account, RAA is the cheaper (but comes at the cost of the Certified pilots entry to controlled airspace and limited to two seats.) A hike in fees may tip the balance in favour of GA.

I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased.

My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account  (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? 

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

The breaks are a little further apart and have conditions then a 10 hour break.

Anout the same 10 hr break - Nuts! How can a worker be expected to get adequate rest , in 10 hrs, when commuting/shopping for essentials/family time may reduce this to 6 hrs or less sleep.

Local drivin has shorter distances and is usually limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself.

The studies (science) , conducted in the 1950-60"s are NOT specific to truck drivers, cover ALL industrial situations (speculation: recreational activities as well). The studies are about human limitation. In my very small case - I could start from my depot as early as 03:00, end as late as 18:00 (not counting the commute to/from). The driving (semi 19m / 45.5 tonne) was predominantly within the Sydney Basin. Heavy traffic, crawl -100 kph.  Possibly far more taxing than any long haul driving. To even suggest that " limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself."  is a rational argument,  is just beyond comprehension

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

 

The government legislation is fine and has been developed and refined over half a century in conjunction with drivers. You jest! Where is the science?

The enforcemnent is quite good. Again you jest - enforcement is woful, concentrating on after the accident/incident enforcement, rather than prevention.

My beef is that if the average car driver covers 30,000 km per year and the average over the road driver covers 250,000 he should be paying less per penalty  Why? The professional should be held to a higher standard, after all he/she is paid to drive. May be commanding anything from a 7 tonner to a road train, with exponentially greater potential for damage/injury, than any car driver because his percentage of offences is much lower than the car driver. True ! As a ratio of distance travelled to incident, car drivers are far worse, as one would expect, when comparing professional driver against amateurs.

What I was discussing was not the general Industry but the tiny serial flouters who always have a reason for what they do.

 

Legislation that is enacted without, due reference to fact/science, often watered down by vested interest, not followed by effective enforcement, is always bad law - something we excel at.
 

In fact the auto and transport industries have an excellent safety record; way down there with medical negligence, and that's a very small figure. Excuse me - you are referring to Australian drivers???? amongst the worst in the western World.

Australia seems to have a "thing" (technical term) for enacting legislation, that on the face of it seems to have meaning/logic at its core but is all too often incomplete, illogical and fails to follow through with appropriate policing/enforcement.

I learnt a little about fatigue and fatigued management in the early 1970's. From imperfect/aging memory, truck drivers (amongst others) were one of the featured studies. In short, despite fatigue mitigating strategies, like rest breaks every 2.5 hrs - by 9 hrs, the drivers response times (as a measure of fatigue) had dropped well below safe limits ie their ability to respond to a sudden/unexpected event was markedly reduced. They were/are in effect, a danger to themselves and the public, if still driving after 9 hrs behind the wheel. 

About this time I obtained my HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) Articulated (Semi) License, as a way of earning fast cash (truck drivers being well paid in the UK, at that time) to assist with living expenses during term time.

The limits on driving 9 hrs (behind the wheel) and duty 12 hrs (on the clock). (there were also minimum time between duty cycles, to ensure adequate rest) A detailed (time, place & breaks) log book of driving/duty times had to be completed for every trip. The police were very active in monitoring the log books, with heavy penalties, to the driver & sometimes his/her employer) for false entry.

Over about 45 years I have intermittently driven trucks in Australia (NSW) - I have never had my log book checked. Further I did one job, about 3 years ago,  where my log book did not have to be filled out at all, as my multiple daily trips where within a 100km (?) radius of the truck depot - in effect, this meant I could drive for as long as I liked/my employer wanted - who thought up this "brain dead "exception?

My point: Standards are set by the leaders. Rubbish leadership leads to organisational (societal) failures that can not just be blamed on the individual - Government is our primary leader. Failure of Gov, to appropriately legislate and/or then follow through with adequate enforcement, creates a climate where the individual may make bad decisions or is coerced, through circumstance (employer?) to do so.

47 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice (which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at).

"However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice"

Any sort of  honest "Condition" report is contextual, in that the degree of responsibility, by the author/mechanic/engineer/etc (technician) will depend on the scope ie if the report is understood/know to have limitations, as expressed by the technician and or documentation supplied, the technicians liability/responsibility will be limited accordingly. Technicians are not expected to be God's/infallible, in that they would be required to know all things past/present about a vehicle/aircraft condition..

"(which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at)".

First I have heard/seen of such a practise (might be a Vic thing😁)

On 28/02/2024 at 11:48 AM, Deano747 said:

Sorry, where does the hull coverage come in?

Your RAAus membership gives a basic level of comprehensive insurance (but should be topped up to a realistic amount), but I don't see where the rego cost covers the hull.

Very happy to be proved wrong as I have been quoted between 2% and 2.5% of the hull value for that insurance.

My apologies - I have it the wrong way around Hull insurance is optional and insurance through a company or broker

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

[The last post should have read Caveat] 

Well, I  pull the aircraft out of the shed and bolt its wings on by hand, get a phone call before I find a spanner, go out in the ute and help a friend then the next day come back to the aircraft and think "where was I, I know, fit the new hoses.

 

The buyer goes around, everything feels fine hands over his money and takes off for home whereupon the wings clap and he and his passenger suffer serious injuries.

 

Who do you think's going to pay for the injuries when they find the nuts aren't torqued?

 

 

Maaaate! RAA (with annual rego renewal )covers my aircraft hull. Comprehensive addresses most other eventualities - about as well covered as I can be.

You seem to think I am advocating for unsafe aircraft - I AM NOT! I just dont think RAA should be acting as big brother in aircraft sale/purchase transaction - this is an added administrative cost and likely insurance cover for RAA, that we, the members,  ill have the wear and what practical benefit will you and I get???? .

Anyone, with two brain cells to rub together, can access professional aircraft inspection/engineering report, ask for fellow experienced pilots (preferably in type) to help. IF the purchaser  chooses not to seek third party advice/opinions, the responsibility for the purchase lies with them alone, as it should do.

In your scenario above - the injured or relatives, of the pilot/passenger have the option to have the cause of the aircraft crash  investigated - if the vendor has been negligent (as you describe) there may be grounds for a compensation claim against his/her estate and even the possibility criminal proceedings - this is surely enough, without RAA getting involved in token QA of an aircraft to be sold/purchased.

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

What you are talking about is the old Caviat Emptor; “Let the buyer beware” For safety items things are different these days.

So what third party is assessing the safety of the next vehicle you purchase?????? or for your currency as a driver???? in other words  there is nothing diffrent these days.

RAA should confine its activities to promoting recreational aircraft/activities, registering the same, lobbying on members behalf and overseeing pilot competence. Anything more will be overreach that will cost you and I for no discernible benefit.

This is all bovine excrement - When I recently purchased an aircraft, I chose to employ an engineer and asked a  number of experienced pilots, to check it out for me. Only after their good reports, did I do my own investigation and then commit to purchase.

RAA had nothing to do with it and neither should they.

Having some sort of assurance from RAA, no matter how minour/full of escape clauses, is just ridiculous - this is not a service/requirement that RAA should be involved with.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision - employ/ask experienced/qualified people for help, even if you think you have all the experince you need - independent assessment is always beneficial but should not be provided/required by RAA.

3 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

As oil discussion is for Rotax and they take less than 3 litres (usually 2.8lts) at $19 per litre so only $57 every 50 hours; therefore even if your alternate oil choice is free it's only a $57 saving every 50 hours.  No worth any searching for an alternate product especially considering the gearbox internals needs regarding oil properties.  In my opinion anyone running a Rotax 912 and chooses to run oil other than recommended needs an upper cut, clip under the ear or even a kick up the arse to wake them up.

Oooooooh! "I is a shakin in ma boots" - you should try reading my earlier posts -

This is not about using the wrong oil, it's about a progression from, back in the day, Rotax being open with the oil standards, allowing 912 owners to source an appropriate oil from the available market, through to the present day, when it would seem to be only recommending its in house (secret standard) XPS, making it impossible to research an equivalent oil from the wider market.  

Neither is it about cost - its about cost effectiveness & freedom of choice - clearly concepts beyond your bulging wallet to understand.

I have always used AeroShell Sport +4 - true only the one producer but its availability from a number of retailers, introduces at least a little competition, keeping the price to (a guess) around double that of an equivalent motorcycle oil. 

Owners of early 912's (before Aeroshell Sport +4) used various motorcycle oils, without ill effect. Many continue to do so to this day - that is their choice, as it should be.

It will be interesting to see at what price XPS will be available for, in Australia. My guess $30-40/L

"Big question; what is the legal situation ? No guesses please."

Unless there is legislation to force owners to use only recommended service products (a very dark day for democracy/personal freedom) it will always be a guess/speculation, simply because no two scenarios  will be the same.

My guess 😈 

There is no legal position as such. The manufacturer (Rotax) would likely use the failure to use approved service items, as a lever to dismiss warranty or similar claims. In this case it would be up to the claimant to show no relationship between the products used and the failure. Who has deep enough pockets to take on BRP?

In the highly unlikly event of a loss/injury claim - the claimant would have to demonstrate that the oil used was a major contributor to the incident, that resulting in the loss/injury -  very doubtful.

This sort of speculation is paranoia.

I don't know the background to this debate however from the proceeding comments (particularly from Thruster 88, "One can buy or sell a VH Cessna, or Experimental, regardless of condition, without a valid maintenance release in casa land" ) I can't for the life of me understand why RAA would involve themselves in aircraft selling/purchase condition reports. To do so invites legal claims, adds to the general cost of operation, ultimately passed on to the members and provides no discernible benefit. Selling/ purchasing an asset (aircraft) is nobody's business outside the parties involved. 

8 hours ago, onetrack said:

"Branded" oils produced by companies are quite often over-priced - but not always. Purchasers have the security of knowing that the engine manufacturer backs it, and has had input into the oil QC and ingredients.

Many manufacturers know full well the oils and lubricants market is crowded, so they usually don't try to make the financial killing on oils that they would, on their exclusive individual parts and components.

I always try to use the oil recommended by the manufacturer - so far all my vehicle/engines have recommended oils produced by mainstream makers like Shell/Castrol/BP, not their own brand (like Rotax & XPS).

Often, over many years of ownership, the original recommended oil is discontinued. I talk to the oil companies technical advisors, to get their recommendation on a suitable alternative.

On rare occasions, I have switched brands, usually due to cost of the original or recommended substitute becoming increasingly costly. In these cases, I go to some lengths to source a less costly alternative, that still meets the original specifications, again from a reputable brand.

In short - I do not slavishly follow the engine manufacturer's recommendation, rather I keep an eye on cost/availability and act accordingly.

Unfortunatly, Rotax seems to have gradually dropped any reference to general market oil specifications - it's now a secret in house spec "RON 424 classification" that has no equivalent/cross reference to the general oil supply market.

22 hours ago, facthunter said:

Getting an oil suitable for the redrive as well makes it further complicated. Then there's the lead bit if you use 100LL. IF you don't use an oil approved by the maker I don't know where you would stand.  Nev

Thanks Nev - I point out that Rotax have, over time, dropped their earlier, much broader, oil recommendation. My early operators document oil specification, allows for a wide range of, mainly motorcycle, oils to be used. 

• I have no doubt that the new XPS meets Rotax engine needs handsomely.
• I also have no doubt that the engine owner will pay handsomely for a product that is only available from Rotax.
• One more lack of doubt - there will be crankcase oils, available on the open market, that will also meet Rotax specifications (especially if not using leaded fuel) that will be a lot cheaper.

Certified aircraft & RAA factory built/available for hire/training may be obliged to use XPS however there is a large "experimental" fleet that can use whatever oil they deem suitable. Of the latter, most owners would try for an oil meting Rotax specifications (now no longer published) - hence my: 

"This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines."

PS - It's not so much the "redrive"   ie integrated gearbox, requiring a suitable oil, as the clutch mechanism contained therein. If memory serves, the early recommendation was to avoid oils containing friction modifiers. 

7 hours ago, BurnieM said:

This blog has some interesting articles and some replacement parts;

https://pointsforpilots.blogspot.com/

 

912ULS with 2400 hours in 28 years

I have not read all of the articles - just speed browsed a couple.

My advice - be very very cautious with some of the information contained therein. Much relates only to the US. Much is false economy & unsafe eg (replacing rubber hoses, basically at the point of failure). Otherwise a good read that has some useful information.

XPS oil, has been in the research pipeline for a while.

Originally only approved for the 912iS engine, it is now approved for the whole range of Rotax 4/'s

XPS is a full synthetic, rather than a blend (AeroShell Sport +4) and has supposedly been developed especially to suit high engine temperatures in the 912iS.

XPS will only be available through Rotax dealerships, unlike AeroShell Sport +4 which was available from a wide range of suppliers (including Shell). 

When a company restricts supply to their own dealership network this is most often accompanied by a high price tag (lack of market competition).

AeroShell Sport +4 will continue (for now) as a Rotax recommended oil, so there will be choice and I have no doubt that this well tried/ trusted oil will still be used well in to the future, at least by those of us with carbureted engines.

A little before my time - Rotax allowed a range of, mainly motorcycle, oils for use in their engines. With the arrival off AeroShell Sport +4 this approval was largely withdrawn. 

Rotax do not specifically recomend AeroShell Sport +4 (or any oil), they do require the use of "... oil with RON 424 classification" , is a Rotax specific specification. When Googled only comes up with , you guessed it,  AeroShell Sport +4

Pilots flying in high ambient temperatures, may be attracted to the benefits that full synthetic oils offer.

This may be a good time to review what other (non approved) synthetic oils are suitable for Rotax 912 carburettor engines.

I trained in high wings and fly low wings. 

These days my focus is RAA level aircraft.

While all aircraft that fly are great and have many good features, there are only a few that have a truly wide performance envelope. For me this means  30 (-) knot stall -  130 (+) knot cruise.

I only know of one high wing that can achieve this, the Pipistrel Virus SW, while there are several low wings that do or at least come close.

High wings are certainly more comfortable on the ground on a hot/sunny day - once in the air (altitude) it doesn't seem (to me) that there is significant difference.

Visibility is in equal measure plus & minus. The high wing gives a good view down but obstructs  a lot in a turn and up. The low wing has unobstructed visibility in a turn & up, while the down view is partially obstructed by the wing. These features are important especially in the circuit. The pilot must adapt to/accommodate these design features.

In my opinion, accident survivability has more to do with stall speed (low impact) than issues of exiting the aircraft

If I could afford it, I would go for a Pipistrel Virus SW but am more than happy with my Sonex.

I probably shouldn't say this (being one of the main offenders) however it seems a shame that we cant keep to/within the subject (Spare Parts sourcing) of this particular thread.

Notwithstanding Danny-Gs very attractive parents, keeping within the topic makes this resource, for current & future users, so much easier to access/research.

So Nev - my  interpretation of the above-:

The "Loads" are the same (T /low /cruciform) its how they are applied that differs.

In a low/cruciform (mid) horizontal stabiliser mounting position the loads on the stabiliser are transmitted to the fuselage tail cone. 

The tail cone being an inherently strong/stiff structure, relatively, to the vertical stabiliser/fin.

The T tails must have a more robust/larger vertical tail/fin structure, compared to the above, to accommodate the leverage exerted by the horizontal stabiliser - principle of moments/leverage.

Its likely the forces acting on the T tail vertical stabiliser, require more complex design construction than for a conventional lay out.

Clearly there are pros/cons to the T tail concept however they must confer significant advantage in certain designs, beyond the obvious jet engine application.

Seems to me that the T tail has an undeserved bad reputation, as the result of failures in certain aircraft, where the concept was poorly executed/constructed.

T tails must be more than just a fashion statement - everything from gliders to big commercial jets have them. My last aircraft had one - seemed to me, to perform flawlessly.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

"T" tails have very high Loads compared to a conventional tail,  Nev

Please explain??