skippydiesel

Come come - should a disgruntled person wish to hijack an RPT aircraft, they just need to purchase a ticket and be ushered onto said aircraft by all the ASIC holding staff.:)

Just had a random thought: Does not our law require that payment for a service/good can not be demanded (illegal) where no such service/good exists (eg QANTAS is facing court over selling tickets for non existent/cancelled services). I would suggest that ASIC is a non service (in that it provides no demonstrable benefit to the customer - we the proletariat ) and therefore illegal under our system of law.

Thanks for confirming my long held opinion of ASIC. As I understood ASIC applies to almost all RPT airports, and all areas within the so called secure areas (I hear derisive laughter). Access, by non ASIC holders, will not be available for at least 1/2 a day, every time an RPT is due. Two RPT's, a few hours apart ,will see the airfield closed. The fining of non compliant pilots - The reality is that the authorities are, in lieu of adequate policing/implementation, using the threat of a large fine to frighten pilots into having an ASIC. Do we have a police state? There is no good reason for ASIC to be imposed on the vast majority of inland RPT airports - it's the proverbial crock of.... Bad legislation: Australians have a long and glorious history of ignoring bad legislation (even when the authorities refuse to remove it from the statute books). Unfortunatly this leaves the legislation available, when the authorities decide to makan example of someone - throwing the book at the poor sod.

For the purposes of section 31 of the Act, the following type of airside security zone is prescribed, that is, the security restricted area.

Good system BUT again don't get hung up on just one way of doing it. Aeroplanes are not like automotive systems (easy as) they are finitiky buggers that may need more than one technique to get to that airless happy place😁

I use disposable syringes (purchase from chemist or animal feed merchants) & clear hose to suit (Bunnings) - low cost & can, with care (flush with metho or Iso, lube plunger with silicon) be reused several times. The amount of brake fluid is very small, so a 100 mm (or smaller) syringe will usually do the job. Don't get hung up on bleeding from the bottom - you may find that you bleed from wherever, to get that last bit of air out of the system. If possible never drain your brake system ie when replacing fluid, use fresh unused fluid to flush the system, avoiding air entry.

I assume you speak in jest

Hi Turb, Speed read of above doesn't actually say visiting pilot needs an ASIC - have I missed something in the above andalso prior changes to ASIC??

As a pilot against ASIC being implemented for domestic airports (where they don't share a field/facility with international movements) I don't see the point in them being used at all if, as I pointed out , security for RPT's was good before ASIC. Further; Correct me if I am wrong (I hope I am) but the words in ERSA "This AD is a Security Controlled Airport" means that ASIC is required for the whole caboodle not just the are where the RPT will/is/has parked.

Thing is "security" around RPT aircraft was strongly in evidence/good befog ASIC. As a passenger I recall being kept well away from the aircraft - as was every other non airline staff member.

In Short - ASIC is not being implemented at Coffs - this was pretty much my experience BC on the NSW south coast, central and northern inland.

So what's stopping you landing & taxying directly to the Club House, without permission? Then reversing the procedure to depart (sans code)?

One side! - must be the only side an attack may come from.

Soooo Australian - must have something to do with being part of Asia

I agree with your first statement "Security is not a bad thing however it needs to actually add value, the current system does not." I also agree, that the card itself, when/if required, should have some level of security/credibility. I whole heartedly support the need for a EFECTIVE security system for international ports of entry/exit and perhaps for a very small number of very busy internal ports. ASIC adds nothing except additional cost/annoyance for operators & users of the many small airfields jotted around our country - it is at best an unsubstantiated levy and worst a rort. Having not done any away trips since Before Covid, I would be intersted to hear from more active flyers about the current state of play, regarding actual implementation of ASIC . My BC experience was that ASIC was not being observed (other than varying degrees of token security gates/fences) by any of the NSW RPT airfields I visited, including one where RPT had ceased to operate some years before but still listed as a Security Controlled Airport.

There were no insults intended (unless you decide to take it that way). Tangential muddying of the water - the question/topic ( as I understand it ) has to do with engine selection for high altitude performance/capacity. The topic initiator's choices are between, carburetted, fuel injected and turbo charged variants of the Rotax 9 series engine. Interesting "stuff" about Geoffrey DH Moths/prop composition, age related hypoxia and even wing angle of attack are, I suggest, not addressing the question and at at best distantly related to the same. Sure I understand that your "stuff" illustrates the achievement of others and associated risk but how does this directly relate to engine choice? I confess to being prone to drifting off topic, in that I speculated on the potential for a CS prop to mitigate the effect of thinning atmosphere, thereby helping the engine/aircraft to achieve its best high altitude performance - in this I suggested you might have the answers.

My guess - you don't have the answer, so are "blinding" us with random tangential thoughts on dimly related topics - a classic "muddying the waters" tactic.

Don't know about the circuit without airspeed, I guess I might have doe it in my last aircraft (10 year's experience) but the new aircraft is a very diffrent beast, so it might be some time before I have that sort of simpatico with her. As for the chainsaws and for that matter all small motors - checking the exhaust pipe after a failed attempts to start, is now routine and almost always a mud wasp nest.

I do think that a fuel tank breather is an unlikly nesting spot for mud wasps or similar. There would always be a fuel vapour rich atmosphere inside the tube which most insects would find very uncomfortable BUT I would only have to be wrong once, for there to be a heart stopping moment, as the tank went from posative to negative pressure as fuel is drawn off and the engine started to loose power due to fuel starvation. I do check all my external fixtures, before flight but mud wasps can sometimes nest well up inside a pipe , no external tell tail allerting me to their presence.

Wow! 117 views and only one respondent (Nev) - what's the matter non of you have an opinion?

Nev - the breathers I have referred to are fuel tank breathers

Nev - This fuel tank breathers. Posative air pressure in the fuel tank is generally assumed (not so much by me) to be a good thing ie assist the pump in delivering the fuel to the tank or carburettor. Back to the topic - gauze on the breather - the gauze is to prevent undesirables (eg mud wasp nests/ wind blown chaff) from entering. The alternative is nothing or removable plugs, that must then be carried in the aircraft. Seems to me what needs to discussed here is; The potential/likelihood of something blocking (partial/total) the breather pipes? The desirability of foreign object entry prevention? If the above deemed desirable - what is the most effective system - ie removable (before flight) plugs, a gauze, some other system?

Thanks Nev - The original builder has the vents (x3) facing into wind & on lower surface of wing/fuselage (high pressure) . Even with the mesh (looks a lot like window fly wire) there is likely to be some posative pressure at flight speeds.

My new, almost completed (took +12 months intensive work to get her into the air) homebuilt aircraft came with fine mech SS grills epoxied to the outside of the fuel tank breather vents. Presumably to prevent the ingress of foreign material, particularly mud wasp activity. I have never seen this before. Quite like the idea but am concerned that there may be some negative aspects to the innovation - comments?

I live therefore I learn - thanks. As for the car (not mine) got no idea where it gets its (50kph) info from however there is no speed sign on our road, a dead end, off an 80kph main drag.