skippydiesel

Very well done GDM - Following a well considered steeped diagnostic process is THE way but unfortunately we (me included) all too often, leap to conclusions - usually the most expensive ones.

Hi Rodger - so a Waiex - how old, what engine, prop, avionics? (trying to compare with my Sonex ) I have been with QBE, in part, via Geoff Tonks /Insurance House - they paid out on my write-off, after a bit of struggle - I think they might have been inferring I crashed the aircraft deliberately.

RF - very good of you to talk premiums, however they mean little without the aircraft valuation. Oh! and another point - it may be hard to compare RAA ( third party insured as part of annual registration) with GA, presumably paying all aspects of insurance, to the one provider. Yes I have dealt with Geoff Tonkins - never met but comes across as a decedent bloke. Unfortunatly his quote was not as cost effective as the those that I went with (Bill Owen)

http://worldrecordplane.com/

While I appreciate that this topic may have been "done to death" the reality is that aircraft insurance is forever changing, so it behoves us to review the service providers. It is now almost 12 months since my aircrafts first flight and its insurance policy was taken out. Renewal looms - for me it's a staggering amount. As any sane person should do, the market should be reviewed periodically to see that the policy I am taking out is cost effective. I should like to know: Who you are insured with? (Most of us will be insured through brokers, for the purposes of this discussion, a broker is one in the same as an insurer) Are you as happy as can be ? ( considering you are paying for a service, that you hope not to collect on) Would you recommend them? Any that you would not recommend? I am with RAA so have a more "comprehensive" insurance with another provider.

My free advice; do your sums before writing off RAA. There will be +/- on both sides, you will need to arrive at the best solution for your proposed activity.

Hi Blue, I haven't taken the time to view the whole of the video - if the presenter just had a normal verbal delivery rate it would be 1/4 the length. I have a similar system to the Matco - as I said previously don't get too hung up on using just one system to bleed the brakes. If one does the job, great! but if not be prepared/flexible. My brake line have a very small bore, guessing about 2 mmm. I had a lot of problems with air staying in the system. Pressure filled up, toe brake pumped down, vacuum bleeding, tapped and tapped the lines slowly moving bubbles and even tried (with extreme care) air pressure into the reservoir - it all helped. Took a while but eventually got all the bubbles out - persistence paid. FYI the park brake is just a valve - not hydraulic (or at least mine isn't). In my system, I can pull the park brake on either after pressurising toe brakes or befor ie it acts as a one way valve to retain pressure. Pushing the park brake in just releases the pressure in the slave cylinders thus releasing the brakes.

And presumably very benign winds.

Master reservoir?? I guess there may be more than one (I have only only ever seen, where the hydraulic clutch has a separate reservoir to the brake system) but they are likely to be equal. Perhaps some aircraft have two - still would not be a master. I know I am being picky (apologies) but it's a brake fluid reservoir. The master is usually the cylinder (further downstream to the reservoir) which compresses the fluid on applying pressure to the foot brake or toe. - the compressed fluid then activates the slave cylinder(s) which in turn applies the brake pad/shoe to drum/disk. True some motorcycles and light aircraft, have an integrated reservoir/master in the one casting and for the uninitiated the reservoir on may vehicles is piggy backed on to the master cylinder. In general master cylinders are not bled but with aircraft who knows! In my experience the slave cylinder bleed nipple is always at the highest point of the installed slave cylinder - assuming correct installation.

Call me weird but I have difficulty viewing helicopters as flying machines, let alone something that levitates using gas. It will fail & be relegated to being an advertising billboard.

The downside of a slow flow (nipple a crack) is that you don't get the potential benefit of scouring and the job will take a lot longer.

Yeh! but if so desired, they could take all the ocean to climb .

The whole thing is a joke - in the first instance, you can't be prevented from landing and taxiing to the tie-down area (hopefully well away from any RPT activity). Nor can you be challenged while sitting in the aircraft - its only when you sally forth, that matters have the potential to become officiouse. I think it was the last time, BC, I went on a trip & landed on a ADSCA (to meet a friend/passenger) - taxied away from RPT area (no aircraft waiting) towards tie- down, spied an active maintenance hangar nearby - parked as close as safe/reasonable and walked over to the hanger . Had a nice chat with the LAIMS therein. RPT landed. Exited the public access to hanger, walked up to airline building, found friend. Had a drink/munch returned with friend via maintenance hangers - departed. No stress, no challenge - all good.

Interesting - in particular the observations regarding Australia's massive cultural cringe (my condensing words) , which still seem to raise its ugly head today.

If you have the time, may be worth waiting for the E - my Airmaster is approaching + 12 kg on the nose

FYI - Check the weight of the Airmaster CS and then compare with the EProp CS

Cats are amazing - such soft cuddly looking creatures but look what armament they are hiding - good thing we don't have the larger members of the feline family in Australia.

Oh that one! Have browsed it several times - can't see a reference to private pilots wishing to land/short or long stay at a AD Security Controlled Airport - in the main, it seems to refer to employees of one sort or another. Perhaps private pilots dont need an ASIC - here's hoping. I would invite Markdun to cast his legal eye over https://www.auscheck.gov.au/security-card/aviation/asic#:~:text=An ASIC is evidence that,the airport owner or operator. and give his interpruitaton/understanding (without prejudice).

Don't start me on the road rules - another collection of evidence lacking BS. This whole paragraph would seem to be about international ports of entry/exit . "drug smugglers, quarantine evaders" are almost exclusively in the International realm - not dometic RPT. Your "range of "bad actors"" need only purchase a ticket to gain entry to an RPT aircraft and will be aided to board by all the ASIC wearing staff. Far from perfect????? - As it relates to, almost all, domestic RPT airports, its a complete and utter failure of intent & execution. This has been tried by many with little or no response/action - the only remaining avenue, is to vent on Forums like this.

Sorry Turbs - cant remember/find your posting . Please repost or give detailed instruction as to location.

RF - After much experience/experimentation, I have found that pressurising the system, to bleed & stop, prevents any air from entering (the nipple once cracked/open is not an airtight valve) AND in addition may have a scouring (cleaning out) effect due to the sudden rush of exiting fluid. No offence but your idea, while good in theory, does not accomodate any imperfections (air/fluid leaks) in the system. The imperfections may be due to nipple manufacturing tolerances, dirt, wear or seal deterioration. The problem with nipple integrity, can also cause the vacuum bleeding system to be ineffective. As to returning fluid to the reservoir - never having had spontaniouse air in a functioning brake system, I am always bleeding to replace old fluid or air bleed after a brake repair. In either case I would not return potentially contaminated fluid to the reservoir. What is the significance of "the Piper has 5 cylinders... (park, 4 pedals) "?

Thanks for taking the time Mark to demonstrate that justice is not about fair play or reasonable action - in the end about who has the power.

Out of interest; If the above be the case, why then is QANTAS being taken to court over phantom ticket sales? The, want to be, traveler (applicant), has payed for & received a ticket, the company does work to this end and will honour the agreement sometime (just not for the service expected). Its possibly not the best example but in both cases the vendor (QANTAS & Federal Gov) is providing a doubtful service It seems to me a "contract" can not be valid, if the applicant (pilot) is essentially coerced into instigaton, no matter the work (checks) that is then triggered in a third party. Coerced in the sense that the pilot is being pressured (fines for non compliance) to apply & pay for a service he/she does not want or believe will be delivered. For a contract to be valid the pilot must have the expectation of receiving a material benefit (increased individual & public security). It would seem that there is no significant increase in individual or public security, around RPT aircraft, at most domestic airports, therefor the contract has not been discharged. It would also seem that the Federal Gov (the contractor) has no intention of improving security (no personnel, no follow up) in this situation, again the contract has not been discharged. It should not be forgotten we are talking about access to a public airport/facility. Any on going barrier to this access would need to have very strong justification. No such justification has ever been presented .

I assume you have an assistant "depressing brake". I have trained mine to loudly intone DOOOOOOOOWN (slow depression)- UP. I find a ring spanner to be the best for working the nipple. The bleed hose goes on after "cracking" the nipple, while spanner remains in place. OPEN bleed niple slightly after the down commences. CLOSE nipply just befor end of down. Repeat, until no sign of old fluid or air. I usually start with the slave/wheel cylinder closest to the reservoir - carefully drain as much old fluid as you can, avoiding sucking air, before adding fresh fluid to the top of reservoir. Your assistant is in charge of replenishing reservoir as needed. In a vehicle - avoid depressing brake pedal all the way to floor (if in doubt small wooden block placed under peddle) prevents possible overextension/damage to piston rubbers. Opening nipple slightly after assistant commences down stroke, ensures a good high pressure scouring (removal of any contaminants including air) of system. Closing nipple, while under pressure, reduces chance of air entry, as does Blues partially filled baby food glass jar (I use a peanut butter plastic one). In an aircraft I use both bottom up, and bleed down (very similar to vehicle technique). I have tried vacuum bleeding with some success. Sometimes removing air bubbles just requires a sufficiently fast flow of fluid, to force the air to exit with the fluid - do whatever it takes.

Only done the brakes on three aircraft (several times) - despite two being the same "model" the brakes were slightly diffrent, requiring a flexible approach to bleeding. I think that's part of the problem, no two systems are exactly the same. I doubt the type of hydraulic fluid makes much difference to "bleeding". I don't think there is much if any functional benefit in using aviation fluid V automotive, other than cost & ease of acquisition of automotive. NOTE: Check and double check you are using a fluid compatible with your system - the wrong fluid is likely to damage seals/buckets and leave you with no brakes and much expense. I do think the systems, on RAA class aircraft, can be difficult due to using very small ID pipes, lowish pressures/flow (particularly for hand actuated systems), odd pipe routing (sometimes a U bend or a master cylinder, traps air, makes life difficult), duel masters, small capacity reservoir or no reservoir, etc etc In my limited experience, a combination of techniques (including much bad language)seems to deliver a non aerated fluid. Once you get to that happy place, every effort should be made to avoid future air entry.