skippydiesel

Freeeeee!!!! - due to recall. "i just can't see how a pair of epoxy floats can be more than a few dollars each. these prices are crazy." Agreed. To add insult to injury, my first Rotax 912ULS, 1999 vintage, never needed new floats. Aircraft still flying, assume with OM floats. How can Rotax keep engaging makers of sub standard floats??????😈

For those so inclined - get a helicopter!😈

Not strong enough - YOBS!!!! 😈

"..........blue type fuel floats for the 912." I think my recent OM/Flood replacement's are grey/black ??? 😈

I take your point about the student owning the aircraft however this is not going to be cut & dried eg The student (or intersted parties if dead) may contest the competence of the student to solo. Instructor/school would have to provide evidence contradicting this assertion. The Instructor would have to be convinced of the aircrafts airworthiness, etc, etc "(consult a lawyer on that one)" - I did! Not for this scenario however the judgement that you can not sign away your rights or the responsibility of the service provider, remains applicable to all such situations. I think such a signed contract, for a perceived high risk activity, might reduce any penalty - the injured, in full knowledge (?), having agreed to participation in the said activity. However if the injured were able to demonstrate, say negligence causing/contributing to, the contract may have little if any bearing (assuming that the contract did not state that the service provider is negligent ie student saw the paragraph stating Instructor negligent at all times, aircraft unsafe due to lack of servicing/etc, etc). "require suing the instructor" - May be. Some states have stronger Work Place & Safety Regulator than others - the WPSR may sue or some such other intersted authority CASA?. "As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that." As stated earlier, a student (I am accepting that a limited license may modify this, to what extent will depend on a range of factors) with no restricted license/certificate, can not wave his/her rights. They will be under the supervision/responsibility of an Instructor at all times, who may or not share responsibility with an employer, if one exists. The matter will get very cloudy when the Instructor is a subcontractor/casual employee - definitely court/lawyer fodder. Knowing what I know now - As, an ab initio pilot (student), I would be very leery about a flight school/Instructor, who sought to abdicate their responsibility to keep me safe at all times, within the context of flight training (As I understand it the risks for a pilot at this stage are very low) 😈

"A student must be the PIC" - By definition a student can not be PIC. I will accept that a Restricted (Training Area) License/Certificate does confer some PIC privileges & responsibilities - see below "How could an instructor regain control from a student committing errors, if he's on the ground?" - Thank you for this. The instructor must be confident that the student will not only be able to take-off/land safely, will also follow the predetermined/discussed/documented plan. For first solo/circuits, the instructor will be able to communicate, via transceiver, with the student. Ergo the Instructor is in charge/responsible. This will not be so when the student does his/her first X country however by this time the student may have received a restricted PPL, RAL/RAA Certificate conferring some PIC privileges within the training area. The dynamics of who can hire an aircraft & be responsible for any incident/damage changes at the elevation of the student to a PIC, to something like what you are suggesting. However there is still a responsibility by the school/instructor, regarding any incident that occur while the student is on his/her X County. This responsibility may be mitigated by a whole range of possible scenarios eg Student enters controlled airspace without correct procedures - claims inadequate training. School able to show that student received adequate training - no penalty. Student enters IMC and is killed - School & may be Instructor likly held wholly or at least significantly responsible - significant penalty "A good flying school would make sure the student is fully conversant with the terms and conditions of his training contract - and it is a contract, even if nothing is supplied by a legally-deficient school - and a good school would provide a copy of the insurance PDS, ensuring the student is fully aware of when he's liable, and under what circumstances." Fair enough WHEN the student has a License/Certificate. As previously stated in Australia you can not sign away the your rights or the responsibilities of the service provider. In the case of an unlicensed certified student these would be greater than for a restricted Licence./Certificate holder. It is common for service providers to proffer a form, for the customer to sign, stating that the customer will not hold the service provider culpable for any incident that may befall them (ie waving all their rights)- COMPETE WAST OF PAPER. Most business/clubs will have a document, introducing the aspiring member/customer/student to the organisations structure, code of conduct etc - signing this is just saying you agree to conform/abide by what is stated (it gives legal ground for dismissal in the event that the Club feels you have transgressed)- it doe not remove the rights & obligations under law. "The grey areas would start when a student trains under a "self-employed instructor" who is not a flying school employee - or where a student employs an instructor individually, and hires an aircraft to train in." - Naaa!. The responsibilities will be the same for a employed/self employed instructor. Employed - His/her lability may change, in that the school will be held partially/totally responsible depending on a number of factors. Self Employed - He/she will "carry the whole can". "........hires an aircraft to train in". - I doubt that any aircraft hire business, will hire an aircraft to an unlicensed pilot - An instructor would have to sign off on it - making him/her responsible. In all matters, relating to insurance claims/legal responsibility, there is what I called the chain... The chain is the list of parties that may have had responsibility/input to the incident. From the chain there will be judged degrees of culpability from 0% -100%. The more links, the likelihood that no one will bear the total cost (100%) 😈

Lets be clear here; A. Are you saying that the flight school demanded an additional payment to cover insurance "excess"? OR B. There were two, student instigated, incidents where the flight school demanded payment to cover the excess portion of the damage claim? A. It would be understandable & acceptable that the flight school may seek additional payment (towards insurance) for a perceived increased risk. That it is a very bad customer relations to make this a separate charge is their stupidity - should be incorporated in the overall cost. B. I would suggest this was an illegal demand, by the flight school, that would not stand up in court.😈

"2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident)." I don't bet but I recon it would be a sure bet, that if it ever came to a court to decide, an unlicensed student pilot is ALWAYS under supervision when conducting a training flight and by definition can not be a PIC. Any other interpretation is attempting to have it both ways - Student without command privileges to be held to account for an incident, while under supervision of an instructor. No way on earth! You can sign all the paper work you like, but you can not sign away your rights under law. The best the the flight school, conducting this practise, could ever hope for, is some small reduction in their own liability. A student can not fly an aircraft without supervision, no matter how physically distant that supervision may be. An instructor must authorise the flight. In so doing he/she is acknowledging their responsibility for the safe conduct of that flight by the student. The student can not legally hire the aircraft, to go solo, without the instructors authorisation. I would even question that the student is hiring the aircraft - arguably the instructor is hiring. That the payment is by the student is irrelevant. Ergo the instructor is the responsible pilot in command (PIC) Who pays for insurance access will depend on factors such as, is the instructor an employee or self employed. What does the insurance actually cover. Who is the insured party, aircraft owner or flight school, How much & what type of damage has been incurred. I cant see the student paying (assuming survival) at any time, unless its through some feeling of personal responsibly ie voluntary contribution. In the event of it being demonstrated that the student did not fly as instructed eg keep to an agreed flight plan, there may be grounds for the student to be found culpable. 😈

Aircraft parts suppliers have you by the short & hairy - you just have to do the research & get the best bang for your $. Where possible (unlikly with a transceiver) get the same part or similar part meeting/exceeding OM specifications, from a non aircraft supply company😈

I tried to find Bing floats the same as the Rotax/Bing, so far no joy😈

Rotax Part Number is 861189 Aircraft Spruce Australia The Marvel Schebler MS80-430 blue floats are direct replacements for the existing Bing floats P/N 861-184. $427.90 (AU) SkyShop Australia Rotax Part Number is 861189 $642.0 (AU) Lockwood USA Rotax Part Number is 861189 $104.32($161 Au + delivery - say $250Au) Then there is the Chinese 912 - may have floats to fit at a fraction of the price😈

"2. as soon as the instructor gets out and the student becomes pic then student is responsible for excess." I stand to be corrected -The student is at all times under the supervision of the Instructor/PIC this makes the Instructor responsible, even when the student is going/has gone solo but is yet to fly without supervision. I got my PPL in GA, later seeing the light, converted to RAA, so not entirely sure of the whole RAA training system however in GA ,even when the student goes on his/her solo X country and X country to a complex airport (ATC) he/she is still just a student under the instructors/PIC supervision. I would go so far as to say, a student can never be a PIC, until such time as they qualify as a licensed/certified pilot. To suggest otherwise is a complete contradiction of what is understood by being a PIC😈

Aggressive???? Look up Aggressive. Then look up Assertive. Your earlier correct statement "I would have thought the student would not be held responsible. " The one & only way a student pilot could be held accountable for hull and or third party damage, would be if the damage was caused by a deliberate (criminal) act. Even then, the insurers will likly "pay out" to the injured partie(s) while the student ends up in court. The flight school must carry insurance for their activities. Their activities are all about training pilots. The instructor is PIC. The student is not responsible for their flight failures, whatever the outcome, the PIC is. Where is the understanding problem? 😈

Where's the fun?😈

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.😈