skippydiesel

Hi Neil, The PTT is a very simple spring loaded switch that only makes electrical contact when you press & hold it. If its failed, after many years of service, it is likly beyond economic repair. As Smokey said - just research what your local electronic store (JayCar in Australia) has to offer. They likly have many diffrent sizes & styles to choose from. Measure the dimensions of the old switch and use this to narrow your search.

BrendAn BrendAn - I thought we were having a civilised debate. Now you stoop to mis & out of context quoting. Who said anything about "..can't fly.." My scenario was about the unlikly hiring of an aircraft to an UNLICNSED person. My position is and always has been, in opposition to yours, where you apparently feel that a student should be liable for the damage to/by an aircraft that he /she is flying, while under instruction. I have repeatedly pointed out that the student is the responsibility of an Instructor. By definition, by law, by custom, this means that the Instructor is liable for any flying incident involving the student he/she is supervising. About three years ago, I did my tail wheel training, leading to an endorsement for the same. For the duration of my training, I was a student. I never once booked/hired an aircraft BUT I did book a particular Instructor and made my preference for a certain aircraft known (they had several Citabria's not all quite the same). My Instructor was at all times the PIC - I just followed his instructions, until he recommended me for my TW endorsement. The payments made were for flight instruction, which of necessity involved the use of an aircraft. You are now seeking to limit your position to that of the student going solo - calling him/her Pilot In Command. I have conceded only that the, now advanced student, may bear some increased responsibility (I am not totally convinced of this) BUT IS NOT PILOT IN COMMAND, the Instructor is still the PIC, even when not in the aircraft. You consistently mix up the manipulation of aircraft controls to manoeuvre an aircraft, with Command - they are not one in the same. Commend status, with its privileges and responsibilities, is only available to licensed pilots. .😈

Yes we disagree - thats what makes for a good debate. My thanks. I have been vastly entertained as I recover from a heavy cold . Extraordinary! You don't "think its a scam" even when I have clearly demonstrated that the flying school is increasing its profit margin, by opting for an insurance excess (legitimate) AND THEN stinging the poor student (questionably legality) for a investment that has essentially already payed of (double dipping). "....just not enough clarity ..." Maaate! My guess clarity would bring scrutiny/questions that the SCAMERS wish to avoid. In the unlikly event that this is a legitimate practise, its very very bad customer service. Not a good look. If the business needs to increase its profit margin, INCORPORATE ALL COSTS/FEES IN A SINGE HOURLY RATE. Instructor + aircraft for all students & BFR's . Aircraft Hire (WET/DRY) to qualified pilots. If other, non essential for safe flight, options (eg inflight drink hostess etc) are available, that the pilot (not the student) wish to access, by all means offer these for an appropriate fee.😈

You are the one seeming to accept/make a case for what is basically a SCAM activity- That is the practise of demanding a STUDENT pilot take on part of the RESPONSABILITY and insurance RISK for the aircraft/flight. I on the other hand, have clearly articulated that the very concept of a STUDENT being held responsible, to any degree, for an incident , is contrary to the idea that an untrained person can be responsible, when under the supervision of a qualified Instructor. Further - I have pointed out that the practise (if it exists) of having the student pay for the excess component of an insurance claim, is in effect DOUBLE DIPPING by the flight school. This in itself is likly illegal. One day it will end up in court and I would bet, the flight school will come undone😈

How does this work - student, who cant legally fly, hires aircraft. Student takes of without instructor he did not hire. Student writes off aircraft and him/herself. Who is responsible. Even vehicle hire companies wont hire to someone who cant show a valid license to drive. Flight School held responsible. End of Flight School. This is all BS - Pay for hire, yes but must have qualified pilot to hire ego MUST have qualified Instructor if expecting to sit in left seat and receive tuition. How the school manages aircraft & Instructor hire is an internal matter for them - should not be put on student. I say again - any Flight School that is entering into this practise is on shaky legal ground.😈

Why? The insurance cover selected by the school should be what they deem appropriate for their business/function. No further charge to the student is necessary.😈

A far better but still lacking analogy would be ; A learner driver hiring an instructor - doubt that any excess is either mentioned or demanded The student is not hiring an aircraft. He/she is hiring a training service, which include an Instructor who is responsible for both aircraft & student As always, I doubt the legal basis for asking a student pilot to be liable for any part of the aircraft insurance. Further Even if legal - its a very poor customer relation policy - far better to incorporate ALL insurance cost in the hourly tuition fee.😈

FYI - Just in case you assume that Rotax/Ducati VR + Capacitor system are all fitted with a red operating light; my last & current aircraft do not have this feature 😈

"I think its more down to the changing fuel chemistry in the last 20 years, especially the ethanol introduction." Not a chemist, however I draw your attention to my experince; A 1999 model 912ULS, run almost exclusively on ULP 98 RON. The OM floats were still in use, when the 20 + year old aircraft & engine passed from my hands. I speculate that they are still in service today. This would suggest that any petroleum changes, in that time, did not adversely effect these floats. My 2019 model 912ULS once already😈

Your initial response, clearly indicated you had not read my post You could try reading it (in full) and should you be motivated by my musings , you may like to respond accordingly.😈

Ahh! - your point???

What's wrong with "story"? Check out the various meanings of the word. AND Unless mistaken - no one has mentioned who benefits from the excess option - I just did.😈

On thing puzzles me in the insurance excess story; Unless I am much mistaken the choice to have an excess, thereby reducing the premium, is entirely at the request of the insured. By having an excess the insured takes on some of the risk. Its conceivable that a flight school might chose to have no excess or something between this and the maximum (whatever that is). So the choice is the insured (flight school) not the customer (student). The student has no input to accept a degree of risk or not and yet in your story is held accountable - how is that? By opting for the excess ($?) the flight school has reduced its operating costs - likly increasing its profit margin. Scenarios; A. The student unlikly to benefit directly from the reduced operating costs or the increased profits. B. The flight school passes on the reduced operating costs = more competitive in attracting students = more profit Any excess payment by the student is enhancing the flight schools bottom line - profit! I don't believe the demand for the student to pay excess, that he/she did not negotiate, has any legal merit and in the end is a SCAM to increase profit margin.😈

Going back to the erly floats that did not seem to have a fuel absorption/logging problem. Rotax have engaged a few (No. ?) diffrent manufactures since then and all (not counting the current which I hope will be a return to the original standard) have been a failure - how can this be?😈

"The thing about the definition of PIC is that it can onlty be a pilot in the aeroplane during that flight. So, for a solo student flight, it is obvious that the student is authorised to be the PIC, as there are no other options." At the risk of enhancing my reputation for pedantry; The student pilot does not meet the requirements for Command. "manipulation" yes, subject to the limited authorisation and supervision of the Instructor. Limited in that the student must follow the Instructors direction, which does not go beyond the agreed flight plan. To Command you must satisfy the authorities that you meet the standard to do so. It is clear that the student does not meet this standard. Command confers rights, privileges and responsibilities that, for the most part, the student does not have. Similarly the student has rights, chief amongst them is that they are not expected to demonstrate the skills/knowledge of the fully qualified. This in tern reduces their responsibility for any incident that may occur while being trained. You are at liberty to use the words pilot in command for anyone (including the thief) who manipulates the controls of an aircarft in flight, however this is sloppy language that does not appropriately describe the legal status of the non licensed pilot. Analogies come at the risk of (often deliberate) misinterpretation: A learner driver is not responsible for any incident (unless wilful intent proven) while under instruction. You do not drive a farm tractor, you operate it as part of an integrated system. It is not a car/truck - words matter.😈

My thanks - this is a great topic & learning exercise. I believe your Aero Club has no legal foundation for charging a student the excess. As for the RAA's broker - They have nothing to say about this. Their sole interest is selling insurance for a fee that will generate a profit. They have no status or interest in the "excess" and who pays it, as it is excluded from any pay-out that may be lodged. Insurers only interest in the legal status of the pilot, is if this can in some way reduce the pay-out.😈

djpacro CASA's legal definition, per Part 61 (so not RAA) of a "pilot" means "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." When solo, the student is the pilot, the only person, the only pilot in the aeroplane. So, yes, the pilot in command. I thing you are taking liberties with the CASA definition & the English language - "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." does not automatically confer Pilot In Command status The word Command, in the context of legal operation of an aircraft, describes much more than "..authorised to manipulate the flight controls..."😈

"............. funke have model that fits the same hole" Said the actress to the Bishop. 😈

"Both were pilot in command, obviously.' There is nothing "obvious" about it and as far as I am concerned completely wrong. The two acts you describe were criminal. That the people involved had some flight training does not confer PIC status. If they had been a couple of car jackers wishing to upgrade, would you call them PIC's ? No of course not. Air law is derived from The Law of the Sea. You steal a boat - does that make you captain?? Physical control of an aircraft does not translate into Pilot In Command. PIC confers legal privileges & responsibilities. Physical control alone is just that - no legal status or responsibilities.😈

No I would not agree. While it must be obvious, even to the non pilot, that the Instructor has greatly reduced his / her ability to intervene should the pilot get into serous difficulty, the fact remains, that the Instructor is by design still PIC. When the Instructor deems you sufficiently trained to go solo, this is for the most part an opinion (little empirical evidence) that takes in a multitude of factors regarding the students performance (which will continue to be closely monitored) however the student has not graduated. The first solo is but one of many test that the student may pass/fail, all under the (hopefully) watchful eye of the Instructor. It is also a great rick to the Instructor, who in most cases would seek to mitigate this by being as sure as can be, that the student is up to the task. I have agreed , in part, that under the usual training regimes, it makes sense that a student graduate to PIC with limited privileges. This would enable the student, subject to Instructor oversight, to practise solo stall in the training regime, many touch-&-goes, flapless approaches, glide approaches etc All current pilots will recall the steady considered relaxing of the Instructors control. When I did my first solo X Country -Started the day early at the flight school. Given two destinations well to the north. I had to do the whole whole flight plan, landings, including fuel, W&B, weather, alternates under the critical eye of my Instructor. Explain the rational for every decision. Took hours. It was a relief to take off on my round trip. Several hours later, I returned. Instructor grilled me on every section, radio calls, expected/actual weather, engine performance, fuel used, etc. my observations, including never to be forgotten unexpectedly running into a "gaggle " of gliders at/above/below my cruise altitude, near Narromine (non of whom responded to my panicked Area Frequency calls. I did not leave the flight school until late afternoon - I think it might have been a two hour flight that took 6-8 hrs of my Instructors direct involvement. My point is my Instructor (the best!) was involved in ALL stages of my flight training. I don't recall being given a limited PIC for the training area but may be I did. The apparently simple question you have posed is - When is the student deemed sufficiently skilled/knowledgeable to be held accountable for his/her actions. The answer can only be when the Instructor is satisfied they posse an acceptable (minimal) risk to themselves, other pilots, the public & the expensive asset called an aircraft. From an insurance perspective, my contention is simple - when the Instructor signs them off as a PIC & the authorities issue a valid license/certificate. Then & only then can they be held whole responsible, in the event of an incident. Anything lees means that the student is to a greater/lesser degree, under the responsibility umbrella of the Instructor.😈

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) 😈