skippydiesel

"No airline employee is going to let anyone on as a passenger with a very obvious tool belt full of sharp pointy things. Tradie is never getting that stuff in the cabin." He got into the cabine - nuff said!😈

So private pilots have to have an ASIC to use a Security Controlled Airfield and a tradie (of unknown political /fundamental persuasion) doesn't and this is considered to be a logical security policy - it's a sick joke! How is it you did not notice, in the video footage, he actually got inside the aircraft, with a firearm. Then claiming to have bombs on his person. By sheer chance the bombs turned out to be fake . By further chance, a brave passenger tackled the disturbed young man, supported by a crew member (PIC?). ASIC was nowhere to be seen. FAILED on every account. The aim of security to to PREVENT access, not ask questions after access has been achieved. FAILED! IF, as could so easily have happened, the gun had been fired, the bombs not fake, people killed/injured/aircraft destroyed, what would you have to say about your precious ASIC? The very fact that: This happened at a large/ busy airport, That should have had many layers of active security The offender is a rank amature, not a trained terrorist. Was so easily achieved. Is testament to the wrong thinking by our security expert/providers. Private pilots, as a group, are possibly the most unlikly perpetrators of a terrorist act - they have far too much invested in training cost and aircraft purchase/operating to be involved in a terrorist act. That a terrorist would go to the expense, time & effort, to train as a private pilot, for the purpose of committing a suicide attack, on a small RPT airfield, somewhere in the Australian bush, is just not credible. He can go down to a hobby store/internet and purchase a drone, that even without explosives, could conceivably bring down an airliner, all from the safety/anonymity of somewhere outside the Security fence - not even a fake ASIC required. The failure of the US security services to apprehend the "trainee pilot/terrorists" before Sept 11, has no logical relationship to Australian private pilots, even more so after the fact - no self respecting terrorist would attempt the same successful scenario twice, knowing the level of suspicion that foreign applicants for flight training would attract.😈

It is beyond belief that any rational person can defend ASIC, as it has been applied to small regional RPT airports. ESPECIALLY after this excellent demonstration, in a busy main hub (assume security to be more vigilant) as to its complete waste of time. Those who think that any erosion of our civil liberties, however small, is acceptable, when there is clearly no benefit , to individuals or the greater public, are demonstrating a level of apathy bordering on the comatose. It is with such small erosions, receiving no protest, that embolden authorities to greater loss of liberty. I have first hand experince of what terrorism can deliver and what ineffectual measures the authorities can come up with, often to the detriment of the law abiding population. With absolute certainty, I can tell you that the tokenim that is ASIC, will never be effective in preventing a determined attack on Civil Aviation period. That it gives the traveling public, at large airports, the illusion of effective security, may be a good thing. In imposition, on private pilots, achieves no posative practical outcome. WAKE UP!!!! 😈

The PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY message here is - Avalon is a busy domestic airfield and ASIC did nothing to prevent the boarding of an aircraft, by a disturbed rank amater (not a trained "terrorist" with organisational backing). If it is so easy to circumvent ASIC regulations/implementation, in this example, its application in (often extremely) low activity domestic airports, is a conclusive demonstration that it is complete without justification. Further; The fact that passengers & crew (where were the ground staff?) appropriately tackled the issue, is the best defence now, and has been ever since RPT services were introduced - no need for ASIC. ASIC is, always has been "window dressing" - gives some ,a false sense of security and is an insult to Australian private pilots, wishing to access low frequency RPT airports across the country. "I'd be looking at beefing up the security fence". Are you out of your mind ? No fence has stopped a determined entrant EVER! At best, a fence slows the entry of a bad person - may if alarmed alert authorities a bit quicker. As pointed out numerous times - An act of bastardry can be initiated and delivered from outside the airport boundary - no fence, no guards (if they even exist), no flight training (your living in the past with this one), no invulnerable ASIC , can stop such an attack, good intelligence may.😈

Did ASIC work??????????🤣😈

"I was not sure that there was information on Mackay rubber hoses " I have never used Mackay hose but am very impressed with their range (see catalogue) I use Gates hoses - fuel & coolant from Repco & oil from Hydrolink Go to (this Forum) Aircraft General Discussion - Started A Spare Parts List A lot of tangential chit chat but the information is all there

Not so happy now ! Low fuel pressure went off on decent (500 ft/min) from 3500 down to 3000 ft. Forced myself not to put boost pump on - flew for another 30 minutes or so with low pressure alarm going of intermittently. Pressure indication slow fluctuations from 1 psi up to 4 psi - No change in engine performance. Boost pump on before landing - pressure indication normalised - 4.5 psi. On landing removed seal from sensor plug. Wet weather forecast so won't be able to fly for a few days.

I would advise not going down the path of a formal airstrip/field/landing ground, unless there is some other intent/plan that needs this sort of asset. A nicely mown, well drained paddock, of a suitable length, orientation and clear arrival / departure routes, will meet most aircraft needs. For sizeable rural properties, a farm track can be improved, to serve as runway. In most cases, neither of the above will require planning / zoning approval. Why prod the beast (Council/Planning Authority) if you don't need to?😈

Dont really know what you are getting at. Flying small aircraft is a dynamic activity ie the PIC must be able /willing to respond appropriately to whatever the conditions are (including aircraft performance/indications). If you see that your climb attitude (at WOT) is such that the engine is delivering below 5200 rpm, you should be lowering the nose of the aircraft (subject to terrain/obstacle clearance) so that it can increase air speed and the rpm can climb to above 5200 - Simple! There are also other factors at play with a high nose attitude; It is often indicative of reduced air flow through the heat exchange systems and with the high engine load extra heat is being generated - lower the nose for better airflow/cooling. A sudden engine failure, at high angle of attack, low air speed/residual energy, will place additional demands on the PIC for recovery - lower the nose for increased airspeed/safety. Forward vision may be reduced/ flying blind - for improved forward scan lower the nose. If this is not meeting your fixation needs ("not climbing at best angle or best rate airspeed") sorry. If you persist in loading your engine, such that it is operating below max torque, you will, without any doubt, shorten its service life - your choice.😈

The choice of aircraft is a very personal one. I too love the look of RV's 3,4 & 8 - do you think there might be a trend? It seems to me that the main advantage in an RV type aircraft, is that it is comparatively easy to build, to a known standard, from a multi part kit, simply because its metal. Metal has the advantage of being able to be pre shaped & drilled ready for assembly & delivered in a "flat pack". Composite aircraft can not easily be supplied as a small component kit. Homebuilt composite aircraft are usually delivered in an advanced stage of completion ( large modules) - this adds greatly to purchase cost BUT significantly reduces completion time and often results in a more aerodynamic / efficient airframe. You gets what you pay for; Metal likly to be lower purchase cost and higher operating Composite higher purchase cost and lower operating Many pilots favour high engine power - I would suggest that with the possible exception of aerobatics (don't know much about this activity), noise and bragging rights there is little if any experiential advantage in such a choice. Time & time again it has been demonstrated that a suitable airframe can be powered by a Rotax 100 hp and deliver close to RV speed & payload, at a fraction of the operating cost of the larger aircraft - what's not to like?😈

Wow! One very twisted piece of logic. In my view you no more own or control the air above your property than the ground below, sea, sea bed, rivers & lakes. It is all the preserve of the Crown/State (in Au). The State may lease or otherwise give permission for a high rise, basement or mine with limits/conditions. The State may also take away/resume with or without compensation. The private Joe/Jane actually only occupies/has use of, by the grace of the State, never truly owns - this may be diffrent for Native Title.😈

And with a wonderfully low stall - makes for safety and the ability to loiter at low speed for whatever? 😈

It would be great to have one in Australia - one day !😈 That looks to be a miss type - I will enquire.😈

Thank you for your kind words. I will always be ashamed of the series of poor decisions I made on the day in question ,coupled with the damage done to such a nice aircraft. If you are referring to ATEC Solo - it's been around for quite a few years now; https://www.atecaircraft.eu/en/planes/atec-212-solo. I am told(?) that wood has an almost infinite fatigue life - what's not to like?😈 Performance (ROTAX 912, 100 HP) Cruising speed VC 260 km/h / 140 kt Never exceed speed VNE 310 km/h / 167 kt Stall speed (flaps extended) VS0 50 km/h / 27 kt Stall speed (flaps retracted) VS1 70 km/h / 38 kt Max. horizontal speed VH 290 km/h / 157 kt Rate of climb 8,5 m/s / 1680 FPM G-load limit +6 / -4 Flight range 900 km Fuel consumption (140/180 km/h) 12 L/h

More than one way to "skin a cat"; What of existing use??? Plenty of vegetable growers, around my way, that would not get approval to operate today (water catchment area) have prior use exemptions. I don't think sealing a road/runway, on your own property, would usually require planning permission. Road/runway doemstic traffic whats the diff???? As I said as long as it's not an official LA it does not have to conform to any planning requirements😈 True though - I regularly hear stories about "barn find" small aircraft. On our little airfield alone, we have around 5 RAA class aircraft that have not moved in 1-5 years. Growing mold, tyres flat & god only knows, what might be making a nice home within. I bet, almost all small airfields will have the same sort of static displays. Boats often have a similar progression, from being used as often as possible, to ending a driveway obstacle.😈

That your residency predates (significantly?) your neighbours moving in, will lend moral weight, if not legal right, to your argument, in that you live where you live because it offers a particular environment, that has now been compromised. Remember that your neighbour has likly done nothing legal wrong. If this turns out to be correct, change will only come about with good will on both sides. Be very careful with your statements - unsubstantiated speculation/observation, emotive talk, will likly see you loose. Record all contact/conversation, with your neighbour and any relevant authority that you may consult with on the matter. Should you be unable to get a satisfactory compromise, take heart, the long term use of recreational machines (for that is what this is) is that initial enthusiasm wanes. The every good flying day action, tends to diminishes quite quickly, to the occasional flight - it's not unusual for such aircraft to start to gather dust & cobwebs, fall out of service completely, to be sold off years later having not been flown.............??😈

The 500ft, above terrain,regulation does not apply to landing /taking off aircarft. The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft has the responsibility for the safe/responsable operation of that craft. His her decisions right/wrong have legal power & consequences. You would be better approaching the pilot/neighbour to ask (not tell) about options that may be available eg adjusting his approach/departure to one side of your house/property.😈

.

A flying KitFox probably weighs in at around 500 kg (For max TO/empty weight, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denney_Kitfox.) Has a lightweight mostly tubular metal frame covered in fabric - which will collapse on impact dissipating much of the impact energy. Should one somehow come into contact with a substantial structure, like a house, the likelihood of penetrative impact is low. You are remarkably well informed, on aviation, for someone who seemed to be just a neighbour/member of the general public???? I am starting to question the motivation behind your thread.😈

I acknowledge that Council regulations will vary, however as a general observation, you do not require Council approval to land/take-off from your private property or give permission for another to do so. You will require permission to build a designated landing ground (LG) & construct it according to CASA (?) specifications. This does not apply to landing in paddocks or on farm roads. You will also require Council approval to make a LG available to the public/aviators (without invitation) or should you demand remuneration for using it. There is likly a fine line between commercial remuneration and donations to assist with upkeep.😈

The commentator does a terrific job of analysing this incident, with commendable empathy for the pilot & passengers.😈

In general the greatest load/demand on your engine is from start of Ground Run to top of Climb Out. The ideal rpm setting to address this demand, will be one that is past peak torque (in round figures - minimum 5200 RPM for Rotax 9's). Torque is a measure of the engines ability to do work, usually illustrated as a curve (see below). If your engine is operating ahead of peak torque, any reduction in rpm caused by additional load, will be accommodated by an increase in torque & no additional stress on the engine. Few pilots can maintain a constant load on their engine, in other than perfectly smooth flying conditions, so fluctuations in load are the norm. Operating at or below peak torque is likly to place unnecessary stress on your engine and will reduce aircraft performance when the inevitable increase in load occurs. Rotax recomend that its 9 series engined be operated in the range of 5200-5800 rpm for TO (minimum 5200 rpm). "In my Vixxen I have taken to flying about at 4000 rpm and looking at the details below when I go for a jolly" I would call this "loitering" - Your engine speed is perfectly acceptable in this flight condition, as long as a altitude can be easily maintained and you put "power on" to climb. "This gives me 60 to 70 knots , vs 27 knot stall speed" Engine setting , in this case, has little to do with stall speed other than you need to be aware that you have reduced your margin of safety above stall. "Am I risking damage to the engine?" No! I would council extra vigilance not to attempt to climb(load the engine) your aircraft while loitering.😈

Addressing me? Yes I crashed my Zephyr on landing on a very dodgy farm strip - now about 5 years ago. I am still ashamed of the poor decisions I made and the damage caused to a truly astonishing little aircraft. The Zephyr has been put back into the air, by her new owner.😈