dutchroll

I consider Mike Busch (in the aircraft engine field) and Bob Nuckolls (in the aircraft electrical field) birds of a feather. They're incredibly knowledgable, but they're also idealistic and every now and again espouse principles which will only practically work in an ideal world comprising ideal people - which isn't this one.

Slow, winding on the bank during a turn, half mast height (or thereabouts). Not the wisest piece of aviation the pilot has ever done, I'm sure, but it was certainly the last.

I'm pretty sure the Bose X will do this, but you would need to purchase a new cable assembly for your headset with the 6 pin LEMO plug instead of the dual GA plugs. You just unplug the dual-plug/mic assembly from the earphone, and replace it with the new one. Aircraft Spruce (and other outlets) sell the replacement cable/mic assemblies for Bose.

Apply full power, airborne in about 5 seconds, climb at 3000 ft/min for a minute and a half, loop 4 g, into a 4 point hesitation roll, up into a Cuban 8, 5 g pull-up into a vertical roll with stall turn off the top, down then into another 5 g pull-up, torque roll, vertical roll on the down-line, pull up into a humpty, roll out, rejoin the circuit, land. What's not "recreational" about that?

Yeah Xenophon is pretty smart but has the advantage of not being strapped to a Party Apparatus which dictates to him which way he'll swing on various issues. Departmental or other expert advice doesn't mean a lot when it conflicts with the preconceived ideas each major party brings to Government. You had Brian Owler, one of the most respected doctors and neurosurgeons around, plus just about every other medical practitioner and nurse across the country, telling the Government how bad their recent health policy decisions were, and exactly why they wouldn't achieve what the Government seemed to think they would, yet they went ahead and did it anyway (in fact in a manner which is possibly worse than the original proposal). I don't know that she'll overcome this problem, even assuming she has the right ideas for her portfolio. I guess being involved in aviation might help the aviation community if she happens to sit on a relevant committee, but whether she could influence Warren Truss in cabinet meetings is doubtful (and Truss doesn't impress me at all - he has said some moronic things in his time). Yes, I know, it's a depressing picture I paint of Australian Politics, but deservedly so.

As someone who is married to a doctor, the prospect of having a pilot/air traffic controller formulating Federal Health policy is somewhat disconcerting. Seriously! My experience, judging by the number of times I find myself sitting over lunch or a beer in a slip port trying to explain it to them, is that pilots know bugger-all about the Australian Healthcare system or the nuances and complexities of what proposed changes to Federal Healthcare and Medicare mean in practical medical terms (don't get me started on the co-payment which apparently isn't a co-payment).

The guys I bought my plane from in Florida have been doing this for over 20 years. They ramp load or hand load every time, unless you pay for a crane to pull it off. And again, they do not have side-loader trucks in Florida (they have told me that personally). It's Florida. Not China or Australia. They don't live in the dang-nabbed evil godless 21st century down there.

I used C&H to import my aircraft complete (well, partially disassembled) from Florida last year. Had no issues other than with Australian Customs. The issue of ground loading has always been problematic in the USA and that's across the board in freight handling. In Florida and most other parts there is no such thing as a "side loader" truck. However the guys doing the loading are normally aware of this and make arrangements accordingly (my guys certainly did, using ramps).

I have both a company iPad 3 (with full company Jeppesen Manual suite & nav database), and a personal iPad mini. Both have my Ozrunways subscription loaded. I used the company iPad 3 for a number of flights in the hobby plane and it was excellent from a readability viewpoint, but just got in the way a bit too much for comfort during takeoff and landing. So now I have the Ipad mini and the "space" issue is far better without sacrificing screen real estate to an impractical level. If I could, I would stick with the full sized iPad. Great in an Airbus cockpit, but my weekender cockpit simply makes that difficult - a problem I imagine most readers here would sympathise with. The larger screen is better for zooming into chart features while still being able to display some of the surrounding info which I've had to do often, but the iPad mini is still pretty good and with the retina displays on all the new iPads, resolution is amazing and only limited by the scanning process of the electronic charts & documents. I can't for the life of me imagine anyone trying to navigate, read charts, and look up ERSA info on an iPhone as a "normal" (as opposed to an emergency) method of operating. I still have 20/20 vision and don't need glasses, but the iPhone would be just ridiculous. Memory: Unfortunately you don't get a choice with operating RAM in an iPad (my normal rule for operating RAM required to run any software is to take the software manufacturer's recommended minimum, double it, and start from there). You can only choose the storage memory. Ozrunways reckons 16GB is more than enough for all the database info and they're probably right. BUT: people start adding stuff. First you decide you want some of your favourite music on it. Then you're going to the Fly-In and you realise you want to show people your new house photos, and the new baby photos, oh and some cool aviation videos you downloaded, and the photos of your aircraft build. So get 32GB. Or of you think you might start loading it up with even more travelling/flying stuff (especially music or videos both of which are storage hogs), just go to 64GB.

I will. I think that's possibly up there with the poorest examples of instructional technique I've ever heard of. He's not braver than you. Using bad instructional technique when demonstrating flight regimes involving partial or complete loss of control killed 3 pilot friends of mine in a single blow when they plunged 5000 ft into the ocean some years back. The mistake was only made once. You can't make it again when you're dead, but going to 3 funerals in a week was rather stressful.

The bottom line for an aerobatic aircraft is........watch your G meter. If you are applying symmetrical, non-rolling G loading and you stay within your G limits, you're good to go at whatever speed.

Lol, that depends on who you talk to! But no, Va is the design manoeuvre speed for a positive load factor, not a negative one. You throw in full down elevator at Va and you're guaranteed (well in most aircraft I think, and certainly in mine!) to overstress in negative G.

I've met a couple of aerobatic pilots (not here - in the USA) who reckon that you can still apply max control deflection above Va. However I must qualify that by stating that those particular individuals are, shall we say, "rather impressed with themselves". I personally plan on not testing the ultimate structural load capability of my aircraft, so I'm pretty careful about piling on the G above Va.

Put simplistically: Better on rough, unsealed strips. Worse on sealed/paved strips. The reason is mainly the amount of rubber in contact with the ground. On a sealed strip, more rubber and a bigger tyre creates more drag and grip, so they're consequently less forgiving of any directional control issues in taildraggers. Not so much an issue if you're landing on grass, dirt etc where you need that extra grip anyway. At least that's according to pilots experienced in their operation in North America. It does also vary from aircraft to aircraft too. Some aircraft change their handling dramatically with the use of fat tyres. Others not so much.

"Vast cultural change" is a very tall ask in large Government departments. That's the sort of stuff which takes some years to accomplish - if the pollies have the will to attack it (which they infrequently do). So yeah I agree with those who are sceptical, unfortunately!

Depends what you define as "modern" and under what rules you're operating. If you're < 5700kg in private operations there's no requirement to make any climb gradient in a twin, and indeed in a C310 or Duchess (among others) there's not a hope in hell you'll make a 2nd segment climb gradient with a moderate load on board. In the Caribou in PNG we used to brief where we'd aim to crash after takeoff in the event of an engine failure, the only requirement being 100 ft/min rate of climb in the clean configuration, with no chance of climbing away if there wasn't time to retract everything! Even an IFR charter twin (<5700kg) only needs to make 1% under CAO 20.7.4, and that's fully clean with the inoperative engine feathered. It's even possible to be "2nd segment limited" in some passenger jets, however the performance data prevents you loading it to the extent that you can't make that gradient with an engine out.

I think you're grossly overestimating how much other worldwide airworthiness organisations care about Jabiru the company or Jabiru owners, and grossly underestimating how similar in nature those organisations and "influential individuals in governments" are to our own. Again I refer to a previous post of mine. You have to get it out of your head that CASA have the slightest interest in economics or economic health of the nation. That is not their charter or why they were formed. That is not their purpose under the Act which created them. Once you accept the reality of that, and not before, you can progress towards an effective way of dealing with the safety regulator. Those who refuse to accept that reality may as well pack up and go home.

Not in a radial! The longer it's standing there, the more oil coats the cylinders and pistons!

I guess it goes without saying that some people are very easily pleased. I know what I'd be saying if I had to strip my engine down after 100 hours, and it's not printable here.

So over one solitary issue, which is predominantly an Airservices issue (Airservices are the airspace managers in Australia), you deem CASA completely disinterested in Australian aviation safety? What's "lower than safe"? Minimum safe altitudes are well defined. The rest is subjective. There are many more safety issues I'd be concerned about with flying a small single engine aircraft to Tassie before I started getting worried about not being above 5000 ft!

CASA are the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It seems to me during these debates and discussions that some people don't realise that they do not exist to assist you in being able to run a business, or run a charity, or manufacture aircraft components, or anything at all. They exist to draft, develop and enforce the regulatory framework for civil aviation in this country. CASA are simply a "hoop" (or several, or many, depending on the circumstances) that you must jump through. Like every other Government department, they are directly accountable to the Government for aviation safety matters and if they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there is a looming safety issue then the Government dictates that they take action. I'm not pretending that they're perfect - my opinion is that they are a long way from that in almost all respects. However people need to get out of the mindset that CASA are there to help them. SIDs affects thousands of aircraft and it's pretty non discriminatory, applying to Cessnas manufactured over a 40 year time frame (which is a lot). The SIDs requirements were developed by the manufacturer. The CASA action simply makes it enforceable. We wouldn't be having this debate if Jabiru engines didn't appear to have reliability issues compared to other mainstream aero engines, so I hardly think it qualifies as "anti-Jab".

That freedom to fly anywhere at a price Joe Average can afford has come at a cost, though most of the public don't realise it and it's beyond the scope of this debate. I also think the suggestion that ATPL pilots are perhaps little more than systems analysts is a view usually held by those who don't fly big jet RPT. But no offence taken!

I don't necessarily totally agree with that. The thrust is generally protecting the others who unwittingly get roped in by the individuals taking the risk. I don't think CASA would have too many sleepless nights if a pilot taking his own risk killed himself somewhere remote. However if he takes a risk which kills a class of 20 school kids in a crash in the suburbs, or kills himself along with his unwitting wife and 2 children, well that's a different ball game all together. Many regs were/are historically born out of people doing stupid things and killing other people in addition to themselves. Those who don't take the risks have a right to live in relative safety which overrides the risk-taker's right to do what they like (and even the US Constitution does not grant an unfettered right to indulge in risk taking).

Whatever it is which has coloured your view is unfortunate, however that is not how Government departments work. I'd suggest if you were privy to the inner workings of the decisions which made you think that, you would reconsider your opinion. I have been on the receiving end of a "ministerial" while in the military years ago, and I have never seen so many people jump so quickly and so high. Same goes for the associated civilian bureaucracy.

This is the problem as far as Government Department behaviour goes, pure and simple: 1) Pollies want to stay in power. 2) To do this they must have a majority of people vote for them. 3) Government departments must therefore do things which a majority of people will hopefully agree with (overall, averaged across all departments). 4) A majority of people are easily swayed by perception, especially in regard to things they consider dangerous or risky. 5) If you are on the wrong side of this perception (whether or not it is accurate), you must get on the right side or you will suffer from points 1), 2), and 3).