jakej

You're correct Alf, this is part of the reason I let my L2 & therefore RA Aus membership lapse now leaving kindergarten permanently. For the stirrers - good luck.

Poteroo's post #22 is also the voice of experience & considered observation IMO, & no I don't who he is.

Bull, as you say, my post was in reply to scotthendry's line but somehow insulting to you - you guys in a relationship or something

Bull, please read post #35 .

Oscar you are guilty of misconstruing what I said. It's the context YOU changed - I did not say gravity ONLY causes the wheel to touchdown. If you had read it more clearly I said " holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown" .

As for the "I wouldn't have a bubble-canopy low wing aircraft" THAT was scotthendry's comment post #35, NOT MINE.

IF the RV6 is as bad as you suggest then there would have been a lot more of those type of accidents, not just the group of then some time ago as opposed to very few now.

Hey Bull, recheck your reply to me - surely you meant your reply was to the OP's #35 post ? 'Cause what you quoted doesn't make sense. Like you I learnt on PA 28's etc.

Can you pm me please?

Main Wheels are just that, land on mains first.

Nose Wheel = for preventing prop from hitting the ground & a turning device when taxiing.

In normal landing circumstances, using the technique of holding the nosewheel off so that gravity ONLY causes the nosewheel to touchdown, then there is NOT enough inertia to flip an aircraft on its back - end of story.

A heck of a lot of people try TOO hard to get an aircraft onto the runway before its properly configured to land & then also complicate the event by trying too hard to stop as short as possible or turn off at the first exit point - that can set up a bad landing scenario.

Seems like a few always want to blame other factors like design to cover up their own failings - there are also many who just seem to let go of the stick after landing & while taxying.

As for someone saying they wouldn't have a bubble canopy low wing aircraft ! Are you serious ??? Not having a potshot at you personally however if you are that worried why fly at all - no chance of getting hurt that way:beg:

Sounds like Canberra is a "maintained" monopoly by politicians, I wonder how that happens :cops:certainly a much more profitable way of doing business IMO.

Just one of many ways to have an engine stop:cheezy grin:

I guess some are just slow, Nev:rofl:

FWIW,

Those borrowing a known "good" radio should be aware that there could be a wiring, or other, issue in their aircraft causing a fault. If that is the case you may damage the 'borrowed' radio, IMO it's better to try the suspect radio in another aircraft first otherwise you may have to pay for 2 X repairs.

Biggles,Probably easier to send you Jake Janens phone number.

He supplied it to a forum member with a radio problem so guess it is ok.

 

0412624723

 

Mention I gave it to you if you like. Nice guy with heaps of experience in avionics.

 

He will remember the incident at YLOX a few months ago with Chis' problem

 

Cheers.

You had better wear a lifejacket and carry some flares facthunter, because the FACTS are RAA is unseaworthy and entering a very rough bit of water..............

Unless it's been proven to work with OzRwys or Avplan then save your money. Geez, why do some people promote these products here - maybe big noting themselves ?

if you lose a finger its so much - if you lose a leg .................. you get more. A life, more again

Are you sure ? I figure I'd get nothing

"With due respect to all points of view - the veiled comments here relate to the contention between Don Ramsay and Rod Birrell. I have no position on, nor knowledge of, the veracity of the statements of either party - but it is in NO way a proven case that one or the other has produced the truth. The assertion that ' Rod made those comments on good grounds with his personal knowledge and good information so how can they be called lies' has - in reality - no greater validity than the opposite view.

What is needed, is independent verification of statements, supported by incontrovertible evidence - for both protagonists. Any assumption that the statements of one vs. the other, in the absence of such evidence, has more veracity is entirely subjective.

Personally, I do not have the background knowledge to assess the claims of either Rod or Don. I have seen nothing on here that makes me assured that either of them is 'right'. Unsupported assertions of opinion do not make one case or the other as 'right'.

I have - as any person has - my 'feelings' as to what is 'right' - but that is IN NO WAY proof. Until I see irrefutable proof, I withhold judgement. KP, you have been promising us a grand denoument for some months now - but that continues to remain a promise rather than a fact."

And, therein lies the main problem nowadays - doesn't seem to matter anymore who is making assertions because in any discussion/argument in all walks of life, WHO do you believe. From my observation a lot of people tend to believe their 'friends' comments despite not knowing the actual truth (we seem to want to believe the worst of people) so nothing changes. Life used to be much simpler

.... that's a novel idea

no problems unless the "clique" make decisions without the rest of the elected, then it turns to crap & people give up on the whole process - I've seen it happen first hand. So.... nothing changes:whisper:

'they' will probably wonder why membership keeps falling when this apparent background crap is happening, many of those, who don't have to be a member to fly, will just leave the RA Aus.

What is happening to RA Aus is symptomatic of a lot of volunteer organisations (much worse in SAAA IMO) & it will take a quantum shift in attitudes & thinking before it changes, maybe a generational thing if we get enough 'new' people coming through the ranks.

I don't believe the present 60-70 year old group will see it in their lifetime - the present situation is too broke to be fixed any time soon.

FWIW - if you buy a Mode S is must be an ES (Extended Squitter version).

There is no requirement, for a long time, for VFR aircraft to have ADSB OUT.

IMO every aspect of this topic has been covered, let's just close it now

SSCBD,

Not sure of this comment of yours -

"That members flying RAA as you said "when installing the unit fo the first time" is correct and don't have to touch the coding."

Mode S transponders won't work as planned unless the code is entered - therein lies the problem, anyone can make mistakes doing it so we need to be careful

Geez, why do some try & confuse the issue -

1. YES Mode S is required for all aircraft, VFR or IFR, that have/need (can depend on airspace type) a transponder if--

a, it is new or new to the register, including imported aircraft as of 14th Feb 2014

b, an existing mode C transponder is replaced after the above date

c, or fitment of a transponder - also after the above date.

"So, if you don't fly IFR and don't want every man and his dog to know your every move" - what have you got to hide ? with all the terchnology out there via apps & credit info 'they' probably know more about you than you do. Get over it.

Me, I let technology help me & hope that it may help other aircraft see me if I don't see them.

Some time ago I happened to be looking at Flt Radar24 & saw a customers RV10 flying off the Vic coast. During a later phone call to him I mentioned the 'sighting', he was perplexed as he was not flying that time or anywhere near the location.

Then, more recently, the same situation happened but this time I did some follow up & discovered that the Hex code did belong to the RV10 but the rego displayed was different despite the Flt Rdr24 aircraft icon showing an RV10.

Next step was to look at the rego (CASA Register) & discovered the rego belonged to a Eurocopter. A call to the operator resulted in their avionics people fixing the problem - I did point out that it was in their interest to 'fix' the issue as they would not want to get invoices from Avdata or Airservices for flight ops to/from/in places that they or the other guy didn't go.

Moral of the story - double check any data (Hex Code or Rego) entered into a transponder or EFIS. Casa used to issue a 24 bit Binary code (which needs to be converted to a Hexadecimal code for most transponders) & therefore can result in mistakes during the conversion, more recently I think CASA has also been adding the HEX code to the initial rego paperwork to reduce the chance of mistakes happening.

The main point is although you may do the entering of the code any mistakes should be corrected by the people doing your transponder check, that check applies at first installation & every 2 years after that. Please do that check, your back pocket will thank you for it. 100 penalty points is the price for non compliance (each point is about $75?), you do the maths.

NO, I do not do Transponder (not qualified & don't have the 30K test box) checks so am not trying to drum up business - just trying to make a point & hopefully save your bank balance.

Nead more explanation than that ?

The '12' apostles may be a clue - I had contacted the owners & they have corrected the issue.

Was just trying to make a point re professionals & us, pm me if you want more info.

The incorrect one - in the Eurocopter. Checked the rego against the code list, & the RV10 has the correct code.