David Isaac

We all know how capable, strong and safe a Drifter is, most of us from personal experience. Looked like a beautiful day and an enjoyable flight ... BUT ... Putting the vid on a public forum and on YouTube ........ NOT smart guys.

If you have the fine pitch prop on the Auster J1B or N you can get off in less than 150 metres. They were a real STOL aircraft in their day.

ha ha ha , great avatar too, give the ol bugga my regards ...

Well I'll be ... the ol bugga finally did it ... LOL

I give up ... who?

Not quite HH. When I first flew the early Ultralights, the AUF did not exist. There was no operations manual and no Pilot Certificate, I flew as PPL holder, but even that wasn't a requirement. The only real rules we had were contained within ANO 95-10 which still exists today with changed rules as CAO 95-10.

Yes, you can have as many as you want as long as you build the aircraft to CAO 95-10. This is the ultimate experimental category ... BUT ... the challenge is ... do it for a max AUW of 300kgs ...

Lyle, My advice since you are a new PC holder would be to find some of these bush strips close to you, obtain all the details for each; such as strip length, strip surface type (gravel, dirt, long grass, short grass etc), condition of the surface (rutted, undulating), obstacles, power lines, strip altitude and most importantly slope. Completely avoid one way strips to start with (you wont be insured if you have an accident at one). Once you have all the details, grab your instructor and have him go over all the performance calculations to determine how many of these strips are suitable for your aircraft. Then have the instructor review with you, climb performance for your aircraft, especially the effects of density altitude. Have the instructor show you correct 'precautionary' and 'short field' techniques and practice them at a familiar strip. Then have your instructor fly with you to your first bush strip and instruct you through the process. This way your instructor can review with you all the dangers associated with bush strips. I don't know much about the J120, but I am reasonably certain they are not an 'ideal' bush strip aircraft, but will certainly be able to get into and out of any bush strip that meets the performance limitations for the J120. Be especially aware of the climb performance and clearance of obstacles typically found at bush strips. Even the trees some distance from the strip will be a clearance issue at high density altitudes.

Very sad and unnecessary. Steve, it is CO (carbon Monoxide), not CO2 (carbon Dioxide).

Gary, I have no doubt that had the right support been available (and that should have come from RAAus at the time) your situation could have been largely overcome. You were the victim of a series of circumstances that were unbelievably coincidental, and terribly unfortunate and at the same time fortunate that nobody was injured. Unfortunately you couldn't arrange a more highly public profile accident if you tried to engineer it. The accident had nothing to do with your aircraft. The placement of the Ferris Wheel I allege was negligent in the extreme. ... BUT ... it happened to be one of your aircraft and the experimental one at that, so all the darts were aimed at you. Sure there were many things not 'right' with your operation at the time, but these were all issues that could have been overcome with the right support, efforts and implementation of systems. I too am fearful for Australian manufacturing content in aviation, the latest debacle with Jabiru could bring about the demise of two Australian companies. I just hope the kit built 19 rego system can stay strong. Some of this European LSA product is real crap and most will be dead frames, not economically repairable a hell of a lot sooner than the owners think. They are certainly not 10,000 hrs plus frames like little GAs are. If I was a speculating man, it will only b a matter of time until they 'life' many of these LSAs. Ever priced a replacement wing for a Tecnam? You wait, the manufacturers will engineer obsolescence into the frames and they will reach a point of non viability in a lot less hours than people will hope for.

I wouldn't run Valvoline in any of my machines Maj. There are far better quality oils on the market IMHO and not just MHO.

No that is just a modified Piper Cub with no clothes on.

Years ago I did he P chart calcs for a C172 taking off from Walcha at MTOW (Full fuel and two up) on a 40 degree day, quite common there. I cannot remember the exact input data, but was staggered she needed 5,000' to clear a 50' obstruction.

It would be good if we could all step back and take an objective view. Can we please put aside the petty cheap shots. Dazz old buddy please stop baiting the biters and the biters, please ignore emotive comments, you only give them power if you respond to them. We all want this thread to be constructive. There are some very good people out there trying to fix things and some very good people caught right in the debacle. Damn shame. The horse has well and truly bolted on this series of problems. I agree with Motz, we now have only one option in the short term and that is to manage the circumstances. Motz is also correct in directing from where the problem originated and if ego and pride is not put aside and some commercial objectivity put in place we may well see the demise of both Jabiru and Camit; these are the commercial realities. If Jabiru folds, we can only hope some one local will buy what is left and the IP and go again and hopefully Camit can survive that long. Arrogance appears to have put us all where we are and arrogance maintained will damage any hope of recovery.

There is an even bigger issue that Facthunter tried to raise in an earlier post and I think it went over most peoples heads. That is you can be well below your MTOW and may still not make it over the fence if you haven't done your takeoff calcs right. We used to call that using your 'P' charts. This can be the case at high altitude strips, or high density altitude or short strip or long grass or slope uphill or lack of headwind component and God help you if all of the above are combined. These are also issues NOT understood by a worrying number of RAAus Pilot certificate holders. This issue alone has killed many a Cessna and Piper pilot and PAX in the low powered models, so RAAus is NOT exempt the risks to the unwary.

Welcome Eamon, Great bunch of folk on here, don't be afraid to ask questions.

Gareth, I had to laugh looking at the both of you and the size of your son compared to you. I don't know what us Dads (or maybe Mums) did, but all our boys, well at least both of mine and all my friends boys are taller and bigger than their Dads. It's too late now for any discipline ... LOL, not that we need it any more. Nice landing BTW and a nice looking aircraft. Refresh my memory, what happened to the Sierra, I have a vague recollection it was damaged?

If the Hummelbird was load tested to over 6G, that would be at its design MTOW. BUT ... Is the 6g max design load i.e maximum operating load, or destruction load? Have you ever considered the exponential effect on loadings as the weight increases above the design maximum. If it is as strong as is claimed, perhaps an engineer could re certify it with a power increase. I am not familiar with a hummelbird, I take it it is CAO 95-10 category, in which case there is a legislated MTOW OF 300kgs regardless of design strength.

And hopefully so. If someone blatantly posts their illegal activities it usually has the value of swift response in rebuke from responsible forum members ... And hopefully the offender will learn. It beggars belief that a RAAus pilot certificate holder doesn't understand the implications of exceeding the particular MTOW for the aircraft they are flying.

Well clause (b) sub clause (iii) screws us all.

You get a better view at 55 knots and it is way more fun, usually any paddock will suffice as an ALA as well.

You are a funny man FT, I laugh because I have been there. Had to sell a Jet race boat many moons ago or ........

There used to be a Jab powered Drifter at Warnervale a couple of years ago, this is probably it since Ourimbah is within a few Kilometres of Warnervale He obviously doesn't want to sell it very much, or could do with lessons on how to sell ..... no details, no TTIS, no engine hours, no engine type no date of manufacture no statement on rego status. These kind of ads really peef me.

Well based on those very loose definitions of type we will all need to be endorsed for every brand of RAAus aircraft we fly won't we. How ridiculous is it to have such a loose definition on types. Do they have a more specific definition of what the 'different' types are?

Is that a list of types or a list of features? Can't make sense of that. Why can't we do the same as Part 61 in this area.