David Isaac

Neil, we always start on the impulse mag only on the Gipseys. Only mag is an impulse mag (has the built in retard as Nev described earlier in this thread). Once running we flick on the second mag. We shutdown with both off simultaneously unless we do a fuel shutdown which is what I do at the end of the day, turn the fuel off and when she dies shut off the mags.

Yes Nev, I think it was 'slicks', I couldn't remember the brand name. A kit was developed with probably an STC as I know it is approved.

Nev, The boys at Luskintyre are suggesting I fit the later model Lycoming Mags to the Gypsy. There is a conversion kit available about $3K I believe. Is it a good investment from your point of view?

It is really a difficult argument to put that magnetos are unreliable, yes they are mechanical in nature, but how many are still operating correctly on old Gypsy Major engines like in my Auster. Yes the older ones do have known issues but regular maintenance sorts that and they can be replaced by modern magnetos to improve reliability. My 1951 Auster has zero electrics on board except for the Hand held radio and my iPhone LOL. The old mechanical mags just keep on going and there are two just in case.

Ouch .....

You wild old bugga flying that close so your fin was in the hole ... lucky you didn't get sucked right up in that damn thing. I had a mate in a C206 tell me a story way out west flying between centres when he got caught on the fringe of a large CU. He said he will never forget the experience. He said when he realised he was being caught in the up draft he closed the throttle and pointed the 206 down, he said he was right at VNE, throttle closed and still climbing. He doesn't know to this day how he got out of it but said he was absolutely sh!tting himself.

Yes, but you have to PROVE negligence. In the case of running out of fuel that may not be difficult to prove. But there will be plenty of examples where negligence will be difficult to establish.

The board are also volunteers and a comprehensive report would have taken potentially several weeks of work. Who on the Board has that time available. Plus there is a perceived conflict where the board might not have wanted to be too critical of the regulator under our current circumstances.

There has already been some interesting legal precedent set in terms of any passenger having to accept that RAA flying has inherent risks thereby limiting claims against members and pilots. So suing is not going to be a walk in the park like it might be in the USA.

I agree that the RAAus submission was very weak given the potential outcomes of the report. But who at RAAus was paid the time to put a comprehensive submission together given all the other bushfires the poor buggas are trying to put out on all our members behalf.

Sorry to hear you lost two old friends in that one Richard. They shut them down as a result of that accident didn't they?

Way out west they don't have any numbers, this is what my son tells me anyway and he regularly works in the Lake Ayre district.

Well actually since it is your own property and you have permission, you can take off and land in any paddock you choose without a LL endorsement as long as the paddock meets the performance requirements for the aircraft type as laid out in the Aeroplane Landing Areas (ALA) CAAPs publications. Just fly the final approach along the fence line. Land and repair and take off for the next paddock landing. That is all quite legal. If bureaucracy requires you to play the legal game, play it legally. You don't need much in the way of tools and gear on board to patch up fences, you could even carry a couple of star pickets without exceeding MTOW.

On any large property west of the divide, such an aircraft would be a fantastic utility. Way out west we hear there are many unlicensed pilots flying RAA type and GA aircraft, we don't hear of many of these in the statistics.

Tubz, you are not attempting to vindicate the Police sate mentality using the firearm example are you? You know the legislation that when at 50 years of age made me surrender my Sportco semi automatic .22 rifle for destruction, the rifle I had since 16 years of age where by some political BS decree I became unfit to own at 50 years of age.

Well said Nong, I think your sentiments are probably common to many of us.

I think your left nut is safe Dazz. We were forced to fly low under the early ANO 95-10. All my early ultralight flying was done under 300 ft because the regulation prohibited you above that height. But this was the purvey of the 95-10 style aircraft and at that time initially most were single surface wing, slow and safe. Now that we have almost GA capable ultralights, low altitude is not the place these slippery buggas should be. Notwithstanding as Nev has pointed out if you are going to fly low over your own property which we know most ultralight property owners do, then training in the LL techniques by competent people is a very prudent step. In the early days I was constantly on vigil for power lines, however was only cruising at 25 knots in the Frank Bailey Mustang and the agility if the little aircraft with Frank's signature large control services was amazing. They were certainly fun days.

Mustering cattle is particularly dangerous, but rural property inspection is far less dangerous and some of the ultralight aircraft are ideal for this purpose, my single surface wing Javelin would be ideal cruising at 25 to 30 knots safely. The Drifter would be perfect. In fact Drifters were used for aerial agriculture in the early days and still are by some. I think there is a definite discouraging of issue of the LL endorsement in RAA. We know that a lot of LL flying is done in ultralights surely it is better to at least get trained in the safety issues and techniques. Even if you have LL on your certificate you still have to have a justifiable of need at the time you actually fly LL.

Except you forgot the bit about the RAAus ops manual which requires a LL rating. You don't need one in GA, but it is strongly advise that you get LL training in GA.

Turbo, We have discussed this safety review, (the link that Keith sent us to) and in particular the excellent submission by the AAAA and how that contrasted in content and quality to our RAAUs submission. Keith posted a link about what we all knew and the submissions involved. The report and the consequential outcomes won't be known for many months I suspect. But if we are to post, what is the point if no one knows the point you are attempting to make.

Tim, sounds like you have a genuine reason, something like my Javelin is perfect for that kind of flying because it is real slow. If I were you I would appeal the decision. It seems you have a genuine need and therefore the legal right.

Love it ... You too. LOL

Unleaded fuel contains Methyl Benzine as the anti-knock agent, it is a known carcinogen. They didn't tell us that when they were trying to get rid of the leaded fuel. The catalytic converter burns off the carcinogen emissions, but it takes at least 15 minutes for the catalytic converter to get up to temperature enough to burn them off. So ... for the first 15 minutes your car belches out carcinogens. So think about wipper snippers, lawn mowers, chainsaws and outboard motors ... No catalytic converters ... Carcinogenic emissions. We may well be required to run catalytic converters on aircraft that run on PULP at some time. The problems will be two fold: Weight and how to keep the catalytic converter hot enough (extra jacket, extra weight). Either way a problem for RAAus aircraft where we struggle with weight in any case. As a bit of trivia Flyin Dog. They used to run a long exhaust and silencers on Austers during the war, but that was to keep them quiet when they snuck over the English Channel and landed in the fields of France to drop off spies.

Keith, with great respect, I wish you would stop talking in riddles. I doubt any of us have the faintest clue as to what point you are attempting to make. Btw I would suggest that if you are going to ignore Kiwi, you should do just that ... LOL

Hi Keith, I am not sure what point you are attempting to make with this comment. Will you enlighten us please?