Head in the clouds

I'm glad someone remembered 😊. Yes, always been concerned about the number of apparently unnecessary fatalities. My take on it is a very strong crash cage around the occupants, good harnesses, rear head support, flail protection as far as practical, and most particularly as much underseat impact absorption as possible. To that end my latest design also incorporates a large amount of landing gear suspension movement with gas struts, but that's not practical for all aircraft configurations. I'm still here, I've never been 'deleted' as far as I know, though a few people have expressed that desire from time to time 🤣. I did get suspended for a month around that time, for having a contentious opinion. The DooMaw project has been on hold for a while, boy how a couple of years passes in a flash when you're busy! I've just been too involved with my drafting work and developing a new marine business lately. But DooMaw is still alive and well and will be completed in due course. There's the covering and painting of the fuselage still to do, final fitup of the engine, instrument panel and wiring to finish, and the wings to build. Here is a link to the DooMaw - building a STOL thread. There are references to the crashworthiness design features throughout the thread, chromoly structures aspects are earlier in the thread and the seat impact absorption stuff is on Page 11.

Bugger - really sorry to hear that Ian. Eyes are so critical to just about everything we do. I second danny's comment about finding a flying buddy so you can still escape the 'tyranny of petty things' from time to time. All the best, Alan

I'm amazed no-one has mentioned XE.Com. When I began importing I researched all the money transfer methods I could find, and XE were way ahead of the rest. I have never had a bad experience. XE has been around for nearly twenty years and in 2018 merged with their major competitor/sister company HiFX and continue to trade, combined, as XE.Com. Forex transfers from banks, credit cards, Paypal etc will typically cost you 6-10% in their margins as well as many charging fees as well. XE don't charge any fees at all and their margin, in my experience, has been typically less than 0.1%. The transfer takes place within 24hrs of your settling the account (usually more like 6-12hrs). You complete the Forex purchase online and then have 24hrs (max) to settle the purchase with XE.Com. If you use Billpay they will make the transfer the next day, if you use Osko or similar instant transfer methods, they will make the Forex transfer as soon as they receive the funds from you. On several occasions I have received notification from the recipient of the funds within 4hrs of my making the online Forex arrangement. If you are buying privately from overseas you set up a private account with XE, if you are buying as part of a business you must set up a business account. Both are essentially the same and the margin is the same, it's just that business accounts must satisfy the international money laundering regulations.

Yes, if you're ever on the Barkly Highway (Camooweal to Three Ways/Tennant Creek) around sunset near the dams and waterholes, you'll usually see flocks of more than ten or twenty thousand budgies flying in formations. It's a stunning sight, completely mesmerising. The starlings in Europe provide a similar phenomenon.

Birds are very light compared to their volume - would it be possible to fit 50T of canaries in a 747?

For piano hinges I've always followed the advice of one of the kit-build manuals from US (might have been Tony Bingelis' Sportplane Builder). Make a mixture of Iso Propyl Alcohol and dry lubricant powder (graphite is OK but messy and not recommended on Aly, better is PTFE/Teflon powder), and brush it on the hinge liberally. The Isopropanol carries the lubricant into the hinge and then evaporates leaving the dry lubricant dry, and where it needs to be. Also - the hinge pin should be lightly bent into a series of gentle S curves which prevents it rattling and causing wear.

I don't think it's been reported here yet, and I haven't been on the boards much to see if it has been mentioned elsewhere - but sadly the second occupant of the flight that is the subject of this thread, succumbed to his injuries. An extract from the club newsletter - Loss As most of you will know, in April 2020 we sadly lost former President Ross Scholes and fellow member Steve Chew in a tragic accident at Heck Field. Both were founding members of the JWSFC and great friends of us all. We will remember them with a plaque and photograph on the wall of the Clubhouse. RIP Ross and Steve - and condolences to family and friends of both.

Litespeed, as you know I well repect your opinions. However, as others have pointed out, things ARE different in the bush, and especially when compared with general operations in somewhere like Sydney ... I'm not in any way condoning the alcohol aspect, but as I've said in other posts, that's not something I found to be at all normal in the bush - in this case it seems to have been a serious issue. However - regarding the low flying aspect where you suggest it was for no reason but thrills and deliberate rule breaking - on a station property where locations of hazards are known i.e. power lines etc, it's extremely UNUSUAL to ever fly above about 150ft AGL because every flight involves fence or stock inspection, even if you're on the way or back from town - and low flight is perfectly legal over your own property or property where you have permission - in fact that is your everday job. It has nothing to do with a "bugger the rules attitude". And of course everyone in camp would have known ... that is how the job is done.

I couldn't agree more Nev. However, it's how the factory supplies it. Personally, by preference, I would cut the excess thread length off. But then it wouldn't be compliant on a cert engine would it? So what would be your personal advice to Rotax engine owners whose engines have carby bolts like these?

Not meaning to be pedantic but it's supposed to protrude at least 1.5-2 threads. There is no limit on how much more it may protrude. On my 912 it is the same ... just inconvenient to wind the bolt in that far.

More interesting background, thank you. I must have first gone there about 7-8yrs later than you're discussing I guess. Craig had set up Alligator Airways and then developed it quickly and very professionally. Slingsby broke away from VRD and then thought he owned the Kimberley and IMHO everyone's life, including his own, would have been much easier and better if he'd just concentrated on his own business instead of trying to destroy everyone else's. I remember Ken but not what happened to him. Stewy - I was telling a story about him just the other day (well I think it was that particular Stewy) - was he the one who had a 47 and explored an escarpment at Halls believing it held alluvial gold and found a huge nugget, spent too long celebrating in the Halls Ck Hotel and then drove home, tangled with a roadtrain and lost his arm that way? Peter Luitineger is a name I haven't heard in a long time. Always a gentleman in my experience but I only met him a couple of times, I wonder where he ended up? Flight Service - now there's a bit of history from back in the days before user pays. They used to be a good mob at Kun, I saw them grow, blossom and then get shown the highway. At the same time the movements at Kun went from hardly any to lots and then busiest airport by movements in Australia just when they were shut down. Makes sense to somebody I guess. Ah, the exceeding hours thing ... surely not? I'm sure I never came across that sort of thing ...

You must have been in a different world from me then. Only bloke I can think of that ran 6x 300s was Chilli at Fitroy Crossing but he wasn't killed in a Robbie, he went on to fly heavies offshore. First one killed by blade separation on a 22, AFAIK was Sean from Broome, but he never had a fleet, let alone 300s. I worked on quite a few stations in the Top End - Qld, NT and WA - and most of them were totally dry, the only drinks and revelry took place on the rodeo weekends. Two of the stations allowed 2 only midstrength beers per day, controlled and distributed by the Cocky - and sacking was instant for anyone who exceeded that. The only exception was Lawn Hill which didn't restrict it, and the Gregory Downs pub was only about 1/2hr away, Burketown about an hour but no-one ever bothered to drink during working camps anyway, with 3.30am starts and back at the homestead or outcamp after dark we were all far too stuffed at the end of the day - the only thing anyone wanted was their swag. Like I said, your world must have been different, somehow. I don't know what you mean by flying "2 months straight every day".

Really? Well I never encountered that at all in the days when I was mustering, the days were too long and demanding for playing up. And I never met a Cocky or station manager that would have put up with it. You let your hair down at rodeo time. Where did you come acrosss that kind of behaviour SP?

Sad outcome but how very refreshing to have a commentary conducted by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Regarding those cables with the bungee suspension - they're not there in case the bungee fails, they're not strong enough to hold the gear legs if the bungee had failed. They actually act like the 'bump stops' on vehicle suspension, they limit the amount of stretch of the bungees, and by doing that they prevent the bungees being overstretched and then failing as a result of the overstretching. On some aircraft they also limit the amount of suspension travel so as to prevent a prop-strike on the ground in event of a hard landing.

About 30yrs ago I flew an Osprey 2 quite a bit, around 25-30hrs IIRC. Contrary to expectations it displayed virtually no pitch change between full power and zero power. At the time we concluded it was due to two main factors - 1. The elevators were quite heavy and either not mass-balanced or only partially so, consequently as power was reduced the slipstream effect was also reduced and that allowed the elevators to move down under their own weight and so prevent the expected pitch-up. 2. Although the hs/elevators were of cruciform design, they were still below the majority of the accelerated flow of the slipstream and so as power was applied and the slipstream increased, the accelerated air caused a lower pressure region above the elevators, drawing them up into that region and that compensated for the pitch-down tendency caused by the high thrust line. Having said that, of the many types I have flown, I think the Osprey 2 was the most potentially dangerous of them - it seemed to spend all its time trying to catch you out. Very small performance envelope, high stall speed, vicious wing-drop in the stall at anything except idle power and, as Pylon alluded to earlier, required careful loading checks to ensure CG was within required range.

Frankly I couldn't give a rats whether 'links' or protocol are circumvented. RAAus office is very busy trying to do all the things we need to keep ops happening and I'm delighted that they very promptly provided me with the avenue to discover what I wanted to know. The way they went about it meant that I quickly learnt far more than I asked for, in my simple question. There are plenty of critics out there, of the way that RAAus 'is', but right now I'm not one of them. I'm impressed, they're working hard for us, and very well at the moment. I do think I'm qualified to comment on that, I am one of the very early members (#000714), I joined AUF in the year of formation, 1983, so I've seen plenty of the good and the bad.

No, actually I was very impressed, I received the information I was seeking within just a few hours from making the enquiry, from the person best able to let me know the current position. In due course RAAus will let us know what will come of it all. No doubt they will take note of views expressed in this thread - I will send them a link before their talks in July to renew the policy. I expect that the amount of cover will be increased to $20m because otherwise we'll be excluded from using all Council controlled airfields (and that is most of the airfields that we currently use) unless we individually pay an extra $450 or so for top-up insurance. Frankly I think RAAus wouldn't be serving the membership correctly, and could well be considered negligent, if they don't maintain our insurance at 'industry standard' levels.

Yes, well that's an excellent head-in-the-sand view ... EXCEPT if it costs you an extra $20 (not $500) and then you get total protection from any mishap that may happen, and also don't get excluded from using all Council airfields ... oh - and I recall you want to fly through corridors that will also require it ... well is $20 per annum so much you would either not be able to afford it, or protest against it, or accept being excluded for that paltry amount? The thing is - costs go up every year in real dollar terms and also in CPI terms. I don't think we have had a membership cost increase due to PL insurance for many years, so quite simply - we're due for it. EDIT - And surely, if HGFA believe they require it, why haven't our Board also thought so? Frankly, I think were being left vulnerable because so many of our members have complained so often about membership cost, that the Board has become gun shy about responsible management of our needs. Your whole concept of "be a man and carry the risk yourself and fly the passenger, carefully of course", seems to me to be utterly stupid. Have you any idea how quickly the totally unexpected happens? To anyone, that is, however careful you may be. I've never had an air 'accident' - "my perfect safety record is no accident", as we say, but I quite allow that one could be right around the next corner. I'm not perfect, are you?

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, the Council doesn't make anything from it. Councils and many other Authorities now see $20m as 'the standard'. That amount is required for model aircraft flyers on Council land, model car racing clubs, go kart racing, dirt bikes and even people operating their fishing and power boats on Council controlled waterways. It first came to light a couple of years ago when one of our members put an ultralight on floats in Moreton Bay and the Shire's permission was required to take off and land from waterways they control in the estuary (thereby not Harbours and Marine). In these increasingly litigious days I think it's just a bullet we're going to have to bite or we'll be excluded from a large percentage of the airfields we currently use. EDIT - By the way, HGFA members all have $20m PL cover provided within their membership.

I was recently refused permission to use a Shire Council controlled airfield because they required $20m PL Insurance and the RAAus member insurance only provides cover to $10m. I am aware that members can individually purchase the extra $10m but it is prohibitively expensive. Yesterday morning I sent an enquiry to RAAus about this, asking whether RAAus has plans to increase our $10m to $20m. At 4.30pm I received a phone call from Geoff Tonkin of PSB Brokers, they are the brokers who provide RAAus with the PL insurance that comes with our membership. He said RAAus had asked him to call me to discuss and explain the current situation. Geoff agreed that the extra $10m is very expensive if bought individually. In fact he had just issued one and it cost $462 - that's about double the entire price of our annual membership! He said he has been receiving an increasing number of enquiries about this because most Councils and other controlling Authorities now require at least $20m - and some want $30m. He said the RAAus Policy comes up for Review and renewal in September/October and he plans to suggest that RAAus increase the amount to $20m, he said it would probably only increase the rate per member by about $20 per annum. However, he said RAAus Board are understandably resistant to cost increases which affect membership costs, so he suggests concerned parties get in touch with the CEO/Board and make their feelings known. Otherwise, based on my own recent experience, we may well find ourselves excluded from many of the airfields we currently use, or having to pay a huge premium to buy top-up insurance individually. Discussions between Geoff and the Board will commence around July. That's only a month away, so it might be a good thing to send RAAus an email asap if you want us to stay up with the current requirements.

You deserve a medal Ian!

Cessna 310 I'd say, based on the small size of it, for a twin, and the shape of the tip tanks.

Presumably this 'approach sector' is a 'collection point'? If so, shouldn't aircraft incoming to the approach sector be making radio calls before they get there, indicating their height, intentions and arrival time?

Yes, I always wonder why people complain about having a big income tax bill. I wish my tax bill was $1m every year!