nong

No bleating and squealing here.

In fact, it is you who is carrying on like a pork chop.

Drifters produced by Wayne Fisher (Fisher Mk1) had a cockpit controllable tab fitted to the port elevator.

If you go to the Spectrum Aviation web site (still up) and examine photos carefully, you will see the tab.

From memory a horn on the tab was operated by a small diameter bowden cable, such as might operate the gears on a push bike.

There was one horn pointing up from the tab's upper surface. Another pointed down from the lower surface.

To the second horn was attached a length of bungee cord that stretched forward to a mounting on the elevator. Bungee diameter was about 5mm.

Thus the cable pulled against the bungee so that the tab did not flutter.

So dramatic, turbs.

Anyone serious about their aviation is already assessing and managing the risk in everything they do.

There is no need for the "Johnny come lately" impost of a SMS paper work jungle in a small scale operation.

Excess and fanatical risk aversion is a characteristic of those with impaired judgement.

Risk is inherent. CFIs already manage it pretty efficiently and with a high success rate.

Living in fear of litigation can be stifling. I choose not to.

Flying training at Wagga has been fatality free for fifty nine years. It's fair to say that risk has been managed.....without the paper work jungle.

The attempt by RAAus to force schools to have their own SMSs was abandoned on September the 9th.

Our National Safety Manager made the announcement via e-mail to CFIs.

Truly silly to remove the controlled airspace syllabus from the Ops Manual.

John McCormick (CASA boss) has at last gone, so it is now a new ball game, with new possibilities....so, RAAus gives up !!!

And... Where is the syllabus for aerobatic training?

Still waiting for Howie to do the obvious........

Yes, a tandem jack of all trades, with tabs on fuselage and wings to enable easy attachment of mission specific equipment.

Dual controls available, of course.

Low development cost off existing base.

Aviation history shows that tandems usually outsell fat side-by-siders.

What's your advice?

As a school operator, I keep flight sheets recording the duration of each flight. From this, fuel useage can be estimated and recorded. Fuel added is also recorded.

Fuel gauges are checked during the pre-flight and which ever of the reading or estimate is the lower, is taken to be the fuel on board. We also rock the wings and listen!

Occasionally the tanks are filled to capacity, 126 litres by our measurement, and this provides a "reset". I try to carry fairly low fuel loads for circuits and bumps in the interests of achieving a better climb rate, but, more importantly, reducing structural loads during student induced impacts.

So Alf... Why do you carry on so, about Jabiru powerplants?

Many of us get good long term service out of these simple little donks. To us, your posts seem misplaced.

I dunno about everybody else, but I always dip the tanks before I fly.

I also vote for car petrol. No more taxying back with a lead fouled plug.

It occurs to me that current build Jab engines, if fitted with cold start kit and run on car fuel, can be declared to have finally matured for the intended purpose.

Let's make sure we don't have crossed wires here.The 2nd sign off can be done by a person with a Pilot Cert or a L2, L3 or L4. Only two people are required to be involved - the person that does the work and one other being a Pilot Cert holder OR one of the other L2, L3 or L4.

 

Currently RA-Aus does not require anything in this regard that is not required for GA.

 

OK?

 

Any speculation of mine as to what may happen down the track is just that - speculation.

Pilot Cert holders are EXCLUDED. His document only refers to those lucky enough to be a member of the diminishing pool of L1 Pilot Cert holders.

I note the Tech Manager's lack of justification. "Recent investigations have identified potential areas of concern" Duh.. What? Those vague words do not a justification make.

I also note the bizarre requirement to "dob in" the person who performed the work. If, for example, a split pin was found to be of an incorrect diameter, the person conducting the second inspection is required to "if any issues are identified, a Recreational Aviation Australia incident report is to be completed and sent to the Technical Manager."

This then gives the Tech Manager a "justification" to strip the person who performed the work of his/her technical "Authority".

It might also ruin a few friendships.

This document, I think, is another shot in the Tech Manager's war against us.

So the Tech Manager decides to destroy our well proven maintenance system and the board is too pissweak to reign him in. Lovely.

When I owned a Thruster it got a fixed (bendable) tab on the elevator as soon as I could find the rivet gun. I set it to a trim speed of 45 knots. No way did I trust that UP elevator cable to stay connected to the horn. The horn had a sharp edge that wore the cable attach bolt.

Just wondering what reference people use when they quote aircraft speeds for performance figures ? What is the altitude for reference and is the speed Indicated, True or Calibrated airspeed ?

You forgot to mention......"Fabricated". !

The current Tech Manager is happily destroying our successful maintenance system.

He has, by his recent actions against our maintainers, deliberately set out to force each of us to decide if we will remain in the system, go outlaw, or quit.

I do not know this fellow's background, but I have my suspicions.

We know, as the ones doing the work, that "recency" is not a significant factor in the quality of the work that we do.

It appears to me that this bloke is using furphys such as "recency", to strip a good bulk of L2s of their rightful qualification.

Spare a thought for the newly minted pilot who has just bought an aeroplane. No L1 is issued with his/her Pilot Certificate. This person is, therefore trapped, NOW, in the same position as a VH- registered owner. There is no alternative but to bring in someone to maintain the aircraft. Owner maintenance is revoked.

This is what should have happened.

The RAAus board, knowing the critical nature of what is happening, should have resolved to order the Tech Manager to strike out all reference to recency, and the like, from the Tech Manual.

This should have been presented to CASA as a revision. If CASA happened to not accept the revision, then the board should have resolved to order the Tech Manager not to enforce CASA's will.

Why? RAAus will live or die by whether it successfully defends it's current, easy going, maintenance system.

It amazes me that board members are not freaking out about this attack on our core.

It is time to refuse CASA. It is time to deal only with the minister.

Hello all, I'm guessing most here are L2's. I just want to place my personal view point on this issue. Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals. The letter specifically mentions "Exemptions may be approved via agreement". If you send your office copy of work performed in I am sure it would be reviewed and if it demonstrates currency then presto you have a renewed L2.I spoke to Darren yesterday and today and he re-in force the above. If you are active I see no obstacle to getting l2 renewed via agreement with tech.

 

Jim Tatlock.

Active or inactive. Who cares!

RAAus should not be threatening members.

One doesn't forget how to twirl a spanner or to locate and read the applicable technical publication.

It is OK, is it, that our Tech Manager is doling out renewals only to those who reach an "agreement" with him?

RAAus to out-CASA, CASA? Odds on.

If, what Zane Tully did, not issuing an endorsement that was trained for, is true, he, in that case, brought RAAus into disrepute and he should have been sanctioned by the board.

Zane certainly liked to accuse others, such as me, of bringing the organisation into disrepute.

It is absolutely NOT ON for members to have to justify why they want an endorsement.

It is, then, only one short step to require members to justify why they might wish to obtain a pilot certificate. "What is your reason for wanting to fly?"

Considering the numbers of self taught low level operators getting about, RAAus should welcome, with open arms, anyone who fronts up for some training or who applies for an endorsement with prior skill.

If they don't wish to issue the endorsement in the normal way, then they should strike it out of the Op's Manual and let everyone get on with their low level flying.

Anyone ever seen or heard of a BRS parachute installed in a jabiru?I'm thinking I might like to get one if such a thing is possible.

My jab is experimental class so I can do it if I want. Just depends if its possible.

In his capacity as a disciplined aircraft engineer, weighing all the trade-offs, his conclusion was that it was not a goer on the Jabiru airframe he was working on.

He judged that the structural stiffening to make up for cut-outs, bridle mounting points, etc, plus the cost of buying and maintaining the 'chute, would make the aircraft uncompetitive in terms of sale price, maintenance cost and wasted useful load capacity.

If you, as an experimental owner want to engineer something and accept the trade-offs, well, go for it!

Why not bend Doug's ear before you cut your Jabby up?

What I see is a classic case of a bureau doing what any unchecked bureau does.

The rot started when CASA made it clear, by it's actions, that each Operations Manager would be offered a cushy position upon their resignation from RAAus.

Staff also flowed the other way. RAAus got too close to CASA. Then representation stopped. RAAus became a pure administrator. New so called "privileges" were cancelled and progress in that way has long since stopped.

Now we have entered the next stage. With CASA in the background cheering, RAAus has gone on a recruiting frenzy. New employed "experts" are thrust before us to sprout gobbledygook to make us feel bad about ourselves. Relax, it really is just gobbledygook and it doesn't make us safer.

Now the noose is tightening. Our maintenance system has been a fabulous success over the years. There is no problem. Now, despite this, it is time to create a maze of rules and to strip new pilots of their L1 authority. Now L2 is under attack. Oh dear, if an L2 happens not to work on any aircraft for a couple of years, they seem to be suggesting that said L2 might forget how to use a spanner or read a technical publication.

Read carefully folks. For the first time ever, there is a reference to the auditing of "maintenance facilities". "What? You're gunna audit my toolbox?"

Each of us will make our decisions.

OK Nong ... I'll bite ... whats OMNI-VISION

PARA-LIFT FLAPS

When you see a Cessna, think Luscombe.

The Luscombe Sedan even had OMNI-VISION !

Luscombe did it all and Cessna was smart enough to, er, follow.

There is no doubt that most in the Cessna family are very good aircraft. The controls in 172s & 182s are extraordinarily heavy but the airframe while not indestructible is incredibly tough. Many 150-152-172 models have been used in flying schools for 40 years and are still going strong. I can't see any of the newer composite airframes lasting that long.

The high time ones are living the hard life and can now be ranked with the Cessnas.

It lives at Tenefts St. Temora Aerodrome, yes , near where the Sonex's were.

I am told that it has not been active lately.

It looks clean and cared for.

As stated above it is not a VFR comm frequency. Comms start at 118.0 I think and anything below that is in the VOR frequencies and not available to comm radios.You can talk to FIA on 125.2 ot the tower on 124.2The NDB is 236 not 115.6

Microair recognised the reality that ATIS and AWIS (Wagga, for example) are often broadcast on the navigation frequencies. Their units after 2007 can listen on the nav. band.

I don't see many VOR units in RAAus registered aircraft so, well done Microair!

Anyone looking to purchase a VHF comm. radio would do well to consider what frequency range the unit covers.

Fred