nong

A. Spring tab Spring length changes more at high speed due to increasing aerodynamic load. Useful for limiting structural loads at higher speeds by moderating the effects of overzealous pilot input.

I'm highlighting the problem. Not giving all the answers.. The problem is people taking cheap shots at other people who are tackling serious engineering puzzles. Any yobbo can carp on about real or imagined 'problems'. If you have no solution to offer, why carry on? By the way...... This is a development aircraft.

There is overload as a legal consideration. There is overload as an engineering and performance consideration. Yes, Jabirus are often flown overgross, in a legal sense. The outdated RAAus rule set presents a real temptation for pilots of certain Jabiru models, that are known to be engineered to operate at up to 700kg. Let your attitude to our poorly constructed laws be your guide! Bad law-making usually receives the observance and respect it deserves!! Operating beyond the engineered weight, as ag pilots do, involves a whole lot of other considerations. I can only suggest that you refrain from this. As an interesting aside...... In New Zealand, the Fletcher FU24 is typically and routinely operated on top-dressing work at design gross (4,860 lb) plus 31% (6,366 lb) or more. Imagine the effect of this, on the undercarriage and centre section, when doing maybe ten take-offs per working hour off rough air-strips. The pilots and operators generally accept the risks and associated failures in the interests of greater productivity per flying hour.

This is such a bad distraction. We should tell CASA, firmly and with a smile,"NO". I would prefer that RAAus advise CASA that we will no longer accept Commonwealth money. I would further advise that we would be prepared to carry on, but that we cannot administer their SMS.

If your 172 is lightly loaded in thick air it doesn't matter if you ignore the book and use flap for take-off. If you're hot, high 'n heavy, ignore the book at your peril.

Piloting is not a religion. I think scholarships are a dopey idea....real feel good stuff. Frankly, there should be hurdles. The requirement for both financial commitment and personal effort, goes some way towards sorting out the chaff. Anyone can loaf along on a scholarship. When the dough runs out, often, so does the student's feigned interest.

Not an Ag Truck mate. Embraer Ipanema.

Good to see some real aviators in action.

Do the children really have to fly? The answer might be yes. It might not.

Since a case the 1920s and generally supported by subsequent court cases.

Our B1-RDs had the twin cylinder cuyuna UL2-02 donks and we remember them fondly as being easy to live with. One of the Cuyunas had deep gauging on the front cylinder as a result of the B1-RD spinning in and impacting the bitumen of Elizabeth Ave, at the entrance to Forest Hill Aerodrome. Didn't seem to worry it. Teaching oneself to fly was common during the ultralight craze. It was achievable because of the aerodynamic, stability and control characteristics of machines like the B1-RD. You ain't gunna pull it off in a Jabby! The Powers and Bashforth B1-RD looked remarkably like the Santos Dumont Demoiselle of 1910.

I reckon the cockpit is the same width. Prior to the J170D upgrade, the fuselage for both types is the same part number, from memory. Those short wings on the 160 are much more useful hangarage-wise.

If it smells like waffle and tastes like waffle...... SMS is likely to be an intolerable burden for a typical small, one or two staff member, RAAus school. It is all very well to spruik on about how you introduced an SMS into your organisation, but you did not state the approx dollar turnover per annum, the number of employees or give a fair breakdown of the dollar cost of compliance. How much extra are you prepared to pay for your training or next BFR? SMS won't be free. The cost to schools will be passed on, plus a margin, plus GST.

Maj. The Zero is the Mitsubishi. The Oscar is the Nakajima design. Similar layout though, and at a glance..... You might remember Sid Marshall's Oscar. He kept it at bankstown in the fifties and sixties and later it sat at Jack Davidsons strip at the Oaks.

Oscar. Are you paranoid? I can assure you that recreational pilots in my part of Australia are not viewed with suspicion or as being "death-wish loonies". We are welcomed by our aerodrome operator, as is all aviation traffic. Your suggestion that an SMS will prevent accidents "resulting from a genuine lack of knowledge" or will reduce " 'unknown' danger factors" is lamentably incorrect. In fact, student training is guided by multiple syllabii. The CFI ensures that these syllabii are taught. Also, each student's grasp of required knowledge is tested. It is interesting to note that both myself, and another CFI posting on this thread, broadly share the same professional opinion of the proposed SMS.

Oh Keith, now I understand. Now I realise I have to TRAIN my students, train them for the likely scenarios and to stay within the envelope. Well, who would have thought..... Thanks, old mate, for clearing that up. But don't worry, my students will be getting less personal attention soon, as I will be spending the time on your on your beloved SMS paperwork.

There is still a handful of Drovers around.

In order of importance, flying standards trumps racism. Where pilots can't perform because of culture, societal structure or personal deficiencies, it is relevent....particularly if you or your loved ones travel on RPT. Low-down on Korean pilots struck me as being a well detailed account written by an aviator who had genuine concerns.

I have been testing Ray White's newly completed 601 Zodiac this week. Engine-wise it has been very unexciting. It starts easily. Then it runs smoothly. The sustained climb performance indicates that the claimed power is there. All temps, including gearbox are in the 'no sweat' range. Possibly we are first airborne in Aust. At this stage, I can only speak highly of it's performance in all respects.

Yeah, road racing at the weir, being taken out head-on by a drunk in a Valiant, flipping the RD in front of the pub....... Sailing the Laser, so easy to rig...

Robertson B1-RD is a strong challenger. One afternoon, I trained two pilots from scratch. No dual of course. They would just pull up every few minutes for further instructions. One of these pilots handled an engine failure the next morning, correctly swooping under the power line that was in his way. He died of natural causes after twenty years of hobby aviating. His mate is still going strong, with twenty three years accumulated.

I Good reply there, Turbs. Did you know that school operators are now in possession of the RAAus SMS Template, a document which specifies a four person safety committee. I want the wider membership to understand that the cost will be reflected in higher training rates. Do the members wish to pay for the four person team that each school will, it seems, need? Are they prepared to finance gold plated, fully paperworked, schools? Really? Members will have to pay for the compliance burden and, no matter how you cut it, the financial bar will be lifted for those wishing to fly. More people will be excluded, than are, under the current circumstances. RAAus is now in the full grip of the BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVE. Considering this, all members will pay more for the privilege of wading through more paper.

ISO was a financial disaster for the AUF. It was a scam designed to enable consultants to scoop a heap of easy dough, and they did. Today, an operator in another field, told me that he spends one day per year carefully filling out all the safety system paperwork that is, supposedly, a daily chore. It has to be done carefully, to allow for such things as public holidays, but doing it this way does limit the damage to one wasted day per year.

I am expecting to charge $350.00, or more, per hour, for training in the Jab. After all, I will need to pay for the required four man safety committee, because no one in their right mind will volunteer. The hangar and parking will need to meet retail standards, such as a bitumen car park and disabled dunny. Lets call that $200k. I guess I could scrimp on maintenance to help pay for these new 'core' safety requirements. No biggie. We already force students to study "human factors", thus diluting their limited study time. Much more useful than discussing, say, how pilots get suckered into loosing control at low level.