Gentreau

Not weeks, not months, YEARS !! Not sure how close to the centre of RA-Aus you are Alan, but if what you say is accurate, then that phrase alone gives an alarming indication of the real extent of the problems !! .

Don't be too quick to dismiss self-certification, it's effectively the system we have for microlights in France which allows us to advance rapidly. If I wanted to fit a Rotax to a Jabiru fuselage for example, I could do so and request a temporary registration of the modified type, valid for one year. After flying and testing the modified aircraft, I could then apply for a permanent registration (like an STC) and get a full registration. Our declarative and self-certifying system is the reason that we probably have more microlight types available than anywhere else in the world. It doesn't lead to aircraft "falling out of the sky" as the person performing the mods is also the one who flies it afterwards, and let's not forget that the definition of a pilot is "The first person to arrive at the scene of the accident" .

What that document shows is that the engine is on the approved list for installation on a french registered microlight. That simply give someone like me the right to install it and then declare a major modification to the authorities. It says nothing whatsoever about the quality, only that it meets the basic power limit requirements. The reason there's no mention of Rotax is because D-Motor have only published the first 2 pages of the document and the list is alphabetical.

Can you post a link to the page and I'll figure out what they are saying.

No, but if he was then maybe he could use the working cylinder(s) on his engine to toast his bread

There's some more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)

Interestingly, one of the members at our club in France is just completing the paperwork to register his Sherwood Ranger, which he has fitted with the new D-Motor from Belgium. Hats off to the engine manufacturer, they recently contacted him and offered to swap his version 1 engine for the new updated version after he's done 50 hrs on it. That will give him an extra 15HP to play with :) [ATTACH]15033[/ATTACH]

But in reality it's more like 20 per working day (presumably RAA staff get weekends off) so even when registrations re-start, the staff will have to deal with almost 20 registrations per day plus the backlog which is building up at 20/day.

Reading the instructor's comments again, it seems like the crash happened on late downwind or on the turn onto base leg, rather than the turn onto final. "But I did notice when I was turning downwind that straight ahead of me - the track parallel to the runway - there was smoke. I just thought it was a grass fire and took no notice of it."

Dunno if you already sourced something, but these units are being used by a flight school in Dallas Texas in their Sport Cruisers to good effect. Simple system, fill it with ice and then blow air over the ice..... http://www.arcticaircooler.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=97 .

Certified ? For an RA aircraft ? Do you mean that you have to buy the certified version of the 912/912S ? .

It's interesting to hear all these comments about flying the pattern when in fact circuits are an artificial training procedure which tries to combine two phases of flight into one. In reality a circuit is a departure followed immediately by an arrival, minus the joining calls and procedure. Departure is all about getting as much air beneath you as possible and safely leaving the busy traffic zone. Arrival is about reducing your safety margin (height) in such a way as to give the best chance of making a landing under any forseeable circumstances. The exact height and distance for the arrival procedure, as stated by others, really is dependant upon local conditions. So I would ask the instructors here: In order to properly teach a student pilot the correct arrival techniques, isn't it better to position the aircraft as if it had just joined on downwind, wherever that happens to be on your airfield ? If that means extending a bit upwind and finishing the climb downwind to arrive at start of downwind at cct height and distance, then so be it...... .

I suggest you check that airfield on Google Earth. 33.056 N, 97.232W. There is a displaced threshold 130m from the road, exactly to avoid passing low over the road !

I have no opinion either way regarding Jabiru motors as I have no persoanl experience, however it does seem that they need mor frequent maintenance than the Rotax equivalents and anyone using their aircraft for commecrcial purposes will also need to factor in the cost of the associated downtime. I wonder what that does to the operating margins?

Another alternative engine to consider is the D-Motor from Belgium. 93HP four stroke, same weight as a Rotax 582, TBO 1500 hrs, no gearbox, direct drive. http://d-motor1.vpweb.be/Price---product-specifications.html .

I think the report mentions that his wife was filming.

Regardless of the type of approach, he should have been aiming for the threshold which is 130m from the impact point. He'd have needed a good dose of power to hold off for another 130m before touching down. He can't argue that he needed the runway either, there's 930m after the displaced threshold ! The other question raised is, if this was his first solo, what was his instructor doing at the time? .

And it would have been short of the tarmac, never mind the displaced threshold ! I also heard from someone in the Dallas area that this is the fourth accident at that airfield in two months ! .

The pilot was clearly low, the runway has a displaced threshold 130m from the road ! Apparently there are no stop signs, only the word STOP painted on the (private) road. Technically, it should not be necessary for the car to stop, though it's obviously sensible.

That would be RA-Aus who can issue an experimental certificate then ..... aircraft would remain on the 24 register but be unusable for training. .

Sounds like the price for a zero-timed engine. If he got a brand-new one for that price, that's very good.

I understand it would take some time to re-invent RAA, and to re-start licencing and airworthiness activities, but my point was that an RAA registered and approved aircraft which did not require any immediate registration or inspection activity would still be effectively legal, as the powers that make it so rest with CASA and are merely delegated to RAA. The disappearance of the intermediate body should not change the status of an already registered and approved aircraft .... should it ?

Why would the (hypothetical) winding up of RAAus prevent anyone from flying ? Aren't they simply excercising delegated powers on behalf of CASA ? In that case surely the airworthiness and registration of all RAA aircraft would revert automatically to CASA ..... ?

There's still time before the guarantee runs out :)

Oops, I guess that's probably not french nail polish then :) Should've gone to Specsavers OME !