K-man

Unique isn't the word that immediately springs to mind ... but different certainly.

Right from day one we were advised to keep our oil at that minimum level. Any more than that and we tend to have the level drop. At minimum level I reckon we have added less than a litre over 700 hours.

Thank you. Owning your own plane means that you know everything that goes wrong. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing but it certainly is character building.

Can I ask, where on the dipstick is the level after burping?

I think it needs to be taken in perspective. You see other aircraft coming in at much higher speeds to do a low pass without a question. In this instance it was to at a speed at or around Vne. In many cases Vne is an arbitrary figure. From memory, it is either 80% of the speed at which flutter was detected or if no flutter was detected 90% of the maximum speed tested without flutter occurring, that speed being IAS, not TAS (unless otherwise advised as in a couple of aircraft including Pipistrel gliders). Only Sonex would know what the true capabilities of that aircraft are, but in the video, with calm conditions, he was actually flying at least 15 mph slower that the tested speed and he did say for others not to fly at that speed. Now having said that, there is nothing to indicate that he was flying fast when this crash occurred. In fact, the aircraft was pretty much intact and that would mean probably a low speed crash. Hopefully it wasn't engine failure.

We had the threaded rod on our horizontal stabiliser trim tab fail in flight. Fortunately, I was in the circuit at the time and could land without further damage. Cause of the incident was fatigue in the threaded rod. Using threaded rod means that the thickness of the rod is reduced by nearly 50%. To compound the problem the rod has two 90 degree bends putting further strain on the rod at those points. That has to be an accident waiting to happen. The rod was replaced by rod with thread at each end.

As long as it is relevent to the flying we do, I don't have a problem. But why do we necesarilly have to go back to calculations when we have modern equipment to do the same thing. I can't find my logarithm book and I haven't used my slide rule for nearly fifty years. I really don't even see the need for a whiz wheel now when we fly with GPS, iPad and iPhone, all with aviation data loaded, as well as the required hard copy maps. I remember years ago having an arguement with a ppl holder who was sledging RA and saying that we didn't have to know the things she had to know. I asked her to explain great circles to me and the relevance they have to recreational flying. She didn't even know they were part of her training. I'd actually plug for a common sense requirement, but that would probably cut the numbers even more.

Unless, of course, you were to mix the Drambuie with an equal quantity of Laphroig. That is an example of where one plus one equals ten. Delusional? Sure ...

Well I've spent a bit of time researching this and I reckon a lot of it is a load of bollocks. For starters Rotax are specifying that E10 fuel is ok in its motors. So, for my Rotax, that's good enough for me.What I did find is a political bunfight that seems to be to do with guys in the U.S. Not liking their petrol changed and the big farmers planting heaps of corn to produce ethanol. But let's look at the facts. Using fresh fuel with ethanol doesn't seem to be a problem anywhere. The problem arises if more water gets into the tank. In years gone by we were advised to add some metho to our petrol tank to get rid of any water in the system. In our aircraft we don't have that problem because we do fuel drains to ensure there is no water. So where do we get extra water? Condensation in the tank would probably be number one. We keep our tanks full so no problem there. We have fuel caps that are less than satisfactory in that if the aircraft is outside in rain we get a small amount (might be 10ml) in the tank. That comes out with the fuel drain. If we were using E10 and we had 20 litres of fuel in the tank, again no problem even if it was all taken up by the ethanol. Apparently it will take up to about 0.6% extra water before precipitating out. In 20l that would be 100ml of water if my math is correct. If I was getting that much water in my tank my biggest concern wouldn't be fuel, and of course, if it does precipitate out we still pick it up with the fuel drain. You can read everywhere that ethanol might cause damage and I think the motor manufacturers are saying don't use it just in case. But I reckon if Rotax don't see an issue I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, not that I intend using 95 octane fuel anyway.

I don't know where you guys get bad fuel. Australian law says it must be labelled if it contains ethanol. This is Federal law, not State law.

I think it might have been in the AOPA magazine where I read where someone was trying to get more sense into aviation medicals here. From memory it was saying that in the U.S. Where they have records, there is no evidence to suggest that the medicals provide any greater level of safety to the group requiring medicals than the group flying without having medicals and that would probably be the same here if you did the comparison. The only problem here is that CASA people seem intent on covering their collective arses.

Now these are interesting guys. The species was described by Jacques Cousteau, the renowned oceanographer, as "the most dangerous of all sharks". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/8183748/Oceanic-whitetip-shark-ten-facts.html I had the pleasure of swimming close to two of them on the continental shelf about 20 years back. I didn't find out what they were until I got back on the boat about 45 minutes later. Thankfully they didn't appear hungry. Then again, it does say they like aircraft crashes ...

I've only met Dick once and I found him to be a very interesting and genuine guy and a gracious host. If more people were like him we would be living in a much better place.

Caltex have a similar site ... (Can't copy it) http://www.caltex.com.au/LatestNews/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?ID=12510 but again, the pumps should be labeled if there is ethanol in the fuel.

From Shell ... To give a background to the composition of the fuels ... http://www.colesexpress.com.au/shell-fuels.aspx If it ain't on the label, there shouldn't be ethanol.

I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned about flying over water. Just do the normal things and .. oh yes .. don't tell your aircraft it's over water. What it doesn't know won't hurt you.

I was under the impression that the amount of ethanol had to be advertised. A couple of years back we needed to top up our fuel at Drysdale River. We checked ahead of going there and they only had standard 91 octane and they weren't sure about ethanol. We then checked with the fuel distributor who informed us there was no ethanol in any of their fuel. (FWIW, we weren't flying on 91 octane, it was shandied 1:4 with Avgas.) Normally we use Shell but sometimes Caltex. Other friends use BP. Obviously flying in the outback you don't have the luxury to choose, just to research beforehand.

Of course the question was "how do you police" those freedoms? There is no way to prevent someone from doing any or all the things you have listed. The regulations say you can't 'legally' do a number of those things but you still are 'free' to do them if you choose. There is no way anyone can stop that short of locking people up. Laws don't stop people doing what they want to do. Laws act as a deterrent by prescribing a penalty if you are caught breaking that law. In this case, what we are looking for is people taking responsibility for their welfare and the welfare of others, by obeying the regulations. To me, that has little to do with freedoms. Our freedom is to be able to fly. Doing that safely is up to the individual.

With the Rotax my first preference is 98 octane. I have no problem in using Avgas when Mogas is not available but have only rarely used 95 octane when the 98 was unavailable. I've never had a problem with any of it.

I feel this is not really a valid reason for not having a CTA endorsement available for RA. You can fly into any number of airports around Australia that have jet RPTs. Using your logic we shouldn't be flying into those places at all. At least in CTA you have controllers helping you maintain separation. At present I have obtained my RPL and am doing the CTA endorsement. Having flown around Aus a number of times it is inconvenient to say the least when places like Alice Springs and Broome are off limits, not to mention almost the entire east coast if you want to fly coastal.Now, what is crazy, I have to do my RPL in a GA aircraft and I have to do my endorsement in a GA aircraft. Once I have the endorsement I will be flying my RA aircraft. Every two years I'll have to go out and fly an unfamiliar aircraft into controlled airspace to maintain my permissions. Thank goodness I will have an instructor with me for those flights as the pressures of airspace and unfamiliar aircraft are a recipe for disaster. More than two thirds of RA aircraft are now 3 axis and many of those are high performance into the bargain. I feel RA should be proactive in making sure that RA pilots are as safe as any other pilot and that means competent to share the air with bigger aircraft. Just my two bob worth having had to outlay a lot of money for something I feel I should have been able to do with RAA.

Heard about your fuel pump problem so I thought I'd see where you're at. Did you sort out the problem at your 25 hourly?

The HF course just put common sense to paper. As we all know, common sense is much less common than we would like to believe. Even when we complete the HF course, it still doesn't compute. We know that it's there for all the 'other people'. It doesn't apply to 'us'. If it did we wouldn't be taking off just before last light.

I think that times have changed but some things remain the same. Yes, we are blaming he pilot, not only because he ignored the rules but that his lack of judgement cost another person her life. In 1938 a lot of flying was "seat of the pants" type flying. I don't know what regulations were in place but one could assume there was a lot of flying in fog and cloud and probably in other conditions that now would be way outside VFR.In 1938 perhaps pilots were constantly finding themselves in hazardous situations but that is not now the case for recreational pilots. And, CL refers to 'all' other pilots having been in similar situations, something I hope few of us have done ourselves. The last part rings true. "Safety lies in the judgment of the chances one takes.". Hopefully over the 70 years since CL made that statement, we have improved our understanding and training so we don't have to take chances. Just my 2 cents.

That's a bit harsh. I didn't gravitate to RA. I chose RA. We have our aircraft serviced by a qualified person at the required time. Whether someone chooses to fly with me is their choice but in the circles I enjoy there are no pilots I would not have the confidence to fly with. Their planes also are regularly maintained and we all talk about when the BFR is due or whatever. And, BTW, I had to produce my pilot certificate and my log book for my BFR. Getting back to the OP and the qualification of otherwise of the pilot. There was mention earlier of him doing "loops". Now this guy had an expired RA student licence but does anyone know if at some stage he had a ppl? It doesn't ring true to me that a guy just starting to fly, and with limited experience, would do what he did.

As the elevation of Lake Hume is 541' it is possible that his altimeter was reading around 500'. He didn't say he was 500' AGL.