biggles

. It was shortly after the Min Min Hotel was destroyed by fire around 1912, when a stockman had one of the first experiences with the Min Min Light: “About 10:00pm, I was riding to Boulia and passed close to the Min Min graveyard. The night was somewhat cloudy. All of a sudden I saw a strange glow right in the middle of the cemetery. It got bigger until it was the size of a large watermelon. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I watched it hovering over the graveyard. I broke into a cold sweat as it started coming toward me. It was too much for my nerves. I dug the spurs into my horse and headed for Boulia as fast as I could go. Every time I looked back the light seemed to be following me. It only disappeared out of Boulia.” Then in rapid succession came two more reports to substantiate the stockman’s story. A woman and her husband reported seeing a mysterious light which intensified in brightness and moved away from them. They were strangers to the area and had never heard of the Min Min Light. Their feeling was one of curiosity rather than fear. Another stationhand had seen the light rise out of the old hotel graveyard, bounce through the air for a considerable distance and then suddenly disappear. Many more sightings of the Min Min Light have followed since these initial few, starting the legend of the mysterious lights that has never been solved.

Geez Frank , we didn't get 500 mils for for the entire year (2017) . You FNQers really are a special breed..... Bob

Don't forget the $1m Hangarkeepers (Tenants) Liability provided also , that alone costs many hundreds of dollars for non RAAus members . A further 100,000 liability cover if you have a vehicle airside is also provided. Remember that the cover is provided to members, not the aircraft they are flying, you may be flying you mate's Tecnam ! ...... Bob

I think the indemnity provided to members in the event of an accident/incident would be an obvious one Mike . Without membership, many would probably 'wing it', In the same way as many drive unregistered and unlicensed vehicles with little regard to the consequences...... Bob

Done by a "locus" ( #29 ) maybe ..... Bob

My 2200 engine was the second "generation" hydraulic engine made by Jabiru. It had the " fine finned heads" ..... Bob

Dave, the earlier Jabiru engines had a " drip oil feed " system to the rocker chambers, supplied via a small dia. metal pipe to a rubber T piece located externally between the cylinder heads. The oil made its way to the rocker shaft to lubricate the bushes, and the oil vapor in the chamber tended to lubricate valve springs etc. The mod introduced on the later engines is more conventional, in that the oil is forced up the hollow push rods to the rockers, flowing to the bushes and shaft under pressure. This mod can be done to older engines like mine ( #2787), but involves a fair bit more work and expense. I have elected to stick with the original system that works O.K.for me. As I indicated in my earlier post, I always remove rocker covers when changing oil to (a) ensure oil getting into chamber and (b) make sure there is no indication of overheating (metal discolouring etc.)..... Bob

Yes Bruce, " light brown stuff " would be a good description . Nothing but Avgas ever has ever gone into the tanks. Will post a few pics of gummed up pistons as they came out, in the next day or so. At 600 hours, and I assume very little done to the engine, ( although I haven't looked back at all the posts), it's probably time for a good look at the top end. It's all fairly simple stuff, and you could probably get away with new pistons, rings and hone the barrels, but, like most of these things, once you start it makes sense to do all the upgrades etc. 'Camel' (post #203 ) did some good work on his 2200, going even further than I did, with the mod to his rocker lubrication. It's all fairly inexpensive and gives a nice warm and fuzzy feeling ..... Bob

Due to a progressive loss of compression,(low leak downs) in my Generation 2 Jabiru 2200 with increasing oil consumption (pumping it into the overflow bottle), I suspected jammed rings, after nearly nine years and 450 hours of trouble free operation . The engine has been operated on Avgas exclusively and, apart from its running in period using Shell 100, has had oil changes of Aeroshell 15/50 at 25 hours max.,often very much less. The aircraft, a J160, was built by me and only ever been flown and maintained by me, giving faultless service since new. A top end strip down was done a month ago, confirming jammed rings, some worse than others. All valves were in excellent condition, sealing perfectly and showing no signs of stress due to poor heat transfer. They could well have been returned to service ! The barrels were honed, new valve relief pistons, rings etc. were fitted along with new valves, washers, inner and outer valve springs, rocker bushes (the engine had the old drip lubrication, which I decided to stick with, rather than converting to the hollow push rods.) During an oil change I always open the rocker chambers to ensure adequate lubrication, always giving the springs and rocker bushes a squirt of oil, just to be sure. The old bushes showed minimal wear. Interestingly, the barrels showed no signs of rust, surprising since the aircraft has spent its entire life hangared about 3 nm. from the Victorian coast, with those cold moisture laden Southerlies in Winter. I have always placed covers on both the exhaust and air inlet after shutdown . 'Nordlock' washers were installed on the flywheel bolts along with modified through bolts. After 10 hours the engine is performing well, oil consumption Is minimal, pressures and temps well within operating limits. Nearly all the running- in so far has been achieved with circuits. Total cost of parts amounted to $1700 ...... Bob

............ or maybe Snake Oil .... Bob

The only ELAA I know of is the..... Early Learning Association of Australia .... Bob

You can access it through one of the EFB's, as well as registering online at 'NAIPS' ( recommended ),then folowing the prompts. Then select 'AREA' on left sidebar, eg '30' for Victoria displays all you need to know. NAIPS registration used to be a bit frustrating, but it's many years ago I did that. Perseverance ! ...... Bob

Currently de-activated, but can be activated at any time if required. Check Notams, call Melb. Centre 124.0, or call East Sale tower on 118.3 . Not sure when due to be re-activated, but seem to recall mid January 2018..... Bob

Alf, I understand that this is just the first step in freeing up the airspace for all Rec. pilots, to quote the words of FLT.LT. Brown ...... " Hopefully a desired outcome can be reached for all parties in the near future ". May see if I can get hold of Phil Fox tomorrow to clarify that ...... Bob (FLT.LT Brown)....... RA-Aus access into military restricted airspace Since our first discussion on this issue and by voicing your concerns, communication has really increased on this matter. I am sure Phil Fox will keep you in the loop, but from our end, please be patient and understand that there is a lot of work behind the scenes between RAAF, CASA and RA-Aus. Hopefully a desired outcome can be reached for all parties in the near future.

Not sure Vev, but maybe this ! ..... Bob CASA survey action required by 12 January 2018 - MULTICOM Members are advised CASA have issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) MULTICOM frequency use after the recent consultation process in which the majority of respondents indicated the MULTICOM frequency was their preferred option below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). We are requesting all members complete the survey and provide a response to CASA on this important topic. The NPRM is worded poorly, making two recommendations in one response. As one of these recommendations was not part of the original consultation process we advise members that RAAus fully supports only one part of this proposal. CASA have proposed MULTICOM frequency 126.7 is monitored and used in uncontrolled airspace below 5000’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) where there is no discrete frequency or broadcast area. Above 5000’ AMSL the area frequency would be monitored. This proposal is completely acceptable to RAAus. The other proposal is to increase the size of a CTAF from the current recommended 10 nm to 20 nm. This is unacceptable to RAAus and its members for a variety of reasons, including the quadrupling of area requiring the CTAF frequency to be used, significantly increasing the risk of radio frequency congestion, the unavoidable inclusion of private airstrips or fields which were previously outside the CTAF, which would require aircraft to now carry radio. Further the CAAP recommends inbound traffic make relevant situationally required radio calls relative to the speed and type of operation of the aircraft. Inbound Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft routinely make calls 30-40 nm outside the CTAF, which should be continued. Accordingly, RAAus strongly objects to the portion of the NPRM to increase the size of CTAFs. RAAus members are strongly encouraged to complete this survey, however members need to consider the difficulty presented by the NPRM combining these two questions into one response. This requires the respondent to answer no to the MULTICOM part of the proposal to avoid the increase in CTAF component. RAAus therefore recommends the following course of action by all RAAus members. Follow this link CASA MULTICOM NPRM Answer the identification questions as you believe appropriate For the next question you will be asked if you prefer the MULTICOM and CTAF increase. Your initial answer should be “Proposal is NOT acceptable” and in the additional information box below, you should add words to the effect “I only accept the MULTICOM Proposal below 5000 feet AMSL” You will be prompted during the next question to provide your answer as to why the CTAF size increase is not acceptable. RAAus recommend you provide words to the effect “There has been no safety case or risk assessment regarding the proposal to expand a CTAF size to 20 nm. This was not part of the original MULTICOM consultation process. CAAP 166 provides guidance for pilots to make appropriate calls relevant to the aircraft type and speed of operation. Expanding CTAFs to 20 nm will enlarge the potential area requiring calls by a factor of 4, potentially leading to additional congestion in CTAFs.” Complete the remainder of the questions as relevant to your aircraft type and submit RAAus has raised our concerns about the combination of the two distinct and separate questions with CASA and will continue to inform members about further progress related to MULTICOM changes in the New Year.

Airspace advocacy on behalf of members RAAus is pleased to advise members of two important airspace developments which are key components and successes of RAAus member advocacy via direct submissions and Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) to CASA, the Defence Department and the Office of Airspace Regulation. The first success relates to RAAus pilots and the current limitation on transit through East Sale military managed restricted areas. In May 2018 a new VFR corridor north of East Sale will be created to allow transit for RAAus members and other airspace users without airways clearance. This will be designated as a new Danger Area (D353) and Class G airspace, effectively allowing transit through the area for RAAus pilots currently unable to access controlled or active restricted airspace. Further details will be provided closer to the release date expected in May 2018 and communicated through e-news, website and Sport Pilot. RAAus pilots cannot transit East Sale until this new Danger Area is formalised and provided on aeronautical charts. Well done R AAus ! ..... Bob

You'll notice it's only got 1 wing ......... that's called, " on a wing and a prayer " ...... Bob

Yep Bex, 10/10.........and here's a pic from different --angel--/angle ...... Bob

Saw the one at Mareeba a few months ago..... Bob

The pilot who is the subject of this thread was still in secondary college in 1997...... Bob

As I indicated in post #21 I'm almost certain he was flying a twin, on charter to his operation when the nose wheel failed to deploy . Therefore that one could not be considered a wheels up landing ...... Bob

Not sure about a second 'wheels up' . If I recall correctly, his 'previous one' was a recalcitrant nose wheel on a twin coming into Essendon about a year ago. He did a textbook landing on that occasion holding the aircraft nose off for as long as possible maintaining good alignment with the runway centreline..... Bob

Ross and I at Stark Field about 5 years ago .... Bob

I wondered about these " members " also. My latest lease agreement with Shire of Bairnsdale is for $10 p.s.m ....... Bob .

Turbo, is the article referring to annual lease payments for hangar owners. I cannot download the article... Bob