turboplanner

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

...

There are two vehicles schemes operating now:

HEV     

Compressed hydrogen gas is carried in the vehicle, goes into a fuel cell which converts chemical energy into electrical energy which powers electric motors. Successfully trialled by MTT Perth in three buses around 2005. Buses powerfull and quiet, not practical costwise. Honda leased HEV Civics in Los Angeles a few years later, brought one to Australia.  Several versions currently operating.

HICE

Approximately the same process as CNG vehicle.

Hydrogen gas fuels an internal combustion engine, zero CO2 output, eliminates battery drive, suits ICE Car platforms, normal ICE range.

...

5 hours ago, Captain said:

..... "OK then, young Gazza, I shall rename you Commodore (or Falcon if you are a Ford fan) Garry Monoclacker, and I endorse you for ....

.....solo flight in the Tennis Court (avref), and since it was dark they sat around listening to old 78s of the Russian composer Clackmaninoff who never disclosed how he was able to play such a wide scale of notes.

In the morning the Carrier went to General Quarters and Garry...........

Just now, spacesailor said:

What is the " battery " weight ( used for aircraft ). Compared  to 98 petrol weigh

( litre ) .

spacesailor

 

Have another look at the aircraft size.

31 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

My mistake, the wrong SAI Global details were presented when I searched them.  Intertek is the parent company of Intertek Inform which you now pay money to to access Australian Standards, and they're a multinational headquartered in London.

The main point is that Australian standards, which are compulsory to follow in every aspect of manufacturing, materials and engineering, are only accessible by paying a multinational company.

Not sure why you would be contacting SAI Global. That's a different company from memory relating to ISO 9000 Series etc.

On 14/04/2024 at 12:05 PM, skippydiesel said:

What has happened to affordable aviating ???? - crazy purchase prices and thirsty engines.

If you go over to the Recreational Aviation Australia website you will see at least one Recreational Aircraft under $10,000.00 and plenty affordable.

I agree with you RA is what RAA should be promoting, so there's a question RA members should be asking.

5 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I use and have always used, fuel containers meeting the AU standards (as inscribed on the container) - not because they have the AU standard but because I personally don't like spills or the chance thereof, for all the logical reasons.

 

I I said my interest is how much fuel can legally be transported in a private vehicle.

How much fuel can be transported in a private vehicle: You'll need to search for it. 

32 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

There's two separate issues there.  

 

Yes ignorance of a law is not an excuse, that's one issue.

 

However setting up design standards which everybody has to adhere to, then allowing a private company (based in Chicago) to charge people to access those standards, seems to be stupidity.  It's like Parliament making laws then hiding them from the public unless you pay.

Take it up with Standards Australia; they're not based in Chicago; I've made a submission there and had unsuitable details changed.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

As far as I am concerned, IF you have spend money as an individual, to buy the Australian Standard.  I ignore it, in my eyes it does not exist 👍 

You’ll be surprised to learn then that none of the lawyers will ignore that admission.

Someone once said that ignorance is no excuse.

42 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My question was not about the suitability/quality of the contain but the amount of fuel that may be carried -  in practical terms, seems it is up to the purchaser (as it should be)

You specified a particular Australian Standard. There are others and a crossover where a Dangerous Goods specification is triggered.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I see this is a "Standard"  -

• Does this mean that it is enforceable/recommended (?) across all Australian jurisdictions ?
• Does it apply to both commercial/private situations ?
• How can it be applied to small business/hobby farmers, who will routinely need much more than 25 L at a time?
• Is it an other one of those rules/legislation (like ASIC) that has no foundation in logic, is unenforceable and completely impractical?

AS1940, Title The storage and handling of flammable and combustable liquids.

Published by Standards Australia.

This standard applies throughout Australia (and if notated, in New Zealand.)

You can contact Standards Australia for a copy which I would recommend you do, given what you've just said.

Standards Australia has Industry committees come together and lay down Industry benchmarks and standards - the best people from each industry setting the standards for that industry.

In answer to your dot points

Dot 1: I would use it, and have on hudreds of vehicles across all jurisdictions.

Dot 2: Yes both.

Dot 3: The Standard spells that out.

Dot 4:  No

These aren't enforceable standards, but should you have a fuel-related fire or accident, since the 1980's they have become a good defence of your duty of care where there's a forseeable risk, and conversely a good point for a Plaintiff if your aren't complying with its benchmark.

.......hand down from a few centuries ago when my GGGGGGGGrandfather used to Let one go every five minutes in the barn, at the dinner table, in bed, and at the pub.

The Admiral profoundly apologised for the emabrassment he had caused and then said .............

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

"That would be what I would expect to see;" - Agreed

 

"inevitably people will go on social media and others will tell them they put "x" oil in their Rotax and its still going, they'll do the same, wreck the engine and trash talk it for the rest of their lives. You can't help some people." - Can I assume you have heard of experimental/homebuilt/kit aircraft.

If so which part of experimental do you not comprehend?

• While factory built aircraft may limit a pilot/owners choice of materials, experimental does not.
• Those that choose to go the experimental rout do so, at least in part, because they have the freedom to exercise choice, their own intelligence & reasoning.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft specifications, regulations or experimental categories.

This is a MANUFACTURER  (a company which manufactures engines, not sales outlets, competing brands and "experienced" commentators) specifying a specific oil.

I've said it twice, but its worth repeating; manufacturers can have design difficulties or make mistakes which can be fixed by certifying a specific oil. This can be an oil which meets a certified, so can be any brand which meets that standard, or an oil blended by a Manufacturer to fix a problem, in which case, if you want the longest life out of the engine, you'll use it.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

• Your dogmatic fear mongering is an insult to those who enjoy the challenge of making their own purchasing decisions and a failure to recognise that, historically, the market will almost always provide competitive products, that will meet exceed the specifications published by the manufacturer.

It's not dogmatic fearmongering as you say; if something is correct the answer will be the same every time.

3 hours ago, jackc said:

Shell do not have any oil in Australia for the new 912is motor.  Rotax will not allow any other choice even though there are other oils available that meet the exact specification.

NO Shell, NO warranty……

That would be what I would expect to see; inevitably people will go on social media and others will tell them they put "x" oil in their Rotax and its still going, they'll do the same, wreck the engine and trash talk it for the rest of their lives. You can't help some people.

6 hours ago, Captain said:

..... trying to land the Foxhit downwind with the carrier (avref carrier) pointing into the 20 knot breeze while doing 23 knots.

 

The worst bit was the jumpup that is usually at the departure end of the flight deck, but Garry ......

...was wise to te poor quality control of the US Submarine manufacturers, saidslipped at the last minute, dived, used that inertia to quickly gain height, did a quick turn to starboard [old avref] and landed diagonally on the deck.

There was loud clapping and cheering from the deck; this was the first plane to make a landing today; the rest were all splattered under the foredeck.

Garry was greeted by the Captain (the Captain, not THE Captain) who said ......"

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Nill/Very light wind.

 

22 was the best runway (for all but STOL aircraft) subject to wind direction. About 100 m before it terminated (04 end), the exit taxiway lead to the aircraft parking area.

I forgot; Or Everyone can use the NAIPS Area Wind direction.

32 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Fair enough, but if you're on mid-downwind, say, and your fear is about converging traffic on base (like the incident recounted by RFGuy a while back) then a more urgent exit might be called for: an early crosswind for an upwind rejoin, or a dive away or a climb?

We've had two near collisions in RA this year, and I spent a lot of hours coming up with circuit measurements types of aircraft, where the aircraft should be, how to navigate to the airfied, join the circuit, fit into the pattern with the other aircraft there, where to look etc. No one has made an effort to try a trial circuit and comment on it and the people who haven't been trained in PPL Nav should have.

If you're on mid-downwind as I have been on hundreds of occasions you will have been watching traffic in the circuit ahead of you and maybe one who went on an expedition and his base will be so long that you'll be turning final before he gets to base. At that point you're only looking at half the circuit (you've already made sure you've left a good margin in fron of the Baron that's coming behind you to allow for the jockying that's about to start. At mid downwind you pull on 1 stage of flap and 90 kts; your job now is to hang in the air behind the aircraft ahead of you until he clears the runway and you can land. If you're catching up, more flap, nose up, more power etc to slow down. Once on Final you watch every aircraft so you're actually seeing who's holding who up. On Final  you hang in there until you are sure you can touch down AFTER the aircraft in front of you vacates the circuit. I've landed with five aircraft in front of me on Final just be being patient; every second one had to ground. So the answer to your question is that in the case of congenstion you'll be going round, effectively starting a new circuit so you won't have to spear off somewhere. The case I've described is where there are normally 10 to 12 in the circuit and where the pilots are all experienced with the continuous loop of aircraft.

Where you're flying with two or three others in the circuit I accept it's hard to bring yourself up to speed, but you can still train yourself to follow the next one maintaining the same gap all the way down and be ready for the busy airport.

39 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I wonder if there's an agreed best-way to bug-out of a circuit if you suddenly sense you might collide with a nearby craft you've not got eyes on.  Obviously, it depends on what you do know but I suppose neither climbing nor descending nor turning - nor changing speed - is any guarantee that you won't actually cause the crash you're fearing.  Maybe breaking away in whatever direction you have best all-round sight of is the best one can do, no?

 

(Until universal ADSB becomes a thing.)

 

But even short of sensing imminent danger, what's the best way to gracefully bow out of a circuit when you become uncomfortable or situationally unaware?  What to do and what to say?

 

 

Just fly on the leg out to wherever........

A $450K Sling owner tossing it for a US FAR103? 

8 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I ask what the "Duty runway" is; That's a feedback matter for RAAus consideration.

The duty runway with a Towered/Manned strip is what they are calling, otherwise into wind, but as Skippy said there was virtually no wind. If the first one decides on a runway, nothing wrong with the followers all joining on. Usually an airfield is busy because of training, and a student in the circuit is probably setting the nil wind duty runway, but these were all arrivals.

14 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Did the Parkes thing yesterday. Arrived  about 11:30 ish. 

I started listening to YPKs at about 20 Nm out and was astonished at the confusion ref the ACTIVE  runway.

While its the PIC's prerogative to land on whichever runaway he/she deems appropriate, it is customary/considerate of others, to fit in with traffic already in the circuit.

Runway 22/04 seemed in favour, with pilots (I think there were 3-4 involved) declaring for both within seconds of each other.

It all worked out okay in the end, with all opting for 22.

Unsure of the legalities however I feel that the RAA's decision not to provide some sort of ground to air guidance to arriving aircraft lead to unnecessary confusion (reduced safety).

Was there nil wind, or did some of them prefer crooswind/downwind/anywind etc.?

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

What has happened to affordable aviating ???? - crazy purchase prices and thirsty engines.

Although this was a Recreational Aviation Australia event, the aircraft shown is a new  or near-new GA aircraft, so totally different pricing structure. The new low volume GA aircraft all have their quirks, such as specific engine management to prevent cooking the engine etc, ability to spiral out in the turn onto final, and high price. However, as we've seen in the past few days, when you hire GA aircraft as most in GA do, these expensive aircraft are at the top end, often have a hire cost profile based on long total investment, so the up front impact is not so visible, and right behind them in ever-diminishing hourly hire rates are the depreciated aircraft that are put on the hire line dropping down to some affordable hire rates below some RA hire rates.

I understand.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Sorry people, we live in the WRONG country🤢 We can thank CASA for our snails pace acceptance of a Part 103 category in Australia.

Just look at what we are missing out on?

 

https://www.toprudderaircraft.com/

 

Time to dump the characters and get back to work.

.....foredeck [avref, Carrier] said Garry Twobottems, I'm gunna fly my Foxhit whether it's safe of not. How dangerous can it be compared to working on the wharves?

This was considered to be a good point but quite a large sector of the RBNF until Garry proved how silly it was by .....................................