Dafydd Llewellyn

Did anybody ask you to?

Aircraft grade 6061 sheet will be linemarked as QQ-A 250/11 (for unclad 6061). That's the quality control spec.

The radio installation is not normally part of the Type certificate; it would presumably need to be approved as complying with CAO 103.24, and the installation under CASR 21 subpart M. However it may be covered in the aircraft's maintenance manual.

No, not the first manslaughter charge; that was in 1972 - it was this accident: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19720413&id=OoRWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cuUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2905,4310453 Lundquist was convicted of manslaughter.

I've had my share of 'roo strikes, driving to & from my home to Bundaberg & Hervey Bay. If it's an alpha male following a female, he'll keep coming no matter what you do. I've had them hit the side of the vehicle, too; slowing right down reduces the impact damage, but they'll still hit you. The air horns sound worth a try for clearing the airstrip, tho the neighbours might get tired of them. Shu-roos etc might be useful as ammunition in a blunderbus, but that's illegal . . . If you have about 50 metres of clear ground either side of your track, you might see them coming in time to take avoiding action, but I do not have that luxury on my strip. I did find that the ones that startle from a wide road verge and bolt in the wrong direction, pass behind if you're driving at 130 kmh, as least in a quiet vehicle, which of course you can't do nowadays, but 100 kmh is exactly wrong . . . and the one you do hit will do enormous damage, and can be lethal if it comes through the windscreen. I hit three in the first month I had my 405 diesel wagon, so I designed and installed a 'roo bar that had motor-cycle spring/shock units to absorb more energy before the 'roo actually hit the car - and of course, never had a 'roo strike after that, on the vehicle . . .

We don't often get 'roos - occasionally an Eastern grey if the drought is bad; but there are about 30 or so wallabies living here and they just LOVE the closely-mown grass on the airstrip. You really would not want to come in here close to last light. Backtracking for takeoff sent them packing with the PA28, but don't waste time in turning and runup, or they'll be back. Similarly with a low pass; you need to pass downwind, then turn back & land without undue delay; a full circuit is too slow unless it's a very tight one. I agree two passes are prudent to scare off the ones that were not actually on the strip for the first pass. Dunno about horns or sirens; however a Rotax 582 is probably a fair approximation to a siren.

Anybody have experience with them in a 582?

If you've committed to a landing at an aerodrome, and have made the required circuit calls, then making an orbit is a pretty wild thing to do. In a pure glider, the only reason to do so would be because you've succumbed to the temptation of a "mug's thermal" after committing to a landing - which is decidedly a no-no. I've personally never seen a glider do this at an aerodrome, I'd suggest it's very far from normal practice. I have, in a powered aircraft, occasionally made an orbit on downwind to wait for an RPT or other "heavy" user to depart, or an aerial ambulance or whatever on a straight-in approach, but only if I otherwise have the circuit to myself. If you have to do something like this in a busy circuit, my understanding is that you should stay at circuit height and fly upwind on the dead side of the circuit; but you do not want to lose sight of the departing aircraft whilst flying parallel with his takeoff path.

Yes, the diagram in the CAAP showing different circuit patterns and heights for different classes of aircraft, is a horrific concept if one had all these going at once. However a motor-glider can stooge around over the top - virtually "parked" - until the congestion in the circuit has dissipated, and then can use dive brakes to slot in when this will not inconvenience anybody. Doing this means you must be fully aware of all the other aircraft in the circuit, of course. The mix of circuit speeds makes things hazardous for a glider in a large power circuit, due to being run down from behind; the rough air speed limit is mostly around 80 knots, so that's as fast as one can really push the circuit speed.

Well, unfortunately RAA and GFA are chalk and cheese; the difference between them are fundamental. About the only way to get rid of the boundaries between the various recreational aviation activities is to put them on a common basis. The "CASR Part 103" proposal sought to do that - but when one examined it closely, it was in fact a straight-jacket that appeared acceptable at that time, because it was two sizes larger than what was then needed. It had no elasticity built into it. The FAA approach is to pull all these activities (apart from the American equivalent of CAO 95.10) into FAR Part 91. I don't know whether that is an improvement over what we have now; but it essentially gets rid of all the separate controlling bodies. I believe the question needs study, because I don't think it can continue much longer the way it currently is. The RPL should be a major part of moving towards a more rationalised system - if it were used correctly.

Thanks, Kaz; I was aware of those aspects. I was asking a rhetorical question, i.e. what is the practical liklihood of a plaintiff recovering damages from a pilot who has been convicted of an offence under S20A of the Civil Aviation Act. Or one who has successfully defended a charge under that Section. I've been involved (as an expert witness) in such a schemozzle; the defendant successfully defended the criminal case, and as he was a pensioner, the civil case went nowhere. Obviously, somebody who is worth sueing would be a target; but the cost of defending the criminal case may well bankrupt the defendent.

I was pointing out that if you do something of that sort IN AUSTRALIA, it's a criminal offence. I thought that would not need to be stated . . . If there's a criminal trial and a conviction, and the culprit is thereby bankrupted, where does the civil case go?

That sort of thing comes under S 20A of the Civil Aviation Act (Reckless use of an aircraft) and it's a criminal offence. You cannot take civil proceedings against somebody whilst they are being dealt with for a criminal offence; so "duty of care" etc takes a back seat. Maybe you can go for them after they get out of gaol? 20A Reckless operation of aircraft (1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person. (2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.

Well, the parallel to that is dodgy maintenance - and there's plenty of that around in the recreational aircraft area.

So who are the rogues? What this will do, is force our manufacturers offshore - what significance, if any, do the precedents you quote have in, say, South Africa? If I were Sue Woods, I'd be looking seriously at ceasing to trade in Australia; do people want to have to import a Jabiru from South Africa? Because that's where this is headed. The OAK milk people saw the writing on the wall forty years ago. I have seen a steady decline in Australian manufacturing industry, throughout my life, largely because of the legal obstructions to small business, and this legal precedent looks likely to complete the process. The end result of this rampant de-facto protection racket between the underwriters and the legal profession will inevitably be that the only way to purchase consumer goods will be by importing them, and the TPA liability for importers of recreational aircraft already means that they are mostly not worth sueing, rogues or not. So making things tighter in regard to manufacturer's liability will have entirely the reverse effect - nobody will be able to obtain reasonable redress. You want to try to sue Aeropract or Czech Aero Industries? LOL. The same thing will happen for our service industries; and when that has occurred, we will be truly a banana republic. If you truly advocate this process, you are a kind of Australian that I truly despise.

Turbs, I'm not questioning your advice re personal liability; I got out of the CAR 35 game for precisely that reason. However the question of the broadening of liability beyond the boundaries of the prescriptive legislation has profound implications for aircraft manufacture and maintenance; I do not see that those activities will be sustainable, under the conditions you describe. In other words, I'm not questioning whether you are correct, I'm questioning whether we can survive as a society under those conditions.

One would only do that if there was negligible possibility of having to go around. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule against it; but if one does that then it would be necessary to land sufficiently close to the runway exit to be able to turn off the runway before stopping; that's not too difficult to do with dive brakes. Otherwise, you'd be blocking the runway whilst getting the engine re-started in order to taxi.

Yes, well, there's a bit of a campaign to improve glider radios; the old days of exclusive gliding frequencies and 2 watt hand-helds are passing, and about time, too - tho some gliding fields still use 122.7 or 122.9 if they are well away from a CTAF zone. "Touring" motor-gliders - which are the ones normally likely to land at non-gliding fields - have a bit more electrical power available, so they are likely to have similar radios to most other recreational aircraft. The pilots will either have a PPL or will have undergone training in that sort of operation, so their radio calls should conform to normal practice. The see and be seen bit is often a question of who is above the horizon and who is below it; the safest way to approach a gliding field in a powered aircraft is sometimes argued to be at low level, provided you do not get anywhere near a winch wire, because that way you will be able to see the gliders much more readily. A pure glider has right of way once committed to a landing, over powered aircraft, so there's your "Duty of care" again, Turbs. Similarly, gliders have a very good field of view, so there's an argument for the 500 ft circuit, turning final at around 250 ft close-in, because the power traffic will be above you and therefore highly visible; obviously a glider pilot would be unwise to turn final under the nose of a powered aircraft that is on final further out; having right-of-way is all very well, but the powered aircraft may have right-of-weight. Gliders normally increase speed from mid-downwind, and fly at 50 ~ 55 knots, so the speed differential is typically around 15 to 20 knots, and because they use dive brakes, the final leg is short and steep. The less time they are on final, the better; it's seldom more than about 30 seconds. Combined Ops fields usually separate the glider and power landing strips, and in that situation, the 500 ft circuit makes more sense. It doesn't if everybody has to use the same runway. If I had to "mix it" with other power traffic on the same runway, I'd choose to fly a standard "power" circuit, because that means the other pilots do not need to think about anything unusual.

Sounds to me as though one should not overfly at less than 2000 ft AGL (3000 ft for a gliding strip that uses a winch); and have the area frequency selected as the "active" frequency, with 126.7 as the standby - and activate "dual watch" (if your VHF COM has that function) so both frequencies are monitored. I normally use overhead join on any field I'm not familiar with - and even on ones that I am familiar with if they are at all busy; I find it much easier to locate the traffic and slot in with it that way. You're also much easier for other traffic at circuit height to spot; that's a consideration in a slow aircraft. It's something of a dilemma with a powered glider whether one should land it with power on - in which case you fly a "power" circuit, using dive brakes against the engine, since a 2-stroke should not be operated at idle in flight; or whether to shut the engine down and land in pure glider mode, making a 500 ft circuit. That choice would depend on the circumstances; at a gliding field, I prefer the "glider mode" option; at somewhere like Bundaberg or Hervey Bay, it would be more appropriate to use the "power" option. Anybody care to comment?

I'm definitely not laughing. I do not know what limitation of this sort apply to State Government, as opposed to federal government. Aviation regulation, apart from airline licences and some other peripheral matters concerning airport noise mainly, is a Federal matter; the States do not have control over it or responsibility for it. The FAA in the U.S.A. is protected by the U.S. Tort Claims Act, I understand - although I don't know the details of it. CASA is able to be sued, under S8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act - and we've been suffering from their backside-covering ever since; but in fact, CASA does not put the legislation in place, Federal parliament does - can one sue Federal parliament? If you can, then we have anarchy, not government. CASA is responsible for enforcement, see CASR part 11. Also see http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html

If I may be allowed to point out a couple of aspects that may be relevant: Firstly, aircraft design standards are put in place by Federal Parliament - see CASR 23 thru CASR 35. Secondly, CARs and CASRs and CAOs are Disallowable Instruments in the Federal Parliament. So whilst these are indeed prescriptive, LOL if you have any ideas of sueing the Government about them. BTW, CAO 95.4 does supply an exemption to CAR 226 in respect of gliders insofar as persons qualified or instructed in accordance with the GFA Operational Regulations are concerned. There does not appear to be an equivalent provision in CAO 95.55.

No, I would think that quite a few contributors to this thread can spot such errors; but choose to ignore them because raising an issue over them does not contribute to an understanding of the issue that is the subject of the thread. It's also a waste of Broadband, and I find it more objectionable than the spelling / grammar for that reason.

The amplitude will be a function of, inter alia, the spring rate of the engine mount and its rubbers - and thus rather variable.

OK, I'd like to know more about it. What sort of cost for the gear?

Since you ask, probably. But definitely ignorant of normal certification flight test procedures. I suggest you look at FAA AC 23.8 ; it's for FAR 23 aircraft, but it's still used for pretty well all flight testing of small propeller-driven aeroplanes done by professionals. Almost all the Jab types were flight-tested by Keith Engelsman (ex CASA chief test pilot). CASA test pilots are invariably ETPS graduates.