440032

I can't seem to find the interplanetary coverage for my roadside assist plan...

NGK 120 degree spark plug caps me thinks would google better. 45 degree caps would be pointing back at the cyl. Just sayin...

Agree. Time to get off the soap box and pull the plug. I throw in the towel.

Matt Bath?

CASA is aware these things will be appearing sooner or later. Theoretically eligible for an Experimental certificate, but license to fly? None exists, would have to be done individually by exemptions. You have to get the bathtub maintenance manual from Reece Plumbing.

He could rob that convenience store and make a clean getaway.

One would imagine that the flying club owned and operated the aircraft, for the members of the flying club to use, not the general public. All quite normal.

Assuming this is an RAAus case (we don't know yet) - has anyone read the Tech Manual? I found the answer in about 12 seconds, on page 2 of section 3.1. Example. Friend of mine built an RV12. Test period all flown off by a qualified pilot. Owner then did all his RAAus pilot certificate training in it, with a willing and able instructor. VH experimental will be the same process, build it, test it, learn to fly in it. If you can find a willing and able instructor AND the Part 141 flying school has mentioned "privately owned aircraft" in 4B12 of their ops manual. (or more generically, "all single engined aircraft"). Go for it Adrian. Case closed.

Perhaps a timely reminder? ASIC has nothing to do with CASA - it's not their baby. Never was, never will be. And my question is, who is entitled to ask to see your ASIC? Who, as in who on the airfield? The cleaner, the gardener, the refueller, who? Serious question. Who, according to the regulations. I just can't see any mention of it at all. So if bailed up by somebody claiming to be important, are they? How do you know? What gives them the power to bail you up and check your ASIC? And then, if you don't have one, what happens? What is their procedure? Will you get tasered or taken down by Chuck Norris?

Both those ways are no problem at all. From New Gisborne, you can pick up the rail line eastbound. From the north coming down over Kyneton - Romsey - Monegeeta army test track, Riddell is very visible from a decent way out. More open land that way also.Coming down the Calder Highway past Mt Macedon is rather bushy, but you're not over that for long, easy nav too - keep big mountain on left, scoot past the cross on the south face peak at 3500 feet then descend. I usually prefer the north & eastern side route, numerous private strips out that side, open country. Plenty of air between ground and 2500ft there, no problem. More options to do a U-turn (east!!!) and bug out if weather is a bit claggy. Either way, ease factor: 9.34.

Don't yáll mean "howdy"? I've spent some time in Texas. (Spent time, not done time...!!!) El Paso side. Loved it.

LSA can only be changed by manufacturer approval. It's all in the regs and ACs. But back to the matter at hand. Angled instrument adapter/mounts, 3D printed by some clever guy? Assuming you have room behind the panel to angle the things. Might just be right up Peter Anson's alley..... http://www.ansoneng.com/ as greatest invention since the flux capacitor. Not that he invented that, but I'm sure he could have if he had wanted to.

Jaba-whoooooooooooo is right on the money there. Okay, so we're only talking VH experimental aircraft, not RAAus. Instrument number CASA 15/16: Authorisation of persons to carry out maintenance and issue maint release Para 2 definitions: Primary builder (a) is referring to one member of a group (of 2 or more) who has done more than half the aircraft themself. eg 1. Person 1 has done 60%. Person 2 has done 40% eg 2. Person 1 has done 51%, person 2 has done 10%, person 3 has done 10%. Percentages are all subjective. Keep it simple. In the group, who, if anyone, did at least 51%? That is the primary builder. If nobody did (individually) at least 51%, move to the next clause (b). Primary builder (b) is referring to one member of a group (of 2 or more) who has been nominated as the leader, in effect, because no one person within the group fitted into the previous clause by doing at least 51%, alone. eg 1. Person 1 and Person 2 do equal amounts, they always work together. Neither has done more than 51% individually. So one person must be nominated as the leader, to issue the maintenance release. Para 3 describes who 15-16 applies to, (a) a person (solo, or in a group) who has done more than 51% of the project, or (b) a person (generally, in a group) who contributed to the project. Para 4 describes who is authorised to carry out maintenance: (a) the person in 3(a) - a person who has done more than 51% of the project, and (b) a person in 3(b) - a person who contributed to the project (ie – the group situations). Schedule 1 condition 7 describes that a person in 3(b) – the group member(s) may only maintain those parts they built. Example 1 – Fred solely built the tailplane and elevators, fin and rudder. Barney did everything else. Fred can only maintain those parts he built. Can Barney maintain Fred’s work? No, he’s in the same boat. Fred though, has been nominated as the primary builder to issue the M/R. Could equally have been Barney. % plays no part. Example 2 – Fred and Barney built everything, together. Both Fred and Barney can maintain everything. But only one of them – the nominated primary builder - gets to issue the maintenance release! This time, Barney has been nominated as the primary builder, to issue the M/R. Could equally have been Fred. Best solution: Each group member contributes to each part of the project for maintenance purposes (but still only one is nominated to issue the M/R). What if the M/R person leaves the group? Can a new nomination be done before they leave? Don’t see why not, the reg doesn’t say when the nomination must occur. Maintenance may become a problem if one person leaves. Gee it gets complicated doesn't it? Well that's one topic well and truly hijacked from the starting topic, can you employ someone to build your JetBlaster 5000? Does it happen? Yes. Does CASA know it happens? Yes. Should it happen? No. Builders must always be able to provide proof (builders log, in-action photos, inspection visits) to their AP that they themselves built the aircraft. The AP can ask for a stat dec if still not satisfied, and BSing on one of those is serious business. And if still not satisfied, the AP can write it up as "LAME ONLY" maintenance (to protect third parties on the ground who are not involved). If it gets to that stage, you already know you are trying to cheat the system. If you are not trying to cheat the system, you can easily gather the proof of build as you go. It's not rocket surgery. I hope that this is of some use to folks. I also hope it's accurate! Should be, I been doing this quite a while. There are always unanswered questions remaining, and some of them are also unanswerable (other than "NFI") There are too many "what ifs" that will fit in one box.

Yes, it's a dog's breakfast alright. I'll also throw 2c worth in later. I think I spotted something interesting in it this morning.

Regarding how many and how can do maintenance and issue a maint release: Authorised persons do not have any power themselves to grant anyone any maintenance privileges for any VH experimental aircraft, it's just not on their CASA ticket. That's all taken care of by CASA Instrument 15/16. But an AP can prevent it happening by way of a "LAME only" clause, if required (rarely). I'll be back later with an unscramble of 15/16. The trick to unscrambling this stuff is to first weed out of the picture everything which clearly doesn't apply to what we are looking at. I thought regulation was supposed to be be clear and concise.......

CASA Project MS 11/18 opened in 2011, closed in 2013, result: not much, other than identifying a need for some guidance material. The mention within it of removing various permissions from various APs did not eventuate, thankfully. We play in a different sandpit here with our regulations. After watching (on youtube) countless experimental aircraft fly half a mile apart on the Fisk VFR approach to runway 27, right over every piece of built-up area possible at Oskosh, with not even a blink of an eye from FAA, year after year after year, makes you wonder about such things don't it. But on the flip side, sure, none of us want to end up as the headline on the six o'çlock news "Home made plane crashes into houses". Self preservation works better than any regulation ever will.

Check PMs Jaba-Who. Love-to-fly - stand by for the answer (which is 'no').

Velly interesting Jaba-who.... thank you. I am heavily involved in the procedures manuals and paperwork for a bunch of APs, including independent commercial fellas, everything they use comes via me. I was with a bunch of them at CASA in Brisbane in April, none of this was mentioned, and not a single AP that I support has contacted or alerted me, nor has CASA. I'm Norm, I've been doing this stuff and more for SAAA and others since 2004 and I'm awaiting my own AP ticket. One AP I just checked with has 100% not received any such directives on the topic. It's the first I've heard of it, and that is why I am rather skeptical, to say the least. Still, I might do a little PI work...................

No, because it didn't happen.

Show me "ramp check" in the regulations. Anywhere. Anyone? Your time starts.........................now.

Not Actually Intended to Provide Service.

Part 149 NPRM 9805P June 1998.

I've heard it's all the same, but I just can't confirm that. I suspect it's the same, given that there are three grades (weights) of each, and the light, medium and heavy are each 1.87, 2.79 and 3.4 oz per square yard, (not per yard off the roll) that is no mere coincidence. Ceconite 102 is supposedly one inch wider at 73 inches. Polyfiber light I have used and it did have a stamp on it of some sort, about every yard along. Unroll quite a bit more fabric and see what's there? I'd be really surprised if it had no stamps at all, and probably wouldn't use it if it couldn't be identified. Just checked the polyfiber book - YES, each does have a very clear POLYFIBER stamp, with the grade. Just searched google, and YES, Ceconite also has a unique stamp. If yours has no stamps, it may just be a generic dacron. But I'd still be surprised if it has nothing on it at all.

Did CASA approve this de-icing procedure?