KRviator

Here's the Flightaware page for Old Station, be interesting to keep an eye on that to see who's coming and from where.

Mini-Me and I are hoping the weather will clear up enough so can get away tomorrow morning and head up the inland route over Moree & Chinchilla. Have the swags, table, camp chairs, sleeping bags, all ready to load up.

I got quoted $38K USD for a new engine without EFII a few months ago. Adding that brings it up to about $70K (AUD), then shipping and GST and suddenly that 916 pricing is is pretty attractive, you know! Given the choice, I'd take Rotax anyday though. That turbo would make the -9 one hell of an economical cruiser up high.

To replace my Day-VFR RV-9 would cost close to $270,000. That's ridiculous when you can get an IFR Cirrus for not that much more. Price increases and a pretty poor exchange rate don't help.

Here we are three years later and it's made it to Bankstown, and according to ADS-B, it hasn't moved since. The current owner is the same one who bought it in 2022 so I'm wondering if they have finally twigged they bought a quarter-million-dollar paperweight...

Indeed. And from that link, you have the following section: Now, while I think it's a tad harsh for someone like Jabiru to be expected to reimburse a hundred airplane owners for consequential losses - particularly given the costs involved in anything "aviation" - the ACL provides scope for that to occur, so one would hope their relevant insurance policy covers such an event. Personally, I have pursued a few companies over warranty or flight cancellation claims through NCAT over the years and claimed consequential losses each time - and got them! I'm going through NCAT again now about a vehicle purchase and the deal negotiated and will again claim the losses incurred. In this istance, the 'direct loss' is $2K - the consequential losses, associated with time off work to pursue it and so forth, will approach $4K. Businesses seem to think consumers won't pursue it because it's not worth it. It is if you are prepared to stand your ground. The ACL is quite broad in allowing consumers to avoid being out of pocket as a result of a purchase from an Australian-based business, and about damn time, too.

Problem here is Jab is Oz based and the Australian Consumer Law might well come into play. If you can demonstrate you have suffered a consequential loss as a result of a faulty product, you are likely entitled to a remedy (Ie monetary compensation). One would hope Jabiru is across that, or at least, has sufficient insurance to guard against it as while there wouldn't be many people (a few shearers, and flight schools perhaps) that could claim a loss of work on account of the crankshaft problem, just the $$ involved in R+R'ing the engine to send to them isn't gonna be cheap if you have to engage a L2 or LAME.

Have a read of this - it tells you how to get into the setup menu on the EIS so you don't have to send it back to GRT to reprogram your sensor definitions for the sensor you have. Should be able to sort out your EIS yourself and save yourself a few quid. Troubleshooting-Guide.pdf

The Dynon Kavlico probe may be an option? I'm really surprised there's a difference between resistance across manufacturers. What's the probe part number there've told you to use? You should be able to reconfigure your EIS yourself, I'd be very surprised if they've locked that functionality.

You're right, but with a typo. Basic C2 needs the AustRoads Commercial standard. Class 5 is Private. Got my wires crossed. I still can't meet the Class 5 though, because the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation specifically call out my condition. I hope they never need to travel on the XPT though - there's a damn good chance I'll be up the front of the train, with no co-driver and no Automatic Train Protection to stop me blasting past a red signal into the asre-end of the train in front and killing everyone because of the medical condition that they say is such a threat to aviation safety I can't hold a C5.... Oh... Wait... My Rail medical is fine. Thank god for CASA and their "evidence-based approach to aviation safety"

It is, however is a subtle, but extremely important difference. The CASA Class 5 rules you to meet the "Unconditional Commercial AustRoads licence standard". RAAus requires you to meet the Private licence standard, which is more lenient in some areas. I can't meet the C5 standard anymore due to a minor yet very-well-controlled neuro issue (but this issue is specifically called out as not meeting the AustRoads Commercial standard), but I can hold a Class 2 if I want to be butt-phucked by the cretins at AvMed every year with never-ending assessments and reports or I can go back to RAAus and fly until my heart is content. I have a Cat 1 Rail medical every year that's far more stringent than a CASA C2 and my Neurologist specifically wrote in her report "We have no issue for The KRviator to drive trains or fly" - and she is one of the leading experts on the condition on the planet! Good enough for CASA you'd think?? Nope. So if you're thinking of going RAAus - CAsA (either for registration or RPC->RPL) bear this difference in mind and double-check you'll be okay.

Nope, haven't paid it, and I won't be until they remove the charges. They've refused. So not only those charges, but every landing fee since has gone unpaid as well because they include them all on the same invoice. Re the deconfliction call, here's an example from when I went to Broken Hill. "Dubbo Traffic Rex 6866 a Saab Taxiing for Broken Hill runway 05" "Rex 6866 and Dubbo Traffic Alpha Bravo Charlie an RV 30 miles west maintaining 9,500 overhead time 20" "Alpha Bravo Charlie, Rex 6866 we'll maintain 8,000 until we've confirmed we're past you" "Rex 6866 much appreciated sir" Shortly afterwards "Alpha Bravo Charlie, Rex 6866 visual, your 11 o'clock low, 1 mile and we'll start our climb to the flight levels soon as we're past" "Rex 6866, Alpha Bravo Charlie, copy sir, thank you"

I'm glad they've corrected it for you. They've refused to do so for me - despite contacting them in writing over it. They're a parasite on the industry. Look at this very thread, people suggest bogus calls or bogus callsigns in an attempt to avoid being charged, to the detriment of safety overall. And they don't "only charge for landings" - I've been charged for overflying airports at 9,500' - verified by ADS-B - because I put "YGLA" on the flightplan as a turnpoint instead of the aid and made a deconfliction call with a departing RPT on CTAF. AvData, scum of the earth.

I continue to get nasty-grams from Avdata claiming I owe money for landings at places I've never been. Tried to sort it out with the morons there to no avail, so simply wrote back "When you work out which fees are legitimate and issue a true and correct invoice, it will be paid". Till then, my dollars haven't become their dollars. Parasites. Bottom dwelling pond scum.

What's the failure message? That "Multiple Sensors failed" type thing can often be caused by attempting to do a pitot-static check without being in test mode, the ADAHRS sees the rapid climb/descent and IAS changes without corresponding GPS position or accelerometer changes and cries foul. Doesn't sound like you've actually done a P-S test, but it might be somewhere to start. First thing I'd do is unplug your GPS antenna, do a network calibration to rediscover all the modules but without the GPS, cycle power and see what happens.