KRviator

My RV is the same, I fly the approach almost full nose-up trim and when I to touch and goes, it has an aggressive nose-up tendency. It's not at all hard to counteract it while the trim is running but you do need to be prepared for it.

Well, Ian hasn't mandated the wearing of pants while posting, so I think we've got a bit of leeway there...😁

Bet that bloke with the Sierra & the Ferris wheel at Old Bar doesn't feel so alone anymore!😛

So if the SoE can be renewed for a seemingly endless period - are we really in a democracy anymore? Demonstrations in Sydney, Melbourne and to a lesser extent, Brisbane, suggest we are not. When you can be arrested for planning a protest, yet alone actually participating in one, we have serious problems with Governance in this Country. Protesting Government decisions is a fundamental human right, to which Australia is a signatory, yet how to you protest a lockdown when you're arrested for violating the very lockdown you're protesting? The worst part is it is not even an elected o

Agreed, however, if he wasn't happy with the departure routing, he should not have accepted the takeoff clearance. IMHO, that's the time to say "Hang on, our cleared SID will put us through a cell, is an alternative routing available?" rather than launching and then creating a massive headache for all involved...Of course, in hindsight, there's a simple solution: "Shamrock 104Heavy, descend & maintain 1,000, orbit present position, right turns, advise when you can accept the Greki departure". 😈 Get's him low enough he's out of the way and puts the onus on the PIC to say when he

5 deaths, but 87 cases of severe clotting... I guess that's ok if you're not one of those 92 people...Given a relative had severe clotting and was on anticoagulants for it for the rest of their life to prevent a potential repeat. For a pilot, if you hold a Class 1, you can only fly Multi-Crew, so no more taking your family for a jolly on the weekend, or an evening sunset flight around Sydney. No ferrying a 182 or Chieftain by yourself, you'll always need a (rated) Coey... For my Cat 1 Rail Medical (virtually equivalent to a Class1), if the treatment is deemed stable, you can be i

Unless you're Aer Lingus and then you get to orbit off the departure end of the runway as a pi$$ed off New York ATC'er tries to manage the problem you've now caused!

So a bit more of a follow-up in my saga of dealing with dealers...I sent an email off to the listed contact about this Twin Comanche, and got a response along the lines of "I'm in quarantine at present, I'll get the answers to your questions and get back to you when I get out". Fair enough. That was on the 4th June. Nothing heard since. But here's the kicker... I sent an email to the broker about this Debonair on the 18th May asking for total fuel, a more recent W&B than one from 1962, wing bolt status and engine overhaul year - and never heard a peep from him with

Beautiful work - but where's the wing spar going to go?!?

When you absolutely, positively want to win the Red Bull Flug-tag...

We live within spitting distance of the threshold of a Council runway, that is both lit and has an instrument approach to that threshold. Our home insurance I think it is with Allianz but would have to check, covers impact by aircraft, and also views our good-sized hangar as a typical workshed. They seem to view our property as a standard residential risk, notwithstanding the airport proximity or the fact we have private taxiway access to it.

Note, it doesn't say what frequency you must be monitoring, be it Area, a nearby CTAF, 123.45, 121.5, 122.7 (for possible gliders) or trying to get a nearby AWIS to broadcast the QNH so you're complying with the AIP. Definitely more than one way to remove the epidermis from a feline. The thing that troubles me about that is the RPT seemed to "expect" the survey job to get out of its' way. Captain Fourbars ain't paying for his fuel the way the survey operator is. Try that with me when I'm out and about and you'll get a not-so-polite reply. RPT does not equal right of way, though, I will

Properly maintained, I'd have no problem flying a B35 Bonanza - a model that first took flight nearly 70 years ago! Same for their Brand C or P equivalents, too. The only downside to aging aircraft is lack of parts or manufacturer support for critical items and it'd be something like that that would stop an older aircraft flying, not because the fuselage fell apart. Maybe its' time for CAsA to consider something like the Transport Canada "Owner Maintenance" régime? But that's another topic! @skippydiesel LVA = Lachlan Valley Aviation, methinks...

Add to that the risk of a broker discounting potential purchasers as legitimate and either ignoring, or simply overlooking responding to them, as this thread shows. There's (potentially) two Bonanza's and a Debonair listed through brokers that could have been sold much earlier and for a higher price had the broker actually responded. The Deb is still listed over 3 months since I first made contact with the broker, however I am led to believe the Bo's did go but much later than my first enquiry to the respective brokers, and probably for a lower price given the extended time on the

Not yet. I still check the various websites a couple times a day though! Emailed those Q's from a page or two ago to Bunbury about their Twin-Co and waiting to hear back. The contact in the ad is a guest of hotel quarantine at present, and said she'd get back to me when she is released by her jailers. I also still like that Deb that's listed as well, being a single, Mogas-capable etc, and am trying to track down a FB account for the owner to email him directly with the questions the broker ignored. If anyone knows a David Addison from Ballarat, let him know to fire his

It turns out it is not only aircraft brokers who don't seem to give a phlying phuck about potential customers. New car sales staff are the same. Well, some anyway... We wanted to buy a new Prado for the KRviatrix, and so the search began. One salesman from Singleton Toyota basically told us "I don't want to let you test drive the car here, because you could then go and buy it somewhere else!", but relented when he realized we would actually accept the wait (3-6 months) if we couldn't find a car in stock. Incidentally, this dealer also failed to send through the promised quote until we cha

The RVs have an even simpler one, a piece of standard fuel tubing. Bent to sit a bees d!ck off the bottom of the tank, a flared fitting on one end, squashed flat at the other, with a series of thin hacksaw cuts partway through it. I couldn't imagine anyone flying without something to catch the bigger contaminants before they reach (and/or) block the filter.

Reading it doesn't worry me. I, effectively, built a plane in my back shed. A plane that I have flown to 10,000', down Victor 1 at 500' and based it at what can be considered a marginal airstrip. That being said, I don't believe in risk aversion so much as risk management. When we flew Victor 1, we both had our life jackets on, I routinely fly wearing a tactical vest filled with survival goodies and a PLB in one of the pockets, and we fly in an RV-9, that - short of flying it into a cliff face - any crash landing should be survivable if not actually injury-free, so long as it is under con

We are talking about the same CAR 208 are we? A CAO is drafted under authority of (IIRC) CAR 5, not 208... Nonetheless, RAAus, under authority granted by CAO 95.55, is exempt from any obligation to comply with CAR 208. Nowhere in CAO20.16.3 does it exclude RAAus, nor limit its' applicability to certificated aircraft only. It's quite clear that it applies to "Application: This section applies to all Australian registered aircraft."

Two places does not limit it to two occupants. That must be clearly understood. # of seats /= # of occupants. I suggest you re-read the relevant CAO's and tell us if they say "Single-Place" / "Two-Place" or "Two-Passenger". The devil is in the detail - and like an awful lot of people found to their detriment about my RAAus RV-9, what they think it says and what it actually says are not the same... The C172 is a "4 Place" aircraft, per the Type Certificate, however, you can legally carry 5 people in it in accordance with CAO20.16.3 - which also allows you to carry 2 adults + an infant

Nothing wrong with 3 people in an RAAus bird if one is an infant or two are kids under 77Kg total. RAAus Ops manual says a passenger endorsement allows the carriage of "passengers" plural not "a passenger". CAO20.16.3 says it applies to "all Australian registered aircraft" and in turn, that a 2 seater can have 1 excess passenger. So Mum, Dad + Infant in an RAAus aircraft? Rare, but legal. Good on 'im for knowing the rules and getting his rugrat airtime.

Wholeheartedly agree! I'd rather lose the 5-10K extra I "might" get by using a broker but most of that would be lost in their fee anyway. I'd sooner get an email from a genuine potential buyer and be able to call them and answer their questions directly but more importantly accurately! Hell, I recently listed a LandCruiser for sale and uploaded 27 photos including one of the auxiliary electrical busses and accessories we installed! And that's just for a car! Looks like it's sold too, sight unseen to a bloke in WA who'll fly over, do the deal, and ship it home next week, he called,

Some good advice there. Especially with the internet there is a phenomenal amount of info out there for most aircraft, ranging from POH's to planning apps and forums discussing maintenance squawks and fixes. The tough bit about VH registered birds though is there ain't an awful lot you can do, outside Schedule 8, unless you can convince CAsA to approve a CAR42ZC authorisation. I sent a THIRD email to a broker today, basically saying 'if you don't want to give me the detail I've asked for, or if -KMT has been sold, at least let me know and I'll take it off my shortlist". Wonder if I

But the problem with that clause is the broker is saying you cannot rely on what is written in the logbooks should you want to sue. " An extreme example might be the Vans SB for HS cracks in the RV series. @skippydiesel reviews the logbooks, and finds the following "SB 16-03-28 c/w, crack found, stop drilled, doubler installed IAW SB". He thinks, "great, they've done the SB, found & fixed the problem, all's well!", when in reality, someone CBF inspecting the wing and just wrote it off as done, the aileron bracket fails with the aileron departing the airframe. @skippydiesel roll

No, @440032 is right. I didn't think he was and went looking. CAO95.55 fliers are exempt from pretty much ALL the CASR's and only a few of the CAR's. Contrary to popular belief, I like being wrong - I'll learn something that way!