KRviator

So a bit of a followup on this particular Aztec....

I did a lot of research into it, and was about to pull the pin last year though I was still waiting for some info from a 3rd party on it, but then I was offered a new job that I'd been on the wait-list for for 2 years, so decided not to at the time, and very shortly afterwards it ended up selling to a Bankstown-based group for $80K.

Fast forward a year, I'm settled into my new job, and bored-ly browsing Facebook marketplace last night and what pops up? A 1975 Piper Aztec. For $190,000!! You read it right, the new owners have decided it's not for them and are trying to make a $110K profit in 12 months. Well, actually 8 months as it's been listed for 15 weeks. NFI why I hadn't seen it before now, but anyway, I sent a message to the owner...

And, after discussing it with him asking "What have you done to justify the increase?" the answer is "Nothing" - BUT they have also been doing the annual inspection themselves, despite not being a LAME or qualified to do so per the CASR's as we discussed above. As I said to him, "I built my RV and even I can't sign off on the annual...." When he asked what price I thought I'd pay, I said "$85, or $100 if it has an annual from a LAME". $85 is the price I'd agreed to pending the info from the PO last year and I think it's fair given "what" it is.

Being Experimental, it can't get put online, you can't do Angel Flights with it, AWK and Charter are out. So it has to be a private owner who needs a (big) twin. I wish them well in selling it, but $190K for an Aztec that you can't use for anything except PVT flights? There's far, far cheaper ways to commit aviation. Might as well be jousting sticks...

If you don't get any success here, I'd reach out to Andrew Smith, CFI at the Central Coast Aero Club - he's a top bloke and could probably put you in touch with one of the CCAC members who would be happy to do just that to save some coin.

2 hours ago, red750 said:

Like their train passenger loads.

At least you can't hang out the side of a 787.

Though as a train driver, I will admit I have a somewhat sadistic chuckle each time I see a video of some fool hanging out the side of a train then suddenly disappearing from view after clobbered by a piece of lineside infrastructure.

Taxi checklist:
Flaps: 5 selected, 5 indicated
Autobrake: RTO

Spoilers: Armed
Controls full and free? "Uhhh........"

I use a pair of customized grips from Infinity Aerospace. They are highly customizable for your application in terms of pushbutton (NO/NC/Momentary) or lever-action and have left & right styles available. Well worth it if you want more than a couple of features on your stick.

In my application, I have them assigned as follows:

• Trigger: PTT
• Pinkie: Engine Start (not connected on Coey's grip)
• Thumb pushbutton: AP Disconnect/CWS
• Inboard rocker: Flaps
• 'Coolie hat': Pitch & Roll trim
• Outboard rocker: Rudder trim (Not installed "yet")

The switches usually ground a particular circuit, so if you gang the grounds together, then route them through another NO rocker switch on the panel labelled "Copilot Disc" you can disable all features from the Coey's grip if you don't trust them to not lower the flaps at cruise speed, or similar.
 

17 hours ago, BrendAn said:

As raaus members we have third party cover. Would that extend to a flight school aircraft.

RAAus insurance coverage is for personal injury isn't it? Not hull damage?

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.

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

The most expensive engine on the list, the 916, which would be very very nice in my RV6a is comparable in price to a new experimental lycoming o-320 160Hp engine. You get what you pay for.

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...

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

In Australia, after you've bought a product there's a Manufacturer's Warranty with a specified end period PLUS a Federal Government (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission) over-riding law (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties#:~:text=Consumer guarantees are automatic and,on the product or service.) explained in this link.

Indeed. And from that link, you have the following section:
 

Quote

• who is responsible for any expenses associated with the warranty claim and how the consumer can claim back any expenses incurred

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.

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Your expectations seem a tad high. You purchase a cheap engine, from a relativly small manufacturer and then expect big company service.

 

While I admire Jabs, my possibly erroneous, perception is they are purchased on price - Yah Gets What Youse Pays For😈

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.

12 minutes ago, Love to fly said:

Nope. You're confusing Basic Class 5 and Class 5

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" 
 

On 02/05/2025 at 7:07 PM, BrendAn said:

class 5 is based on the raaus model i thought.

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.

19 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"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."

 

I hope you have not paid.

Its the PICs prerogative to set whatever flight plan meets his/her cross country needs, subject to airspace classifications and military activity.

YGLA circuit height is 1059 ft, overfly 1559 ft . I don't think you can be charged for entering the circuit (without landing), let alone an overfly of any altitude,  let alone 9500 ft

 

"...deconfliction call with a departing RPT on CTAF."

Care to expand on this statement?

 

.😈

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"
 

On 30/03/2025 at 2:28 PM, Paulo said:

I have been receiving Avdata every month for the last eleven years, so have some experience with the system.

They do determine billing based on radio data, and yes, they often do make mistakes. However, they have always corrected my bill when they they have made mistakes.

It has been irritating to follow up the mistakes but they are pleasant to deal with and I have never found them unreasonable.

Avdata provides a very convenient way to collect landing fees for aerodrome owners, so that is why it is so widely used.

They only charge for landings, including touch and go's. In the Skippydiesel's case Avdata has made a mistake and they have corrected it.

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.

A 916 would cost more tan the entire airframe, yet alone two! 

A pair of 914's would be a far better choice. Much cheaper, aftermarket EFII is available, critical altitude of FL160 and did I say cheaper than a 916?

EDIT: Just saw the same MTOW of 760, so only 280kg payload. You couldn't even put 4 people in before you're over MTOW, so WTF's it good for?

Wouldn't be the first time RAAus didn't understand their own manuals or the legislation they operate under....

On 15/03/2025 at 9:40 AM, facthunter said:

While RAAus may not be that great I don't rejoice in it's Problems. It NEEDS to continue to exist IF an alternative to VH is to be maintained.  Nev

Why do we need an alternative to VH- these days?

The US seems to get along just fine without RAUSA. The Brits too, can't see RAEngland getting off the ground. RAAus is a continuation of the AUF that was about before we had the likes of Part 103 and the Class 5 medical.

No, they're not.

Wedderburn is home to the Sport flying club buried among the trees - makes it easy to spot going past... The Oaks is about 5NM southwest of Camden, two separate airfields.