KRviator

Following on from the above, since I can't edit the post, what am I missing or what other info should I request for a Twin-Co? Date of last 100 hourly? Compressions at last 100-hourly Date of engine overhauls? 500h magneto overhaul due when? Last flown? 1000-hr L/G AD complied with? (Comanche specific) Gear trunnion NDT / AD? (Comanche specific) Gear bungees last done? (Comanche specific) Conduits replaced? (Comanche Specific) BEW & ARM? Fuel capacity? (Pretty sure it has the 120Gal tanks from what I can make out of the fuel cal card, but want to check) On oil analysis? GNS 430/W/A? Any current unserviceability’s? Nacelle corrosion AD c/w & date? Autopilot type? (STEC 50 by the looks, but want to confirm) Speed or performance mods installed? ADS-B? and finally; Any damage history? It's a fairly comprehensive list, and I'll end up emailing it to the vendor, I've found her direct email address, so she can get the answers in her own time and get back to me.

And here's another one... A "1968 A36 Bonanza"... Except AIUI, the A36 didn't come out until 1969 and the earliest ones on the register are 1970 models. A phone call to this broker went to voicemail, a message was left yesterday requesting a call back. 24 hours later, still nothing... I'm still waiting on a reply to 2 emails sent regarding this '77 A36 Bonanza, the first was sent 03rd May, a follow-up sent on the 18th May - so to the owner of VH-KMT, you might like to ask your broker to actually do their f^&@*N JOB! At least, if you want to actually sell your plane, that is...🤬 Also still waiting on a reply to an email I sent on the 18th with a couple of follow-up questions about this nice-looking Debonair. Nothing too hard, I would have thought, just if there is a W&B newer than 1962, the total fuel capacity (the Deb had LR tanks as an option), wing bolt status and when the engine was overhauled. These are all questions I would have thought a broker would have ready access to allowing a speedy response to a potential buyer. Maybe I should show this to the KRviatrix and try "I've tried to buy a 4-seater, sweetie, but I can't...I might have to build an RV-10 if we really want 4 seats!" Though my next port of call is to think of a few type-specific questions and email the contact for a Twin Comanche advertised in WA. IT'll need a full panel overhaul, but if the W&B works out, I'd take the Twinkie over anything else, bar the overhaul costs!

When you've wrapped your pristine RV-7 into a ball, I'm not sure Van himself could identify it, so it's really a moot point.

What I don't get though - and I speak as a buyer ready to go with $$$ in hand - is all the bollocks I need to go through to determine if the plane advertised is suitable. If it is, and it passes a prebuy, they'll have a bank cheque by the end of that day. Hell, I'd fly it down to the seller and leave the RV there overnight to fly the new toy home! But all this obfuscation, and detail-free ads only delays the sale, or puts me off an individual plane, in turn delaying a potential sale, and the $$ to both vendor & broker. I truly wonder if any sellers realise how much of a disservice they're doing by using some of these so-called brokers. I can understand wanting to avoid the crap that @Jabiru7252 went through, but I'd make the first point of contact an email in that case. You can then read their bollocks over a beer that night, roll your eyes and add it to the spam list. But when it comes time to sell the RV-9 in a month or two, I'll be listing it myself on PlaneSales with aswag of photos, the W&B, as many details as I can squeeze in, and a couple of notes about things I fluffed during the build. They're all things I'd want to know!

The short answer, apparently, is "very". So the back story is I didn't listen to the KRviatrix when she said "Build a -10!". Nope, I thought I knew better and built an RV-9...Well, two became 4 rather quickly and we need 4 seats, so I've been plane-shopping for the last year or so, asking the brains trust here of their opinions on the Cardinal and Comanche. But that's not the point...What bloke, whose missus gives permission to build an RV-10, builds an RV-9?!?🤬 Annywayyys.. I've been scouring the various broker's websites for something suitable and that is where the problem starts. It isn't restricted to one broker, agent or person either. Here's a few examples: A Comanche 260 listed with a MTOW of 3,200Lbs. Except the -260's never had a MTOW that high, they were 2,900Lbs, or a full 136Kg less. That particular Comanche also has a BEW of 1,936Lbs, over 200lbs heavier than expected. Asked about where the extra weight was, there was no answer. Oh, this was also advertised as "Offers wanted". An A36 Bonanza listed with a single, exterior, photo and "Call for price". NO other details! Not one! No component times, AFTT, engine HTR or TSO, nada! And this is from a broker! If they listed my plane like that, I'd be royally pi$$ed... Another A36 Bonza originally advertised as having two G5's, though the photos showed gyros. Since updated to state "IFR upgrade available for extra $$!". I've sent two emails with specific questions to this particular broker in the last 3 weeks through the PlaneSales website and there's been zero in return. Again, you want me to advertise my plane with you, then respond to potential buyers! A broker who, when asked for the W&B data sent the original document in the AFM, from 1962! I'm yet to hear back if there is something newer, maybe from this century? Same with things like fuel capacity, wing bolt status (kinda important for the Bonza/Deb series) etc. Though to his credit, this particular broker used very good photos in his ad, you can "open in new tab" and zoom in a looong way - enough to realise there's no fuel cal card on the panel! Another broker who listed-delisted-listed-delisted-listed a Comanche that would have fit the bill almost perfectly, knew I was interested, and CBF with so much as a simple phone call to say "hey, that -260B you were interested in is for sale again!". Probably a good thing though, as I understand the new buyer had an electrical smoke/fire event on flying it to its' new home! Brokers who try to hide the rego mark by photo-shopping the external photos. Seriously? There ain't that many of each make/model in the country so it usually takes me all of 5 minutes with Google to pick out the specific airframe. Though if they forget to hide the radio-call placard on the panel, it makes life so much easier! Why bother? Afraid the owner will sell it out from under you? Then I'd suggest updating your contract to reflect "if it sells in X months while I've listed it, I get paid anyway". Why make me waste my time, just tell me the rego... Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that if you're advertising something for in excess of $100K, that you would get the basics right, that you would actually list the details a buyer might want to know, and you would have more than one photo! When I advertised my hangar, I had the 4 elevation photos, a satellite photo, an aerial photo and diagrams showing where the phone, power, water & gas lines were. I don't think that's OCD or over the top, but rather trying to appeal to more potential buyers. By the same token, list accurate information, because if you can't even get the MTOW right, what else have you got wrong? I'm lucky enough to have enough $$ available to redraw from the mortgage to grab the right plane if it comes along, before I sell my RV, but trying to work out if something is that right plane is frustratingly hard. So that's my rant for today.

Not always that easy. I can't remove the cowl on the RV without a screwdriver, pliers, 15 minutes and about a dozen profanities. The easy to see result of that is the hoses & pretty much everything under the cowl goes physically unchecked between oil changes. I touch what I can through the inlet & oil door but that isn't much. A seconds later and it would have been particularly nasty. There is SFA chance of a good outcome if you have an early EFATO at Somersby. Truly a lovely little airfield that was beautifully close to home but I always had a good dose of nerves for the first 30 seconds or so till you get enough height to glide clear of the trees. This satellite shows why...

What did those Tecnam Twins end up going for? Anyone know?

Where is the requirement to "apply" for CTA access referred to, @skippydiesel?

Typically around 1,600km. With all the gear it isnt exactly lightweight - or aerodynamic. I record date, distance travelled, quantity added and indicated consumption (to crosscheck against actual) to track actual fuel economy and usually get 15.5-16.5 without a trailer. The long term average over 19,000km so far, with highway, towing, around town etc is 16.12L/100.

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft. I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

Well don't keep it to yourself. What did you learn? That you need one? That you need one beyond X-nm? And here's one not a lot of people know....Your beacon must be registered with the AMSA!

I've had Dynon in my RV broadcasting full ADS-B out for years using the GPS-2020 antenna, relying on the provisions of CASR 21.470. Essentially, the installation (modification) is approved by the FAA, so CASA automatically recognizes it, notwithstanding the provisions of CAO20.18.

I disagree. Going coastal implies a climb to cruise, descent to low level mid-flight, and climbing back to cruise altitude. That should not be necessary to get through an empty parcel of Class C. P or R, yes, but not C - particularly in a relatively high performance GA single. Ol' mate was screwing up by the numbers, no argument, but I'd put the proximate cause of this accident at the feet of the ATCO. He denied a clearance "just because". There was no traffic, no weather, and no ASA procedure that required him to do so, he just "did". ASA is Australia's Air Navigation Service Provider. If they can't (or won't) provide a service to GA/VFR then pi$$ them off and get some FAA-types who will.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. Forget his currency, or lack thereof, it's an 'administrative' issue only. What difference did his currency make in the context of this accident? None at all. Were he actually current, he would "legally" have been there, instead of "illegally" being there. Highlighting the currency issue, while "technically" correct for an accident investigation/report, does not achieve anything in preventing a similar accident. I would wholeheartedly agree his decision making left an awful lot to be desired, but being refused a clearance though empty airspace "just because" does not sit well with me. There was no other traffic within cooee, there was known bad weather, and the Trainee ATCO couldn't handle a simple VFR clearance through 7 miles (<3 minutes) of his airspace - yet didn't get upset when the PIC violated his airspace anyway...The Trainee ATCO didn't want the workload, and so wanted the pilot of an aircraft in the middle of its' cruise flight to descend to <3,500 to get through the Coffs area and palmed him off to another Controller's area of responsibility - and then had the PIC being passed back and forth thrice more, all the while said PIC is closing on not only bad weather but CTA he has been denied clearance to enter that triggered all this in the first place. I take issue with that comment. The aircraft was equipped with a GTN650. That's TSO'd to 146 and waaaaay above what you need for VFR flight. I have a KLN-90B in the RV-9A and am legally allowed to use that for enroute navigation with "positive fixes" pushed out from 30 minutes, to two hours but AIUI, a "positive fix" is considered to be when provided with a TSO'd GNSS anyway... With a C145/146 GNSS with FDE, that allows sole means navigation with nothing but that little black box telling you where you are & where you need to go.

Replace those two victims with you and your missus then. Or me and the KRviatrix. Yes, he was uncurrent, and "legally" should not have been there. But it wasn't his technical skills as a pilot that brought him undone. This could have happened to any VFR pilot - and to be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't more often given the airspace layout & lack of clearances available from some agencies. 0717 & 45NM north CFS - Request clearance from Controller A. Refused, directed to contact Controller B. (Now I'd be thinking 'there goes Plan A') Request clearance from Controller B. Advised "I don't control that airspace, contact Controller A" (Now I'd be thinking 'Well, phuck, there goes Plan B') Contact Controller A again. Directed to contact Controller B again (Thinking 'WTF is that going to achieve?!?') 0721 Contact Controller B, advised "Clearance only available below 1,000" Bear in mind this whole time he's covering over 2.5 miles a minute, is closing on the 5,500' step that he doesn't have clearance to enter, has lost his Plan A & B, and likely didn't have a Plan C such that at that rate & RoD still had a not-insignificant airspace infringement in the 5,500' step. I wonder what the report about the UH-1 crash at Newcastle will have to say on this issue (clearances & airspace layout) as well...

I'm guessing the site's SSL certificate is expired and someone in the office hasn't renewed it. Might need to increase our fees to pay for someone to keep on top of that issue? 🤑

RAAus BFR = WOFTAM. GA BFR with a decent instructor = good value & worthwhile. I have not done a RAAus BFR that was challenging or from which I took anything significant away. But a GA BFR where you are placed under the hood and have to maintain S&L, execute a level 180 or climbing 180 to a specific heading, go through CTA that you normally wouldn't or properly use the P charts to work out if you can get in or out of a particular strip is good value.

Yes....And no...The Comanche I missed out on was priced very reasonably for what it was - probably why it went in less than a week which surprised even me. The other one I've looked at, is significantly overpriced for what it is. The seller paid $92,500 a year ago, installed a very basic GPS in it, and now wants $105-110K for it - and from what I can tell, it hasn't had the gear SB done on it, which if it fails, is mega $$ (the FAA actually made it an AD, CAsA didn't).

I think @jackc is on point. I've tried to buy the same Comanche - twice - and each time the buyer has pulled it from sale after it being listed for a few days. I missed out on a beautiful Comanche -260C by a weekend last month after the KRviatrix dilly-dallied confirming the $$ would work out, so now to get an equivalent plane to that -C model will likely cost another $50K. Wimmen! 😛 I'm thinking about penning a letter to every Comanche owner on register asking if they want to sell. I CBF importing one from the US with all the extra hassle!

IT always was, and remains, the best option. You might roll your plane up into a ball, but you'll likely survive if you choose what you hit. Once you depart controlled flight, where and what you'll hit - and how hard you hit it - is anyone's guess.

I got hit with a near-$15 landing fee at Scone a couple weeks back, in a <1,000Kg RV-9 - after ironically flying up for an information session (all of 2 hours on the ground) to discuss the airport upgrades. They've also introduced a fee for each T&G now too, asshats. Yet Councillor Ron Campbell in their December meeting wants "the airport to be used much much more in the future" - but they are increasing their landing fees, and introducing additional ones, to deter GA operators from using their airport. Can't remember which document I read it in, but they added (or wanted to add) a 6cpl surcharge on fuel purchases there too, that is, for each litre of fuel dispensed, 6c goes straight to Council.

Just a followup to my "The Scone camera's aren't working..." post above. They are now - courtesy of the folks at Airspeed Aviation & East Coast Aircraft Maintenance. Click HERE. I'll hopefully be able to add a 6th option in the next few weeks from the opposite end that has weather data overlaid on it.

For the moment, I'd avoid Scone like the plague. The availability of fuel is limited and the AD Manager apparently published the incorrect phone number for the on-site refueller now their self-serve bowser has been removed - and she has now got the Council charging for each T&G, instead of a 1-per-session fee like most other places. 🤬 Wait until they get their "upgrade" sorted out before planning a stop over there. I can't even get the RV into my hangar there until the end of January! 🤬 Also bear in mind going coastal through Sydney is likely to be easier than going coastal through Newcastle which you'll also have to negotiate, but if it were me, I'd consider YMRY-YGLB-BTH (fuel)-YWKW-YCMH. The difference is +15 minutes over YMRY-YCMH direct, but that 15 minutes gives you high-altitude, stress free, turbulence free flying, with much better options if the engine stops. I've done Victor-1 multiple times as part of a scenic junket but wouldn't plan it as part of a cross-country flight, a mid-trip descent to low level just to get past Sydney doesn't make sense to me, I'm all for takeoff, climb, cruise, descend, land keeping things as simple and boring as possible! 😛 The other benefit to clipping the southern edge of the 'Tops is both Cessnock and Maitland have weather-cams so you can see the actual weather - as does Goulburn & Bathurst for that matter. Scone doesn't have theirs installed yet, with the only other ones up that end of the Hunter being the ASA cameras at Murrurrundi. For fuel, if you can't or don't want to do YBTH-YCMH-YBTH you also have Taree & Port Macquarie a few minutes away too.

After a quick read through the judgement, the thing that struck me was the Judge finding the pilot, in effect, negligent for screwing up the approach resulting in the subsequent go-around. I've lost count of the number of times I've abandoned a landing into Somersby because I didn't like how things were going, but does that make me negligent? I'd argue not at all. Flying visually is purely a seat-of-the-pants judgement exercise. What one person thinks is a mile away might be two, but that difference between two individuals is a 300' difference on the glidepath... There's no argument he royally screwed up the approach, (I think every pilot has done that several times) but he abandoned it and went around, was still within the OLS protected area and hit something that shouldn't have been there. If he were low on the departure profile, ok, he might be negligent, but he was above the protected area and had the right to expect it to be free of obstacles - no matter how good his initial survey of the airport environs was in his overflight.

From the judgement, here is where the court found the Ferris Wheel. IT pokes into the splay a damn sight more than 2m!