KRviator

$482 in a bundle at Bunnings. If you were wiring a plane from scratch, that's quite cheap for what you get in terms of traceability of wiring. Heck, even for the 4by or something it'd be good if you are adding a bunch of accessories!

A lot of it comes down to sheer cost, IMHO. I was somewhat lucky when I built my RV-9 in that the $$ was much higher than it is now. I have probably $130,000 in my RV, but to built 'like for like' today would probably cost you close to $170,000 and that is an awful lot of $$ for someone who is trying to pay off a mortgage, or even simply save a deposit. Even over a 10-year timeframe, that's $17,000 every year, or a mortgage payment for a smallish house. Then there's the ongoing costs. I'm up for $6,000 a year in fixed costs before I spin the prop. Add in $200/hour just in landing fees for circuit training at Warnervale or some other airports, why on earth would you pursue something so expensive for so little reward? Those that have newish RV's, or those composite wonders aren't going to put them up for sale unless they have to, because they'll lose far too much replacing them. As much as I love the flying, CAsA (with their million-and-one rules and tacking on "this is an offence of strict liability" onto every piece of legislation), RAAus (the Privacy Policy disclosure debacle and the direction the organisation is going) DOTRS (ASIC, need I say more) and the various airport owners (who mandate an ASIC, 24/48H PPR, have 12'high razor wire, guard dogs, and a 10-person armed response unit to guard against a wayward RAAus pilot or weekend warrior dropping in just to have a look-see, or refuel, all backed up by an ARO with an attitude*) have taken an awful lot of the enjoyment out of it. If I could have my own property and self-insure a cheaper 4-seater, then perhaps I'd reconsider, but there will shortly be one more plane advertised on the classifieds....mine... *May be a slight exaggeration

With the new Basic Class 2 you probably wouldn't even need RAA as a backup. The only medical difference between the two really is RAAus is essentially a self-declaration after asking yourself "Are you medically fit to drive anything?" whereas the Basic Class 2 is your GP assessing you against the AustRoads Commercial licence standards, which aren't that hard to meet, realistically...And you need to pay CAsA $10 for the privilege... FWIW, my opinion is if you can't meet the Austroads standards, you should be asking yourself if you are really fit to fly at all.

You're only covered by the RAAus insurance policy if you are participating in an RAAus activity. Flying VH has no relation to RAAus = no coverage. Reference is the RAAus insurance certificate.

Show me where I've had a crack at your product? The FACTS are your website was advertising cannabis-related products in a post attributed to Stuart Erskine. I simply pointed out that you are asking aircraft owners to trust your company with very valuable data, data that may not be able to be reproduced if it were lost, yet you didn't secure your own website well enough that it was apparently hacked to be selling cannabis-related products under the banner of "Flight Safety Solutions" and your name. IF you can't secure your own website, or even notice when it has been compromised then in my view it doesn't bode well for securing customers data.

It's not a good look, you're asking pilots to trust your company with, what is quite valuable really, digital data but you've admitted your very own website got hacked because you didn't understand how easy it would be for someone to do. And not only did it get hacked, you didn't pick up on the fact that it had been. I'm not sure which is worse, but what I am sure about is I will be ensuring my aircraft data is kept under my control.

No Spanish? Then Cannabis Oil perhaps?!? Who is Stuart Erskine and why is he advertising cannibis-related products on your website? Perhaps not the best thing to be advertising under the "Flight Safety Solutions" banner? Just Sayin....

The maximum flow through the return line would be at ground idle, wouldn't it? At full power, most would be consumed by the engine??

I've got a 200-series and just had a long range tank fitted. 273 litres of fuel on board. Of course, I got a GVM upgrade at the same time and do you think ARB had the foresight to re-weigh the vehicle for the RTA engineer before they filled the tank? Nooooooo, of course not..... So now I'm stuck trying to drive 2000km to get the weight down enough to get it back on a weighbridge. The previous car was a NP300 Navara, also with a long range tank, and I got told off by the servo attendants several times for using the filler cap wedged under the nozzle trigger to hold it open because nowhere seems to have the hold-open clips on the low-flow diesel hoses anymore.

981.5Lbs / 445Kg BEW for my RV-9A, but that was before autopilot servos and wheelpants. 450Kg after. Still, a 150Kg payload, less 80Kg of pilot gave enough fuel for a Sydney-Brisbane flight or a 2 hour local junket with Mini-Me. I could have got a bunch more if I hadn't stuck an O-340 in it! At least on VH- now I can take 2 adults, AND fuel!

You can get -7's and -9's onto the RAAus register, but then they are very niche machines, essentially, single-seat high-speed cross-country or medium-range 1+1 aircraft. I've just transferred my RV-9A from RAAus toVH to make full use of its' payload and take the KRviatrix, not just Mini-Me flying...

The difference between "Landing" and "Crashing" is defined as an ability to use the plane again... One thing I have found, or rather, not found in most POH's is those nuances that you are either taught (by a good instructor) or learn yourself, about particular airplanes. Flap pitch couples, opposite or into turn rudder rolling into a bank are a couple of examples I can thing of, off the top of my head. POH's are great for performance and limitations, but handling tricks and quirks, not so much.

The good thing with the RV line is it's hard to find a single point of failure, with the exception of the fuel system. I would rather build and maintain my own plane as then it's a known quantity. Sure you pay a LAME to "do this, fix that" and give you an airworthy aircraft at the end of it, but it isn't their life on the line if they've forgotten to tighten the fuel servo B-Nuts. I've flown Victor 1 several miles offshore with my 5 year old in a plane I built in my back shed, and felt completely comfortable doing so just like I've flown from Sydney to Caloundra over a layer of stratus where you couldn't see the end of it, or what was underneath it - and truthfully I feel more comfortable doing both of those than flying an aero clubs 60-year-old C150 for a BFR...

The removed Planesales ad says it was still undergoing Phase 1 testing while being offered for sale...I wonder how many hours it had at the time of the incident?

Except that CAsA have decreed that having only 1 TSO'd GPS (C145/6) is sufficient for sole-means IFR navigation without requiring an alternate! What would happen at night, in IMC enroute if that single GPS were to fail is the million-dollar question. I don't have a VOR in the RV, and don't see the point either. Any TSO'd GPS newer than C129 is sufficient to push the "Time to positive fix" out from 30 minutes for VFR to 2 hours, you don't need station passage or intersecting radials from a VOR. A waste of time, money and weight in a modern cockpit. The only reason I'd install one would be for an ILS, but never a standalone VOR. Anyway...Here's a bit of my handiwork from a few years ago, showing the remaining VOR's in Australia and their effective ranges. Nationwide coverage at 10,000'. Red is ASA, Blue is private. Green is DoD. Victoria 5,000'. Victoria 10,000'. NSW 5,000'. NSW 10,000'. Queensland 5,000'. Queensland 10,000'.

Some Jabiru (Jabirus?) have a UHF radio fitted as a factory option. You might touch base with the factory up there to see who is their supplier, or if they build their own harnesses they migh tsell you one. Retails about a $1,000 option on their kits.

Seeing as some of you are mentioning bikes and their engines, check out this bloke's invention. A 14 cylinder, home made, radial engine, using XV700 motorbike cylinders. I have seen it in person but without the crankshaft, but he also made a 9-cylinder version from XR600 cylinders that runs, mounted to a trailer and after talking to him at the shops one lunch, I spent a good couple hours at his place that afternoon, (when I should have been sleeping for my nightshift....) discussing how he built it, engines, planes and trains. I built my plane, but I have no words to describe his achievement, other than

RAAus, or the pilots & aircraft under the various CAO's?

A company that was only incorporated in October 2019, which looks to be run by Stuart Erskine, who owns or is affiliated with BreezyLog, an electronic logbook they're toting as an alternative to paper-based versions and which he has been spruiking on the RAAus FB page. I think I'll pass. What are they going to say? Your logbook is not compliant, therefore you're in breach of CAO 100.5, you're grounded! And an instant criminal because 99.9999999999999995% of aviation legislation in Australia is a Strict Liability offence. And because we change our Privacy Policy willy-nilly with no notice to the membership, we're dobbing on you to CASA because our Privacy Policy says we can!

Early in the testing phase for my RV, 3SMPH groudspeed, if I were a bit more confident in the handling I'd have got it down to 0.

I don't blame the Government for this cop's actions. Not at all. I merely use it as an example, as stated by Jerry_Attrick, that you will always have people who break the rules. Here we have a serving police officer who thought it would be a good idea to violate someone's privacy against who knows how many internal policies or rules the Police have specifically against such an act. He'll likely be kicked off the force and will almost certainly be charged and convicted of a criminal offence as a result of his actions. Hell, even the Deputy Commissioner has been forced to apologise to the bloke they arrested for what he himself called "totally appalling" conduct... If a Police officer is so happy to break the rules on a whim, particularly as regarding privacy, it only serves to further reinforce my belief those in positions of authority cannot be trusted to manage my privacy.

AAAnnnndddd, as if we needed any more examples of how blatantly some people in positions of authority are prepared to infringe on the privacy of others, Victoria Police has suspended one of their Senior Constables for sharing photos of Dean Laidley, the AFL coach while being questioned after his arrest, inside the interview room. Talk about an egregious breach of privacy, and their own policies. "But we're the Government, you can trust us....."

He did say *successful*....That rules out Clive, dunnit?

So this is the latest ABC story on the app... 4 million people have downloaded it before they have finalised just who or how access to the data will be granted? Niiiice.....

That's what the Government has said, true - but that't not what the reverse engineering shows! And that is why I won't be downloading the app. They've told us one thing - that your details won't be sent to them unless someone you've been in contact with via BT has tested positive and uploaded their data to the server , but it would appear that is not true. You have to register your number in the app so they know who to call - fair enough, that is logical. But that number is sent to the server as part of the registration process. True, but there are specific powers in place to prevent that ability from being abused. Even if the AFP routinely ignore them.... But it isn't. It is mostly what they say it is, but the elephant in the coding is that I have not read anywhere that they admitted your phone number is sent to them prior to someone testing positive. IF I'm wrong about that and that has been published somewhere, I'll wear that, but as best I recall, they have been pushing the line that "Your details don't come to us until someone tests positive and they upload their data". It isn't about what we are doing, it is about the data being misused and/or hacked. This government - actually, most government's over the past 20 or so years - have proven they cannot be trusted, yet alone trusted to keep our data safe.