Jump to content

KRviator

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,150

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

 Content Type 

Everything posted by KRviator

  1. KRviator
    How so, given your commentary below? Try contemplating an off-field landing in IMC. Finding one suitable - when you likely don't even have a visual chart available, yet alone any topographical information available. As soon as you descend below LSALT you are on your own, with exactly zero guidance. Methods of determining wind direction under the IFR are equally applicable and available as under NVFR. GPS/VOR/NDB tracking is all available under the NVFR, IAW the AIP. Members have been contesting points you raise, but you continue to parrot your alarmist rhetoric. What if this...What if that...as though a PIFR in a single is somehow the magical cure to these maladies when someone with your claimed experience should realise it isn't - and in those cases you raise a PIFR rating exposes you to more risk than simply flying VFR. While conveniently neglecting to point out the many dangers of SE IFR... And fog forms exclusively at night? That experience is equally applicable to VFR or IFR pilots. Remember fog is cloud on ground, so you wouldn't be visual at the minima, so off you go to your alternate. Or if that is fogged in too you are in exactly the same predicament no matter your flight category.
  2. KRviator
    The problem with that concept is: Unless you are recent and competent on instruments, you are setting yourself up with a false sense of confidence. "I've got an instrument rating, what can go wrong?", when you find yourself in a no-shit IMC approach you can get behind the airplane very quickly. Witness the number of accident reports of single-pilot IFR coming to grief. If you plan a flight to an airport with a low dewpoint depression, you are likely to come unstuck, but that is part and parcel of your training as a pilot. How many VFR pilots get caught inadvertent IMC every year? And these are day-VFR pilots. More than NVFR pilots I would suggest, though I have no statistics to back that up. No one is suggesting we restrict this style of flying in any way not suggesting it is unsafe... Night flying can be as dangerous as you want to make it. Like everything, it is about managing the risk and reducing it to a value you are prepared to accept. Would I do it in my -9? Certainly. But I have a decent EFIS and dual-axis autopilot. Would I do it in a clapped-out 152 from a local aero club? Perhaps, maybe even probably, not.
  3. KRviator
    Clearly - and thankfully - the worldwide NAA's don't share those sentiments, given the number of paperless cockpits that now exist in airlines around the world.
  4. KRviator
    It would be the perfect engine for the RV-9, but at over $10,000USD More than a typical brand-new Lycoming clone it doesn't make a lot of financial sense...
  5. KRviator
    Except in the NT... Section 155 of the criminal code:
  6. KRviator
    Installation, simple as it is, likely wouldn't comply with Schedule 8, so it would require a LAME to install it each time, so the only ones to really benefit from the 'portable' systems would be aircraft operated under RAAus.
  7. KRviator
    Wonder what the drag penalty is???
  8. KRviator
    The best bit: Because it is approved by the FAA, you can install it on a certified aircraft down here! No messing around with CAR35 / Part 21 engineering to satisfy CAsA! And the ADS-B receiver accepts 1090ES replies, not just the US UAT.
  9. KRviator
    So the Rex and Qantas and other cadet schemes don't count?Personally, I do not mind the various airline cadet schemes, despite the howls of protest among various pilot groups. There is stuff-all benefit to flogging around the territory at low level in a clapped-out 210 that can compare to piloting a 737 in the flight levels vs a properly trained cadet. One could argue there are many detriments to it, in terms of a willingness to bend the rules to keep the boss happy lest he give you the boot for writing up a bunch of gripes after each flight...The only operator likely to benefit from such experience is the RFDS...
  10. KRviator
    And about 6 times as expensive...
  11. KRviator
    Yep. Before the -2S was official, many builders did that off their own bat.IIRC this was first publicly recommended in the Neil Bingham article as a way to reduce pitch responsiveness. I didn't find mine overly twitchy, but then, I never flew with a passenger. I did experience PIO on my first few takeoffs but quickly learnt to adapt. A good armrest to fly by wrist, rather than arm, action would have solved that early on. The total stick movement for maneuvering in the KR's is very small.
  12. KRviator
    There is nothing inherently wrong with a bog-stock KR2, but I agree the original retract undercarriage is a marvel of simplicity even if not ergonomic and particularly sturdy.The main difference between a -2 and the -2S is the tail moment, being further back in the -2S makes it more stable. If you mainly fly solo (keep MTOW under 900lbs) and install a good armrest to minimise PIO, a standard -2 is very pleasant to fly. Light, responsive and fast. Push the weight up, don't consider CG, and you'll notice it-for the worse. Also, bear in mind, with the stock header tank, CG moves aft during flight and can put you outside the envelope on landing. Not a nice place to be in an already short-coupled plane.
  13. KRviator
    I bought an already-flying KR2 years ago. Brilliant little aircraft - emphasis on the little. Flew wonderfully. At 6'5" I flew with my head tilted inwards though. They are cheap to build & quite cheap to fly for the performance you get. But if I were building one now, I'd omit the factory retracts, install the Diehl fixed gear, and make it a KR1.5, a slightly narrowed KR-2 flown as a roomy single-seater. Two average Aussie blokes havent got much chance of fitting in a stock KR2.
  14. KRviator
    So I found out what the problem is - and it isn't me or the Dynon. Discussions with the OzRunway guru's have found the way the code is written at present will not work with iOS9 - which is the best an old iPad2 can run. That's the bad news. The good news is they are aware of the problem, know exactly how to fix it and will rewrite that particular piece of code so it does work with iOS9 from the next software release, and the great news is it should be ready before I can go flying again, so expect it in less than 2 weeks or so. So thanks lads!
  15. KRviator
    Performance Metals have 2.03mm sheet available in 914x1828mm sizes. Try their website
  16. KRviator
    Next time I have a spare hour, I might nip back to the hangar and try rebooting the iPad and seeing if it'll connect from cold. Other than that, I can only leave it in the hands of the guru's at OzR...
  17. KRviator
    To be honest, not really! :cheezy grin:That is exactly what I have been doing too, but for whatever reason, I cannot get the Dynon option to come up in the share menu, the only options I have are "Open Tracking Website", Share Tracking, Share Current Plan, Share Current Aircraft and Print. No Dynon. What IPad are you using? Mine is an iPad2 - not even an Air2, so I wonder if it is a limitation with iOS9, which is the latest iOS I can load. It does connect to SkyView and you can see it communicating when you initially press Share as the hamster wheel appears in the top left corner. But beyond that, nada...
  18. KRviator
    A bit of a followup, with effect from OzRunways V6.2, you can now export your plan to SkyView V15.2+ using the Dynon WiFi dongle. I have not actually been able to do so myself yet and am in discussions with the folks at OzR as to why it isn't working for me, but apparently it can be done!
  19. KRviator
    It depends on your planned use. I routinely fly an RV-9A out of a 700m strip with a 2% slope, use around 150-200m for takeoff downhill and around 350m for landing uphill, with a pretty crappy approach path. If you can get by with that, great. But if you plan on inviting some mates who may not be as familiar or have marginal performance with a strip that is adequate for you, then obviously longer than you need is better, and safer.
  20. KRviator
    Not really no. The basics yes, but air law and met not really. I self-studied using the Bob Tait PPL books and passed the theory exam no worries, they're a much better resource for an Australian student, IMHO.
  21. KRviator
    Should be relatively easy to connect your EKP IV to your TruTrak Gemini.You need one of THESE 2.5mm 4-pole male plugs, enough 24AWG or better cable, and a DB-9 connector relevant to your Gemini (I couldn't tell if it is male or female you need). And a female D-Sub crimp pin or two. EDIT: Just realised - there's no need for another connector, you can just install a new pin/wire in the existing plug, either by soldering or installing a new crimp pin. Connect Ring 3 of the 2.5mm plug to the Ground connection of the Gemini, and Ring 2 of the 2.5mm plug to Pin 6 of the Gemini DB-9 connection and that's it. Page 10 of the EKP IV installation manual covers the NMEA output & physical connections and the Gemini User Manual covers the DB-9 connections. The EKP IV outputs NMEA 0813 data at 4800-9600 baud rates, both of which are accepted by the Gemini. Should be a relatively easy project if you know your way around a soldering iron. If your Gemini has crimp-pins instead of the normal soldered DB-9 connections, Mendelssohn's has them available at OzPilot.com.au, as well as the crimper tool
  22. KRviator
    I guess if some people can afford to drop a lazy $400M USD on a few wisps of paint, their idea of a $100 hamburger is the $100K hamburger...
  23. KRviator
    No.
  24. KRviator
    It doesn't particularly concern me, but the comment was made you cannot use GNSS or other radio nav aids under the VFR unless you hold an endorsement of some kind. This is incorrect, and doesn't increase safety one iota.By using GNSS or other approved aids, you can extend the positive-fix time from 30 mins to 2 hours, whether you fly RAAus or not.
  25. KRviator
    Certainly ian, I think you need some kind training to be able to use a radio navigation system - I have no quarrel with you on that point. But, apart from the 'general competency' requirements of the CASR's, no one has been able to demonstrate the need for any kind of endorsement, rating, or otherwise to be able to plan, and use, a VOR or TSO'd GNSS unit for meeting the navigation & position fixing requirements under the VFR, so long as you can competently use the systems on board.However, the single biggest problem I have with the general competency rule is it is aircraft- and systems- specific. And it doesn't seem to apply to RAAus operations. By that I mean the primary GPS in my RAAus-registered RV-9 is a KLN-90B, a unit that meets TSO C129A for area navigation. But it is also a relatively old unit and nowhere near as popular as, say a GNS-430, as well as being interfaced with my SkyView panel. Try finding a flight instructor who would know that combination sufficiently to be able to teach me to use it, when, because installed it myself and was able to spend hours reading the manual during downtime at work, I'd likely be teaching them. I can demonstrate competency to use the system, but I can't be taught it.
×
×
  • Create New...