KRviator

Thanks Mike, I left a message on his phone a few days ago too (30/5), but he hasn't got back to me yet. I figured if anyone could understand my predicament it'd be Darren. I am starting to feel like a leper!

It was, and I am. Once I convinced RAAus that an RV-9, even registered as a 2 seater, was legal per CAO95.55, there were no further issues. Indeed, had I not been personally grounded my RV would still have numbers on the side...But I got cleaned up by a kid on a motorbike in Feb and have spent the last several months off work with a broken arm & leg and figured I might as well use the downtime to swap my RPC to the RPL and the registration from RAAus to CASA, which was always the ultimate goal, to remove the 600Kg MTOW restriction. Supposedly, as it had already flown with RAAus, it would've been a "desktop audit" for CASA to issue the CoA. But it is proving to be bigger than Ben Hur to get that elusive bit of paper! I can handle not being able to sign the MR until I have the MPC under my belt, but what I don't like is SAAA's inability to answer relatively simple questions, like "Are those new AP's you've been schooling qualified & available?", "When & where are your MPC courses?" (they sent out an email 21/2 with the following details for the courses: "WA 1-2 April & location TBA, NSW over OzKosh weekend, but no location. Queensland 2-3/12 but again, no location, Victoria no date or location). Less than a month later, they had cancelled the WA course. As a builder, as a SAAA member this lack of planning is unacceptable. If I need to take time off work, arrange inter/intrastate travel and accommodation I expect the details to be set in stone as early as possible. As things stand, there is still no location published for the course over the OzKosh weekend.That a NSW AP has builders calling him from Adelaide regarding CoA's, that emails to HQ are seemingly ignored and that questions like those above and others that have a seemingly simple answer are either ignored or unanswered annoys me and I cannot believe that I am the only one with these kinds of issues, which suggests something needs to be done.

So after emailing one of the gentleman on the list I got a quick & polite reply that he has unfortunately not held his AP certification for 21.195 since 2015, CASA have not updated their database. So, with my local AP indisposed, Jim W too far and Steve Dines crook, it really only leaves Howard Hughes at Lightwing in Ballina, Phil Goard at Brumby Aircraft in Cowra and a final gent whose location I am not sure but probably Sydney with the Airlines if you go by his LinkdIn profile. So, I have emailed Phil and hopefully he may be able to assist, even if I have to offer to take him to lunch at Patonga after the inspection. Failing that, it may very well be back to RAAus until I can track down an AP.

The problem is a LAME cannot raise an MR without a CoA being in force. And the CASA AWI won't issue a CoA without a valid MR (which is a circular argument), whereas an AP can issue a CoA sans MR. I can issue my own MR once I've done the MPC, but there's only one planned in NSW this year at this point in time, at OzKosh - and I may very well be away for work then. I didn't realise there might be other CASA AP's for Experimental CoA's besides those listed on the SAAA website, so I have an email into a gentleman from Bankstown with the CASR 21.195A delegation, hopefully he might understand the difficulties I face and we can work through them. Thanks 440032 for that suggestion! There's a few options for these AP's anyway, including a couple at LSA manufacturers who might be understanding of my predicament too... I was led to believe it would be a relatively simple "desktop" audit on CASA's part, as the aircraft was already inspected by one of their delegates, the RAAus L4, and they would issue the CoA once they'd verified the dataplate and other ergulatory requirements were met. At this point in time, it would have been simpler to keep it with RAAus!

I dunno if it is just me, or the issues are systemic nationwide, but trying to simply change the registration of my RV-9 from RAAus to VH is proving nigh-on impossible. And I've had a gutful.. It is not that RAAus were slow to process the request for deregistration. They weren't at all. It is not that I can't get the letters on the side. I did that - though that was after arguing with CASA CLARC staff over the meaning of the word "Foreign" and being told I had lied to them on the registration application. Part of it is that CASA want an annual inspection performed and a MR raised for an aircraft that does not have a valid CoA, in order to issue the Experimental CoA. Which, given I haven't completed the SAAA MPC (there is only one planned in NSW this year) I can't sign off myself yet, even though I am the builder... So I in turn approach the SAAA about having an AP perform the CoA process as an AP can issue the CoA without a valid MR in force. There are 2 AP's in NSW. One appears to be away as he hasn't replied to an email or followup voicemail I've left, the other is too far south to travel to Sydney - which is fair enough and completely understandable. So I call HQ to ask if there are any other AP's that aren't on the website list (which was last updated January 2016), without a satisfactory answer. Apparently there are others that are going/gone through the AP school, but no one can say if they have qualified yet. HHmmm...Okay.... So I email SAAA Tech explaining the situation and asking, basically, "What can I do?". No answer. I emailed HQ last month asking about upcoming MPC dates. No answer. I call last week asking about MPC dates. "We should have an email out later in the week/early next week". Nothing. I call this week chasing this email. Still nothing. For an aircraft that has already passed a pre-flight final inspection by a CASA Delegate, successfully passed its' flight test phase with the finalisation form sent to RAAus and flown another 30 or so hours beyond that, the process to get it airborne under the SAAA is worse than trying to convince RAAus that an RV could be entered on their register. And I can't understand why? Why is there only one AP for the entire northern half of NSW? Why does an AP based in NSW have members calling from Adelaide enquiring as to his availability to perform an inspection on their planes? Why cannot the SAAA respond to members enquiries, even if it is a "we'll look into it and get back to you by <date>". I can't imagine I am the first amateur-builder to go from RAAus to VH-, so what gives? What am I doing wrong?!?

A bit of news at Kitplanes and a few comments here in the Viking engines thread. Personally, I'd never heard of it!

Yep, this was discussed a few months ago when it was removed - in the context of failing the exam based on questions that do not marry up to the current AIP. I think it was about May last year it went. EDIT: Must be getting old. The discussion about this AIP change & exam question was in 2015...So May the year before last!

The actual reference - AIP ENR 1.1.19.12 has been changed from specific numbers to effectively remaining clear at a distance you decide. "Strict liability" anyone? You can't use the "my FPT was outside the 1NM buffer" anymore...

The problem with the "youngest person to do <whatever>" type records is it becomes an increasingly risky proposition in a lot of ways - and when it goes wrong, which it invariably will to someone - the negative publicity generally outweighs the few snippets of coverage this bloke will generate.Now - that bloke flying around the country in a Jab who was a quadriplegic, that's newsworthy, and definitely worth a mention. But being the youngest? Not in the slightest. He is trained and assessed as competent - what difference does going round Oz make vs a junket around Sydney's? What does his age have to do with anything?

Coupled with the livery of the RV, polished with red & yellow decals, they look great! One of these days, I'll finally paint the cowl & fairings! To get full up-elevator, I did, yes. I removed a 6" x 6" cube from the front-centre of the seat cushion - you can kinda-sorta see the depression left behind. I took the cushions to an auto upholsterer for him to cut the fabric out around that and marry it up around the cutout so it gives it more of a production look. I should have them back in a couple of weeks, and hopefully, I'll have the registration transfer from RAAus to CAsA finalised by then so can actually make use of them!

Easiest way I found was to grab an adapter cable from one of the pilot stores and record it to my phone. It plugs into the headphone socket, and your headphone then plugs into it with a 3.5mm male plug going to the phone, so everything you hear is also recorded. Intercom, radio, EFIS/EMS/AoA warnings, etc.Something like this is what you're after. If you want to video it, one of those adapter cables and a GoPro with a Combo Cable will do you right. The combo cable has a 3.5mm female socket to plug your adapter cable into.

The early Lear's are not certified for single-pilot operations, IIRC. Factor that into your costings. RVSM compliance might be another hurdle if not already fitted

After a year flying my RV-9 for a year with nothing more than a sewed-by-yourself set of seat cushions, I was on the lookout for a new set of seats to begin the process of finishing off the RV. Unfortunately though, a nice pair Classic Aero seats are out of reach for the moment, so the search began. An epiphany was had one day recently when being driven around by the KRviatrix. She has a fluro yellow Suzuki Swift Sport (which, by the way, is the only thing besides the Great Wall of China that can be seen from space!) with those form-fitting bucket seats. A tape measure was brought out, and with fingers crossed, measurements taken. Give or take an inch, they looked like they would fit, and as she forbid me from knocking off her seats that day (wimmen! :p), a set was purchased from eBay for $300. The obligatory before shot. Now, first off, a word of warning: these seats are fitted with SRS Airbags on the outboard sides. I would recommend you carefully remove these before putting them in your plane. Cut the wire near the base of the backrest, and you can unzip the upholstery from the backrest, and unbolt (2 small nuts) each airbag & set them aside somewhere safe. To use the seats in your RV, you have two choices depending on your height. If you are tall, you will need to remove the seat base cushion from its' steel frame and simply sit on it as you would normally. The foam holds its shape quite well without it. For shorter pilots, you can leave the steel foam base in place, it only weighs a pound or two, which has the added advantage of keeping a pair of steel hoops in place to hold the seat foam against your thighs as well, but you do tend to sit up 1-1.5 inches higher than otherwise. If you are choosing this option, remove the height-adjustment mechanism and as much extra weight as you can. You will need to drill out 2 x pop rivets on each 'side-track' as well, until you are left with a thin sheet-metal form that does nothing more than hold the foam in shape. Either way, you will need to trim about 2" from the rear of the seat base to enable a better fit, and you will also need to remove a 6" x 6" portion of foam from the forward-centre portion to allow full aft control movement. The seat still looks normal by doing this, but you would be better served by having an automotive upholsterer sew a U-shape there - something I will be having done in a few days. For the back rest, remove the steel frame completely by unzipping both sides, unclipping the headrest sockets from their steel supports and removing them and then removing the entire steel frame from the foam. It is then a simple process to insert your normal backrest into the seat foam, and install that in your RV. Working on the Coey's seat. If you find they are a little too high, you can trim an inch or two from your aluminium seat back to bring the backrest down to suit you. You can use the Suzuki headrests with these seats if you so desire, by using a pair of Adel clamps rivetted to your seat back at the appropriate spacing to capture the legs of the headrests, then installing the plastic sockets for the factory look and finally sliding the headrest into position. One benefit of these seats too is they come with a map pocket sewn into the back side. You will need to trim a little foam away from the outboard shoulder area if you have a tip-up, to allow the aft canopy frame to clear without snagging the seat fabric & tearing it. For a little more backrest angle, you can also cut away a little bit of foam from the seat where it rests against the F-705F channel. I didn't weigh them, but would guess the total weight was no more than 10-12 lbs. Once you have done this, which will take you all of an hour for both seats if you're having a good day, you will end up with something like: And for eagle-eyed readers: NO - I do not have them in backwards! The canopy lock is on the right because I fly my -9 PIC from the right side.

I saw a couple of spotters at Cessnock one morning. Googled my rego a few days later and sure enough there is the photo they took... at least I wasn't picking my nose!

I pay $300/month at Somersby, up from $130/month at Cessnock, but a much better deal overall as it is an hour closer!

Check out the cockpit - they're using a Dynon D100, not even a SkyView system. Really? A multi=million dollar fighter, and you use a legacy Dynon display? And where's the EMS? 3 x EFIS but no engine monitoring?

You can't live in the hangar, unfortunately. There was talk of allowing it for short-term events for your mates, provided you had a dunny, etc, but I'm not sure if that came to fruition. A hangar would set you back around $65,000 for one similar to mine, with the 6m height allowing you to DIY your own mezzanine to suit your specific needs, but that does not include the big door, but does include 2 personal & 1 roller door for your car. I've lost the quote for the slab, but IIRC, it was around $21,000, including earthworks. If you budgeted $100,000, you would have a couple thousand change, when all is said and done.

Cheers, Kununurra, you're right. I didn't want to include the price in post as I didn't want to be seen to be putting up a classifieds-type ad in the general forums. All I am after is to break even to be able to put the $$ to a better use, but it would be in the region of $195,000. Or $305,000 with a free RV-9A thrown in! I need 4 seats now...

Talk about raising the dead, but rather than double up threads, I'll use this one. A couple of years ago I was suffering AIDS - no, not that one - and used a small inheritance to buy a block at Temora and build a hangar on it, with the intention of living there and commuting to Warnervale/Somersby to see the kids. Only problem is, the KRviatrix and I reconciled our differences and things have been going great, but she is not a fan of Temora as a town - dunno why, something about it not having a Myer or that a Target Country does not count as a department store... So I can't see us moving down there anytime in the next decade. That being said, I'm looking at putting the block on the market sometime in the near future and was wondering if there is still any interest in pilots moving down there, or would I be better to hang onto it. It is #37 Tigermoth Ave, but it shows up as #33 in Google Maps for some reason. The hangar is 15x15x6m, concrete floor, with a 10x4 door opening facing the taxiway. The block is the usual 1250m2, being 50m deep and 25m wide. Power, Gas, Water are all available as you'd expect. Given the weather - and that I broke my right arm & leg after being hit by a kid on his motorbike so haven't flown in 8 weeks - I haven't been able to get down there to get new photos since it's completed, but if there's a consensus that it might sell, I'll look at options to do that & chuck it on Ian's classifieds section, but I wanted to see what the feeling was first.

So RAAus pilots have to see a RAAusCFI to authorise their ASIC renewal even though the ASIC may not have been issued by RAAus? What's up with that?!?

And given this, we still have people out and about without so much as an ELT, yet alone something like this which is cheap enough - but genuinely useful. And not just pilots either, but boaties and 4wd'ers - at what point does AMSA and the Government say "enough is enough, the tech is available to allow us to instantly find you if you need help, but you chose not to use it - here's the bill for an 18 hour search, Merry Christmas?"

It comes down to the individual owner too. I have a Dynon SkyView system that records flight, autopilot, navigation & engine information to the datalog twice a second. To supplement that, I installed an automotive dash camera to the rollbar looking over my shoulder & out the canopy, so if I do come to grief, not only do they have the data log, but HD video of my actions leading up to, and during, the event.Now, not everyone can afford, or wants to install, a similar EFIS setup, but even something as simple as the dashcam costs less than $200 and could provide valuable information in the event of an incident.

No no, I did read exactly that, and I also read that you appear to be "leaning" towards the Jab based on it having fewer reported incidents in 3 pages of accident reports than the Rotax - but you also didn't specify your search term, if you simply plugged "Rotax" and "Jabiru" into the search box, then your comparisons are even more meaningless than simply saying "there was only one Jab engine failure compared to 9 Rotax failures". You will get failures of 503's, 582's, 618's, 914's and the gamut of 912-series. Which ones do you want? Did you break down the failures of 912's into UL, ULS, the early models, etc...The point I am trying to make is, without knowing why they failed (you can't really blame a SkyGod running out of fuel on the engine), and how many hours were flown across the fleet by aircraft fitted with the engines you are comparing against each other, then your investigation will give a flawed result, no matter your best intentions. If you want the most reliable engine you can put in an RAAus aircraft, it is a Lycoming. Why? Because there have been no, that's right, zero, reported failures of lycoming-powered RAAus aircraft to my knowledge. But there are probably only 6 RAAus aircraft actually powered by a Lycoming that might fly a combined total of 300hours a year versus 10 Rotax failures in 10,000 hours. See where I'm coming from?

How the hell are you supposed to satisfy the "face to face" requirement given the vast distances between the issuer and applicant in the majority of cases? I bet the charter guys in Kunnununra are loving these changes...

Those figures didn't come from any article, they were used as an example that you cannot rely on simple "x number of failures in a calendar period" as a means of proving, or disproving, reliability. You need to compare apples with apples, ie MTBF as a number of flight hours across the fleet, and without those numbers, any statistics showing Engine A is more reliable than Engine B is both meaningless and misleading.