KRviator

I finished up buying a KTI with a built in GPS PLB for 259.00. I bought it because it's smaller than the palm of your hand and has a 10 year battery life.

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?"

Wouldn't a good, simple, inexpensive start be to fit every RAA a/c flight with a Gopro or equiv? Yes I know it doesn't prove the cause of an accident but it may provide some strong clues?

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.

 

 

AH ! so you didn't read the bit in my initial bit ? this bit "I’m trying to keep an open mind and rely on fact and figures not here say and or bias opinions" !

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...

 

 

Thanks for your reply , just wondering if your can put on the page where you got the 9,000hrs vs 500hrs , I'd love to read that article if you don't mind. Cheers

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.

But why did those Rotax's fail? And what was the total hours flown in that period vs the Jabiru engine? Eg, it there were 9 Rotax failures, and rotax's flew 9,000 hours, vs just 1 jab failure, but the total jab fleet flew 500 hours, the Rotax's are still twice as reliable as a Jab.

 

Without knowing figures like these, it is impossible to make an informed decision. That being said, unfortunately Jabiru engines have a stigma associated with them know, whether deserved or not, so everything else being equal, resale is likely to be significantly better with a Rotax, but again, that is only part of the story. What about performance figures between the two? Overhaul intervals based on fuel anticipated fuel usage?

 

 

Even if we resist the AoA propaganda in this ad., is it possible to resist lusting after one of these:

It certainly is when you see the price, see the purchase agreement and see the performance (or lack thereof...) and see the payload - or lack thereof...Put two average Aussie blokes in it, and you don't have enough fuel for VFR reserves!

I self-studied using the Bob Tait PPL books and sat the PPLA exam last week, scoring 93% on the first go, so naturally recommend them as a reference!

 

 

C looks like an LP4-3 rivet

 

D possibly a CS4-4, a bit hard totell if it is countersunk from that angle.

 

A3, possibly a MK-319-BS?

 

Check out page 5-31 of This document, courtesy of the good folks at Vans.

 

 

"FNxx" is a 'Fly Neighbourly' note, usually created to keep local residents happy. In this case, it is for the Symbio wildlife park. Fly Neighbourly notes can be found in the ERSA, GEN-SP.

 

 

The asterisk s indicate "NAV AID LIMITATION (See ERSA) and in this spot ,and further south, indicates that down below the cliffs can probably can't get accurate NAV Aids.The red stars indicate a VFR APPROACH POINT, usually a black/white diamond but this is off set with a pointer back to the true approach point, the red star.

 

Cheers

Partially correct, but not so in this case.The Asterisk only indicates a Navaid limitation when coupled with an Aerodrome/NavAid info box. A small black asterisk offshore/otherwise in water indicates exposed rocks.

 

The red star does not indicate a VFR approach point at all - this is indicated by the purple/white diamond, if necessary with a tail pointing to the actual location. The red asterisk refers to a note in the margin of the chart, in this case, cautioning pilots operating in the vicinity of SY CTR of the possibility of other traffic awaiting clearance into the CTR near Parramata, Long Reef and Helensburgh.

 

 

I Have a LAME friend who says RAA is full of death traps.Told my mrs that I should not build an aircraft because its too dangerous to maintain yourself

Pics like this make it hard to argue.

I'd prefer to maintain something myself than have a LAME sign off on an annual with some of the photos I've seen of corrosion that was found as part of the Cessna SIDS program, on apparently 'airworthy' aircraft! There is nothing intrinsically wrong with maintaining an aircraft, or boat or car, yourself, so long as you recognise the limitations of your knowledge and skills and seek help when required. For RV's, there is the VansAirForce website, for KR's there is KRNet, and I'm sure a whole host of other type-specific forums where expert advice may be sought to help you. ISTR Canada even allow you to maintain and sign the MR for a range of certified GA aircraft yourself under an "owner-maintenance" scheme.Besides, the feeling when you realise you're at 10,000' flying in something you built in your back shed is both incredibly satisfying and momentarily terrifying and gives you great bragging rights at work!

 

 

Parachutes?Obviously they weren't well maintained aircraft or experienced pilots.

Bit harsh I reckon, check out this video from the current comp.And as for the glider pilots, I have this to say: "You fellas are effin NUTS!" That many gliders in one thermal, it's no wonder you guys wear chutes...I'll stick to my RV thank you very much...

 

 

 

Personally, for long legs, I would use the grid point winds, they are more likely to better compensate for wind variations throughout the flight rather than assuming a 'one size fits all' that you get using Area winds exclusively. But in saying that, if you're not going out of the area forecast, they shouldn't be significantly different?

 

 

Another option is a set of Bose QC15's from Ebay and add the UFlyMike microphone adapter. I used them extensively until I upgraded to a set of AV100's. Now the Coey gets them.

 

 

Wow, you cheapskate you, I can see half the forum running out to get the same now you've let that secret out.

Like RR, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with that comment, tone doesn't translate well on an internet forum, but it wasn't my intent to come across as a smart-asre "because I did this", but simply to point out that you don't have to spend over 6 figures to get a 'new' aircraft. Sure, something fast-glass with a new Rotax in it will likely perform very well, very efficiently, but you can get comparable performance out of an RV by pulling the throttle back, for less dollars than you might think, and that isall I was trying to get across.For example, the complete QB kit cost me $40,000AUD, landed in Botany, including GST (US/AUD 0.75ish). The engine, a new OX-340S, with ignitions, but no carb, was $30,000AUD including GST & shipping (US/AUD 0.97ish). The Skyview package was around $10,000AUD and perhaps another $10,000 in specific tools & replacement parts. The outcome is an aircraft that will cruise around 150KTAS burning 25LPH, for 4.5 hours with two people and 75lbs of baggage.

 

 

First : Rotax service, 912 ULS, 100 hr intervals on ULP, 3 litres of oil per service, automotive style spark plugs, engine performs best on ULP, smooth, quite, operation, slow prop speed (thanks to a g.box) with potential for enhanced efficiency, depending on prop selection. My Zephyr cruises at 100 knots, under 13 l/hr, one pilot, climb prop. I can do lazy orbits all day, around my home patch, at under 8 l/h. Yes I can go faster but I enjoy flying and 120 knots burning about 17-18 l/hr doesn't do it for me. There are other more sophisticated (usually more expensive - ATEC Fayeta, Pipistral Virus SW, Robin Austin/Sonerai) Rotax aircraft that are even more efficient (130-145 + knot cruise). I believe Rotax & Lyc both have 2000 hr TBO's so no advantage here.

The O-340 in my RV-9 does exactly the same. Automotive plugs, dual electronic ignition, burns Mogas, and if I want to dawdle, the fuel flow is down around the 15LPH mark at 120KTAS, probably lower, but I don't fly that slow that often. 145KTAS at 8,000 burning 24.2LPH of Mogas is what I plan, and achieve regularly. And that will probably increase to 150KTAS when I tidy up a few draggy items. I was able to put it in the air for well under 100K using the QB kits, a brand-new engine and Dynon package.

 

Try comparing (unfairly) your RV with one of the other aircraft I have mentioned. RV's and the like, don't win NASA-CAFE or similar competitions. Ask yourself WHY?

The current holder of the CAFE TriAviathon is.....A (very tidy,admittedly) RV-4...250SMPH top speed, 44SMPH stall, and a RoC of 3300FPM.

Nice to know somebody still uses these things. Too many folks I know rely on iPads etc. and have little idea when the thing shuts off.

In that case, I'd use my phone. Same software but written under a different OS, so little chance of one bad piece of code rendering both devices US. Coupled with the chance of the Ipad going flat/overheating and the S7 dying on the same flight? Pretty damn slim. Single-point failures about in our aircraft. Just because someone isn't using a whizwheel doesn't mean 'they're doing it wrong'.

I have had a look and can't seem to find it, does anyone know, or know where it may be found, the CAsA definition of "Aerial Photography"? I'm interested to know if it exclusively refers to activity performed by the PIC, or passengers as well.

 

 

Worse still if you as a PPL/RPC holder take a photographer-friend flying and they take the photos!

 

 

The previous KRviatrix bought me the Red Bearon Beanie Bear as a present well over a decade ago. He has lived in each car I've owned since, standing guard on the forward part of the center console.

 

His little tag has the quote: Bearon is here to celebrate; A special and historic date; To mark 100 years of flight; And to honor the brothers Wright!

 

 

 

I routinely monitor Center, but have never self-announced on an Area frequency.

 

 

Oh I forgot , you will need to lodge a flight plan flying at any flight level.

Always happy to learn something new, but I've never heard of this requirement, so long as you stay in Class E. Is there a reference for this requirement? I'm planning on taking the RV to the flight levels on a semi-regular basis.

Well done Bruce! It wasn't until I was putting my -9 to bed after the first flight a few months ago that the enormity of what had just happened hit! It's a terrific feeling. Good luck with your Phase I.

 

 

But you need to read it in conjunction with 61.480, an applicant for an RPL, not the holder of an RPL...