KRviator

In regards to Flight Following, what is the best, or preferred time, to cancel it on descent to your destination, or intermediate airport? Can we hang on to it right up to the circuit area if surveillance coverage is available?

 

 

Yes, in a 582-powered Drifter during a low-power descent that caused an engine failure and landing in a paddock. When I went back to look at the charts, I couldn't have been any more in the middle of the "Severe Icing - Any Power" regime, but until then had been told "It's a two-stroke, it can't ice"....yeeeaahhhh, right...

 

 

Because I have nothing better to do (and get bored easily), I plugged the remaining VOR coordinates into GPSVisualizer's calculator, with the range set to give the theoretical range of the BNN VOR's at 5,000 and 10,000'. Here's the result...

 

Red are your typical ASA-owned VOR's, Oakey is green as it is DoD downed, and Avalon, Hamilton Is and Christmas Is are blue, privately-owned VOR's.

 

Oh, and I take no responsibility if you get yourself lost using these. They're worth what you paid for it!

 

The country-wide coverage at 5,000.

 

 

And at 10,000.

 

 

Victorian coverage at 5,000.

 

 

And 10,000.

 

 

NSW Coverage at 5,000.

 

 

And at 10,000.

 

 

Qld/NT Coverage at 5,000.

 

 

And at 10,000.

 

 

 

Under the VFR (Except NVFR) GNSS can only be used to supplement other Nav techniques. Under the NVFR, you can use VFR as primary navigation for Area Navigation. CAsA instruction 80/14 chapter 5 refers. Although I have just noticed this particular instrument - though it is listed as "in force", actually expired at the end of March 2016...

 

So you have your flight plan and nav log, with times and headings which would correspond to DR techniques and must use your ultra-precise GNSS box to supplement these techniques. You also have to positively fix your position every 30 mins when nagvigating visually.

 

But then, AIP ENR 19.2.1 says you can use radio navigation systems (ie, TSO C129-GNSS units that meet RNAV performance requirements) or VORs, except when below 2000, when you must navigate visually, and when using radio nav aids, the position fixing times extend to 2 hours...

 

Clear as mud?

 

 

If an instructor ever turned off the ignition (note, NOT magnetos) during a BFR in my RV he would be sporting a bloody and probably broken nose once we landed.

 

Not every engine has magnetos, not every engine will restart when you advance the mixture - and that is assuming the student completes the activity correctly to actually get to that point without having fluffed something along the way.

 

The PMags I installed in the -9 have an internal alternator that doesn't require ships power above approximately 900RPM, however below that speed they require an external electrical source. The Sensenich prop likewise will probably stop somewhere around best glide speed, especially with a high-compression engine (one day I'll actually test it overhead somewhere suitable). The Rotec TBI manual contains a caution that if you lean-cut the engine, it won't restart by simply readvancing the mixture. Put that together and if you fall short, or overshoot and you have an issue with the starter, or its contactor (happens often enough that it would form part of a risk assessment for the activity) and you will be having a very bad day, very quickly.

 

There is no excuse for shutting down a perfectly good engine in the name of "training". Not at our level, anyway. Far too many pilots have died during training as compared to the real thing.

 

 

That'll teach me for posting in a hurry... My payload is actually 340 lbs, not 360. Can't seem to edit the original.

 

 

There are two RV-9A's on the register, of which one is mine - which is registered as a two seater.

 

HOWEVER, I do not have a two adult seater. I can take (almost) full tanks solo, or one of my young blokes for a two hour local junket, but for my requirements at present, this is a perfectly acceptable compromise at present.

 

To get the weight down, I did nothing special, other than choose a tip up canopy, lightweight Sensenich prop (lightens the bank balance too, it does!) and lithium battery, and I have a basic interior that I sewed myself. I polished the majority of the plane and used vinyl stickers on the fuselage rather than painting. I have an O-340 engine but that was chosen for the performance aspect, irrespective of the weight. My BEW is 981 Lbs, so I have 360Lbs of payload.

 

Retired Racer is the owner of the other RV-9 and I think he has an O-233/235 donk in his, so has a substantial weight advantage over mine.

 

 

Just a question about Icon ,will it be an LSA aircraft here in Australia ? Because it's over 600 kg MTOW exemption is only FAA approved .Or can it only fly at 600kg here.

CAO95.55 permits a 650Kg MTOW for aircraft "equipped to land on water".I wonder if I could use that for the RV to gain another 50Kgs?? After all, it doesn't say you have to takeoff again after that landing.......

 

 

KR I don't understand why you would want to register your RV under RAAus rego, surely you would be better under VH reg being you have all the restrictions you described above, maybe if RAAus do lift the MTOW to 750kg at some stage you could bring it over then, I don't know how you could fly anywhere and be not worried about getting ramp checked and being found to be over weight and therefore illegal, as it stands right now you have a single seat aircraft.David

This is perhaps the most common comment I hear about having only the second RAAus RV-9, but for my requirements, it is still perfectly adequate. If CAsA want to ramp me, I'll even offer to provide the scales...My BEW is 445Kg, so I have 155Kg payload. Fuel fuel weighs 100Kg, so if I can lose a few more pounds myself, I can (nearly) fill the tanks. My young bloke weighs 20kg in his carseat + my approx. 75-80kg and I have 55Kg fuel, or 70Lts, still enough to go to Brisbane or Melbourne with reserves, or a 2 hour local junket.

 

KR - did you really put an RV9 in the air for just $75k AU?? if so it must have been a squilian years ago (or you are a close relative of Dick V's).

No, I'll have around $100K in it now, but I've only just installed ADS-B and bought the autopilot servos...QB fuse & wings, brand new engine, polished with vinyl stripes and an interior I sewed myself. 150% of my cost of 100K = $150K for the Pipestral. You can easily put an RV in the air for under $60K if you are willing to compromise on what you fit and accept the standard kit build times.

 

I fly RAA to keep costs as low as possible, so + $6/hr sounds a bit rich to me (around here it would be more like $7) In truth, I suspect you might be closer t0 an extra 4 gallons/hr = 15 litres or $22.50 ULP/hr). I fly 80-100hrs/annum - go do the maths.

I certainly wouldn't be burning an additional 4GPH on top of the published figures for the Rotax, I'd be lucky do be 1.5GPH over those figures, but even so, that's a cost I was willing to bear. As Vans say in their advertising, $50,000 difference in purchase price buys a lot of fuel!

 

Virus SW is not cheap by LSA standards, but assuming day VFR only, I don't think fitting it out with $20k of instruments is either necessary or cost effective - $5-10k should do the job very nicely.

$6,000 for a 10" dynon screen, 1900 for the ADAHRS module, 900 for the engine module, $750 for the GPS, and $3,000 for the transponder, it is easy to run up the costs. I don't need an EFIS or Autopilot or Mode-S in the RV, but it is lighter, and provides a lot more capability. If you are going to use the speed of an aircraft, short of going to Reno, then you're going somewhere, and an autopilot and EFIS makes a lot of sense, even taking into account the costs.

True, but have you priced some of those LSA's lately? The QB kit for the Virus is well north of 100K AUD, and that's before you add $20,000 worth of avionics, shipping and GST, realistically, you would probably be approaching $150K as a completed cost, more than 50% higher than what I have in the RV, for what I see as less performance.

 

The Virus SW also achieves its performance with an extremely high aspect ratio wing, so you need a bigger hangar for it. It's published cruise speed (100HP version) is only 147Kts at 75% power, and it can only lift 400Lbs payload (for the 1042Lb TOW version) or 650Lbs for the 1322Lb version. You can get 3 or 4 RV's into a hangar that you could probably only fit one or maaaaybe two Virus's (Virii?!?) in, and those RV's will go faster than a Virus, climb (much) better, carry 250-300lbs more than a Virus and do it while only burning 1GPH more.

 

That being said, the Virus will lift that 600-odd Lbs while remaining within the constraints of CAO95.55. I only have 370Lbs of payload before I run into the 1320Lb limit, so a definite plus there!

 

I have electronic ignition on mine, and I will be running mogas when I finish Phase I. I have automotive plugs in the O-340, so other than possibly oil changes (if you subscribe to a 50hour oil change in the 912) and a $6/hour fuel difference, the costs are pretty similar. I suspect insurance would also be a lot less for the RV series than a Pipestral, but that is my suspicion only, I have nothing to base that on, other than "they look pretty expensive to fix if you break it"!

 

Notwithstanding the above - and that I have an RV so am naturally biased - the Virus SW is both an attractive looking airplane and functional, if you can afford it. But outright speed is not what I was after when I built the -9, and I definitely couldn't afford something from Pipestral, much as I tried to make the numbers work.

 

If you are building an airplane to go far and fast, I've always felt a 914-powered LongEz or VariEz would be the perfect combination. But I can't afford one of them now either..... :-p

 

 

Part number? Mod status? Software versions?

 

 

A de-rated O-340. Still puts out 165HP, but can run mogas no worries. I'll be the first to admit I am payload limited, I need to lose 10lbs to be able to fill the tanks solo, but 1/2 fuel still gives me the ability to take one of my kids for a 2 hour local junket and stay under 600KgMTOW. Still, it meets my requirements perfectly for now.

 

 

They're not LSA but the fastest RAAus registered aircraft, probably the RV's (not rv12) but the ones that can squeeze in under the limits. RV3, RV4?

My RV-9 (RAAus rego) was showing 163-165SMPH TAS last week, at 9,500 during testing. That's without any fairings installed and those should bring it up to 180MPH+ depending how much fuel I want to use...I haven't verified the ASI & static ports as yet but it does compare favourably to Vans published numbers.

 

 

This is just tragic Even well trained and highly qualified pilots can do it under pressure.Always, always, check your flight controls. There is no excuse. It takes a few seconds, and ultimately once you get into the air, they're the only thing you've got! You can possibly scrape by without everything else.

 

http://www.c-130.net/c-130-news-article291.html

As a former Herc Loady, it makes me wonder what he was doing, as part of the loadmaster's before-takeoff checks was to observe the relative movement of the internal actuators - clearly visible in the wing box and up the ducks bum - in response to the pilots' commanded inputs. Could be the USAF is different, but still.....

The efi Im elluding to, allows individual tuning of injectors aimilar to gami.Can also be done in flight i think

The SDS EFI can trim the fuel to specific injectors +/- 10% in flight. It's something I'm looking at retro-fitting to the RV when I get the flight testing out of the way. I've only flown it twice and decided I need more speed!

The enterprising owners among us already have things like that! With datalogging enabled in SkyView and an HD dash-camera riveted to the roll bar, if I ever spear in and they can recover the data, they can see exactly what happened, in full HD.

 

Here's a still from short final on the first flight a few weeks ago as an example. Ignore the big hole in the left side, that's for the other Dynon screen when I can afford it...

 

 

 

That image is, yes. Strangely enough Ronny wanted their missile back, so that one is a replica. The actual story is legitimate.

 

 

Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found?

See part 61.420 then read 61.340.

Always glad to learn something, thank you!

I made a comment about belligerence previously, then there's also the word 'obstinate'. Being either of them certainly makes it a lot harder for anyone to have their ramp check conducted amicably. That's their choice, personally I've never experienced anything but politeness and civility from DoA, DCA, CAA and CASA variously, and that's during dozens of ramps over a twenty year commercial career. Others' mileage does vary ...You may be being a little 'particular' about the word 'log'. At the bottom of the manually-filled flight-plan form is an area which allows you to fill in the amount of fuel loaded, the taxi time, flight time, amount remaining for each leg of a flight, then the next set of boxes at the bottom of the same form has spaces for you to fill in for the amount of fuel loaded for the next leg, taxi time, fuel burnt etc etc and each has spaces for the required reserves which vary according to the type of flight you are conducting. This is known as the fuel 'log'. It's not expected that you make any entries en-route on a single leg of a flight, or on a flight that only consists of one single leg. Nonetheless you're still required to have at least the correct amount of fuel to conduct the flight safely and that takes weather into account.

 

If you're required to have the correct amount of fuel AND you're required to prove or demonstrate that fact to a CASA Inspector (the Investigator comes later after you've been shown to have stuffed up), how will you demonstrate that you've complied unless you can produce something you've written down about it previously? CASA aren't breathing down your neck and telling you how you must keep this 'log', they're allowing you to be responsible and do it however simply you wish, as long as you do it somehow, and can show that you do it. I don't think that's at all unreasonable, and I think it's the least we can expect otherwise what answer will we have for our critics (the general public on the ground who see us on the news too often) who wish to have our sport banned each time some twit runs out of fuel ...? There are two kinds of people of who run out of fuel of course, those who knew they were and those who had no idea - if you have a log at least you hopefully knew you were too low on fuel.

 

Similarly your Nav log can be as informal as you like, as long as you can demonstrate that you knew where you were, and when. By all means fly with one EFB and nothing else, since you're entitled to do that, and have fun finding yourself when it fails ... I still enjoy Nav so my primary nav is just as it was back when I was first taught. I draw a line on a chart and mark it off in 10Nm segments in pencil. I make a note of the time of departure and enroute I note the time that I pass distinctive features, or reach a 10NM marker, or enter/leave airspace. I cross-reference that with my GPS to reduce my workload but if the GPS fails it's no more than a minor inconvenience. When the rampie asks for my Nav log I show him the chart and notes, what could be simpler?

 

There's no requirement to carry a 'last page of logbook' (meaning evidence of BFR currency) but I do carry a photocopy of mine with my licence because it saves me from having to produce that evidence later, but that's up to you, no-one says you 'should' carry it but it doesn't hurt to have a copy in your flight bag and save yourself some hassle. If your BFR and membership renewal coincide then your BFR date shows on your pilot certificate (for RAA pilots).

 

You really do come across in a way that indicates you resent being ramped at all KR, and that's pointless because the CASA are required to police the air regulations just as the traffic police do on the roads, and that's not something that's going to stop just because some people don't like it. During a ramp check I've never been asked for anything I'm not required to carry, nor anything I haven't needed to have, to conduct the flight safely.

 

You've made these statements but not provided any references so I can't really comment. Perhaps they're referring to a photo ASIC? Where is this "naturally be aware" comment made? You say that's what they say, but you don't say where they say it ...

 

Which are the incorrect references and statements in the GA ramp check guide (which I've also pasted below)?

 

I’m a GA pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check

 

What happens now?

 

The inspector will ask you for your CASA pilot licensing documents

 

• Flight crew licence (FCL) – You must carry your current licence and photographic ID. [Paper or electronic copy of licence acceptable]
   
   
  
• Aviation medical certificate – You must carry your current aviation medical certificate. You must be compliant with any restrictions or endorsements (e.g. the wearing of corrective lenses)[Paper or electronic copy of medical certificate acceptable]
   
   
  

 

 

The inspector will then check your preparation for your flight

 

Flight plan

 

• Have you maintained a navigation/fuel log?
   
   
  
• Have you made a careful study of forecast weather and applicable NOTAMs?
   
   
  
• Are you compliant with CASA flight time limitations (as applicable)?
   
   
  
• Are you carrying the appropriate, current charts and documents? Are they easily accessible by the crew?
   
   
  
• Are you using an EFB for your charts and documents? There are considerations for commercial versus private operations.
   
   
  
• Have you submitted a flight plan (if required by AIP)?
   
   
  

 

 

Finally, the inspector will check your aircraft

 

The inspector will check:

 

• Aircraft maintenance release
   
   
  
• Is the daily inspection signed off correctly?
   
   
  
• Are all required airworthiness directives completed and signed off?
   
   
  
• Are there any outstanding aircraft unserviceable items to be signed off?
   
   
  
• Flight manual (if required)– is it up-to-date?
   
   
  
• Checklists (normal and non-normal) — are they up-to-date and accessible to crew. [Paper or electronic copy of checklist acceptable]
   
   
  
• Evidence of pilot and passenger weights (standard weights should not be used in aircraft with fewer than 7 seats) Evidence of cargo weights (if carried) and appropriate securing equipment.
   
   
  
• Load sheets (if required)
   
   
  
• Required emergency equipment on board, serviceable and accessible.
   
   
  

 

 

Document references

 

Flight crew licence & aviation medical certificates

 

• Carriage of documents – CAR 139
   
   
  
• Flight review – CAR 5.108
   
   
  
• Recent experience – CAR 5.109
   
   
  

 

 

Operations

 

• Navigation logs – CAR 78
   
   
  
• Fuel requirements – CAR 234
   
   
  
• Weather and NOTAM – CAR 233 & AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 1.
   
   
  
• Flight plan submission AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 2.
   
   
  
• Flight time limitations – CAO 48.1 and CAAP 48.1
   
   
  
• Charts and documents – CAR 139 and AIP ENR 1.10 paragraph 5.
   
   
  
• EFBs – CAO 82.0, CAR 233 and CAAP 233-1(1)
   
   
  

 

 

Aircraft

 

• Carriage of maintenance release – CAR 139
   
   
  
• Carriage of flight manual – CAR 139
   
   
  
• Check lists – CAR 232
   
   
  
• Carriage of passengers – CAO 20.16.3 – CAAP 235
   
   
  
• Carriage of cargo – CAO 20.16.2.
   
   
  
• Load sheets and passengers lists – CAO 20.16.1
   
   
  
• Emergency equipment – CAR 252A – CAO 20.11
   
   
  

 

 

*Regulation details current as of December 2013

I don't think my attitude is either belligerent or obstinate I think intolerant is a much better description. Intolerant of the bullshit CAsA serves up on a daily basis. Intolerant of a Safety regulator who cannot understand the very legislation they administer. Intolerant of a culture of "strict liability" for any and every aviation regulation and intolerant of people who should know better, but don't (and that's not a dig at you personally, but a generalisation.)Look at some of the references they specify for the requirements they are claiming they oversee. Now, bear in mind this ramp check guidance is aimed at the weekend-warrior, as a professional pilot will...should....have a pretty good idea of what they would be in for.

 

CAR 5.108 - Recent experience... A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

 

There's no mention of the requirements for GA pilots who hold only a PPL that is actually covered under CAR 5.81.

 

Same for Recent Experience. Covered under CAR5.109 that only applies to CPL holder's, not PPL's. Again, that is actually found under CAR5.82, but no mention of that in the references. Why not?

 

Where is the requirement to carry photo ID found? I've tried (very) hard to find it, but if you have a licence that does not have your photo on it, CAsA says you must carry ID....Without the supporting regulations to back it up. But try telling that to your "friendly" FOI and the answer will be "Sorry, Bucko, here's your $3,500 'administrative fine', merry Christmas".

 

Nav & Fuel logs. No requirement for them, and remember CAR234, you only have to have enough fuel to complete the flight "safely". Did you land with fuel in the tanks and clean undies? Then you had enough fuel. IT is not up to you to prove to the FOI that you did, it is up to him to prove you didn't.

 

CAsA seem to be trying to go over and above what the regulations actually say you must comply with, and while in many cases going above and beyond is a good thing, in this case, it isn't, as the FOI's on the ground will run with what they see in a glossy brochure, rather than what I have to comply with. They aren't always the same.

 

 

The CASA ramp check guide I've seen looks quite relevant and understandable - copy/pasted below -And there's a handy pdf you can print out as a check-list that you can access by clicking the link at the top of that page - or here, I'll also try and attach it below

 

...............................

 

I’m a Sport pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check

 

What happens now?

 

I’m a Sport pilot and have been selected by a CASA inspector for a ramp check

 

The inspector will ask you for, or confirm, your pilot certificate and other relevant documentation

 

• You should carry your pilot certificate with you when you fly. However, some sport organisations may have different rules, so check your organisation’s operational manual or regulations. It is also suggested that you carry a copy of your log book page with last flight review.
   
   
  
• Current/valid RAAO membership
   
   
  
• Aeroplane operated in accordance with the privileges and limitations of your pilot’s certificate
   
   
  
• Correct endorsements for flight
   
   
  
• You must carry your current aviation medical certificate if applicable and you must be compliant with any restrictions or endorsements on your medical certificate or driver’s licence (e.g. the wearing of corrective lenses).
   
   
  

 

 

The inspector will then check your preparation for flight

 

Flight plan

 

• Have you maintained a navigation/fuel log?
   
   
  
• Have you made a careful study of forecast weather and applicable NOTAMs?
   
   
  
• ≥ 50nm from departure point ELT/PLB required for two-place aeroplane
   
   
  
• If carrying a passenger - passenger endorsement
   
   
  
• ≥ 25nm from departure point – cross country endorsement
   
   
  
• Are you carrying the appropriate, current charts and documents?
   
   
  
• Are they easily accessible?
   
   
  
• Are you carrying an EFB for your charts and documents? Back-ups considered?
   
   
  

 

 

Finally, the inspector will check your aircraft

 

The inspector will check:

 

• The aircraft’s registration is current
   
   
  
• Condition of the aircraft
   
   
  
• The daily inspection
   
   
  
• Pilot’s operating handbook (POH) or flight manual
   
   
  
• Emergency checklists
   
   
  
• Warning placard if applicable
   
   
  
• Copy of CofA if applicable
   
   
  
• Aircraft has a placarded maximum take-off weight in accordance with the flight manual
   
   
  
• Aircraft is operated within weight and balance limits
   
   
  
• Required emergency equipment on board is serviceable and accessible if applicable
   
   
  
• Personal locator beacon (PLB) has current registration with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
   
   
  

 

 

Document references

 

• Operations manual
   
   
  
• CAO 95 series as applicable
   
   
  

 

 

Operations

 

• Responsibilities of the pilot in command before flight – CAR 233
   
   
  
• Planning of flight by the pilot in command – CAR 239
   
   
  
• Navigation logs – CAR 78
   
   
  
• Fuel requirements – CAR 234
   
   
  
• Weather and NOTAM – CAR 233 & AIP ENR 1-10 paragraph 1.
   
   
  
• EFBs – CAO 82.0, CAR 233 and CAAP 233-1(1)
   
   
  

 

 

Aircraft

 

• Checklists – CAR 232
   
   
  
• Emergency equipment – CAR 252A (two-place aeroplane only)
   
   
  

 

 

*Regulation details current as of December 2013

Okay, here's a few examples...First of, is the CAsA bloke an Inspector, or an Investigator - it will make a difference in what they are actually allowed to ask for (not that they will tell you that...).Have I maintained a Nav Log? No. Nor am I required to do so. CAR78 only requires I log enough data to ensure I don't get lost.

 

Have I maintained a fuel log? No. Nor am I required to do so. CAR234 only requires I have sufficient fuel for flight, nothing about keeping a log of it.

 

Do I have a backup for my EFB? No. Nor am I required to do so.

 

Can I see the last page of your logbook sir? The one that you're not required to carry - nor even actually produce for inspection for a week - but the one we say you "should" carry with you.

 

Being a GA pilot you would naturally be aware of the "CAsA requirement" to carry photo identification with you, whenever you are exercising the requirements of your flight crew licence? No? Well that's what they say - but so far as I can tell, there is no requirement, aviation or otherwise, that says an Australian citizen must carry photo ID.

 

It would seem their sport pilot one is a little better than their generic GA "ramp check guide" that is littered with incorrect references and "we say you should do this, but the CAR's say that" type statements, but they are still saying or suggesting you carry documents you are not legally required to do so, and for some FOI's, that's enough for them to say you're operating illegally, when in fact you're doing no such thing.

 

 

Now cross reference those requirements with the relevant legislation - you will be surprised just what you are required to do...And it isn't what CAsA sez you must do!

 

 

Don't get intimidated by a ramp check, download the ramp check guide from the CASA web site & show them nothing more than whats legally required.

The only problem with that is the ramp check guide from CAsA does not actually marry up with the majority of the legislation it references, and in some cases, goes way beyond what you are required to actually comply with, or show the FOI...

Presumably that is $7,000 USD? So closer to $12,000 AUD with the exchange rate, GST and any applicable Customs duty?

 

 

Last weekend I did the first flight of my RV overhead Cessnock and was passed as traffic to a departing Citation, with the Centre call being along the lines of VFR overhead Cessnock, southbound, altitude 4100 unverified, intentions unknown.

 

I called Centre and told them who I was and what I was doing, but it made me think about the caveat "unverified" in relation to my altitude. Presumably, that is because I was not talking to Centre and so he couldn't be sure I was as high as my transponder was saying I was. So in cases like that, is it better to pipe up and let him know what I'm doing, or simply remain silent and monitor for potential conflicts?

 

 

Bah, that got nothing on Ronnie RAAF. Remember back in 2000 when that FA-18 was on approach to Darwin and punched off a missile that destroyed some cockies Cruiser?

 

I remember seeing an advertisement a couple of months later.. The only way to kill a Landcruiser....Hit it with a missile!