Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

DonRamsay

Members
  • Content Count

    1,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

DonRamsay last won the day on October 18 2016

DonRamsay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,423 Excellent

About DonRamsay

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 21/03/1947

More Information

  • Country
    Australia
  1. I had my prop balanced by Keith Baker using some fancy gear but not sure what it was. My prop was not bad but it was brilliant by the time he finished. While it's good for a Rotax it is even more important for a Jab as it balances the entire drive train - engine & prop. It can identify issues with the engine if the prop can't be balanced.
  2. If you smash the canopy wouldn't the cockpit just get pushed into the ground? Only way out would be if the plane can be lifted or righted. Sliding canopy gives you a better chance if not locked on landing or can be unlocked while inverting.
  3. Not necessarily. If you've been to a few air shows after awhile they all start to look the same. Have to say that the RAAF display was very spectacular last time. Precision flying you could not help but admire. I don't think a few hours over lunchtime on Saturday is too much time out of the weekend.
  4. I've been using the iPad mini mounted in a RAM mount for a few years with good results. I previously used the bigger iPad in a knee mount I bought from OzRunways ($35). I am now thinking of upgrading to the iPad Air. Put simply, if you can fit a big one in your panel, use the big one. If you can't use the mini it works OK.
  5. I met Mr Skidmore and was very impressed. It was clear to me that he was in no way led by Dr Aleck. MS was clearly the one setting the direction. His resignation is a big loss to RAAus and I pessimistically expect this will seriously adversely affect the RAAus proposal for 750 kgs and access to CTA. After October, there will be a caretaker CEO at CASA who will just keep things steady and not make significant decisions.all progress will go on the back burner. The replacement for Skidmore will not be up to speed much before this time next year. It will be clear fairly quickly after the appointment of his replacement as to whether the Govt is serious about the implementation of the Av Safety review and the repair of CASA. It is not the lowest levels in CASA where the problem lies but in the permafrost of middle management.
  6. An aircraft with substantial damage can go through a change of owner process with that information reported on the ACR. As has been said many times the ACR is not a statement of airworthiness. What happens with the registration in that situation I don't know. I hav only ever bought and sold airworthy aircraft.
  7. If all RAA required the ACR for was "for registering the new owners particulars" then the only thing required would be the new owners name & contact details. The form is intended to tell the purchaser the Aurcrafts condition. Aircraft sales may involve crash damaged aircraft so the concept of a RWC does not apply.
  8. Iirc, both the seller and the buyer have to fill stuff in on the form. If the ACR is meant to be for buyer protection then it makes sense for the buyer to get it done and personally supervise the work. That's what I would want if I were buying an aircraft. If there is a contract between the person buying the aircraft and the person preparing the ACR then buyer has contractual rights against the preparer of the ACR. If the ACR is a contract between the seller and the person doing the ACR the buyer has no contractual rights against the preparer of the ACR.
  9. I still fail to see why in a system where you pay to have an aircraft registered that you would want to register an aircraft that cannot leave the ground. What CASA do is often a mystery for me and I am happy to add this one to the list. If there is no money changing hands then whether something is registered or not hardly seems to matter. As I stated earlier. And why would RAAus want to involve itself in a commercial transaction between two consenting adults? If a person is "aviation ignorant" is of no concern. If they are not commercial ignorant then they will appreciate caveat emptor and have the aircraft evaluated by somebody who they trust that is not "aviation ignorant." Again, there is no role for RAAus in that process. RAAus is there to register aircraft that are fundamentally airworthy (leaving alone issues like overloading or out-of-balance loading, etc.). Nothing was changing hands in this example from docjell - he was just trying to re-register his own aircraft that he had allowed to the registration to expire. RAAus sees a role for itself in insisting that aircraft it is asked to register are fundamentally airworthy. They were using the ACR (incorrectly in my view) to be assured of the condition of the aircraft prior to accepting it fro registration. In the end a sensible solution was arrived at.
  10. What is fascinating to me is that the DNA studies support the theory that homosapiens all came out of Africa and are now up to about 5% Neanderthal. I saw a fascinating program where Eddie Izzard's DNA was examined and they were able to trace his ancestry from when they were pygmies in the Congo through the migration to Europe and eventually to England. Try explaining that to a racist and see what sort of a gun he points at you.
  11. Not sure how something can be worth more but cost less to insure.
  12. OK, so I need to clarify my brief comments earlier. I have no interest in commercial aviation and never will have. How it is regulated, I'm happy to leave that to CASA and the commercial aviation industry to work out. They are the big boys with the big toys and can all look after themselves. For everyone who is not flying for reward from the general public (up to, say, 5,700 kg MTOW) there should be a common form of regulation and licencing that is appropriate to what they are doing. The art and science of flying aircraft is a base that all pilots have to master (or at least be competent at). Then for specific types of aircraft you need to prove your proficiency. Then for the types of flying you do: in or out of CTA, on land or water, VFR/IFR you need to prove your competence. Maintenance of aircraft should be based on a sensible safety case not the same rules for a B737 and a C172. Regulation for non-commercial aviation should be minimised, set at a high level of summary, be in plain English and thereby made accessible to part-time pilots. Medicals should be of the real world and be risk based. Essentially, we allow cars to be driven at closing speeds of 200 km/hr centimetres apart from a head on collision . . . with a genuine driver's licence medical. It should be a matter for GPs and where essential a Specialist opinion. It should require no involvement of a CASA Medical team who are less qualified than a Specialist physician but happy to ignore the more qualified view. The recreational end of GA should end up looking much more like RAAus. There would be no need for any more onerous regulation on the currently RAAus pilots and aircraft. For simple aviation in simple aircraft in Class G airspace it will be even simpler than the current level of detail regulation found in the current RAAus Ops and Tech Manuals. Maintaining a C172 I would suggest would require less expertise than maintaining a Jabiru engined aircraft or a Rotax 912iS. Your freedom to maintain your aircraft should have to do with demonstrated capability rather than whether you have letters or numbers painted on your aircraft. There is a level of support for this type of thinking at top levels in CASA and the political arena. CASA have proved to be not very good at regulation the non-commercial sector to the detriment of the industry. They see non-commercial GA as a pain in the rear and would love to see the back of it. Aviation has been bogged down for decades due to over-regulation and the unjustifiable expense of bringing innovations into the industry. At the top end there can be innovation because the big boys have billions to play with. There has been progress on the very light end because the cost of innovation has been affordable. In the middle it has been a gradual death by starvation of ideas.
  13. RAAus will be there as will the world's leading producer of brilliant RA registrable aircraft (. . . The Airplane Factory and their Slings 2 & 4 )
×
×
  • Create New...