wags

You either take advice and possibly learn ... or? I personally don't care whether or not you are prepared to take advice and are maybe willing to learn. In aviation it's a bad day when you don't learn something - and there are plenty to read about who think they know it all! Please do not promote bad or incorrect technique as being the way to go... especially where it will most likely influence relatively inexperienced aviators. Most likely the Auster and the Tiger Moth were not available for you to fly when you started Maj?

Technique has been discussed sufficiently. The x-wind technique that works for any aircraft type has been adequately discussed in this thread Turboplanner. It takes practice and proper technique to accomplish satisfactorily, but once you can accomplish the technique it will give you the ability to cope with x-winds in a comfortable and precise manner - and your approach has been flown exactly as it normally would during any approach. You will not be all cross controlled and feeling awkward, something you admit yourself. If you find yourself going sideways after you align with the runway it is because you have allowed the aircraft to do so by aligning too soon before your intended touch down. One reason landings in a x-wind should be positive and fully controlled is so the PIC chooses when the aircraft lands and does not put the aircraft and himself/herself into a dangerous situation. Excess and exaggerated hold off at a low and degrading airspeed, with a high nose attitude as proposed in the video = disaster waiting to happen. I didn't advocate not lowering the upwind wing a touch... simply don't fly all the way down final in an unbalanced condition. Maybe you fly around all the time in an unbalanced condition? I think not, or rather I hope not. Hopefully RAAus instructors as a whole teach correct techniques and ensure their students can cope with x-winds up to max for the aircraft type they fly.

Try this guy. Bluey... Give Richard Donnelly (PBS Insurance) a call... he does the RAAus indemnity and I have found him to be extremely competitive and understanding of RAAus aviation and aviators. His phone number is 03 8841 3309. Good luck. Wags.

No problems with video. TOMO... if flaps are fitted to the aircraft they will be selected to the setting the PIC feels is appropriate for the conditions at the time.... BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED. If you make any selection for take-off the correct response is "Flaps XXº, Set for take-off". It is also a reminder to the PIC that he changing the normal flap setting to what he/she regularly uses and therefore it should jog the memory that there will perhaps be a slightly different requirement relative to flap procedure after take-off - eg flap retraction or not. I don't have a problem with the video; in fact it is well presented and I trust in time the producer will make many more to aid in training... it is a brilliant resource and much needed as a training tool. What I do have is a problem when someone who is a CFI and whose word is taken as "gospel" by less experienced aviators, making a video like this and posting it in a public arena for all to see and the content could give a less experienced pilot what I consider is absolutely dud info. When have you ever been taught to fly down final approach in a totally unbalanced flight condition? When do you normally fly around close to the ground in an unbalanced condition... not very often I hope? Sure it can be done and the results are probably fine when the PIC has the ability to cope with abnormal situations. I'd like to know how you assess the amount of x-wind in a side slipping approach all the way down final. The side slipping technique is as a way to loose height... it was presented in this video as away to make a x-wind approach and it is incorrect technique. After 20,000 hrs - 75% of these hours as a training pilot, I think I know just a little about what I am talking about!

Why do you need a heated pitot head? Planning to spend most of your time flying in cloud is the only reason you might need such a device... and that is not available to RAAus aircraft!

My comments. Maj - I wasn't commenting on whether or not the gentleman flew his aircraft well. I was commenting on how an instructor (a CFI at that) has published a video purporting to show correct x-wind technique when the video is batantly flawed and fails to demonstrate correct technique. Many new or inexperienced flyers will see what he demonstrates and go out and try to copy the techniques he displays in the video - and it is purely and simply wrong! He is demonstrating a path for disaster with less experienced aviators and as an instructor he should know better. I believe students should be shown all flight maneuvers and have the opportunity to practice them, among those sequences should be side slipping. However to say it can be used as a method of countering x-wind on approach is setting the scene for a disaster. Try flying a Gazelle, Auster or Tiger Moth without knowing what side slipping is all about. BUT do not teach it as a method of coping with x-winds. I've flown most types from Thrusters to B747-400's and the one thing I have learnt in my years of aviating is that having the basic correct techniques will save your bacon when the chips are down. You are indeed correct when you say that different types need different techniques, but unless the correct basic techniques are taught and rehearsed it doesn't matter what you are in as you have no good basis from where to start adapting to the particular aircraft type. TurboPlanner - nothing different between a CTLS and a Jabiru... both have short moment arms and smallish rudders. As I have said above, good and correct technique applies to all aircraft types and with a good basic technique you can jump from type to type with confidence and safety.

Correct x-wind technique. I expect to receive some unfavourable comment from this post. I was somewhat startled by what I saw on the x-wind video, however with more than 2000 hours of ab-initio instruction I think I can speak with some authority on this subject... so here goes. Here's something controversial for a start... a x-wind take-off or a x-wind approach and landing is no different to any other take-off, approach and landing. Let's get the fear and mystery out of this subject. It all comes down to good positive control inputs and good well practiced technique. On take-off be sure to keep the wings level by starting your take-off roll with a little into wind aileron input and be prepared to add more if a gust tries to lift the wing. There is no valid reason to use extreme into wind "wing down" as you are only setting up a crossed control situation during rotate and initial climb-out. Keep your wings level with aileron and keep straight with rudder during the take-off roll - your aircraft will automatically yaw into wind after lift-off - all by itself - and the aircraft is quickly returned to a balanced flying condition. Lay-off drift during climb-out to track the runway centreline. Positive control inputs are the order of the day during the take-off. It is just the same as any other take-off except you are more alert to the possibility of a wing raising due to a x-wind gust and staying down the runway centreline... just like you always do on every take-off. The correct technique on final approach is to lay-off the drift and track down the extended centreline of the runway - just as you do on every approach. This technique allows you to actually assess the amount of x-wind you are experiencing by the amount of drift you have on. At 60 kts approach speed most RAAus aircraft will be at max x-wind with 14 - 15 degrees of drift. (I assume here a x-wind limit for typical RAAus aircraft of around 14 to 15 kts). Oblique approaches make assessment of the situation extremely difficult with everything changing at the last second, so stick to that extended centreline like there's no tomorrow. Your approach path is then controlled just as it is for any other approach - nothing has changed. Keep those aggressive "S" turns near the ground for getting into a paddock after the engine fails; they have no place in normal operation of an aircraft. If you want to practice them do it with some altitude under the aircraft. Back to the approach - established drift is maintained into the flare and just before touchdown the aircraft is aligned with the runway with rudder while simultaneously applying aileron to keep the wings level. Sometimes it requires quite a boot full of rudder (perhaps up to full rudder in max x-wind conditions) with a considerable amount of aileron to keep the wings level because of the secondary effect of controls. Go try it by setting the aircraft up in an approach configuration at 3000 ft AGL and see just how much aileron you need to keep the wings level when you apply a good boot-full of rudder. Yaw the aircraft left and right while applying aileron to keep the wings level with the horizon. If nothing else it will help remind you of the ineffectiveness and limits of your flying controls at low airspeed. Wings are maintained level (or even very slightly lowered into wind) with aileron throughout the touchdown and roll-out using rudder to keep the aircraft aligned with the runway centreline. Running along on one wheel looks cool but doesn't achieve anything more than positive control does. A positive landing under full control will ensure you will not loose control of the aircraft. The intention should be to get the aircraft on the ground and away from the effects of the x-wind... not floating down the strip hoping a gust doesn't pick up the into wind wing and give you more troubles than Speed Gordon can control while you have both a high nose attitude and low airspeed. That is a recipe for disaster! It is my personal opinion that to teach approaches with crossed controls all the way down final is asking for, and probably setting up for trouble! Side slipping should be reserved for getting rid of extra height, and then only used as a last resort if the runway you are approaching is limiting and you have exhausted all other methods of washing off excess height. I noticed on his before take-off check he states "flaps zero, not required"... surely the correct response is "flaps zero, set for take-off". If flaps are "not required" they would have been removed from the aircraft by the manufacturer! There are other points in the video that one can bring into question as well, but I am sure the foregoing comments should get a good response from some of our more educated forum members! To post a video demonstrating what are very questionable techniques for approaches in x-wind conditions (or any approach for that matter) is leaving oneself open to criticism.

Paying the cost? Turboplanner we will all be paying the cost if this man doesn't get the right picture from us - the recreational aviators who use "his" airspace. Wish I could afford to pay for 8000 to attend as that might just get the right message across that something is wrong and he needs to listen to what the grass roots aviators want. After all it is from amongst these grass roots aviators that his precious money paying commercial aviators are born. If there are no commercial aviators we don't need the likes of him in CASA do we? In fact we probably wouldn't need CASA! Now there's a thread for another forum subject. This dinner was put on by a bunch of RAAus aviators in the hope of getting "the man" locked up in a room with 200 souls who are all saying the same thing, asking the obvious questions and wanting some answers. Hopefully that will make our message loud and clear and that we want to be listened to, not simply regulated against. Regulation is what we have had for years and it hasn't worked - guess he thinks he is going to reinvent the wheel. I have promised to report back on this forum, but he needs to see that there is strong support out there for our values and freedoms to get a positive message across.

What may happen and might not happen. Seems everyone here has a lot to say about CASA, the CEO, Regulations and what might or might not happen. Why don't you all put your questions to "the man" personally at the Gympie Aero Club dinner on the 5th December and stop bleating here on this forum... at least you'll get the answer in person and feel better - hopefully! Wags.

Checked by a security man! Yenn, don't know if it meets the letter of the law... but I do know it works and has passed inspection by a security man at one well known major airport. Once in place the throttle cannot be moved at all. First one I made allowed some movement and I was advised to redesign it to stop any movement... which it now does. Took all of 30 mins and about $10 to make. Guess it's not what meets the law so much as what appears to meet the requirements of the law, if you know what I mean.

Here is a throttle lock I made from 3 mm thick alloy plate. Requires drilling a 6mm diam hole in your throttle arm, but that's no big deal. Works like a charm and simple to put in place or remove.

What John McCormick said in "Flight Safety" magazine. The Nov-Dec edition (Issue #71) of "Flight Safety" magazine was delivered yesterday and it contains a report following an interview with John McCormick - the article is headed... "R is for regulator". Here are some quotes from that article, once you have read them you will understand why it is important that as many RAAus aviators as possible attend the dinner on the 5th December with John McCormick so we can all express our concerns about the future of our freedoms we currently enjoy under RAAus. Quote... "John McCormick is stamping his mark on CASA, reasserting its role as a big "R" regulator". Quote... "We will consult with industry when it is appropriate, but we will not be aiming for paralysing consensus. We will take on board everybody's advice, and we will make the decision - that's what an "R"egulator does. We can't clog ourselves up trying to please everybody." Quote... "I don't like doing things in the short to medium term, because that means you've got to go back and do it again in a short to medium time frame." Quote... "The Sports Aviation Forum is another important forum set up to keep the communication channels open between the various sports aviation bodies and CASA. "We'll keep consulting with them both as a group, and individually", he explains. "We've done a lot of work with self administering organisations on risk management, and legal work reorganising their deeds. Ideally, in the fullness of time, I'd like to be able to throw some more people in there from CASA." (My underlining to emphasize what he said). Quote... "The regulations come first. What's right comes first. If it's not popular, we'll try to ameliorate the effects as much as possible. But we still have to do what's right." Looking forward to seeing you all on the 5th December.

There are certified diesel aero engines available now. Although they are not yet available in sizes for fitment in RAAus aircraft it will not be very long before they are. Have a look at these sites and you will find that diesels are going to be the new generation (my thoughts) in aviation especially once the US military stop requiring Avgas in 2013. Centurion Engines DeltaHawk Diesel Engines At least 6 new Glastar Sportsmen 2+2 aircraft are currently being built with the 200 HP Delta Hawk diesel fitted. Glasair Aviation

US military phasing out Avgas (100LL). After 2013 the US military will no longer have a need for Avgas... what will that do to world wide supplies? More and more suppliers of Avgas from drums are requiring you to purchase 200 ltrs minimum (a full drum) - too bad if your tanks only hold 130 ltrs or less. The up-and-coming engines are the new diesels. Have a look here... DeltaHawk Diesel Engines Six new owners of the Glastar Sportsman 2+2... Glasair Aviation are fitting the Delta Hawk 200 HP version, resulting in longer range on same volume over Avgas, lower fuel consumption and higher torque. A big plus in all areas. Diesels make sense to me.

Aviating politicians is what we need. At this rate you'll need to move house and live in Goulburn, Yass, Wagga, Tamworth, Coffs etc to be able to fly anywhere near Sydney. Actually Griffith sounds good and they make very nice wine there too! Why don't we all put pressure on to open Richmond to GA/RAAus and move the military to Williamtown (Newcastle) with their mates? Guess money speaks and when land values get so high because of demand even the private strips go because of the large amounts of money involved. Sydney is not alone... have a look at the situation re Caloundra and Caboolture just north of Brisbane with heavy pressure on both sites to move aviation further away. Now what we really need is an aviation bent PM... then we might start seeing something worthwhile happening. Anyone wish to volunteer?

Round peg in square hole. Couldn't agree more re Dick Smith, but guess he rubbed the wrong people the right way and ... well he's simply moved on to better pastures. Can't help but feel he was a round peg in a very square hole and somehow didn't fit in with the entrenched people who were CASA at the time. Who else would bring out a box of matches and call them "Dickheads", but then come to think of it that was just after he left CASA so who knows what he was thinking at the time. But I can guess!

Lets have dinner together. Thanks everyone we are starting to get some really good points together to put to the CEO, so please keep your thoughts flowing here on this forum. Facthunter - I agree there are those out there who will do anything to "knee-cap" RAAus. It really all comes down to $'s and cents. We are seen as a threat to their continued existence and therefore they are feeling it in the hip-pocket... when the hip-pocket is hurting the worst behaviour is more often than not displayed and desperate people do desperate things. We have a battle on our hands I believe. Ozzie - I haven't seen the game come off the rails, rather it has been put onto a siding for a time. I heartily agree with you however and your comment about the demise of the aviation scene in this country. I think the saddest day was when Qantas virtually eliminated their apprenticeship scheme as it was from this pool that came the LAME's etc we need. But this is deviating from what I want to say and could be another separate thread altogether. CASA is expected by the government to "pay its way" and is therefore no longer a service provider to the aviation industry paid for by the government. Unfortunately for CASA, RAAus doesn't contribute much (if anything) to the money pot, and I guess you get what you pay for! No doubt we are seen as a complete "drain" on their resources... far better to promote an area of aviation where the $'s and cents can be sourced - eg commercial aviation. Not so long ago a very, very senior CASA employee told me that it was his personal opinion GA would eventually be "split" into two distinct groups... recreational and commercial just as GraemeK alludes to in his post above. That made good sense I thought. It was also this persons opinion that RAAus would eventually be the organization that would be expected to control and look after the recreational side of things, but RAAus needed to "mature" first - whatever that means and I don't want to go there. Now getting back to why this thread started... this dinner is a perfect opportunity for 200 GA/RAAus aviators to be in the same room with the "man at the top" and let him know how we feel and what we realistically expect of CASA now and in the future. Are we are setting our sights too high? Can't answer that, but I certainly expect to be far better educated when the evening is over... and by supporting the evening and attending there will be 199 other aviators who will know fact and not fiction at the end of the day. At least we will know for sure what we are up against and how the cards are stacked.

Whips and spurs for the CEO? Ozzie... You're obvious dislike for the CEO is very apparent and I have to assume your attitude comes from having personal contact at some previous period in time during your career as an aviator. I hope and pray your attitude to him does not stem from the often embedded Australian attitude of "knocking them big guys off their bloody perch"! To date I am unaware of any privileges or changes he has made (or taken away) from those that we as RAAus aviators enjoy. Admittedly he has deferred some decisions it would appear, but this dinner will be the chance to ask why he has deferred any decisions, if indeed he has made any decisions as yet in respect of RAAus. I will pack my whips and spurs for the evening and ask him if he made the comment about returning RAAus to the place from whence it came... and if he has made those comments I will gladly rent out my whips and spurs to all those who choose to attend the dinner... and I'll lock the doors first! However I do not believe whips and spurs are the correct way to educate him on the wonderful ways of RAAus.

Rotax has fall back position. Liam... the Rotax has one nice feature that the Jabiru doesn't. If you loose the liquid coolant in the Rotax you can continue operation albeit at a reduced power setting on the basis of "get you home". Liquid cooling has better properties as far as thermal shocks go, so this should result in longer life in the case of the Rotax. The Rotax also has a form of ceramic liner to the cylinders and just recently I inspected a Rotax 912 that had been pulled apart for inspection at 1750 hrs and the machining marks were still readily discernible on the cylinder walls. Don't think the Jabiru would come up the same at 1750 hrs but I might be wrong on that. Please don't get the idea I dislike Jabiru's or think that one is better than the other... just want to point out some of the differences that you might like to take into consideration.

Roatx 912 steady at last! As promised the new Rotax Oil Pressure Regulator part (857-230) was fitted today. Subsequent engine run was a joy to behold... rock steady indications at all power settings. Certainly has fixed the problem of fluctuating oil pressure for me. Figures I noted during static run-up are (all are with engine oil temp above 50ºC)... 2000 RPM 38 psi (2.6 bar). 3500 RPM 44 psi (3 bar). 4500 RPM 47 psi (3.2 bar). 5200 RPM 54 psi (3.7 bar). With both increasing and decreasing power settings the oil pressure changes were smooth and what can best be described as precise. Fitting took all of 5 mins including re-doing the tie-wiring. Understand Floods will not have spares for about 3 to 4 weeks. All I can say is go for it!

Hi Darky, We have 2 newish sets of Zulu's - well they're sort of new, about 12 months old now. We considered and used both Zulu's and Bose before deciding on the Zulu's. I purchased them in the USA from Aircraft Spruce. Both sets however developed a similar "buzzing" sound as you describe after only a few hours of use and one pair actually lost audio in one earpiece as well. I took them to a local Avionics repair house on the Sunshine Coast in Qld and they identified the cord from the control box to the headset had "broken". Not sure exactly what "broken" meant but they assured me a wire had cracked and was causing the buzzing... sort of like shorting out. Both sets were repaired 3 times until the length of cable that was left made them almost unusable. At that point I was becoming frustrated to say the least. I turned to Aircraft Spruce for help and they in turn referred my complaint to Lightspeed USA who in turn referred my complaint to Peter Fleming at Moorabbin Pilot Shop. The nett result is that both headsets are currently with the Pilot Shop for repair under warranty! I have heard others speak of a similar problem. All I can say that the after sales service from Lightspeed and Moorabbin Pilot Shop is the best and I didn't even purchase from the Australian agent. I have no complaints even though I am without the headsets for a short time. Peters number is 03 9580 6200. Good luck.

Why is CASA .... well CASA? Your post GraemeK begs the immediate question - "Why have these decisions been deferred?" This dinner will give me (and other aviators) the chance to ask these questions of the man at the top, rather than read the espousal from vivid imaginations of those who appear to have far greater experience and depth of knowledge of aviation, CASA and its employees than most others. If there is one thing I have learnt from 40+ years of aviating... 1. CASA has always been the burial ground for the ex-military and airline manager types. 2. Most (unfortunately) have never had to earn their income the hard way in the reality of the commercial aviation world that is GA and RAAus. 3. When you're surrounded by turkeys you think and behave like a turkey. We are all entitled to our opinions one way or the other, BUT (and to return to why I started this thread) this dinner is an opportunity for grass roots aviators to ask why the decisions have been made. We can hopefully hear the facts behind the decisions then we will all be in a better position to make educated comment. I personally wish to know what the future direction will be. Do we run the risk of loosing our autonomy under the current regime in charge at CASA? Or perhaps we are jumping to conclusions that have no real basis other than "the rumour mill" - but at least I'll know the truth and can make informed judgements. Once again I urge all who can make the dinner to come along... and if you can't I will try and post answers to these and other questions on this forum. Then maybe we will all be better educated by fact and not fiction. At best we will be aware of what uphill battles we will have and be in a better position to fight those battles. Throwing darts doesn't win a battle when the big guns are needed.

Rotax Part No: 857-230 The part has arrived and here is what it looks like as opposed to the ball it replaces. Will fit tomorrow and get back to this forum.

Maybe it's not sender! Shaun, Like many others I also suffer from badly fluctuating oil pressure. However I believe it is most likely not the sender that is malfunctioning but the oil pressure regulator itself. The sender is approx $340 whereas the replacement part for the pressure regulator costs only a fraction of that. I have a new part "in the mail" and will post the result after I have fitted it. Before you go off and order the new part however check all your ground wiring connections are nice and tight, especially the bus behind the pax side instrument panel. ROTAX have come out with a replacement for the "ball" in the oil pressure regulator - the replacement part number is 857-230. This is a "conical" shaped replacement for the ball and I quote you two very recent comments direct from the ROTAX factory in respect of this new part... "ROTAX is now switching from a ball valve PN-432-680 to a cone shaped valve PN-857-230. According to the charts sent over with this info, the new valve will result in a higher average oil pressure across the entire range of RPMs. This product has been under development for the past two years and IS NOT A MANDATORY RETROFIT nor is it covered under warranty." "This valve: PN-857-230, really offers a solution for engines with deviating (fluctuating) oil pressure indication only– this part should improve the reading. Reason: ROTAX has no influence over what reading devices the customers do mount, they can’t test all available Oil Pressure Gauges or EMS in the world. Therefore they have come up with this update as a replacement for all installations not using the tested ROTAX Flydat." Wal (at Bert Floods) happened to have one of the new parts with him after a visit to the Rotax factory and I have been lucky enough to have him send it to me. Hasn't arrived as yet however.

Squash the rumours - here what the CEO has to say. Ozzie, Becky has answered your comment on the CEO flying under RAAus/GA regulations but it's rumours like the one you refer to that this evening is designed to squash... once and for all! I will endeavour to get something posted on this forum after the dinner containing fact and not fiction/rumours. If there are any RAAus or GA pilots out there who cannot make it to the evening and thus ask their question/s and receive a direct answer from the CEO, put something in writing to either Becky or myself via a personal message and we will attempt to get the answer for you. Please understand that those who attend the evening in person will of course have priority over those who don't attend. However I expect the questions we all have are very similar in nature or subject. This is great opportunity to "clear the air" - "get the truth" - "stop the rumours" etc on a number of matters that affect all of us - that's exactly why the Gympie Aero Club Committee decided to organize the event. The CEO is a GAC member and offered his services in this manner so that the grass root aviators can hear what is going on personally and not via the very active rumour mill that exists out there. The GAC Committee urges any aviator who wants to get the truth from the horses mouth on current and future subjects affecting our enjoyment of aviating to come along on the night, "ask the question" and join in the discussion that follows. It promises to be a very worthwhile night for everyone.