Tex

It is not weight, rather the compartment.

They are a nice looking aircraft, I now share a hanger with two (I think Scott left the spot for Caboolture?) I like that throttle idea.

Only issue I see is luggagibility (yes it's a word... or at least now it is.)

I might make it out just for day on the 3oth. My plane is there but it is also my daughter birthday.

Used for many years on NOTAR helicopters.

Sounds lazy

It appears the heavies set up in crab approach m in X winds. Any particular reason for not getting set up shooting straight the center line with x-control right from the start?

Guy was killed out Western Qld a few years back when starting his Gyro from the side ... when it started it ran past him and he was hit by the prop.

Thanks Mark. I was hoping for some weather to head out late Saturday.

I might head for Woodford and then over to kilcoy

Well pick your height according to normal procedures but I would fly an arc north of a direct track to Watts; that is track via the low ground into Kilcoy then over the lowest saddle into Watts... but then I fly a drifter!

How much time do you have as pic in trikes?

Trikes are as safe as the next aircraft in the hands of competent pilots.

HGFA

Teewah: North shore out of Tewantin. An airstrip sit just off the coast behind the ridge. You might try and contact the Sunshine Coast hang gliding club or Dave Cookman up there who also flies (instructs?) in trikes as well.

I used an Antigravity for years. No issues. Now I use an EarthX; Inbuilt BMS. Not cheap though. I certainly had to have a lighter battery for W and B or add weight else where.

I am very specific about how I treat the battery. It is disconnected when not in use to prevent any parasitic drain.... Though the BMS would disconnect if it went under voltage.

The EarthX have been used extensively in Snow mobiles (same rotax charging system) and the Alaskan State troopers fit all theirs with them.

AT LAST?

A wholly (or partially) suspended jail sentence does not mean that he may not still go to jail. If he commits any offence punishable with a jail term (most are) within the operational period (2 years) then they return to court and revisit the suspended sentence as a breach (show cause). So it is an effective tool of deterrence (personal and general) against any offending without the expense of imprisonment; but that axe still hangs above his head.

270 is way heavy.... As I said and the others also 250 - 255 is about where an empty SB should weigh ... WB a bit less becaus less sleeving in the wing and stut weight. Theses are Austflight 55 reg I mean. If an aircraft you are looking at weighs 270 it needs to go on a diet or there is something wrong.... That is an example, each AC needs its own WB. Nearly 200kg payload isn't so bad.

SB Faster by about 5kts, at cruise but slightly heavier than WB, still better climb WOT in SB . Empty SB weight about 250. WB not much less (if any) depend on the specifc aircraft but maybe 5kg less. WB is stronger but you would not want to test either to its limit I think they are both +4 -2 both strong enough - normal flying no issue.

No need to be ducking wires all the time in a SB a nuisance when loading up the back seat IMO on WB... but not a big deal. SB land a bit longer, float a bit further and so need a bit more work to grease it on - the wires on the WB make it tend to settle on faster (drag). Glide ratio a bit better in the SB because lower parasitic drag.

Buy either, I would just depends what is available at the time! THEN Go fly like I am about too...

SB or WB doesn't matter just pick a good one. Skins and Engine is the first consideration on cost then overall condition and times etc Still a WB 912 would be my pick! Better economy but enough power to drive it harder and the wires make for better short landings.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Latin for:To a willing person injury is not done)In your case Tex, the Civil Liability Act 2003 says:

 

Division 4, Page 16, Dangerous Recreational Activities

 

19 (1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the person suffering harm.

 

19 (2) This section applies whether or not the person suffering harm was aware of the risk.

 

So whether there was a warning plaque or Volenti Non Fit Injuria the injured party can’t sue for an obvious risk.

 

HOWEVER:

 

The meaning of “obvious risk” is defined in detail in Division 13, Page 14 AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THINGS (including negligence), saying in clause (5)

 

“To remove any doubt it is declared that risk from a thing including a living thing is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk.

 

Examples for subsection (5)—

 

1 A motorised go-cart that appears to be in good condition may create

 

a risk to a user of the go-cart that is not an obvious risk if its frame

 

has been damaged or cracked in a way that is not obvious.

 

2 A bungee cord that appears to be in good condition may create a

 

risk to a user of the bungee cord that is not an obvious risk if it is

 

used after the time the manufacturer of the bungee cord

 

recommends its replacement or it is used in circumstances contrary

 

to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

 

So it’s not the blank cheque some would have you believe. Our negligence is the disclaimer condition.

I have no particular view on Jabiru engines, this is objective: Thanks for the explanation of what you meant by the 'disclaimer condition'. I know what Volenti means (I did raise it after all) and my original point was a simple one given this threads OP. The letter is directed to establishing it as a complete defence against liability.

I appreciate your analysis of the legislation also but your reasoning has drifted off topic and appears to have been conflated with individual negligence. What it is really all about (OP) is relevant to CASA and Jabiuru; The letter brings to the attention of individuals what is purported to be an obvious risk (with Jabiru engines) and attempts to bind the signing party to a voluntary assumption of that risk, so that CASA (and perhaps collaterally, the individual PIC) are excluded from liability.

If an individual properly operates, maintains, replaces, prepares or cares for the thing then they are, by definition, not negligent ('Properly' not Negligently). Regardless the real issue is that (and the examples in the legislation are of no assistance), as you would agree I anticipate, the argument (positive on the balance of probabilities) would be that the potential failure of a Jabiru engine is an obvious risk - given the history, discussion and action taken - add a letter signed by the party acknowledging and thereby purportedly solidifying that 'obvious' fact. Ergo: CASA = 'WE have a complete defence from negligence'.

Cheers

Some more reading for you Oscar, you missed the critical disclaimer condition of your quote, which was present in this case.

What was the critical disclaimer condition?

Got the version on my galaxy S5... All good.

I can imagine a lawyer saying this made the liability worse because the risk was "known". I once read that a " beware of the dog" sign actually increased your legal risk .

In case you haven't done it before: You have to first save the picture you want to show online somewhere (like here: http://www.recreationalflying.com/media/ ). Then you can add it from your media. If saved elsewhere online; when open and you are viewing the picture online, right click on it - save the image URLs link - put that link in the image URL in your post hope that helps and is correct.

The same as those you now have fitted or are they the ones you took off?