skeptic36

Evaporation

Hi all,

I think you would be amazed at the amount of fuel you would lose to evaporation if you try to store bulk petrol above ground.

In the olden days:gerg: when fuel companies used to supply bulk tanks for farms petrol tanks were always underground with a hand pump on them and diesel tanks where on a stand above ground and gravity feed.

Unfortunately I think the only way to do it is with several good quality Jerry cans and only take the amount you need for the day.

Regards Bill

One day we will take it down to Vic and I will look you up and we'll go flying eh? I'm assuming the trike in your avatar is your machine.

Surely your teasing me, things that good can't really happen can they?

That is my baby in the avatar ain't she somethin.

My wife and I also have the grand plan to travel with the trike but there is still a bit more money to be earned before that can happen.

Which wing did you go for on the Airborne ?

Regards Bill

Hi:I've just purchased a new Airborne XT912 Tundra with the bells and whistles. I'm doing my basic license with Dave Cookman out of Tewantin in Queensland Australia.

[shameless plug]Dave is one of the most kind spirited and generous guys I've ever met. If you want to learn to fly a trike, he's hard to beat.[/shameless plug]

 

My prior flying was in a Hughes Lightwing GR912 (15 hours). I've flown in Tiger Moths, Cessnas, Pipers and helis, but for pure flying enjoyment, you cant beat the trike.

 

As of this writing, I have 6 hours in the trike and at least 14 to go before I solo.

 

See you in the air or at an airfield somewhere...

Try as I might I couldn't find a suitable 'jealousy ' icon to put in re your new trike but I bet you feel :ecstatic:any time your near it. I don't have the experience in other aircraft you have but I know flying the trike is pure enjoyment.

There are plenty of real life experience around here to draw on and hopefully you will keep us posted on your training progress.

Regards Bill

Hi all,

I thought maybe we could get some discussion going re the upcoming vote to oust the current HGFA board.

I have not been a member for long so don't know much about the history or politics of the HGFA.

According to information given to me today from within the HGFA members who are trike pilots have been paying higher fees than members who fly unpowered aircraft and mostly we are ignored in favour of the 'unpowereds' when it comes time to receive benefits from those fees. Apparently the current board has rearranged the setup changing the old state associations system, because they where deemed illegal, and setting up the new SARSIG system which is supposed to be both legal and a fairer way of distributing funding.

All this has apparently upset pilots who fly unpowered aircraft (I suppose they would be called soaring pilots) who have benefited from the old system and if they are successful in the upcoming election will return things to the way they where.

Do I have this right or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Regards Bill.

Ever noticed how many replies a new female pilot will get in the 'just landed' forums compared to a bloke

Regards Bill

Many trike pilots eventually descend down the food chain & get 3-axis certification. Cheers

 

John

You do realise that all this speculation would require a scientifically based cost/benefit study and safety study before implementation. I'm sorry, but opinion isn't good enough to experiment with untested ideas.What's wrong with ICAO and already proven procedures?If radio is NOT mandated, you CAN still carry and use it you know, and just about everyone does. The issue is not whether radios are fitted, it is about compliance with procedures.Have any of you looked at the ATSB weekly summaries yet? How many radio non compliance incidents seem to be caused by aircraft without radios? Go on, have a look.

A couple of points,

1) I had a look at the ATSB site and although I didn't go through it all, in the incident reports I looked at, lack of an installed radio was not the problem where it could have been issue. I am not sure what this proves. For example if 1 in 100 aircraft doesn't have a radio and they are all equally safe there will be 99 aircraft turn up in an accident report that has radio for every 1 aircraft that doesn't. If the non radio aircraft is half as safe (I'm not suggesting this is the case) then the ratio will be

48.5 to 1, that is if we assume the aircraft are all clocking the same hours under the same conditions. As this can never be the case, no matter which way I look at it I cannot see the relevance of ATSB reports to this debate.

2) I am sure you are correct in saying that our opinions do not carry enough weight to change anything, but I don't think that is a reason to abandon the discussion. Discussion and debate are healthy and we can all learn things from each other even if sometimes we don't realise we are learning.

Regards Bill

Mazda has TRIED to get the message across that unless you are talking to a specific ground station on an available frequency you do not have any check to confirm that you are getting out. Remember, NO ONE has said that you shouldn't use your radio where it can contribute to awareness, but there are times and places where you could spend your effort on something more constructive, rather than make calls on frequencies that no one may be listening on with a radio that has not been confirmed as working with the expectation that someone will hear, understand and magically do the right thing and avoid you. Nev..

Why does it have to be a specific ground station that gives you a radio check if there is a concern about your radio working? I've heard several pilots ask for and receive radio checks from other aircraft. It seems to be effective.

Several people have inferred radios do not need to be carried in some airspace (often they claim it is over a pilots own farm, apparently other aircraft don't go there ) so how do you use a radio to contribute to awareness if you don't have one on board ?

Regards Bill

Dear MazdaStop bashing your head against a brick wall. In some situations there is a right and correct understanding and then there is a wrong understanding. This is such a situation. There is no point in trying to educate those who will not make any effort to understandand but prefer to barge on ahead rationalizing their untenable position with ill-informed or un-informed information and faulty logic.These same people will inevitably cite the poll results above in support of their position. The majority are not necessarily right but that too I feel is beyond their grasp.I have difficulty believing the lack of ability in critical thought in the majority of the population of Australia.Here is a statistic that you might find amusing: On average, half of the people that you deal with will be of bolw average intelligence.Cheers.

It is disappointing that you have been unable to sustain this debate without resorting to insulting the intelligence of all those who have an opinion differing from your own.

I think it would be good if we could keep these forums the friendly helpful place they have always been, and that can't happen if we start insulting each other.

Regarding faulty logic

a) 66 people out of a potential 8000 is not .00825%

b) there may be 8000 RAA members but they are not all members here, there are also members here who are not RAA members. So 66 out of ???? potential voters= hmm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it is more than 26 out of ????.

Therefore I don't think any comfort should be taken from Turboplanners figures.

:)

Regards Bill

Hi Glen

I am wondering if Airborne had anything to say regarding the hang angle problem.

Regards Bill

There are many things that may make flying safer and they may all cost just a little, but unless they actually do improve safety they are only a money waster and giver of false hope.

I couldn't agree more.

I live and work in a quite private location because I like to do things my own way with as few restrictions possible :thumb_up:, as long as it doesn't adversely effect others thumb_down.

For me however, and apparently many others judging by the results of the poll going on in the other thread, the cost of a radio is outweighed by the safety benefit for the user and other aircraft.

If we can get past the argument, some attempt to validate, that mandated radios will automatically make us all forget our piloting skills, I don't see a down side.

On the other hand ELT's and other items which may improve the safety of those on board the aircraft are like seat belts in cars, they do save lives but only the life of the person responsible for deciding whether or not to use them. The only argument I can see for their compulsion is the saving to the taxpayer in search and rescue costs and the health care system respectively. Although I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, I feel we do need to maintain as much free choice as possible in this country so I guess it is a price the taxpayer will have to wear and is the reason we still let people smoke tobacco

Regards Bill

Hi Mazda,

If radio is mandatory will you be less vigilante while piloting your aircraft ?

How can statistics show it won't be safer with mandatory radio if it has not been done anywhere in the world ?

Anything worthwhile has always been done somewhere by somebody before anybody else.

While mandatory radio will mean there are even more pilots on wrong frequencies and with non working radio, surely there will also be more pilots able to communicate with other aircraft in their area and that can only be good.

You write that the problem is peoples perspective and you suggest we look at various reports which back your argument. Your interest seems to be mainly in ctaf®s and busy airspace so I see that as your perspective.

Here is my perspective : I don't see the lack of a radio around airfields and busy airspace as the problem, there are procedures to follow in those areas that make traffic predictable and you are going to be extra vigilante in those places.

As you know I am a low hour trikepilot, but my experience is most recreation and tourism type aircraft all want to gravitate to the same areas (in our case the hot spot is tracking the ninety mile beach at low altitude). I always find it a comfort to be able to report my position and intentions when in and near these areas even though I know some may be unable to hear.

It is all about reducing the risk, so far you have not convinced me that compulsory radio installation will not do this.

Regards Bill

For those interested,

On the 15th of June I sent this e-mail to CASA and the HGFA:

Dear Sir/Madame,

I am not sure who to address this enquiry to but hope you can help.

I am a HGFA member and trike pilot.

I live on a farm where I am about to start building a hangar and leveling an airstrip, where I would be keen to have other aviators land, socially or otherwise, but not for profit.

I am looking for advice on requirements regarding insurance. Does advertising it as a private strip - with filling out a special form a requirement - protect me from legal liability if a visiting pilot has an accident on my strip?

Is there a standard form available for this purpose?

Where would I need to advertise the requirements for someone landing here so it becomes a protection against litigation?

On the 18th of June I received this response from CASA :

Bill,

I'm afraid CASA can not provide you with much information except to advise you to contact the HGFA, an insurance company, and a legal practitioner. CASA has no standard forms of the type you suggest.

Of course, you would have a general duty of care to fellow pilots if you established an aerodrome for their use. The type of facility you intend to build, is what CASA describes as an 'Aeroplane Landing Area, ALA'. We publish an advisory document for such facilities, located on our website at:

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf

thankyou for your email.

I'm still waiting for a reply from the HGFA..

I know there is somebody there because my membership fees are readily accepted and I keep getting the magazine every month. Do they do anything else ?

Regards Bill

Why do some people think you will stop looking around if you have a radio or think everyone else has one? Certainly I dont stop looking in a CTAF-R - actually more chance there someone is on the wrong channel. I look even harder around these locationsI reckon its out in open space where you unfortunately stop looking as hard.

There will always be failures, wrong channel etc etc but percentage wise there would be more active radios so an increase the awareness

 

Risk management is ALL about percentages, if they were mandated, even if poorly enforced, and it avoided one accident or even a near miss it would be worth it especially if it was me who nearly flew into you

 

Having and using a radio can just mean listening too cant it.

 

JR

I wish I had posted that.... You have written exactly what I think

Regards Bill

And this, ladies, is the whole point. Mandating radios will not work but what it will do is cost us our freedoms today.

How does adding a few hundred dollars worth of radio equipment cost us our freedom ?

Regards Bill

Just out of interest could those of you who say radios are a must please state what type of aircraft you fly and how long you have been a member of the RAA.

Regards Bill

Have a look at the "Sun glare a factor in mid-air plane collision" post on this forum and then tell me if radios are going to stop all accidents.How many RPT aircraft have had close encounters with recreational fliers? I can't recall one so where is the problem.

Most of us have now done the human factors training and in that we were told to assess the risk, then minimise it and monitor it. We have all known of the risk of mid air collisions and most of us use the eye to spot the danger. Relying on radio is not going to reduce the risk and could even make it worse.

 

If you want to have all the bells and whistles, 4 passengers, twin engines etc. I suggest you apply yourself to getting a PPL and leave those of us who are happy flying RAAus alone. Remember a lot of RAAus fliers also hold a PPL.

I don't think it is about stopping all accidents. As you state, it is about assessing, minimising and monitoring the risk, surely a radio will help a pilot do this.

Repeatedly I see people posting on this subject stating that pilots are going to automatically become complacent, believing that because the law says so everybodys' radio is working and being used correctly and so will no longer look out the window. The ones who don't look now will still be the ones not looking if radios are mandated, equally those careful pilots will still be the ones displaying good airmanship.

Also, with respect mate, I'm not sure that because you "can't recall an incident between RPT and recreational aircraft", that is an indication of whether a problem exists or not.

Regards Bill

just having a few buttons would suck.plug it into your PC to copy stuff to it.

Stuff=technical term

Should I add them to the Aviation Terms section

Regards Bill

Hi Glen,

Thats bad luck, with that much corrosion I wouldn't use it either.

Re the rust stains, I used to manufacture/repair canvas products in a former life and if rust stains were anymore than superficial it generaly weakened the fabric considerably to the point that if it was too bad you could push your thumb straight through.

Regards Bill

b: If we go "digital" then all the people out there who have radios in their planes will have to buy a new one. This would/could be money wasted on the new one they just installed. No, we don't need digital, just better frequency allocation.

127.0, 126,7, and other CTAF frequencies.

 

Ok, say I am flying over "no-where". (Indulge me for a second.) why would I be inclined to broadcast my position? After all I am in the middle of "no-where".

I bought this up in another thread

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/general-discussion/34237-radio-frequencies.html. Apparently there is not enough frequencies available, so as I said if it is going to happen, we might as well suffer the pain in the hip pocket today and start enjoying the benifits immediately as put up with what we have got for a while then suffer anyway.

IN regard to your question about broadcasting when flying over nowhere: Because the other aircraft flying over the same patch of "no-where" with the same "I'm the only one here " idea, will suddenly become aware of your presence even if you are approaching in his blind spot.

Regards Bill

Hi all,

Mazda, I believe radios should be mandatory whether it is enforceable or not. If it is law more people will have one, even if it is only 10% more. That is worthwhile.

JR, I know my experience is limited, but your inference that trike pilots are flying around blindly has not been what I have seen. I have only been to one trike fly-in, in my short career, where I was very impressed with pilots radio use (all 13 trikes had working radios). The only fault I heard (and participated in :hittinghead:) was when at one stage there was too much chat happening on the ctaf, this was nipped in the bud by our host at our next landing (thanks Alf).

I hate generalizations but I can only say what I have seen and the worst instances of lack of radio use I have experienced have been GA pilots. I have seen 3 GA aircraft (in my 40 odd hours) take off from both Lakes Entrance and Great Lakes without a word. I have also tried to find out the intentions of another, but was unable to solicit a response.

I'm sure those pilots are in the minority in the GA world but I'm equally sure poor or non radio users in the trike world are few and far between.

Flying Dog,

I agree there are too many airfields on 126.7. Apparently the only way to fix that is to change to digital so more frequencies will become available. Bring it on I say!

It is going to happen in the future sometime so the sooner the better.

Regards Bill

Hi Glen,

Wondering where your at with the fuel tank, is it installed yet? and if so is it possible to move it a little further to the rear. I'm thinking that it may not take a lot to correct the problem when you can shift items from the front to the rear you double the effect because you lighten the front while adding to the rear.

While shortening the seat frame has no effect on passenger space, will it make it uncomfortable for the pilot reaching the foot pegs?

Regards Bill

Hi guys,

I wonder if the O rings in the valve are rubber i_dunno. If so it may be worth while replacing them with Viton O rings. I have a pressure relief bypass valve in a hydraulic system which had to have the O rings replaced regularly, somebody put me onto the Viton ones and I haven't touched them since.:thumb_up:

Regards Bill

and i thought the sportstar would climb out better than that?

Regards Bill

Looked more like a game of AFL

If it where an Aussie rules match at least it would have been worth the price of admission.