Jump to content

Nobody

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    720

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nobody

  1. Nobody
    I dont give them a sick bag before, I don't even tell them that I have sone, but do make sure I have a number ready and keep a good eye on the passenger. To a large extent air sickness is psychological and people don't get airsick if they don't realize they should be. Giving them an airsick bag gives them something to worry about.
  2. Nobody
    Re read what I wrote. The experimental certificate has several catergories one being amateur built. The other categories are listed in section 7.1 of this document: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdf Under 7.1j you can do private operations of previously R+D aircraft
  3. Nobody
    You can't get an Experimental (Armature Built) certificate for a factory built aircraft. A LSA aircraft, even one that is VH registered is limited to 600kg. I doubt that you will be able to increase the weight.
  4. Nobody
    Hows the assembly going? First flight cant be too far away!!!!
  5. Nobody
    OME, Sorry If I was one of the nitpickers but I couldn't let the comment about Single Engine ops into Bankstown go un-answered. We have enough rules without rumors of more.... On the original topic though, there is no need for Bankstown to close provided that a reasonable solution can be worked out with the airspace. Many places in other parts of the world can operate well with more congested airspace. What needs to happen though is concerted lobbying from the little end of GA to get the right solution in place. I am a little disappointed that SAAA, RAAus and AOPA haven't got together to plan out how the Sydney airspace could work so that they are all on the same page when the discussion start to happen.
  6. Nobody
    What you are saying about being able to glide clear of the build up area is good airmanship, logical and sensible however where is it written in the rules? CAR 157 dosent have it? http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html but the US version of that rule does have something but in effect it just requires somewhere to crash without risk to others: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 Is it really a rule in Australia and I have missed it? Or is it just a rumour that has been passed around generations of pilots?
  7. Nobody
    The other point to ponder..... From the minutes of the meeting I posted it is quite clear that Jabiru have admitted that they have made some changes to address past issues with the engine. At that point in the discussion it is immaterial what the actual accident data is. If the engine has been changed from the design that was certified how can Jabiru be certain that the engine meets the certification standards? Only by either analysis to testing and I dont think that CASA asking for testing is an unreasonable requirement. It would be best for all concerned to get on and do the testing. It might be expensive but it would confirm that the changes to the engine are sound from an engineering point of view and the restrictions could be lifted. The concern for Jabiru would be if it doesn't pass and they are faced with having to redesign the engine then that would take considerable time.
  8. Nobody
    A couple of points to ponder: 1. We don't have any accurate data. 2. People seem to be now quoting 146 as the number but without attributing a source. I don't think that this number has been mentioned by CASA, Jabiru or RAAus as being the correct number. Lets not argue about incorrect information
  9. Nobody
    Do you have a source for that? I don't think that anyone has left. If it really was the case wouldn't CASA let the instrument expire rather than extend it?
  10. Nobody
    I suspect that while that may have been the case, Jabiru have admitted that they have made modifications to the design of the engines over the years. Some of these have improved things (the larger through bolts), some have been detrimental (hydraulic lifters). There have been so many changes that no one can be certain that the engines meet the certification basis. CASA are proposing that the test be redone with a current spec engine. This would take about a month and cost some money. The easy way out for everyone would be for Jabiru to do the test. If the engine passes with flying colours then it would be difficult for CASA to argue that the restrictions should remain. Jabiru seem reluctant either because they dont want to spend the money or because they have concerns that the engine will pass. I suspect that it is the money.
  11. Nobody
    I don't know if one is being undertaken. I presume they are talking about a test to ASTM F2339-06. Details below: For a 2000 hour overhaul period it would equate to approx ~167 hours at 100% power and 200 hours at cruise power. It would take about a month to run if you had access to the facility to do it.
  12. Nobody
    screw up rather than conspiracy. I didn't realize that it was a one time link.
  13. Nobody
    Sorry Nev, it seems that the previous link I posted was a one time thing. I have converted to images and uploaded so that it can be seen below. Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4
  14. Nobody
    The minutes of the meeting mentioned by Gandalph are at the link below: https://filetea.me/t1s91Zy8ExASaq68PuOfitf4Q
  15. Nobody
    But I suspect that given the current situation hitting the peaks would have a significant improvement in the overall accident rate.
  16. Nobody
    I am not sure that we do need to know why in each and every case. What we do need, is to understand the overall trends and then focus on ways of minimizing future accidents. Reading detailed accounts of individual past accidents can lead people to have the "it won't happen to me" attitude. They read the report and there is some deficiency in the pilots decision making in hindsight it is easy to believe that you wouldn't make that same mistake. This reinforces the it wont happen to them attitude. The FAA have publication that discusses poor pilot decision making in the context of 5 hazardous attitudes. They Are: Almost all of the light aircraft accidents fall into a limited number of the categories. My take on the list would be: Factors leading to Fatal Accidents Miss-handled engine failure. It isn't the failure of the engine that causes the accident but the failure to properly respond and maintain control of the aircraft. Continued VFR flight into IMC weather conditions. Stall/spin low to the ground. Technical failure of the aircraft. Johns list above includes 2 fatal accidents on first flights as well as one that may be linked to bowden cable issue. SO the question then is what could you do in your flying to minimize the risk of this happening to you?
  17. Nobody
    In OZ that sort of thing is punishable by a fine of $4250. Its a shame what the rules in Australia have come to... http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s256a.html
  18. Nobody
    I think that I saw that email too. My reading was a little different to your reading in that it was likely that the Jabiru conditions would be extended. It seems that the Jabiru are saying that they have implemented fixes to address the issues and therefore there is no need for the restrictions. CASA are saying show us the evidence that the fixes have worked and not introduced other issues. is do a bench test. Some key quotes form the minutes:
  19. Nobody
    The full unedited or shortened recording is here: [MEDIA=liveleak]c5f_1434603989[/MEDIA]
  20. Nobody
    AJ, If he is registering the aircraft with a VH registration and not with RAAus like he said in the original post why would he need follow those requirements? Also note that there is an exemption on having the rego in the lower wing, see the second link that I posted above. Nobody
  21. Nobody
    Have a read here in CASR 21.820. It gives the information required and nominates the locations of where it must be fixed. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015C00267/Html/Volume_1#_Toc415135079 Also note that there is a requirement to have an aircraft registration plate however there is an exemption for aircraft less than 5700kg operated only within Australia. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/045/045c01.pdf Only put what you need on the data plate and no more. It may be hard to change later if needed. For instance the aircraft spruce experimental data plate has a space for empty and gross weight do not use this plate as any later change will need CASA's written permission. see: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s57.html The USA rules may be different so be careful if using a us sourced data plate.
  22. Nobody
    I find it strange that in this day and age the use of GPS is still not considered a primary part of learning to fly. I wonder how many decades it took for the altimeter to be accepted as a primary source....
  23. Nobody
    The airstrip shown in the photo in the news report is jindabine, where he took off form.
  24. Nobody
    One thing that I don't like about the new traffic feature is that you cant see the traffic without broadcasting your own position. I was having a play on the bus top work this morning and suspect that I might have been broadcasting as traffic even though I was on the ground.....
  25. Nobody
    In which case the title should be proportion of pilots halves not number of pilots halves. Look while this may sound like semantics it is as important as the all light aircraft are Cessnas. While aviation does have an issue with declining numbers the extent isnt as bad as the headline makes out.
×
×
  • Create New...