Happyflyer

The tacho in my Gazelle has stopped working, it flickered at low revs for a while but now doesn't work at all, it's a VDO electric tacho with the rotax markings, checked the wiring and had the tacho tested and all is fine, is there a sensor that triggers the tacho, not sure where to look next thanks Keith

If you have a 912 the following may help.

The tacho pickup on the 912 engine is an electromagnegtic coil. A magnet on the flywheel induces a pulse in the coil when it passes by.

 

This was from a discussion at http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/odd-problem-with-aviasport-tacho-on-912uls.64509/

 

Look at this also http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2474

 

It appears the tacho pickup wires are blue and white. Try and trace them back and check any connectors.

 

Cheers.

 

 

OK, so CAO 95.55 specifically excludes weigh shift and PPC aircraft so can not be the reference for the discussion of these aircraft.

 

95.32 is about these aircraft but does not mention build kits. So where is the information about home build kits for these aircraft written?

 

 

Flight review is not part of an aerobatic endorsement.

You are right of course.

Strange though that if you do a design feature endorsement you are taken to have successfully complete a flight review for that class of aircraft (Part 61.745). This could be a tailwheel, CSU or retract endorsement, but a flight activity endorsement such as aerobatics or formation does not count as a flight review.

 

 

So I could still continue to use my RAA certificate for my own aircraft then use the RPL for aerobatics in a certified aircraft ?

Yes and Nick is right, a class two medical is required for aeros. I would think after you have done the aerobatic rating you would be familiar enough with the aircraft to quite easily do a flight review and your instructor should not need much time to assess you.

 

 

Short answer, yes you can. You will have to do a flight review in a GA aircraft as part of the process, but that could be part of the aerobatic endorsement. Also be prepared for a long wait for CASA to process all the paperwork.

 

 

Even if RAAus had the right aeroplane we are prohibited in using them for aerobatics/spinning so it's a moot point. As was said above, there are plenty of the right aircraft available and in my opinion pilots should experience spinning and recovery. As to different recovery techniques, well, as we can't spin ours it is difficult to tell, but most factory built aircraf have a technique for inadvertant spin recovery in the POH. I haven't spun an aircraft that doesn't recover using the P.A.R.E method. Also remember getting into a spin inadvertantly is going to be a very, very different situation to doing it deliberately.

 

 

This could all be settled easily by those who 'know' that they can fly RAAus aircrft purely on a PPL or higher. Advise CASA and RAAus when and where you are going to to it and then do it!

 

 

CAO's 95.10. 95.32 and 95.55 all have a "Licence not required" clause in them, referring to Section 20AB of the act (the Civil Aviation Act).Guess what? There is no such thing as 20AB now, it's gone. It was about flying without a licence, in other words, on something else, a pilot certificate.

My thought was, regarding the "flying without a licence" exemption, if you already had a CASA licence - you didn't need to use the CAO's exemption (fly on a pilot certificate). That's what it said (It still says it today - but is no longer valid by its own demise). You can't wave the 20AB card now, because it's gone. It was about permitting those without a CASA licence, a way to fly. So, now that there is no such thing as 20AB, the rest of the CAO's apply to everyone, and they clearly say that you must have a pilot certificate. CASA has quietly closed this loophole.

 

Case closed.

I found 20AB with a quick google search. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s20ab.html

Why do you say it is gone?

 

 

Yes Happy,The first post in this thread written by myself, read that in conjunction with Dafydd letter and consider the comments written by the CEO there is the answer for you.

Regards,

 

KP.

Yep, can't argue with that. You win.

 

 

Ozzie is right, 103 sounds fantastic. Single seat, 115 kg max empty weight, 24 kt max stall speed, no licence, no rego. The reg can be written on back and front of a single A4 page. However it is very hard to see this amount of freedom allowed here with our current culture of over regulation. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try though!

 

 

Yes but it was Fiction!

I think that was his subtle point.

 

 

I was wondering about that, second lesson and a downwind takeoff. Cool must keep some excitement in the training.

I think it was a downwind departure (to the training area), not a downwind take off.

 

 

In the case I just mentioned,, old mate was not a member of RAAus..Yes pmccarthy ...... I think it is a case of ... if people wake up and have the courage to take the authorities on the results could be surprising.. But have the PPL with all the i's dotty and t's crossed.

I like, "Skerrick of supporting legal evidence".. Tells a story..

 

Regards

 

KP.

Keith, please give us a skerrick of evidence to support your story.

 

 

I suggest a new type that goes off with pressure. Put it between your cheeks and when things go bad....off it goes!

 

 

hah just wait till you solo - that thing will leap off there in half the distance! You won't need to speed that video up!!

It's a 1975 Cessna 172. They never leap off the ground! Now, if it was a modern RAAus aircraft with a Rotax 912uls such as a Foxbat, Sportstar or similar it really would leap off the ground.

 

 

This fellow was flying a registered RAAus aircraft. He had a PPL.. But no tail wheel endorsement.That pilot if he has a PPL and the aircraft was registered he has grounds for appeal as the precident has been set.

Regards

 

KP.

Courts follow precedents set by other courts. As your fellow was not charged, he did not go to court, so no precedent I would have thought. How about a bit more detail, such as date and place, type of aircraft etc? Could it be the case was not proceeded with because of other factors such as sloppy collection of evidence and that was the reason for not proceeding?

 

 

I should add that in a descending turn it is the bottom wing which stalls first but in a climbing turn under power it will be the top wing which gives a really interesting outcome for those caught unawares.Kaz

When I stall an aircraft in a climbing turn and I am in balance neither wing drops, just the nose. When I stall it in a climbing turn out of balance with too much bottom rudder the lower wing drops and if I have too much top rudder the higher wing drops. I would think a more powerful engine and bigger propeller may affect this and the wing drop will be more pronounced depending on the direction of rotation of the prop.

 

 

Thanks Rank. I was commenting on Kaz's comments in another thread which related to her assuming an increased stall speed with extra bank angle in a slipping turn.The general idea that the stall speed increases in a turn is of course correct, and the amount it increases by depends on the bank angle etc.

But in a descending turn where there is no extra increase in angle of attack, there should no t be an increase in the stall speed. Or a better way to put it, there wont be an increase in the speed the that the stalling angle is reached.

 

We all know the stall speed increases by the square root of the G loading, so if there is no extra G, then it follows that there is no increase in the stall speed.

 

It is the extra Angle of attack (read back pressure) that increases the G loading, and there for the stalling speed in a "level" turn.

 

Reduce the thought experiment to the absurd- Imagine rolling a 90 deg angle of bank turn, but not pulling the stick back. The aeroplane wont stall at a higher speed, it will just descend. Its not until you try and pull the level turn that the stall speed will increase.

Your theory is of course quite correct, it is possible to do a descending turn without pulling more than one g, but I would suggest it is also possible to pull lots of "g" in a desceding turn, think the spiral dive. Imagine the decsending turn onto final that has been left a bit late, bank angle is incrased and stick pulled back to make the turn to get back on track, add out of balance and it's your classic stall spin scenario.

 

 

I personally do not think any postition follwoing device such as SPOT should be mandatory. We have too much regulation now and don't think my movements are anyones business other than mine. By all means use it if you want to. If you are in phone tower range and your phone is on, it can be traced to the general area. It does not need a smart phone to be properly set up to get this rough location. If the cost of not having SPOT is the occaisional search, I'm happy for my taxes to be used. It's good to keep in practice for a search anyway and may save them having to run a practice for training.

 

 

Being able to understand what is happening is always helpful. However, just remember you cannot stall if you do not pull the stick back too far and if you always fly "in balance" you are much less likely to drop a wing if you do stall.

 

 

How can it cost $20k to service when you can buy one for $6k?

The Cirrus has MTOW of 3400 lbs, that requires a big chute. It also has a rocket motor for deployment and that has to come out on a ship from the US as dangerous goods. The chute and rocket have to be cut out of the fuselage and then refitted and fuselage fixed and painted. Being an upmarket product I'm guessing they didn't go with the cheapest tender for the equipment either.

 

 

I've already done quite a bit of research and am continuing into the area. They are not expensive and just because Cirrus options them at 256 trillion dollars, as they do with everything, doesn't mean that's the way it is. I'm at $600 USD at the moment but I need a bit more info yet which will not come until I get Stateside and visit the manufacturer.

Cirrus don't offer recovery chutes as an option. It is standard fit in all their aircraft and you cannot legally fly without the chute as it is to be deployed for spin recovery. And yes, it is expensive to service, about $20,000 every ten years.

 

 

You never needed to. CASA just wanted a photo copy carried to make their own job easier. It has never been a legal requirement. If they really want to follow up about your BFR they could have done it later.

 

 

What height do need to be at to safely deploy your parachute and be assured of a soft landing?

 

 

Horizontal distance is 1500 meters from cloud, but yes, your judgment of this distance is just a guess. No need to worry though, any CASA observer is also just guessing.