Happyflyer

I know of a commerical pilot with a pacemaker so should not be an issue with RAAus if it is not an issue with CASA.

I agree, if below 3000 ft and not in cloud he must be clear of cloud. He must also have a radio and be listening to it and the ground must be visible. I have no idea how high he was. Angle of bank may be a bit over but hey, there are no protractors up there. Would I post this on youtube? Definitley not. Looks like great fun.

If you fly it well it will issue you a pilot's licence too.

I'm not too sure about that! Class photo 1963.

Must be a typo.

A boys' look as my wife would say! Thanks.

Don't know what they are basing this on but if they have been watching "Air Crash Investigations" the most common error seems to be pilot error, so maybe they are just playing the odds.

Just looked on the RAAus members market and can't find it. https://www.raa.asn.au/market/

From the article, "One of those who accepted the manufacturer's advice was an engineer who had modified the aircraft's balance without knowing its true weight - about 200kg more than that shown on registration documents." The coroner stated the weight was falsified to get RAAus rego, so no need to falsify the weight if GA registered. If balance was affected by the modification based on the false weight and if the crash was related to this then I would not like to be the person who signed the paperwork.

I see what you mean but just try and open the door at 70 / 80 knots and see how far you get, let alone try for a photo. Stall is caused by separation of the airflow from the top of the wing.

On the Supermarine Spitfire website ( http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/MK2680 ) the 80% replica aircraft, which this was I believe, has a MTOW of 810 kg. It had two seats and carried 150L of fuel. Generously assuming it could carry two 80kg pilots and full fuel of 108kg the empty weight would be about 542 kg. How this could have been even considered as an RAAus aircraft is hard to fathom.

Bexrbetter, sudden opening of the door would of course cause more drag but would not of itself cause a stall unless the angle of attack is increased. However opening the door would be hard and achieve nothing, the best shot is with the window up as stated earlier. To get a better shot photographers will ask the pilot to raise the wing in a turn, so some shots are taken by flying out of balance to have a higher wing, if you then stall you may be in a bit of strife.

Coroner's report is out. Not good for the builder or RAAus. http://www.qt.com.au/news/dead-pilot-cleared-of-blame-by-coroner/2499744/

Ben87r, I think if the LAME lets the owner help with the donkey work an average 100 hr should cost less than $1000. The first one will be more as the LAME will have to go through the books and get to know the aircraft. Mike, it is my belief that with the new CAO 100.5 requirements for instrument testing, all instruments can be checked in situ. That way the whole pitot/static system can be checked. Instruments and transponders do not have to be removed if they are within tolerance. The whole check excluding the fuel cal should take less than an hour if there are no problems.

Ok, I've read the definitive answer. I still don't know if I can carry a Jerry of fuel in the back of my aircraft.

I There are many grey areas in the regulations and ops manual. It's not as simple as you make out.

Keep it simple mate. If it's totally empty you are carrying harmless plastic, no need to invent complex stories. If you carry spare fuel, cover it, don't advertise it, don't write about it, don't post it online. If you see someone with a hi vis vest and clipboard approaching - full power -go around.

Captaincoop, I recall that the Tech Manager put something out recently in relation to this matter. It was also talked about in a recent thread. I think you may be able to keep going "on condition" if your aircraft is not used for pilot training but check with the Tech Manager before you buy. Cheers

It's not only RAAus Geoff. Look at GA crash reports and it is not uncommon for MTOW to have been exceeded. It may not have directly caused the crash but it is indicative of the mentality of the pilot and disregard for other rules of common sense. Parachute aircraft have been regular offenders. Be very careful of BEW if the aircraft is home built. I think the placard on the dash should be "useful load" not MTOW. Also be very carful of claims of cruise speeds. A comfortable, practical cruise speed if often 10 knots slower than claims by manufacturers and keen sellers. I think that if RAAus aircraft were defined by BEW (say max 400 kg) and not MTOW then some aircraft could legally carry more and not be constrained by the artificial limit of 600 kg. My aircraft MTOW can be increased by 50 kg if I put it on floats. If it can fly at 650 kg with floats it should be allowed to fly at 650 kg without floats.

The Bose A20 comes in a version that can be powered by the aircraft. However the batteries last that long it is hardly worth the bother.

Top of the range, late model European recreational aircraft, good hangar, good insurance, good instructor (paid a fair rate), well maintained airfield with cross strip close to major population centre, aircraft well maintained by good L2/LAME (paid a fair rate), good school facilities, available 7 days a week. Maybe not a rip off. Pay the same rate for an old Jabiru at a country airport with one strip, volunteer instructor/L2, tin shed classroom, and yes, a rip off. It may not suit all, but to just say it's a blatant rip off, and all that implies, is a bit harsh. (And no I don't own a flying school)

Welcome to the forum Matt. Hope you find something of interest here.

I think that is a bit harsh. The amateur instructor at the club definitely has his place. But so does the professional and it is up to the student to judge value for money. Just because a professional instructor is trying to make a living does not mean he is trying to rip you off. Aviation is a small world in Australia and word of mouth soon sorts out the rip off merchants.

Confucius say: "Think not what you can afford, think what it could cost."

L1 can work on and sign off his own aircraft regardless of registration prefix provided it is used privately and not for training.