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.

Was a little concerned at the quotes on here so watched the video from start to finish, looked like a great day for flying and a lot of fun. In other countries 'lazy eight's' are part of the curriculum and are a good skill to have. Not sure a Drifter could sustain the G's required for a 90 degree bank turn.

 

As for the 'clear of cloud', was probably pushing it a little but not unsafe considering where the video was shot. My only recommendation would be not to hang about just above, or just below the cloud at an airport where IFR aircraft regularly visit!

 

It's a shame sometimes we forget what flying is actually about!

i bought one of these drones before christmas, and it came with a CASA form outlining the rules and restrictions for flying it. max height of 400ft agl, not to be flown out of visual range, not to be flown within 30 ft of other people. not to be flown at night. all offences of strict liability of course. also, notes pointing out that to make money using the drone, you need a UAV operators certificate and a licence. it also has a built in airport database, and wont fly within 5 miles of an airfield, restricted and prohibited areas, or if it flies into a restricted zone, it will land.

Bonobos and chimpanzees share about 99% of our DNA but don't look or act like us.

And today just to confuse the issue further, the is an aircraft advertised on the RA Aus web site. 24 rego factory built with an mtow of 630 kgs and a bew of 367 kgs. As a famous Aussie politician once said. Please explain.

Must have been a good look, it's the first aircraft listed:https://www.raa.asn.au/market/ad.php?id=4360

The experts seem to have already come to the conclusion that it is pilot error. I wonder where the ABC gets its experts. I wouldn't trust them to fly a Drifter. The continual knocking of pilots seems to me to be counter intuitive coming from anyone involved in air travel. If they knock them enough nobody will trust them and then nobody will travel by air.

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

So did the weight cause the accident?If it ws exp GA regd would it not have occurred?

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.

Thanks for the replies.Wasn't drag I was referring to, loss of lift as the airflow under the wing is disturbed and reduced.

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/

Hi Ben, my last 100 hourly / annual for an O320 powered RV9a was $1700. This was a big one as the transponder, ASI, and Altimiter all had to be sent off for bench testing and calibration. Fuel gauge calibration was also required this time. My normal annual is around $1000.0o or a little less.Mike

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

I get a little disturbed by your remarks as it infers RAA do not understand anything, your RAA pilot certificate allows you to fly a plane up to 600kg MTOW and 2 POB, day VFR and no aerobatics, and remain in class G airspace, very simple now everything else can be found here, this makes it easy, enjoy. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg-whole.pdf.

If the conatiner is found to be empty when the aircraft lands, and the pilot states he was carrying it for a friend so that friend could fill it for his own aircraft at the destination, then the jerrycan becomes a standard plastic container? When I transport fuel to the airport in a motor fuel approved container and refuell my aircraft on the airside of the gates, am I using an illegal container to carry aviation usage fuel? (even though it is mogas? Am I legally allowed to refuel the aircraft from this container, and if so, is it then deemed to be a legal container so I can carry it in the aircraft (there is no firewall or barrier between me and the fuel tanks in the aircraft..they are exposed behind the seats and I can reach them if I turn around, so what is the definition of a "cockpit" and "fuel tanks isolated from the passenger area?".)

I've been reading up on rotax 912uls service and the manual say (apart from the normal maint requirements) the the engine needs a total overhaul at ten years. Anyone know if that's right as the both aircraft I'm looking at are coming up to that age.

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.

If someone tried to charge me $250/hr for uiltralight flight lessons, I would run so fast in the opposite direction grass would burn. Blatant 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.

A bad one or more cost efficient one?Or someone who is more interested in one achieving there dream as opposed to one who is lining there own pocket

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

For RAAus, my understanding is that for 24 reg aircraft, an L2 needs to sign off the annuals, but for 19 reg, an L1 can. However, I stand to be corrected there.rgmwa