Mike Borgelt

Relax. That was understated humour. OF COURSE I'd fly around an active MOA if the activity was at an altitude where it would be a problem. That's one of the differences between Australia and the US. They actually let pilots make decisions. As I said everything not compulsory is banned in Australia

Yes Graham, I sell avionics - the varios I design and manufacture, the EW Avionics Flight recorder for gliders and also National parachutes. I used to sell Filser and Terra radios back in the 1980s. I DO NOT sell radios or transponders and have no plans to do so. See here: www.borgeltinstruments.com . About 10 years ago I had a chance to manufacture or sell Flarm units in Australia but I didn't want to do that for several reasons and I'm glad I didn't. So everyone here can go to my website and see what it is we sell which puts the lie to your nasty little implication that I have a vested interest in pushing transponders. In fact if a glider pilot buys a transponder he's spending money he might have spent on a new vario so it really isn't in my interest to push transponders. So Graham, thanks for running off at the mouth and damaging your credibility. Everyone here can now make their own judgement. I was also clearly talking about the rules that prevail in the USA where transponders are not mandatory in the Class E for VFR below 10,000 feet and aircraft without generating systems and gliders are exempt even from that requirement. I sure Dick Smith would love to simply import the USA ATC system in toto. This was the aim back in 2003/4 when we got Class E airspace for the first time and the BEGINNINGS of a transition to the US system. The transponders in Class E for VFR was part of the transition as the Class E was mostly at 8500 feet or above. The intent was to eliminate this at the lower levels as Class E became more extensive. Well we all know what happened. Everybody and his dog complained, except those who had actually flown in the US. Some VFR pilots complained that they weren't REQUIRED to listen on a specific frequency (you were meant to listen on nearby CTAF frequencies to build up a picture of what was happening or on the Centre Freq if you thought it would be better, useful in the Brisbane Valley when going to or from the coast- way more useful than listening to the blather by Singapore, Emirates and Qantas about what is happening above 25000 feet). Making a reasoned decision was beyond some people it seems so they demanded it be made for them. Some IFR types complained that us VFR guys wouldn't immediately spring into action and declare a conflict when an IFR guy made his descent call into a country CTAF on the area frequency. There was of course nothing stopping him from then making the call on the CTAF as he descended below 10,000 feet. Our wonderful scale model armed forces claimed that much of the vast military controlled airspace would become Military Operating Areas US style where you can fly through VFR. They lied. There's a frequency to call to find out what is going on. Mostly nothing or maybe air to air refueling above 20,000 feet. If it is air to ground with rockets, bombs or cannon you might decide that flying around is a better deal. IT ISN"T a clearance if you decide to fly through. Funny how all this works with vastly more aircraft and airports. The only reason the current Australian system works is because the traffic is sparse. There simply aren't enough cubic miles of air to accommodate the Australian system in the US. Nobody should feel less worried about traffic avoidance when in controlled airspace. The system is designed to maintain constant risk in the various airspace classifications and in any case there have been many ATC arranged collisions. Anyway, within a month of the new rules being introduced the air traffic controller trade union had organised two "serious incidents" which weren't and after only 12 months an inept and gutless Minister reverted to the old system. We will eventually pay the price for this in money and lives.

It is always depressing to read Australian aviation websites like this. So many parading their wilful ignorance for the world to see for eternity (the Internet never forgets) and insulting people who have done more for Australian pilots than they themselves will ever do. Aldo, the reason the FSO system was done away with was that we couldn't afford it. General revenue wasn't going to support it and the cost impost would kill private flying. Too bad about the FSOs losing their jobs. My heart bleeds. I could get all choked up and there may even be tears. /sarc off For the other people out there, the USA doesn't have radar everywhere but Class E airspace means that WHEN IN IMC the IFR guys get separation from each other. There aren't any VFR bugsmashers in IMC, by definition. When in VMC even though you may have filed IFR you are required to maintain a lookout but will get advisories about VFR traffic and separation from other IFR. You also don't need a transponder in Class E if you are VFR in the USA unless above 10000 feet AMSL or under Class B in the lower levels. Note most of the Class B and Class C in the US only goes out to 30nm from the airport in the US. Have a look at the Sacramento sectional http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSMF/sectional Note also the lack of any control zone around Travis AFB (it is in an "Alert" area like our Danger areas). Look up Fort Rucker Alabama for extra points (US Army Aviation Headquarters and main training facility). I did this some months ago. Class D to 2500 feet above surface (you can fly OVER it)and 5nm radius. The instrument approach to the NW is protected by Class E from the ground up but you can putter through there in your J-3 Cub without a transponder. Having said that, I'd fit one as many US glider pilots have done even though for them it isn't compulsory (no engine driven generator). Dick Smith is arguing THAT WHERE THERE IS RADAR COVERAGE there should be Class E so that the IFR traffic receives the actual benefit of existing infrastructure. Pretty simple really. I've flown in the US a few times in gliders and powered aircraft. What a wonderful , friendly experience compared to Australia. The other difference is that we have far fewer airports and much less aviation which really ought to mean fewer rules and restrictions. Here, though, everything not mandatory is banned. How wonderful. It is also obvious that the reason that it is like that here is that Australian pilots want it that way (see any Australian aviation forum when somebody suggests relaxing some rule). Too timid and unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions. They want heaps of rules so that when they screw up they can cry "but I followed all the rules!" instead of making good, safe decisions appropriate to the circumstances. Pathetic really.

The reason Australia has over regulation is simple : the people being regulated like it that way. If CASA were to completely abolish all CASA requirements on recreational aviation tomorrow the screams would be heard in London and the loudest would come from the GFA, SAAA, RAAus etc.(think of all those people getting their jollies from writing and administering rules) Followed by a good proportion of their memberships. Why do people like over regulation? Also simple. They don't have to think and can blame someone else if things go wrong "it wasn't my fault, I followed all the rules". The not having to think bit is the problem. The main rules that really need to be known in aviation are Newtonian gravitation and the same gentleman's Third Law of Motion. I also like the ones in Steven Coonts's "The Cannibal Queen". "never fly into anything you can't see through" and "the airplane holds 3 hours fuel - I land after 2 hours". BTW " The Cannibal Queen" is recommended reading.

They are building the first two demonstrators now. Use existing production glider wings and canopy (different gliders). Yes it is designed as a self launcher. No the fin won't melt. No the batteries won't be too heavy, neither will the electric motor. Jets actually produce maximum thrust at zero forward speed. Just like a prop but the thrust drops off with spped much more slowly. This is a function of the exhaust velocity of the prop or jet relative to forward speed of the aircraft.

See here: http://www.proairsport.com/ Nice little self launch glider with jet engine, electric taxiing.

Very eloquent exposition, Jim. Can you imagine the outcry if all holders of driver's licences were required to belong to an automobile association? The "parallel path" was a CASA construct which they never intended to exist. It was a mere legal fig leaf to conceal arguably collusive behaviour between CASA and certain Sport aviation bodies. In fact after 2009, when the previous CASA CEO took the reigns, it ceased to exist. There was at the time a "parallel path" gliding operation in South Australia which had been CASA inspected, approved etc which was shut down. Who benefits from this? As I said on the SAAA GM thread, what happens in the future if one of these recreational aviation orgs goes broke or ceases operation for some reason? It has been stated that the activity will cease until another organisation takes over? How long can that take (including CASA approval)? We now have the situation of SAAA becoming a SASAO. Why? The aircraft are VH registered, the pilots have CASA RPL, PPL or higher. The leadership wants to force Experimental homebuilt operators to belong. Why? This from an organisation so incompetent that it let itself get diddled out of $185,000, or so I've heard. I wonder how much of that can be recovered? I'd rather not belong to a circus like that. At present there are people outside the SAAA who can issue the Airworthiness certificate for your home built. What is the problem with continuing this way? The SAAA has also presided over a significant roll back of the conditions under which a homebuilt can be operated (a result of some internal machinations re existing 101.28 aircraft owners wanting Experimental conditions without simply being told to put the aircraft into Experimental). Are they really operating in the interests of the members? Or is it that a few misguided people running the organisation think that what benefits the organisation automatically benefits the activity and the members?

Fair enough, but would you mind pointing what I said was actually wrong? As far as I know what I said is factually correct about MPC and weighing. I haven't imputed any motives. When it comes to maintenance the registered operator is the responsible person to make sure required maintenance and inspections are done by qualified people. Applies to homebuilts operated by non builders or any standard category aircraft. I don't believe that weakening any of the Experimental freedoms by rolling over to CASA without a fight is good policy. There has been altogether far too much of that in Australian aviation generally as well as in sport aviation. It is part of the reason why sport aviation administration is such a shambles and very expensive for anyone who may want to participate in two or more of the branches at any one time. Yes everyone should comply with the law regarding any particular activity but what the law exactly is is a matter for debate and change if necessary. If you want to see what compulsory membership has done look no further than the GFA. Half the size it was 30 years ago and the population of the country has increased by more than 50% in that time. They also have a looming demographic abyss as the average age is about 60 and rising (probably not much different from the rest of sport aviation). Give it maybe 10 years and they won't have the membership base to sustain a Part 149 organisation. (I still don't have an answer why that is a good idea either). I heard the other day that one of the RAAus blokes who flys his Jab out of the strip I use is going to sell and give up. Still likes aviation but all too hard. First the registration issue, then the engine thing. I suspect he won't be the only one.

So a bloke has to get some considerable amount of money together, spend it on aircraft parts, spend a LOT of time putting something together that he knows he will put his body into and depart the ground , get it inspected and be assigned a flight test area where risk to innocent third parties is minimised, be appropriately licenced to fly it and somehow the body he belongs to has to kowtow to CASA to demonstrate that amateurs can be responsible people? I always though all of us were required to comply with the law on all things, not just aviation and it is up to all of us to know the relevant legal requirements for what we want to do. Anyway thanks for pointing out why Australian sport aviation is such a mess and why I don't want to belong to organisations like SAAA.

Very nice but that doesn't explain why SAAA didn't go to the Minister with a new version of the appropriate reg that exempted amateur built Experimental. By the time somebody has completed an aircraft I presume they can read and interpret the sometimes less than dead clear instructions with the kit or figured out how to do a scratch or plans built. I think they might be able to interpret CASA's legal and procedural requirements about homebuilt maintenance too by reading the appropriate documents. We are expected to interpret the rest of CASA's bs without doing a course on each part. As for the weight and balance, using your logic, it wouldn't be unreasonable for CASA to require builders to do a complete LAME course before building the aircraft either. And none of this explains why a system that has worked well in the USA for 60 years and which our Amateur built Experimental was directly modeled on (the language was damn near identical) should have more stringent requirements in Australia than in the US. The Parliamentary intent back after the 1996 Federal election was a "US style Experimental category". I've seen no explicit decision from parliament to do otherwise just incompetence by CASA in failing to provide the appropriate exemptions and FAILING TO MAKE THEM PERMANENT. Best to put the required exemptions actually in the regs, not as other legislative instruments that expire. If the SAAA can't even do some elementary political lobbying what good is it? Law and regulations are made by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament. When SAAA got Experimental in 1998 CASA was stuffing about deciding on the form. Eventually the SAAA leadership got tired of waiting, had the American regs dressed up in Australian Parliamentary language, put them in front of the Minister who said OK and tabled them in Parliament. After 15 sitting days with no objections they went to the GG and became law. These are the sorts of things that go through Parliament as routine procedural matters unless somebody in the Senate objects. Given that none of the Senators actually know anything about aviation except for the odd one who is a pilot from time to time these things just slide through. It happens all the time with other non aviation regulation as mistakes, anomalies and omissions are detected and amended.

Can somebody please tell me why the sports aviation organisations should become Part 149 orgs? At present CASA can delegate powers to individuals who may or may not work for organisations (they may be protected by company structures). This has the advantage that there may be some competition in the market. What is gained by part 149 approval? As I see it the problem is that the Part 149 organisation, being a private body, can go bankrupt and I know that in the case of GFA it has been stated that if the organisation ceases to exist GLIDING WILL CEASE until another organisation is formed or puts its hand up. If Part 149 is necessary at all I think there should be ONE Australian Sports Aviation Part 149 body to provide the administration services on a NON EXCLUSIVE basis with other individual delegates able to provide these services also. The various bodies can then get on with promoting their particular activity and educating on how to do it better and safer. We've already seen the collective punishment dealt to RAAus members over the registration issue. Through no fault of the individual aircraft owners they were grounded by alleged incompetence by RAAus admin. Now the Jab engine fiasco. I note that in the US the FAA has long wanted EAA to become a Part 149 organisation but the EAA won't have a bar of it. They say it would change the relationship between the org and members from a mutual interest self help basis to a regulator/ regulated and they don't want that. Smart people those Americans. As this was an SAAA topic, can someone also tell me what the heck has happened to that organisation ( what did happen to their last GM?)? After SAAA fighting for decades to get a US style Experimental category this was finally achieved in 1998. In the last few years there seems to have been a tremendous amount of backsliding and I note their website no longer says " Home of Australian Experimental". US style Experimental means anyone can work on the aircraft but it must be inspected by a LAME once every 12 months (not necessarily in an approved workshop and the A&P (US designation) does not need the IA (inspection Authorisation) necessary to sign out an annual or 100 hourly on a Certified standard category aircraft UNLESS you are the builder of record, in which case you can sign it out every year yourself. This has workd well for 60 years in the US. I guess Americans are smarter than Australians. Under SAAA you now need to do their "Maintenance Procedures Course" (SAAA holds a monopoly on this) at significant expense and from talking with those who have done it it has nothing to do with detecting wear, fatigue and corrosion but is only about paperwork. I suggest this can be done by reading an online web page or downloading a pdf. In addition there is now a problem with weighing aircraft. You can rivet the mainspar yourself but you can't weigh the aircraft. So now the SAAA, once again, instead of putting forward a new version of the problematical new re- written regulation that says: x) The above applies EXCEPT for Amateur built Experimental aircraft which are exempt from the provisions of this regulation. the SAAA wants its own weighing course at of course significant expense. Again it isn't that hard to lay out the procedure and unlike the mainspar case, it is easily checkable in future. We'll be back to the old 101.28 before we know it. I note the SAAA submission to the Forsyth report wanted CASA to make it compulsory to join SAAA to operate an amateur built aircraft. I cannot see why. I didn't build mine, I have a LAME inspect it each year and I have a PPL. What the heck do I need SAAA for? They don't seem to be working towards a method by which I can sign the aircraft out each year, or even legally work on it (I did do a complete refurbish under LAME inspections 7 years ago - I've seen fast build kits that were more complete than what I had after strip down) although I've held a glider annual inspector rating since 1974 and a motor glider inspector rating since 1992. If they had this goal I might be persuaded to join. I enquired once and got a very suspicious person in Brisbane who demanded to know who I was and why I had called and wanted to join SAAA. I lost interest at that point.

Seems to me rhysmcc is an Air Traffic Controller. Mate, in Oz you need a transponder in Class E even when flying VFR. If there is nearby Class C there is radar and the controller sees the VFR traffic and can vector the IFR around it or at very least warn it about the VFR traffic. This seems to work fine in the USA (been there, done that). There are obscenely vast volumes of C, D and Restricted airspace in Oz. Compare to USA. Go online and check the Sacramento sectional chart and then the Fort Rucker, Alabama sectional. Fort Rucker is the home of US Army Aviation and Travis AFB is on the Sacramento sectional. Take a look at the controlled airspace around Travis and get back to us with what you find, mate.

If I Remember Correctly IIRC That motivated me to do a Google search. http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php A bunch I'd never heard of there. :-)

Correct. We're a meeting place for Toowoomba members of EAA. We've been going since 1996 IIRC.

Anyone in the Toowoomba area who is interested is invited to join EAA Chapter 1308. We're affiliated with the parent body in the US. Individual members don't need to be unless you want to be an office holder. We have an evening get together about every two months and organise fly in breakfasts and visits to people's projects. There's quite an amount of expertise amongst our members. Some fly RAAus, some GA, some are building VH experimentals and some fly Experimentals they didn't build. We'd like a few more new keen members. Contact: Carol Borgelt, Chapter Secretary [email protected] 0746355784

Distributed electric power for vertical flight is the key. Overcomes the one engine failure case. Batteries need not be huge. I've got a few sketches and a preliminary weight estimate for a two seater of 600 Kg. There are quite a few companies working on this idea with varying size aircraft. (some very large aircraft) Basically you need 10 times the power for vertical flight than you do for horizontal wing borne flight. Nothing beats petrol or diesel for range in horizontal flight. The electric motors are merely power for high lift devices for takeoff and landing :-)

Just did the trip both ways in our BD-4. 36 hours flying round trip. Did my 1000th power hour on the trip (another 2700 in gliders and motorgliders). The J400 will take a little longer so count on around 22 to 24 hours flying. What's the deal on getting to Perth?

Unless it is a CPL or ATPL medical and you have no other indications, an ECG (stress or otherwise) isn't required for a Class 2 (PPL) medical unless you fly aerobatics. Or at least that was the situation last time I asked. How about a new thread on this topic, mods? Our US friends are mounting a campaign to get rid of their Class 3 (PPL) medical for the majority of private pilots who fly the lower performance aircraft. From what I've seen there is absolutely NO evidence that the accident rate is lowered by having the medical exam and some evidence that it actually raises the risk (I've got a medical, I MUST be OK to fly today, even though I don't feel so good).

Bruce wrote: "Ryan, this topic is worth a thread of its own. My opinion is that it would be a disgraceful thing to deny a license to anybody with a condition like yours. The only sane prohibition should be for conditions which would cause a sudden ( less than a flight time) loss of capacity." Even that is somewhat ridiculous. We don't prevent people from going to Nepal to climb Mount Everest a provably dangerous activity. The PPL medical should be the same as the RAAus one - a valid State car drivers' licence. Your probability of damaging an innocent third party due to sudden incapacitation is vastly greater in a car than in a small aircraft. Passengers can take their chances as they do in RAAus. The weight of the aircraft isn't going to change the outcome for the passenger(s). *Maybe* there is a case for only one passenger and a warning placard for passengers along the lines of " if you can't land this thing, think carefully before leaving the ground in it". In any case the honest DAMEs will tell you that just because they just passed you on a PPL medical, that you won't drop dead before getting to the reception desk on the way out.

Pathetic piece of rah, rah Brit propaganda. Pabst von Ohain built the jet engine that flew in the first jet powered aircraft theHeinkel 178 in August 1939. Not to diminish Frank Whittle's achievements but the Gloster aircraft didn't fly until 18 months or so afterwards and the Me 262 was used in combat by the Germans in operational units in 1944 and 45. The Korean War bit didn't even mention the F-86 which neutralised the Mig 15 threat to UN fighter bombers. The Meteor wasn't a match for the Mig. As for the U-2 bit, US pilots were flying it over Russia along with the Brits. I've met and talked to Pat Halloran the American interviewed about that. He also flew the SR71. The bit about the Brit pilots not talking about the missions is also bullshit as one of them is retired in Toowoomba and at public meeting in Toowoomba in about 2010 with the author of a couple of books on the U-2 he public ally identified himself in the audience and quite a few of us had an interesting hour with him after the author 's talk. Sorry, some nice video of some early Brit jets but as became obvious later, the Brits were deluded about their progress in the early 50's.

The problem with the Flycatcher was the 222 Kg disposable load. Couple of large people and a few bags and there is no fuel. Needed 650 -700 Kg Gross. Yep, I don't like arbitrary weight limits either. This was a problem on an RV6 I helped test quite a while ago. It had 221 Kg disposable. Was a nice legal single seater with full tanks and they were the normal ones, not the extra tip tanks. It wasn't particularly loaded with gear either. O-360 CS prop and nice VFR instruments.

Well, I'd be a little more paranoid about it anyway. Two burst top hoses, one bad water pump seal, one radiator cap failure, one hose slipped off fitting. Was an HR Holden and I used to check these things. The hose slipped off fitting one was specifically checked before the trip. I could have failed to check the hose clamp was tight enough but that is a maintenance error that could occur on an aircraft installation too. I really was trying to make the thing reliable as it was my retrieve system when I was competing in sailplanes. Didn't ever want to spend the night in the cockpit while my wife was trying to get the car repaired. (I've landed out lots - 62 times and that's just in farmers' fields, not other aerodromes/strips.) There is a reason why most aircraft engines are direct drive, air cooled. Less to go wrong but you do have to do the installation correctly and test it.

You guys may want to consider that car engines run at 15 to 30% of rated full power a lot of the time. They are also fully liquid cooled so don't suffer the temperature variations that an air cooled motor does. I've had several cooling system failures in cars (burst hoses, one where the hose slipped off the heater join - that one 100km east of Norseman WA with glider trailer in tow - only reason I picked it was I had a manifold pressure gauge and was needing more MP to maintain speed on level road) that would have been forced landings in an aircraft. Interesting that Cessna had a Rotax 912S in the prototype 162 and changed to an O-200D Continental for production. I don't have a dog in this hunt (except that CAMIT make parts for our variometers and I'd hate for them to go out of business) as my aircraft has a Lycoming O-320 A2B (the Super Cub engine) but I've flown behind every model jab engine including the original 1600 (in a VH registered jab owned by RACWA) and the 8 cylinder in a RV7A. Must say that they all seemed very smooth. The RV7A later had a through bolt failure though. I wasn't in it. Partial power loss. FWIW.

Seeing as we're in the same town, give us a call and you can come around and see it. Search for Borgelt Instruments on the web and you'll find the phone number. Be warned Carol may try to sign you up as a member of Chapter 1308 of the EAA. We're the only one in Australia as far as I know and are officially affiliated with the parent organisation in Oshkosh.

Dafydd Llewellyn and Gary Morgan are right. Gliding in Australia is facing a demographic cliff. You only need to visit a gliding club to see why. The fracturing of sport aviation in Australia is one possible reason for this. Take a look at the numerous different bodies, different airworthiness requirements, pilot requirements etc. In my opinion flying training for gliding should be done in small powered aircraft. If the instructor is a glider pilot he or she can slant some of the training towards the thinking required by glider pilots. Once you can actually fly reasonably well, going gliding then only requires a conversion course. Gliders are hopeless on the ground and generating any significant sortie rate involves a lot of work and people. Motorgliders aren't required until later in training and are generally more expensive (capital costs). Of course the above mentioned fracturing prevents this. I sometimes think the CASA guys must roll around the floor laughing on Friday nights at the pub after a few drinks, at what the various sport aviation bodies have done to themselves with only minor "assistance" from CASA. The pity is that there was a proposal (CASA discussion paper) back in 2002 to have an RPL with a driver's licence medical (from what I gathered it was an RAAus type medical not the fraudulent current CASA DLM which has EXACTLY the same medical standard as a Class 2 medical). You could get endorsements for various types of aircraft, gliders, rotorcraft etc. Unfortunately this didn't get very far before Messrs Hall and Meertens from the GFA and Middleton from RAAus met with the Minister and demanded that the proposal be killed as far as RAAus and GFA were concerned. This was despite the option to be available for the members of those organisations to continue as before if they so wished. How clever of them. I don't generally have a lot of time for CASA or the people who are employed there but in this case the poor guys at CASA must have been beating their heads against the wall in frustration. Institute an RPL for all glider and recreational aircraft pilots. Medical standard either RAAus or the gliding self certification one (effectively the same). Shove the aircraft registration/ airworthiness admin back at CASA or to a business set up to do this (CASA requires it to be dome to THEIR standards anyway) and the GFA and RAAus can get back to lobbying the pollies, promoting their activities and education on how to do it better safer etc. I think everyone would benefit but this would be fought tooth and nail by GFA and RAAus as the former particularly has long ago lost sight of what it exists for. Nowadays it exists to promote its own continued existence. The ultimate "self licking ice cream cone".