Geoff_H

I had the windmill stop in my Mooney. I was getting underneath the northern steps of the Melbourne CTA after an 8 hour flight from Kalgoorlie that involved rain, a reroute and other stresses. I was at 800 feet above ground. First instinct was to use my Aspen to turn the craft into the wind, then I picked a yellow field that is etched in my mind, it was short and I was going to go into the fence. Rather than do preliminary checks I decided to use my height to get a call out before I was too low to communicate. Got the Mayday out then ignored the controller asking all sorts of questions. I had maps all over the instrument panel, trying to keep out of trouble for accidentally entering the outer edges of the CATS without a clearance, had got into trouble before. With the maps gone the left tank low light was staring me in the face. I changed to the right tank and the Engine roared into life. Radio call to CTA then an uneventful flight from there on in. Had to fill in a report for the Mayday call, but I still think I did the right thing at that height. What do others think?

That is so cruel:cheezy grin:sometimes I think that an aircraft cannot fly unless we have CASA:no no no:

Unfortunately my design breaches several conditions of 19. Reading t to CASA documents my wing loading is twice that allowed, also I want to eventually do aerobatics.

Max AUW in 250kg and I did not know that I could have more than one Engine and be RAA. I must get my RAA licence, I only have aGA licence. You have made my day.

Similar in the Engines, but fibreglass, tricycle, low removable wings for trailering, probably using aircraft wheels, hydraulic brakes. Bears more relationship to a Cri Cri. Max speed something over 100kts if weight is as planned. Extensive use of 3d printed nylon. Flaps may end up being nylon printed, slightly heavier than aluminium or fibreglass. Very minimal welding, exhaust and similar parts. It is taking forever, many parts are made a few times before the manufacturing technique produces an acceptable part. I have only manufacturing AutoCAD drawings at present, not side vied or anything like that. At present I am working on moulded wing spars.

I actually have a company. Used it for over 20 years. Wife is also a director, my account tells me that that makes our home open to loss from litigation. I don't really know but it is reported to be owing to how directors are personally liable.

Thanks. I didn't know that. I wish that I could get my little 2 Engine design into RAA. Engines only 15hp each.

In fact I would be pleased to do whatever I could to assist in the development of an Australian product of any form, but any aircraft in particular. I would not want to be paid, I am comfortable enough. Can anyone suggest a possible way. A friend told me to make two companies to restrict liability, I don't know if this works. I would also like to give away my aircraft design that I am building, it's goal is to be in the air for around $10k, on target at present. Any lawyers among us?

From another thread the discussion turned to legal liability. I am just curious, does anyone that has a 19 registration have insurance for third party damage?

I hope that you guys are right. My legal advice a few years ago does not agree. I think that a serious loss owing to a failure of some items is different to product liability or dangerous pastimes. Maybe a 19 series aircraft has never been in a litigation, but crash into a shopping centre and set it alight then I would expect that the shopping centre owner, or his insurance company, is not going to accept a sorry as compensation.

Let's say that a wing became disconnected owing to a calculation error. The lawyers will go after the designer, the manufacturer and the sales organisations. Well only the ones with money.

In the past CASA (NTSB?) Have done the engineering to determine the cause of failure, especially when a death is involved. The lawyers just have to prosecute, engineering investigation is free! Yes it is worst case, but it can happy. I would love to assist, its my professional career and my hobby, but the risk is s problem for me.

Before people were mentioning that the design of various aircraft was too heavy. The problem is that often the design of the wings looks only at the main spar. In reality often the wing skin adds to the strength and the main spar can be reduced in size and weight. To design a spar takes minutes using my program, but to add in the added strength of the skin requires a finite element analysis. This is slow and expensive. Most people opt for the simple design, and add some weight. I am doing this with my design.

My total net worth is over $4m. Lawyers would come after it all. Well worth it for them. I am retired, I don't want to live in poverty, I also want to continue to fly, an expensive hobby.

No documentation is the only way. All data told verbally. The Jandakot issue was a small part failure, nothing to do with anything else.

Yes it certainly would. I have involved with PI over the years and no broker has ever offered PI for a job. I usually get the company wanting my skills to get coverage from their PI insurer to cover me. It worked well.

The engineers PI company settled out of court to the deceased relatives is what I was tolf

Sorry I thought that you were referring to aircraft in general.

What about the fuel pump parts that caused the Jandakot crash? Fairly recent too. But also who wants to be the first. PI is a real problem for all engineers that consult.

Tend to disagree. A single seat canard would be able to achieve 200mph on 130hp. That is if designed aeodynamically! The Mooney 201 is a four seat metal aircraft that is designed very well, it gets 200mph on 200hp. With fibreglass much more aerodynamic designs are possible. Must be constant speed prop and retractable.

A divorce lawyer charges $700/hr, no promises, an engineering consultant charges around half this and must promise success or get sued by the guys that charge $700/ hr. Lawyers are the ones that have screwed it up for all of us. I love designing aircraft, doing my own aircraft at present, but it is too risky to do it for others. I cannot even sell the design of my aircraft.

Often a sale is made as building errors occurred in the early stages of construction. Now everything needs to be modified to allow for the error. So much time now involved that the person gets disillusioned at the work involved and passes the project on, hoping to get their money back. Suggest that you spend a day or two and go over any purchase possibility with a tape and level and look for modified parts. Worth it if it just that the previous builder has lost his medical, which is probably the most common reason given.

I see the problem with getting a retired professional engineer to do the design work is professional indemnity insurance. The insurance only covers claims made from the year in which the engineering error was discovered. Claims can be made up until 7 years after the design was made, i.e.design now fault found 7 years then you are only covered if you have cover in that 7th year. At around $7k to 10k per year it means that it would cost me at least $50k to do such a job. Not worth it, and the liability cannot be off loaded by an agreement not to litigate, someone's family could litigate if you are dead. I suggest that you go to a consultant company, they will have PI and someone to check calculations.

The ASIC card is nothing much more than a money making system. I had to get a Port ASIC to work on a plant on Sydney Warfs. As I already had a security clearance from the aviation ASIC I was able to get a Port ASIC with the same expiry date as the aviation one, is no additional security clearance required. I forget the exact numbers but I got a discount of around$20 in $200. So the security clearance is worth$20 to them? I have no idea but it seems that the cost is phone along with most other costs in aviation.

There is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers! With that I will prove my stupidity. A long exhaust will have more internal and external drag! The internal will reduce HP except where it is done to tune an exhaust to increase cylinder clearing rates. Most noise comes from the propeller so I would expect only slight decrease in noise with a weighty, loss producing system. I actually liked the Vxx engines with each exhaust port just ducted individually outside the cabin. The guy that designed the Cozy IV (taken from a LongEze by Rutan) recommends that you only add to an aircraft anything that when you throw it in the air it stays up. Bit extreme maybe. Saying that my little two strokes are getting tuned exhausts, but for power reasons.