walrus

Jack, put your mind at rest, you can't get pinged by Bristell. The Directors of the company that is RAA could perhaps be sued, but all that is available to Bristell if they won are the assets of the company and its Directors and perhaps a D & O  insurance policy if RAA has one.  Clause 60 and 61 of the Constitution covers the matter.

Bristell may also want to consider if they want to perhaps alienate future RAA pilots wanting Bristell products.

There is very little point in Bristell suing RAA in my opinion because even if Bristel won a judgement, there is unlikely to be any money in it. The members are not liable beyond losing the subscription money they paid. I assume RAA has a D & O (Directors and Officers) policy, but I would be surprised if money from that was available to a Bristel lawsuit.

Gadfly, thank you for posting the carburettor video. The high speed photography is fantastic and it is really educational. 

‘While carbs can be more sophisticated, as people pointed out, the basic principles remain the same and illustrate the limits of the efficiency of carbureted engines.

32 minutes ago, JG3 said:

I wonder how many plans that were purchased never end up as a completed aircraft??

 

I would guess the answer is "a lot". There must be many gathering dust along with a few rivetted assemblies where the intending builder has either given up, passed away or had a change of circumstance. I've seen one or two over the years. Sometimes these abandoned projects come to life again. I am aware of one near me where a widow gave away a thirteen year old kit for an RV (?) something to an acquaintance who is now finishing it. He  has already built and flown his own aircraft  so he knows what he is  getting into with the second one.

Milawa is fine at the moment. You need to get permission from Brown Brothers wines. See their website.

Marty, of course you aren’t a thief if you have paid for the plans. You can do with them what you like and give them to whoever you want. 

However intellectual property law is perfectly clear. Yes, you can copy the 701 design but if you do it, you can’t call the resulting aircraft a 701. A 701 has a factory registered serial number. You could call it a CH701 replica or suchlike but it isn’t genuine without its own factory serial number.

‘’To put it another way, the recipe for red wine has been known for hundreds of years, but try making your own and labelling it “Penfold Grange” and see what happens to you if you try to sell it. It’s OK to drink it at home as “Penfold Grange” but not to pass it off in public as the genuine article. Yes, people even try. 

‘’I’ve seen this happen with yachts - quite expensive ones, copied from xeroxed plans. As soon as it becomes public that the boat is a rip off of someone else’s design, no matter how good a copy, it’s immediately an orphan - no insurance and it’s worthless. I have seen this happen with my own eyes. A guy bought a yacht that he was told was an “XYZ 35”. He had a few problems and changes he wanted to fix, he called the designer and they had no record of the craft construction. They cut him loose on the spot. He couldn’t get insurance, couldn’t keep it in a marina and the last I saw was when it was stripped and the hull burnt.

‘’To put it another way, if you build from xeroxed plans, the result is no different in law from a fake Louis Vuitton handbag and if the owner of the IP objects, it could be seized. As far as airworthiness, AD’s etc. are concerned, the owner is on their own legally because the designer has absolutely no duty of care to them whatsoever.

I kid you not about  Ferraris, Lamborghinis and other exoticars. There is a huge industry in building fakes. If you want to buy a second hand one you need to check with the factory to ensure it’s history matches what you’ve been told and you need to have the original service books.

‘Copyright lasts for at least 15 years after the death of the designer.

I thought the 650 and CH750 had the same firewall.  The Jabiru mount for the 750 should work for the 650. Jabiru USA or Zenith should have the details.

You are right. If the plans haven’t been used to build an aircraft, you are free to do what you like. The new owner of the plans simply has to tell Zenith and register herself with Zenith as the new owner/builder of that serial number. Zenith ask for the serial when you buy bits from them or seek support. 

ONE set of plans gives you the right to ONE serial number and the right to construct ONE aircraft.

I am going out on a limb about this....... The purchase of a set of plans entitles you to a serial number and the right to construct one aircraft as defined by the plans as well as product support and the right to purchase components from the company that designed the aircraft and sold the plans. It also entitles you to define the aircraft you construct as a "Zenith CH701".

If you do not pay for your individual set of plans and instead copy a set already used by another person to construct a serialised CH701, and use them to construct an unserialised CH701 then two things will happen:

1. You will be a thief, a felon. You have taken someone's intellectual property without payment. it is no different from copying and selling videos and it does not matter if it is used to manufacture one aircraft or a thousand. You will be a thief.

2. The aircraft you produce is a bastard. it is NOT a CH701. it is NOT entitled to product support. it is NOT entitled to be registered by RAA, SAAA or CASA. Any subsequent purchaser who does due diligence won't touch it and furthermore, you won't get insurance, or if you do get a policy, it will be voided by the insurer if you try to claim.

I have personally seen this happen with boats cars and aircraft - its why you can rebuild an aircraft from its fireproof stainless steel data plate or a Ferrari from its log books. Any smart purchaser will walk away from a bogus product and curse you for wasting their time.

The blueprints serial number and manuals cost USD 425. If you cant afford that amount, you have no business building an aircraft in the first place.

I assume you are saying this all in jest.

So are you going to scratch build without paying Zenith a cent?

I own two diesel land cruisers. I am quite happy to have an electric version in future provided two things are dealt with:

1. Range. I can currently travel melbourne - sydney without refueling, or Melbourne - broken hill, or broken hill - arkaroola, etc If I can’t have the same range, electric is no use to me.’

2. Charging time and available infrastructure. Exactly who is going to provide charging infrastructure in outback Australia and how are they going to do it? Think - ten to twenty camping caravanning or trailer rigs per day requiring 1500km + charges. - and that’s just for arkaroola or innamincka and suchlike.

………and suing RAA is a waste of time. Furthermore, members are not liable for any more than the balance of their current subscription. In any case, Bristell would have to prove that the alleged action was ordered and approved by the Board and was not the action of some wilful employee…..

’’

How much is in kitty anyway? Not enough to keep Bristells lawyers fed, it won’t happen.

The “Y” is the country designator.

CASA was just kidding. From AOPA:

Quote

OPINION: CASA BACKFLIP

REGULATOR REVOKES ADDITIONAL OPERATING LIMITATIONS

ON BRM AERO LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (BLSA)

AOPA Australia CEO, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion.

In a letter dated 21st June 2021, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has today announced the revocation of additional operating limitations placed on BRM Aero Light Sport Aircraft (BLSA), signalling a major victory for the aircraft manufacturer.

The CASA backflip comes almost a year after it imposed restrictions on the aircraft type, that were largely encouraged by what BRM Aero have vigorously claimed to be a defective and inappropriate flight test report from the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS).

Signed by Mr Robert Walker, Executive Manager of the Stakeholder Engagement Division of CASA;

“Upon consideration of your submission and other emergent facts and circumstances as set out below, I am writing to give you notice that pursuant to subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (AIA) and regulation 262APA of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR), I have decided in my capacity as delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to revoke the additional operational limitations previously imposed upon BLSA operating within Australia by notice dated 28th July 2020.”

But more importantly, it’s the following statement that is of significant interest to our industry;

“In making this decision, I am also reasonably satisfied that revocation of the additional operating limitations is not contrary to the interests of aviation safety.”

So, if there was no risk to aviation safety, it begs the question; why did CASA take the public action that they did? And, more importantly, who was motivating them to do this?

Aircraft manufacturers and regulators must be able to work with together constructively. When problems or concerns are identified, its incumbent for all to work in the best interests of safety in addressing problems.

Based on the documentation and correspondence shared with AOPA Australia, CASA appears to have taken an unnecessarily hostile approach with BRM Aero, largely fuelled by staff and representatives who held significant conflicts of interest, thus prejudicing the regulator from resolving the concerns in a productive manner. Or was that the intention all along?

During the course of this past year, AOPA Australia on behalf of BRM Aero aircraft owners reached out to CASA seeking an intervention, only for it to have fallen on deaf ears. The then Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Carmody, refused a meeting - CASA it seemed was uninterested in any other view or opinion other than its own.

A simple meeting, a coming together of cooler minds could have averted the senseless damage caused by CASA taking the action they did.

There is much to be learned from this sorry debacle and with proper independent review and guidance CASA could be the better for the experience - if it were open to genuine consultation and feedback from the industry and broader community. History shows this may be difficult for CASA.

Despite the above, its abundantly clear that CASA lacks appropriate oversight of its critical safety decision making and should be restrained from knee jerking to public outcomes. To do anything other continues to undermine external confidence and relationships with CASA, along with damaging the broader reputation of the aviation industry and CASA itself.

AOPA Australia recognises the need for a robust safety regulator, we must have a diligent and capable CASA for our industry to move forward. This must be achieved in partnership with the industry, trust and respect must be restored for aviation to progress.

It’s not lost on AOPA Australia that the revocation comes just weeks after the appointment of the new Director of Aviation Safety of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and we can only hope that this kind of positive direction continues for the sake of our industry’s future. With Ms Spence, we have a new and unique opportunity to work together and we need to embrace this.

For BRM Aero, they now have the task of rebuilding their brand and reputation – vindicated by today’s announcement, but with a damages bill that could likely run into the tens of millions worldwide. With major international law firms circling to represent BRM Aero, their distributorship network and aircraft owners worldwide, the RAAUS (who are alleged to have been responsible for creating this mess) are possibly beginning to sweat somewhat.

If the prospect of funding what could be a long, and extremely expensive legal battle is not frightening enough, then the sobering reality of a damages settlement to the tune of tens of millions might be.

For the broader aviation industry, this next phase of the BRM Aero saga is likely to have some significant consequences and ramifications for aircraft owners and pilots in the recreational space.

Should they be successful in suing the RAAUS for damages to their worldwide brand, network and product, RAAUS could be looking at a hefty payout, with insurers and potentially members left picking up the tab. Either way, this case may potentially open the door to others, with claims against the self-administration.

If the damages figure reaches high enough it could risk bankrupting the self-administration, which under the current regulatory framework, could leave thousands of pilots and aircraft owners unable to fly. The situation highlights how fragile and inadequate the current approach to self-administration truly is and why a parallel pathway must be returned to within the CASA regulated system as a priority and a must.

Flew yesterday doing scenics for the neighbours. I had five potential conflicts during 70 minutes flying. Four resolved by radio, one by ADSB - IN. Only one of the five confirmed visually.

……and this is at a “quiet” country airstrip!

The unalerted see and avoid, no radio crowd are just accidents waiting to happen because they don’t even know they have had a conflict.  

‘’You need the lot! ADSB, radio and a good scan.

DO NOT add moly or any other friction modifier to oil if your rotax has a slipper clutch. If you do, your clutch will probably start slipping and require replacement.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but rotax has a service letter on fluids.

Don’t use anything unless it’s approved by Rotax or you are now a test pilot. You have no idea what the effect of this cleaner will be. For example what if it “works” and liberates a mass of dirt and decayed contaminants into your fuel system - when you are at 6000ft over tiger country?

 Oil accounts for about 39% of australian energy consumption. Coal, gas and renewables the balance. (source: energy.gov.au).

‘’Let’s assume all of that oil is used in transport fuels and neglect the gas component. Now that figure is energy consumption, so efficiencies don’t come into it. Assume the balance coal and gas are used for electricity production. Renewables about 7%.

So you want to phase out liquid transport fuels - find 40% more electricity. Then distribute 40% more electricity.

‘’Want to use renewables - multiply current production by 6 times and distribute it.

Want to phase out coal and. gas - multiply renewables by eleven or twelve times - and distribute the electricity.

Quote

   17 hours ago,  Flying Binghi said:

Hmmm... what yer going to do when the GPS system gets turned off ?..🤔.

Damn good question - but one better directed at CASA - since they ae banking on GPS availability by allowing sole-means GNSS navigation for IFR in IMC with no backup! 

The USA, China, Russia, Europe, wouldn’t dare to turn off their GNSS systems without CASAs permission and your GNSS receiver isn’t allowed to fail for the same reason..

16 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yep, dogs need to be on a lead at the airfield. Are there some places which ban dogs even on leads? what possible reason could they have for this?

I have never taken the dog in the plane, but it sure loves the car and gets all excited at the prospect of a car trip. I think the dogs ( border collies around here) really understand how good cars are and how they cover ground fast and effortlessly.

You probably need a certified and approved lead. 😛

To Monitor: observe and check the progress or quality of (something) over a period of time; keep under systematic review.

And the regulation states that the radio must be " continuously monitored.

So you are required by my reading to maintain continuous situational awareness, that is why the word is "monitor" and not "listening watch".. Yes, you might miss a transmission but if it's the vital one you are in trouble if it changes the situation.

Since it is a strict liability offence, it doesn't matter if there was intent. So changing playlists on your phone is not an excuse.

This strikes me as a catch all provision for the next time there is a mid air or near miss.

My concern is that the next time f there is a separation incident involving RPT and a light aircraft, if there is a missed broadcast involved, then CASA will hang the light aircraft pilot out to dry.

In addition, if you listen to area (AS I do), you will frequently hear ATC trying to get in touch with non responsive aircraft. Each one of them is a potential prosecution under 91.640 IMHO.

But seriously, this means that in any interaction and perhaps conflict with another aircraft, for example an RPT arriving at a CTAF at the same time as yourself, and there is some sort of reported incident, you run the risk of being charged under 91.640 if it is alleged that you missed a radio call…..and it’s strict liability, it doesn’t matter why you missed the call.

The protection you have against such an allegation is to sing like a canary on area frequency and CTAF, if you think that there is another aircraft within a hundred miles. As in “Melbourne Center, xyz, were you calling me? No? Well I’m listening just in case”. Yet more frequency congestion as pilots automatically demonstrate they are on listening watch.

‘’Can’t you just here it “xyz, the active runway is now 18 not 36, weren’t you listening ?”

‘’In other words silence brings the possibility of a charge.

If you have a radio, and for some reason miss a call (it matters not why because it’s strict liability) you are potentially a felon and up for thousands of dollars in fines. The simplest solution? Remove radios. This is the new part 91 rules.

Quote

91.640 Use of radio outside controlled airspaces—listening watch of radio transmissions
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with, or carries, a radio; and
(b) the aircraft is flown by a pilot who is qualified, eligible or authorised to use the radio:
(i) for an Australian aircraft (other than a Part 103 aircraft or a Part 131 aircraft)—under Part 61 or 64; or
(ii) for a foreign registered aircraft—under a law of the aircraft's State of registry or the State of the operator; or
(iii) for a Part 103 aircraft—by a Part 103 ASAO; or
(iv) for a Part 131 aircraft—by a Part 131 pilot authorisation; and
(c) the aircraft is outside controlled airspace; and
(d) radio transmissions are not continuously monitored by:
(i) the pilot in command of the aircraft for the flight; or
(ii) another pilot who occupies a pilot seat during the flight.
(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

The A bomb and the Russians gave the Japanese Government peace faction the strength to overcome the “war to the last civilian” faction. In other words, the Bomb and the Russians gave the Japanese Government the excuse they needed to overcome the Bushido faction who wanted everyone to die fighting.