walrus

That could work but on reflection, I like a small screw now and then.

Quote

Do you have a ground lead to your body when you are flying ?   

 

I would recommend around 1100 mm of braid attached to your thigh with a small screw for each flight

I've tried an alligator clip to my  ear but it interferes with the headphones.

I don't know where this subject belongs, so I'll try here.

I have Bose noise cancelling headphones connected to a Dynon intercom. I have a fuel injected Rotax 9912 iS engine.

Whenever I touch the metal shaft of the throttle, I get ignition noise in my headphones. Otherwise there is no noise from strobes, lights, etc. As far as I can tell everything is grounded as it  should be What is going on?

Pity the rest of AUstralia - whose taxes pay for the RAAF, don't get to see the display.....just the leeches in Canberra.

Just watched a Youtube video of the factory test pilot demonstrating stalls in a Bristell. By his own words each recovery took of the order of four hundred feet and the video shows a wing drop on each stall.

400' is too much compared to the GA standard for a C172/ PA28 of one hundred feet altitude loss. Such a loss also means that an error in recovering the dropped wing at circuit height is going to be fatal because it will delay recovery if not stimulate an incipient spin.. In my opinion and I'm not an expert, this is not an ab initio trainer by any stretch of the imagination.

Just so you guys know...... At least one state -Victoria, has legislation where a GP can refer a car driver for a medical review of their  drivers licence  after an accident or injury, even if the injury is not related to driving a vehicle.

My friends in the Police tell me that the pass rate for such reviews is effectively zero. The answer is almost always NO to keeping your licence. This is basically the avoidance of liability by the reviewing medical authority.

Draw your own conclusions about the effect of this behaviour and Avmed's on the creation and maintenance of an effective safety culture.

To be fair to CASA, they are also in a difficult situation because they are caught in a historical bind as well as being on the horns of a dilemma.

The historical bind is their program of regulatory reform and its cost and results. Sooner or later someone in government is going to perform a cost benefit analysis and conclude it’s a zero sum game.

The dilemma is simple. You cannot write prescriptive regulations that efffectively micromanage while at the same time claiming you have no liability for outcomes.

I am no expert but that description of Bristell oscillation with flaps down sounds like neutral longitudinal stability, however the maths of stability and control does my head in. However i’m not sure that such a condition is disqualifying at close to 1.2 - 1.3 Vs.

The C172N has something like that mentioned in the POH in side slips.

From reading Facebook and other websites, it is alleged that RAAust has been involved in the disagreement between Bristell and CASA over the spinning characteristics of Bristell aircraft. I hope, if the allegation is true, that RAAust  involvement was regarded as constructive.  Is any statement forthcoming from our Board on this matter?

the idea is to get 3000+ raa aircraft to pay air navigation charges. As always, follow the money!

"Tell us what equipment you have so that we can use the data to *&*& you over some more......"

I'm afraid this proposal must be rejected because you can't trust AsA, let alone CASA. The devil is in the detail. We could be totally shut out of the Airspace concerned. For example access is allowed, in theory, to "appropriately equipped" VFR aircraft. What does that actually mean? Who decides what is appropriate? At present for example, the use of ADSB for separation, which AsA is keen on, requires at least a $4000 TSO'd GPS source. Skyecho cant do it.

We don't have WAAS in Australia.

I have a number of friends who are caught by this and similar catch 22"s.

Workcover, transport, etc. legislation all have this get out ; " If you don't meet the standards or have a medical episode, you will have to be reviewed" ....and the result of that review is always a big fat "No".

For example, the pass rate for drivers licence medical reviews after illness or injury is zero in Victoria.

The idea of using AGL as the floor of Class E is utter rubbish for one reason:

Because that Class E Floor is by definition, not a smooth continuous surface. It mirrors that landscape.

Think about that not from an RAA perspective but from an IFR, RPT or charter perspective - can you actually use the lower levels of such airspace? The answer is of course not because you need consistent altitudes or your navigation task is impossible.

Can you imagine a controller saying: "Maintain 2000 AGL till Doncaster"?

it is absolutely NOT the same. The oz one requires the commercial diving standard which is quite strict and also requires the GP to sign that you unconditionally meet the standard. How many people over the age  of say 50, don't have any medical conditions? If you actually read  the CASA paperwork, and your GP also does the same, you will realise its a fake "relaxation" of standards.

The 2021 Birdsville races were on my "To Do" list until today. Now that the Shire Council has prohibited under wing camping, I won't be going.

The project was just doable as it was, considering the cost involved and the ever present nuisance of CASA, but to be relegated to a tent city full of drunks instead of the airstrip is just too much.

The Council thinks that running the event was too expensive, well, we can help them fix that problem; don't go.

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

Yenn, I am assuming that we will all be flying in class E with ADSB Sky Echo or better, and a radio. Once we decide that, then the floor of Class E can be fifteen inches for all I care.

Needless to say, I already have most of the gear.

I'm glad that the new CEO of RAA is engaging with this process and I like the RAA response so far.

Being an optimist, I think this discussion could end up in a win/win situation if we think about it.

RAA: - wants access to controlled airspace and airports for suitably trained and equipped pilots and aircraft. The GA licence and BFR requirement is a PITA.

- All RAA and GA aircraft want an end to these lethal roadblock airspaces on the East Coast,  Sydney, WIlliamtown, Coffs, East Sale, Melbourne etc., etc.

Airservices wants economies and safer skies through the employment of ADSB and that technology is getting cheaper.

RPT wants shorter tracks and reduced fuel costs while maintaining safety.

If the cost of a solution was fitting ADSB and radios in exchange for access to controlled airspace and more airports, at least in class D, and assuming all else is equal, then I think it would be worth it.

Flight over closely settled areas can apparently be authorised by designated persons. Is RAA able to authorise this under CAR 262AP?

Thank you for the advice, I guess that is the way I have to go.

RF guy, RAA and other organisations HAVE to reject this proposal out of hand or otherwise they are conceding Airservices the right to make arbitrary decisions. We are then reduced to just being supplicants pleading for a few crumbs from the table.

AsA should not have done any of this, but now they have been stupid enough to raise the issue, we are within our rights to request a holistic and risk management derived  National airspace strategy that reverses the *** sandwich they have been feeding Australian GA and RAA pilots for years.

If you have ever flown into LAX and had a window seat you will know what I mean.

Far too restrictive rules on access to controlled airspace and huge chunks reserved for the RAAF are just the beginning. The East coast of Australia is just a series of lethal and unnecessary road blocks to GA and RAA aircraft.

RAA.....Bravo!

you need it in your jacket pocket when flying.