walrus

You mean TRIM for best glide speed to leave yourself freer to do the rest.

http://www.propbits.com/contact-us/ Aircraft propellers and spares Australia. Wonderful people and they sell common AN fasteners cheaper than the chinese rubbish from Bunnings

What's the betting that with a new Government and a new Minister, and the ravening Greens to placate, that reforms, GA self certified Medicals, MTOW to 760 kg, relaxed maintenance rules, ADSB subsidies, protection of airports and access to controlled airspace are not only off the table, but what we already have will be whittled away? Everything has "gone quiet". My experience is that everyone has been told: "It's all on hold until the white paper is released". The white paper? Well if you own an electric aircraft great. for the rest of us, not so much. I was talking to a greenie, a long distance bicycle tourer, who lived in Fitzroy and complained bitterly about aircraft noise, especially helos at night. He didn't even stop when I told him that most will be ambulance choppers.... There are thousands of these inner city morons.

This is copied from Pprune in its entirety. Food for thought. Proposed Part 43: Time to get informed and involved My review of the draft Part 43 MOS and changes to the regs was quite eye-opening. I'd suggest that anyone who thinks the proposed new rules are mainly about maintenance organisations or personnel should think again. If you are a pilot or registered operator of any Part 43 aircraft - a large part of the Australian fleet - it is in your interests to get informed and get involved in the consultation process. I made one general point and three key points in my comments at the end of the my response to CASA's on-line consultation questions. Here is the general point and first key point: General point Whilst there is an understandable focus on what maintenance may be performed by whom on what aircraft under the proposed Part 43 rules, those rules are important to pilots and registered operators of the aircraft, especially if the draft offence provisions are going to remain as presently drafted. As drafted, there are some profound differences for pilots and registered operators as well as maintenance personnel and organisations compared with the current rules. One could be forgiven for believing that the current package was not drafted with the input of, or without paying much heed to the input of, experienced pilots and experienced registered operators of many of the aircraft types that will be the bulk of Part 43 aircraft. Key point 1: Pilots in command should continue to be allowed to defer repair or rectification of damage or defects that do not affect the safe operation of a Part 43 aircraft, without reference to or approval by the registered operator. As drafted, the Part 43 package will expose pilots to regulatory action and criminal liability for doing so. Background 1 Section 3.09(d)(ii) of the draft MOS provides for the deferral, by the registered operator and only the registered operator, of the repair or rectification of damage or defects that do not affect the safe operation of the aircraft. One of the examples given under s 3.09(d)(ii) is defective position lights fitted to an aircraft that is to be operated only VFR by day. Under the proposed rules as drafted, it will be a strict liability criminal offence for a pilot in command to start a flight with any damage or defects that have not been deferred by the registered operator in accordance with the MOS. That offence is in draft CASR 91.147. See, in particular: draft CASR 91.147(2)(c). Scenario 1 Assume Cessna 172 Alpha Bravo Charlie is being flown by a private Day VFR pilot on a round Australia adventure. The pilot hired the aircraft from an organisation at Parafield. The pilot drops in to Arkaroola. The pilot discovers the bulb for the position light on the right wing is blown. There are no spare bulbs within cooee. The pilot either does not know who the registered operator is or does not have their contact details but, in any event, is out of mobile range and cannot contact the registered operator. Question 1 What is the safety basis for exposing the pilot to regulatory action and criminal liability if he or she commences a day VFR flight without the registered operator having deferred the rectification of the blown position light bulb? Answer 1 There is no safety basis. Discussion 1 Almost every day if not every day under the current rules, pilots lawfully make the decision to fly aircraft with defects like a blown position light bulb, without any risk to safety and without the knowledge or approval of the registered operator or anyone else. The sky has not fallen in. By definition, ‘deferable’ damage or defects do not affect the safe operation of the aircraft. In many cases, pilots have a better understanding of the safety implications of damage or defects than registered operators do, noting that any person can be the registered operator of an aircraft without having any aviation-related or other qualifications (just as there are no qualifications to be the registered operator of a car). Further, as highlighted by the simple scenario, there are circumstances in which the registered operator cannot be contacted by the pilot. Conclusion 1 Not only should it not be an offence – strict liability or otherwise - for a pilot in command to commence a flight in an aircraft with damage or defects which do not affect the safe operation of the aircraft, the pilot in command should continue to be allowed to defer those defects without reference to or the approval of the registered operator. (The yawning gap in this area is created by the inadequacy of pilot education, leading to chronic ignorance and confusion about what damage and defects may be deferred, subject to what conditions, to failures by pilots to record the decision and placard the aircraft accordingly, and to failures by pilots to read the important bits of documents like maintenance releases and understand their implications.) If, instead, CASA persists with the current provisions relevant to this issue – thus demonstrating, once again, the delta between CASA rhetoric and CASA action – CASA should make sure that all pilots know that when these new rules finally come into force, pilots will be exposed to regulatory action and criminal liability if they continue to make the unilateral decision to defer the kinds defects which may lawfully be deferred by pilots under the rules today without reference to or the approval of the registered operator or anyone else. See also conclusion 2a. Reply 1 Key point 2: Registered operators of Part 43 aircraft should not be exposed to regulatory action and criminal liability as a consequence of circumstances of which they have no knowledge or control Background 2a Under the new rules as drafted, the registered operator of any Part 43 aircraft commits a strict liability criminal offence if the aircraft is operated for any flight and any maintenance carried out on the aircraft was not carried out by a person or organisation qualified to do the maintenance. That offence is in draft CASR 43.020. See, in particular: draft CASR 43.020(2)(b). Scenario 2a Prior to hiring out Cessna 172 Alpha Bravo Charlie to the pilot about to head off on the round Australia adventure, the registered operator took the aircraft to ACME Aviation Maintenance Pty Ltd and asked for an annual and 100 hourly inspection to be carried out on the aircraft. A week later ACME hands back Alpha Bravo Charlie to the registered operator. Unbeknown to the registered operator, the oil and oil filter change, compression checks (including spark plug removal, cleaning and replacement) and magneto timing adjustments on Alpha Bravo Charlie’s engine were carried out by an unqualified and unsupervised motor mower mechanic who is a mate of ACME’s CEO. But the offence is made out once that maintenance was performed by someone unqualified and unsupervised. The registered operator’s lack of knowledge of that fact is irrelevant. That is how strict liability works. Question 2a What is safety basis for exposing the registered operator to regulatory action and criminal liability those circumstances? Answer 2a There is no safety basis. Discussion 2a Many registered operators of aircraft have little-to-no knowledge or control over what happens behind the closed hangar doors of an aircraft maintenance organisation. If a registered operator rings CASA to ask for confirmation that all maintenance done behind those closed hangar doors is being done by appropriately qualified and supervised personnel, that confirmation will not be provided. CASA does not know. But nor does the registered operator. Many registered operators of Part 43 aircraft have little-to-no idea as to what precise qualifications and approvals a person or organisation must have in order lawfully to carry out maintenance on aircraft and aeronautical products. If a registered operator rings CASA and asks what those qualifications and approvals are in the case of the aircraft of which the person is the registered operator, and for a list of organisations and individuals with those qualifications and approvals, that request will be denied by CASA. Over a couple of decades of aircraft ownership either personally or through a corporate structure, I have never asked to see the certificates or licences or approvals of any organisation or person who has charged me for maintenance on those aircraft. For all I know, they could all have been uncertified and unqualified. CASA has never reviewed a maintenance release issued for one of those aircraft and investigated what certificates and qualifications and approvals were held by the individuals who purportedly did the maintenance required for the issue of the maintenance release or were held by the organisation which issued it. For all I know, the maintenance releases could all have been (very expensive) fakes. What CASA is proposing is analogous to exposing the registered operators of cars to criminal liability for what happens behind the closed doors of a garage with ‘Motor Mechanic’ painted on the doors, when the registered operator has no expertise, knowledge or control over what should and is being done to the car and by whom behind those doors. Conclusion 2a The registered operator should not be exposed to regulatory action and criminal liability as a consequence of circumstances outside their knowledge and control. This is not a situation in which strict liability is appropriate. The people giving instructions and making decisions on the framing of offence provisions in this package of legislation should (re)acquaint themselves with the content of the Attorney-General’s Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers after, more importantly, informing themselves of the expertise of registered operators of Part 43 aircraft and the detail of how maintenance is arranged and done in the real world. In the real world, maintenance of many Part 43 aircraft works just like the maintenance of cars: Someone who may have little idea about what goes on under the bonnet of the car, or of what its maintenance manual says, just drops the car off, at a date or number of kilometres written on a sticker on the windscreen, to an organisation that is assumed to have expertise in the maintenance of cars, the organisation gets some people to do stuff to the car and then it is returned with a bill for the work. The person does not know who did what to the car or of what their qualifications are. If the framers of these offence provisions are labouring under the misconception that the imposition of strict liability will ‘encourage’ registered operators of aircraft to gain expertise they do not have in relation to aircraft maintenance requirements and the qualifications and certificates and approvals that must be held by those doing it, I would suggest they ask themselves this question: What would you do as a car owner if you were exposed to criminal liability each time some unqualified person, of whom you have no knowledge or control, carried out maintenance on your car behind the closed doors of a mechanic’s garage? (And to address a layperson’s likely misconception: Many cars these days are far more complex and have far more components than many Part 43 aircraft.) If CASA’s position is that it would not take regulatory action against a registered operator in the kinds of circumstances set out in the scenario, or that there are defences available to the registered operator if the circumstances are referred for prosecution, that would demonstrate – once again – that CASA has a fundamental misunderstanding about the appropriate scope of offence provisions. Criminal laws have consequences, whether or not they are enforced by a regulator like CASA in a particular case. In the event of an accident, laws matter to coroners and insurers and judges, all of whom will reasonably assume than any and all circumstances that fall within the scope of an offence provision are intended to be an offence. If CASA’s position is that it would not take regulatory action against a registered operator in the kinds of circumstances set out in the scenario above, there should be no scope for CASA to take any regulatory action against the registered operator and there should be no scope for them to be exposed to criminal liability and have to argue defences in those circumstances in the first place. I remind CASA of the key principle set out at the start of the provisions in the Attorney-General’s Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers about strict liability (omitting the text about absolute liability): Quote: The requirement for proof of fault is one of the most fundamental protections in criminal law. This reflects the premise that it is generally neither fair, nor useful, to subject people to criminal punishment for unintended actions or unforeseen consequences unless these resulted from an unjustified risk (ie recklessness). The application of strict … liability negates the requirement to prove fault (sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Criminal Code). Consequently, strict … liability should only be used in limited circumstances, and where there is adequate justification for doing so. This justification should be carefully outlined in the explanatory material. Whilst CASA usually simply invokes the safety of air navigation as the justification for the ever-growing number of strict liability offences in the rules – which justification is usually accepted during the scrutiny process because most of those conducting the scrutiny are bamboozled by the mystique of aviation and assume that the greater the number and scope of aviation offences there are the safer they will be when flying – the fact is that strict liability offences have a causally beneficial operation or – to use the words of the Guide quoted above – are “fair” and “useful”, in only specific kinds of circumstances. The primary practical outcome of CASA’s default rather than limited use of strict liability offences is a continuation of the parlous state of its reputation and trustworthiness among many in the aviation community. If CASA persists with strict liability in the kinds of circumstances set out in the scenario above, CASA should make sure that all registered operators of Part 43 aircraft know that when these new rules finally come into force, registered operators will be exposed to regulatory action and criminal liability as a consequence of circumstances of which they usually have no knowledge or control. And it will be no answer for CASA to say there may be defences available in the case of a prosecution, because being subject to prosecution action and successfully defending it is a protracted, costly and stressful process through which someone should not have to go in the first place in the kinds of circumstances set out in the scenario. Background 2b Section 3.26 of the draft MOS says that a registered operator “must ensure” that, for example, the aircraft’s total time in service is recorded in writing “immediately after the last flight of a day”. See, in particular, ss 3.26(1)(a) and 3.26(4)(a)(i). The words “must ensure” denote an unavoidable requirement. Trying one’s best but failing is not good enough. The word “immediate” denotes a requirement that must be satisfied at once, without delay. Under the new rules as drafted, the registered operator of a Part 43 aircraft commits a strict liability criminal offence if the aircraft’s total time in service is not recorded in writing immediately after the last flight of a day. That offence is in draft CASR 43.017. See, in particular, draft CASRs 43.017(1), (3) and (4)(a). Scenario 2b The pilot who hired Cessna 172 Alpha Bravo Charlie has headed off on the round Australia adventure. For many days, and sometimes weeks, the registered operator has no contact with the pilot and, in any event, the registered operator has no first-hand knowledge of whether, or for how long, Alpha Bravo Charlie is being flown each day and has no first-hand knowledge of whether the pilot is recording that time in writing immediately after the last flight of each day the aircraft is flown. Unbeknown to the registered operator, the pilot is just keeping an eye on the aircraft’s ‘Hobbs’ meter, as the pilot knows that the 50 hourly oil and oil filter change is the next maintenance due, and that will be when the ‘Hobbs’ meter indicates 1234. But an offence is made out each day of flying when the registered operator has not ensured that TTIS is recorded in writing immediately after that day’s flying. The registered operator’s lack of knowledge of the fact of non-recording is irrelevant (as is the registered operator’s lack of power to do anything practical about it anyway in the circumstances). That is how strict liability works. Question 2b What is safety basis for exposing the registered operator to regulatory action and criminal liability in those circumstances? Answer 2b There is no safety basis. Discussion 2b The relevant provision in the current rules is CAR 43B(1). It says: Quote: On the completion of flying operations on each day that an aircraft is flown, the owner, operator or pilot in command must record on the maintenance release the total time‑in‑service of the aircraft on the day. That regulation imposes an obligation that may be discharged by any one of three persons, for a reason: It was drafted on the instructions of someone who understands how lots of aircraft are operated in the real world. Whilst it is true that if none of the three mentioned persons records TTIS at the end of each day’s flying all of them commits an offence of strict liability, that is precisely what gives the pilot in command an incentive to record TTIS in accordance with the CAR, and gives the registered operator leverage to apply to the pilot to do so, in the kind of scenario set out above. If regulatory action is being considered against all of them, the only person in the above scenario with first-hand knowledge of the aircraft’s TTIS and control of the MR after each day’s flying – the pilot – is the one who is likely to be the subject of the action. It would be helpful if the person who chose to include the word “immediately”, in the registered operator’s obligation to “ensure” that the aircraft’s total time in service is recorded in writing “immediately after the last flight of a day”, were to provide some insight into their thinking and intention in using that word. Does that require recording of TTIS within 1 minute after the end of the flight? 5 minutes? 10? An hour? If the last flight of a day ends at 1100 hours local time, there seems to be no risk to safety if the aircraft’s TTIS is not recorded in writing until 2359 hours local time. But the proposed rule creates, and CAR 43B quoted above has always created, a paradox. The obligation to ensure that TTIS is recorded only arises after the last flight of a day. However, sometimes pilots and registered operators will not know which of a potential number of flights will be the last for a day. A typical example is an aircraft made available by an aeroclub or flight training organisation for hire by private pilots. I have on numerous occasions hired aircraft where the TTIS has not been entered on the MR because on the day the aircraft was most recently flown, each of the pilots who flew the aircraft knew that someone else had the aircraft booked after them but did not know that the subsequent bookings or last booking were/was subsequently cancelled. Consequently, none of them knew which of them turned out to be the last pilot to fly the aircraft on that day. Meanwhile, the officer of the registered operator of the aircraft is interstate. If the actual safety purposes of the recording of aircraft TTIS is considered, the answers to questions as to who should be obliged to record TTIS, in what document and when become obvious. TTIS may be fundamental to the discharge of the registered operator’s obligations, but it is also fundamental to the discharge of a pilot’s obligations. Any pilot of an aircraft should be able to find out, before the commencement of any flight – whether that flight happens to be the first or third or whatever of that aircraft on that day – the aircraft’s TTIS at the commencement of the flight. That is because, unless the pilot knows the TTIS at that point in time, the pilot is unable to ascertain, with precision, whether sufficient time remains to conduct the proposed flight/s before required maintenance falls due. Conclusion See Conclusion 2a. CASA should also consider imposing the TTIS recording obligation on the pilot in command as well as the registered operator, similarly to CAR 43B. CASA should also consider the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of imposing an obligation on the pilot in command to record TTIS at the conclusion of any flight, whether or not it happens to be the last one of the day, in some document which must be available to anyone who may subsequently fly the aircraft and specifies when required maintenance will fall due. Key point 3: Please don’t introduce more undefined words that will create more uncertainty The term “compensation or reward” appears five times in the draft MOS. As drafted, aircraft which carry a person (other than a crew member) for compensation or reward or are used to conduct flight training for compensation or reward are subject to 100 hourly inspections (as well as annual inspections) but other Part 43 aircraft are not: s 3.15(4). (There is specific provision for LSAs used in some ‘compensation or reward’ operations: s 3.05(1).) There are numerous instances of the term “hire or reward” elsewhere in the Australian rules but, so far as I can tell, the draft Part 43 MOS is the only legislative instrument that uses “compensation or reward”. Neither the word “compensation” nor “reward” appears anywhere in FAR Part 43. The words used in FAR Part 91 – that is the FAR which determines whether an annual inspection or 100 hourly inspection, or both, are required for an aircraft subject of the FARs – the term “compensation or hire” is used. One assumption of interpretation is that if different words are used, different meaning are intended. Each of the words “hire”, “compensation” and “reward” differs from the others. None of them is defined in the aviation safety rules in Australia. Compensation is what people get for a sore back after been ‘tailended’ on the road. Is that the intended meaning for the purposes of the draft MOS? If a pilot’s mates pay for the fuel on their next outback flight in an aircraft of which the pilot is the registered operator, is the aircraft being used for “compensation” within the meaning of the draft MOS? If an instructor teaches student pilots for free, as a charitable act, is the warm inner glow the instructor gets from doing good a “reward” within the meaning of the draft MOS? When some rules apply to aircraft operated “for compensation or reward” and others apply to aircraft operated “for hire or reward”, there will likely be unintended gaps or overlaps and there will certainly be doubt about the precise scope of any gaps or overlaps, absent protracted and expensive court and tribunal consideration and decisions. That outcome is precisely what the eye-wateringly expensive and never-ending regulatory reform program was supposed to avoid. If someone made a sedulous decision to use the words “compensation or reward” instead of “compensation or hire” per the relevant FAR or “hire and reward” per the current rules in Australia, it would be very helpful if that person were to provide some explanation as to the reasons and understanding of the consequences. If it was not a sedulous decision, it would be very prudent for the words to be reconsidered in the context of the whole regulatory package. At the moment, there is nothing that I can find in the Part 43 ‘Plain English Guide’ about what CASA reckons the term ‘compensation or reward’ means in the draft MOS. (And while on the point of guidance material, I trust that CAAP 43B will be revised and updated when the CAR 43B is repealed and the new Part 43 commences, as the CAAP currently contains unsupported and potentially risky twaddle at paras 4.2.4 and 4.2.6.) I keep thinking of taking up golf.

Their land, their rules? Why yes. According to reports, the start was not auspicious. I hope Adels Grove and boodjamulla becomes a great success story. We will see.

Bump.

I really, really wanted to see beautiful and peaceful Lawn Hill Gorge again……. ‘’I would fly into Adels Grove and stay there. The emails I had (phone was unavailable) were fair in that they warned me that the restaurant was under construction and that they hoped it would be open in a week. There we’re no tours available. There was no accommodation available (probably used by the builders). No problem, I would bring camping gear and my own food. Someone would give me a lift to the park. Then the day before, I saw a new ABC article about revised management arrangements for the park. I went looking on the web a bit deeper. Tripadvisor latest reviews were just terrible. There were further reports (google) about a month old, saying the campground amenities allegedly weren’t in any fit state - the water systems had allegedly been torn up during construction. The builders were allegedly abusive towards visitors for turning up. No problems, I could avoid them, I couldn’t find out about fuel, no problems, I could carry a reserve. I could probably live with the usual construction chaos, it might even be fun. On the day, the weather forecast gave me potentially a major cross wind (+12 knots). No email on the state of the airstrip. No advice available from anyone. They don’t answer the phone at Adels Grove. I thus had no way of managing risk except a precautionary search maneuver followed by a two hour return over tiger country in what would then be “moderate turbulence” - willie willies - dust devils in the middle of the day, as the weather forecast portrayed, if I didn’t like what I saw. I still wanted to go… Then I thought “why are you going to accept a major risk to your aircraft, let alone your time, money and potentially your life, trying to revisit a place where, on the balance of probabilities, you are not wanted and are 99% likely to be disappointed by what you are going to find?”. I went elsewhere.‘ ….and yes, I suppose I could have checked before getting this far, but somehow I didn’t think I needed to.

Thank you all for your concise and illuminating replies. I decided it was too risky.

Anyone flown in to it recently? I can’t seem to find advice and I’m wondering if the new owners are maintaining the strip? I think a precautionary search might be in order followed. by going somewhere else. Furthermore, even assuming the strip is OK, the latest reviews of the Adels Grove experience are less than stunning. Emails go unanswered…..

Electric cars and floods. Don’t go there.

CAVOK, let me share my experience. The overriding key determinant of your choice of options is TIME. It's not money, not technical sophistication, not performance. Your most precious resource is time. Consider industry statistics - allegedly only 50% of home built aircraft are completed by the original owner. No matter what you buy as a kit, you are looking at a minimum of four years before this thing flies - and that assumes you are diligent, have no sudden health problems, have a stable healthy family and job. The probability of all that decreases with age. Who are you going to be in four years? Do you really have four years? Want to bet? For that reason, your skills, age and experience are very important. Not because you can't learn to do stuff but because learning takes TIME - and you don't have as much as you think. So if you want to build, its time to first flight that counts and the older you are, the more it counts. You want the glass cockpit, electronically injected engine, flush rivets and a gorgeous paint job? Be prepared to add at least two years to the build. You want a quick build, then its a kit, pop rivets, square edges, steam gauges and a carburetted Lycoming. Understand that EVERY time you increase technical sophistication you have to slow down to learn. of course none of this matters if you are building the second airplane because you are down the learning curve by then. So think realistically about the time you have available - then add 30% contingency to the build. be aware that the airframe will go together really fast. Fitting systems will be much slower and the 'last minute" jobs will go on forever. I lost three years of build to family matters and another two to technical sophistication and over specifying things like paint - you will die of old age before most aircraft corrode if you take a little care. Time is everything.

Someone’s Lycoming farted. Happens all the time……..

Marty the Americans have been angling for this for at least ten years. They fomented the 2014 coup - we have Nuland on tape admitting it. (a) The U.S. has not encouraged Ukraine to implement Minsk II and has been silent in the face of Russian entreaties to (a) get Minsk II implemented and, (b) They told Russia to GF when the Russians twice asked for peace talks in 2021. Yes, it is a mess. There is quite enough dirt to go around for everyone. Let’s leave it at that. ‘’We are deprived of Ukrainian Aviation hardware. Spare a thought for the guys who own Russian aircraft too. Spare parts are not going to be easy to come by.

There are no clean hands in this mess. To try and understand a little of what is going on, you need to read russian or visit russian leaning websites to try and get some balance of a sort given that the western media are biased too. The real "war" is geopolitical. America has been hankering after war with Russia for at least the last ten years because the combination of Russia and its ally China will outgrow the US dominated western empire (which includes us). Ukraine is just a convenient excuse. Kazakhstan, Georgia, a Baltic state - any of them would do, they couldn't care less. America will fight to the last Ukrainian.

The website is not complete. The weight is indeed 600kg for LSA purposes, that's why it says 1320 lbs (LSA). Edition 1 of the design was indeed limited to 600 kg. Edition 2 issued July 20 2010 and subsequent editions have a design MTOW of 650 kg (1440 lb) Here is a list of the parts that were beefed up or added by edition 2: Model: STOL CH 750 “GROSS WEIGHT INCREASE” KIT PARTS LIST Parts List: 08/10 Revised Pick-List: Page 1of 1 PART NO: DESCRIPTION QTY WING KIT 75W2-6/1 WING SPAR WEB DOUBLER t=.063 l-650mm 1R+1L 75W2-5/1 WING SPAR UPPER STRUT FITTING t=.25 2 75W4-7 I/B REAR CHANNEL ANGLE t=.040 2 75W8-1/1 FRONT LOWER STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 2 75W8-2/1 FRONT UPPER STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 2 L L ANGLE 20 AN3-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2@75W3-3) 4 AN3-7A BOLT, NUT, WASHER (75W2-7) 2 AN4-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2 75W2-7) 4 AN4-7A BOLT, NUT, WASHER (75W2-7) 2 FUSELAGE KIT 75F3-4/1 UPRIGHT PRE-DRILLED l=983mm t=.025” 1L + 1R 75F3-7/1 REAR TOP CHANNEL PRE-DRILLED l=1009mm t=.063” 1 75F3-9 REAR TOP CHANNEL ANGLE t=.063 l=1019mm PRE-DRILL 1 75F4-2/1 SIDE CHANNEL COVER PRE-DRILLED l=1011mm t=.040” 1L + 1R 75F4-4/1 REAR WING ATTACHMENT PRE-DRILLED t=0.1875” 2 75F4-7 SIDE SKIN GUSSET t=.063 2 75F4-8 BOTTOM SKIN GUSSET t=.063 2 75F4-9 LONGERON GUSSET t=.025” PRE-DRILLED 2 75F12-2/1 FORWARD SIDE SKIN PRE-DRILLED t=.025 1L+1R 75F12-7/1 FORWARD ANGLES l=450mm t=.025” 6 75F14-1/1 LOWER ENGINE MOUNT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 1L+1R 75F14-3/1 GEAR STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 1L+1R 75F15-1/1 CABIN FRAME WELDED ASSEMBLY PRE-DRILLED 1 75FA10-1 BAGGAGE BACK CHANNEL t=.032 2 75FA10-2 SIDE SKIN DOUBLER PRE-DRILLED t=.032 2 75FA10-3 SIDE SKIN ANGLE t=.032 2 A6 3/16 RIVETS 45 AN3-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (6@75F4-4/1) 18 AN3-3A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (4@75A10-2) 8 AN4-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2@75F4-1) 4

Zenith CH750. The kit was virtually perfect. I think James at Swish projects may even have a kit or two in stock. Rotax 912 iS, Airmaster propeller and Dynon Avionics. Sweet to fly and almost Walrus proof. Just back from Arkaroola via YBHI to YBLA. Trip cut short by flooding further north. 83 knots TAS at 17 l/H, 86 at 20 l/h. It jumps off the ground. Landed on the numbers at YWTO 35 and made the first turnoff. ...And design MTOW is 650 kg for a sweetener.

The locals have advised to wait a week. They should know. End of story.

Yes Ross, I’m aware of salt lakes and the breakable crust. This is different- it’s a hard surface clay pan that has been used as a strip for generations - but I don’t know what it might be like if damp.

As some may know, it’s been raining in the outback. Dry clay pans I have experience- all good. Damp clay pans, not so much. Does anyone have experience they wish to share? My inclination is to avoid one. Yes, I am seeking local knowledge but at present it’s not yet available. A precautionary search is a possibility but I’m not sure is going to show much.

The purpose of ASIC cards is to provide a capability for control of access to aviation infrastructure. The fact that they aren't controlling much at regional airports NOW doesn't invalidate the program. Try getting and remaining airside at a major capital city airport without an ASIC. Try getting an ASIC and a job in aviation if you have a criminal record. Read the list of disqualifying conditions for an ASIC. I'm going to be travelling via Ports requiring ASICs. Some of them have three strand fences that can't even keep the kangaroos out, but that isn't the point. In future, security can be ramped up very quickly at those ports - just hire the guards and build the fences. The ASIC is the bureaucratic infrastructure that supports improved security - when we need it.

Unfortunately the SF- 1600 is vapourware - a university student paper project. Its not the grand scheme items that will kill this project, its the details that do them in: bearings and lubrication, drainage, start ers, gearboxes, little things that took 20 years of patient experiment to get right.

However that type of engine Stellantis T6 is of no use for aviation because of the duty cycle. An aircraft engine operates at greater than, say, 55% power continuously. An automotive engine does not and won't. I can already get 700hp out of a subaru - for a few minutes. There are auto conversions but they are bought for cost considerations and they are heavy. Fuel efficiency is function of compression ratio. Turbines can't match piston engines. however a turbine and airframe system together can produce a cheaper cost of ownership.

I've had both metal and plastic fail in cooling systems. The metal from corrosion and fatigue, the plastic from over temperature and mechanical failure, so you are both right. I've used automotive fittings in some areas but they are not a cure all. In my case I found wonderful fittings for teflon and braided stainless racing hose - a joy to work with and 1000psi+ rating BUT overtighten the sleeve nut on a fitting and it will split, leaving you with a potentially fatal fuel leak. Similarly plastic fittings - their strength is highly temperature dependant. What happens when the coolant temperature is 120C at switch off on a hot day how does your heat soaked plastic fitting behave when it is at 130C under associated pressure AND the fitting is misaligned and under stress, perhaps with an overtightened hose clamp as well? The joy of the old AN fitting and fastening system is that it works. The failure modes are very well known and in any case if you follow AC13b they are idiot proof (I hope!). Just because something looks the same doesn't make it the same either. having said that, there are quite a few Rotax parts that are Bosch automotive rebranded items.

The first thing it does is provide an additional stream of customers into the local economy. As turbo explains they have to eat drink and sleep somewhere. This is a straight transport operation. To this add marginal increase in tourism traffic (eg winery flights adventure tourism, hiking drop offs, parachuting, etc. etc. To this add marginal increase in business related travel. Include fire fighting, power line inspection, etc. as well. To this add aircraft operation and maintenance jobs - they would have a multiplier effect of about 8 - one full time aircraft job supports about 8 service industry jobs. You will be surprised at how fast the jobs add up. The tragedy is that we should have been doing such calculations 40 years ago and regulating accordingly on a national basis. Instead we allowed ourselves to be beaten into an anal lawyer driven cluster*&*&. Look at NZ to view a functioning aviation segment of an economy.

CTA for RAA currently requires a PPL plus BFR plus medical plus the removal of the “avoid built up areas” condition on the aircraft certificate. This is impractical for most and puts major obstacles in way of touring in an LSA type aircraft. Roadblocks at all capital cities, plus Sale, Newcastle, Coffs, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Alice Springs and Broome..