walrus

We call it vapour lock. I would call it a slug of fuel that was so hot when it reached either the electric pump, mechanical pump or carb float bowls that it boiled. Even on the injected (812 iS) engine, when you switch on one of the pumps, you can hear it stutter at high revs for a few seconds before it clears the fuel rail of vapour and settles down to the usual rpm as the fuel pressure comes up.

Some Zenith kits already have a design MTOW of 650 kg and documented that upgrade from 600 kg when they did it. CG is in limits at 650 kg and the stall is a not an issue as it’s advertised as3 30 kt at 1320 lb.

Thanks , Turbo, I’ve done some “recovery from unusual attitudes” training as part of some aerobatic work. I did that because demonstration spins, etc. scared the crap out of me during PPL training. ‘I recommend unusual attitudes work to everybody. The first loops and rolls did my head in but later we finished every lesson with a spin from 6000 ft down to 3000.

I note that there is a low level endorsement in the RAA Operations manual. Anyone know who does training for this? I find that, although it is legal to fly at 500 ft AGL in open country, I am not comfortable doing it, particularly if the terrain is undulating. It is disconcerting to be looking UP at terrain around you.

KR, I agree with you, I was a student at the time and my newly minted grade 3 instructor didn't know any better. She now flies for Qantas....

KRAviator, the C150 POH is mute on the subject of climb with 40(?) degrees of flaps and meets the FA specs in force circa 1960. As for that CAR, who would know and how old is 7.1 regarding climb in landing configuration?? In any case 3.2% is marginal and doesn't get you over a gum tree in front of you. The POH calls for ZERO flaps on takeoff and if you don't have zero and sufficient runway you are SOL. Hence my warning: do not practice touch and go on small STOL strips like YCEM. Do a full stop. Backtrack. Reconfigure and go again. Otherwise you are one error from being in the trees.

It means that any man made flying object is going to have to have a compulsory electronic tag of some sort, period. Without that, we cannot automate collision avoidance. However, what is NOT said is that such a system requirement also provides Government with opportunities for surveillance, control and ......taxation of aviators. As I've said before, it is a trivial task to code and build an ADSB based "Automatic infringement generator" - a virtual universal three dimensional speed and red light camera, that compares everything you do with a regulatory template and flags non-compliance.. Government, via AsA and CASA, will not be able to resist that temptation. Example: .........Not flying hemispherical levels above 3000 ft and when area forecast CAVOK and greater than 1500 ft AGL- PING! ........... Infringing controlled or restricted airspace without lawful authority - PING! The CASA fine notice will be in your email inbox before you have even landed.

Guys, the wonderful world of Uber air taxis and Amazon delivery drones is not going to work without fully automated ATC/Collision avoidance. That will require ubiquitous ADSB. There is no way ATC can manually control traffic of such volume. Think ATC: "QF1, line up and wait, Uber2345 cleared to 4 Privet Drive".

Methusala, a Cessna electric flap switch almost killed me. It failed as we attempted to retract to half flap during a STOL touch and go. With full flap a fully loaded C150 WILL NOT climb out of ground effect and we only escaped by a low level (30 feet) 180 turn with stall warning blaring. So when I hear about your problem I am aroused to post this. First of all, will a fully loaded Thruster (MTOW) easily climb at better than 3% out of ground effect with full flaps out? If the answer is yes then have at it with your electric switch because all you are going to do if the switch fails or you have finger trouble is embarrass yourself. If the answer is no, then please, please follow Roundsounds advice above and DO NOT practice Touch and go's involving retracting to half flap while moving because you are asking to become a statistic. Whatever you do, DO NOT practice any form of STOL work with a touch and go procedure. Always make a full stop, backtrack and configure the aircraft while stationary. Yes, I know about go arounds, but that is a different procedure mentally.

I must admit having ADSB - In is highly addictive. In addition to helping yourself with see and avoid, it also allows you to assist others with theirs. However for full blown ADSB that ATC can rely on, I need to add a higher performance GPS that meets TSO performance requirements. That is not cheap.

Yes, super stuff. You are looking a the distillation of 60+ years work at the cutting edge of technology.

this is the sort of in depth technical information China would love. It shouldn't be on the web.

You may find you cannot hire an aircraft without an ASIC. That was the final straw for me at a certain club that had been taking my annual subscriptions for years.

I love the base leg at Milford Sound and the final turn by the cliff.

But back on topic, I live at an altitude about 1000' MSL the hills around me are 2500' to 3500' or more but the valleys are down to 600' MSL. The forecast frequently contains stratus at some altitude band between say 3000/5000' so it is not unusual going West to find 4500' has a scattered whispy stratus 200' thick. or maybe solid stratus at say 7000' . I am also required to fly 1000' above or below cloud by regulations (MOS 2.07). Given that weather forecast, is it even possible to fly at all? I certainly cannot maintain hemispherical levels at all. Furthermore, my little brain is concerned with flying and navigating, not legalities. I am stuck with say 4000' going east or west as that is what gives me about 1000 -1500' clearance on terrain. What happens then if I am prosecuted for breaching hemispherical rules and I successfully argue weather conditions, only then I am prosecuted for departing with a weather forecast that doesnt indicate legal VFR conditions (including complying with hemispherical altitudes) for the whole flight? I suppose I can hedge hop down at 500' AGL but is that safe?

With respect, I fail to follow the logic here. Furthermore, this isn't about me... You start by running an argument that "road rules" are now considerably more complicated than they used to be but that the result of this more onerous situation is that the road toll is drastically smaller, at least two thirds smaller, than it used to be. By implication you are suggesting to me and every other reader that the aviation rules we have today are necessary to prevent a higher, drastically higher, aviation "road toll". I fail to follow your logic. Not only do I fail to follow your logic, I would be astounded if road safety professionals would agree with you that the road toll has been reduced by plucky lawyers writing regulations instead of by massive technological improvements in vehicle primary and secondary safety as well as massive investment in better roads as well as much better driver training. Your argument that regulation, punitive regulation at that, is somehow responsible for this outcome and by implication for aviation is just fantasy. The one thing that lawyers can take credit for - lower road speed limits and their beneficial effects is irrelevant to aviation safety. I would also observe that most offences under road safety Acts are misdemeanours and not felonies with strict liability like aviation offences. There is no linkage whatsoever between the scope, complexity, enforcement of Australia's aviation regulations and anything to do with safety except, I contend, that on the basis of regulatory theory they have a negative, not positive, effect on safety outcomes because people are worried about compliance, not safety.. Were I wrong about this, the FAA would not regulate with such a relatively light hand and road safety authorities would be falling over themselves in their haste to micromanage road transport and criminalise traffic offences the way CASA does. Which brings me to my other point. Its not about me. Its about jobs, economic growth and investment in the aviation industry that has been suffocated by the dead hand of over regulation - a situation obvious to anyone who has visited New Zealand let alone the U.S. A few flight schools for Chinese and Indian students don't change the picture either. Indeed that raises the question of why CASA acquiesced in the activities of such shonky operators as SOAR while allegedly closing down Glen Buckleys APTA. I also respectfully suggest that the relative success of RAA, experimental, etc. is "in spite of" the current regulations and that is why the SAAs etc. are pushing for change. However, I don't expect change, I will comply but i cant help thinking about the opportunities lost and the needless pain and suffering of what little is left.

Its part of the same old story - the theory that there is a perfect set of rules that guarantee absolute safety if all people follow them exactly. The corollary of this theory is that if an accident occurs, barring acts of God, then someone, somewhere, has broken the law. The second corollary is that by definition, CASA and the Government are not liable for said accident because it was caused by commission of an offence of strict liability. The attraction of such theory to lawyers and government is obvious. This thinking is embedded in our regulations and unfortunately it is fatally flawed because of the limitations of language and the absolute impossibility of specifying all combinations of circumstances but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying. I learned about this theory at the age of about 14 years from my headmaster who was famous for saying "A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules!" and punished people accordingly. You can see this thinking at work in part 91. For example we are required to adhere exactly to published instructions in the Pilots operating handbook on pain of prosecution. Our aircraft must be maintained exactly as specified in approved data. Our flights must be planned likewise and executed exactly as per plan. We are allegedly trained on a competency basis as well, so if we fail to execute then either we or our instructor has committed an offence. We are even supposed to be medically fit according to aviation medical standards. There is the obvious and necessary deferral to acts of god - such as the hemispherical let out : "when it is not possible to do so" but it is minimal. Not only is it fatally flawed, it is highly UNSAFE because it leads people into the fatal error of assuming that if what they are doing is legal, it is by definition safe. In other words, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers abrogate their responsibility to use their common sense in favor of doing what is legal. This thinking is lazy, pernicious and obviously wrong.. I will leave it to you to recount your own examples of legal but obviously dangerous behaviour. In one area - medical certification, the system is so bad that pilots now have to choose between obtaining medical treatment and keeping their job. This is killing pilots. I'm sure there are better arguments in favor of a more holistic, less prescriptive and safer system than Australias.

"The Age" newspaper has just filled in the blanks about Greg Lynn. Of particular note in the article: "In 1999, Lynn’s marriage collapsed and shortly afterwards, in October that year, Lisa was found dead in the garden of her home. It was listed as suicide from an overdose of anti-depressants and alcohol. To learn more about Greg Lynn’s past, police investigating the Clay and Hill disappearances have quietly called for the file on his first wife’s death." "Those who know him (and there are few) have described him as self-sufficient, self-absorbed, self-contained – a narcissist with an obsessive eye for detail. He was also a proficient pilot, highly intelligent and calm under pressure. " "Clay and Hill are not the only unsolved disappearances in the high country. While Lynn is not a suspect, police will, as a matter of completeness, attempt to plot his movements at the time when other campers and hikers have gone missing in Victoria’s high country." The police and the journalist are being rather coy. If you don't believe Lynn is a suspect in those four disappearances, then you believe in the tooth fairy. This situation has all the makings of a rather large book for a journalist to write.

Well that's the end of the story.

This whole thing is just boring unless you are involved in some way.....then it is tragedy. The Courts will sort it out.

How would an SAA be liable for an aircraft whose registration has expired or was never registered in the first place? I fail to understand the legal theory. We know and it is well established that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The law states that unless the aircraft is registered with an SAA it is not allowed to fly and the SAA has stated that without payment of a fee, registration expires. ‘’The law appears quite clear on this in regard to road going motor vehicles, why not aircraft?

The publicly available stuff is OK, it was the private stuff relating to Jetstar and other stuff not in the public domain (yet) that may be deemed prejudicial.

The blokes lawyer will seize on the link you provided and use it as evidence that his client can’t get a fair trial in Victoria. Please remove the link. Now that he has been charged the matter is now sub ju dice as you have pointed out.

RAAus has produced a very comprehensive proposed 760 Kg. Explanatory page on the website together with an excellent FAQ. Well done!!!!