Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

damiens

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About damiens

  • Rank
    Active member
  • Birthday 13/09/1970

More Information

  • Aircraft
    Shock Cub
  • Location
    Nowra
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So facthunter, would it be fair to say that putting larger main wheels on a taildragger would generally make it more stable, once the tailwheel is on the ground?
  2. damiens

    damiens

  3. Yep, I agree with that sentiment for sure. The only spot that springs to mind that fails that test for me is Bankstown, if the wind is from the east. Not a lot of options on take off in most singles, except maybe if i was in the cub and even then it would be very sketchy if I had a problem below 500 ft. Sometimes, there is not a choice, but mostly there is.
  4. Thanks for the references. I think I must be missing something here, I can’t see the “happy days”. Section 3 which is part of phase one testing says 3. Except for takeoffs and landings, no person may operate this aircraft over densely populated areas or in congested airways. It then says section three relates to phase 2 testing as well. To really confuse things, I am not sure what this has to do with controlled airspace, I thought no flying over densely populated areas was a completely different thing to controlled airspace requirements (although many controlled airports are in densely populated areas). Yep, im still unclear whether I can use UL Power motor in my aircraft to fly over densely populated areas Or Are you saying that once the aircraft has finished testing the restrictions are lifted and no longer apply.
  5. Hi all, I would like to build an appropriately equipped aircraft in VH experimental amateur built category (EAB), it must be allowed to fly over built up areas on occasion. The contention seems to be that that it must have a recognised aircraft engine, but not necessarily be certified. Therefore, can I assume that a Titan or Rotax is fine as they have ASTM certificates.? Where do I stand with a UL Power engine? They currently don’t have an ASTM, but by my view are clearly recognised aircraft engine and have been in the business for many years. Is there a list of recognised aircraft engines that will allow me to happily fly over built up areas like I would in a GA certified aircraft? Calling all SAAA and legislation gurus. Thanks Damien
  6. Hi there, I found the list of L4's on the RA Aus site, but I don't know any of them. Can someone recommend a good L4 in the Sydney, NSW South Coast area (even west of the divide could work). Thanks Damien
  7. Are you saying that I need an formal excemption to fly an experimental LSA in CTA? I have a transponder, a PPL etc, is there some special limitation of what aircraft rego type I can fly in CTA. I always thought it was all about the pilot plus a transponder and radio. Do I have this wrong?
  8. Thanks all for the replies. I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves. cheers Damien
  9. Hi Sophie, I remember reading a thread on the Cirrus forum (cirruspilots.org) where some people did a similar trip. I will try and find it, but you should be able to find it with search. I vaguely remember lengthy discussion about radio requirements, customs etc. cheers Damien
  10. I came across the following on the RA Aus website - LSA synopses Operating Limitations for Experimental LSA The operating limitations for experimental LSA are the same as other experimental aircraft such as amateur built aircraft. Experimental LSA cannot be used for flying training (unless training the owner). These aircraft are limited to day flying under the visual flight rules and cannot be operated over built-up areas unless authorised by CASA or an authorised person I can’t find any other references in the operations manual or the technical manual. What does built up area mean? Does the rule still apply? Does that mean that I couldn’t fly the VFR lane North of Bankstown (by any definition a built up area)? Before the thread goes sideways, I do understand the perils of built up areas, and the required 1,000 feet agl, I just don’t understand the imposed limitation for a particular aircraft. Thanks Damien
  11. Thanks for this, I am very familiar with sched 8. I have just read through all the appropriate bits in the RAA tech manual. It's a complicated business, but seems to have freedoms that don't exist elsewhere. For others reading, my scenario above may work in the RAA world with a two seater, but not anything larger. I assume this may change in the future if the weight restrictions change. Thanks again.
  12. Kit/Amateur built maintenance. Do I have this right? If I purchase a non factory built, non certified, non S-LSA (either kit or from plans) aircraft, that I did not build. All maintenance or modification on this aircraft will need to be performed by a LAME (not an L2, L3 or L4) regardless of whether it is registered "VH" experimental or with RA Aus? So as another example, say Joe Bloggs takes advantage of the "two weeks to taxi" program from Glassair (that complies with the 51% build rule - let's just assume it does comply). Joe Bloggs flies this aircraft for a couple of years and maintains it himself, then he decides to sell it to me. In the above scenario, would I always need a LAME to do all maintenance? And just for the record, this question comes from reading as many CASA regs as I could find on the subject, and what a rabbit hole that was.
  13. So is this based on an approx 9% weight increase (from 550kg to 600kg) and corresponding 9% performance decrease from 650ft per minute to 595ft per minute. Does this imply that the climb performance degradation is linear with the weight increase. That sounded way more complicated then i intended. Understanding that things like density altitude and other factors are more significant, I thought it would be handy to have a rough guide given that the POH is next to useless on the issue. My thinking being that if I am very used to flying a particular aircraft at say 500 kg and I chuck in a passenger and some luggage in, I could expect X fpm in climb. Of course, the other way is to go for a fly and check it out :-). Thanks all for the input.
  14. Is there a rule of thumb calc for changing weight and rate of climb. As an example. If at standard conditions, sea level, 1013 and 15 degrees and 550kg takeoff weight I achieve 650fpm climb at VY. Is there a calculation to say what rate of climb FPM I would expect at 600kg (extra 50kg). So what would the extra 50kg decrease the rate of climb by, all things being equal?
  15. G'day Howe, just so happens at my local the other day we were listing our beaches collective kitesurfing injuries (small group of about 15). Broken fibia, two ACL's, entire flesh stripped from an index finger plus a rotar cuff. This kitesurfing is dangerous, I'm going flying :-)
×
×
  • Create New...