RFguy

and - remember a high proportion of the instructors at bulk flying schools are young kids getting hours. They're not 10,000-20,000 hour pilots. I'm beginning to think on how a pilot turns out, much depends on how their instructor was taught- whether they had an older instructor that taught an equal amount of airmanship, or a young , fairly green instructor (through no fault of their own- they just didnt get the full bottle ) that just teaches the basics. That's a generalization of course. There is good and poor across all ranks.

The trouble starts skip of course when there is no wind and some are going off north, some going off south..... no dead side. I am very cautious in that case. NEEDLESS TO SAY. I AM NEVER, EVER GOING TO LET THIS NEARMISS HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN. BY GADGETS OR WHATEVER

Yes, RAAus tech compliance is BS. But that's fine if you dont ever talk to them,--- as you get the opportunately, if you choose , to do whatever you like, as long as you do it sensibly, to some standard and consult your esteemed peers on their opinion. That is the GOOD thing about RAAus aircraft. The down side is that MFRs have the last word even if they are ++wrong. I beleive 24- (factory) aircraft should be within an AD regime , and 19- can pretty much stay like it is - that seems to work (per above - do it sensibly, do it to standard and consult your peers) . The Jabiru factory electrical wiring is a fire waiting to happen , and is sooo far from AC43.13 it's not funny. but, the MFR thinks it is fine !

it's funny a bit- true story here - when I get in my car and do a U turn , and then if the road ahead is dead straight.. I tend to out of aircraft habit, floor it, until I realise I am not on a takeoff roll....

problem is with itinerent / school aircraft is that there isnt any regime for keeping them charged AND in the metal PA28 , the position performance is "wholy inadaquite" unless they're out of the shadow of the metal skin under the windshield in front of the passenger . which is no good. so, they need to have the transponder upgrade which is notr so cheap because you got to put a GPS receiver into the roof skin which involes making a hole, a doubler plate, running a cable etc etc. This sort of problem would be mitigated with a dual receiver that talks to the other to get a composite picture of the sky.

smoke. yes. Yeah I like the marine radar idea. I've thought a handful of cameras could pick them up, also. A ground based system could also figure it out. However, ADSB on all ships make that much easier... However, if the flying school is not going to fit new transponders to all their fleet (although they have not specifically declined this- they MIGHT now) (about 16 aircraft I think) then I'll have to be defensive and have detection measures. The NVFR and IFR aircraft all have ADSB likely due to required / likely upgrades . It was like someone ran through a stop sign in front of me. 2 seconds max distance.

Now, I will get my ADSB-B TCAS style device out the door very much seriously. Yep, supervising instructor was briefed. They are my neighbours so we all need to live together, which is good because it drives objectivity in the post event chatter.

and avoiding this was purely luck..... more arse than class. been doing alot of different aerdromes lately. I've started to modify my inbound approach to a circuit if there is any traffic or activity such that I am unlikely to encounter arriving and departing traffic on straight ins straight outs even 5 miles out... (regardless of altitude) by coming over the dead side at 1500' and doing the steep sweeping descending 180 turn down to circuit height to midfield cross wind, so I maximize my chances of seeing things, and see what's going on the taxiways and runway. In busy circuits, there are good reasons for quick position calls on all the segments - despite the radio traffic increase which is sometimes discouraged.. It doesnt have to be your life story. quickly said Traffic Cowra Delta Romeo Foxrot base three-three Cowra. Doesnt even really need to word "Turning" or life stories like " intends to do a T&G after eating lunch and calling my mum:". Additionally, aircraft with one radio might go onto the AWIS from the CTAF and will miss radio calls.

Yesterday had probably the closest call I will ever have . I was mid - late downwind (doing Xwind exercise circuits) and an aircraft 'joined base' and flew across my nose, .. no notice. no radio call. about 2 seconds gap. same height. 2 seconds faster on the downwind and I'd be dead. geezus. I had ADSB , other aircraft did not. Didnt see them by sight or by conspicuity device. I remarked 'that was close' calmly but scared the sh1t out of my passenger (also a pilot) . The student piloted aircraft was previously turning crosswind when I was touching down on my T&G , so I was looking for that aircraft on late base in the air. The guess is they did a very deep wide circuit. mutter mutter. I would never had seen them to my right , looking over into the town background.

Deadly yes, potentially. Nev I guess you have looked up or are familiar with limitationns of a Duchess - the single engine missed approach IA minima on 35 for a hot day in Canberra ?

It would not take much effort to change the organisation if we wanted to by getting active before the AGM. Its an org elected by members so we can change it if we want to... just takes a little effort.

AND the other thing- Surely you re entitled to a quote or an estimate of costs BEFORE they send you an unknown bill ? IE a contract of sorts ? Get the lawyer blowtorch on this lot. I'll put in.

I wonder what they actually DID for their $660 If they had to do engineering legwork, ask them to provide the work done. IE was this just a money grab, or was an engineering appraisal done (and provide the worked solution please to prove that someone just didnt say ' yeah its fine') Given how poor RAAus persue Jabiru on many things, and how poorly , and incompetently they look into accident reasons, they are , in my opinion an incompetent organisation of gravy trainers with varying standards . The staff earn good money and I am yet to see evidence of high competency / high performance.

The difference between meeting the ASTM standard for LSA (light sport airplanes) and the standard for a Part23 for normal category is huge. It's enormous ! It's one reason why you can buy a very nice LSA new for $150k but a GA aircraft new 400k+ avionics. like this gem.

but certified to what exactly ? the answer to this is in the RAAus tech Manual https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus-technical-manual-issue-41.pdf There is "those that are accepted to be registered"- being a 24- aircraft does not mean is certified to some standard - IE this is not necessarily 'certified'. IE there is nothing special about being certified without qualification - EXCEPT that the aircraft (production) did in some way, have to satisfy CASA Part 21 requirements whether it was stated to meet a industry design regulation for that TYPE, or whether CASA was satisified by means of paperwork from someone that had cred, that it would meet those industry requirements or otherwise required design practice and performance (Thruster I guess) (which is worth something) Now, I hear everyone saying Oh it complies with ASTM for LSA. but there are a tone of standards in this league. look this one up. its a good brief. Search results for: 'Light+sport+aircraft' WWW.ASTM.ORG Four pages of results, and most of it relevant. which is all referenced as a recognized industry standard in : and Part 8 of Part 21, Manual of standards. Part 21 Manual of Standards Instrument 2016 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.AU the trail : through the RAAus technical manual : Page 11 is a good start. "Abbreviations and Definitions", and SECTION 3.2 FACTORY BUILT TYPE CERTIFIED or TYPE ACCEPTED AIRCRAFT and SECTION 3.3 LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (LSA) are relevant. While a Thurster is not strictly an LSA< since it predates LSA< I beleive it falls into the same qualified manufacturer backet for this discussion. In spirit, you just need to convince CASA (and how to do that is spelt out ) that it meets a category. In general : CAO 95.55 "Interpretation", Section 5: spells out RAAaus aircraft..... WHich leads us into https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/rules/part-21-casr-certification-and-airworthiness-requirements-aircraft-and-parts which two things are spelt out : 21.031 Type design—meaning and 21.041 Type certificate—meaning 21.172 Definitions for Subpart : 21.172 Definitions for Subpart In this Subpart: LSA standards means: (a) the standards for the design, performance or continuing airworthiness of light sport aircraft issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials, as in force from time to time; or (b) the standards prescribed by the Part 21 Manual of Standards for the design, performance or continuing airworthiness of light sport aircraft. Note: The standards issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials could in 2015 be viewed on the society’s website (http://www.astm.com). qualified manufacturer of a light sport aircraft means: (a) a manufacturer who, at the time the light sport aircraft was manufactured, held a current production certificate for an aircraft; or (b) a manufacturer who has made a written declaration that, at the time the light sport aircraft was manufactured, it had: (i) contracted engineering personnel with experience in ultralight or light aircraft design to ensure compliance with LSA standards referred to in paragraph 21.186(2)(b); and (ii) facilities and tools suitable for the production of the aircraft in accordance with the applicable LSA standards; and (iii) competent personnel, with appropriate training, skills and experience, to perform work that affects product quality. 2.3 For registration, RAAus must be satisfied that the aircraft complies with the standards and conditions of acceptance under the LSA criteria as described in AC 21.41(n) and AC 21.42(n). (where (n) = latest edition) g

Conditon report is just that. if there is a fist size hole in the wing, that is written down, has nothing to do with Airworthiness. If the engine has reached TBO, you must do what the mfr says. (that's what I do not like about RAAus - mfr has last word which is not always a competent or true decision) (and why I have essentially left RAA 24-) If the engine has reached calendar, the manufacturer can say you must rebuild it, and you must. Some MFRs have varying rules on this- IE if used for training or hire etc - these are RAAaus organisation tweaks around the edges. on a case by case basis there is facility for RAAus to grant variations and exceptions. As for this term "Certified aircraft" I didnt think there was any such construct in RAAus. Nothign in RAA-aus is 'certified' like a GA aircraft . well it might be but certified to something but to what ? there are many typres of certifications..... The term is used very loosely, obviously.

Change is OK. The section of the AIP on this (1.7) from 2017 was a bit of a dogs breakfast. the usual translation from legislation to plain language. The CASA legislation is full of "statement followed by a plethorea of exceptions to that statement " ! that's sort of how the previous AIP section was written. This is better . multiple passes of it and I can be fairly competent of interpreting it as the upper boundary layer (spelt out by the Area QNH) is NOT part of the transition buffer layer. IE if the buffer is FL100 to FL115, (Area QNH >=997 and < 1013 then you can cruise at FL115.

seems there has been continuous change of this chapter in the AIPs in 2017 there was a section descibed as "Limitation" .. - and it implied NO to my question - IE that you cannot cruise at FL110 if the upper boundary was FL110 for the day. BUT !!! but not in the 2022/- This has been replaced with TABLE 5 - B Table 5 indicates that FL115 is available unless QNH < 997 So this is different - ish

I have emailed CASA . We'll see what I get back. Generally, a 2D defined medium has boundaries to define it and these are not necessarily inclusive.

But if you are flying at the 10k' TA, you have altimeter QNH = 1013. (temp effects aside) If an aircraft was flying with altimeter set for 1013 and QNH = 1013 , at an indicated 9500' for they are flying at 9500 PA. If the aircraft was flying with altimeter set for 1013 and QNH actual = 997, (IE reads higher than you really are because air pressure is lower) at an indicated 9500' they are flying at ~ 9500-440'. = ~9060' PA If the aircraft was flying with altimeter set for 1013 and QNH actual = 1030, (IE reads lower than you really are) at an indicated 9500' they are flying at ~ 9500+467'. = ~ 9967' PA umm is that right ?

I was reading this . So if the upper level of the transition layer is FL115 on the day , can I fly at FL115? Because, by the definition I am not flying inside the transition layer at FL115 . (FL100 to FL115 in this example) about as good as it gets with the Archer is about a DA of 11500.

Skippy, do you REALLY need this? IE the SIMULTANEOUS probability of flattening the battery AND not having any vehicles nearby to jump start ? You'd be MUCH better off putting an Anderson SB50 connector somewhere pluggable connected to the battery and make a jumper lead that is that connector to a set of jumper lead crocodle clips. For say a 5 meter length, you will need a copper size of 17mm2. easy ! weight of total 10 meters of cable (5m run) will be 1.523kg. you can buy some 4 B&S 20mm2 high strand count battery cable around the place.

Mark Kyle will know when he pops up

When we flew with one in Thruster's RV, I made sure I could reach it and drop it over the side . Stuart we probably need a proceedure for this, to ensure it doesnt end up colliding with the empanage components. Any suggestions ? ANy suggested failsafe manouvers for this sort of thing ? I really wonder what manourver for a low wing would be best in this case.

I was just looking at the map display with the GPS output . The GPS output labels overwrote the presented data with my text sizing at maximum.