kgwilson

If the weather is clear or high cloudbase over 7000, Armidale to South Grafton direct is good. There are some pretty big hills (5000 feet) but stay high, or head north towards Glen Innes, follow the Mann River to Newton Boyd then the Boyd River and the Old Glen Innes Road through the range. There are camping areas and grassy spots where they used to rest cattle on the trek down to Grafton. Mogas 2 minutes walk from South Grafton aerodrome. Then fly down the Clarence to the Coast & head north. Call Brisbane centre to make sure the Evans Head Bombing range is not active (You'd have checked this when you did your flight plan but a check call will ensure they haven't changed anything) & then Ballina has a MBZ and CA/GRS (glorified Unicom). If there is an easterly breeze the trip from Yamba to Tyagarah will be virtually hands off so you can enjoy the coastal views.

3 hours ago, 408059 said:

KGW

In 1998 CASA announced a reform of the licensing system with promised legislation in 2001. The reforms CASA suggested included many elements of the RPL. It wasn't until 2014 that Part 61 became operational. Part 61 was touted as a milestone. I had another view.

 

I wouldn't only be pointing a finger at the public servants as mentioned above, they are answerable to the CASA Board and ultimately the politicians. Of course, the only thing the politicians react to is the bad media and getting back 'in' at the next election so reform is not necessarily a high priority. Reform may even may even result in bad media so conservatism reigns. Then you have the systemic issues. If you're a public servant out of industry or, heaven forbid, a former CEO from RAA now in CASA, and have a pragmatic view of how to administer recreation aviation, unless you adhere to the conservative culture wrought by the politicians then you are let go. Even if someone wanted to interpret the rules in a pragmatic way they'll end up with a 'please explain'. If they don't, there is always the performance audit administered by ANAO. Performance audits review regulatory adherence. ANAO findings that can be traced to an individual have consequences.

 

So what can we do? Well, we could convince the public to convince the politicians to direct CASA to reform the rules. Then again the public are only concerned about travelling in an airline and getting from point a to point b safely. Stories about accidents, beaten up by the media, undermine confidence in the industry. Recreation flying has their fair share of accidents. Another reason for CASA to be conservative and reform at a 'glacial' pace.

 

Some cynical thoughts.

 

 

My reference to CASA includes everyone from the Minister down. I have only experience with one other civil aviation body & that is the NZCAA. As President of the NZ Hang Gliding Association in the late 70s & early 80s I had an excellent rapport with those tasked to look after our interests. We were given privileges beyond our initial expectations and the rapport was maintained well after the time I moved on and the experience was similar once I became involved with powered flight.

I found the hostility by many pilots towards CASA when I began flying in Australia quite disconcerting. After hearing plenty of war stories (probably suitably embellished) I began to understand it better. In saying that I have since had a number of dealings with CASA, mainly in the training/ consultative areas and found those on the ground to be understanding and courteous and they always respond to questions etc. New directors seemingly are unable to effect change and the source of the reluctance to move probably lies within the hugely complex legislative process, something I have found in all parts of life in Australia

It took CASA 10 years to come up with the RPL which ended up being something entirely different from the RPL in the UK, USA, Canada & NZ where it took 3 months. Now there is a genuine historical answer to the speed at which CASA moves. Glacial indeed. The question is Why?

There is a good historical summary of the the Unescorted daylight bombing strategy of the US 8th airforce HERE Losses and the development of long range fighter escorts changed all that.

It was indeed a flying fortress bristling with guns but the engines were unreliable and the bomb load poor for such a large aircraft. It originally went into service with the RAF but losses saw them withdraw it from daylight service due to it's poor performance. The USAAF though continued with daylight use in 1942 & the later models improved in performance and bomb load but they flew at 35,000 feet & bombing was hopelessly inaccurate until they got a better bomb sight in the E model. There were more improvements with the F model but their losses to German fighters saw them withdrawn from service until the P51 & P47s were able to provide fighter escort in early 1944. In October 1943 alone, 176 (1760 men) were lost. Once they got fighter escort the losses reduced. It was only the American mass production war machine that enabled replacements to exceed losses.

With the wing spar in the middle of the fuselage bomb capacity was severely limited. With its high wing configuration, the Avro Lancaster excelled in Bomb capacity with the added benefit of 4 RR Merlin engines. I wonder how Boeing got the contract for something that didn't seem that suited to it main purpose as a heavy bomber. The RAF issued specifications for what it needed & one of these was for the P51 Mustang which was a superb fighter (once they put the RR Merlin in it) with very long range. I suspect like most American corporate deals it was all about price over capability.

I got our Aero Club hangar lean-to floor done a year ago. We have a Fergie 148 with a slasher & 2 x Iseki SF300 mowers in there. The concretor had a bobcat to level out the floor & put down crusher dust & levelled it. They also did all the form work & used steel reo on 50mm plastic chairs. No plastic lining as we don't have a rising damp issue, only flooding in Summer usually. The concrete depth is 100mm & we got it broomed for grip. Cost was $65.00/sq metre which was a reduced rate because we are a club. The job was well done & dead flat. Most of the hangars on the aerodrome have 90-100mm concrete floors or just gravel on the dirt base. Some have a concrete strip for the fuselage only & gravel either side & some have used old carpet on top of the gravel. Those with carpet usually have to replace it after a flood. 

My hangar has a centre fuselage strip on top of 11 truck & trailer loads of slag I got from the old brickworks in South Grafton to raise the floor 800mm from the surrounding area. After whacker packing the slag down it set really hard & I have carpet on it. It was the only hangar that did not get any water in it after the last big flood in 2013.

The Mosquito was probably the best multi role aircraft of WW2. It could outrun all of the German fighters and as a bomber could carry the same payload as a B17 Flying Fortress. Geoffrey de Havilland was a genius and the project for the "Wooden Wonder" was almost scrapped but for the tenacity of Wilfred Feeman who was responsible for choosing the aircraft for the RAF and signed off on all of the RAF specifications including the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Halifax & Tempest as well as the P51 Mustang.

Well I wouldn't bother to use it when using Mogas 98 as that has no lead and has aromatics that keep components clean anyway and improve combustion efficiency so it won't provide any extra benefit.

19 hours ago, Downunder said:

After having to use some avgas intermittently, I'm running BP 98 and Decalin.

 

What is the benefit of Decalin? I know it is an aromatic derived from Napthalene and is the defining core structure of cholesterol lowering Statins so presumably as an aromatic it will increase the RON number of the fuel.

Some years ago there was a debate regarding the best brand of Mogas to use. The consensus then was BP 95 due I think to the quality processes and guarantee of no ethanol. Since then many BP service stations no longer stock 95 and have gone to an ethanol blend which is 94 RON. 98 does not have ethanol in it so most have converted to 98. I use Shell 98 as that is what the Liberty servo stocks around the corner from the aerodrome &  they are on a busy road so the fuel is always fresh. Each brand has its own blend of aromatics to attain the octane rating & provide clean burning. There is virtually no difference between major  brands IMO. Ask the lame what his reasons are. You may well find it is that is what was said some time ago and no-one has challenged it.

I think the only way you'll find out is after a period of time running mogas & having a look. I've run my 3300A on mogas since new & only use avgas when I can't get mogas which is not very often. The pistons/head/valves look clean & the plug ceramic insulation stays white. The electrode is usually black but there is no buildup. The exhaust pipe is also black. That's pretty much the same as my car.

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I really have trouble with  recommending using a 2 fluted twist drill to establish a countersink relief in thin al sheet.. It  will invariably chatter and any thinning of the metal ensures that weakness will initiate a failure event (Cracking) earlier than would otherwise be the case.   Rivets are localised stress points and frequently where cracks originate. Bonding as well as riveting helps there.  Nev

You use a much larger HS twist drill like 10-12mm or so and only the very tip of the drill is used to create the countersink. You use hardly any pressure and it won't bite.  The D-box .025 sheet of both wings were CS riveted to the main spar (top & bottom) which is 4 x 40 angle this way & I had no problems with several hundred CS rivets. Just have a practice on some scrap material first

You just need an oversized twist drill to get a good countersink in the base material. Test it on a bit of spare material with different sizes till you get a good fit for the rivet. The rivet should go right in and be slightly below the surface of the material which will allow for the thickness of the dimpled skin. It is not hard. Practice a few times and you will be away.

You can make your own dimple tool with a piece of aluminium plate, a 6 inch nail and a countersunk rivet. Drill a hole in the plate (should be 6-10mm thick) with the correct drill for the rivet. Countersink the hole so the rivet fits perfectly in it with no part proud. Cut the point off the 6 inch nail and drill a hole the size of the rivet stem in the centre to take the full length of the rivet stem. Then all you need to do is place the countersunk piece of plate under the sheet, put the rivet in the sheet and into the countersunk hole in the plate, put the nail with the hole in it on the rivet and tap it with a hammer. Voila a perfect countersunk rivet hole. One rivet will make about 20 or 30 countersinks in sheet before it becomes distorted & then just throw it away and use a new one.

Of course you can do this for all different rivet sizes and make special plates for hard to reach areas etc

Given that you can be trained in your own amateur built aircraft I can't imagine why not.

When I was hang gliding I was looking for thermals and due to the slow airspeed the bumps never seemed that violent. When I began training in a C152 I instinctively wanted to turn into a thermal & got told not to by the instructor who had no gliding knowledge or experience. Once solo I experimented a bit & later graduating to C172s & PA28s rarely bothered and thermals just became turbulence.

Fast forward 30 years & my decision to convert to recreational. Thermal bumps are now much more pronounced & initially I was fighting them all the time. This is just a waste of time and energy as well as increasing stress on the airframe. I fly for fun so there are 2 options. 1 give up & go home or 2 get above the thermals into smother air. Yesterday I went for a fly and I climbed out & levelled off at 2000. There were lots of small punchy thermals and so I climbed and within 1000 feet the air smoothed out. I eventually went up to 4500 where it was hands off flying, then into the turbulence zone from 2000 down to 500 or so and a no wind landing.

15 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I've had personal experience of your system. My wife tripped on a concrete step undercut (form faulty forming) and broke her knee. The owner knew the step had been incorrectly made because by the time we went back next day the fault had been ground off (luckily I had a photo). Total costs which included medical in NZ and Aus, extra seat space in aircraft came to about $6,000.00. We got zero from the ACC. 

As a tourist you will be covered for medical expenses but not permanent injuries, property loss or disrupted air travel etc. That's why you should have travel insurance. Seems fair to me given you don't pay tax there other than GST on goods & services while there & you can get the GST back when you take things home with you.

The system has been around a long time & works. I broke my arm hang gliding in 1981. Everything was covered & because my wrist was not as agile as it used to be I was assessed as having a certain % disability & got a cheque for $2,500.00. I bought a new glider with it seeing I'd smashed up the old one. Removing the right to sue was one of the best bits of legislatioin they came up with. The system is self funding and has resulted in many costs being reduced.

I always used to write "Change tanks 60 mins" on my flight plan log and yellow highlight it to make it stand out in the old PA28-181 days before there were electronic gizmos to help. Worked a treat as I was always checking the plan for frequency changes etc. Now if I am going long distance I just start the transfer pump from the left wing to the main when the main gets to 1/4. Once the main gets back to over 1/2 I'll flick it to the right tank & wait till it gets to 3/4. This will give me about 75 litres in the main and each wing tank will have about 15 litres left in them. The wing tanks don't have gauges.

This is a case of how our ridiculous litigation system works for the benefit of lawyers who spin the carrot of Money to their clients. In my opinion all the people telling her about entitlement, pushing and shoving and generating anxiety and expectation have done far more to cause the psychological issues that the actual incident itself. I think we are the second worst suers in the world after the USA. I find it really difficult to understand how a 13 year old who did not get physically injured is now unable to work for the rest of her life. It is just Bullshit perpetrated by psychologists, Lawyers  and everyone else getting paid here.

If this happened across the ditch their Accident Compensation Commission would have resolved the whole issue in a couple of months and prescribed payment amounts made and everyone would have got on with their lives and the 13 year old would now be gainfully employed somewhere, but 9 years of everyone suing everyone results in this garbage. Makes me want to puke.

All you need in NZ is a CTR endorsement on your RA licence but as you already have a CPL you should be able to land at any airport unless the rules have changed. When I left in 2005 there were Microlights landing at Hamilton Airport and it is international. In NZ all aircraft are on the same ZK register.

The thing is the aviation grass roots world has moved on so there are few who want to fly the seat of the pants type aircraft these days. In the late 70s I first flew a weight shift controlled Quicksilver. It was fun and noisy given my hang gliding addiction at the time. 3 axis variants home builts of every shape and size and manufacturers began popping up all over the world. Modern materials and technological advancement determined the direction of cheap aviation and it has evolved into what we have today. Even though modern light aircraft are called Ultralights here and in the USA they are still called Microlights in the rest of the world but neither term suits what in reality are now Light Recreational Aircraft.

The AUF formed to look after all of this originally has also evolved but is still charged with managing what is left of the seat of the pants rag & tube aircraft. Perhaps it is time for a sub group of RAA to look after the interests of the old 95.10 category and for those that own these aircraft and love this type of flying to take control. The only obstacle I see is CASA, not RAA.

If you don't need 4 seats why not consider a newer (or even new) recreational aircraft. Possibly more up front cost but better performance, cheaper operating costs and cheaper maintenance.

The FAA is the US regulatory body not Australian which is CASA supposedly. No other civil aviation authority in the world including the FAA sought to impose any restrictions on Jabiru engines. Jabiru had already addressed the issues regarding the engine partial and full failures before the instrument was issued. Gen 3 engines were being produced since March 2013. Anti Jabiru politics and personalities were involved in this fiasco from beginning to end.

Lies damned lies and statistics. When CASA slapped a restriction on Jabiru engines in 2014 it specified 40 engine failures since 2011. When it was detailed the 40 became 12 that actually led to forced landings. An analysis revealed these included oil leaks and fuel starvation and other things requiring precautionary landings and shutdowns before the aircraft even took off & that was in 93,000 flights and 43.000 flying hours. These were mostly in Flying school aircraft one or two owned by a couple of disgruntled ex RAA people who had been recruited by CASA. Not only that Jabiru had implemented corrective actions for almost all of the 12.

All engines have problems especially in the early years of their development, and Lycoming, Continental and Rotax are no exceptions. If you want more statistics ATSB reported the failure rate for Jabiru engines declined between 2012 and 2013 from 3.9 to 3.25 per 10,000 hours while Rotax failures went up from 1.52 to 2.6 per 10,000 hours. Make of that what you will. The rate has continued to decline as issues are resolved. For example there have been no reports of through bolt failures in Gen 3 engines.

I landed my hang glider in a paddock full of cattle back in the late 70s. Curiosity saw them start a charge towards me. It wasn't till I saw the swinging tackle that I realised they were all young bulls. I grabbed my harness and took off over the fence. They all gathered around my glider and started licking and nudging it. They eventually lost interest and wandered off to graze. I went back and walked the glider to the fence which luckily had no barbed wire and lifted it over to the other side. There was no physical damage. My logbook entry was "Soaring flight from Kaimais, landed in bull paddock. Kite covered in genuine Bullshit."