sfGnome

I don’t think that that’s right (but I’m not a lawyer). The contact details are also in ERSA, and it’s up to you to ask for the specifics if you want. To not do so is a bit like signing a contract to buy a house without inquiring as to the price (yes, I know that’s an extreme example). A vendor doesn’t have to display a price, but they have to tell you when you ask.

It's just occurred to me (yes, I'm slow...) that we can only look at keeping CO out of the cabin, and not deal well with fire. The design of the Savannah/Ventura/(& I presume)701 with the steering rods and throttle control rods piercing the firewall, means that the firewall can't be made well fire resistant. Even a silicone boot will fail relatively quickly in the presence of flames whereas a rubber boot will die immediately, so silicone it is. I mean, it doesn't hurt to surround all the penetrations with a fire resistant silicone sealant, but in the not very long run, any fire is going to get through.

Thanks for starting this thread Marty, and thanks to all who provided advice and suggestions. I’ve been putting this off, and it’s given me the gently prod to finally get my act together.

I had a Kanad, which wouldn’t pass the GPS self test. I returned it for replacement under warranty, and the replacement wouldn’t pass the test either. Given that each test drains the non-replaceable batteries so it can only be done a few times in the device’s life, I couldn’t keep trying so eventually I gave up. Maybe I just had bad luck, but I’ll probably go with the GME next time (very soon).

Confession time… I was flying one day and a parachute dropped past me not a lot of metres away. Was I playing with the avionics? Nup, it was a standard 6-pack. Was I not paying full attention to the possibility of a parachute? Yes (which is especially relevant because I had heard the calls from the drop plane, so I should have been looking more carefully). My point - apart from recounting an embarrassing lesson learned - is that the canopy is not glaringly obvious. I didn’t see it until it was (thankfully) off to one side of me. Some metres to the right, and I’d either be dead or locked up for manslaughter.

That may be true, but I know that I wouldn’t swap what the last few years of building has given me for the instant gratification of flying something off the shelf (though I’m happy to accept that I’m possibly not ‘normal’ 😁).

No, it’s ok to charge it in the aircraft (see the last sentence of their message to you), but make sure that when you’re home, you put it on a mains charger for as long as it takes.

By the looks of that, you’d be glad that you weren’t landing in the opposite direction. ☀️

I found a gotcha in the regulations last night. If you're building a Group G aircraft (601 to 760kg - aka Light Weight Aeroplane) and intending to do your own maintenance, read on. If not, feel free to skip this. The RAAus Technical Manual says "Only appropriately qualified Part 66 licence holders may carry out maintenance on an amateur built lightweight aeroplane unless an individual has been authorised under CASA instrument 18/22 (or updated instrument)". Reading CASA instrument 18/22, it's all pretty straightforward (in their typical roundabout way). If you built it, or if you own it and have built an essentially similar aircraft in the past, then you can do the maintenance. So far, so good. However, right down near the bottom of the CASA document, it says "13. Before a person performs any activity authorised by this instrument, the person must hold a certificate of attainment, in the topics and standards specified in clause 12, from a course or an organisation mentioned in Annex 3", and then Annex 3 says "Training course and training organisations recognised by CASA for the purpose of this instrument 1. Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) Maintenance Procedures Course as approved by CASA. 2. A CASR Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation that is approved by CASA to provide category licence training." The thing to note is that there is no organisation that meets the requirements of point 2, so the only way that a builder of a lightweight aircraft can do their own maintenance is to join SAAA in order to do the course (which does not run very often). Talking with Jared at RAAus, he said that they are trying to get an existing online TAFE course approved by CASA for this purpose, so this may change. However, as of this date, that's CASA's rule, and what CASA say, goes. p.s. Note that the required course is not about maintenance; it's about procedures i.e. how to fill in the paperwork. p.p.s. Another interesting catch is that you can register your aircraft after obtaining your experimental certificate (CofA), etc, but you can't fly it until the maintenance release is signed, and if you haven't done the course yet, then you have to find a LAME to sign the release. Until then, no fly...

Just to clarify, SAAA and RAAus are totally different types of entities. SAAA exists to assist people to build and fly aircraft. They have absolutely zero involvement (apart from lobbying for changes) in the administration of aircraft. For the types we fly, it’s either CASA or RAAus for the administration. If you don’t like one, pick the other. If you don’t like either, then find another hobby. SAAA will help you whether you’re building for VH or RAAus registration (in my chapter, we have two builders aiming towards RAAus rego).

Ummm… What’s the black thing on the bracket in the bottom of the 2nd and 3rd pictures?

That patch of ground has lots of trees; it’s not open pasture. It’s possible that it hit a tree during the last phase of landing.

Wow. Put it in a museum!

That sounds like they’re moving into drone territory, so they really should be required to meet the ‘beyond line of sight’ drone rules (ie radio, conspicuity and licence). My old 2metre gliders would not have been visible from the ground at that height, let alone a small sports model.

Getting back to kiwi’s suggestion of 25nm navs, I did that too, but I did it as practice sessions between (expensive) nav lessons. I think maybe it’s better to avoid getting the bad habits that may arise from self (or good mate) tuition. As for using EFB vs charts, I follow the magenta line like everyone else, but I also print the tabular plan for fuel/time tracking, *and* the charts with the plan from the EFB. Got a nice surprise a little while back when the EFB wasn’t working (my fault - config problem), so I pulled out the chart, pointed the plane in the right direction, did a quick calculation on time to the next town, and, hey presto, there it was, right under my nose, right on time. Been a lot of years since I did that… 🙂