old man emu

19 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

Sentenced to a minimum of 2 years in jail today.

Which is the punch line of the joke.

Don't forget that the biggest cost of any project from house to boat to plane is the cost of labour. That's why people build their own aeroplanes in the garage. Fortunately, if this project goes ahead, it will be funded by donations from people with deep pockets, as well as from the "widow's mite". One thing I will be doing is getting the advice and guidance of my clients in the industry. That's where the money is spent if it can't be donated. There are some jobs (welding) that by Law will have to be outsourced to a CASA approved person.

If any of you has built their own aeroplane, answer me this: After you were shown the various techniques, was the actual completions of the task beyond the scope of the average person?

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I often wonder just where the reporting aircraft is.

People don't realise a radio transmission will travel from a height above ground, especially of that ground is flat for miles and miles.

On 17/10/2020 at 11:37 AM, onetrack said:

Stipa-Caproni it is!

Here's a copy of a 1948 Daily Telegraph from Sydney https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/27419876?

There's plenty of news to read in it.

Had to laugh at one thing. At the time the Federal Minister for Agriculture was a Mr Pollard. He was in dispute with the Wheat Board.

16 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

In the case of this pilot, was he really ignorant of flying things or was he just not carrying the ( expensive ) bits of paper around?

On Day One of his pilot training he would have become aware of the need to have been issued with these "bits of paper". There is an offence of "fail to produce" which could be detected on a ramp check, but if an authorised person had a modicum of sense, they would deal with that offence with an Official Caution at best (if they could confirm the identity of the person they wished to deal with).

You would be surprised at the number of people who have years of (moving offence)-free driving yet have never been issued with a driver's licence.

One point I can agree with Bruce on is the ridiculous amounts governments charge for permissions to do things. I appreciate that there are costs involved in purchasing and maintaining the electronic devises used to store all the databases holding the information required for the task, but that cost is spread over a large population. I am about to renew the registration and CTP on one of my vehicles. It will be done on-line by sending a few kilobytes through the Internet. That will involve an expense of a few cents, or less.

Yep. "Demand money with menaces" is an offence, however "menaces' means immediate threat of injury or death to the person being menaced, or to other persons in proximity to the person from whom money is being demanded. The offence must involve that threat of physical harm.  Demands for fees and taxes imposed by governments lack that element of physical harm. A wallet is an inanimate object that cannot fear harm.

10 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Sometimes I fail.

 

For pilot licences ... regs 61.120 & 61.145 refer to authorisations to use radio.

Thanks.

I'll also have to check on the requirements for operating a radio ground to air for when we are moving about on the aerodrome.

59 minutes ago, jackc said:

Was it not called ‘Obtain money under false pretences’. ?

Basically the same offence as "Obtain benefit by deception". The title of the offence just varies beteeen jurisdictions. "Obtain benefit" simply widens the range of things that can be obtained.

Attempt to commit an offence:

(1) A person who attempts to commit an offence is guilty of the offence of attempting to commit that offence and is punishable as if the offence attempted had been committed.

(2) For the person to be guilty, the person’s conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact.

(3) For the offence of attempting to commit an offence, intention and knowledge are fault elements in relation to each physical element of the offence attempted.

Example: A person approaches a service station carrying an item that can be used to threaten the person working at the till. Just before entering the building the person pulls the hood of their hoodie over their head. The person enters the building and announces his presence. If something happens that prevents the person from successfully rob the servo, the offence of "attempted armed robbery" has been committed.

For an offence to be a summary offence, the statute that creates the offence must clearly say that it can be dealt with summarily. If it does not, then the offence is an indictable offence. Indictable offences require a trial by judge and jury.

55 minutes ago, Yenn said:

If he was on final when the engine stopped why didn't he make the field. Another case of relying on power to complete the landing.

Analysing some photos the aircraft  may have had the engine failure at the end of downwind because the direction of landing was the direction of the Base leg as indicated by the black arrow and the red premises marker.

Go back to the original story and I think you will find that you have misinterpreted the report and therefore overlooked what offences were misdemenaours and which were indictable. I looked at the penalties for a number of offences in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and most penalties are a maximum of 50 units. One unit = $220, maxing the maximum $11,000. Imprisonment is not one of the penalties provided for in the Regulations. That would make any of the CASR offences misdemeanours.

The indictable offences would be those relating to obtaining benefit (money) by deception ( fraud). If convicted of an indictable offence, bring your toothbrush with you to the sentencing, cause you'll be sleeping in the King's Arms for a good while.

6 hours ago, djpacro said:

general english lannguage proficency,

You failed!

I obtained my Radio Operator's Licence back when I first started flying in the early 70s. Like so many, the activities of Youth ceased  with the utterance of a mere two words, "I do".  

Is a radio operator's licence a lifetime thing? I'm mean, apart from brushing up on mandatory transmissions while returning to currency with my pilot's licence, I wouldn't have to sit the exam again, would I?

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Enquire from the people at Luskintyre

They maintain two Comper Swifts and do some fantastic work on other projects.

If one has the right contacts, all the restorer needs is patience and to set high-ish standards for the completed job. I've been thinking about how I would manage the project for the Museum and have figured out who I would call in to supervise the several stages. 

The BAT-2 was supposed to have been destroyed in a windstorm. If this is the extent of the damage:  then it's do-able.

At the time it was damaged, maybe the owner didn't have hull insurance, or deep enough pockets. The fact that the aeroplane was kept for so many years, and accepted by a museum, makes me think that it would be a realistic project. I see the biggest costs as being some tubing, a heap of spruce, glues, fabric and dope. For such a unique and historic aircraft, I'm sure that I can find benefactors.

Sterp 1: Find your remains.

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

  I'll do it for half a million,

There will be no cheap bastards working on this project!

I can't see how building, or restoring a simple rag and bone aircraft could tun into millions.

On 04/11/2022 at 9:52 PM, old man emu said:

Just an update on the proposed date of the event. A big source of helpers for the event is the local horse endurance riders club, They have an event on the 15th and that will occupy them and the reast of the vvillage. So we are moving our event to SATURDAY 27 April.

No it's not. We have finally settled on Saturday 20th May. Please pencil that into your appointment books.

If you are interested in coming, either as a competitor or just for a meet-up, please email me at [email protected] so I can add you to the mailing list.

PRIVACY NOTE: I won't give you email address to anyone else. Promise.

17 hours ago, onetrack said:

He did a much better design job on BAT-2 than he did on BAT-1.

You have to remember that the BAT-1 was 1920's technology. Geoffrey de Haviland's 1920's products were not nuch different. Butler simply could not afford to buy the materials for 2 wings. 😀

12 hours ago, onetrack said:

I like that little BAT-2, all the lines just look right.

Butler writes that the "machine proved to be easy to handle". During the test flying he investigated its spin characteristics. The aeroplane "had been designed so that it would not spin".  Testing that design feature  "the attempt was a failure, the worst the aeroplane would perform was a steep spiral". "Although the machine was by no means perfect (no aeroplane ever is), it was very docile and unlikely to 'bite' anyone who ventured aloft in it".

"With pride and satisfaction, I strutted away from the aircraft ... but my elation was tempered to a degree by the extremely vulgar comment of one of the 'lads of the village' who loitered about the precincts of the aerodrome whenever there was any flying activity."

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

What motor  was in it?

BAT-2 was a 2-seater and had a 60 kw (80 hp) Cirrus Minor four-cylinder in-line air-cooled engine. 91 kg. (  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Cirrus_Minor )

A Jab 2200 of 80 HP weighs 63 kg, so that's a likely replacement. That would bring the MTOW down to 743 kg. I suppose that some judicious use of materials could slim off those 43 kg to get it under the 700 kg limbo stick.

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

If the remains of the original aircraft are substantial enough to be rebuilt

Did you know that if all you had was teh manufactuer's data plate, you can build a whole plane around it?

Yep. It's actually the BAT-2. BAT-1 was an earlier build that didn't go too well. Just grabbing a picture from my Butler material, I think this is BAT-1

 There was nothing wrong with all things aerodynamic. It got damaged due to a lousy engine.

As you explore early aircraft you find that in most cases the design was OK, after the usual tweeks discovered during flight testing. It was the engines that caused all the problems. They just were not up to the standard of modern engines. But at teh same time, motor vehicle engines were not perfect either.

On 22 July 1937, Arthur Butler completed the maiden flight of this aeroplane, shown in the latter stages of construction.

Butler designed the aeroplane and built it at the Butler Air Transport Company’s workshops at Cootamundra,  NSW. It was the first aircraft designed and built in Australia to be issued with a Type Certificate by the Department of Civil Aviation (now CASA), which had been formed in 1938. I have recently located the plans for the aircraft and maybe even its remains.

The question is: Should the aeroplane remains be restored, or is it lawful to use the plans to build Serial No 2?

SPECIFICATIONS:

And here's the story of the Lister Company

Not to be confused with the antiseptic solution, Listerine.

Listerine is an American brand of antiseptic mouthwash that is promoted with the slogan "Kills germs that cause bad breath", Named after Joseph Lister, who pioneered antiseptic surgery at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary in Scotland, Listerine was developed in 1879 by Joseph Lawrence, a chemist in St. Louis, Missouri. Inspired by Louis Pasteur's ideas on microbial infection, the English doctor Joseph Lister demonstrated in 1865 that use of carbolic acid on surgical dressings would significantly reduce rates of post-surgical infection. Lister's work in turn inspired St. Louis-based doctor Joseph Lawrence to develop an alcohol-based formula for a surgical antiseptic which included eucalyptol, menthol, methyl salicylate, and thymol (its exact composition was a trade secret). Lawrence named his antiseptic "Listerine" in honor of Lister.

Maybe we should declare war on the USA, and when we lose they will give us aircraft carriers and submarines and a car industry.

7 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

By the time you posted this, you were perfectly well aware that RF was using the term correctly. 

No I wasn't. That's why I asked.