skippydiesel

BP Camden 98 ULP $1.83 I carry 20L fuel bladders. If I land at Camden (unlikly) and hitch a ride into the BP, I will save almost $7.00 on 40L If I were to take a taxi - I would loose on the deal. So not just convenience also cost effective to fill from the airfield pump.😈

I am in a quandary. Have contacted Peter Anson regarding his highly recommended 6" Nylon hub tail wheel. "Nylon/Al wheel http://www.ansoneng.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250813_152356-300x222.jpg http://www.ansoneng.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Nylon-wheel-150x150.jpg"This is the type I use on my own Sonex. It is fitted with quality 6000RS sealed ball bearings and a bearing spacer, enabling full tightening of the axle nut. The wheel is machined from PA6 nylon with a removable 6061 Aluminium rim half. Standard tire fitted is 6″ x 1.25″ 4 ply. Mass of wheel and tire is less than 340 grams (0.75 pounds). " In the course of writen conversation Peter has offred : 150 x 50 nylon wheel – 810 grams (1.79 pounds) http://www.ansoneng.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20241207_180539-300x201.jpg http://www.ansoneng.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20241207_180539-300x201.jpg"Heavy duty and still pretty light weight – these come fitted with a “Hota” 150 x 50 skateboard/electric scooter tyre." The Nylon/A1 wheel is narrower, a little cheaper and lighter than the Hota. The Hota will have better "flotation" ie deal with soft ground and dirt strips better, but likly higher drag (less speed/increased fuel consumption). Both a pneumatic. Decisions! Decisions! All informed comments will be well received😈

See my comment above.😈

Strange thing: I have owned 2 Rotax 912 ULS. Both use 98 RON. Twice I have adulterated this good fuel with a bit of AvGas - No Change to performance. No Benefit other than availability/convenience on that particular trip/day The first went to 900 hrs+ befor being sold. The second I am now using - 250 hrs. In all of the time & flight (Hobbs) hrs never so much as a cough - smooth as silk. As you may know, Rotax 912 UL (80 hp) is recommended to burn ULP Min. 91 RON Rotax 912 ULS (100 hp) recommended to use ULP Min. 95 RON When I acquired my firs 912, I took the view that adulteration, at some stage in the fuel supply system, was possible. With this in mind I decided to go the extra mile/cost and use 98 RON whenever possible (99% of the time). The theory being, that even if the 98 RON had significant adulteration, with other fuels, it was unlikly to go lower than the equivalent of 95 RON. So far so good. Later Rotax came out with a recommendation, for 912 ULS, of 98 RON as the prefered fuel quality ( to do with reduced "knock" potential), can still use 95 RON with care. This is my long winded way of poring scorn on the notion that ULP 98 RON (from a well patronised fuel station) is somehow inferior to that supplied as "AvPULP (aviation grade 98 mogas)" which sounds like a marketing ploy, for which the gullible patrons will, no doubt, pay dear.😈

Already stated - I don't think the OP is reading the responses to their problem.😈

I already asked about the crank speed - no answer as yet. I don't think you can assume that a starting system (battery, wiring, contacter/solenoids, starter motor) are all in good condition, just because the engine starts when warm/hot. Cold starting is always the most demanding.😈

When a pilot declares an emergency, they fear for the continued safety of the aircraft & its occupants. I am unaware of a proscribed situaton (s) or condition(s) for the above. Weather, mechanical, medial, birdstrike, etc etc may all constitute an emergency. The skill / knowledge, level (VFR / IFR / RAA / ATPL / etc) or lack of does not change the formula - what one one pilot may be able to handle, does not mean another may be overwhelmed. My limited understanding - In Australia the Air Transport Safety Board (ATSB) investigates aviation incidents https://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation-safety-investigation-australia ATSB does not lay charges however the State Coroner, where there is a fatality, may advise the police to do so. 😈

Mostly - however many find that a smidgeon of throttle works better than none. I have very little jab experince - don't think they don't have the "soft start" auto ignition advance, of the Rotax, so a little throttle often helps to get the cold engine straight into fast idle. Its also important to keep cranking the engine, until start has been established - To many pilots let the start button/switch go, on the first cough of the engine.😈

Go Rotax!!!! 😈

It seem likly you are flooding the engine and or carburettor rubber parts need replacing. Good Luck! 😈

Hi Del, Check out the Thread Is it too late for me?. Much of what you have asked, is covered therein. There are quite a few Flying Schools in the Hunter Valley - no personal experince. Start by checking out the closest 😈

I agree with Clouddancer -I suspect that RAA will transfer, a so endorsed,current PPL ie you have done a PPL/CTR BFR within the last 2 years & have the required medical. RAA doesn't actually have to recognise your CTR rating - you can just use it (subject to the above currency)😈

Can't help with a preloved prop cover . Try https://punkinheadair.com.au/ for custom made 😈

Th clue is in the title of this thread.😈

When a PIC declares an emergency, they & their aircraft have right of way ie entry to controlled airspace will not be refused. There will likly be an investigation into all aspects of the declared emergency. If the emergency was found to be bogus, I suspect that the pilot may find themselves in very deep manure.😈

RAA pilots wishing to go to/from the lower Hunter Valley will now require a CTA endorsement and all the rigmarole inherent in using it. Thes norther routes are over densely populated parts of Sydney and or heavily treed rugged terrain - Tiger Country There is an alternative in Victor 1, that sort of hugs the coast, that does not require the endorsement but does have the aircraft at 500 ft above the sea and in some places well away from land - wet Tiger Country. Go West Young Man and you wont need a CTA endorsement however it seem you will fly worryingly low over the Great Dividing Range - Real Bad Tiger Country. East is of course your rout to the USA & The Donald - scarry stuff! South is the only "friendly"(the potential for a relativly safe forced landing), way out but will add many minutes/fuel consumption, to any trip.😈

Okay! How do you do a power off approach & landing?😈

Advisory circulars (AC) We published the following ACs in June: AC 139.C-02 v1.1 - Aerodrome personnel AC 139.C-20 v2.0 - Disabled aircraft removal AC 147-02 v8.9 - Approved Part 147 training organisations AC 139.C-14 v2.0 - Airside vehicle control AC 139.F-01 v2.0 and v2.1 - Design and operation of Australian water aerodromes for air transport operations AC 121-11 - Part 121 alternate aerodromes AC 139-10 v1.1 - Guidelines for vertical flight facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes New guide available for smaller aeroplane operators Smaller aeroplane operators now have access to a new Plain English Guide. The guide explains the rules under Part 135, including Part 119, of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. It simplifies complex regulatory language and helps operators meet their obligations. The guide can be downloaded for free. Print copies will be available later this year. To give feedback on this, or any of our plain English guides, complete our online form. Stay OnTrack - Flying the Sydney region We have published a new Stay OnTrack guide for flying in the Sydney region from 9 July 2026. It includes: VFR routes and tracking points airspace infringement hotspots local weather information practical tips for flying in the Sydney region. Use the guide before your next flight from 9 July. This applies to whether you fly in Sydney often or only transit through. Download Stay OnTrack - Sydney region. Stay OnTrack - Flying the Gold Coast region We've updated our Stay OnTrack - Flying the Gold Coast region. The guide now includes the Ballina airspace changes that start on 9 July 2026. Download the updated guide.

FYI; Access to controlled airspace for sport and recreation pilots We have amended Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55. These amendments will allow sport and recreation pilots operating under Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) to operate in controlled airspace and controlled aerodromes, provided: RAAus authorises them to do so they individually meet certain minimum requirements the aircraft meets certain minimum requirements.

BS! CANNOT indicates an inability (as in physical/mental) not a regularity (legal prevention) requirement. Simple Example: You can kill a person. The law / religion etc say you should not. 😈

There is no parallel - The failure of the dozer operator to meet the manufactures standards (assuming your obscure reference to a grease can, somehow caused the damage mentioned) is entirely the fault of the operator. 😈

I believe Thruster 88 has used CANNOT in the correct context because he has qualified the statement with the instructor preventative action. The problem I have with Part 61 (in this context)is that it is preventing the use of RAA registered aircraft to conduct a GA review. There is no physical/practical reason why the RAA aircrafts cannot be used (subject to it meeting the necessary fitout standards, for the review being conducted). Its an entirely bureaucratic restriction. When someone uses a word like CANNOT in this context, it infers something beyond a rule thought up by CASA. It suggests that the RAA aircraft is somehow deficient, such that it should not be used for the review. This is obviously ridiculous, as it has no foundation in reality. As I understand the function of the BFR - It is to reviewed the pilots aircraft changeling skills and aviation knowledge, to determine weather they are safe to operate in Australian skies. ie its a safety test of the pilot, that has no practical relationship to the aircraft flown or its registration.😈

Other than telling some tangential story about heavy equipment - What is your point?😈

Well I believe the the word CAN means its is possible to do it (whatever it is) When NOT is added, it means that its not possible to do. In this context (CASA/RAA rules). This is clearly incorrect - You can do your GA BFR in an RAA registered aircraft. It may not be recognised (as a legitimate BFR) as there is a legal requirement to do it in a GA (VH) registered aircraft it ie may not be legal but it can certainly be done. The miss use, understanding, of the English language is ubiquitous - doesn't make it correct.😈