skippydiesel

Just in case there might be the perception that I am advocating an emergency "fast"  turn back to the field - I am not.

A turn back in under 500 ft will almost always have an unpleasant end. Planing to land straight ahead, or at least not diverting too much, is by far the safest strategy, particularly if you are flying a low inertia aircraft.

To turn back at or above 500ft will not only require a "fast" response but also an intimate understanding (more than just knowledge) of your aircrafts capabilities and then capacity to land down wind. 

I am conscious that the very few times I have practised this, it has been with a still functioning engine/prop which may have been providing just enough thrust to enable a survivable turn back (& with the safety net of adding power,  should it have been required).

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

If you are doing your finals turn at less than 500', there is a good chance that you are going to be influenced by the ground and if you are going downwind will get a false sense of speed. You will not be wanting to look at the ASI, because the ground is near, so there will be a tendency to pull back to slow down,  resulting in the stall.

Moral of your story is; Practice down wind landings. Believe me, very different sensations/perceptions, to an into wind.

In relation to strong gusts/windshear/turbulence - the security, I hope, I am getting from flying an aircraft designed for acrobatics, is not unfounded.

You may be correct, in regard to the current contribution of AvGas to lead pollution,  In my book its like arguing something is a small wrong, as if scale makes it acceptable - its wrong and that is it.

1 hour ago, Flying Binghi said:

 

Lead: terrible stuff in excess, though so is water.

 

Re the video: I’d question the claim of lack of lead in the worlds oceans prior to leaded fuels.

 

Lead is a naturally occurring mineral found in deposits all over Australia and the world. In Australia lead is naturally found in creeks and rivers that flow to the ocean. Lead is found in the dust blowing across Australia and in the smoke of bush fires. Lead is naturally found in a lot of bore water.

 

Go swimming at the beach and lead can be found in sea spray. 

 

Aviation’s input into Australia’s overall atmospheric lead levels would be feck-all.

 

 

 

 

.

Sorry I don't get your point - lead like many other metals is found naturally in our environment, as is radiation of several types- this I understand.

The Earth organisms are adapted to a "normal"  background amount of all sorts of toxins but when these rise above normal unpleasant things are likely to results eg brain development in our young.

Surely the point is the amount that is now found in our environment, since man started to use it in all sorts of ways (including IC engines)????

A classic example of how market economy philosophy can get it so  wrong & even worse stand in the way of progress toward a cleaner environment and fewer heath problems.

I have only limited experience  is flying up/down part of the east coast & as far inland as Condobolin - the airfield that seems to lend itself to Ian's excellent suggestion (above) is Armidale -  Speculation; there may be other airfield situated along side a major road/highway that could also have a lad/air refueling facility. Otherwise the cost of a fuel depot for such a low volume usage, would either prohibit installation or put the the cost of ULP up near Avgas

Bit late to join this conversation - I have used SkyBolt fasteners - quite a large range to pick from. Not cheap and the gigantic catalogue offering takes a lot of getting used to

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Yes, I've worked with a lot; many work until after midnight.

Yes but to who's benefit??

Humans are a weird bunch - we elect (inc. dictators) leaders who may have had the appropriate characteristics for the job, when we all had our knuckles dragging on the ground but our now completely unsuited to lead.

Back in the day it was to the tribes advantage to have a strong/brutal leader to protect them / win assets,/ etc. These are people who have an unshakable belief in their right to lead and us , the proletariat, to follow.

The very characteristics that may have been attractive in the stone age, compels these individuals to seek power (Check out The Trump/Putin/Erdoğan/Jonhson/Salman/ etc etc the list will be almost as long as the World nations - I would even speculate that the world religious leaders re in the same camp (possible exception being the Dalai Lama)

56 minutes ago, red750 said:

You have to be some kind of masochist to enter politics. Expected to be at every function run by any school, sporting club, ethnic group, etc, when there are things you would rather be doing. Blamed for anything that goes wrong, take some time for you and your family and you are failing your job, do anything for your electorate, like upgrading infrastructure, etc., and you are accused of pork-barreling. You can't win.

I am willing to give most of the independents the benefit of the doubt but not the creatures that inhabit the main parties - psychopaths/god or god given complex, the lot of them.

I have no doubt there are some (probably independents) that have a strong ethical stance. I doubt this for the career poly in the two (libs/nates are 1) main parties. It is they who jump from policy to policy, have "core/non core promises", use the tax payers $ to buy votes and generally wrought the system. Recent instance; Poly accused of miss behaviour with  female colleague/employee - found (by totally independent investigation Ha!) to have nothing to answear for - aggrieved party paid off, to tune of $500K, tax payers dosh. Apparently that's all above board & reasonable - yeah!!! what would happen to you or I in similar circumstances???

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

After reading that I expect you probably would be a bit short on assistance.

 

Assistance ????

You have a different view on the career poly?

I would also suspect a level of political inertia - this is when a law becomes redundant, for whatever reason but remains in effect (even if not policed).

This is usually because;

• No polly wants to put their name, to removing a law, which due to unforeseen circumstance, suddenly becomes relevant, putting their career in jeopardy 
• The fear of the opposition "beating it up" to make political mileage out of it.
• The financial cost to undoing legislation.

What credit is there for any polly to support the overturn of a redundant law, that effects so few potential voters? (Risk V Gain)

Mainstream Pollys (the lowest form of human existence) do little if anything beyond what is politically expedient for themselves.

4 hours ago, walrus said:

The purpose of ASIC cards is to provide a capability for control of access to aviation infrastructure. The fact that they aren't controlling much at regional airports NOW doesn't invalidate the program.

 

Try getting and remaining airside at a major capital city airport without an ASIC. Try getting an ASIC  and a job in aviation if you have a criminal record. Read the list of disqualifying conditions for an ASIC.

 

I'm going to be travelling via Ports requiring ASICs. Some of them have three strand fences that can't even keep the kangaroos out, but that isn't the point. In future, security can be ramped up very quickly at those ports - just hire the guards and build the fences. The ASIC is the bureaucratic infrastructure that supports improved security - when we need it.

Note; I am not against ASIC or Red Cards per say - they and the"system" have my full support,  as it pertains to larger hubs (number of air craft movements/people, aircraft size, national ports).

I do not support the "shotgun" approach, as this is how the system was introduced & managed now, for sport/recreation pilots and their use/access of minor RPT airfields.

My beef ((in line with the majority of my pilot peers) has nothing to do with jobs in aviation or entry to airside of the larger hubs. If you had read my previous comments on this matter, you would know that.

You talk of "future security" how exactly do you see the requirement to have a Red Card (renewed every 2.5 years) for sport level pilots, flying into low frequency RPT airfields, with little/no security to speak of , saving us,  in the event of some (unlikely to involve or originate with criminal band of sport pilots/from a low level RPT field) future terrorist event(s)??????

11 hours ago, Flying_higher said:

Poor choice of analogy? Why? Because it demonstrates that a private organisation is at the behest of the government? Righto….

 

as I said previously, RAA is already on record for advocating for their members on this very issue but they have no ability to control the issue. It’s home affairs and given some

clowns flew some planes into a building a few years ago I can’t see RAA’s advocacy doing SFA. But sure, blame them if it makes you feel better. 
 

and as far as SportPilot is concerned, I’m not sure why you think they are supporting the ASIC. perhaps they’re seeking the reasons why our government insists on them. That’s very different from supporting them. Maybe if your so against ASICS you should just stay away from airports that require them then they won’t be an issue. 
 

 

(Passports) Poor choice of analogy? - The only similarity between passports & Red Cards is their mandate by the Australian Gov and their issue  by a bureaucracy. After this there is no similarity. Most people support the need for monitoring entry/exit to our country & accept the same for our entry to other countries. Not so the Red Card as applied to sport level pilots & minor RPT airports - Initial support has completely evaporated - Red Cards are are rarely inspected - the two year life span is ridiculous. Basically no one can see the point in containing with them EXCEPT  for that gelling concern/fear you might just get caught out & be charged with something??

"I can’t see RAA’s advocacy doing SFA". Unfortunately you are probably correct in this sentiment. That does not mean that RAA should step back from a position of opposition (on behalf of its members) on this matter and certainly they should not take up a pro Red Card position as it would appear they have, in publishing  BS articles in Sport Pilot.

"But sure, blame them if it makes you feel better."  RAA are supposed to be representing its members - in this matter who else would you have us blame??
 

"Maybe .................you should just stay away from airports that require them ..." When was the last time, you tried to go on an extended trip away and were unable to avoid landing  at some stage,  at an RPT served airfield?  Personally, most of my trips are short,  I do not often have to access a "security controlled"  field  but a few times per year I may go on a longer voyage - this is when I get concerned about not having a Red Card and question the legit massy of such a programmes existence. 

"......then they won’t be an issue."  - So you only appose  bad legislation on the basis of how it effects you personally ? 

9 minutes ago, Flying_higher said:

RAAus has already made it clear what their view is on ASICS, and like you, they’ve said many times that at the very least, they should be for 5 years and not 2 years. 
The reality is that RAA can say all they like about the ASIC to the government but unfortunately they’ll have as much luck as a travel agent telling the government that passports shouldn’t be required. 
 

Poor choice of analogy.

RAA are duty bound to pursue the majority will of its member's - that is why we elect/pay them. 

Not only do they not seem to be doing so, in this case.

To make matters worse, their publicity mouth piece "Sport Pilot" is actively prompting this discredited and unpopular system - what do you propose should be done?

May be its time, to collectively (one letter many signatures) write to the Sport Pilot Editor Nickolas Heath, RAA's Matt Bouttell, CEO & Micheal Monk, Chairman of Directors, to express our displeasure, at the failure of RAA to have the ASIC card system, as applied to sport pilots wishing to access low volume RPT airfields, completely  removed.

What say you (all)??

2 hours ago, Yenn said:

..................................

We keep hearing lot of people saying how useless these cards are and publishing in flying magazines, but nobody ever comes up with a way of getting some sanity into the system.

........................................

Yenn ; I am (I assume you are) a financial member of RAA - its their job to represent us (amongst other reason) - are they doing it (in this case)? or are they just prompting this very unpopular system through badly constructed propaganda articles in Sport Pilot???

Idea is great - weight wise , probably replace baby LyCons and full size Rotax BUT what of fuel consumption ??  from that fuel capacity ???

AND

What sort of efficiency will you get at under 10,000ft ???

On takeoff, you should never turn cross wind, before crossing the runway threshold.

On circuit arrival, you should never join any further down wind than abeam the runway threshold (better towards or at midfield).

The above two points will not only improve the ability of arriving/departing pilots to see traffic in their vicinity but will physically make it very unlikely that a conflict might occur.

Garfly's diagram illustrate this the best however Thrusters has additional information which is also very helpful.

Further Garflys' diagrammed shows circuit join from a number of locations - personally, with any more than 1-2 aircraft in the circuit, I would not do a  "extended down winds" ,  "straight in" or  "base leg"  As a pilot you not only have responsivity to observe the rules of the air but also to be courteous/considerate of other pilots - in a busy circuit joining from these points (pushing in to the flow of traffic) just adds, unnecessarily, to the stress that inexperienced pilots are under. Take the time to come in "over the top" (gives you a chance to see the whole drama from above) make a call letting all participants know where you are (easy for them  to find) what your intentions are (few minutes to digest) and join mid field.

Just now, Thruster88 said:

A CASA license holder has to have at least an AVID, they last 5 years. Not sure if this applies to RAAus pilots as well.  

Hi Thruster - please show how you arrived at the statement "A CASA license holder has to have at least an AVID," - I have held a PPL since 1990  & an RAA Certificate since 2010 and no one has informed me that I require an ASIC of any description.

The last time Sport Pilotspouted this propaganda, I wrote to them expressing my disappointment on what I saw was a promotion of something the majority of sport pilots apposed.

I sought a public statement distance themselves from the policy and an apology for publishing the article ("Red Carded".

As you might expect, I got neither but surprise! surprise!, they did publish my letter - with a trait response.

Fellow Forum members; This be the response from Dynon (USA);

"Yes, it is OK to paint the antenna flat black. Any paint that will adhere to plastic will suffice and it will prevent a white "bump" reflected in your windscreen."

Despite Dynons's blanket approval for any paint, I will try out your suggestions & see what happens - may be I can select the least conductive matt black paint.

6 minutes ago, KRviator said:

T.....................................................................

I'd be interested to know how many weekend warriors have flown into an RPT airport and actually been asked to display their ASIC.

In the five years I held a Red Card no one asked to see it. 

Ironically, after the card had lapsed but I still had it in my possession (glove box of aeroplane where it had not seen the light of day since issue), I was asked , when visiting an ex RPT airfield (no service for many years) if I had one, I responded in the affirmative, box ticked, I proceeded with my visit.

Latest edition,  102,  of Sport Pilot ("Official Publication of Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd" ????) has once again attempted to promote the ever unpopular and ridiculously ineffectual ASIC (Red) card to sport/RAA pilots.  Don't know who is putting the pressure on Nickolas Heath, Editor of Sport Pilot, to publish this propaganda, for that is what its is. Surely he must known that the Red Card is pretty well universally disparaged by the RAA/sport pilot community, who want to see it abandoned (not promoted) as an entry requirement, for all minor RPT airfields around the country.

The article itself, supposedly by a Dr Luke Howie "internationally- renowned ant-terrorism expert"  is  a disjointed collection of statements, that do nothing to justify the imposition of the Red Card, as applied to sport pilots.

In the middle of his article he observes correctly: "It would be reasonable for sport pilots to doubt the need for such  security screening." .... "governments and experts were panicked after 9/11"  into an over the top programme (my words)and goes on to point out some of the inconsitencies in Au security requirements across transport industries.

There are many more words - they come across as a wedeling series of justifications for what, has turned out to be, a completely unjustifiable/unenforceable/costly government bungle (as applied to sport pilots accessing minor RPT airfields)

In my reading of the article, I do not get the impression that Dr Howie is an enthusiastic promotor of the scheme, as it has been applied to us.

Sport Pilot/Mr Heath and RAA dont seem to get it - we the members are against ASIC/Red Card, as it has been applied to us. Rather than promote this discredited programme they should be actively working to see it closed.

Here endeth the rant.

Rotax 9 engines had operational hours and calendar time to TBO. 

My last Rotax 9  (in a 19 aircraft) had 920 hrs operational time out of (if memory serves) 1500 hrs and had long passed they 10 years calendar time it started with - so we had passed TBO a long way back. Engine running like the preverbal sowing machine, leak down tests all good, nil oil consumption between services.

3 hours ago, rhtrudder said:

Wondering what’s involved in flying with a engine that has passed TBO, 914 engine in my plane has got 200 hours left , compression hasn’t changed , no more oil consumption, have flown it from 400 hrs to nearly 1800 , $45000.00 to replace it 

Does not the aircraft category (19 or 24) have a bearing on this?

I think 19's can pretty much go as long as the owner wants its to go

24"s , that go over TBO, will loose their training/hire privates and may not be supported by the factory.

It is good and by all accounts he is very happy with the Faeta NG (always good to have a little feed back from such an experienced pilot)

Doesn't seem to have returned to WA 😁 and I wonder where he went/visited in the east of the country (beyond Armidale).