skippydiesel

Anyone watch 7:30 report,on this incident, last night - RAA in bad odour.😈

Thanks Thruster88, Not being in the first flush of youth, something like "Spotify" seems to be from an alien planet. I don't use the Am/Fm radio in the car ( except occasionally on very long highway trips) let alone in an aircraft. I was hoping that there may be other users "out there" who could give me the benefit of their 😈

I have purchased a Six Aviation Bluetooth Headset Interface for my David Clark headset. When switched on, it announces its on, however I have yet to hear anything from the system its Bluetooth connected to. My iPad shows its connected to the Six Couple of questions; How can I asses its working correctly? Has anyone else experince with this device? If so please share.😈

I don't know the answer to your question. I am lead to believe that the big two (Ly/Con) are very much in the 'grandfather's axe' territory. To acheive their claimed TBO, it's not unusual for costly major "surgery", described as routine maintenance, to be conducted.😈

As for aircraft colours - There is a colour, at each end of the visible light spectrum, that humans seem to gravitate towards - black & white. It could be argued that both demonstrate a lack of imagination in the chooser, however I would suggest; Black - conations of death & violence. Very dramatic. Absorbs heat, shows every scatch / spec of dirt, hard to maintain and has low visibility, in certain light conditions. Much loved by those wishing to project a hard image - Totally impractical. White - conations of purity & peace. Totally boring. Reflects heat, doesn't show dirt, relativly easy to mainatine and has relativly high visibility in most but not all climatic conditions. Very popular with the utilitarian leaning crowd. Possibly the most practical colour to paint an aircraft (any vehicle)😈

You digress- the topic is lights, not paint/colours Despite the empirical evidence (could be out of date) that lights on day VFR only aircraft, do little, if anything, to assist in air to air visibility, pilots still love fitting them. Good -on -em! 😈

Word of caution: Ground runs / engine temperatures are not necessarily indicative inflight performance. 😈

More than fish bones - a few adult chicken bones as well. The test was however impressive, the "blob" (scientific description of a lump of gelatine) hitting the prop tip, delivering considerable force to the blades most vulnerable point.😈

Perennial debate - Do small aircraft lights (strobes/wigwags) actually confer a significant benefit for aircraft to aircraft (air to air) visual capture in day VFR conditions???? Many say yes, especially if using modern LED technology. Past research says no, however may not have been done with modern lighting LED systems. There is no doubt that lights are effective for seeing an aircraft from the ground or in low light (VFR?) conditions but air to air????? We instinctively think that lights will improve an aircraft visibility, we compare with ground based vehicles and argue something is better than nothing - none of this is science based. Current Australian regulation do not require day VFR aircraft to be fitted with lights - I believe this to be a reflection of the research ( as stated may be out of date) Personally I think that the best visual capture system, for day VFR, is good radio communication - this gives the pilot a clue as to the other aircraft location in space, thus minimising the area to be searched.😈

If your a VFR day only pilot - save your $$$$😈

" The cable price is $1488.30. WOW!!!! that hurts & I'm not even the purchaser😈

I try not to make dogmatic statements, however in this case both your instructors are just wrong. "....never used unless there was an engine problem that needed sorting out inflight" The whole point of carby heat is to preempt an icing problem - it may be far too late to fix a carby ice problem, once symptoms occur, as availability of hot air may have already reduced and time to clear ice, may be insufficient to prevent forced landing. "For every take-off, landing and maneuvers both were turned off." Carby heat on take-offs is a highly unlikly scenario - high engine power and icing do not usually go together - so okay not to have on. Always use fuel boost pump (if fitted) on take-off/landing and when conducting manoeuvres were a failure of the mechanical fuel pump may jeopardise continued safe flight (close to terrain)😈

My comment only applies to engines fitted with an in flight, pilot controlled, carby heat system. My current Rotax has the liquid heated inlet manifold - so no in flight carby heat control.😈

Great news/terrific report Moneybox. One small point (can't help myself) "Even though I was taught to not use the carby heat I pulled it on when turning base and off half way down final." I have no idea who or why you have been taught not to use carby heat - makes no sense to me. If the aircraft you are flying, is fitted with carby heat, it should be used. There is no down side to the correct use of carby heat - basic safety / common sense. Make using carby heat a safety habit. Correct use - in flight, carby heat should be used before reducing power ie you likly reduce power on descent to circuit height or on down wind, before slowing to safe flap speed, before practising stalls, etc. For best power delivery, carby heat should be closed ie as you did, on final, just in case of a go round. Reasons - Your carby heat (hot air)is likly comming from your exhaust system. When you reduce power, your exhaust system will cool quickly ie its ability to deliver hot air to the carburettor inlet is reduced. Apply carby heat when exhaust at high temperature. When you you close the throttle, there is an increased chance of carby ice formation. Apply carby heat when carburettor delivering high power. I have experienced carby ice, before first flight of the day, in the run up area. So far never in flight. 😈

No nibbles???? Price? - check out one from a retail outlet. I am open to negotiaton😈

Hi Flyboy19660, I beg to differ as to the cause of automotive bottom radiator hose collapse; Older cooling systems (before two/way radiator caps & overflow reservoirs), in which the expansion tank is the top section of the radiator, were prone to bottom hose collapse. The cause is primarily (not exclusively) due to overfilling the radiator. When the engine runs/gets up to temperature, the coolant expands & the surplus liquid is forced out of the radiator via the one way cap. When the engine cools, the coolant returns to its preheated state (shrinks). The radiator cap closes and a strong vacuum is created in the cooling system. This vacuum plus any pump action (as you have mentioned) and often the length/diameter of the bottom hose, all acts together to collapse it. The solutions are: Only fill & old style radiator to the top of the coolant tubes ie leave a significant space above the tubes for coolant to expand (expansion tank). Combine the above with a reinforced bottom hose - internal reusable spring or spring part of hose construction. Note: In a poorly designed cooling system (UK cars very prone) combined with an unusually hot engine, sufficient coolant can be driven of as steam, causing the above problem, even when the correct amount of coolant has been added. Modern coolant recovery system do not have this problem, due to the two way radiator cap (hot ciilant can escape & return when system cools) & coolant reservoir returning coolant to the system, thereby minimising the chance of a significant vacuum being created. Rotax cooling systems use the modern two way cap & coolant recovery reservoir system😈

I await the results with great 😈

Saga continues. Managed a 1.7 hr flight with new daughter in law today. 30C on ground - 14C @ 6500' - very nice. Spectacular view to south & east. Sydney (north) obscured by what, I assume, is fire smoke. First problem - pax headset not working properly. No need for pax to hear anything. Departed - The Oaks - Wedderburn (3500")- Port Kembla (500' beach run south) - Shellharbour - (6500') Mittagong (some additional mucking about Burragorang Dam/Lake)- The Oaks (2500' - down to circuit ht 1900' - Landed). Once again - no aircraft close enough to test AvTraffic and headset Bluetooth adapter I have one more hour flying before the 200 hr service, that will take me considerable time to work through the schedule, so don't know if I am going to prove/disprove the AvTraffic/Bluetooth any time soon😈

One of the many things that I like about this Forum, for the most part members are tolerant, only very occasionally does someone make a "thing" about my spelling foux pas. 😈

It's pretty bad when my brain doesn't recognise the error mm/nn😈

Connunicaton - a new word that can be used in place of Communication (especially when the dyslexic dont proof read) 😈

I just gave you an example of an engine in continuous power demand. Briggs and Stratton manufacture 10 million stationary engines per year. You wrote a story based on the words. The design of the two types of engines are based on the Industry Constant Power Demand/Intermittent Power demand terms. My apologies, if I stepped on the misuse of words, by industry. Not an uncommon situaton, often created by the marketing department. I don't recall you mentioning B&S - a much respected builder of small air cooled engines - sometimes used in very light aircraft. I do not actually see the relevance of your comment, to what you have just writen or to the general thrust of my comments, ground based engines V aircraft engines. Still, I would like someone to either factually agree/disagree, in part or whole, with my observations😈

Quite a good article from Flight Safety Australia; Dangerous dialects | Flight Safety Australia I don't recall advise , in the article, about asking for clarification, if confused by or missing part of, a transmission.😈

I think you misunderstand me- I tried to be careful with my use of language. The often used, dismissal of auto engines, for use in aircraft, is that the auto engine is not designed for a constant power application. Aircraft do not operate at constant power, any more than auto engines ie the power is adjusted by the operator for diffrent stages. At a constant power, yes! for one part of the stage, Cruise. Sure their power use cycle differs in its application & frequency - with the exception of aircraft that spend most of their operating life in the circuit (more like a town car), the Cruise (low constant power) tends to be longer relative to the TO/Climb (high) & Descent (low) power bit like a car towing a caravan on a freeway. As I pointed out - Ground based vehicles are generally supported against the effect of gravity on wheels. This means they do not need to expend energy to stay aloft, as an aircraft must, instead most of the engines energy is devoted to delivering horizontal movement. So in Cruise (not towing anything) the engine can "loaf" delivering just enough power to mainatine speed. An aircraft in Cruise, will usually have the power reduced in Cruise (just like a car) but must still deliver sufficient energy, to forward motion/speed, to stay aloft, in addition to its assigned Cruise speed. Ground vehicles are subject to constant changes in slope. Aircraft tend not to be (unless doing aerobatics), So ground based vehicles will have frequent changes in power to mainatine a contestant speed - this is likly to be detrimental to a long service life as heat generated, likly to fluctuate (cooling/expanding) along with power demand. Liquid cooling will assist in reducing this effect but can not be 100% effective. Ground based engines, that spend relatively long periods in work, (trucks, taxi's, etc) often have remarkably long service lives due to near constant operating temperature. This suggests the other argument (short operating life), against auto engines in aircraft, is also based on urban myth. I think you will agree, that there are significant number of auto - aircraft engine conversions, that undermine the traditional argument against such application. That the auto engine is usually "tweaked" (Onetrack) does not change the fact that the engine is at its core the same engine. Tweaking is no diffrent from say shortening the oil change/service regime or removing unnecessary (to aircraft) accessories/fitting, adding a gear reduction, changing the ignition timing, to better reflect the duty. One one more speculation; For a truly successful auto conversion, a gearbox will be required so that engine & prop can operate at their optimum rpm. this is where the power to weight argument against auto engines comes in - this can also be dismissed - example Rotax. Personally I would prefer to fly behind an engine designed for my aircraft. Trying to "tweak" an automotive engine to have similar performance/reliability, may be doable but why bother? The "tweaking" likly to raise the cost (time & $$) to something not to dissimilar to a dedicated aero engine. Once done there may be savings in parts, fuel economy performance smooth, quiet operation, feeling of achievement, etc ??? 😈