skippydiesel

10 hours ago, jackc said:

Replay of AOPA stream on Facebook.

 

 

Great idea (not) I am not on Facebook. If you want to get the best from this Forum try being a little less critic /referring us/me to a system that does not further my understanding.

9 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I think active noise reduction headsets provide much better situational awareness and are more pleasant. Also, it *might* help if both headsets in the aircraft are the same. ANR headsets are less than twice the price of traditional ones, so better value IMHO. 

Interesting - I have a David Clark ANR headset. Uses a 9V battery (expensive). Only occasionally use the ANR feature when on a long trip - works well BUT on landing I have about 30 minutes of tinnitus. I dont experience this with the DC in passive mode or with any of my other passive headsets.

For "around the patch" flying I always use a passive noise attenuation head set - the David Clark (ANR off), 3M/ Peltor 800 series (very good) or  home made unit (doesnt have independent volume control so not with a passenger).

50 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

skippy

Were do you obtain the curlycord, ( plug to headset ).

The outer sheath disintegrated on my Unused set.

spacesailor

I dont have a "curlycord" (the springy stuff)- just straight "figure eight" shielded cable.  Cant remember for sure might have got it from JayCar or one of the electronics stores specialising in radio stuff.

9 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

PLEASE.  anything military will be a dynamic microphone and you need an electret microphone

Maaaate! read what I said - used the mic BOOM from tank head set - purchased the mic/speakers from an electronic store. Headset works perfectly and as I already had the ear muffs cost me very little (mic, speakers, aviation plugs, some wire & additional sponge/foam to hold the speakers in place

2 hours ago, jackc said:

Sad news for Blue Mountains, a live stream by AOPA this afternoon with the current leasee revealed closure date of 19th Nov 21 will see the keys handed back after some 50 plus years.  A kick in the guts for local Aviators and others who used this facility.

Wow! that bad news indeed - I have never landed there but consistently use it as my first/last waypoint (emergency landing ground) to/from the Sydney Basin when going "out west" over all that Tiger Country.

Who are the "keys handed back" too? 

Is there any chance that it may continue as a potential/emergency landing ground?

For all the tight wads out her - build your own!

Its not hard (even for an electronics novice like me) - Just purchase a a set of 3m/Peltor ear muffs (about $40) from your local PPE store. You now have the basis for a terrific head set -  I  used an army surplus tank head set as the source for  the mike boom, all the rest (speaker/mike & connecter) from various electronics suppliers.

As far as I can make out, the aircraft in question, started life as a 24 registration, later changed to nave an E 24 registration, in recognition of having varied from factory delivery, by being fitted with a different propeller. There may also be some avionics changes. Whatever changes have been made, without factory support, as factory no longer in business. The current owner has already volunteered that the aircraft can no longer be used for flight training.

Just speculating: Aircraft appears to be in very good condition so will likely continue in an airworthy state, subject to good maintenance/ no accidents, for many years to come. I would anticipate that many wear items will have to be replaced to maintain the aircraft in this state - all without factory approval/support.

So I could phone RAA on this but think it might be a good topic of conversation.

When a factory built/registered (24) aircraft is no longer supported by the factory (gone out of business) and as a consequence is given the E designation what exactly does this mean for the owner;

• I know it cant be used for training, so presumably not for hire (?)
•  
• Is it effect a kit/home built?
•  
• Can it be maintained by an L1?
•  
• What modifications (eg fitting a different prop) are allowable ? 
•  
• Who, if anyone, needs to sign of on maintenance/modifications?

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

How long to get bored with it. 2 or 3 days?  Noisy inefficient gadget.. You'd take off and land in dust cloud most times. .  Nev

Unlike a chopper/light aircraft, it did not look like it would "hop" over that tree lien the stock went trough.

12 hours ago, Lucky01 said:

Thanks for the heads up mate, I'll be in contact for recommendations on the prop 🤙

If you want the Faeta to retain its factory built 24 status, you are limited to ATEC recommended propellers - so the 2 blade,  I mentioned, will be a Fiti ground adjustable (unless you go for the in flight adjustable). From personal experience this is an excellent prop with the added benefit of being able to pitch it to meet your particular flying  requirements ie climb or cruise or some compromise between.

Page 20

https://www.atecaircraft.eu/storage/app/media/files/Illustrated parts catalog 2021_EUR_2_komplet.pdf

The latest 2 blade inflight adjustable is not listed (but is available) at this time.

If you havent already found the above web site - it has a wealth of information to assist you.

3 hours ago, Lucky01 said:

So.... I found a plane I actually fit in 🤣 the faeta. Dropped the left hand seat down, and shoehorned myself in. Had headroom and knees didn't touch the dash. Win win

 

Now just waiting for said faeta to show up and have condition inspection and will start training in her 🤘

Great aircraft (its Faeta) - be sure the vendor does not let you down at the last moment. 

If it all comes to pass and you are not intending to use the glider tug facility - you may want consider replacing the 3 blade tug optometrist prop, with the more usual 2 blade. This should improve your cruise speed/econamy considerably.

48 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

While Councils run some aerodromes they don't run them all but it seems many pilots don't know or care. When the Council was running ours the grass was only mown irregularly, the outside toilets were not well maintained nor were the fences, access roads, runways, cones and markers etc etc. Since the hangar Owners have been running the aerodrome it is well maintained and by just a few volunteers. $5.00 per RA & $10.00 per GA is not outrageous and is a just a small token towards the provision of all the facilities available to visiting pilots.

Great job KG and your landing fees are modest BUT $10.00 for all GA no matter the weight????

1 hour ago, Ironpot said:

 

 

Landing fees are the norm nowadays. 

 

 

Just the" NORM" !!!1 ???????. So I guess you just role over for ASIC as well??? 

As a group & as members of our society we must not role over for every slight, injustice, imposition or plainly ridiculous levy/legislation. Not all of us are up to lobbying the relevant authority/minister but we can do the passive protest by avoiding (when possible) airfields with unjust/ridiculous landing fees for RAA class aircraft. We can not get an ASIC.

Don't let these things just become the NORM!

Hmmmm! Undeniably "cool" BUT is there a technical/performance shortcomings here? It never seemed to rise above 30 ft or so. Ground effect vehicle ?

39 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

We get Careflight (they are a profit making outfit) so they get charged, Angelflight (Charity so no charge) & the Westpac Helicopter on hot days when they can't take off from the Hospital (no charge). We also charge an annual fee of $400.00 for the AIA college training Chinese students who come in for 10-20 landings a week (before Covid but nothing now) . The Council hires Choppers for survey work etc & they use the aerodrome but are always happy to pay. We get no support from anywhere & the total of landing fees annually is around $1,000.00 a year or 2% of our costs.

The community/rate payers should be giving you something for the emergency flight facilitation.

22 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Now thats how it should be run..the difference is the council does not run our airfield  we do as a club and so are responsible for all the costs like fencing and maint and buildings etc The club does not want to make a fortune only get enough funds to run the place without going in debt and expand the facilities. Our biggest cost by far is the runway maint due to the now extreme overuse by commercial ops

 

So why are you not charging the "commercial operations" the full cost of their use of the airfield/facilities ?

10 hours ago, kgwilson said:

.....................We live in a user pays society............................ .

No offence KG but does this phrase really mean - all to often it actually means paying twice or more, for the same asset/service. Not suggesting your lovely little airfield at S Grafton should not ask for landing fees, if that the only funding avenue available to you. I am just gobsmacked at the Australian publics whole sale acceptance of a mantra (user pays) which has seen the tax/rate payer plus user paying for the same asset/service, to many asset services being discontinued because they cant stand alone, as a breakeven/profit entity , when they were never designed/expected to do so. 

Is S Grafton being used for emergency response aircraft ? or for any other community activity? - if so it should be being financially supported (to some degree) by the rate paying community

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

I can't understand why say $10  would be a problem on an honor system. Airfields take a lot of maintenance. It's not reasonable to expect it free. The way It's often done collecting the money costs too high a % of the fee.. There have been instances of people using incorrect callsigns to to avoid paying. Nev

Remember - Most airfields were public property, developed & maintained by tax payers dollars. Sold off or given to the Councils (where rate payers maintain them). Its all well and good for users to be charged but how many times will the user/tax /rate payer have to fork out. Bicycle riders  & pedestrian's do not contribute directly to road maintenance, why? because they do not impact on the wear/tear of the road. RAA class aircraft have little or not impact on the runway surfaces - if they use other facilities like hangers & tie downs there may be case for  a charge.

The aircraft weight concept has merit as it is this class that does the damage and is mostly in the bushiness to make a profit. 

Privately owned/managed airfield are a completely different matter. It is only reasonable that they charge users to maintained the facility in good order.

Well done !  An exemption make sense, after all the wear/tear of an RAA class aircraft is negligible compared with almost all GA/RPT type jobs.

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Fabric covering,  does it use a " dope " to shrink the fabric. . ( like model airplanes Used to be )

Or is that old school, with the new fabric just pulled tight.

spacesailor

As Nev said - hot iron. I used the Stewart System - they required 3 increasing temperatures (cant remember what they were now). I had great difficulty finding a domestic iron that would chive & hold a consistent temperature. In the end I purchased the largest model aeroplane iron, with a digital read out, that seemed to do the job. I glued the fabric on as tight as I could, then did the 3 passes of the iron consistent speed/pattern/application is important. You end up with a drum tight "skin" - very satisfying.

Interesting - most aircraft are painted, at least in part, so why is this not a hot topic, with suggestions/alternatives coming from all directions????

1 minute ago, Flightrite said:

CAsA sure did get a right royal WTF from the low end of the industry when the idiots proposed that level of stupidity! All in the name of ‘safety’ mainly for  IFR flights!

 

Cant understand why there was not more criticism of Sport Pilots recent positive article on ASIC acquisition (think it was titled "Red Carded")

33 minutes ago, rhtrudder said:

Have you ever been asked to produce an asic at any airport, 

Once in the 6 years (5 valid) in the last year - secretary of a business I was using, asked, said I had one? true! & she didn't ask to see it, that was it AND the airfield I was at had not hade an RPT in years - total BS

13 minutes ago, rhtrudder said:

I guess leave it turned off, seems like another waste of money, bit like asic

Don agree at all. Sure they can be used to "police" us. If you fly in relativly congested airspace (as I do) they are a great extra set of eyes looking out for you. You could turn the set off when well away from likely traffic - personally I dont bother.

ASIC!!! on the other hand is a complete F--K UP, waste of pilots/taxpayers money, that achieves absolutist zero, other than employ a few more government workers.

My very limited understanding si:

If its GA certified or RAA factory build certain standards have to be met. If not ,then the aircraft can not be legally flown or sold as a flying proposition. They could be sold as a project, parts only or some other description, that does not claim or suggest a claim of airworthiness.

The law is one thing (often an ass, slow to reflect societal expectations) lack of ethical behaviour is another - any half decent seller will  "guilds the lily" to some degree however anyone who goes down the track of false claims/misleading statements  is just scum.

Pre purchase condition inspection/report : Well done has a lot of value to the potential purchaser, may have limited standing in law but is a valuable tool in the search for the right aircraft. So far I have commissioned two and have yet tp purchase an aircraft - tells you something.