skippydiesel

13 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ahhh, but there's a big difference between making false claims - and conveniently forgetting to draw attention to known faults, that the buyer may not be aware of - because of enthusiasm to purchase, lack of knowledge of the item or its use, or just plain and simple, total ignorance.

Yes, I may have been a little wide-ranging in my opinion of most auction items possessing major faults - but there certainly is a very large percentage of used items, that do have major faults - which are very rarely pointed out by the auction house.

In fact, I find in this era of online auctions, the auction house descriptions are getting worse, they're becoming briefer, they're becoming just plain outright wrong - but you will  find, the auction house legal terms and conditions and definitions, are increasing at an amazing rate.

 

I had a used machinery dealer friend - formerly a manager of a dealership of a large, well-known Japanese equipment manufacturer - who purchased a very large, used motor grader, ex a mining company, from an auction house, quite a number of years ago.

He inspected the machine, started it, but failed to drive it (although driving machines in auction yards is frowned on, anyway) - and he accordingly bid on it, and won it.

 

He organised to have it picked up - but the truckie called him and said, "We can't get this machine to drive onto the truck! The engine runs, it goes into gear - but nothing happens by way of driving motion!"

My friend raced up to the yard and did some rapid checking (he was a trained equipment serviceman) - whereupon he found the machine was missing its main bevel gear in the drive to the rear wheels!!

 

To say he wasn't a happy chappy is an understatement. He tore strips off the auction house management, and called the previous owners management, and ripped strips off their manager as well!

They all denied any knowledge of the missing major component - but that's a bit hard to believe when you consider the machine had to be loaded at the owners premises, and unloaded at the auction house.

 

The mining company refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing - and insisted my friend, being a serviceman by trade, should have inspected the machine thoroughly, prior to purchase.

As far as the auction house was concerned, he bought the machine "with all faults, known and unknown" - in line with their auction policies.

My friend had to wear the loss of substantial repairs to the machine to make it saleable - and I can tell you now, his opinion of that auction house, and that mining company, was pretty low after that episode.

In general OMISSION is not a crime - there are exceptions where, in certain environment/goods/services law and safety regulation require disclosures.

I sympathise with your friend - I hope he got the equipment at a price that still made it a good buy even after repairs (I always try and calculate the unknown " fudge factor" when deciding how much to bid).

As for the shonky auction house - if they knew by way of experience (trouble loading/unloading)  or by notice from the mining company, they had an moral (probably not legal) duty to say the equipment was not mobile. That they did not do so is appalling and unethical.  Hopefully the auction house will loose more, than their commission, by your friend resorting to the FaceBook option. Be very carful to stick to the personal story/factual points

The mining company's role - well  they lost almost all control/culpability, when they handed the equipment over to the auction house, UNLESS they gave notice of its defects in writing  FOR THE AUCTIONER TO DECLAIR prior to bidding. The auction house would have been legally bound to pass on the information. I am sure the mining company would have referred to such a communication if it existed. Again this is an ethical rather than legal situation - very much a Caveat Emptor.

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

My car is registered and therefore can be driven on the road. I don't need to specify that the driver has to be licenced. Others here have pointed out that aircraft need to be fitted with a transponder before they can fly in controlled airspace. So, it is relevant to the ad. Also, I met a flying instructor once who told me that an aircraft is not permitted to fly over a built up area unless it has a certified engine. In short, saying that the aircraft can fly over controlled airspace is both true and informative. The idea that the pilot needs to be appropriately licenced is obvious and outside the scope of an ad. WAY outside the scope of an ad. 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Say you sell a truck over a certain GVM, are you required to state you need a special licence.? NO. 

  With houses  etc I think you are required to make known any issues that might damage the value. It's some sort of declaration someone here may know more about.  Nev

Fair comments both - but what of the vehicle being sold, that the vendor claims can be driven on a car licence (there a quite a few micro commercials ,that are in a licence grey area where a certain fit out changes the license required) and the car driver then gets booked, as he drives out of the car yard, for not having the requisite license ??

I stand by my statement - if the vendor makes a statement that in false or designed to mislead he/she is culpable

1 hour ago, SSCBD said:

Now after all this above  - we need to have transit lanes for all raa aircraft.

 Then ATC just have to adjust Commercial aircraft around these lanes that we RAA don't need clearance  - and don't tell me it cant be done coastal at 500 ft  in these zones with all the airports all the way up to cairns. 

One solution - however the transit lanes (Sydney Basin, William Town) & other access points (Brisbane, Amberly, Oakey) that I have used, are so darn narrow and have you down scrapping the tree tops - NOT SAFE and very uncomfortable in turbulence. 

Unless they make these air lanes with a great deal more consideration for terrain clearance and two way traffic, this solution will not get my vote.

35 minutes ago, SSCBD said:

Give me 50% more power on just about any aircraft specifically RAA  for take off on any day - but specifically  for heavy hot, high, short strips that's all I would use it for. 

Assuming sufficient power (subjective) my preference has always been for a more efficient airframe and a nice wide performance envelope (being carful here)

4 hours ago, Ando said:

 

4 hours ago, Ando said:

Good topic Skippy and see the point your making. As we are all educated in the rules and regulations of air law and Everyone is responsible for the air they fly in. The prospective buyer is aware of what he and she can do. I feel not misleading. 

Thanks Ando - I try for a good debate. Keeps the Forum interesting.

27 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Virtually everything advertised for sale, that is used, contains "errors of omission". That is, the seller is carefully avoiding mentioning anything that may detract from the sale.

 

As Yenn says, "Caveat Emptor" is the ruling principle, anytime you want to purchase a used item - and the term is actually enshrined in the law of commercial transactions.

 

Try buying something from an auction - they will tell you virtually nothing about it, apart from what they have seen on a cursory inspection - and for good reason. Most auction sale items come with major faults.

 

Auction houses make it clear in all their T's & C's, that they expect the buyer to be fully conversant with the item, and the buyer accepts the item "as seen", with all faults and misdescriptions.

 

False ! Caveat Emptor(CE) is no protection for the vendor, if he/she makes misleading or fraudulent claims or falsify something like distance traveled/ hours operated, about the item for sale, new or used .

Example You purchase an aircraft that the vendor claims has been serviced according to the airframe/engine manufactures schedules - shortly thereafter you have a serious/costly engine problem and discover that items that should have been replaced at XX hrs were not- the  past their service hours items directly related to the engine problem. The vendor and or his service provider, have made a fraudulent statement in support of the aircraft quality/condition - you have grounds for a claim (not saying it will be easy to follow through)

True !To avoid claims general (as apposed to specialists, like art auctions) auctioneers will avoid making any statement about the "quality/condition " of the item for sale that may state or imply a known condition or quality - As Is Where Is/ CE is very much the order of the day.

"Most auction sale items come with major faults." - Wow! this is one sweeping statement - I have bought vehicles, machinery, furniture, tools, livestock, even work clothing, from auctions - yet to be disappointed.  You do need to know what you are purchasing and bid accordingly - if in doubt dont bid and never ever "fall in love" with an item for auction before you bid.

"misdescriptions" - a vendor is allowed to promote the item for sale, "even gild the lilly a little", present it in a favorable context/light however it is against the law to make false claims to enhance the saleability or value of the item you are selling .

23 minutes ago, KRviator said:

Where is the requirement to "apply" for CTA access referred to, @skippydiesel?

 

 

You have me there ! I have always understood that CTA access for RAA aircraft is predicated on the aircraft itself meeting certain criteria AND the pilot holding current Certification & License.

How the aircrafts criteria is recognised (other than by the pilot proposing entry) I assumed (wrong?)was by RAA authorisation.

If my memory serves, were not Jab aircraft specifically excluded at one time.

35 minutes ago, aro said:

Most of these conditions apply to an aircraft or engine type, they are not issued to a specific aircraft.

 

The exception is 262AP which is an authorization to operate over built up areas, which is issued to a specific aircraft. I would expect that authorization to go with the aircraft if it was sold, I think it is effectively forms part of the certificate of airworthiness.

Perhapse for GA aircraft but for  RAA  ?? - unlikely!  as minimum "fit out" does not meet CASA standards. Instillation of transceiver/transponder is still at the purchasers discretion and some aircraft purchasers have the choice of several engine types .

The authorisation to operate over built up areas was time limited (required renewal) dont know if this is still the case . Certificate of airworthiness ?? hardly. The letter of permit was issued on the basis of engine type, aircraft type history (nil airframe induced accidents) and did not in any way infer the particular aircrafts condition.

Have always carried a PLB (registered with AMSA) located close to hand. If I have a passenger, the PLB location and activation, is part of my passenger briefing.

In my view, should an accident me imminent/likely, a PLB (differentiated from a ELT) must be activate  befor contact with terrain. Pilot & passenger may be incapacitated by the impact but the PLB will hopefully have sent out its signal and may continue to do so.

Assuming for a moment that the pilot, of the RAA aircraft,  holds the requisite GA license to operate in CTA - the  RAA aircraft owner/operator must have applied, to RAA, for & been granted (letter of authority) the approval(s) refeed to by Aro.

The owner/agent/manufacturer of this aircraft, is not the authorising body - the authority is issued, on application, for the individual aircraft.

My reading of the advertisement is, that it is at best misleading and at worst a complete fabrication (I lean toward the latter)

11 hours ago, aro said:

It can't legally be flown at all unless the pilot is appropriately qualified i.e. pilot certificate. Does that need to be pointed out?

True, in this scenario, the pilot must be both Certified (RAA) & Licenced (GA)

11 hours ago, KRviator said:

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft.

 

I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

The answear is - not unless the aircraft has been granted an authority to do so, having applied for & met the list of requirements (see Aro above). In the unlikely event of this aircraft having been granted the privilege of entry to CTA, there is then the question of transferring the "letter" from old to new owner - is this automatic???

Not sure of my information on this - the suggestion that one of the criteria for RAA aircraft to be granted an authority to enter CTA is predicated on being factory built is not correct. Factory built aircraft have (in the past) been denied the authority, as kit builds have been granted.

55 minutes ago, tillmanr said:

I asked what type of aircraft I.e. make  and model.  Thanks 

You may look it up for yourself - the web site "Aviation Classified" https://aviationclassifieds.com.au/ is open to the public & if I am not mistaken is connected with RAA Sport Pilot magazine

However the type of aircraft is irrelevant - RAA aircraft can not legally enter CTA, unless under the command of a suitably qualified GA pilot. 

Aro pointed out that there are a host of other requirements regarding the aircraft & its components, fit out etc BUT even an RAA aircraft that is potentially permitted entry to CTA, can not do so unless commanded by the aforementioned pilot.

No mater on what level (as listed by Aro) this aircraft might be claimed to be, it can not legally "be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" unless the pilot in command is appropriately qualified.

So no matter what you may feel about RAA pilots being denied the opportunity to qualify for entry to CTA , this advertiser is basically telling one big porky pie, that might lead a purchaser to pay for something that does not exist and cause him/her to run fowl of the law & bring RAA into disrepute .

17 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Structural failure due to exceeding Vne or Vno or Va is very rare compared to stalling and spinning accidents in high performance and low performance piston aircraft. Pilots of such high performance aircraft would not normally allow the airspeed to go "unnoticed". It seems a blatant disregard or just plain hooning is usually the probable cause 

  V speeds are always IAS indicated airspeed unless the POH states otherwise.

Thruster,

I accept your point that low speed / close to the terrain stalls, are by far the most significant contributors to speed related accidents. This does not mean that your ASI being accurate at the high speed end of the envelope  is not equally desirable particularly in faster aircraft.

 I challenge you to check out some of the RAA complaint  (can meet the standards) aircraft offerings, that are capable of quit extraordinary (claimed) High Speed Cruise (Vno) and see how many are, at this speed, only a few knots below Never Exceed (Vne).

These slippy little demons, accelerate very fast and being small light aircraft, can have departures from straight and level, just because the pilot/passenger leans forward.

Sure many of these aircraft are fitted with auto pilot that will reduce the chance of an inadvertence decent (increase speed above Vne) but you still need an accurate VSI to set the aircraft up within its design limits.

A wingless decent from 10,000 ft is going to give you a lot of time to contemplate your assured demise.

10 hours ago, CT9000 said:

Skippy that adv. is not by it's self wrong because it is a statement of fact and is therefore not misleading .

Surely you jest - This is a clear statement, that an RAA registered aircraft has the capacity to enter CTA, rather than the pilot in command.

To my mind this is a deliberate mistruth, as the privilege to enter CTA is primarily linked to the qualifications of the pilot, not the aircraft. 

True! any RAA aircraft can, as a fact, be be flown in CTA  - however for the overwhelming majority, this is an illegal act, as the pilots do not have the requisite endorsements to do so.

TERRIFIC!!!!!!!

OME - my comments was directer at APNATA - should have made that clear, sorry!

33 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Forget any approval of RAAus operations in CTA. The decision to go down a very long pathway leading to nowhere means approval for non PPL holders will not happen. Should RAAus have demanded equal privileges to those extended to the gliding and balloon federations approval would be in place now. 
As far as suitable aircraft go, the regulations are quite clear. (refer CAO 95.55, para 7.3)

• I am not advocating RAA into CTA, although I dont see why not, subject to the appropriate training/endorsements and suitably equipped  aircraft

• No comment on the Aviation Classifieds advertisement itself ????

Yes ! yes ! I know this is a well hashed over topic but I saw this add in "Aviation Classified" for a RAA registered aircraft, with a statement that I believe to be misleading at best: 

"can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration." 

I am fairly sure that this can only be the case IF the pilot hold a current PPL or higher (has CTA endorsement/privileges). In other words the suggestion here, that the aircraft somehow determines the privilege of entering controlled airspace, is complexly misleading/false.

True there are exceptions that allow some  RAA flight school aircraft to operate from within CTA  but again this is not attached to the aircraft itself (how could that work?)

Yes there are, not very clear restrictions on certain aircraft, that may preclude their entry to air space over built up areas but again this does not mean the rest can be flown in controlled airspace.

At the very least an endorsement/training  of the pilot must be the determining factor for entry to Controlled Air Space.

DISCUSS

9 hours ago, old man emu said:

Geez, It's bloody impossible to be nice to you. If I agree with something you say, you find fault with something else. 

Not sure of my definition here  but is this not a "troll"/"trolling" ??

Gentlemen! the tone of this exchange seems to have become a tad acrimonious. I much preferer friendly/respectful disagreement/debate . Anything less does us all a disservice.

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

I reckon Kyle can answer this best.

 

If a current is moving through a conductor, doesn't it create a magnetic field?

If a compass is affected by magnetic fields, wouldn't the flow of current through a metal airframe cause an error on the compass? 

If the airframe was excluded from the circuit by the use of a dedicated return cable, would the compass be affected?

 

Not sure I would suggest excluding the air frame - I think supplementing any existing airframe connections, with a dedicated earth return circuit (connected to the airframe at variose points ) would be a better way to put it. The aim is to ensure a good earth return via a reliable rout/wire.

As has been covered many times in the is Forum, 12 volt systems require very good earth return, if you want best performance from & longevity in, components. Airframe  returns are just not sufficient over the long term. Dedicated earth return circuit/wire all the way back to the negative terminal on the eatery is very much recommend.

12 hours ago, old man emu said:

 

.................................... It probably doesn't mean a hill of beans anyway, as very few pilots want to fly on the edge of the envelope. We all add a fudge factor.

Bit of a sweeping statement OME - Short Field Landings require,first practice at altitude to familiarise yourself with handling characteristics of your aircraft as it approaches the stall , followed by doing the SFL. 

14 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

........................................................... This will verify that the ASI is working correctly at the most important end of the scale.

OOOOOooohhhh! Me thinks those fast aircraft, where Maximum Structural Cruise (Vno) is close to Never Exceed (Vne) just might benefit from being fairly accurate at the fast end of the scale. Just a slight (unnoticed) decent from high speed cruise, might put you &your aircraft over Vne , within moments, with potentially alarming results.

On 01/02/2021 at 4:51 PM, old man emu said:

Back in the Good Ol' Days, you had to go into Primary Airports as part of your Nav.

 

I suppose that traffic is so constant now that most of the slots are booked, so the irregular flights don't have a chance. 

For me it was Canberra - still a Primary but not as many movements as Bankstown

At the risk of going off on a tangent:

I would liken having some basic understanding of your vehicle/equipment (air or ground) to driving a car or operating machinery. Its absolutist true that you can teach someone to function behind the wheel , without having any mechanical knowledge (especially these days)but I would not really call them drivers.

So many people cant even check tyres pressures/oil/coolant/windscreen wash - so what hope have they of being aware of their vehicles degraded performance/safety due to low tyre pressure, defective shocks, loose steering linkage, etc etc. Some basic understanding might just save their lives and others. In addition, basic understanding will reduce operating cost, maintain the value of your asset and optimise its service life.

If using industrial/agricultural equipment; I differentiate between drivers & operators  - the latter having some deeper understanding of the machinery and the standard of work desired. You can only be an operator if you are "simpatico" with your machine and know what standard of work is to be achieved and how to configure it accordingly - basic understanding. 

So yes you might learn to manipulate the controls of an aircraft so that it can fly & land with some degree of repeatability but without some degree of basic knowledge, will you be alarmed by an increasing oil consumption, a floppy control surface, a strange noise at certain engine rpm, a low tyre pressure, a wrinkled wing skin, drag on a control rod, etc etc ???

Of course basic undertaking, gives no assurance that the pilot will take notice and could lead him/her to a degree of overconfidence - stupidity, ego, "she'll be right mate" is part of the human condition, that no amount of knowledge seems to completely eradicate.

10 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said:

It's all magic folks. Don't need to know this stuff to be a good pilot. Just the basics will do.

True to a point Jab however it doesnt hurt to have a little theory in your life. Even if you and I cant expect or want to reach the hight of understanding of OME , RFguy or Facthunter (& many others) it will help make you a better pilot.