skippydiesel

In the final analysis, if the transmitter (me) is not getting the desired message to the receiver (you) the blame must rest with the transmitter (me). I am sorry if I have failed to communicate my concerns about the impropriety of an RAA official appearing to spout the marketing words of a commercial entity. Either the above or I have struck a rich vain of illiterate receivers. Got to be one or the other. 😈

Read my last post. This is not about the oil as such. Can I make it any simpler for you? Your vaguely offensive comments, are so far of the subject as to be laughable. FYI: - I use & have always used Aeroshell Spot Plus 4, in my last & current Rotax 912. 😈

Those that are going off on some oil appropriate tangent, are wilfully missing my now stated, at least twice, point. Once Again: Its not appropriate for an RAA official (as such speaking for RAA) to be endorsing the product & marketing strategies of a commercial company (Rotax in this instance). 😈

Ye gads! - You seem to be off on some odd tangent. My post is about the impropriate of an RAA official, appearing to support a commercial (Rotax) marketing ploy (scaring its engine owners) to the point of quoting from the entitles advertising. Nothing about engineering, servicing advice or materials.😈

Your generous interpretation of Mr Calders /Rotax statement is not what was stated. I have no problem with Rotax recommending a specific oil for their engines. Rotax, in the advertisement in the RAA publication, do not discriminate between engine types ie 912 , 916, etc neither does Mr Calder The scare message is obvious - use Aeroshell Plus Sport 4 or XPS OR YOUR ENGINE WILL BE DAMAGED Mr Calder has endorsed this. "Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil." Your absolutly sure of this. Shell develop an oil specifically for Rotax 912's and Rotax derive no benefit whatsoever ????? 😈

Its one thing for RAA to publish advertisements , even ADs, from manufactures (Rotax) its quite another to spout the same rhetoric, in a staff members (Mr Calder) publication ie giving direct support to what is a falsehood, by quoting Rotax scare marketing ".....use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage...." When Rotax 912's were first launched onto the aircraft engine market (1989) the lubrication advise for the engine(s) was to use automotive engine oils, meeting their detailed specifications (mainly motorcycle engine oils). Rotax no longer give detailed specifications, preferring to recommend Aeroshell Sport Plu4 and their in house XPS. Wont be long before Aeroshell is dropped. Its my understanding that many of the earlier 912's are still doing their job and using whatever motorcycle engine oil was originally advised, - NO DAMAGE! Rotax have, for some time now, been attempting to scare owners into just using OM supplied products - this is a marketing/profit driven initiative. Mr Calder, as an RAA employee, should retract that part of his statement, which appears to support the Rotax scare marketing. 😈

It would seem that Cody Calder, Chief of Aviation (RAA) is supporting the alarmist propaganda being used by the Rotax marketing strategists "Rotax-approved oil ............... Owners and operators are reminded that it is essential to use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage....." 😈

I am astonished that there is so little comment on the pilots story, that likly comes down to his very poor communication practise. This story & your silence, is a vote for the status quo - the wofull state of pilot communication, that puts us all in danger. I reticently had a very close shave with a "silent" Bankstown training aircraft in the circuit . A friend died, some months back, when another silent training aircraft, with two experince GA pilots (both died) on board, entered our circuit unannounced & possably not on the CTAF. Its almost an hourly (day) occurrence that aircraft overfly our field, without any acknowledgement and likly not listening on the CTAF. Apathy Rules 😈

Jesus wept! You could be $7,000 + down the tube by that time. Subject to number of available instructors - make your decision to change instructor/move school within the first 3 hrs. Dont be shy - hang around the school office, talk to the other students, get a feel for each instructors "teaching style" (hint the most relaxed are likly the best) Find the instructor that you feel sympatico with. Stick with that one, don't chop & change - you will will learn faster, it will be vastly more enjoyable and you will save $$.😈

I It may be appealing but is it not another high wing, STOL aircraft, entering an already crowded (kit & factory) market place?😈

Up to a point - The student must feel comfortable with the schools instructors, confident their choice is the best bang for their particular buck. Many a student has left a school, after significant time & $$ investment, feeling they have been let down. It will be time well spent investigating ALL the options BEFORE commiting. 😈

That mat be so however, as others have pointed out, its not necessarily the closet that meets the aspiring pilots needs (finial/time/personalities/etc) the best. Many students have opted for an intensive course, offered by a school a long way from home, simply because it meets their needs & wants.😈

The word is not cannot, which suggests some physical limitation, it's not allowed - ie its a bureaucratic imposition , not a real world barrier. CASA Part 61 does nor recognise RAA aircraft as such.😈

Must be something new - In all the years I few GA (Day VFR ) I never went "under the hood" for a BFR, except in initial basic training. My RAA aircraft "glass" panel is soooo much more capable than in any GA aircraft I flew, in the past. Read what I said - it primarily about Instructors 😈

Thanks Rodgerc, My Sonex has a custom tail wheel "head" ie the API swiveling fork fits into it. The head is delivering the correct caster angle. This means that I am stuck with the API forks, the only alternative being replacing the whole" kit & caboodle" - expensive & unnecessary, as its only the tail wheel diameter that concerns me. Just done a rough estimate of 4'-6' weight - Seems likly that the an Anson wheel, mated to the API 6" fork, would be lighter than the current 4" API solid wheel/fork assembly. 😈

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2026/06/was-i-the-villain/?utm_source=Swift Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Flight Safety Australia To me this is just another story that highlights just how bad Australian airspace radio communicated has become. The pilot stated the thought he was on the correct CTAF frequency, ie not sure. There was radio congestion which may have contributed to his not gaining a mental image/awareness of area aircraft movement . I don't know how long it took for him to start his engine, conduct various preflight checks and start to move - all of which could mean the above metal picture, was out of date ie don't rely on the earlier information, remaining current. He did make a taxi call √ No; Entertaining Runway / Lining UP Rolling Departing direction (circuit leg) Intentions ( eg Direct to @ X,000 ft) POB I know none of the above are required calls, at an uncontrolled airfield. HOWEVER If he had just made all, or some, he may have got a response from the inbound RPT/MediVac, that was on opposite straight in final,to his take-off direction. Just because calls are not required, doesnt mean its not good practise to make them EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE HEARD NO OTHER CALLS. The regulations relaxing the way we use the radio, in uncontrolled airspace, have gone way to far; Pilots now don't make calls because they haven't heard from another aircraft - Other aircraft not making calls for the same reason. 10nM calls seem to have become the exception, rather than the Rule. Pilots think nothing of passing overhead or close to an airfield, without so much as a Guday! let alone ID, position, altitude, intentions, POB. Departure calls are a rarity Where has pilots pride in communication professionalism/courtesy, gone (& with it a marked reduction in safety)? How many near misses/fatalities,will it take to get us back to a more functional/safe communication environment? ??? 😈

Rotax are required to put out two directived - one for certified engined and one for uncertified - even when the directive applies equally to both engine classifications. The original Rotax issued AD's can be found in the Rotax Owners Forum and I am sure in other places. The AD for certified engines has a lot more relevant information (to both engines) than the uncertified, which is not much more than a list of engine & gearbox numbers. You should know if your engine is certified or not. Look in the respective AD for your engine/gearbox serial number. If its not there the AD does not apply to your engine /gearbox. Note: Owners of engines that have been fitted with later/more resent gearboxes, need to search for the gearbox serial number alone. "What does Rotax 912 A1 etc mean?" I stand to be corrected - the letter after the 912 ( iS, UL or ULS) are for certified (A?) non certified (no letter, just numbers.) 😈

I am contemplating changing my API 4" tail wheel, to an API 6". The reason for the possible change, is that my bird lives on a grass airfield. The 4" tail wheel does not like ground ops after rain (diggs in). The 6" wheel will reduce the ground pressure/unit area (improve "flotation") ie be less likly to penetrate the surface & reduce rolling resistance, in all circumstances. Depending on single fork or two fork configuration, the weight difference (from the 4") will be 0.06 kg & 0.15 kg . My Sonex Legacy is a tad "nose heavy" in Cruise , some up up elevator trim /stick back is applied, when no weight in (rear) baggage area. I would expect that a slightly heavier tail wheel, may reduce the need (to some degree? for aft trim. I know I should do the proper W&B calculations but just wondering what you think (possibly from experience) what the subjective effect (if any) will be, with the 6 " tail wheel weight increases , so far back on the airframe & of course a smidgeon more drag? PS - I think it likly that I could replace the API solid tyre/wheel, with a Peter Anson pneumatic, for reduced weight & even better "flotation' which may negate the weight increase 😈

FYI: I have discovered the following (CASA Part 61) insanity (you possibly knew) that Instructors, with RAA/GA privileges, wishing to retain currency, have to do a BFR in each category and in VH & RAA registered aircraft ie two reviews & two diffrent aircraft . Ordinary pilots, with GA/RAA qualifications, are slightly better off, in that they can just do a GA/VH BFR and it will be accepted by RAA. NOTE: This does not mean that the GA/RAA pilot can do a GA review in an RAA registered aircraft (not recognised by CASA as an aircraft under Part 61) To add insult to the above insanity, Instructors can, under certain circumstances (no access to suitably qualified instructor / suitably registered aircraft), request that they just do the the one review/flight test and this will be accepted for both categories (as they should for all). I am unsure if this goes both ways ie RAA to GA or just GA to RAA (probably the latter) Its clear that the Part 61 regulations, are being varied to accomodate some situations, egro Part 61, as it pertains to the artificial separation of GA & RAA aircraft & flight reviews, is not fit for purpose (a crock of bovine excrement). 😈

I have always fantasised about having an RV4 or 8 - my bias is unashamed and as obvious as is the article above. Unlike this article, I draw the line at blatant "porky pies" The "Van’s RV-8 Comparison Chart" is either out of date or a just a marketing crock of excrement. Completely unfair comparisons with aircraft ranging from 80-180 hp. The Zenith CH-750 is designed to use a Rotax 9 not 180 hp Lycoming & is hard put to Cruiseat its Never exceed Speed of 96 knots, let alone 190 knots quoted on the chart. My own 100 hp Sonex Legacy has a Cruise speed of 130 knots True & tops out at 152 knots True with a Cruise duration of 6.5hrs (to empty) giving a still air range of 840nm. The obsession with hp, as a way the main deliverer of performance, serves no one well. Aerodynamic design & care with construction, will give you RV performance on the "smell- of- an- oily- rag", as Robin Austin has demonstrated so well with his two Sonerai/100 hp aircraft, good for a 175 knots & Cruises from 100 - 160 knots😈

Did you ask for cost estimates etc & compare their fees with possible competitor's???😈

The "senior citizens" , you refer to, are far from nice polite angels of civility and certainly don't have a monopoly on knowledge. Even the gods have been found wanting from time to time.😈

STOP! This tit-for-tat mudslinging cannot end well. 😈

BrendAn has my understanding - people get a tad frustrated by ongoing negativity😈

FYI: Its taken multiple phone calls & letter drafts - have now written to Airservices Australia (publishers of ERSA) with cc to CASA, as they oversee the ERSA content. So far all of the phone contacts have been very sympathetic (no commitment) to the idea that landing & other airfield fees, should be published in ERSA. I have little doubt that my Quixotic tilting at, the Airservices/CASA,windmills, will have little effect, however its important to me to try and make good, what I see as a failing by most airfield owners, to comply with the right of every Australian to have presented to them, before commiting, fees/charges that may be demanded for a good or service. Will report back when/if anything of note results😈