skippydiesel

"............I am guessing that it didnt come with release paperwork either..." Important if you are building/maintaining a certified aircraft - otherwise just more costly fire lighting material. I have purchased "stuff" from automotive performance supplier, at a much lower price, than an identical looking product, from an aviation supplier (with documentation) at higher cost. Example AN fuel fittings from: https://automotivesuperstore.com.au/aeroflow?srsltid=AfmBOoqy1ftIqkGp6QZrWnhDnTNelL8m1Jj5vjy8SUTp1DaI39HtiVXK 😈

Disagree all you like - Aircraft lights show up very well against a contrasting background. Most often this will be when viewed from the ground, leading supporter to point out how well they catch the eye. In normal VFR conditions it has been demonstrated time & time again, they have little/no effect when viewed from the air (by pilot) Ground based vehicles/hazard warning lights, are almost always viewed against a background. The studies that have been done on this topic, relate to GA /certified aircraft. Some of the experimental LED systems deliver much higher lumens (?) than the certified equivalents however this is not going to significantly change the research, which is about the human eyes lack of ability to see airborne objects, from an aircraft. Supporters will wax lyrical about lights delivering enhanced visibility at dawn/dusk, mist, etc - all non VFR environments. I like lights and wished they were a more effective system for enhancing visibility BUT a wish isn't a fact.

Cant speak for VH/GA however as RA is still strictly VFR the answer is - No lights of any description/function are not required. As for IBobs inference that lights will somehow assist in See & Avoid, the short answer is also an enfactic No. In air to air (pilot looking out) lights have been found to be completely ineffective, except when viewed against a contrasting background eg dark cloud. Having said the above, I do like lights, for their esthetic/look at at me, appeal.😈

Sling 4 seats should be compared with GA 4 seat aircraft, not RAA 2 seat. Do your homework: a base specification A factory built ATEC Faeta 912 ULS, T tail, Max TO 600 kg, Empty weight 300 kg (nominal), 2x50L wing tanks, would set you back well under $200,000 Au, about 6-9 months ago (no longer agent, so a bit of a guess) I would expect the kit to be significantly less. Au Dollar plummeted since then. Nothing wrong with Sling aircraft, however they do have an excellent marketing department. In many ways the aircraft version of a Harley, 90 % advertising. The Faeta using same engine, (very similar in appearance) cruises 15 Kn faster, Stalls 11 Kn slower and has a higher "payload"

The word aspirational comes to mind. I believe this to be a marketing term, meaning BS😈

Hmm! Thats two civilian airliners, in recent times. They must be immensely proud of their military capabilities😈

My T tail Zephyr had a relativly small (to my eye) horizontal stabiliser (with elevator) and a large rudder. Aesthetically I didnt much like the concept but grew to appreciate it. Great rudder and elevator authority, right down & through the stall - couldn't ask for better. X wind landings/TO handled with ease. Aside from aesthetics, why do most gliders and a few small powered aircraft have aT tail, while most do not?

ATEC are supposed to have made one, special order, tailwheel variant of the Faeta (original T tail). Last I heard, a few years back, it was for sale in Greece. ATEC were very disappointed in the ground handling characteristics of the aircraft & are said to have vowed never to build another. No expert; I have been told that a tail wheel varent, of the same nose wheel aircraft, may have a small cruise speed advantage, for a significant ground handling penalty. Further; A well faired fixed undercarriage, will usually come close to the same cruise speed, as an equivalent retractable, without the weight and complexity penalty of the latter.

True! Unfortunatly all too often at, even below, circuit height. ERSA sais not below 2500 ft, the most pedantic overfly at 2500 ft - so aircraft inbound to, The Oaks/Camden, at same altitude - not good!

Like you, I overfly prior to landing however I am usually well over the 500 ft minimum above circuit height - more in line with 1000 ft. Reason; not all pilots are so disciplined to be at circuit height +/-

Of course. If transmit &/or receive failed and you intended to land at a CTAF, I think an overfly, well above circuit height, to visually assess aircraft activity & circuit direction may have been the prudent choice, rather than a join at circuit height, to what may be the up/down wind leg. There are several possible/legitimate circuit joining strategies at The Oaks, the most common is to join X wind from "the dead side" which is over The Oaks town itself.😈

The wind on the ground was only intermittently moving the two windsox's. There was an established circuit pattern direction, 18 . Subject to making sure there was no possibility of conflict, 36 could have been used. There were reports of turbulence aloft (?ft) . There were 3 Jabs, from The Oaks, aloft at the time. One some distance away (not in circuit but in CTAF). One landing on 18, at about the time of the accident. The accident Jab which had done a "go round" on 18

For people looking for 17mm coolant hose alternative to RoTax; I have no experince with Mackay however they have a good reputation. Catalogue Section 3 Pages 42-44 https://www.westernfilters.net.au/content/pdfs/mackay_HosePics_2014.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopBWYE-XWZDeYC4lUVzsbvP9OrGpbFbRoOdLBcNEMsFavPgQKfc Most are pre formed, so you will have to match/cut where necessary (PN CH4195 seems to be the only straight). FYI Some 16mm ID may fit . Gates PN 19489, 19488, 19497, 19498, 19545 may also fit. All pre-formed with 16mm (0.66") ID, Meet SAE 20R3 Type EC Class D1&D2, -40C to +135C NOTE: Make sure that any hose you intend to purchase meets/exceeds Rotax specifications

In diary😈

Not that it's going to change anything ; The way I see it, our (Au) system of compensation favours the legal industry and deep pockets. It inherently expensive, on various levels and potentially unjust. Unlike some enlightened societies, our system of "justice" is adversarial. Compensation payment are awarded by the court, even where the "at fault party" is not contesting the claim, by the injured party. The main beneficiaries in all of this are the ambulance chasers/lawyers. More enlightened systems remove the need for an injured party to make a claim against the at fault. Instead they make a claim to an impartial committee who rule on the matter. The committee will also rule on the culpability of the at fault, where appropriate referring the criminally negligent for prosecution/court. One of the "flow on" effects of our system is the fear generated in the public, of being sued. This plays into the hands of another unproductive group, the insurance industry. Why we allow ourselves to be "milked" without complaint, by two non productive parasitic industries, is beyond me.😈

I guess so. Its rumoured that the C180 was scheduled for a refurb, part of which was a brand new transponder (ADSB - Out) sitting on a desk at Shellharbour/W Gong. As for See & Avoid - Yes this is very much the party line and will likly remain so, for aircraft without ADSB - IN plus automated aircraft proximity warning. I endeavour to be a good See & Avoid pilot, aided by Comms, OzRunwys + SE2 (very recent) BUT am a skeptic, as to its efficacy, without having some sort of clue as to where tool look in the first instance.

The Jab was returning from an aborted X country. The C180 from Camden circuits. Dont know about you, my transponder & SE2, go on just prior to TO and are not shut down until after Landing (usually on taxiing in). C180 (GA registered) would have had his transponder on, to do circuits at Camden. Not that I get to fly with other pilots these days, however no recollection of transponders (once on) being shut down in circuit.

You guys did not read the JAB HAD AN SE2 and the C189 HAD A TRANSPONDER - do I have to explain further????😈

Your point?

I can probably Google it but the dates would have been helpful.

As an RAA member/aircraft owner, I have the RAA insurance (public liability) as part of my annual membership fee. On top of RAA, I have hull, through Geof Tonkins (GT) (broker). My last premium was so high, I very nearly scraped the whole lot. In addition to my usual premium, was an offer of increased public liability - I declined. We live in this crazy environment where we are scared into paying for ever more insurance, just in case.....!!! Unless you are incredibly wealthy, I don't think it is actually possible to afford a, so called, "comprehensive" insurance policy. I don't know how often RAA level aircraft/pilots have a successful claim against them, I suspect not often. My aircraft carries a placard "Yout fly in this aircraft at your own risk............" My preflight checklist requires I draw their attention to the placard ; Passenger Briefing This is a Recreational aircraft; Its construction & maintenance standards are not as for Certified aircraft and may be below certified standards. You- Fly in this aircraft at your own risk May not smoke in or near any aircraft Must wear your safety harness, securely fastened at all times Must obey the pilot’s safety instructions Must not touch any controls Should you feel uncomfortable/unwell please let me know ASAP, so that I may do what I can to improve your situation. In the event of a forced landing; Unlock your harness thus - Operate the cockpit locks thus - Exit the aircraft as soon as the engine is turned off consistent with your safety Activate the PLB (location) A basic first aid kit is on board (location) Mission details – duration, speed, altitude etc. I understand that, in the event of a claim against me/my estate, should I be found negligent, the above will provide little protection. Not counting the RAA premium, over three years (since aircraft first registered) I have spent about 10% of the aircrafts new value, in insurance premiums. I am not sure that I will insure my aircraft next year - the premium is more than I would spend in operating & maintenance combined, for probably 2 or more years ( I try not to think about it).

Sooo! How good are these "press the switch" jobs??? Crazy I know, I have 5 ride-ons & two push mowers, ranging in size from 3hp-25 hp, up to a commercial level zero turn 60" deck. I have never purchased a mower - all are hopeless cases, that somehow come back to life (usually a carb clean does the trick) owners already moved on/purchased a new one. I don't have a trailer big enough for the 60", so used mainly for maintaining our 3km street roadside verges. For helping out at the airstrip, have nice Husqvarna 21 hp (made in China). Lots of power, has cruise control, poor lawn finish but good enough around aircarft. Couple of Toro's that the wife likes to use around the house/yard. Do a good job. One realy old metal bonnet Toro, waiting for a donor hydro transmission to appear - when working cut a beaut lawn. Can't get rid of it, engine still good, unlike the modern versions "built like the proverbial brick S...H...." Anyone got a hydro transmission in good order (almost any lawn tractor style, up to about 17 hp, can probably be mad to fit)?? Two pushers are for finishing off, where the ride-ons can't access. All run on 91 RON (would love a diesel), Annual oil changes/service. Do not cut wet grass, be generous with grease (especially spindle heads). Never wash down with water - use compressed air, to remove ALL chaff & dust, after every work period. Will your battery job measure up????😈

Just relating my experince, which seems a little different to yours. All the best😈

The Max TO weight increase, was just a month or so ago. I can't comment on why RAA would impose changes to existing TO wt. As for Certified W&B. It would seem that RAA had its authority, to approve W&B, removed for some reason. This meant that anyone requiring a W&B, had to go the CASA/Certified rout, including me. I shopped around and found a Certified service provider, at a considerably better price (almost 1/2) than what you have quoted.

We will never know why the C182, with two experienced pilots on board, was; Not calling on or apparently monitoring, The Oaks CTAF. At circuit height. If joining, was doing so on 36, opposite to established traffic on 18 (including the Jab he collided with). His transceiver had been working, minutes earlier, on the Camden frequency - failed to switch over? selected wrong frequency? failure? (unlikly). It was a Saturday morning in reasonable weather (moderate turbulence at altitude), normally busy with small aircraft movements, why did the C180 pilots not think it was strange that they had no comms with The Oaks (which shars 126.7 with nearby Mittagong). The Jab had a SkyEcho2, presumably the C180 had a operational transponder (would have been required to enter Camden airspace) how did ATC not see the two aircraft on a collision course? How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad? How did none of the 3 pilots see the other aircraft? So many questions, that will never be answered - very sad for all.