skippydiesel

"Looks like you can carry fuel in portable tanks/cans as long as it is non-commercial and no passengers.

Not suggesting this is a good idea. Anybody care to comment."

The carriage of extra fuel has a long history. Even today aircraft are "ferried" (ie flown) long distances with the aid of additional  temporary fuel tanks (usually bladders).

I would be surprised if there is any legal restriction on the carriage of additional fuel. Obviously there is a increased risk in doing so. Common sense would suggest that the fuel be carried in robust containers, well secured against turbulence/rough landing, etc.

Fuel extending bladders can be purchased from the likes of Turtle Pack https://www.turtlepac.com/products/air-drop-fuel-bladder/

most of the Turtle Pack offering, is designed to allow in-light fuel transfer - you don't have to use this feature. If you do it will have to be plumbed into your existing fuel reticulation system.

Personally I don't like rigid fuel containers - space is at a premium in my little aircraft, they take up as much room empty, as full. I use 20L x 2 collapsible bladders - mainly to fetch ULP from the nearest service station. 

My flight plan across AU has highlighted that I may need to be able to fetch 60L at a time from the servo, so will need to purchase a third bladder or make an additional trip.

😈

Empty weight (Zero Fuel) is dependent on what systems have been added/order with the aircraft.

Most manufactures publish a low empty weight, so that they can claim a high payload (passengers, luggage, fuel). Then they tell you you can fit the aircraft out with a range of non essential (for legal flight) extras, that will then increase the empty weight, detracting from the payload.

Your aircraft is factory built, came with /without factory fitted extras - you are not supposed to modify it, without factory authorisation. 

IF your aircraft is registered as a 550 Max TO, thats the legal permissible weight.

IF later aircraft went to 600kg Max TO, the factory may authorise an increase (on application) for your aircarft - this will not only depend on their good will, also any changes that may have been made to later aircraft, to allow the weight increase eg later aircraft may have had a wing tank option, structural upgrade, stronger undercarriage, etc

Fuel load can be varied, to allow for heavier Pax/luggage WARNING this will reduce your still air range, meaning additional fuel stops may have to be planed.😈

Ah!

While its important you understand the principal, the main objective is passing your exam - don't start introducing variables, like altering the empty W&B. KISS principal!

As far as 4.5.2.2 goes - likly a poor Czech to English interpretation OR  a larger fuel tank was/is an optional order.

As for installing adjustable position load rails, no need, KISS again - Know your Max weight for the location, weigh the stuff, heavy items as far forward in the baggage area as you can (if no passenger, on that seat), lighter stuff aft. 

When you have your Certificate, you can then ponder W&B  loading 😈

My apologies in advance if this solution has already been suggested; OzRunways has a nifty weight and balance calculator, that can be configured/personalised for your aircraft. Once configured, you only have to put in the variables (fuel quantity/weights in location) and it tells you if your aircraft is within/out - simples!😈

Hi Marty,

Is this a Rotax 912 installation?

If so, Why do you need an overflow tube?

I am on my second 912 powered aircraft - neither have an overflow tube, from the the expansion tank.

I have never experienced coolant overflowing from the expansion tank.

Assuming correct installation & filling of the coolant system, the cold level for the expansion tank should be 1/4 to 1/2. This will leave more than enough room for the hot coolant to be contained within the expansion tank.😈

This my panel. Switch/Breaker information all in laser engraved, adhesive plaques. Not too shabby?😈

As , I think, has been mentioned - having an engraved, stick on plaque can be very professional looking AND if any changes to the panel layout are made easily adjusted.

Engraving the panel itself, pretty much sets it"in stone" future changes will either look messy, wrong or require replacing the whole panel at considerable inconvenience and cost😈

IF (??) the manufacturer is supplying a structure that has been "certified" for wind gusts in your area, they would be taking one hell of a risk if the structure was not up to par , of not only claims against the structures collapse but also for anything contained within and if iparts blow away and damage done elsewhere - whole thing could become very costly.😈

6 hours ago, Moneybox said:

I don't know who owns it. It's surely on crown land as there's very little freehold land in Western Australia outside the town boundaries. When I told the owner of the current hanger that I was considering putting something up out there he said that it has to be a CASA approved structure because they don't want anything loose floating about the airstrip in bad weather. The shire operate it.

I have never heard of CASA becoming involved/setting standard for hangers - I very much doubt thewordy of the one and only Cue hanger people. Having a structure that will not blow away and do damage, is a reasonable position. Their structure/hanger doesn't sound so crash hot.

There are standards for public airfields / ALA's  - dimensions of runways, distances from obstructions,  slope, surface. et  etc etc

Is Cue an air  port ? (as in irregular or regular passenger service RPT)If so there may be more stringent requirements.

My research into a prefabricated shelter for my aircraft, would suggest that the suppliers must meet/exceed the wind standards for the area that the kit is being erected in - sounds like a reasonable requirement to me.

If local Council maintain the strip, likly they will set the standard for any structures - check it out!😈

11 minutes ago, Moneybox said:

 

Here I think I can get away with anything but at YCUE the structure has to meet regulations because CASA have their bit to say about it. The one hanger at the airport is made up of two shipping containers heavily weighed down with concrete blocks, a solid steel roof spanning between and a chain between for aircraft anchorages. The ends are open which means it gives no protection from the wind or what it's carrying. I'll look into the farm shed but it'd need some modifications on the entry but it would work out cheaper than the containers considering freight and crane hire.

CASA? - You sure? 

Who owns the airfield?😈

8 hours ago, Moneybox said:

 

Mmm... That wasn't in the budget either. Building anything up here is difficult and expensive. Materials are expensive and contractors are almost impossible to get. I can buy a kit but it still has to erected.

You can purchase a 3 car garage or farm shed kit for about $8,000. There are discounts' from time to time down to close on 1/2 that figure.  If its a 3 car garage or shed with a suport in the wrong place, need to factor in some additional truss stiffening, to allow for a span wide enough for the aircarft. I guess transport is a big factor for you.😈

If , ""they are not going to tell you what they do or how they do it." how on earth do YOU know????

Forgive me Turbs , this is your paranoid "Achilles heel" at least I am working from experince, & logical argument.

I think I will leave the debate, for the moment, even I get tired of repetition and circular argument😈

18 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Enough amazing stories here to write a book.

 

If you want to find out exact details, contact Department of Home Affairs, Cyber & Infrastructure Security Centre.

 

 

Something that seems to elude you Turbs -

All bureaucracies have a vested interest in inflating their own importance. They are effectively in competition with every other department for funding. Our security services are no diffrent in this regard. For this reason alone their commentary, on something like ASIC is suspect (thats if they even care to comment on such an insignificant failed policy.)

Unlike you  ( all knowing person), I can only speculate from a recreational pilots view and an retired employee, of almost 30 years service in a bureaucracy;

• Safety & Security are wonderful vote/funding vehicles, for both politicians and bureaucracies. Unfortunatly they have a significant downside - very hard to pull back/rescind, once enacted, no matter how hysterical, inaccurate, wrong, the initial reason (possibly the best large scale example, in recent history, would be the Iraq War/Weapons of Mass Destruction - killed many thousands, destabilised the Middle East and incentivised  a whole new generation of radicals against the West - top job! ).

When it comes to ASIC, AS APPLIED TO SMALL REGIONAL RPT AIRFIELDS, the evidence is well and truly there, for any pilot/ intersted person to see - its complete failure, BUT it continues for the above reasons - its in the too hard basket.😈

"I believe that the primary justification for the ASIC was to stop unauthorised persons from being airside in any capacity at a security controlled field."

Agreed & seemed reasonable at the time (2011/12)

Ill-conceived , from the start, the main criteria,  RPT airports,  were  the only ones considered. These could have as little as one or two flights a day (possibly less). While non RPT airfields like Bankstown/Sydney may have hundreds/day were not included - make any sense???

"All because nobody, not Home Affairs, not airfield owners (mainly councils) and certainly not CASA wants to fund it."

No rational person or authority wants to fund an ineffectual program - The "crime" here is not the initial good intent of the legislation but that it continues long after everyone  has realised its without merit.

"But lets hit users for $300 every 2 years for something we know is ineffective."

Seems rational to me - If you don't want to fund it or get rid of it, get someone else to pay, at least for the basic running cost of the life support system😈

8 hours ago, Arron25 said:

I was led to believe , that AS LONG as you did not leave AIRSIDE, you did not need an ASIC... Ie Land.. refuel.. leave  (no toilet break etc.) was perfectly acceptable

This is a new slant for me.

The constant, in this discussing, is confusion and multiple interpretation. This likly continues to the airport staff (if any can be found). 

To some extent can be explained by the apathy/disinterest of the authorities to actually enforce this ridiculous policy.

I would like to think that ASIC is sliding from its current semi conscious state,  to its  death. Unfortunatly thats not the way this sort of legislation disappears - it just takes one incident at home /aboard and a keen politician, lusting for the limelight, for the whole unfortunate program thing to be resurrected.😈

29 minutes ago, dlegg said:

So a touring RAA pilot needs an asic to land at a sec controlled airstrip to refuel and take off again. What to do, what to do...

Yes, however it is technically possible to arrange for an escort. Never actually heard of it being done. I would anticipate that such a request may attract a cost, range from zero, if helpful local pilot looks after you, to call out fee, for security (caretaker?) to attend. 

Alternative - take the risk that you won't be challenged/get into strife.  It's about 3-4 years since I did any "away trips"  (NSW) - not an official of any description in sight, when I landed at so called Security Controlled Airports. WARNING; This comment is far from a comprehensive survey - I may have just been lucky.

In the 5 years I held an ASIC - not once was I asked for it (I understand this is a common experience). After initial wearing phase had worn off, due to lack of interest, carried it in aircraft, never wore it again.

"When applying for asic an RAA pilot is discouraged from applying as deemed not necessary."

By whom?

When applying, you must demonstrate your need for an ASIC - Intent to tour, need for fuel access & rout safety, it seem to me you have a persuasive reason.

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The Asic card does that. If someone is noticed wandering around a light airctraft doing a preflight or putting packages into it, the Asic card immediately identifies the person has been checked out by Federal police rather than having to detain the person for hours getting checks made.

As I said, a sledgehammer to crack a non existent nut.  Security check, at the point of application for student licence,  would be all that is needed to reduce the chance of an ill intended person,  learning to fly, for the purpose of conducting a terrorist attack- ASIC not required

There are current threats, why would we do a Neville Chamberlain?

Neville Chamberlain was trying to placate a proven murderous dictator, who had already invaded another country or two. If he has succeeded, he would be a hero. He tried and failed. History has dealt harshly with him ever since. - I doubt an ASIC of the day, would have had any impact, one way or the other, any more than it does now - very poor analogy.

That's your asessment, but how about this: "..... also known as ......returned from .......late last month and is again extolling the virtues of jihad at the  .........  Islamic Information Centre in ................

The location is an innocemt looking suburb in Melbourne with dozens of restaurants, mostly Chinese, Laotian amd Vietnamese.

or

And when they are caught by Fed police: ".........who is serving 15 years jail for planning a terrorist attack in Melbourne."

Or the graduate of the learning centre who lured Vic Police to a site and opened fire on them, luckily being shot dead by Police.

What is this departure into racial/religious  BS? 

There's been a steady stream of potential terrorists around Australia for decades.

"Terrorism",  the killing of innocents, to make some perverted point, has been with us since the dawn of man - ASIC somehow prevents this? You can not be that naive.

Domestic terror incidents, are primarily a problem of our cities. Most often involving the use of ground based vehicles and/or firearms legitimately or otherwise procured,  not small RPT airports.

They've done that overseas, using shoulder-fire missiles, but they can do that from outside the perimeter of the airport.

Thank you for supporting my contention that a bad person need only use a remotely controlled/launched device, to take down an airliner from outside the insecure ASIC compound.

The ASIC process does protect us in lone wolf attacks. Overseas , where ones and twos of terrorist showed up at training airfields and asked for training and no questions were asked even when they said they didn't need to do landings. They were given training no questions asked, they learned how the aircraft could be accessed (the no keys, she's OK, Let's Go! method) they loaded their aircraft and they attacked their targets. .

Unless you are referring to the Twin Towers etc attack, continued activity of this sort, sounds like Urban Myth and even if remotely true, ASIC is a sledgehammer, to do what a security check, at student license application, would do to reduce the risk of bad people obtaining pilot training, who then go on to commit a suicide attack/hijack an aircraft.

In those cases the instructors either echoed the sentiments we're reading,where people don't think a terrorist would ever come to their airport, or that arabic people saying they didn't need to be taught to land were just a bit of fun or whatever lame excuse they came up with.   If it was Australia, with an ASIC airfield and there was a security protocol being followed by everyone on the field, those terrorists would not have passed the ASIC screening so not allowed to be trained, so the attacks wouldn't have occurred.

You do crap on with your racist mumbo-jumbo. ASIC is not working at any airfield I have visited. Even if it was applied, there are not the trained personnel, money to fund it, so even without a shred of evidence as to its need or efficacy, it would still fail.

Yes, it might not tickle your fancy, but Australia is a commonwealth of six sovereign states and two territories, so there are issues to be discussed and arrangements to be made when joint action is needed.

 Your point??? ASIC is, I believe, a Federal initiative, in line with most aviation policy - this does  legitimise its continued application.

I've just answered your series of scenarios, but in reality the threats and reactions might be quite different, but the ASIC card cost is less than an hour's flying for most people.

You have answered, but not addressed single point. Your tangential  statements, lapsing into racial/religious ramblings, suggest failure to comprehend and or unsubstantiated paranoia .

the ASIC card cost is less than an hour's flying for most people.

Now we come to the point.

You have no ethical objection, that ASIC , a failed policy,  continues to be imposed on AU domestic recreation/private licences holders, for no good reason,  just because you can afford to pay for it ???????. Shame on you 😈

30 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The achilles heel in your story Skippy is that the terrorists involved in the light aircraft attacks went out to small fields, did some basic training then launched their attacks.  After that, some Authority,maybe CASA made a requirement for all light aircraft to have secure door locks. I can remember flying for a while with a hole in the door, hole in the fuselage and unlocking a big padlock.

 

The current discovery in Victoria which the Premier and Albo are working on is a timely reminder not to get careless. These people are driven enough to think up new ways, partticularly when people roll out the "easy" signs on social media.

There is no "achilles heel" - 

• If the authorities wanted to make it difficult for an aspiring suicide pilot, to get training , that can be done at the student license stage. I think we all thought ASIC was a reasonable plan, at the time - that time has long passed and yet we continue with this ridiculous system, restricting doemstic pilots access to public airfields - to what practical, beneficial, objective??.
• Australia would have to be very close to the bottom of any terrorist target list, thats if we get onto it at all.  We are just way too insignificant (small fry) on the World stage, too far away and despite are minor involvement in some pretty dodgy Super Power warmongering, have not sufficiently upset the people's likly to be seeking organised revenge. Even if we came up for terrorist discussion, the "bean counters" would dismiss an attack, on the basis of cost & effect.
• As I have repeatedly stated - if a terrorist wanted to attack an RPT aircraft, he/she need only purchase a easily acquired drone. No need to have some compex expensive (in lives, time & money) plan. How would ASIC have any deterrent effect on this type of scenario ???
• By their nature, we  have almost no defence against "Lone Wolf" domestic terror attacks' short of implementing a China type national camera surveillance, ID system. Even then the disaffected will find a way to express their hatred for the system. 
• "These people are driven enough to think up new ways, partticularly when people roll out the "easy" signs on social media." No offence mate but this statement is without a saving grace. You assume, that those who attack the current colonial powers, are without intelligence, innovation & couriage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Terrorists have demonstrated time & time again, that they are, for the most part, ahead of the authorities with their plans, technology and sheer daring.

What "....current discovery in Victoria which the Premier and Albo are working on"  (since when did career politicians work on anything other than getting/maintaining power?) are you referring to the Sydney caravan containing explosives?

😈

1 hour ago, djpacro said:

Even more ridiculous with the correct interpretation of the rules. Take a look at websites for Essendon and Moorabbin airports, for example - ring them up and ask.

Probably 50 plus years since I last flew into a major Victorian airport. 

I have always made the point that I support ASIC type security for major airports, both international & doemstic. My "beef" is the application (sort of) to small RPT airports (& even those who no longer have an RPT service).

A quick check of ERSA - Essendon does not appear to have any particular rules, other than stating its a Security Controlled Airport, ASIC required. Melbourne/Moorabbin adds words to the effect that All departing passengers will be subject to security screening.😈

In a previous ASIC debate, there was a photo of a airport no entry warning sign , If I remember correctly, the posted fine for entry without an ASIC, was $5,000Au.

So now we have the fear factor being used to dissuade non ASIC holders from accessing a public airfield, while the authorities fail to sell their ridiculous, ineffectual, pretty much unsupervised/policed, policy to the flying fraternity. 

It's called using a sledgehammer to crack a non existent nut 😈

Djpaco -

There is no law about a PIC of an aircraft, bing unable to land at a public airport. To do so would be a contravention of the authority of PIC, a very long standing convention.

From a security point of view, what difference is there in a pilot being escorted to/from his aircraft and his passenger(s)?

You are reading into ASIC regulations,  things that are not there.

As recreational / private pilots, we should be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous, ineffective system disbanded

 😈

11 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Security requirements for pilots:

The Department of Home Affairs is Australia's security regulator for aviation. They also administer the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

Under these regulations, all current pilots must have an aviation security status check. You will also need an aviation security status check if you're applying for a flight crew licence.

To get one of these checks you will need to apply for either an:

• Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC)
• Aviation Identification (AVID).

 

this comes from https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/aviation-safety-and-security-pilots/security-requirements-pilots#ApplyingforanASIC

Ha! Ha Ha! - I do not know of anyone, in my aviation sphere, who has an ASIC  - there must be joke in this somewhere😈

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Agree, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.  A test fine polish cut would be all and some different shades would still exist.  Do it on boat hulls all the time.  The old rego numbers show due to the gel coat having been shaded by the numbers.

 

Attached is what I posted that I use.

This (& its ilk) are the perfect product, bit like an addictive drug, the more you use, the more you need to use it

If you must use an abrasive, I strongly recomend extreme moderation😈