turboplanner

Am I the only one thinking "fire extinguisher"?

Good point if you have a fire extinguisher; but the most common fires historically have been in the engine bay, a wiring fire can be hard to get at or see while you are flying the airctraft, and a small fie extinguisher doesn't seem to make much difference with thermal runaway unless you are able to wait for the initial flash to die down. Nothing beats the tried and tested big blast with powder closely followed by the foam truck to prevent reflash.

And that raises an interesting question; how many airfields have a combination of powder extinguishers and foam truck, trailer or trolley?

 

 

come on you lot - lets hear something positiveI think the design will have a subliminal attraction to young recruits - the rearward triangular swish is obviously a future trend hairstyle

........................... can you please keep up with the times

Art is subjective; there's no right or wrong, but people are entitled to their own reaction to it.

In this case the Roulettes are marketing aerial views so far away that it will play no part for most people.

 

You can't even argue that our tax dollars have been misspent, because......art is subjective.

 

We can be reasonably sure though that we won't ever see one of these in Le Louvre.

 

 

Wow turbs, you have seen ROTTED fibreglass? That might be a world first.

Collins English Dictionary; synonyms for rot: "decay, break down, spoil, corrupt"

 

Maybe you mean water ingress between laminations in a poorly made layup.

No, I wasn't referring to that; the major cause is the resin used.

 

 

Not something even a first year design student should be doing; puts new meaning into home made.

 

 

Fatigue in fibreglass is a furphy disseminated by those who have something to gain by frightening the scientifically challenged.

It wouldn't surprise me if this thread informs the CASA decision on whether to accept any change in the status quo.

Many people who own a boat don't need to be scientifically challenged when they find the floor or transom rotted out within a few years.

 

People who work in the FRP industry repairing FRP accident damage are not scientifically challenged when they cut out what appears to the owner to be perfectly good fibreglass panel.

 

The people who are scientifically challenged are these who have no idea of the equivalent to the difference between a horse and a blowfly.

 

Fibreglass is the product of melting marbles of glass and stretching them out into long and very fine strands almost hairs, which become flexible.

 

The fibres aren't much use floating around in the breeze by themselves, but will flex for ages.

 

"Fibreglass" is a name used by the scientifically challenged for a composite product called Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic, or Glass Reinforced Plastic.

 

To make this composite the fibreglass (the fine glass fibres) is laid on a surface and impregnated with a thermo-setting plastic resin to form a "laminate".

 

In this process, the fibreglass (the fine glass fibres) can take the form of strands (long length of fibres), chopped strand mat (fibres chopped into short lengths and matted together with an adhesive, rovings, a form of strands, woven rovings, which look like a piece of woven material, and a number of other forms.

 

The strength and flexibility is decided by the type of fibres used, the type of resin used, the method of laminating, the skill of laminating and the number of laminates.

 

The life cycle of FRP varies primarily with the type and quality of the resin, the laminating skill, and the force on the laminate thickness used.

 

While there are examples of highly flexible fishing rods and glider wings which may have lasted for many years, and vehicle bodies and some boats which have lasted for over 50 years, that life can be shortened down to as little as five years when a scientifically unchallenged academic gets his hands on some cheap resin and a ten dollar laminating kit.

 

 

as a jab pilot, I'd really like to know what caused a fire to break out in the cockpit.

There can be quite a few reasons with a custom build aircraft; fuel leak, oil on the manifold, fitting an accessory without a fuse, disturbing wiring while installing something etc.

These days the most likely suspect for a big fire is thermal runaway in one of the non-standard battery types people have been fitting. Thermal runaway starts like a mini explosion, and this description fits the witness description (although not necessarily the cause, just a possibility). Thermal runaway also occurs in electronic components like GPS, phone, tablet etc.

 

The more important aspect is to be ready to act fast to get the aircraft down on the ground; with a fire in the engine bay it may be possible to side slip on the way down so the flames are directed away from the cockpit, even blown out. In the case of a fire which gets into the cockpit, you couldn't get better than what this gentleman did. Hopefully he may be able to share the cause.

 

 

Tyabb? Visited there yesterday; very impressed by the large expansion of hangars.

 

 

Mmm nope!The source legislation often does

not carry or refer to the detail of the exemptions found in other parts of the entire air law.

 

That’s the reason for all the layers of books we are talking about. Each outlines more details and if there are exceptions to the more general statements contained in the higher order text.

I can understand your problem.

 

 

In the big picture you are right ,but showing idiots they are idiots doesn't make life easy for you in the short term, especially of they have power over you. Neither thing was a safety issue. It was just the product of pedants and of little consequence or you WOULD take it further. They , in the environment they work in have to be seen to be doing something. They exist in all walks of life, even motorsport. I've made waves to be effective but you pick your time and make sure you aren't wasting it on some useless temporary symbolic victory. Nev

We’re not talking something frivolous in this thread, but something which would be disruptive to GA and possibly the end of the bottom end of RA. Remember the CASA audits of RAA when it ignored CASA concerns about illegal aircraft three times then found out what the real regulations were in the fourth CASA audit. Reading through the CASA reports, it was clear that long term, let’s say, misunderstandings had taken place, and it finished up with a lot of aircraft permanently grounded; just how many we never found out.

 

 

CASA don't; write the rules for RAAus. but they are supposed to audit their manuals.. Exactly the same for Airline operators and Flying Schools with their AOC's etc I've seen them reverse an instruction that a previous CASA's rep had insisted be incorporated in the manual at the last check. You don't make a fuss and point out the obvious. You just say OK I will change that for you. and mutter "idiots" under your breath. Nev.

If you do that no one in management knows and not only is the problem not fixed but the errors mutiply. That’s possibly what’s happening in a couple of the above posts. People make use of confusion .

 

 

It can only be correct if it agrees with the legal document that goes through the parliament. Nev

That's right; beats all other arguments.

 

 

If you can find it, which is sometimes near impossible; just about every rule is countered by an exemption or a modifier, some of which themselves are difficult to find.

If you go to the source legislation it’s usually much clearer.

 

If they weren’t we wouldn’t have all these discrepancies turning up all the time.

I’ve always found confusion with laws is directly in proportion to the wish to do something outside them. A few people want to break into the bottom end of GA; nothing confusing about that.

 

 

RAAus listed rules apply unless another CASR or such over rules it. People who could give a DEFINATE answer with this material would be few and far between. It's NOT the way it should be. Pilot (user) friendly reliable interpretations of the REGs. should be up to date and clear. It's written by Lawyers and can only be understood by "some" specialist Aviation Lawyers, at best. It's always been the same but probably worse now. We used to have a separate minister for CIVIL Aviation who was responsible and knew something of his/her portfolio.. Nev

Well if that was the case, about 30,000 Australian "Pilot" would have to hand in their Certificates/Licences, because it would be an admission they were not up to flying to the regulations. I would suggest the regulations are comprehensible by students who have passed Year 9 for private recreational flying. The problem in this thread is that some people are making statements of "fact" without even reading the regulations, and others have never bothered to go on to the aviation sites - CASA, Airservices, ATSB and RAAus to learn what their obligations are.

Most seem to learn to fly an aircraft going no further than the RAAus data, and want to fly in CASA airspace, never realising that to do that they will by flying under CASA and Airservices regulations.

 

The recent discussion on use of radio is a classic example of that. Any student reading through that thread would not be able to sift through all the opposing views to get any idea of what their formal obligations are to fit into the general flying activity of the day and place

 

 

comment deleted...modFully approved and documented, by head and 2ic and also by director sport aviation CASA Brisbane AND was on file with ATC.

 

If RAA wants to call I can give them the names from CASA who signed off and approved the documents. but they should know as the AUF did know after the approval was given.

 

How do you think they let an ultralight (Light wing two stroke into the airspace) the precedent to fly in control airspace has been there for years.

The only information which counts will be in approved documents. If they can't be sourced then it's just rumour.

 

 

Turbs, can you imagine an IFR plane on the minimum approaching Adelaide airport from the east? It would be at 8,500 ft at Mannum and 4,500 ft at Mount Barker.

I just did a few very rough calcs. Tintinara as a datum to Gawler via Sanderton is only 19 mins faster than Tintinara>Two Wells>Coastal to Gawler.

 

 

I had way back when, in the AUF, a CASA - " open dispensation, with no limits, any time no notice (got the point) " into controlled airspace and land as wanted. Even went head to head with the airlines a lot, no problems - had a few stunned FO's I spoke to on radio. CASA never EVER had a problem with me or with it, whatsoever (back then).ATC was great, they even came flying with me at a few places.

 

I did and still have a GA license as well - but I was flying a Lightwing two stroke with AUF rego and only had radio very basic panel and paper maps then. None of the other stuff you require now.

 

So the "precedent has been around for many, many years". Seems the AUF NOW RAA have forgotten is was legal and was done without problem.

 

This CTA stuff is a load of bull and excuses FROM RAA AND CASA - if you get training and pass it to PPL standard and use a four stroke Rotax and maintained by L2 whats the problem - However - I must admit, I was always waiting for a engine shut down with the two strokes - and I would not like to play in say, Sydney or Melb these days, however anywhere else is fine in my humble opinion.

There’s a big difference between you getting away with something and no one else picking it up, and something being legal. If it was legal there will be documentation. Without that it’s just a dream.

 

 

TurbsCan you do one for Sydney Mascot, and Melbourne, Brisbane. please

2018 of course

 

spacesailor

Brisbane and Archerfield Jet and non Jet

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q2_2013_Brisbane_Archerfield.pdf

 

Sydney and Bankstown

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q1_2015_Sydney_Bankstown_Camden_ANIR.pdf

 

Melbourne Basin

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q1_2015_Melbourne_ANIR.pdf

 

Adelaide and Parafield

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q4_2015_Adelaide_ANIR.pdf

 

Perth and Jandakot

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Q4_2015_Perth_ANIR.pdf

 

 

TurbsCan you do one for Sydney Mascot, and Melbourne, Brisbane. please

2018 of course

 

spacesailor

I’ ll have a look

 

 

 

This is the pattern n Non Jet arrivals and departures at Moorabbin Airport in February 2013.

 

We all carry a map of the runways, we all know here the defined circuits should be, and we all know the correct entry procedures.

 

You can see why CASA would be very nervous about one person, saying let me fly up a bit higher in the restricted area, I'll be good!

 

 

 

Footage: Herald Sun/Channel 7

 

Hard to say whether he has gone off the end of 17C or 17R or the taxiway between them, or was heading for 35C, touched down early and did a U turn.

 

Bigger scale to right: Google Maps.

 

 

 

Understanding Bernoulli will certainly help explain what's happening when you get those little bumps just before a stall.

 

 

If you're a student who is new to flying and new to the language. And the 172 has that spring loaded nosewheel. Also could have landed nose down.

 

 

Turbs, there are many examples in Australia where the height restrictions placed on non-IFR planes are completely unnecessary, stupid and dangerous. Airlines would never notice any of the changes which are needed.I wonder if you ever supported the increase in allowable height from 5000 ft to 10,000 ft, or were you silent on the issue?

No point in skidding away from the Adelaide Hills. RPT aircraft are letting down in that location. Some are at the top of the envelope, some are at the bottom.

 

 

You haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of getting approval for an incursion into CTA where aicraft are letting down into Adelaide Airport. What about forced landings in that terrain? What about flight planning north of the Hills?

I am always surprised by the number of invalid ballots cast. This time it was 61 from a total of 969 or 6.3% of ballots cast. The process seemed pretty simple to me but obviously not to some people. Some possibly did not put their membership number on the envelope, couldn't remember it or got it wrong of course so that would have been an automatic invalid ballot.

You should try the amazing experience of scrutineer at local, state or federal government elections, from the cheating during the count to the tiny amount the numbers in most booths change, even though the averages will change government, to the informal and they make the job worthwhile “FU [insert the Prime Minister of the day name” is one they must practice.... to “You turned my water of basterds”