turboplanner

Does anyone read posts with factual information?

 

 

Interesting how we think we know the rules.Having dealt with casa regulation for 12 years, nothing surprises me anymore.

I think you'll find that's a Recreational Aviation Australia rule.

 

 

Yep! I am glad that I have done my Nav training. It teaches you a whole lot more than you think. :)Back to the 25nm though... and this is a legitimate question from my PPL buddy. What is the originating AD? My plane is 19nm from another AD, and at times it lives it's life between these 2 ADs. Sometimes it's at one for weeks at a time, and then other times it can live at the other for weeks at a time. So where does my 25nm start and end?

 

I am not being silly, and I don't really care, in 2 weeks I will have my endorsement - but it's a good question right! Today it might be at AD 1, but then tomorrow, I might leave it at AD2.

If you are at one AD, and take off, the flight ends there. If you land at the other AD it's within your 25 Nm training zone, so no problem.

If you park it, and it lives there for a time and is your second base, then there are grounds to say that if you have been around the area with an instructor, and you decide a reasonable time later to go for a flight in a direction other that your first base, then it would be a flight from the second base.

 

However, If you departed the first base, landed at the second, had lunch, cup of coffee, went into town etc, and you then took off again, no one would be fooled by thinking that would qualify as anything other than the second leg of a flight, so you would be restricted to 25 Nm from the first base.

 

 

Now, I know this has been done to death, but this has myself and a mate puzzled, and it goes like this....So my buddy (PPL Holder) asks how my flying is going etc etc, and we got to discussing 25nm restriction without X-Country and he says...

 

"Hmm can you land 20nm away and then go another 20nm?"

 

I say no, and him being like he is says...

 

"Let's look it up!"

 

So we jump on the RAA website and check out the ops manual and we find the following;

 

CROSS COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT (X)

 

 

In order to act as pilot in command of a recreational aeroplane at a distance greater than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure a Pilot Certificate holder must hold a RAAus Cross Country (X) Endorsement.

 

Note: Consecutive flights of 25 nautical miles do not comply with this requirement.

 

 

Now, this got us into a heavy discussion, and as neither of us are legal experts, we called another buddy who is... sent him that clause and asked for what he thought it meant. Here's what he said...

 

"You need to break it down, so lets do that....

 

 

 

That clause says to me that in order to travel greater than 25nm, you are required to hold a Cross Country Endorsement.

 

 

 

Then the note says.... Consecutive flights of 25nm don't comply with this requirement, and therefor don't need the cross country endorsement. If what you are asking is, can you fly multiple legs to travel 50nm, my interpretation is yes"

 

That left my original buddy gloating... so I am putting out there to you guys for comment. I was trained, and always had the understanding that you can't hop. BUT.... As my buddy said...

 

"If you land 20nm away, how long do you have to stay there for before it becomes the original point of departure?"

 

He has a point!!

 

Let's discuss!

 

Cheers

 

J

There will always be imbeciles.

At this phase the pilot is not cleared for Navigation, which is a subject a bit bigger than turning on a gps.

 

It also encompasses meteorology; and a key factor is that within 25 nm of your training base the weather pattern should be reasonably compliant with the weather you took off in, and therefore reasonably safe for a newbie.

 

We had a similar very spirited discussion on this, and the clever dick who thought he'd found a way around the 25 nm limit, got himself lost some months later.

 

The GA idea is far better, a specific training area, where the instructor can show the student the boundaries and the student can focus on flying until he is qualified to navigate.

 

And BTW, I'd love to see someone try an argument that the original point of departure, usually the flying club base mysteriously relocated itself again and again to follow the dumb pilot.

 

I had a practical experience of this a few years ago when refuelling at Parkes. A Bonanza flew in and a young family got out to refuel. We swapped stories, and there's was that they had taken off from Bankstown to have a look at the Blue Mountains and the weather was so beautiful they had continued on to Bathurst, and now here they were in Parkes, and they might continue on and have a look at West Wyalong.

 

Soon after we both departed, and the Bonanza gave his call to Sydney Centre, a voice came back XXX where are you tracking for? The Bonanza said West Wyalong, and Centre said "Do you have a flight plan. On receiving the no, we heard these words "XXX" Land immediately, report to Sydney Centre by telephone!

 

 

I did not read the thread fully was answering as I went along, Thank you for that.Still I think it is rot playing around with legislation for 2strokes.

Some of the nation's industry was started with 2strokes. What is so irritating the experts go and ban something however the replacement has a larger carbon foot print during manufacture. Sort that one out.

 

KP.

Keith, please go back, and read the content of my post which was a precis of the link OneTrack provided. On that link there were explanations the emissions involved, and the background to the legislation.

There's no ban Keith; go back to Post #80.........the one before yours.

 

 

From the link provided by OneTrack

 

There are several Bills being processed. They only create a framework; almost all the details is to be set out in the Rules.

 

The rules will include emission standards for Particulate Matter, Nitrides of Oxygen, and Hydrocarbons.

 

Australia has not adopted NRSIEE emission standards yet.

 

NRSIEE standards are based on USEPA standards and apply to:

 

(a) Spark ignition engines rated at 19kW and below, used in household & commercial operations including:

 

• lawn mowers
   
   
  
• ride-on mowers
   
   
  
• mulchers
   
   
  
• brush/line cutters
   
   
  
• generators (outboard marine)
   
   
  
• pumps
   
   
  
• chain saws
   
   
  
• other small hand-held or pushed/pulled equipment
   
   
  

 

 

 

(b) Spark ignition engines used in marine vessels including:

 

• outboard engines
   
   
  
• personal watercraft
   
   
  
• stern-drive/inboard engines
   
   
  

 

 

[Note the 19 kW limit is not mentioned for this group]

 

Stationary engines, road vehicles subject to other regulations and diesel powered engines will not be regulated under this scheme.

 

This applies to all new NRSIEE imported into Australia from 1/7/18 and to:

 

All new NRSIEE supplied to the Australian market from 1/7/19

 

It will apply to exhaust or evaporative emissions.

 

"The proposed standards are performance rather than technology-based. In general, four stroke and direct-injection two-stroke engines will meet the standards, as will a range of low-emitting two-stroke handheld equipment (e.g. some chain saws & brush cutters).

 

"Conventional two-stroke outboard and non-handheld equipment such as mowers would not meet the new standards"

 

So this thread title "Two stroke engine ban" is not correct; the emission legislation is performance-based, just as it is in the automotive and transport industries.

 

And ample time is allowed for distributors to sell their existing stocks to dealers and dealers to sell their stock to customers, just as it is in the automotive industries.

 

Aircraft engines are not mentioned, and nor are Skimobiles, although once the rules start to apply to PWC, it wouldn't surprise me to see Rotax etc. just building compliant engines across the board (they may even have started to comply with USEPA.

 

In the road industries it has been traditional to let the natural path to the wreckers take its course, and that has protected the family budgets of those who can only afford second hand equipment. I didn't see any requirement to junk existing appliances here either.

 

Since these are Bills, anything could happen in the Parliament, in terms of dates put back, or items added or subtracted from the list.

 

 

Has anyone found the legislation yet?

 

 

As in Miami etc there are places where rebuilding is foolish. SOME places are not suitable if you have to rebuild infrastructure in a short timespan. Go somewhere more suitable. That MAY get difficult , but the other is not the answer. Nev

The problem FH is that corrupt developers fudge documents, sell the land and pay off authorities gambling on no floods in their lifetime. There's one swamp with a massive flood problem affecting about 200,000 people that was the subject of a Royal Commission.

RC records were stolen from the Public Record Office, the swamp removed from Place Name records, height contours faked, decisions approved to build in Urban Flood Zones etc. Someone will make a film about it one day.

 

 

TP is correct, but only partly correct. Caterpillar did temporarily shut down the production of their On-Highway diesel engines in 2009, because they were unable to meet the new, 2010, On-Highway emission regulations.Caterpillar stated it was unwilling to spend the large sums of money required on their On-Highway engines, to meet the new, 2010 On-Highway engine emissions laws, because Cat On-Highway engine sales were not sufficiently large enough to justify the expenditure on re-designing their engines to meet the new, 2010, substantially-tighter, On-Highway engine emissions levels.

Cat's engine useage and sales is primarily off-road, construction equipment, and industrial use. In Off-Highway use, the engine emissions laws are not so strict.

I was right on some details and wrong on others, and have just had a fascinating discussion. What you wrote sounds like it came from a PR version of history, but there is "what is intended to happen", "what screwed up or was over-ruled", "What did happen", "what went into production", "what was changed at the various break points", "what is happening right now", and what is planned to happen in the future", it's a moving target.

 

Cat then went into Joint Venture with Navistar in 2008 to produce "vocational" On-Highway trucks.The Cat/Navistar JV spent some serious money redesigning the Cat On-Highway engines to meet the On-Highway 2010 engine emissions regulations.

One fascinating period of my life started at 5 am one morning in a freezing conference room at the Burke County Inn in Melbourne with a conference call from the US. There was a specialist from Australia, another from South Africa, and myself, who was to be given a brief. We were told about the emission issues, and the proposal to go into a JV to keep the Cat branches going, and I was given the job of coming up with something for Australia which would have synergy with the Cat brand and non-highway product range - a blank sheet of paper, which usually only comes along once in a lifetime!

 

With graders, dozers, dump trucks etc. he only synergy I could think of was tippers for the construction industry, so I started with quad dogs. That then set the power and torque requirement, and then I looked for other applications where this could be used and came up with 23 different truck models.

 

We were free to shop anywhere in the vast Navistar shop for components, including at that time Mahindra from India, which offered potentially lower prices.

 

I had to take the components chosen and make them fit into the very complex Australian regulations, or start again and find another way of solving the problem.

 

I had to design the trucks without a final engine specification, and about all I can say is it took a long time to reach the final specification.

 

Interestingly enough, the Cat/Navistar JV utilised Cummins Diesel emission-control components and technology, to meet the new 2010 emissions levels regulations.

Two of us don't believe that is correct; I think that may have been a writer misunderstanding of the explanation that the engine used Exhaust Gas Recirculation, "like Cummins".

 

The Cat/Navistar JV produced its first Cat On-Highway truck production in 2011, from the Navistar factory in Mexico.

From our start that morning in the Motel, South Africa opted not to get involved in the Cat truck project, and we may have had an influence on what the US started with, but Mexico is a separate market, and while they may have gone ahead, like us, in basing the trucks on the International Pro Star, they build for their market which is huge.

What we did buy from Mexico was the aeroshield for the Australian sleeper cab models, which was more aerodynamic that the US components.

 

We built the trucks at Tullamarine, in Australia. We believe the US trucks were built in the Springfield Ohio Plant.

 

Caterpillar withdrew from the Navistar JV in 2016, but not for any emissions legislation reason - the reason for ending the Cat/Navistar JV, was purely economics.

Navistar have re-entered the Australian market with International ProStars with Cummins engines, and Cat are offering the N13 and N15 engines.

 

Cat are now manufacturing their Cat On-Highway trucks at their factory in Victoria, TX. I understand they are still utilising Navistar cabins in their On-Highway Cat trucks.

This appears to be a different product, and may have ceased production.

Caterpillar to End Production of On-Highway Vocational Trucks

 

Whereas General Motors chose to do virtually nothing about 2-stroke Detroit Diesel emissions - and other diesel engine manufacturers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to meet emission targets, Cummins sought to work pro-actively with regulators to meet diesel engine emissions targets.

The General Motors product was the GM 2 stroke diesel which they were forced to divest, along with Allison automatic transmissions and Frigidaire refrigeration as a result of US anti-trust laws, long before the emission train left the station. Detroit Diesel Allison produced and sold the engines branded Detroit Diesel, and the company is now owned by Roger Penske, producing a six cylinder engine for the on-highway market.

 

Cummins increased R&D by 60% to improve engine design technologies to meet emission targets, and have become leaders in the On-Highway diesel engine field, accordingly.

I vaguely remember Cummins increasing R&D on emissions to around $2 billion a year in the mid 1980's, and it would have increased incrementally since then, so a 60% increase would be a massive amount of dollars, but when you look at the old Cummins 210 hp which pulled 30 tonne semi trailers at 4 mpg and blew black smoke all the way to Sydney and look at today's product, and what Cummins have achieved, there's not doubt that the hybrid and electric industries will have a huge hurdle to overcome for some time yet.

What sort of aircraft was this ? I remember reading about a structural failure in a low wing LSA . If so I understand what you are saying about the dice being rolled ! I have been called a " Whooss" by many, a couple are no longer due to taking risks, when you take a risk or over stress a plane there becomes a chance that an accident will occur but it becomes a point where it is not an accident but intentional, it gets serious if you push too far !

In the case of flying schools and clubs, quite often the offender gets away scot-free, but the next person to hire the now weakened airframe loses his life in mild turbulence.

 

 

Yes those Greenies are the problem. If it wasn't for them we'd still be crippling our kids with lead pollution, clogging our roadsides and waterways with litter and clearing the last of our forests.

No, it started in the US when people in a couple of small towns started getting sick, producing nice cancer clusters as evidence, and it was found that towns upstream were pouring certain chemical wastes into the river,

That started a few scientific heads wondering where else we were being poisoned, and thanks to the Los Angeles smog basin, that led to the realisation that Particulates were so fine that they were getting into the lungs and causing lung cancers.

 

And then it all accelerated.

 

The greenies are particularly keen on preserving our natural land, forests and the liveability of our suburbs.

 

 

2 strokes will not be an issue if they meet the new regulations, but we need to see the gazetted legislation before we know what the exact wording is.

 

 

A two stroke ban on boat motors has been flagged for about a decade, so I had a quick look on the Boat Sales site.

 

Interestingly they didn't mention a ban on two strokes, but New Emission standards for all non-road spark ignition engines.

 

The new emission levels are to start by July 2018 and be implemented at the full level by July 2019

 

I went on the DIRD site but couldn't find anything there yet.

 

It may well be that the new emission level may wipe out two strokes, just as emission levels wiped out two stroke diesel truck engines a couple of decades ago, taking out one of the all time best performing engines for road and marine, the Detroit Diesel.

 

However, this legislation may also apply to spark ignition aircraft engines, which would seriously affect not only the two strokes, but four strokes as well, because the development costs to achieve these standards can run into millions, if not billions of dollars, and historically there have been no emotional reprieves; for example Caterpillar simply had to shut down truck engine production because it couldn't economically meet the ever tightening standards. (from 1992 to the present, particulate emissions have been reduced by 97%).

 

This would not only directly affect recreational and general aviation, but agribusiness and construction equipment too.

 

Hopefully the legislation will be up on the DIRD site soon, and we can see the exact wording.

 

 

I have survived a lot of engine failures and not been hurt I believe because I practice glide approaches and avoid places where you cannot do a emergency landing.

You are probably one of the exceptions; but you only have to go back over the fatalities mentioned on this forum to see the stupidity of operating where en engine failure meant a fatal.

I can think of one where the takeoff was over alpine ash and two died, one which was an illegal commercial, advertised, joyflight operation which was carved out of the bush, and a paying passenger died, along with the optimistic pilot, and one where a pilot was operating out of a small strip surrounded by scrub and died when the obvious occurred, fortunately just killing himself.

 

 

I don't think too many Brits will be worried about the authenticity of the flying shots; I'm a member of a Scottish site and someone posted a magnificent photo of a Spit standing on emerald green grass beside a castle.

 

There were no comments on it so I wrote the tag "Tiger Moth".

 

Not one person has corrected me in the past two weeks!

 

 

I don't fly over tiger country . If you depart an aerodrome like Mt Hotham, where there's no immediate landing place do a circling climb till you can range to somewhere better if the donk stops, or return to where you departed.

Second to not flying from ANY runway which does not give you EFATO space, this is a brilliant technique to build into your subconscious.

 

 

The Caution needs to be removed, and its position left blank on the screen.

 

Way to many finger accidents, and when it us used, it just starts fights.

 

 

This is actually a good example of what we've talked about in the past.

 

On paper, it seems that early training in RA, then switching to GA is the cheaper path to PPL > CPL.

 

However it is easily outweighed by the NUMBER of hours that has to be expended adapting to a different world.

 

 

OK Thanks

 

 

PS. Check the governing bodies forum for the latest from Airservices

? You just posted in governing bodies?

 

 

That's all very familiar to us because we had several years of open discussion down to the last minute detail over and over again whereas I think an investigator would be lucky to be able to extract all that.

 

 

Going by the photo, that head has not been on a running engine since the mark was made.Chris

We are speculating, but I've seen a range of heads ranging from totally pockmarked by shrapnel to clean like the clean section here when the failure has occurred after a few hours.

 

 

A bit more news..... Light plane crash south of Port Macquarie airport

 

 

The 172 full flap is huge, and that could be holding the nose down; has the instructor had you doing flapless landings; that would have the nose a lot further up