KRviator

981.5Lbs / 445Kg BEW for my RV-9A, but that was before autopilot servos and wheelpants. 450Kg after. Still, a 150Kg payload, less 80Kg of pilot gave enough fuel for a Sydney-Brisbane flight or a 2 hour local junket with Mini-Me. I could have got a bunch more if I hadn't stuck an O-340 in it! At least on VH- now I can take 2 adults, AND fuel!

You can get -7's and -9's onto the RAAus register, but then they are very niche machines, essentially, single-seat high-speed cross-country or medium-range 1+1 aircraft. I've just transferred my RV-9A from RAAus toVH to make full use of its' payload and take the KRviatrix, not just Mini-Me flying...

The difference between "Landing" and "Crashing" is defined as an ability to use the plane again... One thing I have found, or rather, not found in most POH's is those nuances that you are either taught (by a good instructor) or learn yourself, about particular airplanes. Flap pitch couples, opposite or into turn rudder rolling into a bank are a couple of examples I can thing of, off the top of my head. POH's are great for performance and limitations, but handling tricks and quirks, not so much.

The good thing with the RV line is it's hard to find a single point of failure, with the exception of the fuel system. I would rather build and maintain my own plane as then it's a known quantity. Sure you pay a LAME to "do this, fix that" and give you an airworthy aircraft at the end of it, but it isn't their life on the line if they've forgotten to tighten the fuel servo B-Nuts. I've flown Victor 1 several miles offshore with my 5 year old in a plane I built in my back shed, and felt completely comfortable doing so just like I've flown from Sydney to Caloundra over a layer of stratus where you couldn't see the end of it, or what was underneath it - and truthfully I feel more comfortable doing both of those than flying an aero clubs 60-year-old C150 for a BFR...

The removed Planesales ad says it was still undergoing Phase 1 testing while being offered for sale...I wonder how many hours it had at the time of the incident?

Except that CAsA have decreed that having only 1 TSO'd GPS (C145/6) is sufficient for sole-means IFR navigation without requiring an alternate! What would happen at night, in IMC enroute if that single GPS were to fail is the million-dollar question. I don't have a VOR in the RV, and don't see the point either. Any TSO'd GPS newer than C129 is sufficient to push the "Time to positive fix" out from 30 minutes for VFR to 2 hours, you don't need station passage or intersecting radials from a VOR. A waste of time, money and weight in a modern cockpit. The only reason I'd install one would be for an ILS, but never a standalone VOR. Anyway...Here's a bit of my handiwork from a few years ago, showing the remaining VOR's in Australia and their effective ranges. Nationwide coverage at 10,000'. Red is ASA, Blue is private. Green is DoD. Victoria 5,000'. Victoria 10,000'. NSW 5,000'. NSW 10,000'. Queensland 5,000'. Queensland 10,000'.

Some Jabiru (Jabirus?) have a UHF radio fitted as a factory option. You might touch base with the factory up there to see who is their supplier, or if they build their own harnesses they migh tsell you one. Retails about a $1,000 option on their kits.

Seeing as some of you are mentioning bikes and their engines, check out this bloke's invention. A 14 cylinder, home made, radial engine, using XV700 motorbike cylinders. I have seen it in person but without the crankshaft, but he also made a 9-cylinder version from XR600 cylinders that runs, mounted to a trailer and after talking to him at the shops one lunch, I spent a good couple hours at his place that afternoon, (when I should have been sleeping for my nightshift....) discussing how he built it, engines, planes and trains. I built my plane, but I have no words to describe his achievement, other than

RAAus, or the pilots & aircraft under the various CAO's?

A company that was only incorporated in October 2019, which looks to be run by Stuart Erskine, who owns or is affiliated with BreezyLog, an electronic logbook they're toting as an alternative to paper-based versions and which he has been spruiking on the RAAus FB page. I think I'll pass. What are they going to say? Your logbook is not compliant, therefore you're in breach of CAO 100.5, you're grounded! And an instant criminal because 99.9999999999999995% of aviation legislation in Australia is a Strict Liability offence. And because we change our Privacy Policy willy-nilly with no notice to the membership, we're dobbing on you to CASA because our Privacy Policy says we can!

Early in the testing phase for my RV, 3SMPH groudspeed, if I were a bit more confident in the handling I'd have got it down to 0.

I don't blame the Government for this cop's actions. Not at all. I merely use it as an example, as stated by Jerry_Attrick, that you will always have people who break the rules. Here we have a serving police officer who thought it would be a good idea to violate someone's privacy against who knows how many internal policies or rules the Police have specifically against such an act. He'll likely be kicked off the force and will almost certainly be charged and convicted of a criminal offence as a result of his actions. Hell, even the Deputy Commissioner has been forced to apologise to the bloke they arrested for what he himself called "totally appalling" conduct... If a Police officer is so happy to break the rules on a whim, particularly as regarding privacy, it only serves to further reinforce my belief those in positions of authority cannot be trusted to manage my privacy.

AAAnnnndddd, as if we needed any more examples of how blatantly some people in positions of authority are prepared to infringe on the privacy of others, Victoria Police has suspended one of their Senior Constables for sharing photos of Dean Laidley, the AFL coach while being questioned after his arrest, inside the interview room. Talk about an egregious breach of privacy, and their own policies. "But we're the Government, you can trust us....."

He did say *successful*....That rules out Clive, dunnit?

So this is the latest ABC story on the app... 4 million people have downloaded it before they have finalised just who or how access to the data will be granted? Niiiice.....

That's what the Government has said, true - but that't not what the reverse engineering shows! And that is why I won't be downloading the app. They've told us one thing - that your details won't be sent to them unless someone you've been in contact with via BT has tested positive and uploaded their data to the server , but it would appear that is not true. You have to register your number in the app so they know who to call - fair enough, that is logical. But that number is sent to the server as part of the registration process. True, but there are specific powers in place to prevent that ability from being abused. Even if the AFP routinely ignore them.... But it isn't. It is mostly what they say it is, but the elephant in the coding is that I have not read anywhere that they admitted your phone number is sent to them prior to someone testing positive. IF I'm wrong about that and that has been published somewhere, I'll wear that, but as best I recall, they have been pushing the line that "Your details don't come to us until someone tests positive and they upload their data". It isn't about what we are doing, it is about the data being misused and/or hacked. This government - actually, most government's over the past 20 or so years - have proven they cannot be trusted, yet alone trusted to keep our data safe.

IF that analysis is accurate, then it flies in the face of what the Government has been telling us about how the app works. They have so far made it sound like your phone number is only sent to them following a positive test and after said 'victim' uploads their BT data - but here, the reverse engineering is saying that you need to upload your phone number just to register your own version of the app on your own phone in order to receive a PIN to continue the registration process. That right there is enough to turn me off ever installing it.

FB, yes, nothing else - but the big difference there is they don't want my mobile number. I'm not naive enough to think an awful lot of my data is out there - that's a given when companies are operating to make a profit. But when it's a statutory body (aka the Government) asking for those details I'm not required to provide in order to receive a service, particularly when they won't release the source code to their app or legislate protections before telling me to download it, well, that's too many alarm bells for me to be comfortable with it. You only have to look at Brendan Murphy's allegations about that pissup in NW Taswegia to feel they don't have their ducks in a row. Quite happy to target specific people with allegations alone and no factual basis on which to hang his hat, only to have to back pedal down the track. "Mandatory sentencing" laws that are supposed to be enforced for assaults on EMS workers, but soft-c*ck magistrates over-ruling that legislation. I don't think there's any chance of it happening, but what would the courts say if the only piece of evidence that could convict a murderer was the COVID-safe app's digital handshake that proved he had contact with the victim at XX time? Would they let a murderer walk free, or would they cave and say "well, it's the greater good..." and overrule the minister's Determination?

That's what it comes down to for me. "Never trust the word of a politician". Says "Them" - "Not even a court order can get access to the data!" aahh, grasshopper, that might be true while your Ministerial Determination is valid, but that can be withdrawn or amended at any time...And even then, if the data is held by AWS, a company incorporated in the Good 'Ol USA, the data they hold - even if it's on an international server - must be handed over to the US Government if they so demand, AIUI. So, "Download the app to ease restrictions!", yeah, nah.

Must've been trained by the same instructor that taught these pilots: Let's have a looksee at what's wrong here... ASI is off-scale-low Both engines are shut down (low oil pressure lights on) Flaps are at 0 Thrust levers are closed, so likely they don't meet the stable approach criteria. Speedbrake is nor armed Oh, and my personal favourite - the parking brake is on!

A cheap skid ball by the looks of it.

Not at all. Just another idiot TSA Agent in training...

Only if you don't go to the shops first. It's all in the wording.... From the NSW Legislation: The Minister directs that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, leave the person's place of residence. For the purpose of subclause (1) a reasonable excuse includes doing an activity specified by schedule 1. Then you go to schedule 1: 1. Obtaining food or other goods or services for the personal needs of the household, yadda yadda... So if you leave the house to obtain food, and you obtain food, you've complied. What you do after obtaining food is immaterial, you have not contravened the legislation.

Only two weeks left folks, for those ticket-holders to put their name in the hat for the "opportunity" to purchase this aircraft, for the terrific price of only $66,000, inc GST! That's only 2,200x the cost of an Adult ticket, that's pocket change for you rich pilots. I dunno what youse are all complaing about. Suck it up! Youse pilots are all jet-setting Tom-Cruise lookalikes earning squillions* *Sarcasm & spelling mistakes are intentional for those that haven't had their morning coffee yet!

No, he's considering extreme measures, exactly as the crew of Alaska Airlines 261 did. The quote in the movie is straight from the CVR of that crash and they well understood even inverted they could fly it a bit longer. In the same manner as runaway ANU pitch trim - if you can't get it under control, roll into a steep turn until you can get some force off the controls.