KRviator

Should be relatively easy to connect your EKP IV to your TruTrak Gemini.You need one of THESE 2.5mm 4-pole male plugs, enough 24AWG or better cable, and a DB-9 connector relevant to your Gemini (I couldn't tell if it is male or female you need). And a female D-Sub crimp pin or two. EDIT: Just realised - there's no need for another connector, you can just install a new pin/wire in the existing plug, either by soldering or installing a new crimp pin. Connect Ring 3 of the 2.5mm plug to the Ground connection of the Gemini, and Ring 2 of the 2.5mm plug to Pin 6 of the Gemini DB-9 connection and that's it. Page 10 of the EKP IV installation manual covers the NMEA output & physical connections and the Gemini User Manual covers the DB-9 connections. The EKP IV outputs NMEA 0813 data at 4800-9600 baud rates, both of which are accepted by the Gemini. Should be a relatively easy project if you know your way around a soldering iron. If your Gemini has crimp-pins instead of the normal soldered DB-9 connections, Mendelssohn's has them available at OzPilot.com.au, as well as the crimper tool

I guess if some people can afford to drop a lazy $400M USD on a few wisps of paint, their idea of a $100 hamburger is the $100K hamburger...

No.

It doesn't particularly concern me, but the comment was made you cannot use GNSS or other radio nav aids under the VFR unless you hold an endorsement of some kind. This is incorrect, and doesn't increase safety one iota.By using GNSS or other approved aids, you can extend the positive-fix time from 30 mins to 2 hours, whether you fly RAAus or not.

Certainly ian, I think you need some kind training to be able to use a radio navigation system - I have no quarrel with you on that point. But, apart from the 'general competency' requirements of the CASR's, no one has been able to demonstrate the need for any kind of endorsement, rating, or otherwise to be able to plan, and use, a VOR or TSO'd GNSS unit for meeting the navigation & position fixing requirements under the VFR, so long as you can competently use the systems on board.However, the single biggest problem I have with the general competency rule is it is aircraft- and systems- specific. And it doesn't seem to apply to RAAus operations. By that I mean the primary GPS in my RAAus-registered RV-9 is a KLN-90B, a unit that meets TSO C129A for area navigation. But it is also a relatively old unit and nowhere near as popular as, say a GNS-430, as well as being interfaced with my SkyView panel. Try finding a flight instructor who would know that combination sufficiently to be able to teach me to use it, when, because installed it myself and was able to spend hours reading the manual during downtime at work, I'd likely be teaching them. I can demonstrate competency to use the system, but I can't be taught it.

My EFIS does that for me too, but it needs IAS to do that computation. Just how do you plan on doing it yourself without IAS? So, tell us how to work out which segments of the display are near-real-time and which have a 10 minute delay? Bear in mind that the images released are an average 10 minutes apart. You've just highlighted the very issue you're rebutting. 'Some' parts may be nearly current, but there is no way to tell, and given the 6-per-hour release rate, in a fast-moving storm the cell could be 10 miles away from where the radar tells you it is.This is nowhere near 'real time', and in no way can it be construed as suitable for weather avoidance. As an aid to inflight decision making when en-route, certainly it is useful. But that's taking a strategic view and going around it from 100+ NM away, rather than a tactical approach and using the BOM EFB feed to pick your way through it. That's the second time I've seen that comment recently, and be damned if I can find a reference for it. What endorsement are you referring to? As best I can tell, I can install a VOR in my RAAus RV, and so long as I can demonstrate competence with it, can legally use it for position fixing and enroute navigation in flight.

No, but multiple GPS' can suffer simultaneous, independent failures. The Garmin GA35 active antenna has a well-known failure mode that causes it to oscillate in the GPS band, thus effectively jamming any oth nearby GPS units until you turn off the GPS using the offending GA35. My KLN-90B does not provide terrain warning, nor any ASI functions. I think you misunderstand exactly what you can get. I do get Synthetic Vision with my SkyView system, but that is not TSO'd and this is advisory only. 747's and their ilk are provided with automated position source monitoring and will flag an EICAS/ECAM message if there's a disagreement. We don't have that. That can, and have been, jammed simultaneously by a failed antenna. If you have a second TSO'd GPS, carry on as normal using that as your primary. If you only now have an EFB, you're down to VFR map-to-ground. I use my KLN for position checks primarily, as it is TSO'd for Area Nav, IAW the AIP. It's only when low level I use the map. No, no no. Please do not be lulled into this false sense of security about 'real time' weather, the BOM overlays while pretty good, can be delayed by 10-15 minutes and this has been proven to have caused accidents overseas before, with pilots relying on NEXRAD returns to avoid weather and unintentionally flying into a rapidly developing storm because it 'looked clear' on the EFB. Because while it does indeed do most of those things, it also has some very significant limitations that you need to be aware of, and a brand-spanking new pilot is not likely to fully grasp them until he has had time to understand that concept, something unlikely in the early stages of flying.Don't get me wrong, I am all for sole-means GPS Nav for VFR vs DR, but and it is a huge BUT, a pilot need to understand the limitations of the system he is using in order to keep themselves and their passengers safe. Using OzR/AvPlan for maps only during a PPL test, I have no problem with. If the ATO simulates a failure and you have a backup EFB, no problems, continue using that. But a lot of the functionality built into EFB's can provide a false sense of security that needs to be understood.

One thing to be wary of, if you get the Council ARO out to 'escort' you out of the sterile area...Oftentimes the bastards they work for charge like a wounded bull. Port Macquarie, for example, is $61.00, per hour or part thereof. Coffs Harbour seems more reasonable $12.50 if an ARO is on duty, but $231 if they are called out! Your best bet would be to Google the respective airport's 'fees and charges' website to see if you're likely to be stung.

I got my KR2's Hoop Pine from Rupert Goodall's WoodWorld down the Gold Coast if that's any help. They are able to do most machining for timber.

WTF? That's not what ENR 4.1.2.1 states at all...AIP ENR 4.1.2.1 (f) states, in effect, that you must only indicate systems on your flight plan that you have been deemed competent to use, IAW CASR 61.385. Read it again. Then go read ENR 4.1.2.1 (a). If you are not planning on lodging a flight plan, AIP ENR 4.1.2.1(f) does not apply. And as you have already stated, CASR 61.385 does not apply as, under RAAus, we are not exercising the privileges of a Licence.

Bollocks. I've asked you to provide a reference for that before and you haven't. Care to do so this time?

Shyte! You could build a bloody-nicely equipped RV-10 for that price, AND have enough coin left over for a top-of-the-line SeaRay kit too! And without the hassle and legalese of their purchase contract!!

A bit of a followup to this, as I found this RAAus document detailing Mode-S transponder programming for RAAus members.Basically, it is Rxxxx where 'xxxx' is your registration suffix, ie the numbers following the hyphen. You do not use the leading "19-", "24-", "10-" or "55-".

The problem there is you are required to plan your flight based on weather information obtained from ASA, who source it from the BoM...if all goes well, nothing will be said and no one will be the wiser. But if something goes wrong, VFR into IMC, or worse spearing into a mountain side, they won't do you the courtesy of lubricating the pineapple before attempting insertion...

From the brochure: initial cruise altitude, FL430 at MTOW.

Well there you go! I've learnt something today - every boat ramp I've ever come across myself has been free for anyone to use.

Charging fairly would be a good start. Check out Warnervale's published landing fees (page 264)...$15 per landing, with no daily rate, then there is the annual licence fee ($605) the annual 'parking fee' $1650, and then there is a $110 fee just for the privilege of (each) refuelling on council land. Any wonder why people try to avoid these kinds of extortionate charges? When was the last time Council hit you up to launch your tinny at the local boat ramp?

But you can use an approved GPS (ie TSO-C129 or better) to move the position fix times from 30 minutes to 2 hours for VFR operations, and a C129 GPS meets the requirements for a positive fix. I'm not sure where your advice that you need a NVFR or IR to use them comes from?

I think you will find the caveat "if practical to do so" in there...Australian Road Rule 118...

Ok, I'll admit the "can't ask for clearance" was a poor choice of words on my part, is that what you want to hear?But, if you DO ask for a clearance through R421A, and it is granted, you are then obligated to obey that clearance, or you will be in breach of the CAR's, and soon as you enter R421A - as it is associated with hazards to other aircraft in flight, you are in breach of CAO95.55 7.1.e. Furthermore, the only special conditions published for R421A is for the VFR lane up the coast, anything else requires the approval of the administering authority. Good luck with that!

So if you need a clearance to enter, and RAAus are not permitted to seek clearances* as we do not have a CTA Endo, just how are you planning on getting said clearance?

You can get RV's in RAAus, my RV-9 is RAAus (one of two, I believe) and gives a me+full tanks payload. Doesn't help if you want another adult + full tanks + baggage though...IIRC, the other has a smaller IO-233 (vs my O-340) that does give a bit more payload.

It's any aircraft you built more than 51% of, or any aircraft that is essentially similar that you own. Exemption is here

So long as you can get from the original builder a build log showing they built (or if the kit changed hands several times, for each successive builder) the majority - 51% - of the kit, it will be eligible for an Experimental - Amateur Built CoA. You just can't sign off on the MR is all, so will have to pay a LAME to do it, or if you are keeping it local, you might be able to persuade the original builder who does have the authority to do it for you while you follow through. If you go RAAus, it is a moot point anyway as a L1 (RPC holder) can sign off on it, so long as it is not used for hire/reward. Truth be told, RV's and their ilk are so basic, the LAME costs for the annual would take years to get back in terms of "build it yourself" savings. 1000 hrs build time at $30/hr is not unreasonable, and that is a *lot* of LAME time! Plus, you would get to fly right now, rather than build for several years. And now your $100,000 RV has effectively cost you $130,000 as opposed to buying someone's already-flying RV and having the LAME do the inspections for you. What sort of RV are you considering, anyway?

It does NOT have to be you that built 50%, rather, 51% must have been built for "recreation and education", but you must have built that 51% if you want to be able to sign off on the annual inspection. RAAus, I understand you can pay someone to build it, as there is no MPC requirement. As for how they prove it? Most builders keep a log, either online or using old-school scrapbooks. An example question that would catch you out might be as simple as "Show me your mistakes?". Now, I have several, with a few in the flying aircraft - none that are unsafe, but I can instantly point them out to the AP. That I know where they are, and can explain how I resolved them before pointing to them shows I know a substantial amount about small details of my RV, that a 'buyer' probably wouldn't.