FlyBoy1960

You could join the "Mile High Club"

As RF Guy said, even cables inside a wing which are not tension like they are when the plane is assembled will bounce up and down and cause damage. We had one aircraft arrive at our airfield from Adelaide and the wings needed to be recovered because the turnbuckle managed to pop its way through the fabric and then a couple of other places as well

How about this purpose built plave carrier. Designed for a Pipistrel Aircraft but will fit anything, sides fold down for the wings to be fitted, electric winches, and long loading ramp will take just about any plane. Dual airbag suspension with special shocks. I can get you the number if interested, there is a sign saying $7,500 on it. Its just come a distance of about 2,000 kms so everything must be working.

See here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-11/microlight-aircraft-crash-victoria-colac-west/103453210

If you read the press release it mentions that the same team will be running of runways, the same support people will be helping everyone and the foundation team still have 35% interest in the business. That should solve all of your questions.

Bunnings ?

I am always happy to learn more than what I knew yesterday, and the way you have described it is very easy to understand. Thank you !

from what I always understood a locomotive is a diesel / electric installation with the engine basically operating as a generator to supply electricity to the electric motors which are doing all the work. Therefore there would be very little difference in the loads on the diesel motors because they are not driving directly. Perhaps someone in the railways can clarify but anything in the last 50 years has been diesel engine operating DC generator running to electric motors

I would say they cant charge a fee unless you land, anything else is flying. Planes going into BNE flyover my house so where can i send my bill !

I dont think they can charge aircraft entering the "circuit area" They might have control over the land but NOT the air. 5. Unauthorized Aircraft Movements - Aircraft entering our circuit area without prior approval will be charged a penalty of $1500.00.

I have never seen a chicken in a thermal, regardless of direction. What have i missed out on ? I do know they turn clockwise at my local chicken shop, even with a skewr in both ends. 🤣

I havent seen too many bird's stalling lately ! Just taking the pi$$ and being stupid

Sorry Nev, this is the strangest comment i have ever heard ? You can still steer a plane with a lot of weight on the nose if its properly designed ? There are actually design standards for all of the loads expected with a 1.75 load factor above design for compliance.

Look on the google, its easly. Generally any ICAO country will have almost identical rules and standards for the plane design features. That way you can fly internationally and be legal. Imagine (just using a number i have made up) if jet engines in Europe needed 1m of ground clearance but Australia was 1.5m. It would mean the plane with 1m clearance couldnt operate in AU airspace (even if on overflight!). Hence the word of the 80's, harmonisation!

it is a legal requirement, I found it now in the FAA website. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2010-title14-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title14-vol1-sec25-925.pdf it is 7 inches, not 6 inches, I did make a 1 inch mistake. there is also a link which I can't copy to a PDF regarding LSA aircraft which you are welcome to find on Google as well.

I remember reading in the past lifetime an FAA requirement for propeller clearance. An aircraft with a flat front tyre, and the suspension fully compressed, still required 6 inch clearance for it to be legal. I don't think 4 inches on an inflated tire is going to be enough. You may find some hindrance to registration when the time comes.

Or, ask a witness ! Plenty of people playing golf

well, the GFA report on the other thread pretty much says exactly the same thing. No insurance coverage for investigators who leave themselves wide open for liability. The report written independently by GFA person is almost verbatim for what we were told by the RA-Aus and this is the real reason why they are no longer investigating. Getting dragged into court by aircraft manufacturers or importers will very quickly send them broke even if they are not at fault. They probably wouldn't get taken to court if they had idemnity from CASA for ATSB or whoever because the ambulance chasing lawyer representing a grieving widow would know from the start that they won't win.

It wasnt hearsay, it came first hand from the then CEO of the RA-Aus. I am repeating the event from memory of about 18 months ago. It's not the usual Saturday morning 'hanger gossip'

The following comes from an RA-Aus executive visit to our airfield from the very best of my memory. You will remember some time ago there were a number of crashes and also fatalities from some yellow aircraft that were flying around Melbourne. The RA-Aus were called into assist with the investigation and provided resources to their best ability. It was discovered that weight and balance information supplied by the manufacturer/importer were wrong, spin testing had not been completed or documented and a whole heap of other problems that made the situation 100 times worse than what he would have normally have been. The RA-Aus took the opportunity to put special conditions on these aircraft like, they are not to be used for training, they are not to be stalled and so on. The said manufacturer and importer declared that the RA-Aus was putting them out of business even though their aircraft were not compliant by flying on deliberately falsified documentation. The RA-Aus were then taken to court and a hugely expensive litigation battle followed which cost the RA-Aus over 6 figures to defend just in lawyer fees, plus thousands of hours worked by their people which just get absorbed into the cost of doing business for the Association. The RA-Aus don't want to ever be in that position again because 2 or 3 of these importers would send them broke. There was no coverage against legal action by CASA or the ATSB and the participation of the RA-Aus was at a huge, substantial risk financially to guide any future investigations. The RA-Aus simply said that unless we are offered idemnity insurance by CASA then they would not participate in any more accident investigations because of the liability. This ended the RA-Aus accident investigation process unless called upon by the police as an expert witness. Apparently the expert witness is answerable to the Police who request the assistance and nobody else, and because of this can't be litigated against. This gives the RA-Aus some level of protection but they don't want to be in a situation where this happens again, ever, therefore they don't do any thorough accident investigations where they make findings against a manufacturer, and importer or a supplier.

There are Rotax powered aircraft approved/certified for spinning and spin training. What aircraft manual is it in ?

I read on another site how much opposition there is to this. He is not an aviation legend he was a helicopter pilot in the British Army. It really devalues the awards when there are token people like this added to the list of recipients. They are also very much against a lady that got nominated who apparently was only nominated because she is Jeff Baizos (spelling) girlfriend and has very little to do with aviation in the first place. ANN has a lot of information and comments about the living legends of aviation awards this year.

Bill Ginn, the RA-Aus won't do any investigations because of liability and lack of suitable training and resources. They tried to get everyone trained up with the assistance of the ATSB which did some good, but then they couldn't utilise any of the resources they needed. I also understand somebody took legal action against one of their findings/results and that was the end of it. From memory it was the importer of a low wing aircraft based out of Melbourne that had a run of fatal accidents and the RA-Aus as part of the investigation found out that paperwork was fudged by the importer/manufacturer possibly contributing towards these accidents, but they were still taken to court by said importer claiming they were destroying his business etc. (first-hand information from a board member) I know personally that multiple claims have been paid by the RA-Aus policy. You cannot ignore that fact, but you don't seem to understand that like any insurance claim it takes time, you can't crash today and get paid tomorrow.

Now thats a name i havent heard for around 20 years, is he still with us ?

NO. Its a model, probably 50% scale it against the road and look at the pitch ossilations.