replica spittfire watts bridge

[kaz3g]

It is a defense to a strict liability law that you considered the risk of breaking the law, and had valid justification for your belief that you were not breaking the law..

No it's not. The second limb of the test is an objective one, not subjective. The belief must be both honest (subjective) and reasonable (objective). Would the mythical "reasonable person" have held that belief?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Pearo]

I think many in GA would be very against RAAus operating in CTA. I doubt many Rec pilots really know what is involved. accurate ETA's' position reports tracking tolerences altimetry and altitude tolerences Standard ROD for descents holding entry and pattern procedures and Tso'd imstruments, power load capable and reliable electric systems, radio fail procedures and so on. AND higher medical standards.Nev

I dont get this. RAAus is the backbone of recreation flying, and with increasing airspace activity from RPT I think its mad to exclude RAAus pilots from CTA. We are already seeing talk of more CTA at places like Ballina as well as extensions of Brisbane and Gold Coast.

 

I am not sure what the standard is for obtaining a licence under RAAus, but provided you can meet the standards required for Class D and C then I can't see any issue with anyone using that airspace. CTA is not that hard to fly in.

 

As for why, well once you start flying in CTA you know why. Its very nice knowing someone else is assisting in maintaining separation for you. To many people are scared of CTA and ATC, and in my opinion this is a bad thing. Learning how to interact with ATC can only be a positive thing in my book, another tool to help you on those odd occasions where you might need help.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I think many in GA would be very against RAAus operating in CTA. I doubt many Rec pilots really know what is involved. accurate ETA's' position reports tracking tolerences altimetry and altitude tolerences Standard ROD for descents holding entry and pattern procedures and Tso'd imstruments, power load capable and reliable electric systems, radio fail procedures and so on. AND higher medical standards.Nev

All the things you mention up until " Standard ROD" RA-AUS pilots should be doing already, was part of my Nav Training at least. We are talking about VFR under 10,000 ft. ATC aren't going to be using tolerance based procedural sep standards. You should already know what to do when your radio fails and it's no different in CTA.

 

I think they should be careful what they ask for. RAAus should remain aware of the type of aviation it stands for. Simple Affordable Aviation. ....Transit rights and procedures, YES. Simplified VFR access to some primary Airports Yes. Why would anyone wish to operate in controlled airspace when you can avoid it? It's often over some of the worst tiger country around. Tracking over the top of aerodromes is exposing yourself to more interaction with other traffic which you are best to try to minimise. Nev

Transit rights will never happen. It's a lot safer to train pilots to operate in CTA correctly. A majority of controlled aerodromes would be suitable for RA-AUS aircraft, just like GA. Clearly your Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane airports won't be but there are already systems in place to prevent that (try requesting clearance for a touch and go at Sydney next time you do Victor 1).

 

 

[Pearo]

(try requesting clearance for a touch and go at Sydney next time you do Victor 1).

flying is already expensive enough thank you very much.

 

I think I heard recently the landing fee at Brisbane was $100 for a typical GA trainer (ie C172)

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Paying the landing fee is only the post issue. You'll need to arrange a landing (and departing slot), very much doubt one will be provided without a good reason (picking up charter pax maybe).

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Yes, we've been through this - you don't think the Doctor was part of the conspiracy to suggest he was supposed to be seen as an owner/builder? The coroners report rubbishes that suggestion on page 10, certainly, but the practice was not uncommon. We'll never know the actual truth of that one. No, the coroners report says that O'Sullivan wrote on the registration application that he was the builder, that's a slightly different matter when the other discrepancies are taken into account.

 

1. O'Sullivan wrote that he was the builder
    
    
   
2. The particular category of registration was for the education and recreation of the builder
    
    
   
3. O'Sullivan gained financial advantage from this deception
    
    
   
4. This preceded, temporally, Uscinski's death. Not claiming post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it looks bad.
    
    
   

 

 

Either O'Sullivan constructed >=51%, in which case he was entitled to register the aircraft in his name as the builder, but would be hard pressed to show that he did it for recreation/education, or Uscinski constructed >=51%, in which case O'Sullivan made a fraudulent declaration for financial advantage.

 

It's your organisation too I imagine, if you're a member as you should be to be training in 95.55 aircraft. The organisation is far from perfect that's for sure, but you may be judging it based solely on what was then rather than what is now, and what is in motion for the future. The organisation went through a very black period but appears to be emerging from the gloom due to the tireless efforts of the few. The elections are on at the moment and I'm sure a person of your perspicacity could provide valuable assistance, why don't you put your hand up for a position on the Board?

Yes, I'm a member. I wouldn't be this vocal if I weren't.

 

I am a professional. If you want to be in a self-regulating profession with privileges (and I am), you have to have effective disciplinary procedures internally or else people will impose them from the outside. I view certain other "professionals" as quacks because they're not willing to clean up their profession and get rid of the cowboys (I'm looking at you, chiropractors who manipulate children). Although the original incident was from 2010, it seems that there are multiple outstanding issues from the coroner's report which have not been addressed.

 

O'Sullivan took short-cuts with the test flying process and flat-out lied to RAAus regarding multiple parts of the registration process. Unless you are saying that he had no duty of care to his purchaser, he was negligent, and his negligence was associated with an untimely death.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

No it's not. The second limb of the test is an objective one, not subjective. The belief must be both honest (subjective) and reasonable (objective). Would the mythical "reasonable person" have held that belief?

Thanks. I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but in a few years I might.

 

 

[Pearo]

Paying the landing fee is only the post issue. You'll need to arrange a landing (and departing slot), very much doubt one will be provided without a good reason (picking up charter pax maybe).

Brisbane still permit training, just be prepared to wait.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I think they should be careful what they ask for. RAAus should remain aware of the type of aviation it stands for. Simple Affordable Aviation. ....Transit rights and procedures, YES. Simplified VFR access to some primary Airports Yes. Why would anyone wish to operate in controlled airspace when you can avoid it? It's often over some of the worst tiger country around. Tracking over the top of aerodromes is exposing yourself to more interaction with other traffic which you are best to try to minimise. Nev

because controlled airspace often covers the desirable low ground - see at YSNW and YWLM.

 

Nothing wrong with tracking over the top of aerodromes at right angles to the single runway.

 

 

[Chrisoz]

Well, this thread has drifted a bit off-topic from the Watts Bridge prang, hasn't it? As the builder/owner of a customised single seat MK25, the take off prang does make me somewhat uneasy, though my aircraft is lighter and has a tame 912S. But there definitely will be sweaty hands when the first flight comes up next year.

 

Overall, I am really impressed how well the left wing and the general airframe stood up to the impact!

 

What I noticed is that there seems to be a bit of confusion about split flaps versus two part flaps. The MK25 and MK 26 have two part flaps comprising a smaller inboard section, and a larger outboard section, very similar to the real Spit, but they are not split flaps.

 

The MK26 is a development of the single seat MK25 and utilises the same outer wing panels and same max wing chord, with a slightly wider centre section. That makes the aircraft somewhat disproportionate (specifically the bloated MK26B), and with the higher weight the handling is less forgiving (more unforgiving?) than the Mk25.

 

Re Gympie, I find it ludicrous to completely blame it on the pilot, given what the investigation has shown. No flight manual provided by Sullivan, the actual weight not recorded, papers falsified, accidents not reported that happened during flight testing, CoG God knows where, all to protect the brand and his business? He even admitted to have provided false information...

 

While I have one of his designs, I still think Mike is a cowboy and what he says should be treated with caution. With great power comes great responsibility, and he let his customer down by not providing a product that was up to standard. Having moved to Texas, he might be clear of prosecution here, but good luck with the American lawyers and their culture of litigation!

 

My 2 cents worth...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I can see a person wanting to be authentic with the way a replicas looks etc....and the MK 26s do look great. Ultimately though you are designing something that has to be safe and work well for users most of the time.

 

Seems to me , particularly after the latest incident at Watts Bridge that a bit of a safety edge was not designed in here in Lue of authenticity.

 

If that wing had been made just a little bigger in area, or even a touch thicker it could have giver the users much more of a safety margin.

 

 

[facthunter]

Reynolds number (scale effect) often makes scaled planes acquire control faults. An extreme example is a Jumbo sized bumble bee won't fly (aerodynamically). Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Let form follow function. I love Spitfires, they're my favourite aircraft. But if I were buying a smaller replica, I'd rather have some minor changes to make it safer than have a more dangerous but exact scale model.

 

 

[dan3111]

just a few clear plastic vg,s in the right place could save your life.

 

 

[kasper]

And if you wanted to build a smaller replica then the Issaacs Spitfire will keep you in the build shed for a few years. ;-)

 

 

[djpacro]

LAA UK has their mandatory requirements which are worth considering at http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/324%20SUPERMARINE%20SPITFIRE%20MK26.pdf

 

Incidentally, there is a variation in stall behaviour arising from accuracy (or inaccuracy) of construction.

 

 

[aj_richo]

That was enlightening DJ.. especially the test flying paragraphs at the end relating to rudder problems, stalling and mishandling behaviours.. no mention of "environmental" factors either

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not sure about their comments on the mixtures relating to rpm/ throttle positions on the Bing CV carbs. Jabiru advise against over propping, but that's not the issue being addressed.. Even the FAA get things wrong with CV's that any race tuner of a motorcycle would know.

 

Where the slide ends up is a function of mass airflow. The mixture at different positions is determined by the dimensions (shape) of the needle taper. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

LAA UK has their mandatory requirements which are worth considering at http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/324 SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE MK26.pdfIncidentally, there is a variation in stall behaviour arising from accuracy (or inaccuracy) of construction.

Well written with traces of humour too...

 

 

[Marty_d]

And if you wanted to build a smaller replica then the Issaacs Spitfire will keep you in the build shed for a few years. ;-)

I've already been in the shed for a few years with something much simpler!!

 

 

[M61A1]

I wonder if the "one pilot" and "one builder", were all the same person, or whether they were different people sharing their learning.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

LAA UK has their mandatory requirements which are worth considering at http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/324 SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE MK26.pdfIncidentally, there is a variation in stall behaviour arising from accuracy (or inaccuracy) of construction.

If only RAAus were to do similar things instead of silly surveys...

 

 

[kasper]

I've already been in the shed for a few years with something much simpler!!

Well I have a nice unused set of plans for the Issacs sitting in the -to-be-built-if-I-live-to-be-100 draw ;-)

 

 

[kasper]

If only RAAus were to do similar things instead of silly surveys...

But they can't because there is a fundamental difference between the RAA and either the LAA/BMAA in the UK

LAA and BMAA are working to ACCEPTED designs (not experimental) and both organisations have DESIGN AUTHORITY issued to aero engineers employed by the organisations but who have authority from the CAA and each aircraft operates on an annually re validated PERMIT following inspection. The TADS or HADS from either the LAA or BMAA are in fact authorized documents from the CAA so you would hope that they are of reasonable quality.

 

RAA on the experimental 19 regn, 18 regn and 10 regn series are not limited like this and cannot operate like the LAA or BMAA ... in fact the LAA and BMAA are coming to grips with the SSDR regime in the UK where permits are not required and acceptance of design is not required ... of those air frames you cannot and will not see any equivalent documents ... these airframes are effectively like the 95.10's here in terms of design and build ... except they are allowed to roll them out of factories and sell them to the punters which we cannot with 95.10

 

 

[Marty_d]

Well I have a nice unused set of plans for the Issacs sitting in the -to-be-built-if-I-live-to-be-100 draw ;-)

Not sure you'll have the reflexes to fly it at 100!