Lugging fuel to your deserted airfield……

[Marty_d]

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You’ll be surprised to learn then that none of the lawyers will ignore that admission.

Someone once said that ignorance is no excuse.

There's two separate issues there.  

 

Yes ignorance of a law is not an excuse, that's one issue.

 

However setting up design standards which everybody has to adhere to, then allowing a private company (based in Chicago) to charge people to access those standards, seems to be stupidity.  It's like Parliament making laws then hiding them from the public unless you pay.

[BurnieM]

There are lots of state and federal laws referring to Australian Standards.

Disappointing as you cannot read the standard unless you purchase a copy of it.

 

No law should include anything that is not fully stated in the law and available to be read by everybody at no or minimal cost.

 

PS 10 plus years ago I was part of a committee that contributed to a marine radio standard and I could not get a copy of the final standard unless I paid for it. Never again

.

Edited April 15 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

You specified a particular Australian Standard. There are others and a crossover where a Dangerous Goods specification is triggered.

I use and have always used, fuel containers meeting the AU standards (as inscribed on the container) - not because they have the AU standard but because I personally don't like spills or the chance thereof, for all the logical reasons.

 

I I said my interest is how much fuel can legally be transported in a private vehicle.

[turboplanner]

32 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

There's two separate issues there.  

 

Yes ignorance of a law is not an excuse, that's one issue.

 

However setting up design standards which everybody has to adhere to, then allowing a private company (based in Chicago) to charge people to access those standards, seems to be stupidity.  It's like Parliament making laws then hiding them from the public unless you pay.

Take it up with Standards Australia; they're not based in Chicago; I've made a submission there and had unsuitable details changed.

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I use and have always used, fuel containers meeting the AU standards (as inscribed on the container) - not because they have the AU standard but because I personally don't like spills or the chance thereof, for all the logical reasons.

 

I I said my interest is how much fuel can legally be transported in a private vehicle.

How much fuel can be transported in a private vehicle: You'll need to search for it. 

[apm]

An electric monowheels for each POB is a great tool to take on trips. just learn to ride with MC helmet & body armour before you get too adventurous offrosd or carrying your fuel bladders.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Take it up with Standards Australia; they're not based in Chicago; I've made a submission there and had unsuitable details changed.

My mistake, the wrong SAI Global details were presented when I searched them.  Intertek is the parent company of Intertek Inform which you now pay money to to access Australian Standards, and they're a multinational headquartered in London.

The main point is that Australian standards, which are compulsory to follow in every aspect of manufacturing, materials and engineering, are only accessible by paying a multinational company.

[jackc]

6 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

My mistake, the wrong SAI Global details were presented when I searched them.  Intertek is the parent company of Intertek Inform which you now pay money to to access Australian Standards, and they're a multinational headquartered in London.

The main point is that Australian standards, which are compulsory to follow in every aspect of manufacturing, materials and engineering, are only accessible by paying a multinational company.

I refuse to pay as an individual, when I was in business I had to pay as I was certifying electronics for legal sale in Australia.  I have since retired …….

[Marty_d]

It's like every speed limit sign being blank until you pay to see what it is.  Utter stupidity.

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

My mistake, the wrong SAI Global details were presented when I searched them.  Intertek is the parent company of Intertek Inform which you now pay money to to access Australian Standards, and they're a multinational headquartered in London.

The main point is that Australian standards, which are compulsory to follow in every aspect of manufacturing, materials and engineering, are only accessible by paying a multinational company.

Not sure why you would be contacting SAI Global. That's a different company from memory relating to ISO 9000 Series etc.

[spacesailor]

Just like having to pay for a " road rules " book .

I pay'd because of the " roundabout " stupidity  " .

 

Should have stay with ' give way to the right ' .

Not, race in to be first .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

You will just have to keep up with the Joneses space. It's not safe to stop. Deadly IF you're on a motorbike. .  Nev

[Freizeitpilot]

2 hours ago, apm said:

An electric monowheels for each POB is a great tool to take on trips. just learn to ride with MC helmet & body armour before you get too adventurous offrosd or carrying your fuel bladders.

Yeah - they look like a lot of fun too.  Not sure about riding one carrying 2x20L of fuel though ! How much do they weigh ? That could be a key limitation carrying 1 or more in ultralight aircraft.

FP

[spacesailor]

One ( monowheel ) is used by a 

Hummel-Bird  pilot , can't get much smaller. 

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Just like having to pay for a " road rules " book .

I pay'd because of the " roundabout " stupidity  " .

 

Should have stay with ' give way to the right ' .

Not, race in to be first .

spacesailor

Spacy one of the principal rules of a traffic roundabout/circle, is give way to the traffic ON the circle (in this country) on the right. One of the problem is the failure of motorists to understand this and give way to traffic approaching (ie not yet entered) on the right. This causes them to stop when not required to, slowing following traffic unnecessarily. This is then compounded by the approaching driver, thinking he/she has right of way (not slowing). Drivers should approaching a roundabout, as if it they are coming to a T junction, with a  Give Way sign. For the roundabout to work well, drivers must use their indicators to signal their intention, not their action - I have long observed, that avery large number of Australian vehicles, are not fitted with functioning indicators.

[jackc]

You mean ‘functioning’ drivers 🤩🤩

[spacesailor]

The" stupidity " of the ' new ' rule is the car not yet " in the roundabout " can  speed- up " & cut you off as you

enter . He's breaking the speed limit .

But your in the wrong .

That I had to see if it's true.

' no. more give way to your right '

First in best dressed . 

spacesailor 

[danny_galaga]

5 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Yeah - they look like a lot of fun too.  Not sure about riding one carrying 2x20L of fuel though ! How much do they weigh ? That could be a key limitation carrying 1 or more in ultralight aircraft.

FP

Would not not a great idea IMO. A small electric scooter would be better. But they also bring quite a weight penalty. I've looked into it for myself. The only way is to fly solo, and so the extra equipment doesn't weigh more than your passenger would. 

 

A thumb/taxi/fellow aviator is probably going to be your best bet, which I think you've already realised 

[Freizeitpilot]

Yep, I think all options have been explored, and thumbing a ride from a like-minded soul is the most feasible. It’s been an entertaining thread though.

I looked into electric options too and concluded that anything electric that can carry a person will weigh in around 12kg and up, and that’s simply too much. Electric scooters are still illegal in some States, and no doubt monowheels are too, not that that has restricted their use.
I’ll get a 1.8kg trolley anyhow, as that will be handy to move Jerry’s from the car to the hangar and preserve my dodgy back

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The" stupidity " of the ' new ' rule is the car not yet " in the roundabout " can  speed- up " & cut you off as you

enter . He's breaking the speed limit .

But your in the wrong .

That I had to see if it's true.

' no. more give way to your right '

First in best dressed . 

spacesailor 

I beg to differ -

The vehicle on the roundabout has right of way (ie its must be on to have right of way)

Remember the example of the give way T junction - now extend that to 3- or more T junctions, in close proximity. All drivers approaching must give way. Once on the roundabout that vehicle has priority. Doesn't mean that other vehicles may not enter but they should not "cut off" the priority vehicle(s).

If you are on the roundabout/or enter ahead, of the vehicle not yet on the roundabout, a collision would see the rear vehicle (last to enter roundabout) at fault.

The above does not allow for aggressive (illegal) behaviour.

The concept is a free flow of traffic, however it depends on good advanced signaling and curtesy, with the potential to have several vehicles on a roundabout at one time, maintaining a free flow of traffic.

Other factors are :

Dual lane roundabouts -

Vehicles turning right, must remain in the right lane on approach, through the roundabout & on exit - no lane changes until well clear of roundabout

Straight ahead, can use both lanes on approach, through the roundabout , on exit but must not change lanes until well clear of the roundabout ie no lane changes on the roundabout.

Left turning, use left lane on approach, on roundabout and on exit

Lane discipline is essential

Signaling -

With the exception of straight ahead, indicators must be signaling intention before entry to roundabout, continue until abeam exit before intended exit, at which point indicate left. Left turning vehicles will use indicator on approach , continue until achieving exit of roundabout.

Correct use of indicators allows approaching traffic to know the intentions of the vehicles on their left and act accordingly.

 

[BurnieM]

Request

When we are going off on a tangent, can we make it an aviation tangent ?

[spacesailor]

" the above does not allow for aggressive

( illegal )behaviour " .

You wrote it yourself . & there's the problem.  Especially 

Those new racing drivers , with their new Ps .

TheY also enjoy those " Driver Annoying Devices " .

That are bad for ( miss Daisy ( Driving miss Daisy)) .

Old or inferm with aching bones , being shaken around .

spacesailor

 

[danny_galaga]

6 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Request

When we are going off on a tangent, can we make it an aviation tangent ?

I guess not 🤔

[facthunter]

Aviation?? Is this an Aviation forum.?  Nev

[Freizeitpilot]

Well, they’re flying off the handle….