kgwilson

Milking students by unscrupulous instructors was a problem a few years ago which hopefully is no longer a major issue as those FTFs have been called out. I knew of a couple whose conduct was disgraceful, luckily now no longer training students.

It is a pretty decent strip of 1265 metres according to Mr Google. The best place to land is on the Eyre highway or to the North where there is no scrub. To the South West though there are quite a few clear patches. One is about 3km from the runway and is about 1100 metres long in the same direction as the runway. If you had some height this would be quite possible but without it in this direction your choices are very limited.

There does not seem to be a prescribed set of requirements for a flight test for the RPC so this appears to be at the discretion of the CFI/Pilot Examiner. Obviously all of the theory exams must have been completed satisfactorily first and if the CFI/Examiner is aware of or has been involved in the students training then that is likely to influence what he/she requires the student to demonstrate during the actual flight test. In the past even the training of RPC students has been different from FTF to FTF but there is a prescribed syllabus which is published on the RA website and has been the same since 2014 so a student should be able to satisfactorily demonstrate all of the requirements listed in the syllabus. A new student pilot will not get the PAX endorsement with the issue of the RPC. That usually requires 10 hours of solo after attaining the pilot certificate. There is a RA publication for pilots (RAAP-5) on what to expect from your BFR. This was last updated in February this year. Conversion from GA to RPC which is what I did required 5 hours flight time in an RA aircraft of which at least 1 is with an instructor. The flight test was pretty simple given I'd been flying for 40 years in GA & was a bit like a BFR but with no wing drop stalls or incipient spin recovery which is not allowed in RA or XC stuff involved. Mine was partially completed in CTR as well which most probably are not.

They are pretty ugly but have great performance and were very effective at what they were designed to do.

The Journo just copied Mark Twains historic quote but like most Journos didn't do the research & got the quote wrong.

So what carburettor is used on new Jabirus instead of the Bing type 94 on the 3300A engine?

Do you mean the most recent or they aren't building them any more?

Most are inherently unstable by design and need to be computer controlled to keep them in the air. This instability does allow for some pretty radical manoeuvres though.

From the initial description of the faults with the Jabiru LSA-55 it sounds like prior maintenance had been lacking. Delaminating wooden props has been an issue for many years but there are usually signs which should be picked up during inspections & if any of the sheathing is missing it should be grounded immediately. The imbalance will eventually shake the thing to bits under power. The LSA-55 was Jabirus first aircraft beginning production in 1991 originally with a KFM 60 HP engine.

They should have kept the Harriers. The F35 is overly complex and the computer systems have far too many opportunities to develop in to a runaway state when a sensor detects something that it interprets as an issue, though it really isn't and that starts a chain reaction of fixes that ultimately lead to ever worsening changes. The pilot had no control at all after that touchdown which wasn't hard at all & the only control he could now use was the ejection system. He probably thought the thing was going to continue to go berserk even though it was almost stopped by the time he ejected. He landed harder than the aircraft.

The only problem here is CASA. Almost everywhere else self declaration of medical health is now OK. Numerous people including directors of CASA have tried in vain to modify the culture but no-one has succeeded. Now we have a career public servant as director so there is no hope there. Flying in CTR should be afforded to every pilot no matter what they fly. Crikey I could fly in CTR in my Hang Glider in 1978 across the ditch so long as I rang the tower first (no mobiles or radios then). The bureaucratic processes are the most complex and daunting in the world and even CASA employees get confused when trying to explain stuff to you. Maybe we have to wait for all the current bureaucrats to retire or die before anything will change, but even then they will indoctrinate a new younger batch in the same old stuff. One ex CASA employee said some time ago to one of my friends that if all aircraft stopped flying it wouldn't matter as they would still have heaps of work creating documents hundreds of pages long and making sure that everything was cross referenced to thousands of other documents that in turn would require updating to comply with new legislation or modifications to exiting legislation and everything would have to be put out for consultation and review with months and years passing with nothing ever being done.

The main reason for filing a flight plan is to make sure you will not be turned away if you need to transit CTR or land there. Mostly all I did was call in a Sarwatch by phone (landline in those days) or via radio while in the air. I got refused CTR entry on a few occasions due to weather or traffic & sometimes got asked to go over the top. It was always interesting looking down from 9500" & watching 747s & everything smaller landing & taking off underneath.

So how can RA pilots in NZ fly into controlled class C & D airspace then? They do need ADSB out as a minimum now and presumably still a transponder but the old requirement of a CTR endorsement has been scrapped. Sounds perfectly logical to me. The only difference here is the rego system. All RA & GA aircraft in NZ are on the same ZK register.

It doesn't matter what the engine is, there are a number of issues that could have caused the prop to detach including maintenance. It could have been a failure of some part of the hub or a blade leading to a chain reaction. Every mechanical device can fail. Nothing is immune.

Have a look at the NASA study from 1981 available on the web. It is NASA_CR3405 and has a long title "An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Aircraft Engine Installation". I found it invaluable when designing the airflow system for my engine. Conventional wisdom states that the outflow should be a minimum of 3 times the area of the intake and for effective cooling this is the minimum. In at the top and directed by the plenum design to cool the heads evenly with barrels next and some airflow over the whole engine block and then sucked out at the bottom is the normal process. I also installed an oversize 7 row Positech oil cooler at the bottom of the firewall with its own NACA cool air intake duct and air exhaust. I also created a lip on the bottom of the cowl across the entire width of the airframe which is over 1 metre at that point to generate suction. My engine never runs hot even on 38-40 degree days. If the engine has water cooled heads as is the 912 a lot of the issues disappear.

I know that. It is just that the system is total BS for reasons I cannot fathom other than it being a power thing. As I mentioned in an earlier post the NZ CAA were and are very pragmatic and have been since I got involved in getting Hang Gliding accepted in the 1970s with clearance to 9500 feet & access to CTR with prior permission from the local tower. This was in 1978 & recreational aircraft were just accepted and welcomed in to the fold as another class of aircraft as technology and materials allowed them to exist.

Coffs coastal is also pretty good most of the time & ASA allow RA through even though technically illegal. I know a couple of controllers there which probably helps as well. I have a PPL & they know that but I am illegal as I don't have a current class 2 medical. It is all so much BS & they are happy to let you go through especially if you ring the tower & ask. They will almost always OK it if there is no RPT due at the time. ASA are largely responsible for the last fatality on 20/9/19 when they refused entry to a Mooney that wanted to go through Class D. It was early morning (before 8am) & there was a trainee controller on being supervised from Brisbane. They were offered seaward transit but did not want to change course so had to stay in class G & flew into a mountain. Father & son killed. I was in the air on the way to Airventure at Parkes at the time & it was 8/8 cloud below 5000.

Enroute Flight Navigation from Google Play. Created by some German Aviation students. Has constant upgrades & updates. It is simple without lots of fancy features you don't really need. Try it. Doesn't cost anything & has a good manual as well.

I have a problem with rough running that has developed recently between 2800 & 3000 rpm. Perfect below that & perfect above to full power (3300rpm). I am only 5 hours away from the next service so will check all the settings then to make sure they are all at the recommended settings and of course there are no leaks or crud there.

One simple reason. A head in the sand controlling attitude from CASA. If that ever changes GA could throw away their transponders & get ADSB in/out installed with Airservices having enough ground stations to ensure coverage, something they don't have with the existing radar & transponders 5000' and below. Good move by CAA NZ effectively making GA transponders redundant.

ATC can see all ADSB devices transmitting within range of their receiver even low powered electronic conspicuity devices like the SE2, they just cannot interrogate them as they can with a transponder. The aircraft type and Rego are displayed. For RA aircraft it is R1234. The R meaning recreational and the numerics the last 4 digits of the aircrafts registration number. So they don't need to interrogate ADSB equipped aircraft The reason they interrogate transponders is to establish the registration number which they do by radio providing a squawk code if one has not already been allocated, key that in to the computer against the allocated code then they can follow the aircraft on the radar screen. With ADSB this information is already there so they don't need to interrogate the device, just communicate by radio. ADSB makes transponders largely redundant though the radar & transponder have a much larger range. The thing is there are thousands of ground ADSB receivers owned by enthusiasts that provide data to Flight Radar 24 and Flight Aware. Most use a cheap Raspberry Pi processor. Air Services also has official ground stations . I can check my flights in FR24 any time I like as I am usually within range of a ground station somewhere that is updating FR24 all the time..

I cannot work out what the issues are. I was flying in controlled airspace as a PPL with RA pilots & aircraft in NZ in the early 2000s. The only requirements were that the RA aircraft had to be fitted with a transponder and the RA pilot had to have a CTR endorsement. The RA guys used to fly in to Hamilton Airport which has international traffic and a lot or RPT as well as lots of flight training happening (CTC an English FTF had 40 Diamonds + the club students) quite a bit to get Avgas from the club bowser. I didn't know they were RA most of the time as all aircraft over there are on the same ZK register. The procrastination & lack of good valid reason for CASA's delay beggars belief.

It is not a Rotax issue, it is how the Bing carburettor and its enrichment function for cold starting works. My J3300 has a type 94. The 912 uses type 64. Both are Constant velocity or sometimes described as Constant depression and both have a starting carburettor on the side of the main housing requiring the main carburettor to be set at idle to allow the appropriate rich mixture from the starting carburettors own jet. Once the engine is running it will continue to idle using the starting carburettor fuel supply until the main throttle is opened allowing fuel mixture in and the starting carburettor is shut off when the choke is closed and fuel is prevented from entering the engine via the starting carburettor jet.

The ADSB receiver in the SE2 sends the aircraft data including height AMSL and its current location to the connected display software on the moving map. The moving map therefore displays the direction of travel and can then estimate current speed and determine if there is a possible conflict. As I have mentioned the free software I have been using on my phone & tablet shows the ADSB data (rego, Height) from the aircraft in range (up to 40NM away) in green when it determines from its calculations there is no conflict and yellow when there is possible conflict and an alarm in red when there is probable conflict.

There is definitely no latency with my SE2. I have had it operating with Enroute Flight Planning & watched ADSB out equipped GA aircraft land & takeoff at our aerodrome with the details showing on the screen within a second or 2.