skippydiesel

Hi Jerry, I had forgotten just how badly writen, full of apparent contradictions, crazy prerequisites & exceptions, the "Security requirements for pilots" & the associated document, is. Here are a few examples: Pilots under 18 must have an ASIC (2 years) Pilots under 18 can not apply for an AVID (5 years) AVID's do not give the holder access to airside/security area of an airport. You can be escorted by an AVID holder ithrough the security area To hold an AVID you must have a currentaviaton medical (sick people being known security risks) ASIC would seem to be aimed at work related needs (not private pilots) Red ASICS give you some access to security controlled/airside areas Grey ASICS do not give you access to airside- why would you want or need one? White ASICS give sweet FA. Then there is a VIC - Bureaucracy gone completely made "A visitor identification card (VIC) can be issued to a person, if the person needs to enter a secure area of a security controlled airport for a lawful purpose. Followed by more insanity the Temporary AirCrew Card "A Temporary Aircrew Card (TAC) can be issued by an aircraft operator if either of the following applies: the person holds a valid red or grey ASIC, however, the person does not physically have their ASIC on them" Further confusion; (1) Subject to subregulations (4), (4A) and (5), regulations 3.05 to 3.09 and subregulations 3.18(2) and 3.26(2): (a) a person in the airside security zone of a security controlled airport must properly display a valid red ASIC; and (b) a person in a secure area (other than the airside security zone) of such an airport must properly display either a valid red ASIC or a valid grey ASIC. 4A) At a security controlled airport from or to which no screened air service operates, paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) apply only during traffic periods.😈

Hi Jerry, I can only speculate/ramble on; ASIC was the Australian Governments "over the top" panic response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist acts, in the USA, where trainee commercial pilots, used airliners, loaded with civilian passengers, against several target, the most famous being The Twin Towers of The World Trade Centre. The West is collectively held responsible, by various terrorist organisation/countries (predominantly Arab Islamic fundamentalists eg al Qaeda/ Osama bin Laden) for hundreds of years of Colonial misrule/oppression, that continues to this day. The fundamentalists seek revenge on the oppressors, the piligers of their wealth (minerals), the undermining of their religious law & traditions . The large & concentrated (mega cities) populations of the USA and Europe are the natural targets for this revenge. It's all about cost & effect - relativly small cost, a few $$ and young men willing to sacrifice themselves, will have a massive destabilising effect, even if they don't succeed 100%. The USA/Europe, have much experince in being subject to terrorist attack and obviously trying to thwart the same. They also recognise (unlike Australia) that the terrorist are unlikly to follow the same "game plan" the next time around. They have moved with the times - much fewer dollars, may be not even the need to sacrifice young men, they can easily attack all sorts of targets (not just airports/aeroplanes) using cars, trucks, the internet, kitchen knives & drones. "Lone Wolf" attacks would seem to be the order of the day. Just drive a truck/car into a crowd or slit the throat of a Christian (fundamentalist) cleric and scream "Allahu Akbar" and the World sits up & takes notice. The smart countries are not wasting their effort on ineffectual "window dressing" like ASIC, which when applied to small rural airfields, is just an ineffectual & for me annoying joke. The terrorists want to make big statements, that will rock the Western World - killing a few hundred, in Australia, is not a cost effective exercise for them - would be a footnote in one days World news. Contrary to popular opinion, terrorist are not stupid, they seek the most profitable (dramatic/damaging) results from the cash/resources they invest in their war on the West. ASIC has a "snowflake's chance in hell" of having any deterrent effect, especially as the next attack(s) are most likly going to be "Lone Wolf" & in our cities, where ASIC has not even been heard of.😈

"...........you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence" I am unaware of needing a license to conduct livestock husbandry (sheep & cattle). This little fabrication, gives an insight into Turbo's pro ASIC argument - mostly thought bubble !😈

I find it interesting that Turbs, the supporter of all things security, lists the following license, as somehow comparable to ASIC, as applied to private pilots: Firearms - This is a way of controlling the number of legal firearms in the community. To the beast of my knowledge all functional firearms, are all capable of killing/injuring humans, by deliberate or accidental act. For the most part an applicant must show acceptable cause, to own a gun and training standard met, to be issued with a license. This may prevent the Martin Bryant type personalities from arming themselves and performing a terrorist act. Most rational people see this as a reasonable precaution to minimise the incidents of spontaniouse/accidental use against a person. It has little, if any effect on criminals, who have other ways of acquiring firearms but may make theft as a source less available.. Fishing - Helps to monitor/control the exploitation of our fish populations - some of the revenue may go to research - most anglers & fishers support licensing as a method of enusring the continence of their recreation/livelihood. Birds - The keeping of any non native animal is a potential threat to the Australian ecosystem, thus should be tightly controlled. The keeping of native animals is also strictly controlled, to minimise the impact of the wildlife trade on our ecosystem & to ensure those few holders are keeping the animals in a human environment. Worthy reasons both. Sheep & cattle -Unmitigated BS In every case (other than the livestock BS) the licensing serves a worthwhile goal that is appreciated/supported by most. ASIC on the other hand, as it applies to private pilots accessing small rural airports, serve no disenable purpose. It is but an unfortunate byproduct of a ill thought out policy, that should have been modified/rescinded years ago.😈

Good points Red, I too have seen Slime promoted as an "Anti puncture" product to add to lawn tractor/mower tyres when new. Of course its not "anti puncture" but can block small leak that would otherwise cause the tyre to deflate. I speculate that its use may cause a significant out of balance condition, which has no significance for a mower but could be quite dramatic in an aircraft . "...Aircraft tyres tubed or tubeless?" In my, limited, experince most small aircraft tyres are tubed Tyre plugs work very well in all classes of ground based tubeless tyres. I would guess that they would be a worthwhile item to carry in a small aircraft fitted with such tyres. 😈

BernieM, "Do we need to analyse this to death ?" Yes! Why - as is often pointed out, we are discussing this product/concept application in aircraft tyres - not ground based vehicles. If the use of these product do end in a "death" that could have been prevented by some informed comment, we are all moral responsible. It would be realy great if someone WITH EXPERIENCE addressed some/all of the following: Some opinion that goo's of various types, including the pressurised (inflating) delivery, are not suitable for tubed tyres. For the most part direct the user to drive for ?? kilometers at significant (?) speed - presumably to distribute the product & through tyre heating, cure it. Not so easy in an aircraft. May cause a severe imbalance - Could be dangerous, would certainly be alarming. May get you off the ground, only to arrive & land with a flat tyre - not a "good look" at all. 😈

Problem (for me) is they are such a great idea BUT who do you know has had success, using any one of the several products, on/in an aircraft tubed tyre?😈

So Blue - I take it from your "forceful" response - no experince. I am NOT "running down" your information. I am rightly seeking first hand experince. "You often do this when you push for detail off myself and others" I think you will find that I ALWAYS give as full an account of my experince as I can - Am upfront when speculating or passing on others comment/information, that I don't have personal experince of. As my experince was not directly related to aviation, I did not think to include the brand.- it came from Repco - cant remember for sure - think it may have been the Holts product (pictured). The bloke behind the counter reckoned it was a good one. I stress - I used this on a 4x4 tyre - not an aircraft. The multiple holes were very small, deflation rate estimated on 5psi/day - no idea what caused the problem. I also stress - being a land based vehicle, I was able to follow the, after use, instructions, to drive for a distance (?) at, I think, at 60 mph - this is likly not practical in an aircraft. I also had to supplement the pressure delivered by the can, with added inflation to correct psi.

I have experienced fuel vaporisation with a Rotax 912 ULS powered aircraft. Symptoms were nothing like what I have seen on my current aircraft. Aircraft 1999, ATEC, Zephyr, Rotax 912 ULS - This engine was installed before the fuel return line concept became commonplace/Rotax recommended practise. It did have a return line, routed through a, relativly complicated adjustable, pressure relief valve. Hot day - from memory, 40+C on the ground. Landed/shut down engine, after aproximately 2 hr flight. Short stay on ground Difficulty starting/getting engine to run - suspected fuel vapourisation. Got engine to run - post start checks all good Taxi to run up bay Extended duration high engine power checks, 4000 rpm (brakes on that aircraft would not hold at higher) to give time for vapour to dissipate - all good. Commenced TO - engine lost power/rough running- aborted - engine returned to smooth running on backtracking. Repeated high power checks Tried again - all good😈

Yes , you wrote about the product, all the tools you have and some tips on wheel/tyre removal but did not mention any actual experince of the product mentioned/shown. Experience is all important. Without it you are just echoing marketing & third hand myths, which does little to inform the Forum readers😈

My understanding of the fuel return function is: To bleed off bleed off any vapour that forms in the fuel supply line before it gets to the carburettors Maintain a continuous circulation of fuel, to assist in keeping the temperature below the fuel boiling point For best effect the return line should be plumbed into a large fuel tank, not into the main fuel supply line (including gascolator)😈

Further to Blue adventures request - some information about the wheels/tyres that this or similar products have been used on. Reasons - As stated earlier here is some suggestion that its not so effective in tubed tyres. How has the instruction post application, to drive for a certain time & speed, been accomodated? 😈

Thanks BrendAn - I think we are on a similar track.😈

Your a joker Turbs. ".. assumptions..." What assumptions? "....position clear over and over again." Of course - I have an opinion, people challenge me on it, I respond. This Forum is about aviation matters/debate - what's not to like? Oh! I forgot you. Dont like to have your assumptions challenged - sooo sooorrrryyy! "That doesn't mean it's correct..." From what depths of your intellect, does this meaningless statement come from? "or that ASIC is an issue for others" You are fond of stating the obvious - to what end? Forgive me if I understood that the raison d' etra of this Forum is to discuss matters aviation. Some of the "others" you refer to are clearly happy to engage in debating this topic. Do you wish to prevent them doing so?😈

Pleased to hear it - I just Googled Rotax 912 ULS Mechanical Fuel Pump and found about $570 (converted from US), I added $30 shipping😈

Thanks for your interest/input😈

Thanks BrendAn, I try hard to fight the, all to human, urge to go for the quick fix, that usually involves many dollars. Consequently, replacing the mechanical pump ($600?) is the last thing I will do SUBJECT a future symptom which steers me directly down this path. My feeling is that, the random nature of this fault, that has not resulted in any apparent fuel flow interruption, despite gauges saying that is what is happening, is likly electrical/sensor/connection. Part of my fuel supply inspection/ review will be the check the only filter in the system, a gascolator - personally I think they are a hangover from the past that have little to offer, over in line gauze filters. If the gascolator had not been supplied with the aircraft, I would not have purchased one. The gascolator filter area is small compared with available in line filters, fiddly to service and I at least always end up with fuel all over my hands, require periodic seal replacement, rely on a compression fit to seal (always suspect) are heavy & costly. I am about to start a 50 hr service - will focus on fuel reticulation system and electrical connections. If all else fails (hopefully not the noise up front) I will replace the mechanical pump.😈

???????? I stand to be corrected; I took BirdDog to be asking a question of me. Some secondary observations/opinion but no advice😈

Why? I answer someone's question/comments & you are "Sad" for me. Dont be, I enjoy a good debate, particularity when I am trying to help my community (even when they dont "give a fig" )😈

Dear oh dear! do your research - First - The fuel filter topic has been exhaustively debated, elsewhere on this Forum - this "thread" is about intermittent fuel pressure drop & what may be the cause. The Hengst H 102 WK / H 103 WK (& similar Baldwin ) filters, I have recommended, do not have pleated paper type filter medium - they are ALL gauze/mesh and are used by a number of factory supplied aircraft. A very quick read of the article you have referenced, makes a few good points (mostly "motherhood type) but also has factual errors eg Stating that a "Paper" has necessarily a lower flow rate and captures final particles, than a gauze & visa versa, is plain BS. The gauze filters I have recommended, are not the cheapest, or the smallest, have all been available for many years, used in many applications (stood the test of time) however I do agree finding specifications can be difficult to find. Try writing to the manufacturer.😈

Why 'Sad" Deano?

I know exactly what you are saying - read my long winded explanation again.😈

Blueadventures, As a repair in a can proponent, would you mind addressing the perceived negatives. How often have you used this sort of product onan aircraft tyre?😈

The issues, as I see them, are; THE NEGATIVES ASIC achieves nothing - it does not enhance safety/security one jot. Its cost (to you), while relativly minor in the aviation context, is you purchasing a none product - you may as well burn the dollars (would you do that?) . For the most part you will not be asked for your ASIC, no one will see it. It's a bit of fancy plastic with your photo on (bling) , I guess if it make some people feel like a real pilot - then it has achieved something. The applicant is supposed to be subject to an in depth security check. From the number of failures (crims bringing drugs in) this has not achieved nothing, other than to open a security file on the innocent. It has been and is costly for the tax/ratepayer - security fencing & gates had to be installed and now maintained - all for nothing. ASIC is used to limit access to the "airside" of an airport to people who have passed a security process (certified as non threatening) - what's to stop the bad people from conducting a terrorist act from outside the airports security fence? - nothing. As a PIC of an aircraft, you have the right to navigate where you choose (within the airspace limits) land at any public airport - this right has been diminished for no practical purpose/gain. The only thing that the imposition of ASIC on private pilots wishing to access certain rural airports has achieved has been to reduce visitation, make fuel management a little more difficult and ready access to town services problematic - all for no gain. I see the requirement to hold an ASIC much like being forced to have ID documents , as in a totalitarian regime. Most of us will already carry multiple de facto ID documents - various licenses, medical & credit cards, etc - how does ASIC add value to this? As private pilots, why have we, as part of the general population, been singled out for this discriminatory treatment?- Cars are more likly to be used in a terrorist act. Motorbikes are favoured by certain criminal groups, etc etc - do they have to carry a fancy card suggesting they are right & proper people to use a public space? THE POSITIVE In the unlikly event that you are required to show your ASIC, it will prevent you being penalised - about $5,000 The ID examples you have given, all archive a meaningful goal; Licenses show you meet certain criteria to carry out an activity (eg driving). Rego (in NSW) indicates your vehicle was at the time of inspection, "road worthy" and contributes to road infrastructure development/maintenance. Club membership also indicates your conformaty to certain interests/values and contributes to club operating costs, usually confers some privileges on the holder.😈

Naa! In the unlikly event of the (Facet) Boost pump outlet valve failing open, the Mechanical will continue to draw fuel, through the pump, without impediment. Same goes for the inlet. Should the Boost pump somehow fail closed - As recommended by Rotax, I have fitted a bypass system that will allow the Mechanical pump to continue to supply fuel. Should the Mechanical outlet/inlet valves fail open, fuel pressure will drop - Boost pump will restore supply Should either of the Mechanical valves fail closed - complete interruption of fuel supply - deeeep poo!😈