skippydiesel

Looks well loaded Jack - The wings look a bit vulnerable but I guess they were designed to fold & be transported. Assume you reduced your tyre pressure way down??

I don't think having the theory back to front, will worry me and my Sonex too much up to 10,000 ft as long as I keep my speed below 130 knots on descent

Hi neil, Not so far and you would have something to camp in on your way back across the Nullabor😈

Where is The Oaks - Maaate! Centre of the known Universe😈 Okay, nearest large town is Camden NSW. We are SW of Sydney. No price discussion on open Forum. I suggest you look up "Toy Trailers", Aircraft Trailers , Enclosed Trailers, etc and get a handle on what the market might be demanding.

I always thought, with increasing altitude, for the same indicated speed, true airspeed goes up. So if Vne is 244 knots, indicated, that remains as the aircrafts safe limit, even if true is a lot higher - something to do the flutter.

Why build when I can sell you a converted, to aircraft carrier, Viscount Supreme Caravan NSW Registered, Electric Brakes on both axles, Internal tie down points down each side. (The lights and other stuff where from using it as a spray booth )

Mounting Lubricant ???? The things people do with their engines😈

Not pulling over to allow following vehicles to pass is just plain ignorance. Plenty of countries where this is custom/law enforcing what should be a courtesy. Any driver/vehicle that is not maintaining the speed limit (subject to road conduction) should either pull over to allow the que to pass or be pulled over by the cops.😈

Now now! Get her flying and the shear joy, wonder & privilege of flight, will grab you and all of the past struggle will be a distant memory😈

"Easy- peasy" with a smear of Molykote 111 is a silicone grease

The authorities focus on SPEEDING (defined as breaking the posted speed limit) as the cure for all driving ills has brainwashed the public into believing they are safe when the don't break the posted speed limit. Drivers have not been taught to drive to the prevailing road conditions.

Something else that fascinates me about this particular topic (communication)- There seems to me (small?) vocal group against, what I would see as common courtesy, caring for not only your own wellbeing but also for your fellow aviators. Manifested by argument against, even a minimum (voluntary) number of calls as part of departure/arrival, seem so self defeating/illogical it beggars belief.

I doubt much of a hearing from CASA -their approach is pretty much in sink with Governments general retreat from quality service, that has been going on since at least the mid 1980's

Yeah! Fascinating that this (quasi legal) argument would seem to be attempting to legitimise or explain away, a poor approach (by CASA) to giving more precise guidance, when it comes to communication around uncontrolled airfields.

Truie! However Personal responsibility, with all the variables inherent in a personal view/approach, is not so good for a mass (all drivers) adherence approach. Where its important that individual adhere to a set of rules/ designed to protect the majority, from personal expression/interpretation (as in driving dangerously/without courtesy)

My Son has a laser print/cutting system. Can cut out very precise, if needs be complex, shapes. - If you are intersted send precise dimensions & photo. Probably good to have some idea about the material you would prefer. I will ask him for a quote.

We have the same problem at The Oaks sharing a frequency (126.7) with Mittagong. On occasion we will even hear from Rylstone (the other side of the GD Range) also on the same frequency.

Turbs me old mate, you either Dont understand the English language or are deliberatly mist to make a very doubtful argument. You invent your own single transmission in the circuit, a collision occurs - where do you stand? To whom/what are you referring? I have no recollection of anyone or myself "inventing" communication - this is BS The word RECOMMENDED places no obligator on the pilot (or anyone else who is receiving a recommendation) to accept, take the advice offered. The use of the word ALL , in conjunction with the word recommendation, just means the advice stands for multiple situations, therefore need no be heeded multiple times. Non aviation example- You go to the Doctor, She recommends you cease smoking all tobacco related products. Good advice. You chose not to take any notice & continue to smoke cigarettes, a pipe &, cigars. Result - you live to 100 OR you die at 45 from a smoking related illness - The choice/risk, my friend, is yours - the ramifications of all your choice may be nil or serious. The impact on others may be nil or serious. "When there is other traffic" The document is clear enough; you can thell there's other traffic by seeing it or hearing it transmit on radio. A superman!! - My apologies I didnt realise that you would have the power to see/hear an aircraft from the cockpit of your aircraft, without the benefit of a transmission or two from that aircraft. Nor did I understand that your twin would be in the other aircraft and know instinctively that you are about the taxi across the runway, even though you made no call to that effect. It must be wonderful to have such power😈 A Corporate lawyer is employed by the company; in this case she outlined roughly what I've been saying and answered the questions as a qualified lawyer would. You would be advised to seek a second opinion, from an independent (not employed by you/your company ) lawyers and or sack the one you have - she clear has little grasp of the English language

The voluntary/at pilot discretion, nature of CASA's advice on this matter is a failure of authority and can do nothing but confuse the pilot fraternity thereby increasing risk. No amount of presumed legal wriggling changes this. CASA should give stronger advice - there should be MANDATORY calls at certain points, in an aircraft's movements, with RECOMMENDED at other times. CASA has neither advised to call or not to call, Downwind - as with all other calls this is at the discretion of the PIC. I support the notion that students should not only be informed of ALL the calls but required to practise them eg Established Down Wind, Base, Final and the usual variations' on this theme, such as Turning..... They should also practise minimising the number of calls so that they feel comfortable in their reading of the situaton that does not require a call at every location. Naturally this means the "airwaves" may be cluttered at some times - What is a small inconvenience, to qualified pilots, compared with future safety/good habits???

Recommend: "the suggestion that someone should have or use it because it is good". Clearly there is no obligation to act on a recommendation - there is no way round this interpretation. A recommendation is not a command, requirement, order - it is at the discretion of the receiving party (PIC) whether they act on the advice or not. Just as clearly there may be negative implications in not accepting/acting on, the recommendation, this does not change the voluntary nature of a recommendation. The use of the word ALL does not change the voluntary meaning of the phrase. WHEN THERE IS OTHER TRAFFIC: This phrase is placing the decision to act (make calls or not) on the perception of the PIC i.e. Pilot asks the question - is there or is there not other aircraft in the vicinity? There is no other logical interpretation. Some pilots (even instructors, according to some on this Forum) have interpreted this to mean a pilot should not make pre-emptive calls ie they are unawares of any aircraft in the vicinity but make a call anyhow. Your Corporate Lawyer is wrong (if in fact you actually consulted one)

I don't think it's fair to blame migrants or any group for that matter - its the State Governments job to set appropriate standards, see that they are met (or you dont drive), policed so that you keep to them. Also its the State (& unfortunatly local councils) job to design road, signs, etc, that are CONSISTENT & make sense ie relate to the road environment. NSW State Government would rather spend tax dollars on ineffective, inaccurate, meaningless TV campaigns, than do anything logical & constructive in this area

The problem is the the language used by CASA: "CALLS RECOMMENDED ALL THE TIME" - The use of the word RECOMMENDED has the timid, insecure & ignorant feeling like is okay not to make these calls. From a legal standpoints they may be correct . From a good airmanship/safety point of view they are very very wrong. "CALLS WHEN THERE IS OTHER TRAFFIC" - Again the language is poor. WHEN THERE IS OTHER TRAFFIC seems to suggest, only to those who want it this way, that when they don't know see/hear other traffic, it okay not to make a few calls. Frankly this is stupidity at its worst. This attitudes endangers both the promoters/exponents of this attitude and the unfortunate that is involved in an accident with them. This incident may have been avoided, if only a call or two had been made.

Mexicans!!!! 😈

My opinion: Aside from the very few mandatory calls we are required to make, all other communication is at the discretion/judgement of the PIC. The PIC should err on the side of caution & courtesy - more is better than too little or none. It is the PIC's responsibility to keep his/her aircraft safe AND do the best to assist in the safety of others. Pilots operate in a dynamic environment, the frequency & content of communications should be adjusted accordingly. There is no other authority, in the cockpit, other than the PIC - the airfield committee/manager, other pilots and instructors can not force the PIC to increase/reduce the level of communication. It would be foolhardy of any airfield management/instructor to document or publicly demand a required reduction or limit in communication - they may be held, in part, responsible for a future incident.

Food for thought from correspondent in Rotax Owner Forum: If we assume your probes are OK, and the high EGT is actually occurring, then the conditions you describe make perfect sense. EGT represents a measure of energy wasted through the exhaust, and CHT represents energy used within the engine to produce thrust. When you quickly reduce the prop pitch, this unloads the engine and you would expect to see an increase in EGT and decrease in CHT. Once you increase RPM to fully load the engine at the reduced prop setting, the energy is once again directed to thrust, and EGT would decrease while CHT increases. Think of it this way, the combustion heat has to go one place or another. Unload the engine and the heat goes out the exhaust, load the engine and it goes into the heads and out to the radiator. Because we don’t have control of mixture, we tend not to think about these principles as much. With conventional aircraft that have mixture control you see these effects more clearly. It’s a common mistake for a pilot to unload the engine to attempt to reduce EGT, only to experience the opposite effect. My response: Thanks for that excellent reasoning . There is one problem - the high readings followed the swapping of the probe from left to right. Following your logic the low reading (assumed to be correct) probe must be the faulty one ??????