skippydiesel

Going to need a complete fabric replacement $$$$$$$ That's one very early Rotax 912 80hp - whats all the oil on the air inlet tube??? Assuming airframe sound(??) as a gift, would still be costly for anyone wanting to put it back in the air - especially as a factory (certified ????) build. Could be garden gnome for someone

If I had a camera, I had a beauty late last week. I was in the vicinity of Badgerys Creek/Nancy Bird Walton Airport - the western end landing lights were being tested SPECTACULAR!!!! Couldn't help but be lured in and desende to 1000ft for a polite strip run - memorable moment.

Sydney Basin flying has been MAGIC the last few days. Cloud base 4000" yesterday, odd very little bump (more like a "waft" ) but today well over the 7500" step and the air smooooooth as silk. Great to be alive & a pilot, what more could a lad ask for ????

You may be correct, however in Australia there is generally (always?) a separation (diffrent areas/terminals) between doemstic international operators - there can be & is a separation of security requirements. Further; It would seem from comments on this & other Forums, that the ASIC style security, has not been implemented in other countries FOR SMALL LOW RPT FREQUENCY AIRFIELDS. If this be true, then where is your "ICAO sets airline security standards .................... it flows downhill from there"???????

Please explain?

Out of idle curiosity - why do you have non return valves? ie what is their function in your aircraft system?

Hi Neil, Some non returns/check valves have a relativly high opening pressure - if specifications for the ones you purchased are available be sure to check. I assume you are running a Rotax 9 series engine - the various pumps usually operate at quite low pressures (Max 7 psi?). The Gazelle being a high wing (fuel in wing?) may mitigate this to some degree.

The point is - ASIC is no longer a knee jerk reaction by our security service/politicians, which gave some level of perverse authority/legitimacy - it's now being enforced by business (airline) which to my mind, is without any legitimacy at all. It's quite possible that your second point " ...if you think that 'they' give a monkeys about GA, then you are in for a world of hurt." may have had some bearing on the forcing the local owner/authority to continue with ASIC, after all it's far easier for a commuter airliner to come screaming in, for a straight in approach, down wind, if there are no/ fewer GA aircarft in the circuit.

Area-51 Over compression engines are still with us - they are called diesels ( compression ignition) engines.

"Still feeling that it was not REX's decision to have an ASIC requirement - it would have been forced upon them by Capitol city airport security requirements." I certainly don't know the answer, inherent in our question - Who is forcing the continuance of ASIC at small regional airfields? My principal point is - I think most, thought ASIC continuance was/is simply the result of bureaucratic/political inertia. Now we find that big business (airline/ capitol city airports possibly combined with insurers) is forcing the issue . This is a bad to worse situaton, in that we (private pilots) have little if any influence, when big business dictates what we can and can't do when wishing to accessing a public facility (airfield). There is something inherently undemocratic about this situaton.

"So a local airfield 'owner' can decide that it's OK for an airline (and REX is an airline) to take passengers from an unsecured airfield and deposit them airside at an international airport ......" It's a quite a while, since I flew overseas or used public transport, to fly between Australian major cities - I have no recollection of small doemstic aircraft, being allowed to disembark passengers onto the airside tarmac UNSUPERVISED!!!!. No offence but this sounds BS. In my imperfect memory, no passengers have ever been allowed airside, without a security escort and that goes way back to the 1950's, long before September 11 & hysterical political responses.

I am not sure I understand the concern regarding high wing aircraft, loss of visibility, in turns. I trained in Cessna high wing aircraft, now fly mainly low wing. Seems to me, no matter the configuration of the aircraft, there is an inherent visual block in both high & low wing. The block becomes apparent when circumstances suggest that being able to see through the wing, may help with separation/seeing a landmark, etc. In short both configurations have their visual problems, it's the PIC's. job to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of the aircraft he/she is flying, not whinge about something beyond his/her control😈

My thanks & commendations to the brave pilots who swallowed their pride & embarrassment, to give all of us a strong reminder of how important checklists are. A further checklist reminder - If interrupted: RESTART THAT SECTION FROM THE BEGINNING NEVER DO YOUR CHECKS ON THE MOVE especially in a twitchy little aircraft like a Sonex Inhibitor Switches Generally fail open. This can be pretty much guaranteed by selecting a design that opens rather than closes (the circuit) when condition safe. So in the Sonex example the engine start circuit would be disabled until the canopy fully closed/latched. A guarded override switch could be wired in, for any inflight failure of the inhibitor switch. Garefly "DOOR" warning light , is an excellent variation on the theme. Comments on the two video: Fuel Starvation No mention of a Boost Pump which should have had the capacity to reprime the fuel system in under 2 minutes (maybe?). There was mention of a pump but most likly continuous run pump. Sonex Hatch I fly a Sonex - My latch is diffrent (it's on the pilot side) to the one featured however the plans call for a latch that fails open rather than closed. The hatch is quite flexible, when not fully latched/secure. The movement could spring the latch. The latching mechanism faces forward, I feel, it should face back, so that any tendency to open increases rather than reduces security, as air pressure pushes the canopy back. The other very simple solution is to have a canopy that opens forward - this would mean that air blast would keep it closed, if there was a failure to latch/lock. It would have been a difficult time for the pilot - Sonex are designed to airobat, so are not as stable as most aircraft. Having to let go the controls and move his body weight would have instigated some interesting departures from straight & level.

You can get fuel non return valves from automotive or aircraft suppliers. The aircraft suppliers will almost always be more expensive. The type of fitting will depend on if you are using a press fit into a "rubber" tube or attaching to a metal (hard) line. Non returns valves are also known as check valves. This is an automotive valve for press fit, with the type of bayonet /spigot fitting I proffer. The alternative is the serrated type press fit. Automotive AN style for hard line. Come in a wide range of end sizes & types. Aircraft non return AN fittings both ends. Thes can be turned into press fits by purchasing screw on "tails" Some websites you may care to brows: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/acscheckvalve.php https://aeroflowperformance.com/ https://www.aaestore.com.au/ https://www.asapspares.com.au/

You are wrong - Griffith Council had been told that their airfield need not continue with the ASIC requirements. The airline, on threat of ending service, forced Griffith to continue/reinstate the security control measures. It realy doesn't matter what the wording was/is in this case. The take home message is that Griffith airfield (possibly many others) was no longer required to maintain security controlled status - it was the airline that forced this ridiculous ineffectual costly system to be continued. "..........must comply with Aviation Security measures" No offence mate, ASIC has no part to play, in the any effective security of aviation, at small regional airfields, within Australia. There is no logical reason for continuing the ASIC type security requirements at most small regional airfields. Up until recently I thought the continuance of ASIC was due to bureaucratic/political inertia. That an airline is forcing its continuance, is a further descent into unreasoned paranoia, which impacts negatively on private pilots freedom to safely navigate within Australia.

Griffith Council/Airfield provided the information - I will try & find the reference and let you know.

So you are all okay with an airline (private/commercial operator) essentially forcing an ASIC security environment, where the authorities have decided it's not required??? If you don't comply and get charged, you may have to pay $5k in fines - still okay?????. ASIC, for most rural airfields is a crock of excrement - that a commercial/private operator, can force its implementation, against all reason, is forcing the Australian private pilots, to eat the very same excrement and you're okay with that😈.?????

No sympathy - they and or their insurers, have forced some (??) rural airfields to keep ASIC. This is after the airfield/owners has been told they can dispensed with it. Rex has told owner they will not service their community without ASIC (blackmail!) being continued.

I guess some airfields will have "typical number of aircraft in his circuit" - in my limited experince there is no typical. At our little field, can be on my own one day/time and another day/time x 6 ++. Anything from pilots desperate to get some air time, in a small weather window, to sudden influx of visitors. Pilots should never fixate/become habituated to the typical/norm - its a prescription for added stress at the worst panic. "Mandatory right circuits should have been loaded into the ERSA for that field." Dont know who you are addressing this to or why (apologies if I missed a post); Where no circuit direction stipulated, in ERSA, pilots will assume standard left turning.

jack, In the video, you posted, they "prefer" cross wind joins, to downwind, from the live side (active circuit side) . While permissible, this makes no sense to me, from a safety perspective, as it does not give the PIC confirmation of wind speed/direction, ground opps. and reduces the ability to see/confirme aircraft in the air. Further; it seems to contradicts Mike's earlier diagram . I have always been & continue to advocate for overflying the field prior to descending to circuit height and joining X wind. I would also advocate joining from the dead side, in preference to the live.

Mike, "Downwind calls are probably not going to be made in Australia unless the PIC is situationally aware of conflict or sticking to the old 3 calls in circuit method." I am unaware of any requirement to "stick to the old 3 calls in circuit". From my perspective, right or wrong, the number of calls & their content, will vary, according to the PIC's responsibility to keep his/her aircraft safe and assist in keeping other aircraft in the vicinity safe, by making such calls as deemed necessary. The concept of proscriptive min/max calls is where a lot of pilots go wrong, resulting in excessive calls, cluttering of the airwaves OR insufficient calls for safe aviating. Further; It seems to me, from a safety perspective, that a few to many/long/slow calls, are infinitely better than to few/short/fast calls.

Why are most of the aircraft suppliers in Vic/Qld (cheap labour?)😈

All those who are supercritical of the human failings of other pilots.

I have the impression, that the USA is the only jurisdiction where airspeed is commonly measured in mph. I know its allowed in Au but how common is it? I guess it doesn't matter for RAA aircraft, as long as the pilot is familiar with the aircrafts stall & speed limits in mph. The big advantage is when reporting cruise speed - always faster in mph😈

Those that claim/infer they have the ability to operate, without error, in a three dimensional aerial environment, that nature did not equip us for, either physically or mentally, are lying to themselves. That we can fly at all, with a degree of safety, is a technological marvel. We have constructed system & training to enhance safety but this still does not allow us to see the wind or fly like a bird. Those of us who fly small aircraft, without the support of the systems standard in larger aircraft, know that it is impossible not to err from time to time. Anyone who claims otherwise is a danger to themselves and others.