skippydiesel

That's the point - there is no level beyond "Extreme" other than the bad english, imposed by some ridiculous committee, wishing to big note themselves. "Not a forecast". A warning, by its very nature is a forecast/prediction. "That's how these things work.." You jest - it doesn't work, or if it does, not well. Warnings, to be effective, need to be clear & precise (as simple as can be articulated, to communicate the message)- ie not needing to be deciphered. Catastrophic/Catastrophe can be past or present tense, never future (unless qualified as in "impending catastrophe") - it describes an outcome. It very like the Crime Scene description - there is no crime, until it has been determined that # a crime has been committed, # in progress or # conspired to. Until otherwise known, it can only be an Incident Scene. I agree that certain incidents, by their nature, are very likely to involve a crime having been committed, it would be fair to describe them, from the outset, as a Crime Scene .

The use of the word "Catastrophic" (past tense) to describe a potential (future) weather/fuel conditions is bad grammar/English - what was so wrong with "Extreme"? Exteem is accurate, to the point and every English speaker (or feigner with a dictionary) will understand its meaning. The addition of "Catastrophic" above "Extreme" is an inaccurate, unnecessary escalation of language - in short - Crap! Just like every accident/incident scene is now a "Crime Scene" - more Crap! This sort of misuse of language, is designed to enhance the status of the organisation, has zip to do with accurate information/communication.

Performance & Capacity Cruise Speed 60 - 70 knots / 111 - 130 km/h / 30 - 36 m/s Stall with flaps 35 knots / 65 km/h / 18 m/s Landing Speed 45 knots / 83 km/h / 23 m/s Climb Rate 1,200 ft per minute / 365 m per minute With no technical knowledge: Those figures just don't look quite right. If it stalls at 35 knots - it won't land at 45 knots. Cruise at 70 knots - I would expect a wing giving this sort of performance, to stall a lot lower than 35 knots Climb rate - doesn't look like MTO

."..........snap that last little bit of elevator to make the nose snap over as we enter the stall." This a new concept to me. My instructor & I did all sorts of stalls (attitudes/configuration/power on & off), no recollection of doing the "snap". Cant see the point and as you say may lead the student to "the wrong impression"

"With two ' hose spigots ' double the leakage '" I stand to be corrected - Every fuel delivery system MUST have an in & out facility ("two spigots"). This won't change whatever filtration system you prefer/use. "I tried two inline filters with two taps . ( and Y joiner)making twelve hose clips " Trying hard to imagine what's happening here and failing. Need more detail. "Now, I'm back to " gascolator " that has a fuel drain / tester ." I too like the fuel drain feature but the rest of the design is so bad, I wonder how they can be fitted to certified aircraft. "Just double " mr filter " all the fuel going into your tank ." Not sure what you mean by "double". I have always filtered my fuel into the tank. With my last aircraft, this meant my in line fuel filters almost never trapped contaminants (even after 100 hrs they were clean but replaced anyhow). My new home built plane is a diffrent matter - only has 68 hrs, despite flushing tanks several times, filtering all fuel in, I am still getting quite a bit of crap (scientific term) on the gascolator gauze. As far as I can tell it's mainly paint & sealing compound . The crap is diminishing, so I hope will drop to zero in the near future.

Payload in kilograms - please.

I have a gascolator in my current aircraft and consider it to be inferior to a quality inline gauze filter in several ways heavier less filter gauze area - will block quicker it's the only contamination "protection" in the whole system ie all fuel goes through it - if it blocks you have no fuel flow checking for contamination/blockage requires removal of the bowl & gauze screen very easy to damage the gauze sealing is by compression of a flat rubber gasket - prone to leaking the one posative, is it will separate (to some degree) water from fuel Quality inline gauze fuel filter eg Hengst H102WK, H103WK https://www.hengst.com/en/products/1155-fuel-filters Baldwin BBF7863, BF7850, BF7725, BF9906https://ph.baldwinfilters.com/baldwin/en/product/baldwin-in-line-fuel-filters/bf7725 light weight very robust will not leak - subject to correct installation easy to view condition compact - can be fitted on every fuel delivery line. Main line contamination blocks filter - switch to bypass and keep going to land safely. cheap - can be cleaned but better to retire to mower duty and fit a new one carry spare(s)

I wear caps a lot, they are cheap, handy and okay with earmuffs/headsets but for our climate, you can't beat a nice wide rim. I always revert to a proper hat when working in the sun.

Once again apathy is the dominant response.

This could be faulty logic. Partial/intermittent earth return, can effects 12 V systems in a wide variety of ways. Sometimes one system will show normal function, while another is completely dead. The clever electronically savvy, folk on this Forum, will I have no doubt have an explanation.

Yes, times are a tad tough for weather the forecaster. Apparently their computer models are unable to adapt to current climate behaviour - they might have to go back to checking out the chickens entrails. You miss my point - I hope deliberatly. I have attended many an emergency - it is never helpful and can be down right unhelpful, if those reporting/instructing, do not use appropriate & proportionate language, to communicate the actual situation. In recent times (Australia) there seems to have been a competition amongst emergency services and the media to add drama to every situation. I for one am no longer motivated by such hysterics - this may be to my detriment, should the situation be as dire, as the bemedaled first responder and /or media is suggesting.

"Actually you CAN own a plane and not be a member - I know two." I stand corrected. However I find it strange that a non member can own a RAA registered aircraft - how is a non members application to register/renew/transfer an aircraft processed? I have been informed by RAA "While it may appear that the fee difference is solely attributed to administrative costs, I want to highlight that the fee for two-seater aircraft also encompasses insurance coverage for passenger liability. This additional coverage contributes to the overall cost difference between single-seat and two-seat registrations." Note: My comments refer to RAA Aircraft Registration not Membership.

My "whinge" is not about timely, informed/measured, advice, its about emergency services spokespersons over escalation the issue, by using, what I see, as hysterical language. This sort of language desensitises people - ie we get so use to it, we tend to underreact - its The Boy Who Called Wolf syndrome. Yes,the poor sods of Pomonal etal, have suffered a catastrophe, as the result of an Extreme or Dangerous (not a catastrophic) weather event.

I suggest you check out the Schedule of Fees https://raaus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/schedule-of-fees-and-charges-5.pdf RAA Aircraft registration is not the same as RAA membership - You can be a RAA member without owning an aircraft. You can not own an RAA registered aircraft, without being a member

"To make them useful" "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" Old saying but apt. Great ideas/suggestions Ian, however it has yet to be established that there is a need for ASIC, in the first instance(as it applies to small regional airfields being accessed by private pilots). Improving a system that has no benefit, just adds more complexity & cost (window dressing). As for "non-zero risk" - pretty much everything we do in life has a risk attached. Focusing on one extraordinarily low risk and throwing the legislative might of the Government at it ($5K fine if you don't comply) is a level of stupidity, that is worthy of a second rate commedy.

Ooooh! That doesn't seem fair (Ranger owner) If it was as for 4 cylinders, that would be okay😁 Lots of other 5 cylinders out there - Hino, Mercedes, VW, Volvo ----- any more?

I am not complaining about the cost as such, just the fact that it differs for one & two seat aircraft. RAA as advised this is due to differences in insurance premium. This may be true, however Registration itself has no risk attached - its an administrative action, most often conducted once in the aircraft service life. The cost of this work would have to be the same for 1 to 100 seater. RAA muddies the waters, by including the first years Renewal, which does have an insurance component. If the Annual Renewal is deducted from the Initial Registration - two seat owners are paying X 3.3 times single seat owner's - fair???? Then there is Aircraft Transfers, from other registration authorities, that attracts a one & two set fee - again this purely an admin function that should be the same whatever the aircraft capacity. If we look at Annual Renewal, which certainly has an insurance component it may be worth considering how many hours, as a percentage, are flown with two persons on board. I would guess may be 5-10%. As the value of the airframe/hull insurance, is not part of this, it comes down to the number of PAX on board- in this, two seaters and single seaters are almost the same. If this is correct - why then do single seaters enjoy a substantially lower premium??? The rest of your statement eg fewer flight hours/attracting lower fees while equitable is pretty much a "red herring" as it would be extremely difficult to verify flight hours and what if you were to exceed, your insured quota?? I have only been in RAA for about the last 10-15 years so do not know it when it was more of Club - it's now a business. As such customer/member perceptions regarding things like cross funding/subsidising etc must be conducted with extreme caution and transparency, assuming that this actually happens.

This just might apply to annual Registration renewal. In practise the vast majority of flights are pilot only, even for 2 seats (and in GA above 2 seats) Insurance is not a factor in aircraft Initial Registration or Transfers.

Just wondered if anyone else thinks the following RAA charges are a tad odd? Initial Aircraft Registration Aircraft with one seat $215.00 Aircraft with two seat $349.00 Aircraft Renewal Aircraft with one seat $150.00 Aircraft with two seat $235.00 Aircraft Transfers .... single seat $155.00 .....two seat $280.00 I find it unlikly that the administration, of the above services, requires any difference in resources, between single & two seat, to discharge. It is evident that the same service, can be delivered for a lower cost, this should be the charge to the RAA pilot members.

".....ever experienced a bushfire roaring down on you?" Yes I have - twice in our present location, The Oaks, NSW. First event - we (the street/local) had little help from overstretched/under maned fire brigade - all down to us. Despite some near losses, we, the residents (only two family's bailed) prevailed, with minimal asset damage. The fires burned for weeks, doing a good job of consuming many years of accumulated tinder (bugger all fuel reduction in our area). Second event - years later (fuel built up in interval, still no controlled burns) featured big response by fire brigades AND an air show. Pretty much the same result, as we the residents managed previously. The air show was great, huge water bombers wheeling about, seemed like 100ft over our heads - no way they could have done that at an air show. Choppers took over when the bulk of the fire had been contained. Problem with this was, they kept operating for the next week or so. Not only did we get thoroughly sick of the constant noise, they put out the inaccessible burning gullys (that had burnt out the first time) preserving all that fuel for a future "Catastrophe" "....warning can't be too big" Appropriate warning/information is a good thing. Hysterical language is just plain wrong and results in panic / apathey (when repeated hysterical announcements/prediction comes to little or nothing).

On ABC TV today, Victorian fire person talking about the potential for a bushfire in today's high temperatures & windy conditions - he talked as if the State was already being consumed by fire. This sort of alarmist language, seems to be employed by most emergency response services and the BOM - people just turn off. This may be to their cost, when the dire predictions actually come true. It seem that there is little awareness of the difference between information/advice and hysteria.

In the context of my statements, I would define glide approach as one where power is not used to control descent rate. I think it is generally accepted that deliberately stopping your engine (in flight) is ill advised, when practising engine out/low power scenarios. The aim of my comments on this matter are to encourage pilots to achieve & maintain their skills in glide approaches. They will need this skill when the engine fails to deliver sufficient thrust to sustain flight. The simplest way to keep these skills "sharp"/instinctive are to try for a glide approach on every landing. My GA training emphasised power on approaches - great! as long as the engine is operating correctly.

"Most engine failures are at the higher power settings in the take off phase particularly. " Student pilots are repeatedly warned about the above and encouraged to have a plan for when it happens (land straight ahead being the most common advice). Less emphasized, is engine failure partial/total in the circuit, which can occur during/after the change from cruise to idle/low power. Multitude of possibilities, Carby ICE being one of the lead offenders. With the latter, if you have configured the aircraft & your mental self, for a gide approach, the chances are you will make the airfield/landing. On the other hand, if it is all power, you are relying on, chances are you will land short/crash. "In gusty conditions using a variable power is the only way to avoid large speed fluctuations. " Of course this should be part of every qualified pilots skill set. This does not mean that in less taxing wind conditions, the glide approach can not be tried. "Precautionary approaches are done with power and a reduced stall margin. A go around from a "Power active" approach is more spontaneous, and the engine is less likely to falter." Agree however the majority of landings are not short field. Sighting specific conditions against, does not address my contention that pilots should aspire to glide approaches, whenever conditions allow.

Fair go Nev: Your earlier advice, regarding power on approach to landing, was not qualified in any way. All I have done is suggest an alternative: the glide approach, as this usually considered the more difficult, of the two skills but has the advantage of being the one every pilot needs to be proficient at, when the noise stops. Sure, every approach to landing presents as a dynamic range of challenges, which must be met from the pilots skill set, to acheive a successful touchdown. We are all prone to developing habits - I try for a glide approach every time. On my old plane, (10+ years of flying) I was successful perhaps 90% of the time. On my new, plane very diffrent characteristics, the percentage is probably reversed ie 10% but getting better the more I practice. I would advocate for every small aircraft pilot to make the glide approach his/her prefered technique - anyone can use power, as a backup, I often do. Note: I consider the glide approach to have failed, if I need to resort to power, to acheive a safe landing.

?????