skippydiesel

"As for the rest; that's what we have to work to whether we like it or not; a good reason to have adequate Public Liability Insurance that covers what we do, and then be able to leave all that philosophy to the people who work in that system." Unfortunatly it is just this attitude, which facilities the continuance and even the setting up of systems , while legal, are wholly unethical. In this system, the public (FYI: that's you and I) who can afford to pay to minimise their paranoia, brought on by marketing and urban myth, end up paying out over time, huge amounts to "protect" themselves from the faint possibility of a future claim against their assets. Once again this has the stink of market economics/user pay's, where the Gov has abdicated responsibility for what should be a centralised system. In a civilised system, we would still pay (taxation) but, individually, less. All would be covered equally (no dollar rules). The injured would be supported for as long as, to the level necessary, for the best quality of life that could be expected (no one-off payouts).

You have the correct offending exhaust pipe. "RHS" - do you mean CHS? (Circular Hollow Section). I have the correct Rotax exhaust pipe "...ovalise the pipe." Sorry not too happy with this idea, although I can see your point.

I stand to be corrected - Rotax supply straight pipe and "'donuts" that must be cut to length to achieve the correct exhaust length & curvature (no mandrel bending - not sure the supplied pipe would put up with bending). Only the turbo & I think fuel injected engines variants, are supplied with factory exhaust systems. 912UL & ULS are fitted into so many diffrent aircraft, that it would not be cost efficient to try and deliver a custom exhaust system for all the builder must make their own from the supplied parts (or source a system from elsewhere).

For a moment I thought you have presented the ideal solution Nev. Then I realised a single cut & fill will change the entry/connection angles of the engine & muffler ends. If I go with your suggestion It will almost certainly have to be two cuts and fills.

The exhaust/header in question is the left rear. Photo does not show it however the clearance to the upper diagonal engine frame strut (white pipe) is insufficient.

I rest my case - Public Liability does not look after the injured party - is about the insurers assets and the insurance company's minimisation of payout (protection of profit). The court (& arbitration) is an adversarial arena where two highly paid teams battle it out - it's not about justice/fair play/compassion. The team with the greatest financial backing will likely win (minimal -zero payout). Add to the above the problem, the one time payout that has to maintain the injured party, possibly for the rest of their life - how can a court assess future economic conditions, further deterioration in health, lifespan, loss of future income, changing partner economic status, dependent costs over time, etc?? The Australian system is a crock/shame/offence to any level of ethical standing - we should and can do better but vested interest (legal industry?) stands in the way.

The jig is the engine to muffler, as is.

Turbs, What is the purpose of ; Public Liability Insurance ? Compensation as awarded by a court (or arbitration) to a plaintiff ? As we know it in Australia.

That's great Marty_d but my engine is already mounted, in the airframe, with all four exhaust /header pipes in place. One of the exhaust/headers is about 12-15 mm too close to the engine frame. How do you suggest I proceed?

Thanks Nev - I have all the necessary materials (Rotax supplied) but none of the experience and not enough material to screw it up more than once. The wire idea is okay for the bend radiuses but not so much for accurate determination of overall length - this is an existing installation, one of four pipes, so must fit, cylinder head to muffler, as per original . There is no kit - this is pretty much a unique configuration. Options for delivery to workshop: Fly in/out for repeated fittings OR trailer in (sans wings) to stay at shop OR fabricator comes to home airfield.

Seeking recommendations for a service provider, to fabricate a replacement exhaust header (engine to muffler). Current header has insufficient clearance. Prefer Sydney Basin, however may be possible to deliver aircraft to shop location within NSW.

Turbs - are you /were you a lawyer?

Turbo me lad - me thinks you have taken this members of the public a tad too literally. To get it out of the way - the mining accident story is true however I was not privy to every detail and only had the injured parties side of the matter. As for the rest - you only have to go back in the Forums archives to read about people's concerns (paranoia?) regarding their own liability. I did not suggest that judges , hearing liability cases, were not impartial - my argument is with a system that is adversarial in nature. No matter whether the issue gets to court or not, two legal teams argue (fight) it out at great cost to both sides. If its an industrial matter, the plaintiff is almost always at a huge disadvantage, in not having the financial might to throw into the ring. Safety Inspectors; What you describe is Government/ bureaucratic overreach - we had a similar problem here in NSW - took many years and much pain to get the OH&S inspectorate forced into something approaching an asset to industry, rather than a jackbooted bunch of bullies. No system is perfect and often must evolve to become fair and equitable.

This is true under Australian & US systems BUT is it true for the rest of the developed World? I have heard (true/false?) that NZ has a very diffrent system where the "injured/aggrieved" parties must apply to the Government for compensation. The aggrieved party can not sue the offender. The Government decides what action will be taken against the offender and what compensation is due to the aggrieved. This cuts out the ambulance chasing law business and puts public liability into the hands of impartial assessors, removed the need for personal liability. In my ignorant opinion, the Australian system has developed to benefit a particular group of lawyers, has inbuilt escalation in its execution and is a long way from natural justice. Years ago I met a man, injured in a mining incident. The injury was such, that he would never be able to work in a physically demanding environment again. His age made it unlikly he could successfully retrain and expect to earn anything like his former salary. The mining company admitted liability but were unable to pay compensation to the man, until the matter had been heard and ruled on by a court. He and his family had to engage lawyers to argue their case, wait two years for the ruling to be handed down (mining company liable) to get the pay out. This sort of abuse of the law is manifestly inefficient & unjust - WE ALL PAY for this ridiculous adversarial system that ultimately only benefits the aforementioned ambulance chasing lawyers.

I think you will find that the Crown (State) owns/has jurisdiction over the air space - no private individual can own it or levy any form of fee for using it. This is much like , who owns the minerals below your property - in our system, its all owned by the State. Only the State issues a mining licence. Or again who owns the sea & the creatures that live in it - the State, no private individual. Provision may be made, by the State, for traditional land/sea "ownership" but this is at the discretion of the State (or possibly the High Court, an arm of the State) I stand to be corrected but I don't believe the owner, of the subject airfield, has a farts chance in a hurricane, of receiving any payment from an aircraft transitioning /joining the circuit, provided they dont land - then landing /parking fees may be legitimately be levied.

Birds takeoff into wind - possible exceptions are those that , when startled, "explode" into flight from cover eg chickens, pheasant and other low scrub dwelling birds. My guess they will "thermal" to their best advantage, probably into wind

https://www.google.com/search?q=ICP+Ventura&rlz=1C1GGRV_enAU751AU751&oq=ICP+Ventura&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIICAgQABgWGB4yCAgJEAAYFhge0gEJMjg5M2owajE1qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&ip=1&vld=cid:1a1a6f69,vid:4XJehFYS2sE,st:0

Saw a documentary years ago - it said the first ever car bomb was used, I think by The Mob, in Chicago, USA The IRA in N Ireland, used a dump truck, to get close enough, to the national airport to fired mortars out of the back. Pretty sure they didn't have a single ASIC.😁

"RA aircraft must be as small/light/slow/useless as governments can possible mandate" TO weight is mandated - don't think size is. From what I have read, speed would seem to be a US mandate. Don't recall a speed limit on AU registered RA aircraft (?) and these days some leave their GA cousins in their slipstream.

No engineer but isn't the fin (& rudder) size , relative to the fuselage length (principle of moments) ie an aircraft can have a small effective fin if its set a relatively long (tail cone) way back ???

I forgot to add - pilot training, to the cost of preparing/using the martyred one. ASIC DOESN'T MAKE SENSE on any level - EFFECTIVENESS - Zero. Possibly less, as lulls the public into false sense of security. COST - Out of all proportion to effect REFLECTION - Makes our leaders look like a right load of idiots ANGST- Upset a small section (pilots) of the community, for no gain but little loss (votes) i

I suggest; On a cost V Effectiveness analysis, It must be soooo much cheaper & quicker, to acquire a drone(s), fill with explosives and aim it at whatever target you choose - live to perform many more terrorist acts. Than Taking many years(?) to feed/cloth, transport, brainwash a young person(s), into believing in a life of luxury & sex awaits them, if they commiting suicide in service of some mythical being, then explode themselves in a single act.

Fantasy! and vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

"............ I thought I had explained that I had been briefed by a Police Minister." Sorry Turbs I and many others don't agree/buy it - I am not impressed that you have been briefed by any vested interest (particularly a politician) in maintaining what is, demonstrably a poorly conceived & executed, complete redundant ASIC (as it pertains to recreational level pilots and their little aircraft accessing the vast majority of RPT airfields). Refr: The editor of Sport Pilot flying the length/breadth of Australia - I haven't counted his landing - only once was he asked for his ASIC - this alone would cause most people to question its efficacy. See Nev's point above ; Think what a nasty person could do with an explosive laden drone - You don't have to be a martyr seeking radical, to fly a drone into an airliner full of passengers. No flight training - Minimal cost and No ASIC required.

"...............Of course speed is some issue, of course it is, because if you had zero speed, there would be no accidents. " The use of speed as a road safety control/minimisation is a cheap and nasty cop out - at best treats the symptoms, rather than the cause - extremely low level of driving skill. "Can they enhance the skill level of drivers ? I think we're at the point of the limit of what you can due to general human society. " If we had something similar to a BFR , say a true/realistic driver review every 5 years (or less if you prefere) we would have a chance of raising driver skill to a reasonable level. "Improves the roads is one way. " Road conditions are a very poor excuse for road accidents - used by those that don't drive too the conditions, as an excuse for their poor driving. A few of our problems- Cultural Having a driving license is regarded as a right, rather than a privilege. Political problem Politicians are unwilling to address the root cause(s) Education/Standards/Adherences Driver training is very poor Testing - a joke Policing - Focuses on speed, intoxication & seat belts - where is driving dangerously, lack of courtesy, etc etc? Road Design/Standardisation I could almost write a book on it - Freeway - entry to short to easily accelerate to posted speed / exit slip roads that drop to 60 kph within a few meters of the freeway. Poor & inconsistent signage. Posted speeds inconsistent with road conditions. Mandated forward parking. Roads/lanes too narrow for heavy vehicles ------- ----------etc etc Of course all this is moot - self drive vehicles is almost a reality - there will be no more drivers (on public roads) in a generation or so.