jongough

Yep. I attended (if you meant the breakfast flyin on Oct 1) and there seemed to be quite a good turn up (mixture of Ultralight and GA). Only stayed for about an hour as I was on my way back from Heck Field to near Canberra, so could not stay too long. Weather was OK, but cloud was around 2,500ft, although it did lift enough to get over the ranges behind.

With the 10% being pushed by the powers that be, is it a requirement that fuel containing up to 10% be labeled as such? If not, how are we to know if it has it in? The servo staff most of the time just look blank!

I have asked Wal at Bert Flood about th 10% ethanol in PULP (it is starting to turn up in the Canberra area, but not by stealth yet as far as I know) two weeks ago. He was going to try and get some info from Rotax, but I have heard nothing yet. I run a 912 ULS and try to use PULP that does not block the filters, all seem to do it to a greater or lesser extent, but I have not knowingly used 10% ethanol yet. What is the concensus on this stuff? I know it will probably vapour lock sooner due to the higher vapour pressure, but does it affect the engine in any other way? If ALL PULP goes this way, is Avgas usable in the long term? Jon

I think the weight is a furfy (sp?) in this and that it is the usage, as said before, which is aimed at 'Recreation'. However, as Tony said, the training of people for flying and maintenance, and the maintenance schedules are a problem. The 'Recreational Aviation' group, in this sense is not much different to the Old Car and Bike movements, the complexity of the equipment is increasing rapidly, but the members capability is not increasing in line with it. So, based on this, I would like to see a basic flight license, for say the 'standard' ultralight, with extra endorsements to handle more complex/faster/etc types. This would at least ensure that the skills to handle these aircraft are there. This is a bit like the taildragger endorsement for tricicle undercart pilots. Also, perhaps some more education sessions should be available for pilots maintaing their own aircraft, rather like the SAAA, ie you built it/you maintain it, you bought it/you get educated to maintain it. This may leave the simple end of RAAus aircraft as is, but for the faster/heavier/more complex would start to add some extra training to ensure pilots understand the risks and how to mitigate them. Jon

I am with Phil in flying an f-18, but I do like to see the low end as well. But round here, south NSW, many of the CTAF airfields have one RPT a day or less, but we will all require an ASIC card to fly there. Not sure what an ASIC card will do for security and for some of the low hours per year pilots it may be quite an impost. The CTAFs that I use, Moruya for instance, have rag and tube stuff that Tony H likes, as well as kit built low wing one designs and the new F-18 plastic fantastics. All fly quite happily from the airfield, except when the RPT does straight in approaches from the north when 36 is the active runway !!!! There is not much land available down here suitable for your own strip, or any new strips for that matter (something to do with the GDR and stuff), so current airstips/airfields it has to be. I am not sure the fuel price is that much of an issue regardless of what you fly in RA-Aus, but ASIC may be another matter. Also, the reducing number of places to fly from may cause a problem. At the moment most RA-Aus planes require far less distance to land and takeoff (or should that be the other way around?), but with the closing of many council strips and the inability to find suitable land and councils that will let you do the antisocial thing (unless there is a kid that needs to be flown out or a bush fire), we may be forced out by lack of places to commit aviation. Regards Jon