Wayne T Mathews

With the two wing struts on each side, it looks like the earlier/original model. Still gunna be a head turner though...

I'm told you'll find it under CAR 1988 Schedule 8 (sub regulation 42ZC (4) which allows a pilot to conduct certain activities on a B Class aircraft (i.e. Replace, clean, gap spark plugs, change oil, replace batteries etc.). I haven't personally checked the reference is correct. I simply know of it as schedule 8, and it lists what basic line maintenance GA pilots are allowed to do on their aircraft. It's a very similar list to what we have in 4.1.1-9.

They sure do! Blowing in a pitot tube is a no no. For several reasons. 1/ While it's not such a problem for us blokes with basic aircraft, and/or gliders, many aircraft have heated pitots which if its ON and you wrap your lips around it... Well you've just given yourself a perpetual pucker. 2/ When you blow into a pitot, you stand a better than average chance of introducing spittle to the system... Not a good thing. 3/ ASIs are delicate instruments. When you huff and puff into them, you've a good chance of causing expensive damage. I know people do it. I've even done it myself when I had to check I'd cleared the bug out when I was in the bush. But I have never once seen it as a technique called for in a maintenance manual or a POH.

I have just spoken to Adam Finn, the RA Aus Tech Mangager in Canberra, and he has confirmed that as per the RA Aus tech manual (4.0 - 6): ".... Aircraft used for hire and reward are to be wholly maintained, and/or the maintenance authenticated by, an RA Aus Level Two Maintenance Authority holder. Daily inspections may be completed by the pilot-in command. ...." He went on to say though, that members who want to maintain an RA Aus "hire and reward" aircraft to the equivalent level of GA's schedule 8, may be able to do so by applying for a restricted RA Aus level two authority for line maintenance as defined in the tech manual (4.1.1 - 9). Each applicant will be assesed individually, and Adam will make the call as to whether an applicant is considered competent enough to be issued a line maintenance L2 authority, or not. The procedures and requirements for applying for an L2 authority are listed in the tech manual (4.1 - 1 thru 4.1.1 - 7) And yes, in answer to your question reference comparing RA Aus and GA standards, RA Aus is more prescriptive than GA in this instance when dealing with "hire and reward" aircraft, which may not only be used by instructors and students for training, but may also be hired by the general, qualified, public.

In my opinion, there is no difference between GA and RA Aus on this issue... Cost sharing is when we, the people in the aircraft, share the cost of the flight...

Whoah back there,,, now steady on, Alan!... become a drop out?? A drop out?? I admit I was around in that era Man, but hey, I wasn't one of them "hippy" blokes ya know... Not ever!.. Gol dang it!.. Although I did meet and know (in a biblical sense) a couple of them "hippy" sheilas during that time... Aargh, the mammaries... Puts a whole new meaning on drop out, eh?

What Maj says is true, Folks. Cost sharing is acceptable, so long as you're only sharing the costs. But I'm told selling someone a box of matches for $200 and then taking them up for an aeroplane ride is not considered acceptable (apparently it's happened in the past)... Hey, you may well get away with it. But if/when something does go wrong (and as sure as God made little apples, sooner or later it will), and the powers that be find out about it, they're gunna cut you a new one... An' it ain't gunna be either pretty, pleasant or elegant... My opinion? Cost share if you wish. But for goodness sake, don't try to be a barnstorming, joyflight charter pilot unless you is one... And even then, please don't do it in one of our recreational registered aircraft. The rest of us don't want the hassles you'll bring down on all of us. And we'd really rather keep thinking you're not that silly, inconsiderate, or irresponsable...

I like to think I helped my youngest son through his, "I'm going to do whatever I like," stage by explaining to him that if he kept going down that path, he'd wind up spending time in a locked room with a bloke called Bubba... Seems to have worked, thank goodness... On the issue of being off track and/or rear ended; Heck, most of the time when I'm on track, it's because I'm crossing it. And I do believe that at the speeds and heights I cruise at these days, I'm far more likely to be rear ended by a bird than another aircraft.

I suppose we should, but it's just a tad too "rivetting"... I know it's perverse, but I've always thought it's funny that we call a 6'6'', 300 lbs mountain of muscle, "Tiny". Usually happens though... PS: Tomo and Solomon are gunna hafta ask an oldie to explain that, eh!... Hehehe...

Good morning Neil, I'm not sure if you're asking me a question or telling me what xxxxx said. If you're telling me what xxxxx said, then he's right to a point, because the L2 doesn't have to actually carry out the plug and oil change on an aircraft before it's used for hire and reward, but he does have to authenticate and sign for it. That's clearly stated in Section 4 of the RA Aus Tech Manual under the heading of Policy. Section 4.0 - 6 states: ".... Aircraft used for hire and reward are to be wholly maintained, and/or the maintenance authenticated by, an RA Aus Level Two Maintenance Authority holder. Daily inspections may be completed by the pilot-in command. ...." Section 4.0 - 6.1 gives an out for the people who have been owner operating, and now wish to use the aircraft for hire and reward. What Maj is addressing here is one of the complexities of syndicate owned aircraft. Quite obviously (I'll use a blatant example here), if an aircraft is "available" for a group of people who have paid $1 to be part of "the syndicate" and are then paying $150/hr to use the aircraft, then the aircraft is not really a syndicate aircraft, and is in fact being used for hire and reward. I know if I was going to be involved with a syndicate aircraft, I'd want the deal run past Zane and Adam before I ever handed over my money, just to be sure the deal was kosher...

Just had a phone call from Old Koreelah. He's up in Darwin playing with motorbikes and having a beer or twleve with his mates. He's asked me to post the attached email he sent me, 'cause he can't do it from his iphone... So here goes, let's see if I can do it. (the following is inserted by Ian as Admin...For those that may not be able to access MS Word Docs here is the attachment:) Wayne I looked up from my beer a few minutes ago to see this: Can't seem to post it to the Rec Flying forum from my iPhone. Perhaps you could post it for Old Koreelah. Lyle\'s darwin photo 12 AUG 12.doc Lyle\'s darwin photo 12 AUG 12.doc Lyle\'s darwin photo 12 AUG 12.doc

I wouldn't... Cranky magistrates frighten the crap outa me...

Try Aviaquip in Melbourne. They're pretty good at getting stuff to you fairly smartly...

Onya Tomo... Well done Young Man...

A young mate of mine (honestly, it wasn't me) was telling me that, a few months back he was just West of Katoomba heading for Woolongong, when it occured to him that if his GPS failed, he had no idea where he was, or where he was going to go, or even could go, if he had to divert. Since then he's bought himself a ute load of charts, drawn all sorts of neat pencil lines on them, and takes them with him every time he flies. As backups to the ipad he bought. Aargh,,, another convert to intelligent thinking, planning and navigation... YEESS

In my opinion, Nev, everything you have said in this post is valid. To think it was not would be akin to thinking the approach was not valid to the landing... Having said that though, forgive me, I was once accused by an FAA Examiner of writing and teaching what he called, "Niger and Arab procedures", which required me to defend my position. I did that by explaining that of the 15 professional flight engineers I had working for me, not one of them was an aeronautical design engineer. They were good men though. Hell, one of them was a qualified, and practising, aviation lawyer. They all had FAA Airframe & Powerplant [A&P] maintenance certificates underpinning their F/E certificates. They could, and would in a pinch, especially when we started doing military charters to the Middle East, manage their fuel using the information you and Turbz have put on the table to be considered. But they were professional flight engineers working in the crew of aircraft that would have up to 400 people onboard, and operating up to 3 hours away from the nearest dry land, with three dirty great big, highly reliable GE engines, all being maintained daily by professional ground crew. Even with those men though, the secret to a consistently smooth, safe operation, was to keep it simple. It is true, we should all, from the Cub Wasp, right through to the A380 Operators, know accurately how much useable fuel we have available in our tanks. Which as Turbz has pointed out, we should only have to calculate once, unless of course, we have a reason to suspect it's changed. We also need to know how much fuel we need to complete the flight, from start-up all the way through to shutdown. On Ryan International's DC10s, I had the F/Es run a simple "how-goes-it" log that provided a two point 3% accuracy check. I'm told the A380 guys have a computer that does a similar thing for them. And alright, the Cub Wasp guys don't get it so good. They have to do it in their heads. But hey, it's not rocket science. In my opinion, there are reasons why some people run out of fuel and have to do dead stick landings. But short of unpredictable fuel system failures or battle damage, there are no excuses...

You could be right Turbz. But to be fair, it is a subject that could leave one's butt and scrotum hanging uncovered in the breeze.

Yep, definitely as a minimum. There are a zillion reasons why our plan can need modification once we're airborne. And it's for those reasons we monitor our flight's progress, checking to see we're still travelling to plan. And if/when we find we're not, we need to amend the plan, one way or another, to keep us within known acceptable minimums. As I said, it's not rocket science...

Too true Motz: "the regs are there for a good reason, and are a good place to start when your talking about this sort of thing." But let's not get all focussed on and bogged down by "the regs". They were after all, written by men (admittedly, quite often in blood), so they're not perfect... I like to consider the advice my mentor once gave me, "The book was written for the guidance of wise men, and the blind obedience of fools." ... Having said that, experience has definitely taught me, "the regs are there for a good reason, and are a good place to start when you're talking about this sort of thing."

Hear hear...

Methinks "So does anyone here not do this?" would be a more relevant question...

Having spent years managing the fuel on flights going backwards and forwards over the longest stretch of "nowhere to land" in the world (USA West coast - Hawaii, >2,000nm), I'm going to go out on a limb here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly our aircraft. But you do need to be aware of possible problems, and plan to cover them accordingly. The broadbrush descriptive titles we're using in this case are; airmanship and risk management. And we do it all the time. Now, knowing how to calculate fuel burn in climb, cruise and descent and the influence of density height etc. is important to people flying big jets over big distances. But it's not so important to us down at the altitudes we fly at. For practical purposes, we need to know how much fuel our engine is burning on average per hour. We need to know how far we have to go. And we need to know what ground speed to expect. With that infomation we can calculate how much fuel we expect to burn. Then we look at "do we need an alternate?" If the answer is yes, then calculate the fuel required for that. When you've got those numbers, add 45 minutes of fuel, and you've got what you need to plan the flight. The next thing is, how much fuel is in the tanks, is it enough, and will the aircraft lift it? In the big jets, carrying extra fuel is a No-No. Lifting 7,000kg of extra fuel (10,000 ltrs as an example and using round figures) up to 35,000 feet takes a lot of energy (read $$$). So if they don't need it, the big boys won't take it. But for us, taking an extra 10 ltrs may well mean 30 minutes of extra noise, which gives us warm and fuzzy feelings, and the energy expended lifting that extra 7kg to say 5,000 feet, is minimal. So again, being practical, let me repeat what Poteroo had to say, "... take as much fuel as you can uplift, and use it wisely." Honestly folks, it's not rocket science.... Calculate how much fuel you need for the planned leg. Add the amount of fuel you need to get to any alternate you're carrying. Add 45 minutes of fuel to the above, and you have the minimum fuel you're going to take-off with. Anything more than that is cotton candy... so take it if you can.

Now you're talking, Big Boy....

Jay Tigre is waaiitting, Ross... You've Made Jay's day, Lyle. She's been called a lot of things over the decades, but never a "beast" before, that I know of... And you don't have to trim her. But she's a lady of character, so she'll let you know you should if you don't. You wanna hand prop an aircraft and not be known as Lefty? Ya better get used to it. I will admit, it is character building. A metre long stick? Yee har... I don't think so... It is a cockpit y'know... But even Jay hasn't got a metre long stick inside her... What sort of Lady do you think she is for kri'sake? And, "furiously crank the antique window-winder trim adjuster..." Oh you brute! Is there nothing firm but gentle about you? Haven't you been told you should never furiously crank a lady? I'm told they can be cranky as all getout if'n you do that to them. Especially the older more experienced ones.

Good morning Neil, The RA Aus Tech Manual section 4.0 - 4 states: "Maintenance to owner operated aircraft is the sole responsibility of the owner. ...." Section 4.0 - 6 states: ".... Aircraft used for hire and reward are to be wholly maintained, and/or the maintenance authenticated by, an RA Aus Level Two Maintenance Authority holder. Daily inspections may be completed by the pilot-in command. ...." Section 4.0 - 6.1 gives an out for the people who have been owner operating, and now wish to use the aircraft for hire and reward. Please bear in mind though, this is my interpretation. If you see it differently, give Adam Finn a call for clarification.