David Isaac

No ... you cannot legislate against stupidity, it is a human virtue. But that doesn't stop us from trying ... and the consequences are, we all suffer from stupid legislation.

Your insurer may ask if you operate your aircraft from 'Authorised' airfields and other statements such as Jetjr has stated. 'Authorised' comes from the old meaning of ALA which used to mean 'Authorised Landing Areas'. Under the old definition ALAs were not physically authorised by CASA or any authority. If the ALA met the correct dimensions for the performance of the aircraft operating from it (length, width, slope, obstructions in the approach and departure gradients, it was 'deemed' authorised. I would speculate that because of confusion around this meaning, there was a subsequent change to 'Aeroplane' Landing areas in the current definition. The answer all pilots should give to their insurer of course (as long as it is true) is that they always operate from ALAs as defined by the CASA CAAP and if something goes wrong at a non ALA, if the insurer investigates, expect your claim to be denied. If you tell your insurer truthfully that you operate from non ALAs e.g a one way strip, expect your insurer to exclude cover for operations from such places unless you are a qualified Ag operator doing approved agricultural operations. With our low powered (relativity speaking) aircraft, a special skill set is required to operate from marginal airfields. Most small Council local airfields are simply ALAs, and that is sufficient and adequate in most cases. Things start to change when RPT operations commence. Beware, NOT ALL ALAs are necessarily suitable for your aircraft, that is why you should phone an ALA owner / operator for details before you fly in.

What ... only two jackets for six of you ... group hug is it ... LOL

Perhaps bad wording on my part Happyflyer, I was NOT saying that permission was required. It never was even under the old ALA regulations. I should have said you are required to meet the regulations when using an ALA for the purposes of taking off and landing an aircraft. It is always dangerous to selectively quote from a CAAP, because the very next paragraph following the one you quoted states: "Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator. These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command: (a) has sound piloting skills; and (b) displays sound airmanship" The point I was trying to make is that if you use a paddock (and a simple paddock can be used in compliance if the dimensions and slope are correct) that meets the dimension for your aircraft as detailed in the ALA CAAP; and provided you had not breached other regulations like overloading; and you had an accident, your insurer would be bound to cover you. Good luck with a claim where the landing area did not meet the ALA recommendations.

CASA also requires compliance (and so does your insurer) with the dimensional requirements for your aeroplane laid out in the CASA requirements for 'Aeroplane Landing Areas' (ALAs).

Ryan, I understand how you cannot determine the competency of posts when you are new to this forum. I respectfully suggest there are two highly qualified and competent people (in particular) who have given you advice on here. I would re read posts given by Nev (Facthunter), there are few more qualified and competent than Nev and ; Deadstick a LAME and Jab owner.

if you don't replace them, the problem is NOT fixed.

And they are just the seat rail litigations. There was also an absurd award given to a pilot who attempted a go around in a 172 with full 40 degrees of flap extended and crashed and survived. He sued Cessna because a 172 could not do a successful go around with 40 degrees out, inspite of the POH saying you could not do a go around with 40 degrees out ... Damned if I know what is wrong with the U.S. ligation systems that can award damages in a case like this. Every one trained on 172s is told reduce flap to 20 immediately on a go around and allow they aircraft to accelerate, then reduce remaining flap slowly as plane accelerates. I forgot to add that was the reason Cessna reduced the flap settings on all 152s and 172s to 30 degrees and offered an STC to reduce the existing fleet. Just absolutely absurd, when will pilots take responsibility for their own errors and stop trying to make manufacturers responsible?

The problem is Jetjr, that while there is an 'accepted ' inherent risk in flying, CASA by their actions have implied there is a 'greater' inherent risk in flying Jabiru engined aircraft. That has been established by the regulator requiring additional signed paperwork for flying aircraft fitted with J engines. This has the potential for opportunistic liability claims, perhaps not so easily achieved otherwise.

ROFLMAO ...

Dazza, Do you also do the rear brake mod which converts the in disk handbrake to a driveshaft hand brake. My V8TD GXL Troopy has most of the mods you refer to. I hear the mines are dropping the 70 series because Toyota will not / cannot upgrade them to 5 star Ancap.

I have seen many people over the years lose control of a simple sedan. Many People who rarely drive on highways and then load up their cars with the kids and gear have little idea how to react, avoid and recover and invariably in any emergency manoeuvre lose control of a simple car. It happened 100 metres in front of me this morning on the M1. This poor woman spread her G6 Fairmont across three lanes with bits of metal, plastic and baggage across all three lanes.

That wouldn't get you very far very quick on Aussie highways would it?

No Steve, just a slight blip and she just shuts down clean. Two strokes will if you have the mixture set right, they speed up momentarily as they lean out. If they don't, they are too lean.

That is outrageous Nev, especially with your background and experience and the fact you were an Instructor.

My Gypsy Major does that in the Auster and I run 98 PULP. I shutdown by turning off the fuel these days, it takes a few minutes but allows a good cool down period. It is also safer ... no fuel ... no fire, if some dumb bugga pulls the prop through.

Russ if I understand you correctly full power is 5000 RPM at WOT, is that correct? So then 4600 all day is NOT at WOT? Mind you some aero engines have limits in time on WOT at sea level.

Everything is a compromise and there are exceptions. Weight for power is always the killer. You can use an aluminium Chevy V8 with a reduction drive and they are available, BUT will you get good TBO? Again, weight weight weight. If they were widely successful we would surely see a wider acceptance and use. The Honda Viking is another example ... time will tell.

It may well have been at max revs Dazz, but was it continuously at WOT, and in any case probably not much power (kilowatt) output. The VW engine was a unique example of cruise and max speed being the same; 72 mph from memory, with a warning that the car will be aerodynamically unstable at speeds in excess of 70 mph. Neither of those engines are typical, and the VW the only one light enough to use in aircraft but underpowered for most applications. We are looking for power at WOT in an aircraft application. NOT having a go at you buddy.

The RPL has replaced the SPL and the old GFPT. So in theory you can get your RAAus cert, then convert to RPL and continue your training towards CPL in GA.

That is the real issue. Wide Open Throttle (WOT). The next best comparison is in boating application and in particular boat racing. I know I used to build them and blow them up. WOT as a crude comparison is like driving an automatic vehicle (with high stall torque converter) up against an immovable object and opening the throttle to full power and holding it there for a significant period. Apart from the obvious overheat of the transmission the point is that is the effect of an aeroplane propellor and the effect of boat racing at WOT. Auto engines are NOT driven around at WOT for extended periods and even at highway cruise speeds they are not anywhere near 75% power continuous operation. Towing a heavy caravan up a long continuos hill is the nearest comparison, and we know the overheat issues here unless the vehicle is properly designed for this purpose like my V8 TD in my Landcruiser and at times in hot weather I have to back off and go down a gear to avoid an overheat.

Where are you based Boxfat? If in WA I would contact Potts, if in Qld I'd contact Kevin Walters at Bradfield airfield.

Dazz ... I never said you did, I wasn't even having a go at what you said, I was in fact agreeing with you and saying that what you were talking about is a problem. Why are you being so sensitive buddy.

45 ... Holy Sh!t, getting up their ol' son ... ROFLMAO

Nope ... Deb is prettier ... ROFLMAO