nong

Anyway, Gibbo. I do not know your model of Jabiru. However... Refering to the J160C Pilots Operating Handbook (published by Jabiru) it says "The cockpit is designed to accommodate the pilot in command on the left side and all controls, instruments, selectors and switches are located so as to be within easy reach of the occupant of that seat." Interpretation: The cockpit is optimised for the pilot in command to sit on the left side. Their wording is very deliberate and carefully chosen. They have been at pains not to state that the pilot in command MUST occupy the left seat.

This is one of those things where it is best not to construct a mental hurdle. There is, in a general sense, nothing to it. However, there are considerations. Regarding Jabs with manual flaps... sitting on the right side produces a less favourable mechanical angle for swinging the flap handle up and down but a better angle for moving into and out of detent position. If you have single stick and manual flaps, it will be hard to operate both at once from the right side and this could be significant, or even a show stopper. If fitted with port facing fuel valve arm, it will likely not be directly visible, but you can lean to make it visual or do it by feel, taking your time to identify it's shape. If you have Y stick and electric flaps it really is easy. As a precaution, I recommend you hire an instructor to oversee your practice run (s). Cheers

Graham White CFI and Ralph Buchanan were up from Moruya on 6th July 2014. They went down into the sea. After quite some effort, the wreck was recovered. I understand they lost pitch control due to an error of assembly. You might like to find the ATSB report on the ferris wheel crash. It has photos of very shoddy construction.

Instructors must consider things that a student or low experience pilot, would likely never have had cause to consider. Many will still have raw feelings about the much loved and respected CFI who was killed in a Morgan because the aircraft was not fit for flight. It is established, documented fact, that there has been some appalling workmanship seen in the construction of some Morgan aircraft. Private owners often do not appreciate that it can be difficult and involve elevated risk, to train in an aircraft not correctly fitted out for the job. Instructors have every right to exercise choice.

Probably just a topdresser working the neighbour's farm. Easy to hit top surfaces during a slow P turn. In that era, likely a C180, Cropmaster or C188 out of Casino, operated by Cec Swift.

Your advice (born of ignorance) to use shallow bank angles in the circuit, is deadly when mis-applied. Thousands have died, and that includes plenty of instructors who thought it was a great idea to limit bank angle. Maybe you could test your instructor by asking him/her to explain the practical limitations and deadly temptations of "turning flat".

That instructor was bloody useless! Full power, nose down for speed and bank right toward the runway was required, and pronto! No way should the aircraft have been allowed to head for the trees!! That bloke surely couldn't have been a real instructor.....could he? He was totally behind the aircraft.

Physical check lists have no place in the cockpit of a single pilot, simple, light aircraft. The proven method is to read/study the manufacturers Pilots Notes (which may include lists) for the type. Then, sit in the cockpit and find everything, and then, fly it. Physical check lists are a potentially fatal, head in the cockpit, distraction. Why any pilot would want to ruin the fun of operating an aircraft by fiddling with endless lists, is, I admit, beyond me. The use of check lists in the light aircraft environment promotes rigid unresponsive piloting.

Really? What has the process of registration got to do with airworthiness? Certainly, CASA will happily register a pile of damaged parts. Condition reports were never about declaring a machine to be airworthy. They are about providing some guidance to, a possibly aviation ignorant, new owner. As docjell is not aviation ignorant, it is reasonable that the system should provide for him to waive the intended buyer protection, that was the original rationale for the ACR/UACR.

The C150 stall/spin has been a standard mustering accident over the years. I have often thought lives would be saved if there was a way to mechanically limit rearward elevator travel during flight. Possibly a two-position travel stop. The same might apply to the pedals. C150s have nose-up elevator travel/authority that is excess to that required for normal ops. It is only useful for deliberate spin entry or max effort, short, "bang the tie down loop on the deck" type landings, or boggy strip ops. Imagine if the pilot could select the extra travel, only when required. For the bulk of operations the travel limited, stall/spin protection, would be in place. Anyway, food for thought in a new design. In comparison, I admire the way Jabiru have provided "only just enough" elevator authority on the J160. In other words, sufficient nose-down to cover full flap and full throttle go-around with rear limit C of G, and sufficient nose-up to cover a glide approach round-out at forward limit C of G. This has a lot to do with the scarcity of J160 stall/spin accidents.

The prototype Koolhoven F.K.60 is alive and well at Holbrook. Similar layout to the F.K.58 but everyone calls it a Focke-Wulf. Dutch constructed and RAAus registered.

On the subject of VH- reg. owners supposedly not paying registration. 'Rego' used to be known as Air Navigation Charges and was a heavy fixed impost for those many owners with low or sporadic utilisation. Industry lobbied for a fuel tax, so as to better align utilisation with Air Nav fees incurred. Every time you top up with aviation fuel, you pay 'rego' money. This system has been very successful, to the point that many who post here don't even know that it exists.

All strips within 20 miles of Wagga are private/farm, all with no facilities. This includes Federation, even though it appears in ERSA. The Wagga City Aero Club puts on a tasty spread around mid-day on the first Sunday of each month. Fly-in visitors most welcome, 95.10 to bizjet.

You mean the Ruskies can deliver SU35 by 2020. That is an impressively short lead time compared to F35. Thanks for pointing that out.

Don. I happen to own two registered, non-airworthy, aircraft. There are, in fact, thousands of registered, but non-airworthy, aircraft in Australia. Many prefer to remain registered, so as to avoid the B S associated with placing a machine back on the register. My point stands.

I hope that the next time we are called upon to vote, we can simply log on to the RAAus site, just as we do with our banking. In my case, I didn't trust that the chairman would not 'misplace' my proxy.

It is clear that RAAus Tech has gone draconian. The level of complaints being run past me, by members, has escalated from occasional, to regular, under the current regime. If I were to guess, I would think the Tech Manager might have escaped from a military or airline environment, and possibly, might be a true believer that there is no better way to conduct aviation. In the past, we had been blessed with Tech Managers who were able to adapt to our futuristic, low doc, method of aviation. The new regime is hell bent on creating a 1960's style, centralised reporting system, and micro-managing the maintenance of every aircraft (left) in the fleet. This will enable RAAus Corp. Pty Ltd to build a decent size Tech bureaucracy, headed by a manager who ought to be worth, say, at least $300k per annum. Our members often find it confronting to be, out of the blue, slapped with some bizarre demand from RAAus Tech. A typical example might be where rego falls due, the money is paid, and then Tech spears the transaction with a demand for something described as a "weight and balance." "Huh, I just wanted to register the plane." The member, quite reasonably, has no interest in such matters. Aircraft drops off the register and continues to fly safely, just as it always did. Another outlaw.....courtesy of RAAus Tech. There is no excuse for the working draft of our latest Tech manual, not to be a living document posted on the RAAus web-site. Does anyone out there, smell a rat?

Yes! RAAus aircraft are an excellent CPL hour building tool.

Gee Kasper, that's rough. Maladministration, in my opinion. Assuming your trike is, as you say, a 95.10 trike, RAAus MUST register it. CAO 95.10 Instrument 2014 provides for your trike to be registered. It's a lonely feeling, eh, when you are fighting a one man battle against CASA or RAAus. Believe me, I know. If your aircraft complies with the simple requirements of 95.10, I think you have the makings of a winning hand. However....you must play with skill, cunning and targeted aggression. Oh, and yes. There is one paid employee of RAAus who is way overdue to be taken down. But, of course, you already know that. Cheers.

Seventy+ !!!! You must be kidding. The book speed for short final is 57.....and it works. I have re-trained a few pilots with this error. They tend to say things such as "it's so easy!"

Some pilots have personality or physical defects that are likely to make their flying high risk. For this reason, I have been known to delay or refuse to issue the endorsement.

What about a Bravo with metal caps manufactured a little too large in diameter? A few minutes work with a flat file fixed each one.

I appreciate having local manufacture and use only locally built aircraft in our school. Our Microair gear has given good service. It is good to have manufacturer service available and I have, to date, found their service to be quite satisfactory. Lets call it, one vote on the positive side.

Lets remember... Bureaucracies only push change, when it entrenches the position of, or enwealthens, it's officers.