Oscar

Just under 16% of the votes were against the move to a Company. So much for the desire for a 'club'..... FT - you need to have the doses changed - again.

Your smartarris and totally fatuous comment, FT, is expected. The number registering a vote is somewhat more than I personally expected, which to me indicates that the information campaign by RAA was fairly effective, in terms of reach to the membership. So - perhaps 5% of members (to be generous) are 'concerned' about the proposed changes. About 12.5% - maybe 15%, are interested enough in the composition of RAA management, to be bothered to register any opinion. What I conclude from that, is that more than 80% of the 'Recreational' - by CASA distinction -aviators in Australia - DO NOT CARE about such issues as 'democracy' in the organisation that provides them with the services they are required to utilise to simply fly legally, and hopefully, safely. They just want that situation to continue. Of those who DID vote, it would appear that 75% are sufficiently satisfied in the ability (or have trust in that) of the current Board to move RAA forward in the provision of the services they need. They are in no way interested in - let alone give any credence to - the sort of ranting of the FTs and Turbs's of the world.

Along with all of his lads.... they are a top mob of people and they LOVE their aircraft (well, not Jabs., but I know why, and I rarely disagree with their comments, TBH.) But they humour me and more importantly, they help me understand what, why and how to do things.. and having access to that depth of expertise is a resource of which no amateur should ever, ever underestimate the value.

Blimey, DR - were you leaving Camden? I saw your plane at Dave Dent's place a few weeks ago - absolutely beautiful, glad it wasn't scratched!.

And that is complete and utter Bullsh1t. Every piece of legislation that is passed by Parliament, may come under consideration by the High Court - and be ruled invalid.

ANY tool that does a satisfactory job, is 'good enough' - and unless you have an expectation of using it for many other jobs, if it amortises its cost, then you have a satisfactory tool. Many of the power tools I own are well more than 15-20 years old and look as if they've been thrown into a rock crusher at some stage - through use. Some of them are from companies no longer in existence. Horses for courses here. If I'm ripping hardwood sleepers, I use an old B&D 'Industrial' 9.5" saw - fine for the job. If repairing the split top of an early C20 Australian Cedar bureau to insert a repair strip, I use the Robland, the Elu or the Festo ( for various tasks of that job). The difference is: the B&D wanders due to bearing slop by up to 1/8 inch or more; the Robland, Elu or Festo saws will all cut to within about 0.2mm. BUT - you have to know how to treat them; they do NOT tolerate abuse well. We've all met the guy who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge (including Milson's Point Station) using nothing but his Ozito 100mm angle grinder and a pair of knock-off, unbranded Vice-Grips. More power to him, I say. But if you're doing a job that requires precision - and some jobs do require that - then if your tool can't deliver the required precision you are chasing your tail.

Yes, I did note that - and what I have found, is that I can buy from even small suppliers of 'engineering' quality stuff, proper grade bolts and nuts at cheaper prices than I get from Bunnings. And, around where I live, there are very few alternates to Bunnings, but I always head to them first for ANY industrial-grade fasteners. For 'Trade' quality, most of the Bunnings stuff suffices.

I have AEG tools (variable-speed hammer drill, power-plane) with over 40 years service. I have Metabo, Fein, Festo and Makita tools with over 20 years service - and my first boat was built by me in 1965; my last, a 15-metre 1939 double-diagonal Sydney built Trawler complete reconstruction from the keel upwards finished in 2004 and sailed up from Lakes Entrance to Sydney. I know AEG prime-quality from AEG consumer quality. And if you have ruined festo equipment, then you don't know how to properly use equipment. Just 'sayin'.

I agree, and I've never seen a shattered rotor either, but I've seen some seriously warped steel ones. I rode a GSX850 for about a year, that had hard spots in the rotors that would cause lock-up in the dry on even moderate braking; my right-hand became a proto-ABS modulator... mentally added about 20 metres plus at urban speeds to any braking point requiring hard braking so I'd have knocked off enough speed before tipping it in. My CB400/4 was the best fun you could have while not entirely horizontal, but the single s/s front rotor was just crap in the wet - the drum back was great fun in the wet, backing it in wildly - very, very predictable.

FFS - if the Turn Co-ordinator OR Turn and Slip Indicator ('ball and bat') is electric, then it needs electric power to spin the gyro. If it's vacuum - (BOTH types come in either vacuum OR electric ), then electric power to the instrument would only need to be applied to power the instrument backlight for night flying. A Turn Co-ordinator is a subtly different instrument to a T&S instrument; for general flying in VFR particularly, a Turn Co-ordinator is probably the more useful - but for full VFR, a T&S plus an A/H, is the best combination - provided you are trained to know what they are reporting. The 'whirring sound' is the gyro spinning up. Without the gyro spinning, the instrument is useless, and gives entirely false information. Without whatever power is required, the very sophisticated 'correction' facilities of either, are NOT present on the display, and if needing to rely on that information, you will be in deep sh$t. Please- for your own safety - research the operating principles of both instruments. They ARE different; even the axis of the gyro is different. And, either needs to have the appropriate source of energy in operation.

I can't remember, which F1 racer once dryly commented that 'total brake failure at the end of the main straight, concentrates the mind wonderfully'. I've had the 'Japanese stainless rotors in the wet' syndrome on several bikes: on a CBX100o ( the six), at a 'cracking pace' it was more than enough cardiac exercise to replace a week of sedentary life... a shattered rotor in the dry, is the stuff of serious and enduring nightmares.

I have yet to see any convincing argument as to why 7 members of the Board will be better than 5. While 7 happens to be emotionally a favourite number for people of Anglo-saxon descent ( in the same way that 13 is considered unlucky), I have not seen ONE cogent argument linking 7 to a more effective result for the management of RAA. No reconciliation of desirable skills/qualities vs. a demostrable RAA necessity for such skills/qualities. IF I were to be persuaded in my vote ( which I don't have, so I have no immediate dog in this fight) that 7 is magically a better number, I'd want to see argument with justification as to why. Personally, I think that a small Board comprised of well-qualified people to steer the RAA forward, has a better chance of achieving that aim, than a larger Board. I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong. Now, before I am jumped upon for inconsistency - in that I have simply 'thought of a number', just as others have - let me state unequivocally that I don't believe it is NECESSARY for the administration of the RAA regulatory responsibilities to have ANY form of 'democratic' management of this function. If an alternative service company were to come forward, to offer me the ability to fly my recreational-class aircraft in compliance with all of the applicable regulations for registration, pilot certification etc. at a reduced cost, I would take that option. I would ALSO join with and put my cash contribution towards an organisation that promotes the 'interests' of recreational aviators, because we need that function. In terms of being 'legally' allowed to fly - there is NO - I repeat, NO - requirement by CASA that any organisation to provide compliance services, be 'democratic'. CASA could not care less if RAA is run by Vlad the Impaler, as long as it discharges its compliance functions impeccably. That the existing, marvelously 'democratic' Board of 13 (??) completely failed to do that, is a matter of record. That something of the order of 90% of RAA members can't be ar$ed to vote, is proof that 'democracy' within RAA is not valued. What I suggest IS valued, is a professional, competent and efficient compliance service.

Yep, that's probably true. But what you aren't mentioning, is that MOST of the stuff that Bunnings et. al are selling, are the 'second quality' product lines of those manufacturers. DeWalt is now a subsidiary of Black and Decker ( from memory) and has gone way down on its former reputation; the Makita and Bosch (and AEG) 'second-quality' lines are mostly crap. Both Makita and Bosch DO make good tools, though not the quality of Metabo, Fein, Festo etc. ( though Makita top-quality stuff is well up there in quality AND price).

If you've ever bought proper AN hardware, you'll find it cheaper than Bunnings 'equivalents' - which aren't equivalent. Not as convenient, you need to plan your acquisitions and sometimes wait for some days to receive them from Aviall, or Skyshop, or whoever. I buy a lot of AN stuff from QED (Dent Aviation, in Camden), who are a small organisation for whom the stock-in-hand cost vs. their turnover would be hugely larger than for a mass-consumer store, and I get the EXACT bolt etc. that I need at a cost that very frequently astonishes me as being too cheap!. Now, try to purchase from Bunnings ( or any mass-consumer store) a spec.-quality bolt that you can trust for a specific purpose that has a drilled head for lock-wire security and a drilled shank to use a castellated nut for use in a hot area - say, for your engine mounts... that has the exact grip length you need to maintain the mechanical integrity of the jointed components with the correct thread length for the nut you have to use. That fits properly into the holes. That has a finish coating of known composition.

A significant part of what you pay for with 'release' components, is the paper trail back through the entire manufacturing process to - in some cases - the batch of metal they were made from. That means, that if one of these fails anywhere, when the analysis of why it failed is done, the cause of the fault can be established and A/D's, S.B.s etc. can be issued to save someone else from suffering the same failure. You just might have had the 'next one' to fail, without that back-up. As for 'there's nothing wrong with Bunnings parts' - yes, sometimes there isn't. But you might want to ask someone like Dave Dent about nylocs that wouldn't even take the recommended bolt torque on the main u/c legs, for instance. The problem I have found with quite a lot of Chinese-sourced stuff, is that while MOST of it is ok - and frequently, the basic design is good - there is such piss-poor quality control that something fails. I had a brand-new Peerless air compressor - trade-quality, 'Proudly made in Australia' - using, when I got onto the factory about the fact that after a few hours of running, it wouldn't even get to 20 psi.; - a Chinese pump (not noted in the Peerless advertising). After I replaced all the head bolts with PROPER Grade-8's - most had stripped at around 12 pds/ft, for 1/4" bolts!!! - and the valve petals with proper-spec. ones supplied by Peerless, it's run like clockwork for the last 7 years or so.

Have you reoprted to Ian Bent? That sounds as if the TOCA is running a bit low, though where the OT probe is located may have some influence on that. I'm very interested, as about to mount a CAE TOCA on my engine.

It looks as if the oil fumes are routed back to the sump through the top of the crankcase ( NOT the actual cylinder barrel!!!!), while any water vapour should condense on the catch-can and accumulate in the bottom of it. So, yes, I'd expect a build up of emulsified water/oil in the catch can, and emptying that frequently would be a very good idea. The CAMit TOCA (Thermostatically-controlled Oil-Cooler Adaptor) is a seriously good concept to: a) minimise ground-run time to ensure satisfactory operating oil-temp; b) ensure that you can run adequate oil-cooling capacity for all operating conditions without fudging the oil-cooler path for ambient conditions; c) ensure that oil-temp is optimal to boil-off water vapour, thus removing the sulfuric acid build-up from low oil-temp. operation. We all know that too high CHT's kills Jab engines. The effects of too LOW oil temps. is also a problem - but almost unrecognised. The oil temps need to be kept within a close tolerance range: too high and both the lubricating qualities and the heat transfer potential is reduced, and if very much too high, carbonisation will have drastic effects throughout the entire engine. But too LOW, is not something well understood. One of CAMit's development partners, not too long ago, examined a failed main bearing shell from a Jab. engine and stated that it was a classic case of water in the oil boiling when hitting the heavily-stressed and hot main bearing and blowing the oil away from the shell centre. Most people observing a main-bearing shell failure ascribe it to a tunnel clearance problem - but more expert knowledge can identify a completely different cause.

Russ, have a great trip, take care, enjoy..

Some aromatics will cause some fuel lines to swell, and restrict flow. Those who think that they are doing their engines a favour by running on 98 PULP, may well be introducing more problems than they are hoping they eliminate ( and frankly, anything less than extremely fresh 98 PULP is a waste of money and relying on it to perform as advertised is false hope).

Kasper - as a builder yourself, you will KNOW that you cannot expect to train people on-line about HOW to do maintenance. How do you teach people on-line to recognise that they've exceeded the elastic limits of the nut thread they've just over-tightened and partially stripped? You will know as well as anybody, that there are people we classify as having 'lover's hands' ( i.e., they f$ck everything they touch..) How many L1 maintainers have a set of number drills for accurate-specification rivet holes? Or a set of expanding reamers for holes for bolts needing to be a close-tolerance fit to the hole?. Not to use a pencil to mark aluminium parts? Where to use lithium grease instead of graphite grease? How many have calibrated torque wrenches? Cable tensiometers? Safety wire pliers and the knowledge of how to use them correctly? I've seen - on a thread on this site - someone cheerfully announcing that they had found that silicon bronze filler rod was a good, cheap replacement for the pins on 5052 piano hinge on primary control surfaces - FFS. You would know every bolt, nut and rivet on your self-built single-seater. Would you just jump into the rh seat of an aircraft built and maintained by somebody else whose proficiency you did not know, on the basis they had an L1 ?

Ah, yes, the 'good old days'. But, nostalgia is just not what it used to be. That caused four successive CASA audits of compliance with the CAO's to fail. That put RAA in the position of defending a nearly $1m lawsuit for its failure to properly administer the requirements ( and which it escaped not by having a decent case, but by an unrelated but fortuitous judicial decision of the fundamental nature of Recreational Aviation being 'inherently dangerous'). That has left many aircraft owners with aircraft that cannot legally undertake flying in the circumstances for which they were purchased, with regard to MTOW for a start. That allowed aircraft that had NO actual qualification to BE registered. RAA does not set the requirements - it only ADMINISTERS them ( see post #62 for a reproduction of the ACTUAL role of RAA, and WHO sets the requirements.) Which part of 'CASA, on behalf of the Federal Government, is our master' is so difficult to grasp?

Actually, he's not overweight for his height, he's a bloody large Doberman at nearly 30" at the shoulder -over the breed standard, though his pedigree is so good he'd never talk to me if he knew.. My vet says he's in exemplary nick; he hits nearly 40Kph up the farm drive... and he CAN probably spell Jabbibleroo better than I.

With due respect to all, this debate is getting way off the mark. Linking it to the proposed constitutional changes is really a bridge too far. May I ask everybody to look at the ACTUAL role that CASA imposes on all SASA organisations (the bolding is mine): Australian sport aviation operates under self-administration. This means that CASA sets the regulations and then through its dedicated self-administering sport aviation office (SASAO) works in close cooperation with established recreational aviation administration organisations (RAAOs), to make sure the regulations are applied and enforced. The RAAOs provide CASA with specialist knowledge of, and insight into, the sport aviation industry. The Sport Aviation Self Administration Handbook 2010 provides further detail of CASA’s expectations for RAAOs and their board members in ensuring that self-administration is providing a safe environment for sport aviators, as well as for other airspace users and people and property on the ground. RAAOs are required to meet performance standards and undergo surveillance events (audits). The organisations must continually assure CASA that they are providing appropriate oversight of their sport aviation activities and managing risks. Anybody who has had to deal with CASA directly, knows that it can be dictatorial, unpredictable and sometimes downright vindictive in the way it approaches the 'industry'. The Forsyth Review highlighted this concern that was - and remains - an endemic problem for everybody under its jurisdiction - which means, anybody who flies anything (including drones flown using your iPhone.. Kites may be excepted). Ask any engineer who has worked under the CAR regime, or now works as a Part 21M engineer, about dealing with CASA. In order to gain more 'freedom' to just fly our aircraft around, blaming RAA (or SAA, HGFA or GFA) is tilting at the wrong windmills. Whilst ever CASA is THE 'authority' with the power, we are stuck with it. If you want change, then get POLITICAL, lobby for exception - rather than exemption - from CASA authority, to be recognised in Federal legislation. Good luck with that. I'll happily join with anybody in pushing for it, but I will not expect to be successful. Once Federal legislation is invoked, removing it is historically almost never successful. If RAA had invested, years ago, an IT-based on-line system for reporting and recording maintenance compliance, these audits would not be required - other than perhaps to prove that the self-reporting was accurate and true. CAR 35 and Part 21M engineers are subject to CASA audits, about every 2 years; it takes weeks to ensure that every piece of paperwork is 100% in order, and sometimes days to undergo the audit. What does it take to photocopy your log books and post that off? A couple of hours? Random audits of many aspects of our lives is a fact of life. Have you ever looked at the powers of the ATO to audit your financial records? It exceeds most Police powers!. If you can't produce every bit of paper for the last 7 years - you can be in deep cacky. Have you never been pulled off the road for an RBT? If you hold a gun licence, you WILL be visited by the Police for an inspection of your storage facilities and the fact that all your guns are securely in that storage facility, with the bolts and ammunition in a separate locked facility, and they don't make appointments. OHS inspectors can descend on your workplace at any time - and I happen to know of one case where this happened and the builder of crew (house-building) was charged for not having provided safe seats for smoko- they were sitting on their eskies - and several were charged with having no record of their passengers travelling in their registered vehicle to the workplace. If you are an owner-builder knocking up a shed - you are not immune to inspections. It is entirely possible - I completely accept that - that these RAA audits are not being handled in the best possible way. I believe that RAA is coming from so far behind the 8-ball in regard to its systems - and that is a legacy of years of ridiculously / scandalously poor administration - that it has to adopt an inefficient methodology to accomplish this. It will take quite a lot of investment in systems development to improve that situation. I would suggest, that these audits are a response BY RAA to keep RAA members protected from worse consequences, should CASA determine - arbitrarily as CASA does - that there is a 'safety' issue they decide to address. CASA is the master of inventing ways to augment its authority and by that, improve its intervention in matter of aviating - thus increasing de facto its powers and staff required to implement its powers. If you are really, really incensed by this action by RAA, then just possibly, you are participating in the wrong sport. Try rock fishing - it has less intervention. You have a statistically greater chance of being killed, but it's your choice.

Russ, he's 42 kgs of Doberman, built by the guys who did Schwarzenegger from materials left over from Stonehenge, so when he gives you a 'heads-up', you head, up... But if your idea of fun is jumping out of first floor windows onto a bicycle and missing the pedals with your feet, then he's your dog, all right... and being amazingly amiable, when you are rolling on the floor in agony, he'll lick your face in apology until it absolutely gleams. Life just doesn't get much better than this.... maybe we should send him off to cheer up the SASAO and get them in the right acquiescent frame of mind to sort out the Jaburi mess...

Full tension is only required to achieve the pretension for dynamic load condition.