nickduncs84

IFR guys like avplan. I've used both a lot and think OzR is far better for VFR. Enroute is much for muchness but if you go through the process of filing a flight and and doing a weather briefing for a long flight on both, I think you will find OzR a lot quicker and more intuitive

I get the gripes. Honestly I do. But that's like saying that you don't agree with the government, so you're not going to pay your taxes and you're going to lobby to have no government instead. There aren't enough rec aviators in Auatralia to justify all the whining and infighting. I reckon the SAAA sends out 10 political emails for every 1 that has anything to do with aviation. It's a real shame that everyone can't appreciate each other's views and efforts a little more and make an effort to work together. Part of me thinks that perhaps because aviation attracts such a passionate crowd, that passion carries with it the issues that tend to plague the various sports bodies. But then I look at other countries and don't see the same thing. Either way, I wish the rec aviation scene in Australia was left to focus more on aviation. As for the specific example of discouraging people from other forms of aviation, I don't buy that for a second. How much does Ra Aus or GFA membership cost? And I don't believe you need to be an Ra Aus member for a TIF. Honestly, I don't think you're being serious if your suggesting that the membership fees are preventing people trying different forms of aviation. The annual fee is probably cheaper than an hour of fuel or a night at the pub. If you've wanted to try gliding your whole life, I doubt the fee is stopping you.

Serious question. Why are some people so hell bent on not being a member of Ra Aus?

Ah well now I feel guilty! Poor Dougy paid me 500 for mine! about half price what it cost me which I thought was a decent deal! For what it's worth, the ABWs sure are a big difference on the bearhawk, but a big part of that was that I was having to run the 850s at 20psi with the weight of the bearhawk. The ABWs run at 8psi and that's what makes them soak up the ground on landing. I'm sure the dessers at low pressure would be awesome. I've flown the same ones on a cub and they were very nice.

It's a nice terminal. Most of us could use the walk. The elderly and disabled can get a ride on a cart. I much prefer Melbourne with its longer walks within the terminals than Sydney where you can't walk between international and domestic.

It's really as simple as Pearo says. It can be confusing as to specific frequicies for entering class c sometimes. Usually ersa has the details about which frequencies to use for approach in various places. But don't stress too much, if you call centre and you need to speak to approach for clearance, they will give you the frequency. on departure from class C, remember the extra step of calling delivery before calling ground to taxi. Delivery will give you you're code and airways clearance

Opening a can of worms here, but in general, just because it's not a sound business decisions doesn't mean it's not deductible. If that were the case, corporate jets wouldn't exist! If you are using the aircraft for legitimate business purposes, there's no reason why the cost can't be deductible. Best speak to an accountant for your specific situation, but there are certain business purposes that I use my plane for and I always claim the wet hourly rate and have never had my accountant take issue with it. I'm sure you could be more aggressive with the depreciation, especially if it was majority business use.

Looks to be some correlation to stall speed to me. I get what you're saying and agree that the vast majority of accidents are caused by pilot error, usually on the ground, but I think stall speed does have an influence. If all other factors remained constant and we looked only at stall speed, something that stalls at 60 knots has 4 times the energy to dissapate in a forced landing compared to something that stalls at 30 knots. Maybe it is irrational, but I wouldn't put my son in a Glasair no matter how much experience I had. I would put him in a cub. Like I said, I know there are many other factors that are much more likely to impact on the safety profile, but to me it's the ones I can't control that really scare me.

Wasn't talking about cirrus. G3 as in glasair III. And I'm aware of all of that re engines in experimentals but my point remains. I wouldn't be comfortable in any single engine that stalls at 60 knots. They just aren't reliable enough. But when you combine that with a typical engine setup in planes like this where people are trying to extract every ounce of power, the risk goes up. Many of them have turbos, experimental ignition systems etc. its not the components that can be unsafe it's the installation and maintenance. Note that my opinion may be different if I was an expert in all those things, but I'm not. My point was that you have a lot of reliance on the engine with this type of plane, much more so than even a quick certified single like a mooney.

Can't say I ever gave the deck angle much thought. Maybe it was just the conditions of the day? Or maybe how the seat is even? The aoa at touch down should pretty close

170 and 230 have the same wing. I found that it felt different on landing as well but I think that has more to do with the engine idle. It doesn't want to come down as easy. I didn't like that part too much so I'd slip it in to avoid a massive circuit. Other than that, the 230 is a much nicer plane and the 170 will feel underpowered with 2 on board after you get used to a 230. 6 banger is also a lot smoother to fly behind.

There is an element of it that is related to pilot ability, but as others have said, there is another part that is pure physics. There are issues to do with pilot ability, but I would think that someone of a decent skill level, who flies often enough and has an AoA fitted isn't going to spin it in turning base on a regular flight. The reason why a G3 or Lancair IV aren't my cup of tea relate purely to the things you have no control over. At the end of the day, we're talking about a plane that stalls at 60+ knots, usually with piston engines that have been tuned up to all buggery to get every possible HP out of them. Those two things don't go together in MY opinion. I would also explain these basic principals to any friends of family that were thinking of flying in one. That is, there is experimental and then there is experimental. Flying a carbon cub over a farm paddock is totally different in risk profile when compared to flying a G3 out of Wedderburn. This was my whole issue with the Jabiru saga. There is no effort at all to educate passengers about the specific risk of different aircraft or even airports or flight conditions, yet because one engine fails 6 times every 10000 hours compared with another which only fails 4 times every 10000 hours, we need to get passengers to sign release forms? I would think that a lawyer would have a field day now that this precedent has been set. You mean to tell me that you warned these passengers, but not these ones (who are now dead) even though the risks were well documented. Note that I am not arguing that there should be mandatory passenger disclosure around every type of aviation, rather the opposite. It's up to the pilot to consider all aspects of a flights risk profile and make sure that the passengers are comfortable accepting it.

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/oilfiltertools.html Spruce ship to oz but expensive. Maybe check with oz distributor to see if any of these in stock

I read this report and it's the first thing I thought of too. Makes the whole report seem like amateur hour in my opinion.

Done a lot of flights in and out of most of the metro C and D as well as Albury in the last year. This thread is making something that is rather simple sound quite complex. Sure there are some differences but if you read ERSA you should pick up the important ones. Fly to that little diamond looking thing on the chart, call the tower and do as you're told. The first time I go in somewhere I let them know I'm unfamiliar which probably helps as well. Sometimes I reckon the more regulations you read, the more complicated it seems, especially with CASA. I've yet to be to a place where the common sense approach I mentioned hasn't worked.

No. But if you can get a medical and have an RPL, you have 99% of a PPL anyway so wouldn't take much to upgrade

Current annual OR 100 hour service. CASA registered aircraft in the private category don't require 100 hourly inspections.

Yep totally agree. Quite often the duty runway is not the most favourable from a wind perspective, especially if you go into class C airports. What is a serious xwind or tailwind component for us isn't a big deal for jets. The most challenging landings I've had from a wind perspective have been at Adelaide when there has been either a stiff xwind or a decent tailwind.

These are pretty cool and surprisingly affordable. One gets you 180 degree vision and two back to back gets full 360 vision http://kodakpixpro.com/Americas/

The point that many of us took issue with wasn't the issue of propeller safety it was the issue of how a well intentioned photo turned into another aviation pi$$ing match. Also the practice of passing judgment based on photo when you can't possibly know all the facts of the scenario. This post is a further example of why some people got annoyed. You say the kids were hanging off the prop? That's not even close to accurate and now people that haven't seen the photo assume it to be true. The point is, if you see something and feel it's a safety issue, then approach things the right way. The way you would approach them if you saw it in person. Pull them aside, ask for clarification and make sure they understand the risk. That doesn't tend to happen on the Internet for some reason. No with that off my chest, thank you for the post. A post on a forum like this about an important safety issue like this is a good thing. On this specific topic, I'm not sure what others have experienced in training, but there sure seems to be some variation. With lycoming engines I was taught about the risk of the engine firing and to assume it will fire if the mag clicks, but it certainly wasn't drilled into me to never touch the prop or stand within its arc. It would also be useful to talk about the variations in engines and engine systems and how it impacts the likelihood of the engine firing. So for example, carb vs fuel injection, hot vs cold, mags off vs on. I guess the key is, many of us would assume that if the mags were off or if there was no fuel in the engine then it wouldn't be possible for it to fire, but maybe there are surprising situations that we should be aware of? Anyway, like I said, a good topic and a valid point. The only thing that annoys many of us is how quickly the conversation can take the tone of an arrogant yelling match rather than a hangar conversation amongst friends.

iPad needs 2.1 amps. Is the adapter / fuse appropriate? Any electrical store will have the battery packs. Easy to use but in panel charging is much better and given you already have it set up, should be fairly easy to troubleshoot

Had an air. Sold it and got a mini. Much better for the cockpit.

Awesome!!! Love the paint job!

Mine was an iPad mini 2. The only way I works out what was going on was after the flight and doing the unlock sequence, I could hear the sound of it working. I suspect some may have not got that far and taken it in not knowing what was wrong with it. Either way it was pretty much brand new and like I said, from speaking to the guy at the Apple Store, it was clearly a common issue at the time. I'm a big fan of Apple Products but don't have the blind faith I used to. There is no way I'd go on a long trip now without a backup. For most people, they will be able to get some sort of efb on their phone which I think is a smart move. I'd also caution people about updating both the iOS software and the efb software prematurely. Many people on this forum have run in to issues caused by updates. If it's working as you expect and there is a software update released, it's best to wait a week. That way you will find that others are the ones that find the bugs.

I have had an iPad fail during flight. I thought a restart would fix it but no luck. Turned out the screen had failed. When I took it in to be replaced (was only a few months old) they weren't surprised so it must happen often enough. Luckily for me at the time I had RWY installed on my android phone and was able to get what I needed from that but it certainly made me realise that devices can fail. I now have an iPhone and iPad with all required maps and ersa pages downloaded. You'd have to be having a bad day if they both failed. I've also got a GPS in the aircraft. All in all enough for me to not worry about paper. I've had the argument with someone before about always carrying paper charts. Their argument was that paper is the only way to be safe. I say bollocks and if you're worried about 2 devices failing, buy a 3rd. It will still be cheaper than paying to keep paper charts etc updated.