KRviator

But the problem with that clause is the broker is saying you cannot rely on what is written in the logbooks should you want to sue. " An extreme example might be the Vans SB for HS cracks in the RV series. @skippydiesel reviews the logbooks, and finds the following "SB 16-03-28 c/w, crack found, stop drilled, doubler installed IAW SB". He thinks, "great, they've done the SB, found & fixed the problem, all's well!", when in reality, someone CBF inspecting the wing and just wrote it off as done, the aileron bracket fails with the aileron departing the airframe. @skippydiesel rolls inverted and augers in, and can no longer work as a result of injuries sustained. He goes to sue the vendor for multi-squillions for lifetime care, et al, who points to the sales contract and says "Sorry, @skippydiesel, your fault entirely. You should have physically checked that SB was complied with, rather than relying on a logbook entry that says it was, because the sales contract you signed says you acknowledged you can't rely on what's written in the logbooks! Tough titties!" If the agent or vendor won't warrant the logbooks are accurate, they're worthless, and the price should be adjusted downwards significantly to reflect their (meaningless) value if they want to make a sale. Oh, and expect the aircraft to be disassembled to confirm compliance with SB's and AD's as applicable by the buyer's L2/LAME.

No, @440032 is right. I didn't think he was and went looking. CAO95.55 fliers are exempt from pretty much ALL the CASR's and only a few of the CAR's. Contrary to popular belief, I like being wrong - I'll learn something that way!

If it is a PVT strip, do what the owner said. For all you know they've got fences or something on the grass, put out their X's and the cows have trampled them into the ground. There could be a myriad of reasons you've been told to use the sealed strip, and you won't be likely to get PPR a second time if you landed on the grass after being told the sealed strip. Just remember CASR 91.410, that makes crashing illegal. If you land on the grass, even if you greased it on, and you somehow crash, you're a criminal as it wasn't suitable.

Yeah, the broker can f&*k that right off. You are legally entitled to rely on what is disclosed in the logbook, and for him to try to weasel out with that kind of jargon is enough to make me think twice too. IF he won't budge, then there's more fish in the sea, it just might take you a bit longer. IF you want an RV-9A I can do you a deal when I've signed off the 100-hourly! 😛 It's not that they can't be relied on by the broker, but the broker saying, in effect, they cannot be relied upon, and you have no claim either way because of that. About the only possible reason I can think of putting that in there is the logbooks saying something like "GTN-750 Installed 01/01/2019" and old mate finding he didn't like it and so removed it and put a GTN-650 in and forgot to log it, or a typo along those lines, there's a -650 installed, but someone typed -750. There's a $10K claim right there. I like @facthunter's idea though, "You're saying I cannot rely on what is written in the logbook, that being the case, the logs have no value and the price needs to be adjusted downwards accordingly...Here's a bank cheque with my new and final offer"

That's not necessarily true in my case, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we're in the Upper Hunter, 5 hours from Sydney Airport, 2 from Newcastle and 2 from Tamworth, there's no RPT service within cooee for us. Due to that, in the time taken to drive to Sydney, park, check-in and get to the gate, we could have pushed a Twin-Co/Bo/Deb out of our hangar at home, flown to Townsville and be taxiing to parking. Secondly, I've flown Jetstar once and would never do it again. The seat pitch and service is woeful. For a family of four it is $400pp Sydney-Townsville 4 weeks out, so $3,200 return with Jetstar, $470pp with RedRat, plus parking, fuel & airport travel time. 5.5 hrs at 155KTAS at 60LPH x 2 =a total 660L of fuel at $1.60-2.20/L. The Deb has a Mogas STC available, but even without, the total Avgas cost is still less than the one way cost of airfares for 4. (Un)fortunately, both the rugrats do like flying and regularly want to go after school, so it's not as simple as thinking "buy a 4-seater for the KRviatrix & me". We do need a 4 seater to carry 4 of us routinely. Thirdly, with the airlines, you're limited to flying when they want to go and where they want to go. Certainly I agree with GA you're weather-constrained, but good (safe?) planning takes that in to account. We haven't had to be somewhere on a certain date and left it too late that we had to fly in iffy weather. For that, we do fly RPT, but if it's going to Townsville to see the Cowboys play we leave a day or two in advance and enjoy a 2-day stay in Townsville before the game. If we do get held up, we've still got that 24-48 hr margin before the game. We do the same with QF anyway, making sure we get there the day before lest they cancel the flight. It's happened before (to a good mate) and he made it to the game by less than a bees d*ck. I have, yes, but I haven't thought it necessary just yet. Given there's several potential candidates advertised through these brokers I 'thought' there might be a suitable aircraft among those listed. The tough part is finding out as none of the asshat brokers will bother to reply to you, hence this thread. The other option I've seriously considered is going through the likes of AirHistory, JetPHotos, etc to find those Comanches/Twin-Co's/Bonanza or Deb's with tip tanks and penning a letter to their owners directly. VH-ADD for example is just down the road, and has been owned by the same bloke since 1972! My logic (flawed it may be) would be he's gotta be getting close to hanging up the headset, and would he like to see his plane kept flying, rather than becoming a hangar queen?

I've seriously considered a 182Q, and it's like the RV-10, not great at anything, but good at everything, but...using the figures from the Redcliffe Aero club's 182 (simply the first one I found), shows it has a useful load of only 1,000lbs, or 217Kg after loading full fuel. A Comanche C I missed out on by a weekend could load full fuel (90USG), 305Kg of people and 29kg of baggage and not be overweight or out of balance, and blow the doors of a 182 for next-to-no difference in fuel. A 206 would be good, but the few for sale are all mega $$$ or mega hours. There's no in between. While I'm not planning flying IMC routinely, NVFR is definitely on the agenda. Hence me considering that Twin-Co, even though I'm not twin rated yet. For the same reason I'll be installing an EFIS in whatever I do end up getting. The Dynon (and Garmin equivalent) provides massive safety benefits over the standard 6 pack, in addition to ADS-B out and EMS functionality - as well as spoken "gear down, d*ckhead!" alarms in your headset if you forget to dangle the dunlops. And to bring this back on the initial topic, it's now the 24th May, making it 4 days since I left a voicemail asking a broker to call me back, 6 days after I replied to another broker's email seeking some more info on a Debonair, and 6 days since I sent an email to a third broker following up an email I'd originally sent on the 3rd May - so that's now 3 weeks since I initially enquired about a plane he has listed, with no contact from him. At what point does it transition from laziness to incompetence? 🤨

I could put a C146 GNSS in the -9 and fly IFR no problems, but it doesn't solve the 4 seat issue.

Nope! FIKI is definitely not on the agenda. Too much added weight and complexity for something that's not needed. If the weather's that bad, I'll drive. Or wait it out.

The listing shows LH Propeller TSO 80.1 due 2024 & RH propeller TSO 0.0 due 2029. If it has the 'standard' props on a Comanche, I thought the overhaul period was 2,000hrs or 5 years, however, CAsA AD/PROP/01 says a 2,000h or 10 year TBO if I've read it right. IT's got the following that I'd probably keep: GNS430 - but they don't say what suffix, so it might be a 'straight' -430 or a -430A (and thus only TSO-C219) or it might be a -430W (TSO-C146) which means I can use it for sole-means navigation in IMC It has what looks like an STEC-50 autopilot and; An Icarus SAM GNSS steering module. Everything else is straight from the 1960's. I have a quote to put a full Dynon installation in a Comanche 260C that was about $50K including autopilot, but without the AP it would likely be around $30-35K for EFIS & EMS, so I'd probably go for that. I have the full Dynon setup in the RV and love it. The only thing I would lose if I go that route is Heading Hold, and Alt Capture, as the Dynon won't talk to the STEC. I would have wing-leveller and Alt Hold, as well as VOR/GPS Nav which is suitable. The big question is whether it will meet book speeds & endurance, but with 120USG of fuel testing endurance might be a big ask! 😆

Following on from the above, since I can't edit the post, what am I missing or what other info should I request for a Twin-Co? Date of last 100 hourly? Compressions at last 100-hourly Date of engine overhauls? 500h magneto overhaul due when? Last flown? 1000-hr L/G AD complied with? (Comanche specific) Gear trunnion NDT / AD? (Comanche specific) Gear bungees last done? (Comanche specific) Conduits replaced? (Comanche Specific) BEW & ARM? Fuel capacity? (Pretty sure it has the 120Gal tanks from what I can make out of the fuel cal card, but want to check) On oil analysis? GNS 430/W/A? Any current unserviceability’s? Nacelle corrosion AD c/w & date? Autopilot type? (STEC 50 by the looks, but want to confirm) Speed or performance mods installed? ADS-B? and finally; Any damage history? It's a fairly comprehensive list, and I'll end up emailing it to the vendor, I've found her direct email address, so she can get the answers in her own time and get back to me.

And here's another one... A "1968 A36 Bonanza"... Except AIUI, the A36 didn't come out until 1969 and the earliest ones on the register are 1970 models. A phone call to this broker went to voicemail, a message was left yesterday requesting a call back. 24 hours later, still nothing... I'm still waiting on a reply to 2 emails sent regarding this '77 A36 Bonanza, the first was sent 03rd May, a follow-up sent on the 18th May - so to the owner of VH-KMT, you might like to ask your broker to actually do their f^&@*N JOB! At least, if you want to actually sell your plane, that is...🤬 Also still waiting on a reply to an email I sent on the 18th with a couple of follow-up questions about this nice-looking Debonair. Nothing too hard, I would have thought, just if there is a W&B newer than 1962, the total fuel capacity (the Deb had LR tanks as an option), wing bolt status and when the engine was overhauled. These are all questions I would have thought a broker would have ready access to allowing a speedy response to a potential buyer. Maybe I should show this to the KRviatrix and try "I've tried to buy a 4-seater, sweetie, but I can't...I might have to build an RV-10 if we really want 4 seats!" Though my next port of call is to think of a few type-specific questions and email the contact for a Twin Comanche advertised in WA. IT'll need a full panel overhaul, but if the W&B works out, I'd take the Twinkie over anything else, bar the overhaul costs!

When you've wrapped your pristine RV-7 into a ball, I'm not sure Van himself could identify it, so it's really a moot point.

What I don't get though - and I speak as a buyer ready to go with $$$ in hand - is all the bollocks I need to go through to determine if the plane advertised is suitable. If it is, and it passes a prebuy, they'll have a bank cheque by the end of that day. Hell, I'd fly it down to the seller and leave the RV there overnight to fly the new toy home! But all this obfuscation, and detail-free ads only delays the sale, or puts me off an individual plane, in turn delaying a potential sale, and the $$ to both vendor & broker. I truly wonder if any sellers realise how much of a disservice they're doing by using some of these so-called brokers. I can understand wanting to avoid the crap that @Jabiru7252 went through, but I'd make the first point of contact an email in that case. You can then read their bollocks over a beer that night, roll your eyes and add it to the spam list. But when it comes time to sell the RV-9 in a month or two, I'll be listing it myself on PlaneSales with aswag of photos, the W&B, as many details as I can squeeze in, and a couple of notes about things I fluffed during the build. They're all things I'd want to know!

The short answer, apparently, is "very". So the back story is I didn't listen to the KRviatrix when she said "Build a -10!". Nope, I thought I knew better and built an RV-9...Well, two became 4 rather quickly and we need 4 seats, so I've been plane-shopping for the last year or so, asking the brains trust here of their opinions on the Cardinal and Comanche. But that's not the point...What bloke, whose missus gives permission to build an RV-10, builds an RV-9?!?🤬 Annywayyys.. I've been scouring the various broker's websites for something suitable and that is where the problem starts. It isn't restricted to one broker, agent or person either. Here's a few examples: A Comanche 260 listed with a MTOW of 3,200Lbs. Except the -260's never had a MTOW that high, they were 2,900Lbs, or a full 136Kg less. That particular Comanche also has a BEW of 1,936Lbs, over 200lbs heavier than expected. Asked about where the extra weight was, there was no answer. Oh, this was also advertised as "Offers wanted". An A36 Bonanza listed with a single, exterior, photo and "Call for price". NO other details! Not one! No component times, AFTT, engine HTR or TSO, nada! And this is from a broker! If they listed my plane like that, I'd be royally pi$$ed... Another A36 Bonza originally advertised as having two G5's, though the photos showed gyros. Since updated to state "IFR upgrade available for extra $$!". I've sent two emails with specific questions to this particular broker in the last 3 weeks through the PlaneSales website and there's been zero in return. Again, you want me to advertise my plane with you, then respond to potential buyers! A broker who, when asked for the W&B data sent the original document in the AFM, from 1962! I'm yet to hear back if there is something newer, maybe from this century? Same with things like fuel capacity, wing bolt status (kinda important for the Bonza/Deb series) etc. Though to his credit, this particular broker used very good photos in his ad, you can "open in new tab" and zoom in a looong way - enough to realise there's no fuel cal card on the panel! Another broker who listed-delisted-listed-delisted-listed a Comanche that would have fit the bill almost perfectly, knew I was interested, and CBF with so much as a simple phone call to say "hey, that -260B you were interested in is for sale again!". Probably a good thing though, as I understand the new buyer had an electrical smoke/fire event on flying it to its' new home! Brokers who try to hide the rego mark by photo-shopping the external photos. Seriously? There ain't that many of each make/model in the country so it usually takes me all of 5 minutes with Google to pick out the specific airframe. Though if they forget to hide the radio-call placard on the panel, it makes life so much easier! Why bother? Afraid the owner will sell it out from under you? Then I'd suggest updating your contract to reflect "if it sells in X months while I've listed it, I get paid anyway". Why make me waste my time, just tell me the rego... Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that if you're advertising something for in excess of $100K, that you would get the basics right, that you would actually list the details a buyer might want to know, and you would have more than one photo! When I advertised my hangar, I had the 4 elevation photos, a satellite photo, an aerial photo and diagrams showing where the phone, power, water & gas lines were. I don't think that's OCD or over the top, but rather trying to appeal to more potential buyers. By the same token, list accurate information, because if you can't even get the MTOW right, what else have you got wrong? I'm lucky enough to have enough $$ available to redraw from the mortgage to grab the right plane if it comes along, before I sell my RV, but trying to work out if something is that right plane is frustratingly hard. So that's my rant for today.

Not always that easy. I can't remove the cowl on the RV without a screwdriver, pliers, 15 minutes and about a dozen profanities. The easy to see result of that is the hoses & pretty much everything under the cowl goes physically unchecked between oil changes. I touch what I can through the inlet & oil door but that isn't much. A seconds later and it would have been particularly nasty. There is SFA chance of a good outcome if you have an early EFATO at Somersby. Truly a lovely little airfield that was beautifully close to home but I always had a good dose of nerves for the first 30 seconds or so till you get enough height to glide clear of the trees. This satellite shows why...

What did those Tecnam Twins end up going for? Anyone know?

Where is the requirement to "apply" for CTA access referred to, @skippydiesel?

Typically around 1,600km. With all the gear it isnt exactly lightweight - or aerodynamic. I record date, distance travelled, quantity added and indicated consumption (to crosscheck against actual) to track actual fuel economy and usually get 15.5-16.5 without a trailer. The long term average over 19,000km so far, with highway, towing, around town etc is 16.12L/100.

So if the pilot IS qualified, can the aircraft be flown in CTA? If the answer is YES, the advertiser is merely highlighting another selling point about their aircraft. I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

Well don't keep it to yourself. What did you learn? That you need one? That you need one beyond X-nm? And here's one not a lot of people know....Your beacon must be registered with the AMSA!

I've had Dynon in my RV broadcasting full ADS-B out for years using the GPS-2020 antenna, relying on the provisions of CASR 21.470. Essentially, the installation (modification) is approved by the FAA, so CASA automatically recognizes it, notwithstanding the provisions of CAO20.18.

I disagree. Going coastal implies a climb to cruise, descent to low level mid-flight, and climbing back to cruise altitude. That should not be necessary to get through an empty parcel of Class C. P or R, yes, but not C - particularly in a relatively high performance GA single. Ol' mate was screwing up by the numbers, no argument, but I'd put the proximate cause of this accident at the feet of the ATCO. He denied a clearance "just because". There was no traffic, no weather, and no ASA procedure that required him to do so, he just "did". ASA is Australia's Air Navigation Service Provider. If they can't (or won't) provide a service to GA/VFR then pi$$ them off and get some FAA-types who will.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. Forget his currency, or lack thereof, it's an 'administrative' issue only. What difference did his currency make in the context of this accident? None at all. Were he actually current, he would "legally" have been there, instead of "illegally" being there. Highlighting the currency issue, while "technically" correct for an accident investigation/report, does not achieve anything in preventing a similar accident. I would wholeheartedly agree his decision making left an awful lot to be desired, but being refused a clearance though empty airspace "just because" does not sit well with me. There was no other traffic within cooee, there was known bad weather, and the Trainee ATCO couldn't handle a simple VFR clearance through 7 miles (<3 minutes) of his airspace - yet didn't get upset when the PIC violated his airspace anyway...The Trainee ATCO didn't want the workload, and so wanted the pilot of an aircraft in the middle of its' cruise flight to descend to <3,500 to get through the Coffs area and palmed him off to another Controller's area of responsibility - and then had the PIC being passed back and forth thrice more, all the while said PIC is closing on not only bad weather but CTA he has been denied clearance to enter that triggered all this in the first place. I take issue with that comment. The aircraft was equipped with a GTN650. That's TSO'd to 146 and waaaaay above what you need for VFR flight. I have a KLN-90B in the RV-9A and am legally allowed to use that for enroute navigation with "positive fixes" pushed out from 30 minutes, to two hours but AIUI, a "positive fix" is considered to be when provided with a TSO'd GNSS anyway... With a C145/146 GNSS with FDE, that allows sole means navigation with nothing but that little black box telling you where you are & where you need to go.

Replace those two victims with you and your missus then. Or me and the KRviatrix. Yes, he was uncurrent, and "legally" should not have been there. But it wasn't his technical skills as a pilot that brought him undone. This could have happened to any VFR pilot - and to be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't more often given the airspace layout & lack of clearances available from some agencies. 0717 & 45NM north CFS - Request clearance from Controller A. Refused, directed to contact Controller B. (Now I'd be thinking 'there goes Plan A') Request clearance from Controller B. Advised "I don't control that airspace, contact Controller A" (Now I'd be thinking 'Well, phuck, there goes Plan B') Contact Controller A again. Directed to contact Controller B again (Thinking 'WTF is that going to achieve?!?') 0721 Contact Controller B, advised "Clearance only available below 1,000" Bear in mind this whole time he's covering over 2.5 miles a minute, is closing on the 5,500' step that he doesn't have clearance to enter, has lost his Plan A & B, and likely didn't have a Plan C such that at that rate & RoD still had a not-insignificant airspace infringement in the 5,500' step. I wonder what the report about the UH-1 crash at Newcastle will have to say on this issue (clearances & airspace layout) as well...

I'm guessing the site's SSL certificate is expired and someone in the office hasn't renewed it. Might need to increase our fees to pay for someone to keep on top of that issue? 🤑