KRviator

Did get the venturi part, but I couldn't get my head around the vacuum being strong enough to pop the bladder clips, I hadn't heard of that trait before as regards the high-wing Cessna. Unless someone wants to swap a Cardinal for an RV-9, I think I'll stick to my RV's wet wings! ?

I hadn't heard that before. I can understand if the vent was blocked, with fuel being drawn normally, as that's caused several incidents before too (including in the RV world) but do you know why it'd distort the bladder as well as dumping the fuel overboard just by leaving the cap off?

For GA fliers, be careful... bear in mind those BCF life jackets are not legal - though they are perfectly suitable (typical CAsA)... CAR 252 says CAsA can dictate what they feel is necessary as regards safety equipment. Which they do in... CAO 20.11 Which says they must be "of a standard approved by CAsA" and - because why use one document when 3 will do, you will find the actual "approved standards" in.... AWB 25-013 which says a life jacket must meet a TSO, be inflatable and have a whistle. Best I can recall, those Marlin ones don't... However.....If you are operating under CAO 95.8, 95.10, 95.12, 95.32 or 95.55, then CAR252 does not apply, and CAO95.55 (for example) simply says you must have a "life jacket" without mentioning standards. Easy as! ? Now, with all that being said, I use an inflatable Marlin 150N PFD and it fits quite comfortably not only over me, but also the survival vest I wear in the RV's cockpit. I hope I never have to test it, but that, coupled with ADS-B OzRunways Tracking and a PLB means I should hopefully get picked up if I can at least get out of the -9 in one piece.

You'll find certification (FAR 23.955) requires a tank to be able to be run dry and then, on switching tanks, have 75% MCP available within 10 seconds. Or 20 seconds for turbocharged birds. Granted ours aren't usually certificated to such a standard, but a prudent owner will test both minimum usable fuel and the behaviour of the engine in a dry-tanks scenario. Here's what happens in my RV-9A when you do so - though I'd already tested this in a safe spot before incorporating this as a standard practice. Don't do it for the first time over tiger country!

Some aircraft have that as a limitation, but typically not at our level. My usual practice is to takeoff and climb to cruise on one tank, change to the other and let it run dry (~ 165 minutes), then change back. I've minimised the chance of an issue with the fuel valve, even though they are statistically rare, I've minimised the chance of forgetting to switch tanks, and I have a known quantity of fuel on board at any time based on nothing more than my watch.

FWIW - and it isn't a Rotax - but I don't have a 'kitty' for anything to do with my flying. My spare $$ go straight onto the mortgage and if I need a new cylinder assembly, battery or gear leg, then I'll redraw the $$ from the home loan...... Now, that being said, I have an OX-340S and all I have done so far (it was a factory-new engine), is a couple of oil changes and 1 set of plugs (dual EI so no budget for magneto overhauls either)

And if you want to get really fancy, you can alter the test displayed here to something more relevant to the discussion at hand- but not the actual URL you're pasting - So it looks like this by changing the "Link Text" in the box that kgwilson mentioned.

Just throwing this out here for those folks that don't know about the weather cameras as it'll come up in a search: Here's the Parkes one And click HERE for the listing of those volunteer cameras available at airports nationwide. And there are the AirServices Cameras available as well.

Just wondering, did you try Googling it? It is listed in the first hyperlink when you search "ASA Notam Quality Guide", but as search isn't your forte' allow me to provide you with the actual document...Click here. And when you go through the document, you will find the following: If no fuel is available at your destination, then it wont immediately affect your operation, will it? I agree it should be there, but it isn't required to be there and when people have tried to have it included, they have been told it is not NOTAM-able as it doesn't directly or immediately impact operations. If you are going to quote the AIP, you can at least not cherrypick the points to suit your argument, for example, also in the AIP, you will find the following: Now, from that statement, ASA is distancing themselves from there being a NOTAM for fuel, or not having a NOTAM for no fuel, hence my comment lack of fuel isn't NOTAM-able. Indeed, there are many uncertified aerodromes or ALA's that may not have an ADO or even authorisation to actually issue a NOTAM. A reply that you don't like because you CBF searching the very first link that comes up on Google doesn't make it a BS reply, indeed, as you will find from said document, temporary issues with fuel availability still don't require a NOTAM and up until the start of the year, per Matty, you couldn't issue a NOTAM for fuel, even if you wanted to! It is still not required, though at least it isn't forbidden now. As for your "being pissed off" I couldn't give a rats arse. I'm not here to be your friend, and if you think that comment up there^^ was you "being preached to", I think you need to get a bit more time up on internet newsgroups and forums and a thicker skin until you do! And, FWIW, derekliston raised this exact issue two years ago, about the SDRC and lack of fuel at Warwick, and was provided a reference in another of my posts to the NOTAM Originators manual - since removed - that explicitly stated NOTAMs would not be issued, however, now leave that up to the relevant ASA manager, according to the ADO NOTAM Quality manual. That text is almost a cut-and-paste from the original "Notam Originators Manual" that forbade such 'fuel NOTAMS' with the difference being they now allow the NCC manager to consider it is sufficiently serious to include. And just in case you can't find that document, HERE IT IS...

The ASA NOTAM quality guide. A perm change will be NOTAM'd though ASA makes no assurance to the accuracy of it. A temporary change or restriction does not require a NOTAM.

Lack of Avgas is not a NOTAM-able event. Best you not rely on that and check with the supplier directly.

Full Medical? I just did a Basic Class 2 with my GP - so long as you can convince him you're safe to drive a commercial vehicle, you're good to go - it took all of 15 minutes and $10 to CAsA - and let's face it, if you can't meet the standards for a Basic Class 2, are you really safe to fly, yet alone in CTA? Full licence? An RPL with CTA / CTR endo's is all you'll need. You can port your RPC to an RPL at any time by filling out CAsA form 61-1RTX. Then a couple of hours for your endorsements and away you go. My only concern with the weight increase is if CAsA turn around and say "Anything over 600Kg needs a LAME", where they should take a leaf from the Canadian's and have owner-maintenance for 'basic' certified aircraft used in PVT ops.

This kind of debacle, coupled with the RAAus attack on OzRunways vs Avplan and the RAAus vs AOPA trademark bollocks a couple years ago only serves to drive the knife further into sport flying in Australia. We already have CAsA doing their darndest, we dont need our administrators adding fuel to the fire...

You're an order of magnitude out. 25 grams per balloon, by 20 balloons is 500 grams. ?

That reminded me of the ill-fated Balloonfest in the US. 1.5 million helium balloons, and half of them landed in Lake Erie.

You'd be surprised at the weight of a persons cremains. I'd estimate my mates at around 5kg, and plugging that into a web-based calculator suggests in excess of 400 balloons would be needed. Though I do like the idea!

Nope. ? I built the -9, I built the pod, test flew it empty, test flew it loaded, and tested releasing simulated cremains. Same as the GoPro attachment on the fin. I installed it prior to the first flight so it was there as part of the flight test program. If CAsA want to make a song and dance about it later on for the next buyer, they don't have a leg to stand on.

I scattered the ashes of a pilot mate from my RV-9 last year. I built a small pod that bolted to the wing tie down and used a pair of linear actuators to open the bottom door. With minimum fuel his wife was actually able to come with me and be the one to press the button over the mountains northwest of Brisbane.

A (very) quick look through Ausgrid's network standards shows the average LV residential cable is 95mm2, so a diameter of around 11mm. The breaking strain for 11mm wire rope is in the vicinity of 16,000lbs, or around 7.2 tonnes. Snagging one isn't going to worry the cable much at all, maybe dislodge it from an insulator or two, but that's it.

Send the invoice to RAAus, RAAus passes it onto the member. If not paid within X months, aircraft is de-registered. Cost to employ a data-entry clerk in the office 3 days a week: ~$40,000 per year, including super and payroll tax. Hell, I work part-time now, I'll do it for $30,000 a year working from home! Across the 13,000 RAAus members, that's $2.50 a year to keep your private details private.

One thing the OIAC noted was that for them to investigate my complaint, my privacy had to have been breached - it wasn't sufficient that it could be. In my case, I was lucky as when I was talking to the investigator from the OIAC, at the time I had no evidence it had been, but when I got home from work interstate the following day, there was an invoice for a landing I did at Warnervale over a year ago when I had an ADAHRS sensor failure and didn't feel comfortable returning to Somersby. So I promptly called them back and said "I have that proof now!" and they agreed it was serious enough to pass on to their investigation team.

The synopsis of my complaint was that they collected my details years ago under "Privacy Policy 2.1", to manage my aircraft registration and RPC, however, then entered into a commercial arrangement with a third party (the AAA) and changed their privacy policy to include a term I did not accept when I signed up, thereby allowing any number of fourth-parties (the airport operators) access to my private details. There's several other pertinent points that the OAIC was most interested in, but that's the basics for me... Notice it doesn't say The General Public.... CAsA, yes. The ASAO, yes. Joe Q Busybody? Get stuffed.

My complaint to the OIAC was also upheld, and will be passed on to an investigator for them to look into, when they can spare the time - sounds like they are well and truly swamped with complaints at present. I won't go into the details too much as I don't want to give RAAus any ammunition with which to mount a defence, but it could be an interesting fight nonetheless.

I did the MPC last year - and while I did learn a bit, the whole process simply struck me as a way to penalise the pilot/builder/maintainer if it went pear-shaped. It's a paper trail, nothing more, nothing less. But CAsA says we have to do it, and the SAAA is the unfortunate meat in the sandwich. I built my -9A, at present, I fly it under RAAus and sign off the maintenance as a L1. But soon as I put letters on the side, hopefully over the Xmas break, I need an MPC, Experimental CoA, MR, W&B authorisation and (another) flight review, to fly the exact same plane that the fortnight before, needed none of that. Time to hang up the headset and buy a fourby, methinks. ?

Time to sell the Brumby and get a boat. Much as I love having the RV-9, I'm over the bullshyte security, outrageous fees, medicals, RAAus politics and other superfluous fluff I need just to go aviating - and am probably going to sell the -9 early in the new year. It just isn't fun anymore.