Jump to content

KRviator

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,124

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Everything posted by KRviator

  1. KRviator
    Only sometimes. If it is amateur-built, the payload formula specified in CAO 95-55 does not apply.
  2. KRviator
    I don't think anyone "gives" authorization. If you have complied with the requirements of the SB - and those other SB's it references - your TBO becomes what is written in the SB in hours or years.
  3. KRviator
    The problem with switching a 12VDC load with a 240VAC switch is the arc damage. 240VAC passes through 0 Volts 50 times a second, rendering any arc minuscule, whereas using such a switch to control a DC load will have the switch taking the full circuit current (or higher if you're switching a motor) instantly, or breaking the circuit under load. Unless a switch has a DC rating, it's not at all good practice, yet alone a good idea, to use a 240VAC switch for any meaningful DC load.
  4. KRviator
    Just checked your gallery there this morning and it's working fine. So is the homepage, so hopefully it was just an ISP issue or something temporary.
  5. KRviator
    Easily. Well, it was easy enough when I convinced RAAus that there were no grounds to refuse registration as the 'payload formula' listed in the CAO's didn't apply to amateur-built aircraft... CAO 95.55 simply says the MTOW for that category is 600Kg, so with a 445Kg empty weight, I have 155Kg payload. That's enough for me + just-under-full tanks, or me + mini-me + half tanks. Though now the KRviatrix has seen the utility of having our own plane, it's time to port it over to VH- so I can take two adults.
  6. KRviator
    AIUI, you do not need a transponder in US 'E' unless you are within 30 miles of a Class B airport, they call it their "Mode C Veil". Outside that, you can fly VFR-in-E with no transponder.
  7. KRviator
    For your bedtime reading, may I present Section 8.7 of the Part 139 MOS...Which - because not everyone understands CAsA - is simply windsock standards from the aerodrome standards manual. The stuff in red is what you need. OF course, if you are only using it yourself, I'd probably go one of the US red-and-white ones that you can use to gauge wind strength as well,...
  8. KRviator
    I think you're being overly critical of these blokes. It's reported they took 2 years to build the bloody thing, if that's true, then that's a substantial investment in time alone, yet alone materials and sheer perseverance. It's not something they thought "Hold my beer and watch this" and knocked up after a weekend on the pi$$. I built an RV-9 in my back shed. I didn't do it to advance aviation, or try to prove anything to anyone, beyond myself, and that was simply that I could do it, and I could do it safely. To outward appearances, these blokes have done the same thing. No one knows what kind of control laws they have written, nor the quality of the components or software they've used. Given half a chance, I'd build something like that myself and take one of my rugrats flying over a waterhole too. I've no doubt the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation will get upset about it - indeed their public comments thus far, effectively "We're sure he's broken the law, we're just not sure which one it is..." don't really inspire much confidence.
  9. KRviator
    Rotax has published their owners manual that contains the fuel flow tables. All 2,480 lines of it. After much crunching of data in Excel, it would appear that the sea-level 100% fuel flow is a staggering 56.27 LPH. I don't think my OX-340 (165HP, FP) gets that on takeoff, even though the fuel flow meter squawks on the Dynon...
  10. KRviator
    And that's the problem. I have an RV-9A, registered RAAus. I'm swapping it to VH-, but as I built it, I can maintain it. If I sell it to someone else, they will need a LAME to maintain it if they keep it VH-, but if they bring it back to RAAus, they won't. The system is broken. At least I made a comment on this peculiarity, but whether they recognise it and then close it, or simply 'meh' it off, remains to be seen.
  11. KRviator
    I ordered 8 through Bursons a couple weeks ago - they had to overnight them from Melbourne, but that's another option.
  12. KRviator
    Nothing a pair of -230 or -250 wing's won't fix. Simples. ?
  13. KRviator
    I read those comments as "We're sure he's broken some rule, but we just don't know which one of the 15,459,334 that we wrote, it is....but when we do figure it out, it will be a crime of strict liability"
  14. KRviator
    But will that significantly change if we get RAAus upto 760kg? From what I understand - and I'm always happy to be proven wrong and learn something - we will still have 2 seats, no CTA at present, no aeros, no night flying and no IMC. Just more payload for some existing aircraft and a few new ones on the register, I don't think we're going to see the likes of 172's et al, popping up with numbers on the side.
  15. KRviator
    Don;t see why not? Buy an RAAus-registereable aircraft, transfer it from VH->RAAus and you can maintain it yourself right now. Then again, I would like CAsA to follow the Canadian model whereby you can maintain your own GA aircraft, if you use it for PVT ops. Never happen though!
  16. KRviator
    The benefit to numbers will be Farmer Joe can (probably) maintain it himself if it is only going to be used in PVT ops, vs paying a LAME to do so for him, so the RAAus fees of $4-500 might actually be a saving... But they don't really have any other option - the Yanks allow uncertified ADS-B and even the Poms found the stuff from Dynon (GPS-2020) and Garmin (GPS-20A) outpoerformed the TSO'd stuff that was supplying position information for the certified crowd.
  17. KRviator
    500 responses, but operational ATCO's only make up 30% (1067/3534) of their workforce, according to their latest annual report. The remainder are support staff and managers.
  18. KRviator
    Why not? It happens now... Jabiru, RV3/4/9/12, probably a bunch more I can't recall...
  19. KRviator
    Now CAsA have put out the "Consultation will start soon" rhetoric it kicks things off. But as I was once told by a manager..."Consultation is not negotiation", ie, CAsA don't have to take anything anyone says onboard when they draft the rules, or even if they draft new rules for +600kg. I'll wait and see, but am not going to hold my breath.
  20. KRviator
    I dunno about that. My rugrats have taught themselves to fly on the PC-based simulator to the point of being safe. They are 7 & 8 years old and have been able to do it for 18 months. I've had bugger-all input for the most part, but they crash it, reset it, get better, crash again, reset it and learn from their mistakes. You can teach yourself to fly, you can teach yourself to fly aerobatics, IFR. even precision and non-precision approaches if you want to hit the books, you do not necessarily need ol' mate beside you saying "do this here and the plane will do that". I taught myself the buttonology and processes to fly a GNSS approach with my GPS & EFIS, having never flown a minute IMC, because it's an emergency skill I might someday need, no instructor sitting there saying "press this".
  21. KRviator
    I'm the opposite side of the spectrum, sorry.... The Q400 is an abortion, albeit an (unfortunately) successful one. Far out of proportion it kind of reminds me of the Metro, an overly long skinny fuselage. The earlier DHC-8's were fine, but the -400? ? Then again, I'm the kind of person who things the A-10 or AH-64, arguably two of the ugliest airplanes ever created according to many, are simply beautiful works of art. ?
  22. KRviator
    Funniest thing I've heard in days, well done! ?
  23. KRviator
    Marvin the smoke system bloke on the VAF makes ER tanks that fit behind the seats in the side by side RVs. 7 gallons a side IIRC.
  24. KRviator
    I am usually very, very good with "the rules" (just ask my employer who hates that trait...), but "the rules" as they relate to our operations are such a convoluted mess that I suggest no one can understand them to maintain 100% compliance, 100% of the time - and if you don't, then you've committed an offence of strict liability (I do understand that bit..). As for questioning 'the administrator", try asking CAsA the same question three times in a row, and if you come up with less than 2 answers, you've done well. They can't even understand the meaning of the word foreign... But, let's take a look at one rule of the new Part 149...with my bolding. Count those bold references. There are 18 references to other rules, in this one rule. So, to fully understand this one rule, you have to crossreference those other 18 rules. This is the kind or problem Australian aviation has. The rules are written for lawyers, not those at the coalface, and they are written in such a convoluted way that even if you make an honest and genuine attempt at complying with them, but breach one or more, because they are strict liability offences, CAsA only needs to prove you did it, the 'honest and reasonable' defence doesn't apply. And with a regulator of CAsA's reputation, that is a baaaad thing.
  25. KRviator
    So....For the uninformed among us, because we hear the SAAA and RAAus spruiking "We're going to Part149", "We're Part 149 compliant" et al... WTF does part 149 actually mean, do and give us?!?
×
×
  • Create New...