KRviator

From the Ops Man: An applicant for the issue of a Passenger Endorsement must: have logged a minimum of 10 hours flight time as pilot in command of an aeroplane; and have a minimum of 2 hours flight time as pilot in command of a two seat recreational aeroplane of the same Group, aeroplane type and design features; and pass a flight check with a RAAus Examiner And on Q2: I use a RAAF kneeboard with my plan details on it and a kneedock for my iPad that I bought from the OzRwy folks, if that helps?

So a bit of a followup to the SAAA saga: I gave up & went back to RAAus. The AP required me to have the RV re-weighed by a CASA WCO, which is fair enough and his prerogative. But despite another email to SAAA HQ when I paid the $400 for the AP service call asking about the MPC datelist, and it being ignored (well, they quite happily charged my CC $400 for the AP call - so they did receive it...) I finally figured enough is enough and why should I reward an organisation who treats their members this way? The only downside is I am still payload-limited, but until the SAAA gets their house in order, publishes and sticks to a list of MPC dates, I will happily fly under RAAus administration with one of the fastest "ultralights" in Australia. Jared S at RAAus could not have been more helpful - and if I ever come across him, I'll gladly shout him a beer. From the time I sent the paperwork in to RAAus HQ to getting my registration certificate? 5 days. The biggest delay? The weekend in the middle of that 5 days. Of course, it helps that the only thing HQ needed was proof I'd removed the VH- marks and SAAA placards and replaced them with RAAus equivalents, but the difference between RAAus & SAAA is mind-blowingly disappointing, to the point that if RAAus is ever able to get approval for 700/750Kg, I'd stay with them indefinitely and wear the 100kg payload loss permanently. There were a couple of SAAA members who were particularly helpful in the process, Darren B and 440032, who certainly deserve recognition for their efforts, and I extend my gratitude publicly for their efforts, but the single overarching issue is the requirement for an MPC to weigh your own plane and issue your own MR, which I don't have, and don't look like being able to get anytime soon due due to a singular lack of planning and communication on the part of the SAAA. So, looking at the bright side, my RV is back with RAAus, and pending good weather, I should be airborne again by the end of the week. EDIT: Corrected BBCode Syntax

UUUhhh what's that about a photo of me? To the best of my knowledge I've never met you?Anyways, easiest way to shrink a photo is using MS Paint. Open your huge image with Paint, CTRL-W, pick your reduce-by percentage, resave it and you're done.

There's an awful lot of variables to that. Engine HTR, CS/FP prop, panel installation, interior, etcProbably 60-70,000 for a middle-of-the-road RV-4 with a Dynon legacy EFIS, SL30, FP prop and mid-time engine. By comparison, I would put $95-100K on my -9, but it has less than 100TTAE with an O-340 that can be upgraded to 180HP+, Sensenich G/A prop, Mode S tranponder that's ADS-B capable, 10" Dynon Skyview, two-axis autopilot and an IFR GPS.

He's after High speed, long range cross-country capability with centreline seating.

You won't be getting 6 hours out of an RV-4, with only standard tanks. Or even any LR tanks I know of... At 32 USG (121L) capacity, and using my O-340's 24.2LPH, you've got 4.2 hours endurance before hitting your 18L fixed reserve. Even my -9 I would plan no more than 4:45, leaving around 21L on touchdown. FWIW, I would strongly recommend a -9 if you need cross-country but don't want aerobatic capability, but I am biased. Here's why: 36USG / 135L fuel capacity, greater than the -4, based on standard tanks on both. A higher aspect ratio wing than the -4, which going by your 6 hour endurance requirement suggests you're doing serious cross-country regularly, so the -9 will be a lot more efficient up high. The side-by-side aspect, meaning you can actually stretch out on said cross country. Sure it can be done in a -4, but if you're doing it regularly, why not enjoy the trip? Personal preference here, obviously, but I am 6'5... The availability of 2 x long range tanks that fit behind the seats in the SBS models, that increase your total fuel capacity to 50USG / 189L for the -9, in turn taking your total endurance to 7.0 hrs before your 45 min fixed reserve. Hotel Whiskey aviation also make LR tanks for the -4, but they're "installed" vs a more temporary fit that you get with Marvin's tanks (which can be permanently mounted too), so unless you built the -4, you'll likely have problems getting them signed off. But if you could do it, they are 4.1 USG a side, bringing your capacity to 40.2 USG for 5.5 hrs before hitting your fixed reserve, so you're still going to have to land halfway if you go for a -4 with the HW tanks. The RV-4 is slightly faster on the same power, by about 8 smph, than my RV-9, but in saying that, I don't have the gear intersection fairings or NLG leg fairing on yet, so that will probably reduce to 5 smph difference when all is said and done. I cruise at 2400 RPM at 8,500' 55% power burning 24.2 LPH which gives 145 KTAS, and I'm hoping to bring that upto 150 KTAS with a few aerodynamic cleanups later this year. Even the Vans guys prefer the -9 for long cross-country flights! Here's a couple of still-air comparisons from Launceston, the RV-4 with the HW tanks cruising at 150 KTAS (5.5Hr end.) and the RV-9 on the bottom, fitted with 2 x LR tanks cruising at 145 KTAS (for 7.0Hr end).

Just don't make the mistake I did...Building an RV- 9 when you would (eventually) need 4 seats. Anyone want to buy a -9?

Be careful wrapping aircraft exhaust pipes, as depending on the alloy used, wrapping them makes them hotter which can increase the oxidation rate, leading to premature failure, which you may not well see if it is under the wrap. Vetterman - the RV exhaust Guru - specifically advises RV'ers not to wrap their exhaust for this reason.

If they were IMC that might be a factor, but the weather was clear and a million, blind Freddy could've been able to land a 777 without writing it off, and never mind about being 20 knots slow on approach.... What was P2 doing?!? They did, and if I ever come across him, I'll buy 'em a beer!

ISTR a Lancair IV did the same thing a few years ago, albeit with fatal results for the beach goer.

As a FIFO worker, it is something I've considered several times, should I decide to put in for a job in Qld, but the problem becomes one of liability. So far as I'm aware, in Queensland, you are still covered by workcover between home and work, and your employer's insurer might have something to say about you choosing to fly. Of course, this doesn't apply in NSW or WA where there is no such coverage between home & work. The other thing there, is depending on your job, there may well be fatigue management requirements that need to be met, ie no flying after a 12-hour nightshift, you need 8 hours in bed before flying/driving yourself anywere - but this is employer dependant.

Problem was, it wasn't the cowboy this time, but - essentially - an innocent bystander.

I hope this is so, but I am concerned in this instance they will not be able to prove anything either way, and the passenger will have essentially died in vain. I don't mind fatalities in aviation, it is a risky endeavour, but one that we can usually learn from and implement lessons to hopefully prevent such accidents in the future. Even if it is as simple as some knucklehead going VFR-into-IMC, we can prove that happened and the outcome. Whether or not the authorities in this case can definitively point to X and say "This caused the accident" or not remains to be seen. Take a look at these videos, from a quick Google & YouTube search. Same operator? Hard to believe all these videos were from different companies... While the 172M (as in -WTQ) is indeed certified to operate in the utility category, that is only when the rear seats are unoccupied. See the coke bottle hard against the headlining? How many negative G's were produced there? I've yet to see a Cessna with a G-meter. Then a Split-S in a 172? To the asshats flying these kinds of sorties I have but one thing to say: Take note of this accident, and pull your bloody heads in. Because when it goes wrong, and one day it will, your fare-paying passengers do not deserve to be hurt or killed because you wanted to show off. Look at 0:15, then 1:02 in...then again at 1:24

I want to see CASA's reaction to him trying to log multi-engine time. OR better yet, see the FOI try to fail an engine at V1! Still, not as cool as Colin Furze's hoverbike:

True indeed. Makes me wonder though, if another pilot decided to take such a flight and ol' mate decided to pull one of his stunts, would he be pulled up on it?Personally I would probably say something - afterall <0G in a 172 with 4POB is not normal despite anyones assertions to the contary - but it makes me wonder how many times he has done something like this and got away with it due to pepole turning a blind eye. AIUI, there is footage on YouTube from another one or two of their flights with the back seat passenger and/or the cargo floating about unrestrained indicating it was not an isolated incident and in contravention of the CAR's. Also begs the question "Where was CASA in all of this?".....

I'm lead to believe the RV-12, & the -14 in particular, are about as close to perfect in that respect as you're likely to get.My -9 was very, very good too in that way but there were still a couple of questions I needed help on from The Mothership. But I love Lego Technic, so maybe that helped? Another thought for a prospective kit supplier: make a set of 'preview plans' available to potential builders so they can see what they'll be working from. They don't have to be current, but if you can't read the drawings, you won't finish your plane!

Don't read too much into it. Probably done what I've done a dozen times viewing the site on the iPad when scrolling down and not even realised it. Now, as for the OP: It depends what you want to achieve. I understand Jabiru package every part needed for the particular task on a piece of shrink-wrapped cardboard and label that with the assembly/task. This would greatly speed production provided everything goes well, but if you strip a bolt or booger up a part, you now need to raid your other sub-assemblies to find something to replace your boogered-up part. Vans do it the opposite. They package things in bags, but, most builders (including me) separate them into individual hardware types. For me, all rivets went into a couple of tackle boxes, in individual compartments ordered by size, ie 426AD3-3, 426AD3-4, etc. Same with bolts. This means you can learn parts, bolt sizes and rivets, etc, based on appearances, and also readily go to your stash to replace a dropped rivet. The disadvantage to this method is you need to sort & store each nut & bolt at the beginning of your build, and if you have never built a plane before, the difference between two virtually-identical rod end bearings that came in the same bag is hard to see. That being said - I would strongly encourage the Vans method. Identical parts in individual bags, it works well, it teaches the user about what is what (important if you're building your own plane) and it felt reasonably fast when I knew I needed a rivet and could go straight to the rivet/bolt/nut/washer box and grab exactly what I needed.

Well, you need their transponder too, which isn't cheap, but I made the assumption that anyone with such a system would already have the transponder. I installed a GPS-2020 and if I have it setup properly per the manual, would show up on TAAATS as an ADS-B paint, but I have to have it setup incorrectly to ensure compliance with CAO20.18 as the GNSS source is not approved by CASA and doesn't meet the relevant TSO.

The issue I have is anyone with SkyView or a G3X system (lots of people, I think...) could have full, proper ADS-B out for under $1,000 if CASA would permit the use of the SV-GPS-2020 or Garmin GPS-20A antennas as the GNSS position source. The frustrating thing from my point of view is the FAA readily approves and encourages this stance - and they are the country that invented the bloody TSO's! Even the Poms trialled and recommend that policy after finding the Garmin/Dynon sources outperformed TSO'd GPS' like the GNS430.

Looking at that, the engine failed a minute after a bunt that also caused an engine power interruption. Negative G, as opposed to 0G, would also unport the fuel pickup in the selected tank drawing air into the lines. A minute goes by in a low-power descent from 1500 to 100, the slug of air moves through the line towards the carb and there's your engine failure. The certification standards FAR 23/25 actually permit momentary power interruptions as part of multi-tank fuel system design, provided power is restored within 20 seconds if air is introduced, or 10 seconds in the case of fuel depletion from the selected tank.Could well be there was nothing at all wrong with the aircraft other than what the pilot caused....

Aerobatics in a 172 at 1500AGL with paying passengers on board? WTF? And yes, negative G in normal operations IS defined as aerobatics, LowFlyer1770...

Probably because CASA didn't come up with it. Could also be the typical "fear of anything new" syndrome, too. God forbid anyone actually develop something that advances aviation safety and have a regulator embrace it, like Garmin and Dynon did with their ADS-B sources - oh wait.......

230KTAS on 7GPH at FL250 for $200,000 Australian? Never happen. It's simply far too good to be true. If it does come to fruition though, Van's will take a hit. Work it backwards in USD: 130000- 15,000 GTN750 10,000 Dual 10" G3X system 750 for the GMC305 AP panel 290 G3X GPS Antenna Leaving 104000 for the engine and airframe. A standard kit for the RV-10 costs 46,000 sans engine. Looks great, I wish them well, but look at the Icon debacle and remember the old adage, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is...

10 February 2016. Well before the Part 45 MOS went live in May 2016 - and not updated in over a year to reflect the changes. I don't really mind going through their checklist, frustrating as it is because the RV has already been flying for over a year, but I believe organisations like the SAAA that perform some of the functions of Government, should not have out of date documents. It also makes me wonder what else might be out of date that I could get picked up on by the AP? The actual checklist item I wasted so much time on is "No Underwing Markings via CASA general exemption? (Name the current CASA EX instrument)" then space for the document number. Without Nobody's advice yesterday, I'd probably still be trying to reference it...

Yep, but you're got to actually get it registered GA first...