KRviator

That ain't gonna be a cheap fix. And their insurer's gonna have fun with that assigning liability to the airport for failing to ensure the tiedowns were adequately maintained!

They do, but the point I was trying to make was if you change to RAAus, no matter what you fly, you have the benefit of the RAAus $20M liability insurance coverage, and so you can drop your own PL policy and save some $$ to offset the RAAus membership costs. I have full hull coverage so I don't know what a liability only policy would cost, but I would imagine it's more than a few hundred dollars, for $20M coverage.

And that trust is precisely why Vans has done so well, for so long. I didn't even sit in an RV before I plonked down my hard-earned for a complete RV-9 QB kit 10 years ago - such was the level of trust I had in both their cabin dimensions, payload, performance figures through to kit quality and build manual. And my RV performs almost exactly as Van said it would. How long it takes to get that level of trust back in the company is the is the big unknown. For my money, the suppliers will negotiate something that gets them a goodly percentage of their $$ back even if it means a bit of a loss, just to keep Vans in business, because that means more engines, props and avionics they'll sell. But the builders - what they'll decide to do, both those as creditors and those looking at building, will have a lot of soul-searching to do before we see Vans return to the juggernaut it once was.

There'd be some downsides I can see - namely the loss flight above 10,000 and at night if you currently do that. One possible bonus may be the RAAus $20M liability cover, which might offset the membership costs, depending how much your current insurance premiums are - which I can see going up next time for those of us with RV's!

The trust lost is going to be the biggest issue, I think - not the new kit prices. I paid, from memory, about $45,000USD for my RV-9A QB kit. That's the new price for a standard kit, so you could still build a -9 in Oz for under $120K AUD. It'll just take a second hand engine, basic avionics, and the seats from a Suzuki Swift (don't laugh - they're an awesome fit!)

No no, I know damn well it won't happen to me! Because I don't go hot-dogging at low level trying to show I'm ace of the base by flying low level down a river, or flying 15m AGL down an outback highway to impress my 2 equally stupid pilot mates who don't call me out on such risk-taking behaviour. And until we all call this type of flying out for what it is, it'll keep happening. We can pussy foot around accidents as much as we want, but doing so hasn't, doesn't and won't achieve any meaningful reduction in these kinds of antics until we say "Mate, that's not cool, that's just dumb, keep it up and I'll be the asrehole who'll make the call to CAsA if only to save you from yourself!". Flying is inherently risky, even I'll admit that, but logic and self-preservation dictates tipping the odds in your favour wherever you can. How do you do that? Chuck an EFIS or Dyon D3 in, so you're equipped for IMC even if you only ever fly VFR. Train with an instructor to maintain S&L and do a 180* turn on instruments. Develop personal minimums more conservative than the VFR alternate minima. Plan via known-good terrain and overhead airports, even if it'll take you an extra couple minutes a leg. Use Flight Following. IF you are planning on an outlanding, use all available information to plan the flight then fly the plan! In this case, the wire ol' mate hit was clearly marked on the relevant map if he'd bothered to look. And for fuxake, don't go low spontaneously unless you're taking off or landing at an approved airport... Daily Telegraph has just come out and named him as Lane Kokshoorn and his 10YO son. Behind a paywall so I can't link the full article.

The idiot flew into a powerline strung at low level across a river. Muppet was me being polite! If he'd killed one of my friends, I'd be calling him something a damn sight worse! Occams razor still applies. If I'd have had an engine failure, I don't think I'd pass up the nicely graded dirt roads, empty paddocks or the flat campground beside the river (assuming it was a 3rd option being suitably empty enough of caravans). The river would be an off-on-the-horizon fourth option... EDIT: The only way I can see any kind of defence to this, was if he was trying to replicate that Alaskan bush flying by landing on the river shoal you can see in the photo here. But that won't absolve ol' mate from the "ALA must be safe for the proposed operation" bit of the CASR's - and clearly it wasn't as there was a powerline running over it that he hit! There's this one too. A 172 hired by a group of tourists was hot-dogging out in the GAFA when they hit a powerline 15m (50') AGL above the road after a history of low-flying. The ATSB concluded You want to do stupid shit, like tooling about at low level without an endo or proper survey - fill ya boots! Just don't do it with someone I care about on board and cross your fingers that if you do come to grief, you only kill yourself - because if you survive - even if no one's killed - it's gonna get very unpleasant, very quickly, and I don't just mean the investigation. There'll be medical bills, insurers coming after your assets, broken friendships and that's just the administrative and financial floof, before you get criminally charged.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana A 12-year-old girl has died after a light plane hit powerlines and crashed into the Clarence River in northern New South Wales. (2014 - a few years earlier than I remembered) Reckon that span crossing the river is what this latest muppet hit... "

IS that on a sand(rock) bank on the Clarence river?!? Surely no one would be stupid enough to go low-flying down the river a second time after that bloke killed his mates daughter doing exactly the same thing in a similar spot a few years ago?!?

Kit prices going up 32%! Ouch.... From their announcement: That's still not too bad - particularly if you go the standard kit route and live in the US... For the RV-9A for example, it gores from $36,965 ->$48,793. That's not insurmountable, and about what I paid for my QB kits back in 2010, but you just have to assemble it yourself...You could still put an RV-9 in the air, in Australia, for around $120K if you go a SB kit, used engine and basic, second hand avionics. Not many people will though, so I'd expect to see used RV prices creep up around 10-20% over the next couple of years.

Inland, Armidale has a servo close by, about 3-500m walk depending where you can park & get through the fence. Though if all you're doing is topping off with 20 or 40L - realistically about all you can carry yourself anyway - I'd just pay the difference for Avgas and be on your way 45 minutes sooner.

True, but in defence of the RV's, once you've actually built the thing, there's very little difference in operating costs vs a Jab if you were to compare them side by side. A bit different if you have to pay a LAME to maintain it though. For example: I use 25LPH for 140KTAS, or 9.73L/100km. The J160 uses 14.3 to get 100KTAS or 7.72L/100km. Much better efficiency granted, but at 30% slower speed and a lot less payload, so you're spending less on fuel, yes, but your other costs, oil changes, engine hours and other lifed components are reaching their limits earlier given the same flight profile. My last decent flight was up to Gladstone & Townsville return, total of 13.5 hours in the RV but would have taken 17.6 in a J160. 337.5L of fuel in the RV, or 251.7L in a Jab would give an 85.8L difference at about $2/L, so call it $170 cost saving in fuel alone, but at the expense of 4.1 extra engine and airframe hours. With the -9, I simply fly for the cost of fuel, oil, filters and plugs. I don't have an engine overhaul budget, or an avionics upgrade budget so the hourly cost is around the $70 mark. Or $120 if you include insurance - though I don't for the same reason I don't have an hourly cost for our 4WD or caravan or boat that includes insurance. It's just another bill to pay.

AIUI, it's not technically bankruptcy but bankruptcy protection while they restructure - ie, the debts Vans currently owe to the likes of Lycoming and Stein cannot be enforced while under Chapter 11. If the court and creditors vote to approve the restructure, then they move on with the approved pathway. If the creditors vote to not approve the proposals, only then could Vans actually be declared bankrupt. I don't see that happening. Vans is an immensely popular kit supplier, for the reasons I posted above. To enforce bankruptcy on them would hurt the creditors many times over through lost sales triggered by builders purchasing a kit and needing an engine (Lycoming) or avionics (Stein) or even the metalwork for engine mounts and things. Even copping a loss of 50c in the dollar for each and every creditor supplier- they'll make that back and more with the higher kit prices and ongoing operations than winding up the company. Of course, that may not necessarily help the builders who could lose out in such a scenario. As it is, they're looking at a 30% increase if they want to proceed with their kit purchases. As I posted over on VAF, I would encourage builders to cop that pineapple, but recoup it down the track by purchasing a used engine or prop, or installing simpler avionics, in order to come out the end of the process at the same "overall" cost, and still have a flying RV. Otherwise, you won't have an aeroplane and you'll still be out those $$$.

Agreed. As an owner, however. As a builder or prospective builder, I think they're going to have to pay a significant premium going forwards. I see on VAF that Van himself has stumped up several million dollars to provide interim funding for Vans to continue, so if a private individual, even The Man himself, is prepared to do that, I can't see RV's going the way of the dodo. Still, it must be heart-breaking for him to see Vans in the position it is now, when his name is on the building.

Wow. I knew they were in strife, but bloody hell. On the plus side, most companies do make it out of Chapter 11, and I don't have the slightest doubt that Vans will as well, simply because there are not many comparable products to the RV lineup. Of course a big part of their appeal was they were relatively affordable, but that's certainly going to change going forwards, especially with the exchange rate being what it is now, too... Sucks if you were waiting on a kit in the near future, I have a feeling the pineapple you're about to receive won't be lubed...

True if you don't have access to the ES downlink, but @flying dog specifically referenced KIAS, which suggests he can read the downlinked IAS. Here's a screegrab from my FlightAware SkyAware tracker showing what's being received from a Dreamliner coming into Sydney right now, so you can receive both KIAS, KTAS and GS if you have the right gear, but if you simply use the public sites, you probably won't see the rest of the ADS-B squit beyond just GS. To answer the question, 250KIAS is the limit unless higher is operationally required. You'll find heavy jets, particularly 747, 777 & Airbus (what's the plural for a group of A380's? A problem? Airbii? 😕) have green-dot (minimum drag / best L/D) speeds above 250, and as such often "request high-speed climb" which ATC can, and routinely do, approve. For the A330, it's calculated at Weight(t) x 0.6 + 107Kts, so 230T = 245KIAS. That A340 that went 4WD'ing at Melbourne had an (incorrectly calculated) GDOT speed of 265KIAS, for example, so after retracting the flaps, that's what the crew would want to climb at. In the absence of approval to exceed 250KIAS, then that remains the default limit to transition altitude. I'll try to dig up an AIP reference later today.

As I posted over in 'Prune, I takeoff and climb on one tank, swap to the other and run that tank dry, and only then do I change back to my original tank. Two tank changes total for any long-range flight. Lateral trim isn't a huge issue with the -9 compared to other aircraft. This way, I know I have used every drop of fuel out of that tank, I'm not fluffing about or forgetting to change at the 30 minute mark, and every remaining drop of usable fuel is in one tank come landing.

Can't imagine it's useful to use GPS, as that's altitude above the theoretically perfect GPS ellipsoid, not AMSL. You're better off using a water manometer. Cheap, easy and can do it in the hangar for the cost of tubing and a few minutes on Google to print a suitable height to altitude chart.

From personal experience with my RV, don't be in so much of a rush to the finish line you stumble at the last hurdle... First flight seems "so close" but I still missed bleedin' obvious things I should have picked up on...

The sooner this comes in, the better, but I don't know if it'll be any benefit to yours truly... I have a newly-diagnosed, but very minor medical issue I disclosed in my last C2 a couple months back. Unless I told you, you'd never know about it. 8 weeks later, several phone calls to AvMed after the 4 week ETA passed, the application being marked as "urgent", the DAME2 himself recommending the issuance of the medical and I'm still waiting. The sad thing is, I also drive some of the biggest trains on the planet and the last rail medical I did I went in with exactly the same paperwork I had for the DAME, and walked out 2 hours later with my rail Cat 1 in hand, including ECG and all the rest. That medical isn't specific to my employer or anything, it carries across like a Class 1/2, so I could get a job driving the XPT with no co-driver, with 400 POB at 100 miles an hour. But here we are, 2 months after I did my aviation medical and CAsA are still sucking their thumbs while the RV's parked up in the hangar gathering dust.

That first descent had me wondering too, but -HPY had the same vertical profile in a very similar geographic area a week earlier on a TWB-ISA flight, so it was intentional both times. Once we could be forgiven for linking it to the accident, but not twice. Here's the accident flight: And here's a week earlier - same area, same descent, albeit not quite as quick.

The Foam Company has it (and online prices too!), address seems to be Archerfield, but they say "may be dispatched from multiple warehouses in Bris-Vegas"

Is the speed warning in the car based on a database, or the last-passed sign? Either way, the car's wrong. There's two 'standard' limits, one being 50k's in a built up area, the other, 100k's for outside a builtup area. NSW Road Rule 25 is the reference. You can go faster now! 😉

Only in a "Built up area" though- and that is defined as "where there are streetlights or buildings spaced closer than 100m for at least 500m". IF there's no streetlights / buildings and no lower speedboard then the generic limit of 100kph applies.

Be careful with ascribing "Country roads" to "Country districts". I dare say it's the same in SA and Mexico, but in NSW, a "Country Road" is 𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙍𝙔 𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙 in NSW outside the LGA's of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Wollongong and Shellharbour, and those in metropolitan Sydney. F3 at Gosford? Yep, a "Country Road". M1 at Raymond Terrace? Still a "Country Road". New England Highway at Thornton? You guessed it - a "Country Road" as well. It ain't always what a reasonable person would consider "country"...