Nobody

not necessarily rag and tube but more aviation related than car but this is an interesting development that could spur further research.... http://alert5.com/2021/07/08/raf-doing-market-exploration-for-military-certified-zero-emissions-light-training-aircraft/

Tesla had a battery swap station in California and the Model S(in 2013) is designed to swap batteries. I think that they have stopped offering them in the newer cars because most people didn't bother... The super charger was good enough....

https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/emergency-procedures/distress-beacons/carriage-requirements/

You have a few options, The most scenic is to go coastal up victor 1. You will be down at 500' just off the coast, awesome in the very early morning.... You can also go inland west of bankstown but east of the richmond restricted areas.

Did you read the article? The court found that the council should pay 65% of the ~1.5m (~$975m) and the pilot 35%, so the court found that the council was mostly liable for the incident....

I have just looked at the diagram again and I was wrong in my previous post. While there is an interconnecting line and one vent, one of the caps is also vented too. The Cessna diagram is in the POH page 7-21. https://takewingaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/N739EF_172N_POH.pdf It does mean that both the vent and the opposite cap would need to get blocked to cause fuel starvation. The key difference compared to your fuel vent setup is that the tanks are cross vented to put them both at the same pressure.

The way that the cessna wing tanks work(at least on the 172) is that there is a vent that runs form one tank to the other and one tank is vented to the outside. This means that the tanks are always at the same air pressure ensuring that the levels in the two tanks are fairly equal. It is very hard to get two air vents to be at exactly the same pressure as you have found out. Any difference in air pressure will cause the fuel to flow to one side.

My recollection from viewing it on a phone. I was going to look at it closely on a PC when i got home but it is now gone. The below is what I remember but i was looking on a small screen and this was written from memory so it could be wrong.... The video was an over the shoulder view from the front seat of a tandem 2 seat glider. They were ridge soaring by the looks of it about 3000 feet AGL above the valley, though that is estimated from my memory. There is considerable cloud build up, about 3/4 or more sky coverage, though the valley looked more clear, and they were above the cloud base and about level with some of the tops the clouds. Some clouds were also higher. There was some discussion between the pilots about locations/landmarks and the conditions ahead and about having final glide to somewhere but another few hundred feet being better. They were in ok lift and it increased slightly however they were now above the cloud but only just. Initially they turned to the left, and the lift became sink. [I think they had been blown down wind behind the ridge. To get back to the lift they needed to turn to the right but that was now into the could]. They turn left and the glider goes into the cloud and all is white, They lose control(possibly spin though not sure) and speed builds (My opinion by the sound) and the white outside view becomes very green with a glimpse of the hill/ground. A fair bit of shouting and then they recover, the camera is knocked to an odd angle and we don't really get a good view for the remainder. In the audio these is panicked talk about their orientation and who has control. Then after a few more seconds there is a call of spin, spin and they have what looks like an incipient spin. The video ends with the glider recovering from the spin, at low level, downwind of the ridge. The ultimate fate is not shown. Nobody.

Is it really a human in a jet pack or could it be an RC model?

Try an automotive locksmith. I think the key is the same as a car key from that vintage.

RFguy, Like there are VFR days and VFR days so too at night, the weather and conditions can make big difference. On a clear night with a moon fullter than 3/4 up you don't need night vision goggles. Let your eyes adjust and you can actually see quite well... Fly high and plan your flight from suitable landing location to suitable landing location so that if you have an engine issue you know where you are heading.... Night vision goggles wont be the solution you think they are. As well as loosing peripheral vision, you lose depth perception and some need to account for the differing focusing from inside the cockpit to outside the cockpit. You have also introduced a situation where the failure of the goggles would lead to a worse situation than not having them to begin with. Nobody

So don't do it. We fly for fun and no one is forcing you to do it. Just remember that there are plenty of people who do it, regularly and enjoy it. There are also others that would never fly in an aircraft powered by a 2 stroke or one that is not certified. Don't impose your own perception of risk and reward onto others....

Which is what is happening to the site, people are moving on hence the dwindling numbers....

Exactly.... I no longer post much on this site, though i do check in to see if anything interesting is happening. Most threads end up with people either whinging or prattling on about irrelevant and off topic stuff. Look at the thread the other day about the buy flying from Melbourne to Port Macquarie, rather than actually discussing flying it soon became a discussion about ICAO acronyms and other drivel. Do you think that people will keep posting if that happens again and again? Even this thread about the future of the website has become a discussion about relationships and the family courts...