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...

Most government bureaucrats want to live a peaceful life free of blame. If there is the chance that they will get the blame for doing something then don't do it. If there is the chance they will get the blame for not doing something then they do it. The bureaucrats like it if no one is using the formal channels to report problems. If there is ever an accident then they can say that there was no warning of the problem. The verbal discussions at CASA meetings are not recorded and so can be dismissed as hearsay. But if there was warning of a problem and an incident occurs they can get the blame....

Have any of you who have had close calls filed a repcon? It is much harder for a bureaucrat to ignore the problem if it is in their safety system... https://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/repcon-aviation/

The EAA mag from the USA is great, while some of the stuff is about building the EAA cover more than just homebuilding including vintage warbirds and ultralights.....

One advantage of aircraft circuit breakers is that they are interchangeable to an extent. If in 10 years time you need a new one you can probably get it. It might be a different brand but because they are built to meet a standard they will probably fit. I have had problems with stuff from Jaycar getting another one the same a few years later.... Perhaps if you use the Jaycar ones getting a few spares might be a good idea.

It’s probably worth adding that the SAAA have sets of scales available for hire to members around the country. I can’t remember the cost but from memory it wasn’t a lot and they allow you to weigh all wheels at once. The single set of scales method can work but it is a lot more work and a lot easier to get it wrong.

a quick google search failed to turn up any details. Do you have a link about it? Is it because of the virus?

Have you had that happen? I often asked for flight following and it is rare to have it refused....

Request flight following and wait until ATC give you the next frequency....

Yes and no.... It would only give you an accurate height above the ground under standard atmosphere conditions. That is, if your altimeter has been set to QFE when you land at the airfield it will show 0ft. If you are in the circuit and the altimiter shows 1000ft you probably aren't at 1000ft exactly. Many mechanical altimeters can't have a very wide range of QFE set in the scale. This can mean that at some high locations you just can't set the altimeter this way. It isn't commonly done in Australia but is in places overseas.

I personally haven't done SVFR in Australia but in the USA ATC can't offer it but can give it if requested by the pilot. It's a deliberate policy to discourage it. That being said there are times when it is useful to depart a control zone when the weather directly at the airport is poor but along your light path is good and improving.