Nobody

In the USA there is no such thing as a Low level endorsement. If you have a licence provided you meet the requirements for distances from people buildings etc you can fly at ground level....

I don't like the change to the port hole. I just can't see any benefits and it doesn't look as good when the site is viewed on a phone.

I stand to be corrected but I think that early 172 models have 40 degree flaps and later ones 30 degree flaps. With 40 degree flaps in a go around situation the climb rate was pretty bad to the extent that this was the limiting criteria for MTOW. Someone other than Cessna designed an STC that would reduce the flaps extension to 30 degree and increase the MTOW. Cessna then incorporated that change into later models.

Yep, as long as the POH dosent prohibit it. Some tandem aircraft limit which seat due to either CofG or because both seats don't have a full set of controls.

As a student listening in on Live ATC (Listen to Live ATC (Air Traffic Control) Communications | LiveATC.net) can be worthwhile. It allows you to listen in to airports far away rather than just what you have locally. A handheld is good idea too.

I don't have it here in Australia as I now own an aircraft but I had it in the USA. it was only a few hundred dollars a year but you had a lot of options that could change the price depending on the cover level. It also covered liability for damage to property and other people. Say you crash landed onto a taxiway and wiped out a cirrus or a PC-12. You don't want to find after the accident that the schools policy either does not cover you or only covers you up to $50k.

QBE call it "Aircraft Non-Ownership Liability". It may still have an excess but will be a lot less than the flying schools.

To me it looks like the wind was 45 degrees to the runway direction and the turn on the ground was a slow speed ground loop. Look at the windsock in the foreground and the dust direction near the aircraft.

Bolerpilot, It is common knowledge that words written on on forums can be slightly misinterpreted. When people talk to one another in real life their facial expressions,tone and hand gestures all convey some of the subtext of what they are saying. Typed into a forum this is missing. I don't think that anyone is deliberately trying to belittle or be vindictive, rather I think they speak from a point of concern for your well being. If we as a group of aviators want to reduce the significant accident rate then we need to speak up to help others who may not understand the danger of the situations they are in and that is what I think that the posters above were trying to do. They have either experienced the issues that come with a rearward CofG or have read and heard stories form those that have. My own rear CG of G experience was in a glider. I was taking a friend for a fly and she was smaller than others I had taken previously. We were exactly on the rear CofG limit and well under the MTOW. On tow all was good but once off the pitch control forces were very much lighter and the aircraft was significantly more twitchy. It took a lot more concentration to fly. In the landing flare there was almost no "feel". She was probably only 10kg lighter than others that I had taken for a fly but it made a huge difference, we we still within the aircrafts envelope but the handling was radically different. I have a very healthy respect for the rear CG limit following this and dont want to experience an aircraft outside its envelope. It could be impossible to fly. The FAA have quite a good guide to weight and balance. With the information in it you could estimate how much the CofG would change when you move the battery and weather this is completly compensated for by removing the tail weights you currently have. It is available here: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-1.pdf Nobody

Yes that is the case. You just have to be sure that you meet the countries minimum experience requirements. For instance in the NZ case you need 5 hours instrument training. If you have a CASA licence the minimum is 3 hours so you might not meet the NZ requirements if you have only just got your licence. The FAA has night requirements but from memory(I could be wrong here) I think you can get a day only validation.

If you have a CASA PPL and are flying a VH registered aircraft you do not have to go through any conversion or validation process. Your license is valid world wide. If you want to fly an aircraft registered in another country then the rules will be a little bit different. For instance as AVE8RR has posted in NZ you can get a validation that lets you fly an NZ registered aircraft in NZ, note this dosent let you fly a NZ registered elsewhere in the world like a full NZ licence would. The FAA is similar to the NZ system. To get a validation you have to apply with the appropriate paperwork. CASA confirm to the FAA that you have a license and then they issue the valuation. You have to do a BFR with a FAA instructor to be able to use it but there is no formal theory test. Depending on what you want to do there are different ways to go. For instance if you really want to explore the world in a 172 then there is nothing to stop you(other than a lot of money) buying one, registering it in OZ and heading off to other countries.

Peter that is exactly my frustration. Do they expect people to come to an event when they can't even be bothered to put some basic detail on the website? For instance, what are the procedures for flying in? Will the airport be open continuously or will it have a closure period like last year? Knowing this information would allow people to plan to fly in and home.... What activities/lectures/demonstrations/exhibitors are there going to be there? The more frustrating thing is that a lot of this information probably already exists as it would have had to be locked in a while ago. It takes only marginally more effort to publish to a website but the benefits are huge. Because it hasn't been done I think that attendance will be massively down on previous years. Imagine you were a supplier, are you going to bother turning up again.

Not sure why you would contact the SAAA, it is not being run by them this year, but by a separate Ozkosh committee.

We can't get agreement on the causes (or frequency) of jabiru engine failures, a topic a group of flyers would have some knowledge of. Do you really expect the members of this site to form an informed position about the efficacy of a complex medical procedure?

I don't understand, why would I? If it is required it should be up to Ozbirdy to make any reports...

I am glad you managed to land safely and are here to tell the tale. It isn't hard to imagine that the pain could be such a distraction that you make a simple mistake in the landing with bad consequences. Weren't you worried that it could come back on the flight home?

That's not quite right. Think about it from the other direction. If you are going install the parachute anyway and POH lists the recovery method is to deploy the parachute, then should you have to demonstrate spn recovery as part of the certification? The FAA thought that was reasonable and certified on that basis. They have demonstrated safe recovery from a spin and did so as part of the EASA certification. They haven't done the full spin matrix of all configurations. The heights in the manual are the demonstrated heights and just like maximum crosswinds usually the aircraft can cope with more(or less height) it just hasn't been demonstrated as such.

55 Days to go and the website still shows "Event and Accommodation details coming soon".....

Production forming can be done using either hydroforming or rubber forming. eg If the amount that the material has to be worked is small you can do it to an already heat treated sheet (eg -T3) but other times it is done to the annealed material (-O) and then the heat treatment done later. There are companies that will heat treat for you once you have formed the part. Be very careful with a metal shrinker or stretcher on aircraft parts. Most will leave score marks in the aluminum which will crack due to fatigue in the future. On a steel car body this is much less of an issue.

SSCBD, A mode S transponder broadcasts information when interrogated by ATC radar. This information include the altitude, the flight ID and a unique HEX code. The last two of these for most small aircraft do not change from flight to flight and can be programed into the unit. It needs to be done when installing the unit fo the first time or when moving a unit from one aircraft to another. Details from RAAus on how to get the HEX code for your aircraft. https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/1-standard-letter-modes-xpdr-programming-2015-2.pdf Trig install manual, refer to section 6.1.2 for details. Other manufacturers will have similar information http://www.trig-avionics.com/library/TT2x-00560-00-AM.pdf

Have a read of the Jabiru operating limitations in the POH. 38 degrees ambient is the upper limit for the j170 and I think the others are the same.

Benjamin, I wonder what the aircraft registrations data would look like with the Experimental Amature built excluded. I suspect that a high proportion of the new additions are experimental and so the real picture for the industry is worse. Nobody

Bex, I hesitate adding this comment as I realise it is difficult to judge with only two photos, but do you mind sharing your thoughts on the pattern of lightening holes in the carry through? I would have thought that the moment was constant through the member and you would want as much material as possible in the top flange. Is there something else going on here? The pattern in the sie with the increasing hole size looks good, following the shear flow. Nobody

Movement that caused it, or movement that occurred after it cracked? To cause a crack does not require much, if any movement, just a stress.

Here is the link to the SB that the AD linked by Spooks refers: http://www.lightsportaviation.org.uk/SERVICE%20BULLETIN%20SBEUR019%20ISSUE%201.pdf