Nobody

They might have been off for the landing but were still extremely hot....

I think you have slightly muddled 2 concepts, Weather conditions and VFR minimum conditions. The USA use 4 levels of weather description. From worst to best they are LIFR>>IFR>>MVFR>>VFR The definitions are given in the FAA AIM as: 1. LIFR (Low IFR).Ceiling less than 500 feet and/or visibility less than 1 mile. 2. IFR.Ceiling 500 to less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility 1 to less than 3 miles. 3. MVFR (Marginal VFR).Ceiling 1,000 to 3,000 feet and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive. 4. VFR. Ceiling greater than 3,000 feet and visibility greater than 5 miles; includes sky clear. If you look at something like sjyvector(https://skyvector.com/) or foreflight (Ozrunways equivilient) then they color code an airports conditions from Pink>>Red>>Blue>> Green. It gives you a very quick overview of the conditions at an area or along your route. It is also useful for setting personal minimum above the legal minimums. While it is legal to fly in MVFR conditions as a VFR pilot many people choose not to. A special VFR Clarence is a clearance given by ATC that allows a VFR pilot to fly in conditions that are below the normal VFR minimums of 91.155. For instance in class D airspace the normal VFR minimums are 3 Statute mile visability, and distances from cloud of 500 feet below, 1000 above and 2,000 feet horizontal, In class G airspace below 1'200 feet AGL the requirements are 1 statute mile and clear of cloud. Now if you wanted to take off from an airport where the ceiling was 1300 feet. If you were at a non-towered airport you could takeoff, climb to 1'000 feet and depart on your way. If the airport had a control tower and was class D you wouldn't be able to climb to 1000 feet and fly off. A special VFR clearance allows you to operate where the viability is 1 statute mile and you are clear of cloud, essentially the same as the class G airspace requirements. The above is all based on the USA rules and regulations. The Australian rules are similar but with some subtle changes.

How many do you need? I bought mine from Cleveland aircraft tools. You can get them in numbers as small as 25 but the shipping might be expensive on a small order. http://www.cleavelandtool.com/mobile/1_8-Wedge-Loc-Fastener-25_bag/productinfo/CL18-25/#.XibSiJBxXqs

I don't know what spec is required but they are available here : https://www.cps-parts.com/catalog/rtxpages/912914suspensionframe.php I think that there is an SB about them. There have been instances on RV-12s of them coming undone...

Are you reading a different set of rules to me? Here is the list of CASA endorsements: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/aircraft-design-feature-endorsements What has been gotten rid of is the type rating... (and quite rightly)

SAAA on Part 149:

If looking at a DA62 have a look at a second hand piper meridian from about 2005-2010...... Yes it wont be new but faster, easier to fly and more comfortable for the passengers.

The PAL also activates the T-VASI or PAPI depending on which the airport has....

Thanks turbo planner, I didn't know about the 10 minute requirement of AIP ENR 1.2... you learn something everyday....

I haven't seen that in the CASA regulations which only say that a day VFR flight can be done at "night" and the definition of "night" is: Night Flying Flight time which accrues during the period between the end of the evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. Is the 10 minutes in the RAAus Ops manual?

I'll probably be there with the camera again. Hopefully the weather will co-operate....

The girl has sued the pilot. I suspect that his insurance company (RAAus liability insurance?) don't want to foot the entire bill and so are looking for someone to share the cost hence the pilots insurance co. is suing the council.... The pilot has to be a part of the proceedings otherwise his insurance co. wont pay out to the girl and he will have to personally pay. Subrogation https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subrogation.asp

Yes the engines theoretical maximum efficiency is the diminished by a hotter intake but that is only past of the story. The theoretical efficiency of a heat engine with a hot temperature of 1000k and a cold temp of 300k is 70%, Our aircraft engines are only about 30% efficient showing that things like friction, heal loss to the cylinder wall and pumping losses are very significant. Increasing the hot temperature by 30 degrees celcius to 330k would drop the theoretical maximum efficiency to 67% but the in many instances the real achieved efficiency is higher. The attached table is from the Cessna 182S POH, the yellow highlight is mine. This is for 2000 feet pressure altitude. From the table at 2400 RPM and 21 inches of MP the power output is 67% and the fuel flow is 11.8 GPH when the temperature is 20 degrees below standard. If the temperature is 20 degrees above standard and the engine setting remain the same then the power drops to 63% and the fuel flow to 11.1 GPH. If we increase the MP to 22 inches to produce the same power as when the temperature was cooler the fuel flow has dropped to 11.7 GPH. This table suffers a little from rounding, it is only for a whole inch of MP and so sometimes there is no change (and for one or two instances the pattern isn't born out) but generally this shows that higher temperatures result in less power but more efficiency. Now 0.1 GPH isn't a lot but for the long distance record breakers that can mean the difference between claiming the record or having to divert and make another attempt.

To do the test well you need to somehow have the same output power from the engine under the two conditions. The hotter test will need the throttle to be slightly more open to produce the same power.

It runs best from a maximum power out point of view on a cold day, but the ammount of fuel required to generate that power is high. It is more power that makes motorbike or car feel better. To know that the fuel consumption is higher you have to do detailed measurements and so it is harder to determine the influence of higher intake temperature on fuel consumption. Search for brake specific fuel consumption(BSFC). Or perhaps the EFI means that the mixing of the fuel and air is better reducing the benefits of having a system of heating the intake air.

You need to make the distinction between maximum power and maximum efficiency. Maximum power is what we need to takeoff to get off the ground quickly and away from the tress at the end of the runway. In that situation cold air to the engine increases the power output. Once we are in cruise we no longer need maximum power and we throttle back. Now we are concerned with maximum efficiency. Warmer intake air increases the engines efficiency, lowering the the required fuel burn for a given amount of power. Some of the very long distance flight done in the long Eze's were done with a little bit of carb heat applied in the cruise, not to ward of icing but to improve efficiency.

The FAA have this fairly useful AC on water in Fuel. It does cover both Jet and Avgas so not all of it is applicable to our aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC20-125.pdf

In the USA the usage is affirmative, refer to the FAA Pilot Controller Glossary: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_basic_chgs 1_2_9-13-18.pdf In Australia it is Afirm as per the the AIP posted by head in the clouds. Footpath or Sidewalk?

Guys, This is all about the politics of Controlled Airspace Access and a higher MTOW. Did you note that RAAus are not providing information to any airport operator but only those that are members of the Australian Airports Association. CASA has a committee from the "industry" that provide advice to it on new regulations, called the ASAP. RAAus need that committee not to stand in the way of their request for greater privileges. The AAA won't endorse a regulation change that would result in their members not being able to send invoices to aircraft owners. RAAus's change in position is a quid pro quo for not opposing the CTA and a higher MTOW.

Safety Directive on the ASRA website: https://www.asra.org.au/application/files/2015/4106/0199/AD_2018.01_TITANIUM_AUTOGYRO_TAG.pdf

Its a good report but does leave a few questions unanswered. We don't know why the engine stopped. Even though there was a fire I would have thought that a disassembly of the engine would tell if it is was seized, or there was a lack of oil flow or anything significantly broken internally. What was to position of the ignition switches, fuel selector? This quote from the report is chilling, I wonder if as part of the pre takeoff checks out of habit Ross turned the fuel to the engine off? Mr Millard climbed into the aircraft, secured the harness and discussed matters with Mr Lowry including the position of the fuel selectors which was different from the Lightwing that Mr Millard owned and flew.

there were photos in the thread back in 2015 so it has been flying for awhile. Miniture high speed turbine engines

We all knock the media when they report a "cessna" has crashed so perhaps RED you could edit the thread title. CASA haven't determined anything, the ATSB have.

But there are VH registered aircraft that are under 600kg and have a low stall speed....

Just don't have lots of witnesses and/or photos....