walrus

skip, I do as KR Aviator does, usualy deferring to the bigger more expensive to run commercial operators. What I was saying is that when I go past Benalla, I dont make a separate call for Waahring and the like.

Skippy, there are literally hundreds of private fields we all overfly every day. Nobody makes any calls. Anyway its academic for me, I'm out of it and don't miss the mountains of BS , all of it, required to fly in Australia. You want examples? Watch British private flight youtube videos and then remember that those guys are flying through or around all that controlled airspace with self declared medicals that make ours look like strait jackets. Then watch American or NZ videos and see what flying freedom looks like. If there are a few fields where airspace intersects, then they had better have a CTAF.

ARO of course you are correct. What i am talking about is the implicit hierarchy of things requiring a pilots attention - hence my flippant example of an A380 technically infringing Penfield. If that ever happened I suggest that the very last thing on the Airbus pilots mind would be calling on 126.7. Skippydiesel hints at this when he suggests arriving aircraft are the worst offenders. Skippy I never called ALL airfields because that is impractical - too many, most rarely used. Just the ones I new to be populated.

Skippy: "Unfortunatly no one (including myself) seem to have a solution for the lack of good airmanship exhibited by so many Camden GA pilots." With respect NO! Either explicitly or implicitly, there is a mental hierarchy in communications in that communication rules are governed by the airspace class. Camden traffic would expect the Oaks users to inform them of their activity, on the applicable Camden frequency, not the other way around. Do you expect every inbound A380 to announce its arrival on the Penliegh or Riddells ck frequency? Where does it say that RA traffic cannot communicate with GA traffic?

Money: Actually NOT off the topic of this thread because we buy military aircraft to fight wars, not just entertain children. There is an exception to this for military transport aircraft that are dual use. So when we acquire military aircraft, we should consider for what cause we will employ them. Obviously, defence of our own homeland is most likely an honourable use, assuming its not another nation coming after us for our trangressions elsewhere. However outside that direct defence usage, we start getting into grey areas quite quickly - things like "coallitions of the willing" and similar bullcrap. As a result of our "buy american" strategy we no longer have operational sovereignty over large chunks of our equipment. The F35's wont work if the USA decides they shouldn't, similarly other stuff. So its time to review : Considering the history of the countries the US has helped, how far should we go to support them?

I didn't even bother to look up for Avalon bound aircraft. The only exception being when the compelling blade slap of a pair of Chinooks took me back to my youth. far more interested in watching the Russian videos on youtube as they make an object lesson out of Ukraine for any country that believes U.S promises and encouragements to war. Translation: When someone says 'lets you and him fight" its smart to run away.

Another Bristell? Surely not..

Yes turbo, but I you miss the point; I am not a scofflaw. The evidence demonstrated that accidents attributable to medical conditions nominated and detectable by the medical profession are vanishingly small in number therefore the entire prgram has been and remains a total waste of time. This is not to say that there are not accidents caused by gross medical conditions (alcohol, tiredness, stress., etc., etc,) but that such conditions are detectable and best managed by a pilot and that the Doctors will be the last to know. The saddest submission to the consultation was from an obvious Avmed apparatchik who opined that there were thousands of pilots hiding dangerous medical conditions from creatures such as himself and that surveillance must be increased to detect these malefactors. Once again he ignored the evidence; if both allegations were true: hiding conditions and conditions cause accidents, then there should be a continuous background "noise" of medically related accidents - and there aren't. Certificate 5 rules are crap compared to the British ones anyway. I particularly disliked the crap on neurological condtions - alleging that sufferer could not be trusted to recognise their own conditions. This is especially troubling considering that many such conditions take years and years to be pronounced enough to make a firm diagnosis. .

Posted June 4 If you have a crash and it’s determined you didn’t declare a (known) condition that contributed to the accident, irrespective of whether you’re flying on a Class 1, Class 2 (incl. Basic Class 2) or a Class 5 medical, you’re in strife. ,,,,,Rodger thats also the same for a std MV licence holder let alone any of the other CASA licences. - And that is about as likely as being nibbled to death by a duck, which is why Britain and America went for self declaration in the first place. The whole medical disaster that is aeromed rests on the erroneous presumption that a medical examination is able to detect a medical condition that the pilot is not aware of that catastrophically decreases her ability to fly safely. The WHOLE POINT OF SELF DECLARATION IS THAT THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS FOLK BELIEF IS BULLSHIT. The experience shows that pilots are the best judges of whether they are medically sound or not. That does not mean they are perfect, but that they are streets ahead of the medical profession, and that they can and do accuratey certify their own fitness to fly every time they take the controls. AhHa! you say, but what about drugs, alcohol and mental illness? The answer to that one is that the medical profession will be the very LAST to detect such conditions. Please please also do not confuse a medical condition that is dangerous to the long term health of a pilot with a medical condition that is going to render them unfit to fly. For example what CASA considers is excessive alcohol use. .....

o ring groove design...... https://sealingaustralia.com.au/oring-groove-design/

The ATSB in their report on the fatal crash of a Mooney Aircraft at Luskintyre, identified the cause of the accident as a fuel leak from the outlet of its engine driven fuel pump caused by the "failure of an O- Ring" that had apparently been undisturbed since 1993. I have no quarrel with this cause, just the definition of the sealing method as an O- Ring Seal and the then horrifying advice that aircraft owners should start pulling things apart and replacing O- rings just in case! https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/ao-2022-049#theinvestigation1 https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2024/atsb-urges-proactive-approach-replacing-elastomer-components-after-o-ring-failure-contributed-luskintyre-flight-fire-accident Firstly, while Lycoming may classify the affected part as an "O Ring" the joint in question is not remotely classifiable as an O -Ring seal application in my book because O - Rings fit in grooves - very carefully machined grooves at that. Properly designed, such systems have very few ways of failing, (unless applied to a space shuttle) and are certainly not subjected to the obvious crushing and twisting loads imposed by Lycomings design which appears to be an SAE port of some kind (J1926)? https://www.univair.com/engine-parts/lycoming/74070-lycoming-fitting-assembly/ .............which makes the ATSB advice look stupid and dangerous because there is a major issue with infant mortality in replacing O - Rings. They could perhaps have confined themselves to an inspection of the offending part.

Does the pilot live at. mt. Beauty? i believe there is one gentleman there with a motor glider.

I have tools and various bits of aircraft kit left over from a build. Ranging from rivets to AN hardware and fasteners, clecos and some aircraft specific parts. A few tools are valuable. Whats the best way to recycle this stuff? Ebay is a possibility but a chore. Traceability would be an issue for certified aircraft. Suggestions requested.

The latest RAA Email suggests that there is a pent up demand for Group G - 700 expressions of interest I believe. RAA is now in the process of reviewing its time table to cater for the demand. What does this tell us about the state of Aviation regulation in Australia?

Sorry to hear about Wal - the Rotax Whisperer. I run a 912 iS and I don't like that flexible line at all. If I had to use one at all, it would be a reputable make of AN6 teflon and braided stainless with fire sleeve. The oil lines also need fire sleeves but they are not under much pressure and they also have to be able to take vacuum which can be considerable with a cold engine - which is why you can't apply full power until the oil is at or above 50C. I run Goodridge convoluted teflon and braided SS forward of the firewall because it is very flexible although expensive. NB if using Teflon and SS hose, be very careful not to overtorque the securng nut because it can split, leaving you with a difficult to trace fuel weep.