walrus

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.

Turbo, yes, that is the way it is supposed to work in a free market capitalist economy that we are supposed to have. We should always be looking at the donut, not the hole. However, although I have no direct experience of CASA and certainly haven't seen any bad behaviour personally, I don't wish to be dragged into the discussions of alleged bastardry that appear to be continuous. What I think I can say, taking an overall view of the situation is that over the years I have read enough, including Parliamentary publications, that document Government attitudes and associated CASA regulatory behaviour that increases business risk for potential investors in aviation compared to other forms of investment, for example, property development, mining, agriculture and even manufacturing. When you evaluate an investment opportunity, you start with consideration of Sovereign risk, that is the risk of doing business ina p-articular country and then drill down to business risks, competitors likely reactions, technical risk, etc. etc until you arrive at a return on investment adjusted for the risks involved. IF the risk is high, then the returns must be high. A component of sovereign risk is regulatory risk and aviation is a regulatory minefield as is allegedly CASA's behaviour in promulgating, interpreting and enforcing the same, at least according to Sen. Fawcett and many other MP's. The risk of investing in aviation in Austrlia is too high compared to other investment opportunities That means that we are likely to be underinvested in the aviation sector of our economy compared to say, USA, New Zealand and even UK. NO investment = no economic activity = no jobs and it's a vicious circle.

Turbo, you are right, lets hope it is just an IT problem. We need to give CASA some slack on this one.

Tuboplanner: "The problem is Rodger the people complaining most likely don't know how to order a pizza or an Uber, and, like the old geysers that used to wander abound the banks saying they were "awful" for not having as many counters, one day there's going to be a puff of fairy dust and it will be learn the systems or nick off. " Err..No, period. Your faith in computer systems and technology is touching but misplaced. Computer systems are as unreliable as the people who specify them, let alone code them. Examples? The British Post Office scandal - ongoing and robodebt in Australia. Imagine the cluster**** possibilities of CASA training an AI if you want a real nightmare.

The window arrangement does not look like a Zenith 750 Cruzer or STOL, neither does the door, which on a 750 is a one piece bubble. The Cruzer doesn't have an inverted stabiliser and the 750 STOL doesn't have those tips on the stabiliser. Neither of them comes standard with hub caps. Both the Cruzer and 750 STOL are good for 650 kg MTOW. Perhaps it is a 701, 801, Savannah or some sort or some modified combination. It appears that the aircraft was only registered a month ago, so that suggests the pilot didn't have much time on type. The behavior of some light aircraft in a strong crosswind can be challenging. You need to remember the rules for control positions when taxiing and be very, very careful to ensure that the upwind wing never gets too high an angle of attack. If it is a ZEenith type, the full span flaperons get quite heavy when drooped as flaps and while they are very effective you have to be ready to apply some muscle make them work and to keep that into wind wing down and under control. In any case I hope the pilot pulls through.

Correction, not a Zenith 750. Maybe a Savannah? I hope the pilot recovers.

Looks like a Zenith 750 Cruzer from the tail. Crosswind demonstrated somewhere around 15 kts but you need your wits about you.