frank marriott

Had some transponder noise in 2 J230s elimted by changing the coax to commercial grade, RG58 from memory. Worth considering.

I think I tried the other settings at the time but will try again tomorrow. I may have missed one in my frustration. Thanks anyway.

Has anyone any experience to offer with ref fitting a Tiny TAC tacho. I fitted one to a 4stroke 6 cylinder engine and selected the "3p" setting but it reads half rpm i.e. 500rpm at engine setting of 1000rpm. I checked another similar working installation - but the working TAC is an older model and the setting is 120°. I am led to believe the "3p" setting is the same as the 120° setting on the older model?

No problem, just wondered.

jetjr What is your real name? Are you actually part of the "NEW PERFECT" board or just an overt supporter of everything M&M.

The excuse that this BS is coming from CASA is in itself BS - some members accept political type crap.

<5ltrs I wouldn’t even consider. Remember if a large out of balance does occur then just feed in half a ball of skid and watch the transfer back.

Agree, and then do a Leakdown test to "know" the state, and not rely on feel alone.

IMO the big divide, and personal insults etc., to some of the "qualified" and informative people during the Jabiru fiasco caused them to leave. "Most" of the constant opinated (& unqualified) posters also left. I notice they have appeared on other sites but being more heavily moderated they are restricted in their crap. A couple still on my ignor list appear but I don't see what they have to say anyway. Without suggesting a fix, Ian I agree with your observation.

26

Re "off topic" etc My personal opinion is everyone has their individual beliefs, especially political & religious matters, that detract from the site. Obviously if there was a selection to "ignor" the "off topic" threads then it would not matter - I select "ignor" on certain individuals but to bring back all that other rubbish under "what's new" I suggest would have a negative impact. Your call Ian, just my opinion, I come here for aviation related matters ONLY.

The emphasis on self maintenance is misguided - trying to "fix" a problem that does not exist. Just like a political issue, certain people grab an idea and get carried away to excess merely for self grandeur. The facts do not support the excessive & continuing agenda. Any considered look at the incidents/crashes etc points to a common problem and it is has nothing to do with L1 maintenance. From my observations since joining RAA there is certainly some questionable expertise with "SOME" L2s (protected????) but the L1s, at least the ones I know of, seek assistance with anything that they are not comfortable/capable of doing. When input to agenda is limited to thought bubbles of a couple of Canberra centric individuals it is an expected outcome.

Comment by Tony King - looks like the ever changing goal posts for a L1 are on the move AGAIN "ref: next phase" Haven't see anything official from RAA, but why does it no longer surprise me. Mini GA with escalating costs. At some stage the members will realise where this mob are heading, in all probability too late. Yes Daryl, that’s right. Used to be that getting your RAAus Pilot Certificate would also give you the authority to maintain your own aircraft (as long as it’s only used for private operations). That ended a couple of years ago because it was recognised that there’s nothing in the pilot training syllabus that would qualify a person to maintain an aircraft. The L1 (owner/maintainer) maintenance authority presently requires you to complete online training and pass an exam. That helps ensure you know what the maintenance requirements are, where to find essential information, etc., but it still doesn’t confirm that you know which end of a screwdriver to hold. The next phase is in development and almost ready for live trials, which is what Dan is talking about. This will help ensure RAAus owner/maintainers have the practical skills to safely maintain their aircraft. You’re right that the majority of RAAus crashes are pilot related rather than maintenance related, just like every other sector of aviation. However the ability to maintain your own aircraft is one of the key points of difference between RAAus and RPL or PPL. In order to protect that privilege, and as a responsible industry player, having identified a gap in the training available RAAus is taking steps to close that gap. For those who already have the knowledge and skills it’s a mere formality (although you never know what you might learn). For those who don’t and want to maintain their own aircraft, it will make them safer and more capable.

Only 4 class D airports were prohibited , never stopped my use of YBTL (Class C) even when the instrument was in place - no limitations with engines with current mods.

As well as class C. One in Townsville training RAA in class C - I believe it is the first.

Interesting comment - I have not done a BFR without one since BFRs were introduced. I was of the opinion it was mandatory (in SE ops).

Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

I don't know about $30million. The rate payers of Townsville & Rockhampton (thanks to our 2 Labor City Councils) have promised $18.6million EACH.

Therein lies the problem. Raising a point with an unknown person from "somewhere" cannot work - even in politics you have a local member to contact and discuss your individual concerns. I accept that people, like yourself, support the new approach which is fine, I just happen to have a different opinion - publically promoted by Linke/Monk/Ramsay with their election by post code comments. I have NO interest in debating the subject as anyone can make up their own minds as to whether the current approach is better or not - I merely pointed out a fact. As for "why not stand if you don't agree", I remind you I was the elected rep for NQ prior to the change and as I feel so strongly about/against the direction taken there is NO way I would consider being part of it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just hope your overt support is proved to be correct and my opinion proves to be unfounded - I obviously have reservations.

Remember the plan was 5 (with a max of 7) we only got 7 because of the "outgoing" board. If you think you know everything then you don't want other opinions to which may not fit into your perfect plan (even if it only in your own mind). We have what we deserve.

I wonder about that percentage? I for one, don't read it unless something important or controversial is brought to my attention.

When flying a simple RAA type aircraft there is simply not that much to forget really. Generally (with a couple of exceptions) Fixed undercarriage Fixed pitch One fuel system No primer No cowl flaps No mixture control No instrument checks (as in IFR) only T&Ps & fuel quantity Just enjoy the simplicity without over complicating things, at the same time you will achieve a better lookout. Relax and enjoy the experience.

Totally agree and therein lies the problem. "Some" results from RA schools are quite embarrassing.

Have you had it up to NW Queensland where 22° on the ground are winter temps?

Heard a RAA registered aircraft (when the RAA upper limit was 5000') give an overflying call at Winton Q, at 9500'. Some people's understanding of radio use leaves me speechless. I forget whether on CTAF or area, but matters not.