Neil_S

Hi Onetrack, I understand that, but in this instance there is no indication that there was any "simple pilot error". He was flying along in the cruise at 4000 ft a short distance behind his brother in another aircraft and then suddenly he was at a few hundred feet pulling the chute. A few weeks later a GA aircraft ran off a runway and pilot and passenger escaped unhurt - yet the ATSB are investigating that. Also the sad accident where a young instructor took a couple of mates up in his newly-acquired GA plane and flew circles around the mate's house , lost control and crashed is also being investigated by the ATSB - yet I think we can agree this will not reveal anything new about flying circles low and heavy around a point. So I'm afraid the argument about only investigating fatal crashes where something new can be learnt does NOT apply. Cheers, Neil

Hi T88, As it had numbers on the fuselage and not letters there was no ATSB investigation, so no cause has been determined. There is no evidence that the chute failed to deploy properly, it appears to have been deployed too late. Cheers, Neil

Oooooooh - salt - that'll put your blood pressure up! Don't declare that! A guaranteed fail!!

Hi IBob, I guess it comes down to the principle of moments. I remember doing all that stuff at school with levers and weights at different lengths from the fulcrum. I guess the CG for the aircraft is the "fulcrum" here, and a smaller weight a longer distance away has the same effect as a larger weight that is closer. Being a bit of a pedant I frequently put more fuel in the starboard outer tank on my Savvy than the port outer tank as I usually fly solo, and I worked out that even a relatively small extra amount of fuel acts as if I had a (light) passenger in the right hand seat, and therefore the plane is more evenly balanced in the roll axis. Cheers, Neil

Hi Alan, I agree there do not seem to be many changes year on year - personally, as I live in Melbourne and mostly fly within Victoria, I just buy the hard copy book for Victoria and Tasmania every few years. Not sure if that's the most cost effective, but I have done that the last few years. BTW - if you log into their website (www.flightace.com) it lists all the airfields in the books by state, so you can check if a certain field is in there. Cheers, Neil

Hi Jackc, Assuming I have understood your enquiry correctly - it cost me $770 to convert my Savannah to Experimental. I received a new C of A. There have been no recurring fees other than the normal annual RAAus aircraft registration fees. Cheers, Neil

Sting - could be registered GA or RAAus. If GA, ATSB will investigate, if RAAus they won't. Makes SOOOO much sense - not.

...and yet they will investigate a fatal crash if the aircraft is registered GA - but not investigate if exactly the same type of aircraft is registered RAAus. How is that consistent?? Fortunately there are not many RAAus fatal crashes, so the lack of money/resources argument does not wash with me. IMO if there could be, for example, a design fault in the aircraft then there should be an investigation as further lives, GA or RAAus, could be at risk if it is not addressed. Why does it matter if the plane/pilot is RAAus or GA?? Where the reason is an obvious one, eg running out of fuel, flying through cloud into cumulus granitis, flying into power lines doing low level stunts etc I agree nothing will be gained, but that is not specific to GA or RAAus, it is the same poor pilot decision making. Other crashes are not. Cheers, Neil

Hi, I'm not sure that video can be interpreted as saying don't use SE2 in the circuit - he says not to be fixated on it, which I would agree with. However, I raised this very point at the RAAus Parkes seminar earlier this year where this was discussed, and we agreed that as a) we don't have eyes in the back of our heads, and b) we can't see through the aluminium/fabric/plastic of our fuselages, that using just our eyes to "see and avoid" cannot detect what is behind us (or above or below) and so the ADSB-IN on our iPads in the circuit can be very useful. As always, the technology is a useful adjunct to the Mark One eyeball, and should be used accordingly - to fill in the gaps where we can't see in this case. A glance at the iPad is all that is required, then probably followed up with a radio call to confirm position and intentions. Cheers, Neil

I've also done a BFR with Adam. Agree with all SGM's observations. Highly recommended. Cheers, Neil

Muppets! They'd get a better result for medical incidents if they mandated not eating dodgy prawns before flying......

Hi Kiwi, This sounds like the old days when trying to get a better signal on a black and white TV by asking somebody to hold the aerial in a different spot. You'd get a really good picture - but if the person then put the aerial down at that spot the picture turned to crap again "Hey mum - just keep standing there holding the aerial!" LOL Cheers, Neil

Hi Skippy, Yes - the quarter levels. Cheers, Neil

Hi guys, I just bought some narrow PTFE tube and attached a section with copper wiring to my dipstick. Works a treat - so easy to see the fuel level now, and it stays static in the tube until I take my finger off the end. Cheers, Neil

Hi Roscoe, Your Skyecho has 3 lights on it, the one on the right is the one indicating GPS fix. If you had GPS fix issues this should have shown something other than green, eg amber if poor (2D), or red if no satellites fixed. Cheers, Neil