Manwell

I think I can handle the truth space. What could possibly go wrong anyway....? More to the point, why would anyone be so coy about admitting to the town they live in? Very strange.

Maybe you're right, but we won't know if you aren't willing to engage in polite discussion.

Only at certain off peak times when no-one is using it. Having a floating electricity price is like having a constantly fluctuating fuel price. It changes so often and so much without any valid reason people simply accept being screwed mercilessly rather than try to make sense of it. And I'd still like to know whether you actually live in Toowoomba because we might have a lot of shared friends.

Not having access to the NBN is a good thing if you ask me Nev.

Are you suggesting to increase the listed approach speed which is a function of Vs, which is predicated on being at MTOW, straight and level, with flaps up or down, and in unaccellerated flight, space? What is a DRAKO too?

I know exactly what you mean Nev. It scared the $h1t out of me to even dare to think that I could know better than the authorities, but there is no chance of progress unless we're willing to accept that what we've been doing is wrong. Admittedly, this isn't something that any damned fool can pull off successfully, but treating all pilots like damned fools is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Since it's different and inherently risky, pilots and instructors are more likely to be cautious than reckless, and if it's done right, the risks are intelligently mitigated to the point that there is literally less risk than if it wasn't done. The case of stalls off base turn is a great example to consider if we - and I mean instructors and senior pilots - are fair dinkum about the value of training. What that example shows is that people don't "know" when they're about to stall, and don't "know" how to fly in balance. Both deficiencies are rectified by teaching pilots how to fly at or below stall speed. At very slow speed the cues don't come from the instruments, and only exposure to slow flight develops the spatial and situational awareness that is required to enable a pilot to "know" when they're near stall. At very slow speed, ailerons are less effective than rudder to control roll, and it's easy to see when you're unbalanced if you're situationally aware. In simple terms, if the wings are level and the aircraft isn't turning, you're in balance, which you can also feel through the seat of your pants - but only if you don't have any other option! Once the pilot has experience at controlling an aircraft at altitude in slow flight, then the next step is to do the same thing over a runway at very low level, trying to fly just off the ground for the length of the runway. If this training was done routinely, stall/spin accidents would be dramatically reduced.

To be clear, the best way to teach stall recovery is by NOT teaching stall recovery. Learning how to fly confidently at speeds below Vs is far more practical, and practising slow flight just above a runway is the only insurance you'll ever need against unintentional stalls. Once that's done properly, stall recovery training is superfluous, and if you can control an aircraft at stall, you also control whether it can spin.

Well, maybe not actually get a water grid, but pay for it anyway Nev. Then Govt will sell it off to "private enterprise" cheap and charge them interest on the money they borrow to buy it, so they have to recoup their costs by charging us more for the water we owned in the first place. That's exactly the same scam they ran with the Federal Airports Corporation, and we're still paying for being stupid enough to let them get away with it. The commercialisation of our own water was being boasted about by HSBC on a series of posters as I walked down the gangplank into Brisbane Airport early this year. They read, "Water, the most precious currency of all...." And here we are arguing about whether ratepayers are being ripped off for a lousy $300k. That's peanuts compared to the $60 Billion for the NBN, and the money we'll end up paying for water in the long term.

That's patently obvious fly. The question is why you don't see it. Where do you live again? I was in Toowoomba on the weekend. Might have bumped into you at the Gowrie Road.

Whose money do you think they're using Bruce? At the end of the day, ratepayers are probably being defrauded.

True Derek, but they did warn us. Government literally means Control Mind. Govern = Control, -ment = mind, as in mental. Then Department literally means Leave Mind. So, a Government department is mind control to encourage us to take leave of our senses. The funny thing is that they're not crazy, and it all makes sense once you know what they're up to, but it's not what they say it is. Look at what they do instead. Actions speak louder than words.

I'd add a recommendation for Fate is the Hunter, by EK Gann, Bob Hoover's book would be a good read too, but I haven't read it. Old Number One is another good read by EK Gann, and The Right Stuff by Chuck Yeager.

To suggest that Warwick council are better because they have allowed themselves to be conned by an Indian company with virtually no real assets or business doesn't seem logical to me Bruce. What they will do is build a (probably overpriced) hangar that probably won't deliver a return on investment, but the builders will still get paid, and I'd guess that's the whole idea.

spacesailor, that would be difficult to overcome, no doubt about that, but there's no way anyone could accept you're a lost cause unless you did first. I wasn't even born in 1952, but I won't patronize you with any sympathy either. It really doesn't matter how many times you've failed, only whether you've kept on trying, and what's more, that's all anyone really expects of us. Do you know the RAF/RAAF motto? Per Ardua Ad Astra. Through Adversity To The Stars. The funny thing about it is that most people in the RAF or RAAF don't have the faintest idea what it really means. Can you work it out? Take your time. It only took me about 30 years.

Thanks Nev! The topic heading, How to FLY should have a question mark after it.. What I was asking is for people to describe how to fly in as simple terms as possible. I told ya I'm an idjit....

Nev's right spacesailor. That was a major challenge for me as well, and it was only after repeated exposure to the problem did I manage to control it. In fact, there was one particular experience that probably had the most benefit in hindsight, and it wasn't pleasant at the time. I was doing an Aerostar endorsement with an old instructor from Sydney. He was nicknamed "squat switch" and I found out why on that flight. As soon as we got airborne he became annoyed at everything I did, but rather than taking it personally, I simply focused on flying the aircraft smoothly and well. By the end of the flight, I was certain I'd need hours of extra training before he'd write the endorsement, so when we got back into the old building I was prepared for the worst. Instead, he'd transformed back into the affable charming old bloke I'd known before and floored me with his debrief - "That was one of the best performances I've seen lately." or words to that effect. Later, I realised why he was called "squat switch", and specifically why he transformed when the wheels folded up, and back when they came back down. He was simply doing his best to simulate the stress a pilot would feel in an emergency to see how he'd react. In short, the brain freeze we all experience under stress is controllable if we don't take it personally. The Buddha said "Attachment is the root of all suffering" and that's spot on. If we're too attached to our sense of self, or ego, under stress, or if we worry that we'll stuff up and look stupid, then we will. That takes self-discipline, which is ONE essential quality of a Pilot in Command. The others are consciousness and skill, but they can't be developed without self-discipline. That just takes practice at making mistakes. Eventually, even idjits like me can get there, so you can too if you want it bad enough.

Go to page 1, post 1 for the question Wirraway. After you read the initial question, give us your best answer.

You can't believe everything they say though Nev. Kids are masters at the art of manipulating adults, pitting mum against dad, for example... If we could know the whole story, it probably wouldn't look so cut and dried as they make out.

Again, you're right Nev. No disability is impossible to overcome. The new way in 1965! Far out! It hasn't gotten any better. I don't think people expect schools to do everything, so much as schools have slowly taken responsibility off parents so much they have become irresponsible. Work pressures, TV, and technology haven't helped either. I've done my best to influence the school's P&F to correct the many glaring examples of what is basically child abuse - killing them with kindness, by giving them technology without any internet filters, and making them use tech so much they get addicted. That's a criminal act by my reckoning. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It also destroys their mental discipline, and independence of thought. We could have a long chat about education....

Considering you couldn't spell your name right back then, you've done alright since. Assuming you are typing your own posts...

Very good points Nev. Good education provides the foundations upon which all future learning is built, also called the basics or fundamentals. While we agree on those points, it seems we aren't in agreement about modern education, which has changed since we went to school. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the education system is in the end product. It's been a constant complaint from employers and anyone whose role is to take the finished product of education and take it to the next level, that they are generally deficient in the basics, reading, writing, and arithmetic. It's also been a constant complaint from parents that they can't relate to their kids anymore, which is blamed on the generation gap. Youth's passion for learning has been steadily dimmed as the material they were supposed to learn made things harder, not easier, over time, requiring them to gain higher academic qualifications to be considered useful to society. These are facts. Recently, at the school P&F, one of the topics discussed was the new Senior syllabus which is causing headaches for teachers and students alike. Why it was changed, and why it makes no sense to teachers couldn't be answered, so rather than asking difficult questions, they chose to ignore the problem in the hope it will fix itself. "They" the faceless experts in education, must know what they're doing.... and the surprising thing is they do. The other surprising thing is that what they're aiming to achieve isn't what we assume it to be. The result of the policy is the intended goal. It's not a silly mistake. The old adage "Knowledge is Power" is well known. What's not so well known is that flawed knowledge firmly accepted is worse than ignorance, especially if the ignorant is aware of their ignorance. Mark Twain said it in his usual style, "It ain't what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." Hypothetically speaking, if you spent years of your life and lots of money and energy getting an education only to find at a much later point that most of it was subtly flawed based on your understanding of the basics, what would you do?

Agreed Bruce. Some of the best engineers I ever met were amateurs, and hated the bullshit involved in licensing. And some of the worst pilots I ever knew were highly qualified. The essential difference is why someone does what they do. If it's because they love it, they'll eventually be good at it. If I had my way, I'd apply Douglas "Tin Legs" Bader's advice - "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men." In other words, they are a guide for learners, nothing more. And Flying Inspectors would be wise men/women chosen by their peers, basically ATOs, but not paid by the user. Old retired pilots who know how to fly, and don't care about anything else. Probably impossible the way things are at present, but something to work toward.

That would be a difficult experience to live through and survive intact spacesailor. Schooling is vastly overrated anyway. It is literally teaching humans to "school" like fish. Great if you like the safety of the herd, but not so great when the herd you're in are Lemmings. I trained an academic once who wanted to fly from BK to PF to deliver a lecture before he'd completed ab initio training. Hesitantly, I agreed, since he was at least close to finishing basic training, but my concerns were proven after flying the whole way there, and the whole way back. The silly bugger couldn't hold straight and level accurately for longer than half a minute because he kept getting distracted or trying to complicate things to keep his overactive brain engaged. Some of them are literally mad, but since they're professors, few are game to call them crazy. A modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. Where was this school anyway?

Are you being fair dinkum spacesailor?

Thanks for the word of encouragement Bruce. I've been in aviation long enough to develop a thick skin, basically because I don't like to accept anything without proof, even though it would certainly make life easier. BTW, I'm certainly not an academic, I went as far as Year 12, no tertiary education, excluding flying related training. Academics are generally "useful idiots". Academically brilliant, but practically useless. Did I mention I'm also brutally honest? Another serious disability. Having said that, there are some excellent thinkers in academia who end up suffering for their stubborn refusal to tow the establishment line, and would certainly appreciate support from the public instead of blindly accepting whatever the TV says. A case of the many spoiling it for the few.... Okay onetrack. Since you opened up that can of worms, you're right. I did say it's good for getting information for "things like that" - Cognitive Dissonance, and Dunning-Kruger. They don't usually whitewash things like that. If we were interested in information on something more controversial, they consistently run the establishment line and provide clues to the truth in such a way that most will accept as confirmation of the established lie. However, if you know their biases, they are excellent sources of information on most things, just not if you take everything they say literally.