aro

It is "almost real time" but I don't know what the latency is. As I said, it could be 1 second, 5 seconds... the programmers will make a decision on how frequently to update based on resource usage, battery usage etc. The other question is what happens if the signal is shielded by structure - does it the display stay in the last received position, or does it move based on a calculation? It's not noticeable at normal distances. If you are within e.g. 1/2 mile, where you should be using visual separation, it could become significant. My understanding is that Airservices will not provide traffic info. Avplan display traffic info collected by (I think) one of the internet traffic display sites so you can see most ADSB traffic even if you don't have your own receiver. It also displays a lot of glider traffic from a different network. The latency in this display is likely unknown and variable. So you have more traffic displayed, but you need to be aware that there might be different levels of accuracy in the different types of traffic.

What we don't know: how long ago that was - it could be 1 second, 5 seconds, 15 seconds. I haven't found anywhere the EFB companies document that. I think where traffic is gathered from the distributed network of receivers it can be as much as 90 seconds behind reality. I have an ADSB receiver, often it will show 2 icons for the same aircraft until it works out they are the same - the position can be quite different. What happens if the traffic info is interrupted e.g. temporarily blocked by aircraft structure. It could 1) keep displaying the traffic in the last known position i.e. stationary 2) assume the traffic maintains course and speed and calculate a position or 3) remove it from the display how many aircraft are not being displayed. Some airports ADSB probably shows 80-90% of traffic, others maybe <50% due to traffic mix. You need to be looking out the window not at the screen. I fly from a busy airport, and most (not all!) traffic shows up with ADSB. How I use the EFB traffic display: 10+ miles out I listen on CTAF and look at the traffic on the EFB. In particular I want to figure out from radio calls how many aircraft do not show on the traffic display, and their sequence (if doing circuits) in relation to the ones that do show. Also, my position in relation to any other inbound aircraft. 3-5 miles out I have a good picture of the traffic and concentrate on spotting the aircraft visually Joining the circuit I might take a glance at the EFB to confirm if it looks like there might be a conflict, e.g. if I think there should be someone on crosswind/early downwind but I can't spot them. The traffic display might confirm whether they are there, or have left the circuit. Once in the circuit, the EFB is away and it's all radio/visual. It's too easy to lose sight of the aircraft you need to follow if you are looking at your screen. No-one is saying that EFB traffic isn't a useful tool. The issue is whether it would be a help or a hindrance in the case that opened the thread - a collision on final. Inside 1-2 miles the EFB position is not reliably accurate enough and you should be using visual separation.

What is the delay between the ADSB transmission and the aircraft appearing on the screen? If it's 15 seconds, the aircraft will have moved 1/4-1/2 mile or more from the displayed position. That makes it little use in the circuit. You are better off spending the time identifying the traffic out the window. There is a reason ATC have large minimum separation standards when they are separating aircraft using radar returns on a screen.

It might be difficult to legally define that difference. E.g. when does "additional patronage from passers by" become the primary purpose of the business? Is a business allowed to grow if the patronage from passers by grows? Are they allowed to refuse aviation visitors if they are booked out by passers by? The second 2 might not be an issue at this point, but it sounds like the first one was the hurdle they came up against.

Presumably someone has gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that the land can't be used for non-aviation uses - which has had some side effects. But isn't the usual complaint that airport land is being used for non aviation uses like retail to the public? People need to work out what they want. Would the DFOs at Essendon and Moorabbin be OK if there were gates available so you could fly in to shop? It's basically the same thing, albeit on a massively different scale.

Sounds like there was too much protection. According to the post, the airfield is zoned Specific Use - Aviation, and the coffee shop is not considered an Aviation use when it is accepting passing (i.e. non-aviation) visitors.

No idea what you're referring to with Qudos Bank, but this claim about the PCR tests is false. They are 100% specific for COVID. There are other PCR tests for other diseases, but the laboratories know which test they are running.

Meanwhile in Florida people are being warned to conserve water, because they are short of liquid oxygen used to treat water due to COVID demand...

We have never had more access to good information, thanks to the internet. You just have to find the real experts - not the media types pushing for attention. Back in January 2020, the people who had worked on controlling Ebola were raising the alarm, saying this virus looked way more scary than Ebola. We can hear first hand from the ICU doctors & nurses in hotspots. We can hear first hand from scientists working on treatments and vaccines. We can hear first hand from the patients in ICU before they are put on a ventilator. Peter Doherty, the Nobel Prize winning immunologist is regularly online answering questions about the vaccines. Mid last year he predicted that we would have vaccines, and we would likely start to hear good news from trials around October 2020. He was right within a week or 2. Many others (politicians and media) were predicting there would never be a vaccine. Information is there, if you can filter it from the rubbish. For some reason everything in the media seems to be written by political reporters, never health or science reporters. It shows in the framing of the stories, and has been very damaging.

Yes: unvaccinated people. Delta is making younger people, including children, sicker than previous variants. I don't know what makes you think you are in a group that is not at risk - if you are under 18, perhaps, but I would still be worried... otherwise you are definitely at risk. The only people with good protection against the disease are those who are vaccinated - protection is good after the first dose, much better after the second.

There are states creating weird laws around vaccinations and masks, but I think all states have higher rates than Australia e.g. Alabama is 35% fully vaccinated, 45% at least 1 dose. Mississippi is the lowest at 41.9% at least 1 dose. Australia is 44.7% 1 dose 23.1% fully vaccinated BUT that is people above 16 years, I think the US data is all people.

Are you a qualified lawyer, or one of your backyard lawyers?

You are rewriting history a bit there. There was no vaccine available last year and no guarantee there would be one. The USA and UK basically adopted the Yes Minister 4 stage plan, with lip service to the idea of slowing infections to prevent the health system being overloaded (fail). Australia was far more pro-active about keeping people alive and we have had a much better 18 months than most of the world as a result. That could only ever be temporary, and we were buying time to learn about treating the disease and hoping a vaccine could be developed. Now we are in a much better position than other countries, if we could just get our hands on enough vaccine. Look at other vaccines - we don't wait until there is an outbreak to start vaccinating people. As the number of people vaccinated increases, infection numbers should stabilize. Stabilizing close to zero with an occasional case is much better than stabilizing at hundreds of new cases a day.

Because it was 100% correct, as you described in your answer. It is unreasonable to expect us to guess why the h-stab was misrigged. I stand by my comment that the aircraft was unairworthy because it could not be controlled within it's normal range of speeds.

If you are saying that it was exceeding VNE, I would say "don't do that".

Australia's vaccination rates are amongst the worst in the world. I do not agree that Australia is getting the best results. Our success more broadly has been due to people who stepped up and took action despite the risks, rather than those who would do nothing lest they be held responsible.

There have been multiple similar RV7 crashes. At some point past VNE the aircraft breaks up. The sequence seems to be rudder flutter, the rudder trailing edge rivets unzip and the rudder is torn in half top to bottom, the rest of the tail comes off and damage after that is due to aerodynamic loads produced when the tail is lost, e.g. a pitch down and negative G is plausible. There isn't enough information in the report to be sure (need a picture of the rudder), but the debris trail shows 2 locations for the rudder so it seems likely. Given the events leading up to the breakup it the crash was probably inevitable though... exceeding VNE in IMC doesn't have a good record for recovery.

An analytical response: Aerodynamically, you have the wing. The horizontal stabilizer keeps the wing at the desired angle to the airflow. The fuselage is just there to join them together and provides a convenient place for payload. Then engine is there to move the wing it through the air. If you do not have enough control authority to pitch the nose down at higher speed, either the horizontal stabilizer is at the wrong angle i.e. rigged incorrectly the elevator doesn't have enough travel e.g. control stops the weight and balance is out of range - but you said the W&B was OK and I would expect this to be a problem at lower speeds not higher The type of engine, RPM etc are irrelevant aerodynamically.

You can understand why GPs etc. are unwilling to rely on the indemnification until the legislation is passed. I'm not denying that, my question was whether it produces the best result?

According to GPs, the government announced they would indemnify GPs but have done nothing to put that into effect. There are GPs that will give under 60s AZ because they believe it is the best balance of risks despite the potential liability, and there are GPs that will not. But here is a public liability conundrum: You can give people a vaccine and perhaps become liable for the 1 in a million people who dies, or do nothing and (legally) bear no responsibility for the 1 in ~300 people who dies as a result. Does our system produce the best result?

That is not a definition of airworthy. Whatever happened to "I certify that ... the aircraft is controllable throughout its range of speeds" which is required for experimental aircraft (and no less for professionally built aircraft I assume). From the description it is speed dependent, what happens e.g. in a spiral dive? We would like a more analytical question.

The vaccination rollout here has been a bit of a debacle... we do not yet have enough vaccine for the people that want it. Last year, Pfizer offered the Australian government enough vaccine for the entire population with priority access to serve as a model for vaccine rollouts worldwide. The government negotiated them down to 10 million doses and no priority. Meanwhile, the government placed their faith in vaccines that could be manufactured here: Astra Zeneca and a vaccine being developed at the University of Queensland. Unfortunately the UQ development was discontinued because trials showed it caused false positives in HIV tests. Then the issue of blood clots with AZ raised its head. Never mind that the risk is miniscule compared to the risk from COVID, the government said it's not a race and recommended that people under 60 do not get the AZ vaccine but wait for Pfizer. Then Delta COVID cases started to crop up and the urgency of vaccination started to become more obvious. AZ is the vaccine we have, but the government don't want to be blamed if people get blood clots so they told people to get advice from their GPs. The GPs aren't happy because they don't want to be blamed either, and anyway their ethical obligation is more to the patient in front of them at the time rather than the population as a whole. So now we have millions of people lining up to be vaccinated with Pfizer vaccines we don't have, and a government complaining about people who don't want to be vaccinated with the vaccine the government told them they should not take.

The description of the problem? There is nothing else it could really be based on the description you have provided. If you can't stop the aircraft climbing with full forward stick, the aircraft is unairworthy and should be grounded until the problem can be fixed.

Keep watching NSW to see why we are grateful for the efforts of Dan Andrews. I have no pleasure in that observation, I genuinely fear what the next few months will look like in Australia - Sydney in particular.

It seems very early to make those sort of predictions, so my guess is that the rumour was made up.