aro

I don't believe that. What do you do if you have someone on a straight-in doing 75 knots behind someone doing 65? And then someone (or more than one) goes around? The circuit gives you a chance to see other aircraft, figure out where you are in the sequence, and adjust spacing. That is all more difficult with straight in approaches. Multiple aircraft in the circuit can manage spacing well enough that runway occupancy becomes the limiting factor for full stop landings. Straight in approaches put multiple aircraft on final, with less ability to manage spacing, for a longer time. It's hard to see how that doesn't increase risk.

The restrictor sizing is confusing. The Rotax installation manual specifies 0.5mm and also #35 jet. It seems that jet numbers can be either size or flow rate so #35 jet could be 0.35mm, or 35cc/min = 2.1 l/hr. My guess would be flow rate since there is a separate 0.5mm size specification. The flow rate is influenced by the shape of the passage, not just the size. How did you measure the return flow rate? Timed flow into a container?

The difference between an ASIC check and secretly investigating pilot and student pilot license holders is that the results of the ASIC check have to be known to the pilot. The security forces like to keep this stuff secret. So the ASIC is basically useless to them - they will do their own separate investigations, keeping the results to themselves, and will not rely on people volunteering for a check.

And you think they will voluntarily submit to a check? The critical question is how does not having an ASIC stop someone who is prepared to break the law?

If you were organizing one of those missions, it would be very useful to know which of your members was under suspicion. What better way than to have them apply for an ASIC, and anyone who is denied would not be allowed to be in contact with other members? Of course, the authorities are not stupid so they would be very aware of this. The irony is that they are unlikely to deny an ASIC, to avoid tipping people off. Much better to just let the ASIC go through and monitor student pilot applications etc - which I am sure they do. How does an ASIC actually stop that from happening? There are hundreds of airfields without security, you can learn to fly overseas etc. The reality is for anything smaller than passenger jets it is much easier and more effective to go to Budget and rent a truck.

GA and RAA operate under the same rules, with a few exemptions for RAA under specific conditions. RAA have no power to impose penalties greater than wagging a finger, all they can really do is point out if you are not following the conditions for the exemptions, at which point the CASA rules apply to you and CASA can impose penalties. There is no difference between GA and RAA under common law i.e. negligence. CASA doesn't seem worried about being sued. There are various cases where it would appear to be possible, however suing parts of the government doesn't seem like something lawyers are inclined to do.

I guess things weren't as under control as they looked. My impression is that he was waiting... waiting... until it was upright before he could safely eject.

That seems hard to assess without actually flying tests with 2 aircraft flying various manoeuvres and logging the data. Come to think of it, I probably could log data from a Raspberry Pi and look for gaps in the ADSB returns from all other aircraft and see how long they were... I'm not against ADSB. As I said I use the display myself on Avplan. But we are flying VFR, and when it comes time to mix with other traffic at short range e.g. the circuit, we need to look out the window and apply visual separation - NOT look at a screen. Yes, it can be hard to spot an aircraft e.g. on base against a complex background, but the screen is not a substitute.

From the literature on diversity antennas: top- and bottom-mount antennas .. reduce the potential for antenna “shading,” which helps prevent target drop out during turns and maneuvers. An optional top-mounted antenna also comes in handy during ground operations, when a bottom-mount mount antenna might not have clear line-of-sight to receive ADS-B ground station signals or transmissions from other participating aircraft. The designers of the system say that a single antenna can have drop outs and shading, and may not receive signals from other aircraft. Significant enough to require 2 antennas on larger aircraft. I'm not sure why you think this is so unlikely.

Yes I know... on Avplan the ADSB targets are green and the network targets are blue. But there is no guarantee you receive the ADSB broadcasts. They work on a frequency that is easily blocked by aircraft structure. So e.g. if a low wing aircraft with the ADSB antenna on the bottom turns towards you, placing the whole aircraft between you and their antenna, maybe the ADSB stops updating. Your own aircraft structure can also shadow the ADSB signal. Some ADSB systems have an antenna on top as well as on the bottom. These are designed for more reliable air-air signals rather than the air-ground design of regular transponders. But they are more expensive and probably not regularly installed on GA aircraft. Like I said, I have seen the green air-air ADSB target about a mile behind the blue air-ground-internet-ipad target. Most of the time the ADSB target will be up to date (although how frequently does the display update is another interesting question). But its not 100%.

If you can explain what you were suggesting then? The areas where RAA are self administering are pretty well defined. They don't include rules of the air. RAA are a small part of aviation and they operate in the same airfields and airspace as the rest of GA. They can't use their own set of rules. (Technically I suppose you could have a RAA rule requiring a minimum of 3 legs of a circuit be flown, but I doubt that is what was intended when CASA abolished that rule.)

The problem is that there is always a lag. It's unavoidable. You say ADSB updates every second, but that update isn't necessarily received. Avplan will display traffic less than 90 seconds old - which means any position displayed could be up to 90 seconds old. SkyEcho will have similar logic, but I don't know how many seconds. Unless you have dual external antennas on top and bottom there are probably blind spots on your aircraft. Probably behind you, if the device is in the cockpit. I don't know the specifics, but I suspect at ADSB frequencies, the receiver can't see through metal structure any better than you can. So the picture it is displaying is always an approximation. Worst case, aircraft could be more than a mile from the displayed position. Again, this is something I have seen. An aircraft was showing 2 positions, the one received via the internet, and an ADSB position. That's not uncommon, but usually the ADSB position is in front i.e. more recent. This time the ADSB position was about a mile behind the internet received position. So for some reason (e.g. antenna shielded by structure) the ADSB update wasn't received. So once you are working with traffic at close range (the circuit etc.) you need to see the traffic. It's Visual Flight Rules - you need to separate visually. ADSB is like the radio - its an aid, to make finding traffic visually easier. If you have traffic behind you that you can't see, you need to trust them to be looking out the window so they can see you. And you need to give the traffic in front the same courtesy. No, it is not like a rear view mirror - that is the point. A rear view mirror is real time visual information. ADSB is information from some time in the past - maybe 1 second ago, but up to e.g. 90 seconds ago. I'm not suggesting that these systems shouldn't be used. They provide useful information and I will keep using it. But they are not a magic box. Like any other system, they have limitations. Understanding the limitations is the key to improving safety rather than degrading safety.

RAA, GFA etc fly in the same airspace as everyone else. They are bound by the same rules as GA. RAA are not free to make their own rules in that area.

You need to assume sighting isn't possible IFR. It also doesn't work for multiple aircraft inbound on the same track to the same destination - particularly when the fastest one is at the rear!

Vertical separation is most reliable, as long as no-one needs to climb or descend and the altitudes are available/usable. Once you need to climb or descend, an accurate understanding of aircraft locations is required. One day I was listening on area as 4 IFR C172s departed Ballarat for Avalon, closely followed by an IFR Seminole. The IFR traffic information from ATC was entertaining. It was clear blue sky so no problem to actually separate VFR, but good luck sorting that out with pilot organized separation if it was IMC with a low icing level.

I have been flying for a few years with Avplan + ADSB receiver. These are my observations: It's very useful IF the other aircraft is travelling in a straight line and/or you know its intentions. For example, if you are both inbound to the same airfield from the same direction you can get a much better idea of your relative positions and whether you need to take any action to ensure separation. Likewise, yesterday I was inbound to an airfield about 20 miles out when another aircraft departed on a reciprocal track. I was able to delay my descent until we passed each other so I wasn't descending into their path. It can also provide a useful picture when you are arriving at an airfield, supplemented by radio e.g. you might "see" 3 aircraft in the circuit, plus another on the radio but without ADSB, and another on ADSB 2 miles ahead inbound. That's a useful aid to situational awareness prior to arriving. When it's not so useful: If the other aircraft is not travelling in a straight line. Once you are close enough that separation is an issue e.g. less than about 1 mile. By that point you need to be looking outside for the aircraft. It's easy to see why controllers working with a screen use a separation standard of several miles. It's also very tempting to try to separate yourself when there is no risk of collision. This is surprisingly difficult because when you are in reality a long way apart any change to your track doesn't make much difference on the screen. I wouldn't read much into that report. IFR aircraft need separation by ATC, that is what it was invented for, but for some reason we don't do it in Australia. The report deliberately ignored that. I don't think that having additional traffic information in the cockpit (other than last resort stuff like TCAS) will make IFR safer. There have been a number of incidents with IFR aircraft trying to do DIY traffic coordination in Australia (including RPT), but the obvious conclusions are ignored. "the same quality of surveillance information received by the controller" Since Mangalore, ATC has been a lot more proactive trying to avoid traffic conflicts in G airspace. It's pretty painful to listen to. Basically the quality of surveillance information isn't the problem - the problem is that separating aircraft using a screen is very difficult unless you know the intentions of all the participants, can make a plan and give people instructions i.e. ATC.

You can bet if someone is shot at a firing range it won't be SSAA investigating it. Likewise, if someone dies in speedway it will be the Coroner investigating. Speedway participants will be witnesses, not investigators. The problem with expecting RAA or GFA to investigate is that you have multiple organizations involved. RAA and GFA obviously, but the rules to avoid collisions are administered by CASA so they are involved too. Do you think RAA can realistically conclude that CASA is responsible for the accident - even if they find that everyone was following CASA rules, and the accident could just as easily involved 2 GA aircraft? In reality, I think ATSB investigate too many accidents. It doesn't generally produce anything useful, other than satisfy a ghoulish fascination with what happened. Can you find an ATSB investigation that produced a meaningful change to prevent future accidents? As they say, it is very unusual to invent a new way to crash. For private operations, there should be an initial assessment, and then only do an investigation if it appears that the causes are not understood, or part of a wider pattern. Aircraft have been colliding for 100 years. We know why, and we know what to do to prevent it. CASA have been watering down the rules around uncontrolled airfields for as long as I have been flying. It might be useful to investigate and decide whether that contributed. If it is established e.g. that the RAA pilot was not following rules, maybe you would want to do an investigation to see whether that was systemic in RAA in GA in general. Otherwise, there is probably not much new to learn.

Can we please try to dial back the racism on this site? The thing I hate most about aviation - so many people are racist at a level I don't see in any other group I spend time with.

I don't know who is telling you that. In fact the security services currently say the largest threat at the moment is right wing white men who hold grudges against people who are non-white, LGBTIQ, "elites", politically left etc. There are regular attacks that would be considered terrorist actions, except that we have been conditioned to believe that white people cannot be terrorists.

Just that Do you have any other explanation for these posts? There's a clear conclusion I would draw.

Physiognomy is the judgement of a persons character from their appearance. So you are saying that people of non-caucasian, non-asian appearance have some character flaw (based purely on their appearance!) that means we should be concerned when they learn to drive trucks? OK... at least we know where you are coming from.

What does "drivers ... not of the Caucasian nor Asiatic physiognomy" mean?

We know the reason, but perhaps you should ask yourself why you assume non-white people are more of a terrorist threat?

Driving vehicles into crowds is definitely something that authorities are worried about. But I'm not sure why you single out "drivers ... not of the Caucasian nor Asiatic physiognomy". This has been enthusiastically adopted by the white supremacist groups in the USA. There were over 100 incidents where people drove vehicles into Black Lives Matter protests. Terrorism is defined as violence or threats of violence for a political cause, so these definitely qualify as terrorism. For some reason though charges are rare.

It might be readily known, but I don't know it. I can't see how you would expect a single person to do it properly. You need multiple people, backed up by counselling etc. if they are expected to attend accident scenes or investigate accidents involving people they knew. A budget to spend on specialist reports if necessary. A budget to do real accident investigations probably starts at several million dollars.