aro

The problem with the ASIC is that they couldn't actually deny one to a suspected terrorist without tipping them off that they were being monitored. That would provide a tool they could use to work out which of their members was under suspicion. So more than likely an ASIC would be approved anyway for someone known to be plotting something. A security check where you voluntarily apply and get told the result is fatally compromised for any situation involving secret intelligence. Far more useful are security checks that you don't know are being done and won't find out the results (and I'm sure they occur).

They don't, and you can't just fly them to another country like you could with a normal aircraft. Same applies to the USA AFAIK, the design standards quoted above do not apply to experimental category aircraft.

No-one is talking about RAA getting IFR. IFR and CTA are totally different things.

No-one's saying you don't need training. But you have the same deal with GA pilots flying out of controlled airports into a CTAF. Weird radio calls, no idea how to join a circuit, flying a straight in approach because that is what they would be given by ATC from that position never mind the traffic, downwind landing because there's no ATIS and the wind didn't match the forecast... all sorts of things. The idea that GA pilots fly to a higher standard is just nonsense, based on my observations. GA pilots can be just as rubbish as RAA.

Austers into Mascot and DC4s are a long time ago. I did my PPL at Essendon so I know a little bit. When was the last time you flew VFR in Class C?

I think people hugely overstate the difficulty of CTA. Maybe you only flew IFR in CTA? VFR is not the same as IFR. Really, the main thing you need to be able to do are: Fly a heading Fly an altitude Visually navigate and follow a track Talk on the radio and follow instructions. If you make a mistake, ATC are there to help. Will you get in the way of a jet if you make a mistake? No - ATC will keep you well out of their way so that is not possible. If you want to cause problems for jet traffic it is much more likely OCTA under the steps north or south of Melbourne - where the separation from jet traffic could be only 500' vertically - at least theoretically. Or somewhere like Mildura where you have RPT traffic in a normal CTAF. Talk to the people who fly out of Essendon and they will tell you flying into a class G airport is much more difficult because you have to arrange and judge your own separation, without ATC to help you. They hate it.

Looking at the descriptions, I can't see how it could happen unless the guide track itself wasn't attached to the door properly. It will be interesting to see what they find from examining the door...

See the video above from about the 7 minute mark. Are they the bolts you are referring to?

But why would it bend? You would need to lift the door to bend the bolt, and you're working against gravity, landing loads (i.e. positive G) etc. It is a larger version of a cotter pin, i.e. preventing movement but not taking the load.

The small bolt isn't carrying weight. It is acting as a pin to prevent the door from being lifted. The bolt is going through the piece attached to the door.

If you know what you are talking about you wouldn't be asking about measuring coolant exit temperature on a suffix-01 engine. You asked: You listed CHT max as 150C. That's the CHT max for 80hp not 100, but its even more wrong if you want to call coolant temperature CHT - it should be 120C. Then you talk about measuring radiator exit temperature with a max of 120C which would be way too high. "The problem is..." There is no problem - just confusion about which numbers to use - largely, it seems because you are calling the coolant temperature measurement CHT and then applying the actual CHT limits instead of coolant temperature limits. Then you start calling people who give you the correct numbers pedants...

You can simply look at the markings on the gauge, but but some people do believe that its worthwhile to learn the limits as well. This means that you need to know whether the gauge is reading CHT or coolant temperature because the numbers are different. You have confused yourself here by referring to the coolant temperature as CHT. Rotax want you to have a coolant temperature gauge. If the coolant temperature is measured in the head, you do not need a second measurement - that is your coolant temperature. If the head sensor is measuring CHT (i.e. metal temperature) Rotax want a sensor in the coolant exit to measure coolant temperature. It's all in the manuals, but you do need to track fairly carefully which engine variation each section in the manual is referring to.

That pretty clearly says "Coolant temperature" not cylinder head temperature. The cylinder head is where it's measured, not the temperature being measured. In all the Rotax documentation they are very careful to distinguish between coolant temperature and cylinder head temperature. By who's convention? People who don't know any better? The numbers are different, so it is actually important to know whether your measurement is coolant temperature or cylinder head temperature. If your coolant temperature is marked as CHT, it's wrong.

You are correct that the cylinder heads were changed to read coolant temperature not CHT. But Rotax do refer to this as coolant temperature, not CHT. If you are measuring coolant temperature the limit is 120C. Aircraft builders/manufacturers may or may not have made the change correctly. The history as I recall: Originally, the sensors measured CHT and the limits were 150C for 912 and 135C for 912S. This was a bit hot for the coolant (particularly 150C), and coolant could boil in the heads, which was bad because a layer of vapor prevented proper cooling so it got even hotter and you had a vicious circle i.e. normal behaviour when a water cooled engine overheats. Rotax recommended waterless coolant which didn't boil at normal operating temperatures Unfortunately, the waterless coolant had less cooling capacity so engines ran hotter Rotax changed their recommendation back to conventional coolant, but required either measuring coolant exit temperature as it exits the engine, or change the CHT limit to 120C. Rotax introduced new heads which measure the coolant temperature, with a coolant temperature limit of 120C. So the operators manual now lists CHT limits for engines with the old style heads (135C/150C CHT and 120C coolant), and coolant temperature limits for engines with the new heads (120C). So you need to figure out which heads you have and what you are measuring to know which limits apply.

Coolant exit temperature is as it comes out of the engine i.e the maximum coolant temperature reached. It is to ensure the coolant isn't boiling in the engine. CHT max is 150C for the 80HP but only 135C for the 100HP. My understanding is that this is for detonation margin with the higher compression.

Industry is never going to buy nuclear power, it's too expensive. Already, solar and wind are producing enough power that prices sometimes go negative at times of high production (during the day, when solar is producing and happily industry tends to be most active). Industry would rather build storage and buy cheap power (or even be paid to take it) than buy expensive nuclear power. Storage for industry has the advantage that it doesn't need to be portable, so weight and size are not such an issue. Cheap materials are more important than e.g. low weight. The nuclear industry knows they have missed the boat. They are desperately trying to convince people they need their expensive power so they don't have to write off their investments.

The aerodynamic coefficient IS the measure of the power required to "push the air out of the way" or move through the air. If you are measuring air resistance it is the useful measurement. For aircraft it is relatively simple... remember all that stuff from theory about best rate of climb, best glide, minimum sink, the drag curve and the changes with weight? All the information is already known. And we use most of the energy already - we don't generally have air brakes so there isn't wasted energy to capture from regeneration. The problem is the increase in power required to keep you aloft as weight increases. That's a weight squared relationship, so things get worse quickly as weight increases. And battery chemistry has hard limits on the energy that can be stored per kg for each combination of elements. So I am not optimistic about useful electric aircraft.

These seem way too high. If you use an engine BSFC figure of e.g. 250g/kWh, 35 kW at 100km/h is equivalent to about 12litres per 100km. Probably half that is more common. 6 litres/100km gives 17.5 kW at 100km/h and 17.5 kW/h for 100km. Pretty close to the 16 kw/h for 100km originally stated.

The big challenge for EV infrastructure will be managing peaks e.g. holiday weekends where everyone wants to travel. I've seen petrol stations on the Hume with 16 pumps busy plus 20-30 cars queueing. It's going to be a while before electrical infrastructure can cope with that sort of peak. On the other hand, maybe many people will charge overnight at their accommodation rather than stopping along the highway.

It's important to make the distinction between plug in hybrids and e.g. the Toyota hybrids. Toyotas are basically ICE with regenerative braking (and some related optimizations). They have basically no range as an EV. The battery is very small, but there isn't much extra weight e.g. they quote about 60kg extra weight for the hybrid Kluger. Plug in hybrids are the worst (and best) of both worlds. You have both a significantly sized battery and ICE to maintain. However, you can charge at home covering most people's common short trips, while using the ICE for longer trips and not being dependent on charging infrastructure.

That specific vehicle, but the article you quoted basically confirms what I was saying: Hot hydrogen can be applied in a hybridised arrangement to leverage existing electrification technology, a bonus for Toyota as the world’s largest producer of hybrid drivetrains.

Surprisingly well. Unless it is dead flat they harvest energy on the downslopes and use it on the upslopes and the flat. It's not just the energy from friction braking they save, but also engine braking i.e. the energy to spin the engine when you lift off the throttle. Toyota has decades of investment in hybrid that will become worthless if the world moves to fully electric vehicles. The focus on "hot hydrogen" seems like an attempt to steer things in a direction where their hybrid technology is still useful. You can be sure that their hot hydrogen ICE would be a hybrid, just for the efficiency factor. Toyota sells huge numbers of hybrids across most of their range. They can't build them fast enough to meet demand. If the world moves away from ICE, they become the leader in a technology that no-one wants anymore.

Tell that to Toyota, or any of the electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturers. Regenerative braking is key to their efficiency. Friction brakes and Jacob brakes both convert kinetic energy to heat and dump it into the environment where it can't be recovered. Regenerative braking stores it in the battery where it can power an electric motor to convert it back to kinetic energy. It's not 100% efficient of course, but a lot better than the 0% of regular brakes. However, there's not much scope for regeneration in an aircraft because most of the energy from a descent is used up in staying aloft and overcoming drag. You only have excess energy available if you are at zero power setting and you want to descend faster without gaining speed. That really only applies to aircraft with speed brakes or on final approach to landing. Most of the rest of the time you will be using engine power i.e. no regeneration available.

The student pilot is a red herring. The tug pilot said he was going to stop before the crossing runway, which would have been clear of both the taxying and departing aircraft. The problem with that is that it's a gamble that you won't have to go around, for any reason. The taxying aircraft wasn't a problem, the conflict was with the departing aircraft. Maybe we need to recognize that LAHSO style operations are a bad idea at GA/uncontrolled airports. I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

I'm interested to hear anything on-topic, but so far no-one is posting anything more.