Ian

5 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

So I have heard. Oil of cloves keeps police sniffer dogs from following you, IIRC. I wonder if there is a smell camels and cows hate? 

Lion or Tiger?

Which DC's did you buy? Some of the higher end headsets just felt a bit plasticky, fragile and cheap despite the price tag. It's a pity that they don't publish measured attenuation figures, or if they do I'm not aware of them.

One thing to considered with the ANR is the type of connectors to get with the headphones so they can receive power from the plane.

If you have the gift of the gab, truck weighing stations have set of weights calibrated against the National Measurements Institute standard weights.  That way you could calibrate your standard bathroom scales.

Really enjoying the thread and seeing the different approaches being used.

Would it be possible for those who've built or had hangars built to give the dimensions, floor type and costs. (probably the approximate year as well)

What's the advantage of noise cancelling and earplugs. Wouldn't it be simpler to buy earphones that attenuate the sound more? 

A combination of https://www.amazon.com.au/Professional-Safety-Decibel-Defense-PROTECTION-GUARANTEED/dp/B01BEENYCQ  and earbud mikes might also be more effective if it floats your boat as it would combine the best quality of sound with an un-distorted sound feed.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. Do you wear passive foam plugs under your headphones? If that was the case your headphones would need to be louder to overcome the passive plugs and thus would sound louder and even with foam plugs with attenuate different frequencies at different rates.

The whole wearing a facemask and earplugs when sleeping never really lit my fire so I can't say I'm a fan. I wear ear protection when I need to but my house is pretty quiet of a nighttime. However if I slept with someone who snored I might change my mind 😉

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA624086.pdf

There's a good piece of research on this however it's a pity that it didn't include the David Clark One-X in the mix as I'd be interested to know how much passive attenuation they provide. I suspect that they'd pay more attention to the passive attenuation than other brands but that's just a guess.

On 17/10/2022 at 10:23 AM, Geoff_H said:

My Class 2 far exceeds the motor vehicle medical, but the beauricracy of the government prevents it from being a satisfactory substitute.  

It's a pity that the Government didn't go through with the Australia card years ago. Rather than try to force it down peoples throats it could have been a smartcard that combined all forms of Government identity in a secure element. The current approach of putting credentials on a phone is a bit dumb. A phone is just a computer complete with all the associated security vulnerabilities.

A large chunk of the current medicare rorts would disappear if you had a simple tap and go style approach to medicare charges.

13 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

AND just who paid for those guys to have the ticket to enable them to demand money with menaces?

I think that you'll find that Australia is importing most of its Doctors https://www.racgp.org.au/health-of-the-nation/chapter-2-general-practice-access/2-2-gp-workforce with 51% being foreign trained. So basically Australia takes scant medically trained staff from countries with major health issues which I find a bit wrong and think that we should be training far more doctors and specialists through the public purse. I know that there are lots of people who still want to study medicine and miss out by a couple of marks. It would also be reasonable to make science, engineering and computing degrees free so we have a workforce with management who are comfortable with maths and building things, because currently this isn't the case. It would also mean that might have a workforce who can look after our rapidly aging population both from a medical and economic perspective.

I don't mind paying for things that are reasonable such as health checks, medicals etc, however a requirement for multiple different types of medicals is a bit silly. Also it is reasonably to take away a privilege if they pose a danger to others. However real risks should be apparent and it should be done efficiently. Unfortunately what we have now is not particularly efficient or risk based.

It would be nice if there was a single medical test for non-commercial vehicle operations and a single test for commercial operations. If someone is to unfit to operate a plane then then they probably shouldn't be driving a truck or in command of a ship either. Does anyone know an overweight truck driver?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/truck-drivers-sleep-disorders-crashes/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-08/canberra-truck-driver-with-sleep-apnoea-sentenced-to-jail/12228490

Or just imperial metric conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Aviation reintroduced me to the joys of the imperial system. Pounds, feet, gallons, quarts, knots, it's like learning how to write Chinese hanzi after using an alphabet. Both are pretty and interesting but not particularly functional and should have gone into the historical dustbin years ago.

But inertia rather than common sense will keep both in use and people fighting for their continued existence.

For giggles look up how to type on a Chinese keyboard, or how to calculate the energy absorbed by the braking system of an A380 which lands at 145knots or 75m/s weighing 575000 kg (633 US tons). By the way the formula for metric is 1/2mv2 and you're done.  Would you answer in imperial units in BTUs, calories or "refrigeration tons"

There are some who swear by them, mostly by those who fly in the stormy areas of the US. The key discriminators are that they're real time, sometimes register small discharges in turbulent air, and can show buildups prior to radar.

I originally dismissed them as old tech but I'm not as sure anymore.

Hi All,

Just wondering about the utility sferics devices such as stormscopes and their kin in Australia especially given that the year ahead is looking particularly wet again. It's interesting trying to correlate what you see on BOM with realtime strike activity on lightningmaps.org on  especially in those regions not well served by weather radar.

Not that I'm advocating flying into bad weather in any way shape or form, I just wanted to get some idea of their utility or lack thereof.

21 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

YCAB and YCDR are on the same frequency as so was Redcliffe back then. Redcliffe got a freq change about 8 years or so ago but that creates problems because they forget to change frequencies when they traverse our airspace which is close to theirs on the way up the coast or over to Moreton Island.

YCDR runways were the same numbers as ours 12/30..we tried to get a frequency change but CASA and ASA told us no.

What is CASA's/Airservices resistance to allocating different frequencies for nearby airstrips? I've noticed that airports in reasonable proximity, using the same frequencies, often with similar sounding location names and with similar orientations can lead to those flying in the location ignoring "noise" from arriving aircraft.

It just appears to be a bit backwards, especially when the solution which reasonably presents itself is to allocate discrete channels. The whole concept that it will cause more issues isn't really valid as there are different frequencies allocated already.

On 20/09/2022 at 2:56 PM, red750 said:

I took this photo at Avalon Air Show 2015. The website on the plane no longer exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Motor

I thought that it was a diesel but instead it was a flathead side valved engine. Can't say I'm a fan, but I like the sleeve valved engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeve_valve

I also like the Deltic engine which is a design which could push some good power to weight figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

So from the above

• Diesel enjoys about a 10% advantage volumetric advantage over petrol and as you buy it by the litre that's pretty important. 
• Diesel also enjoys a more efficient combustion process which adds another 20% or so advantage in terms of the efficiency extraction process. 

On a weight for weight basis you lose the 10% advantage however you still see the 20% combustion efficiency advantage of the diesel.

Basically this is a thermodynamic limitation brought about by the much lower temperatures associated with petrol combustion due to lower compression.  PV=nRT

On 16/09/2022 at 12:39 PM, Yenn said:

What is meant by you can't design an Otto engine without an ignition system, or maybe I should ask. What is an ignition system?

The Otto cycle includes both normal petrol and diesel systems, Diesels don't have an electrical system for ignition. They compress the charge so that it's temperature becomes hot enough to ignite the diesel, when it is injected.

Hi Yenn, think about it, there's a difference between the Otto and Diesel cycle, that's why they each have a name. Notice the differing shapes of the Pressure/Volume diagrams for ideal cycles describing both. The otto cycle requires an external source of ignition because the temperature rise due to compression becomes less when you throttle. A diesel always compressess a constant volume so the pressure rise is constant regardless of throttling.

Rather than explain it read the below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle

And here's an explanation of the difference from where I stole the diagrams. https://mechcontent.com/otto-cycle-vs-diesel-cycle/

Of interest is that the Otto cycle is more efficient than the diesel for a given compression ratio. The diesel cycle is practically more efficient because the higher compression enables a higher combustion temperature, laws of thermodynamics etc. From the wikipedia article.

Quote

Comparing efficiency to Otto cycle

Comparing the two formulae it can be seen that for a given compression ratio (r), the ideal Otto cycle will be more efficient. However, a real diesel engine will be more efficient overall since it will have the ability to operate at higher compression ratios. If a petrol engine were to have the same compression ratio, then knocking (self-ignition) would occur and this would severely reduce the efficiency, whereas in a diesel engine, the self ignition is the desired behavior. Additionally, both of these cycles are only idealizations, and the actual behavior does not divide as clearly or sharply. Furthermore, the ideal Otto cycle formula stated above does not include throttling losses, which do not apply to diesel engines.

Out of curiosity I'd like to know the performance numbers possible using a guiberson with a turbo and common rail.

12 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Petrol engines require fuel for cooling (one of the reasons why they are not so economical) where diesels do not. This is not excess air or a lean burn.

I'm struggle to see your point or maybe I stated it poorly, by definition an engine which always runs with excess air is lean of peak and is a lean burn engine (ie diesel) and an engine which requires operation rich of peak is not (ie o360).

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean-burn

It's a little more complex but in general it is true. Most Airplane engines are designed to use excess petrol for cooling and reduce detonation and may only be run lean as lower power settings. Modern car engines are not, demonstrating that this is possible not an inherent issue but a design choice.

Diesel engines are essentially constant airflow, only fuel flow changes during throttling not airflow. So they operate to the oxygen rich side of stoichiometric. ie diesels normally operate at ratios between 17:1 and 70:1 however stoichiometric for a diesel is about 14.6 an tends to leave lots of soot in the exhaust due to the slower burn of diesel.

12 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Diesel engines will always require some form of boost

The guiberson diesel from ww2 era was normally aspirated and designed as an airplane engine. It's power to weight was reasonable and it's efficiency was better than most modern cars including a prius. Turbo's can improve the power to weight and allow increases in power at the same rev range. Due to the combustion properties of diesel they tend to have a narrow rev range in which combustion can proceed efficiently. This is why forced induction, allowing more air to be pushed through the engine without changing the rpm is popular.

12 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I would say always rather than generally.

Always is a very strong word, the guiberson has a power to weight of 0.781 kW/kg and the junker ju 205e 0.903 kW/kg and 0320 makes 0.99kW/kg in comparison.  So generally works for me. I'm sure there's engines outside this rule and if I stated always someone would just prove me wrong.

Also electronics are pervasive however they're on an inherent part of a diesels operation, however you can't design an otto engine without an ignition system.

To be clear a few of the advantages of diesel engines using diesel

• Better thermodynamic efficiency from higher combustion temperatures (due to higher compression)
• Higher energy fuel per litre 36.9MJ/l compared to 33.7MJ/l.
• Excess air ensures creates a leaner burn
• Max power occurs at RPMs that are suitable for propellers without reductions gearboxes
• Generally can run on Jetfuel (lubrication of the injectors can be an issue).
• Less flammable fuel
• Can be electronics free. ie no requirement for ignition.

Some disadvantages are

• Power/Weight generally worse than petrol
• Power pulses tend to the stronger so items designed for petrol may endure.
• Limited track record
• Low temperature cloud point and pour point issues.
• Generally require turbos to bring them close to petrol engine performance.

But I must admit I would be jealous if someone flew in an filled their piston powered plan with jetfuel.

It's a tragedy for all involved. All engines, airframes and pilots can fail, lets hope that there's a few lessons in the washup from this that we can learn from.

18 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Ideally, when you stopped running the engine, there should be no further actions needed, like opening valves on pipes.

It's a manual process which is a bit unwieldy. The following article gives a bit of an overview of the principle and operation of a couple of commercial kits.

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/engine-dehydrators-engine-saver-prevails/

There's also the DIY approach

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/engine-dehumidifier-diy.115754/

It's not an elegant solution by any means and your mileage may vary.

The key problem is that the airspace in the crankcase is moist regardless of whether you use water injection. Yes it may result in the exhaust stream being going through the block and existing via the breather beingslightly more humid however there is a significant amount of water either way. Steam passing over hot components won't condense so condensation occurs for a short period after starting and once the engine turns off and the crankcase cools. Condensate in the oil will evaporate after extended runs and exit via the breather. 

This is why systems which actively ventilate the crankcase with dry air after parking should reduce internal corrosion for planes which are kept sitting for extended periods.

It's from the "ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY REPORT Aviation Research and Analysis Report" in 2007. It just wouldn't be possible for it to be incorrect.

I think that both domestically and internationally there has been a trend towards experimental and light sport aircraft at the expense of the commercial GA streams.

This report has some interesting facts. The best selling piston airplane manufacturer shipped 79 aircraft in the quarter. That's ~320 per year for the best seller worldwide.

Quote

market leader Cirrus Aircraft, which posted a more modest gain in total aircraft delivered during the first quarter, with 79

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/may/19/not-all-pistons-remain-popular

7 minutes ago, Possum1 said:

What we don't need is RA-AUS counselling against this because it would impact their business model

Personally I think that there is a strong conflict of interest in this area which should be articulated by the commitee, and a key requirement being harmonization of the medical requirements between the different streams of aviation.

19 hours ago, facthunter said:

Seriously, why would CASA put itself out on a limb for No likely benefit to their reputation as THE SAFETY AUTHORITY and expose itself to a lot of flak when/If things go pear shaped.

Because it's a win, both politically and for people in these areas, It is a good thing.

Government in Australia is about the delivery of common goods. There is a clear and justifiable common good associated with this activity which is why they should nurture and support it. Their primary consideration should be safety however they should use a risk based approach which incorporates all factors including the fact that regional areas have demonstrably poor health outcomes. I don't think their approach came anywhere close to these goals. As I've stated a risk based approach would be better as well as allowing the consumers of the service to participate in this risk process.

I'm aware that there are those in the aviation sector and CASA who think that Angel Flight is a shanker on the prick of aviation, however I think that view is wrong. Volunteer work when properly supported an nurtured can complement and fill areas of need which are difficult to prototype and fill. Often volunteer or charitable services are more efficient mechanisms for delivering services.

For example the RFDS was originally a completely charitable organisation without Government support which combined two new technologies to pilot and prototype a new type of service and the Federal Government provides funding of 1B over the next 10 years.

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I've been on RFDS as a Patient but it was a Beech 1900.. I had to transfer to an ambulance at Essendon. Dog knows what it all cost. Your U/L won't run cheaper than most cars.. Nev

The whole point isn't about cost, its about access. Angel Flight as a charity covers the cost. The fact that someone is considering using an U/L for a service which people in metro areas take for granted is telling. It's the sheer dislocation associated with the process which is inherently difficult.

As I said, rather than wasting time and efforts commenting here reach out to the political elite to make sure that the Government bodies which are meant to support aviation continue to do so.

One of the reasons that I think that experimental aircraft should be included in the mix is that based on recent trends these aircraft will eventually dominate the fleet. For Angel Flight to continue to work aircraft need to be available.

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Read the reports;Read the reports; see just exactly what the pilots did to unsuspecting patients.

Its nonsensical to assume a job normally done by a pilot (a) qualified on operations requiring a safe start and safe end on fixed time departure flights (b) qualified on the aircraft suitable for doing that (c) IFR qualified with currency based on weekly IFR flights, can be copied by an old fart escorting passengers to a base touring aircraft and phoning the patient's sister for Met (not referring to any of the flights).

 

As others have mentioned, these are not medivac flights, but a means of moving people from regional airports to the city or back for free.

This is not a job normally done by a qualified pilot. It's normally done by a family member or some other sap and it's not without risk. A relative died in a car accident on a country highway on her way back from medical treatment in a head on accident. My father had to travel over 5 hours each way to receive treatment for a bone infection for a number of months in Brisbane by car because RPT wasn't available at suitable times. This is common story for people in these areas and any volunteer support to these people is good. He is more than capable of acknowledging the risk that Angel flight wouldn't provide a service as safe as commercial air transport.

There's a perception that those running small aviation businesses connected to CASA have an axe to grind and think that Angel Flight is interfering with their revenue stream. The reality is that it is unlikely that Government is going to fork out the requisite funds to improve these health outcomes, at least without something demonstrating the concepts feasibility. There is also leads to a inherent conflict of interest when these parties are involved in the debate. Angel flight has a wide support amongst the RPT transport pilots, no so much with the small aviation operators.

If the funding did become available to provide free medical flights as required then the whole reason for the existence of Angel flight would disappear however even in this scenario there would likely still be gaps. I actually think that significantly wider adoption of angel flight could form the basis of wider ranging business case for better public funding in this area.

The reality is that there are literally thousands of excess of deaths in regional and rural areas and while increasing the scope of RPT to provide twice daily flights to all these areas back to capital cities would be the best and safest solution it's not likely to happen.

To me Angel Flight is an example of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". There is nothing inherently wrong with providing a "free" service to people in need and it's the context of the risk that is important.

I've got a pretty thick skin and would be happy to have a beer and chat with flying bikini without resorting to fisticuffs. 😉

18 hours ago, Flying Binghi said:

OKaaay…. Lets try again. Ian, reference the research paper under discussion:

 

 

* The actual locations of the airports - How can I identify which airports are referenced ?

 

* The size of the airports. 

 

* The actual locations of the various groups re distance from airport. Were they all located near one airport, or were they spread around.

 

* The locations of toxic waste dumps. To add to my comments - Airports because of their size and late arrival to City/town development tend to end up in the old dump area or low lying swamp area etc, or have heavy industry located around them.

 

* And yet. The other paper I referenced, whilst talking housing, does not mention airports.

 

 

Ian, as you seem to have access to all this extra info, perhaps you can answer the actual points I raised..🙂 

It's not my job to do your homework even though I did provide you with the EPA document which has instructions on how to download their datasets over the internet.

The bottom line is that there are a number of reports with similar findings. (also referenced in the biblio) Given the fact that the petroleum industry also has access to the same Government grants don't you think that if there was the slightest chance that the research was bogus they'd be in there "boots and all"  demonstrating the counter argument.

If you read the paper it explains the methodology and where they got their data. Your side of the argument is spurious and consists of lots of handwaving, rather than rational considered thought. 

Knocking down your arguments is about as exciting and challenging as shooting fish in a barrel.

For example, you have made multiple reference that sea water and sea spray is a source of lead, trying to equate leaded fuel exposure to family friendly activities like visiting the beach. (Classic handwaving/misdirection argument by the way)

On 07/09/2022 at 2:10 PM, Flying Binghi said:

I see sea spray has lead in it. That would explain why surfers are so dumb

13 hours ago, Flying Binghi said:

….Yeah… don’t breath in sea spray - or if yer a fish don’t eat that stuff, because as it moves up the food chain the heavy metals, leads one of em, accumulates and then

18 hours ago, Flying Binghi said:

“Source A, B…”… There is lead in sea spray. Are you suggesting that we ban going to the beach? Any adult who believes that nil lead is the only acceptable level would never take a child within miles of the sea side. Or creeks, or vegetables, or……

Would you be able to explain your belief in this as you've mentioned it many times. Or point to any research that indicates that people living near the coast have statistically higher levels of lead or something to hang your hat on in this regard. Basically the reverse is true, as the chloride in the salt ie sodium chloride, tends to form compounds with lead that precipate out of the water.

Otherwise I'd like you to eat a bit of humble pie and admit that you were well an truly waaayyyy off base with this claim. I mean different planet off base. (This doesn't mean your whole argument is wrong though but it does create a couple of credibility issues though)

If you think about basic chemistry you'd understand why this is so. It also explains why those undersea vents which you were fond of mentioning deposit lead out of solution. 

However the oceans are big and the huge slug of lead that we've pumped into the oceans will take a long time to settle out in the deeper water.  This is also why uranium is pretty much uniformly distributed through the oceans and lead is not.

However we have gone a long way from the topic of why the GAMI initiative is so important and a good thing for the aviation community.

Especially in airports that have a large population centres nearby as we can substitute unleaded fuel to counter arguments that we're poisoning children. (Which the research says we're doing)

Which I think everyone will agree is better than shutting them down.