Exadios

In Australia the mean time of those pilots who crash with injury is about 2000 hours and the mean time of the total population of ag pilots who crash with injury is about 18000 hours.

The immediate cause.

Weather was not too good for this competition. Results here.

I have found this unofficial translation.

For those of you who are hanging out for some information about the L13 grounding here is an opinion from the factory. Unfortunately it in in Czech. Maybe someone on this board who speaks Czech can tell the rest of us what it says.

An interesting gliding blog - Friendship Flight 2010: Morning Glory.

\[sigh\]

A follow up article in which the pilot completely fails to address the central issue - i.e. how he forgot to put his wheel down! :)

We have had a few pilots who have had run ins with power line over the years. In one instance a pilot had his face peeled off. He managed to make it to a unoccupied farm house where he hot wired a vehicle and drove himself to hospital.

I do not mean what you think I do. I mean the opposite.

Then you will never make CFI. :)

Can anybody pick the common mistake that the pilot made in this outlanding? Yes, that's right - the pilot cramped the circuit and did not do his checks with the result that he forgot to put his wheel down!

Ag plane crashed east of Geraldton, WA

Here is a press report.

For the record I did not say that cap and trade and a carbon tax will have different outcomes (although they may well do). Cap and trade is a market mechanism and a carbon tax is a legislated cost. As you point out, either way the price of carbon will rise. That is the point. With respect to climate warming either we deal with it by legislating law our selves or we will be penalized by the laws of physics. In the first case we are in control and in the second we accept what is dished out to us. One reason we (i.e. Australia) should act now is because, in order to reverse climate warming, we will have to re-engineer our economy and for that we will need to put engineers and technicians to work. The countries to develop the necessary technologies will be economic winners among the countries of the world. I think Australia should have some of the best engineering companies and be a winner. One last thing: the stone age did not come to an end because of the lake of stones.

[sigh] I had hoped that this would not happen. But you have discovered the truth. The Greens plan to close Essendon Airport and use the land on which to build injecting rooms and reception centers for homosexual marriages. All your worst nightmares will come true if the Greens have their evil way.

Labor proposes a cap and trade system - not a carbon tax (which is quite different). The Greens' policy is more structured around outcomes but they will support a cap and trade if the larger (by mass) polluters are not subsidized by the issuance of free certificates. It was the issuance of free certificates that almost killed the EU cap and trade system. Ironically the Liberal Party was proposing a carbon tax if I remember correctly. Now they are proposing something called "Direct Action" which, I suspect, means no action. The cap and trade system has a lot to recommend it. It has worked brilliantly in the US over the last 20 years for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reduction. The US did not issue any free certificates but did phase in reducing targets. It is hard to see why this system will not work for carbon dioxide as well. In summary, if you wish to do something positive for climate change then it is probably best to vote for the Green Party. If you wish to ignore the problem then it is best to vote for the Liberal Party. With respect to Essendon Airport its existence, as I have said previously, is a matter of legitimate public interest. That the airport meets the regulatory conditions is a necessary, but insufficient, requirement for its continuing existence. It also needs the support of the community.

Which party is proposing a carbon tax?

And I do not know what you are talking about. What is not so? Which council are you talking about and what have they said? I was talking about the Greens and Essendon Airport but you have changed the subject.

If a buffer is required by an airport then it could be argued that it is the airports responsibility. That is the airport is required to purchase and maintain the buffer. In any case, when it comes to a solution of a buffer problem, it can now only be addressed by removing the houses or the airport. From the political point of view it would be inadvisable for the aviation industry to propose removal of the houses. So, by process of elimination, .....

As I understand it the arguments given by the Greens for closing Essendon are: * the lack of an adequate safety buffer zone at the end of the runways which abut residential housing; * the health impact of chronic sleep disturbance caused by aircraft noise; * the impact of avgas on air quality, health and amenity; * the misuse of taxes to keep a redundant airport and marginal operators in business.

You missed out the bit which states, "Then they came for the trade unionists."

Do you have a source to support your assertions?

I'm here because I'm interested in flying. I do not even know which state Essendon is in so I cannot know what its use is. That's why I asked the question. Location of airports is a matter of public interest. Your answer does not give confidence that Essendon should remain an airport.

And, irrespective of whether the Greens are in either house, same sex marriages will become the reality. The reason is simple - homosexually is not an issue for younger people but Human Rights is.