Bill Hamilton

Folks, Probably what you would expect from a website by that name, but Concorde never made a profit, by any normal definition of "profit". What most people don't seem to remember, is that the two Governments actually owned the aircraft and all the spare, and effectively "gave" the aircraft to BA and AF. "All" the two airlines had to do was crew and fuel them, and cover other direct operating expenses. Even so, they never made a profit. It cost the taxpayers of the UK and France very dearly to support this piece of flying national prestige. As we now know, the problem of what happens when a tyre tread slapped the underside of the wing was already known, it had happened before, but a fire did not result Commercially, the project was doomed from the time of the first oil price shock and the establishment of OPEC, prior to that, Jet A1 prices were so low, it hardly registered in airline operating costs ---- and after ---- the rest is history. Regards,

Folks, Don't know if it has already been mentioned, but a high wing is great for taxing through gates, a not insignificant advantage in some of the places I have been over the years. Cheers,

Air Marshall, Don't you mean ALL of Jetstar. Cheers,

burbles1, You jest, of course. Last time I noticed, TCAS 11 started at about US$55,000 just for the boxes, the "cheaper" ones on smaller aircraft start at about US$24-32,000 for the boxes ---- NOT including the transponders with Mode S AND antenna diversity. When are you blokes going to get it through your head that NO OTHER COUNTRY, including ones with far higher traffic density, are "planning" what Australia is planning. There is absolutely NO SAFETY PROBLEM for Sports/Rec./GA VFR and most IFR, that MANDATORY ADS-B is the answer. As far as TCAS11 equipped aircraft are concerned (most airline aircraft) a bog standard Mode C transponder will give the same indications in the cockpit of the "airline" aircraft as ADS-B IN ---- the same, got it!!!! Both aircraft must be fitted with TCAS11 to get the full functionality of TCAS, and even if both these aircraft have ADS-B IN and OUT ---- it does NOT provide any additional functionality ---- hunt around the Dept. of Infrastructure, Transport etc., web site, there is an article about how little ADS-B IN means to TCAS11. Regards,

Maj Millard, Unfortunately, it suits many Government departments to treat ASAC, AOPA and RAOz submissions as if they represented just one person, one person without a vote. Mass movements are successful, because they are mass movements. If the masses are silent, they are ignored. Sadly, your and other responses on this thread are the reason why aviation in Australia is so very different to US, or even NZ. In the NZ case, some few years ago, every group and their members got together, when they decided "enough was enough". The resulting reforms were quite something, the pro rata aviation activity in NZ since, compared to Australia, is quite staggering. Just two of the many flying schools in NZ (in Auckland ) have more students than in all the large flying schools in Australia, combined. A cursory look at the numbers suggest the participation rate in aviation in NZ is something like double to three times Australia. Remember the saying: "If we don't hang together, we will hang separately". Cheers,

Folks, Firstly, you are not limited to the CASA pro forma if you want to reply. The whole core issue is that there is NO air safety problem, to which ADS-B is the answer, let alone a cost/benefit justified answer. The US/FAA ARE NOT planning mandatory ADS-B for most low level airspace, FAA does not require (generally) a transponder on E below 10,000 now, either. Eurocontrol/EASA are NOT planning mandatory ADS-B (generally) for "low and slow" operations. So, why is Australia ----- with the lowest traffic density of any country with a GA sector of any significance ---- planning mandatory ADS-B for just about everything that moves, and some that don't. The actual cost of ADS-B OUT, using equipment that is actually available and certified ( as opposed to vague promises) equipment is in the order of AUD$30,000. ASTRA has a paper that lays it all out, but in the best traditions of freedom of information, all the ASTRA papers are no longer publicly available. If it is decided that the transponders to be used must have "antenna diversity" , add ten grand ---- and if "collision risk" is a problem, as claimed by the proponents, only having a single antenna on the underside will mean that aircraft above will find signals from the "significant traffic" is masked. Remember, some of the groups pushing very hard, politically ---- in the holy name of "safety", will be very happy if some or most of the Sports and Rec./ GA private traffic is removed from "their" airspace. All of you, get in and have your say ---- DON'T LEAVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. Also email copies of your submissions to Senators Bill Heffernan, Ian McDonald and Nick Exnaphon, or even better, use the address lists on the Parliamentary web site to copy your submissions to every MHR and Senator. If every member of every ASAC organisation, every member of RAOz and every member of AOPA all did the same, the problem would go away. Unfortunately, you are the "silent majority" (many by your own choice) being railroaded by a very small but very noisy minority. With the unity of the US AOPA, EAA and NBAA, FAA wouldn't even try something like what is planned for Australia. Welcome to UNAFFORDABLE SAFETY. Bill Hamilton

John, Are you actually suggesting ADS-B should be mandatory in G???? There simply is NO problem to which mandatory ADS-B is the answer, let alone the cost benefit justified answer ---- and this has already been established, and admitted in the JCP papers. It will not be FLARM, that is not a certified system ---- and will not be fitted in "Regional" aircraft. Have you seen the real costs of fitting ADS-B based on 1090ES transponders ---- with actual equipment that is available and certified ---- not all the vapourware being touted. It is around $30,000 minimum per aircraft, and is unlikely to get cheaper, because the "mass market" is a myth, making GA standard 1090ES systems is going to remain at "cottage industry" levels. When CASA/ Airservices disallow DO260 and DO 260B transponders, to fall in line with ICAO, up goes the price again. Of any country with a Sports/Rec/GA sector of any significance, Australia has the lowest density airspace, traffic wise, just what is the problem ---- that is not apparent in UK/US/CA/Western Europe ??????? Regards, Bill Hamilton Cheers, Bill Hamilton.

Poteroo, That's interesting, I must have a look at Cessna history. I racked up a lot of hours instructing in C-15?? in the early/mid - 60's, my memory must be failing me - maybe I should dig out some of my old log books to see what I have as the types. We had a mixture of aeroplanes, some of the square tails (like my mate's) had the "pull" starter on the glareshield. Cheers, Bill H. PS after checking a few facts: You learn (or re-learn) something new every day. The swept tail was around since about 1966, the C-152 didn't appear until 1977, so all those hours I flew were all C-150.

Folks, Have we decided that it started off as a 150 or a 152, I don't recall any 150 with a swept tail?? There still seems to be a divergence of opinion, but I an still voting for 152 --- tail, at least. If it's cobbled together, the cowls could well be 150. I still can't see how you could hollow it out to get under 544kg and still have any disposable load. Cheers, Bill Hamilton PS: A good mate of mine has a geenuuuiiine C-150, he and I can't fly it together, under the max. gross, even with no fuel in the tanks, we are over max.

Destiny, "home built/51%/amateur built" are all "Experimental", there is a great variety of what fits in the "Experimental" cat. Whether it is VH- or 19- Experimental, don't confuse it with the long since superseded VH- Amateur Built "Cof A", ( CAO 101.28?) which more or less disappeared in 1998, apart from some grandfathered "work in progress". When we put the 19- in place it was the AUF equivalent of VH- exerimental amateur built, to AUF weight limits. In my opinion, if somebody has a C-152 registered 19-, somebody else has made a mistake, it wouldbn't be the first one. Regards,

Folks, The following is a reply to a question re. Graham Onus. Cheers, Bill Hamilton

Folks, That's a C-152, not a 150 in the pic. I couldn't quite see the rego. in the pic, is it really 19-, that's RAOz Experimental?? The short answer is weight, as has already been mentioned. Amongst other slight impediments, you can't just declare a certified aircraft "experimental", and certainly ( unless you can show compliance with the 51% rule) not Experimental Amateur Built. Anybody thinking of buying an old 150 or 152 (or any strutted Cessna) beware of the high likelyhood of severe corrosion in the main spar leaves between the root attach fitting and the strut attach point. There is NO RELIABLE was of determining the corrosion, short of deskinning the wings and dismantling the spar section. Removing the tanks and visual/tapping doesn't cut it. I have seen a number, it's been really ugly, but nothing enough cubic $$$$$ can't fix, about AUD$8-10,000 per half wing. Cheers, Bill Hamilton

Folks, If everybody got behind Grahan Onus at The Oakes, you would have an even greater spot than now. Cheers, Bill Hamilton

Spin, Not at all. As one example, from the old Eagle Farm in Brisbane, from Brisbane direct to Honolulu on a summer evening, 0.5 kt of headwind could be the difference between making it direct and having to make a tec. stop on the way. Struts extended as the "piano keys" passed under the nose was almost always the order of the day. I have about 8000 h on various B707, including the QF B707-338C, so I got to know them rather well. There are quite a few comments on this thread by people who would not understand just how "interesting" aircraft certified to SFAR 422B ( or UK equivalent) could be to operate. The Poms added a few wrinkles that made it "even more interesting" ---- as anybody who understands a lot of what D.P Davies is saying in "Mishandling The Big Jets" (the corrected title of his magnum opus) would appreciate. A G- registered B707 got altogether too interesting, at times. Regards,

Chrisso, Of course, you are correct, I should have made it clear that the wet takeoff referred to QF P&W powered B747-238. The marques of engine used on the various QF 707 were, in order, JT-3, JT3D-MC6 and JT3D-3B. Regards,

Folks, First guess, wrong flap setting. Regards,

Folks, A little understanding of performance in aeroplanes of that generation jets would tell you that was a normal takeoff in "on the limit" conditions. Many was the time, in a B707, when we only lifted off (when the squat switches release, you could the landing gear lever latch solenoid release) as the "piano keys" passed our peripheral vision. A wet takeoff in a P&W JT9D-3A at gross, out of Athens or Bombay on a summer night, could be an "interesting" experience --- but spot on with the book figures. What annoys me about this sort of ignorant nonsense (apart from the assumed superiority of the tower crew) is that it is automatically assumed that somebody did something wrong --- how many "aviation people" complain about media ignorance and distortion --- then, as in this case, commit the same atrocities. Regards,

Folks, Insurance is about to get a whole lot harder, if the White Paper recommendations are followed. If the Labor government is returned, they will be, there is no saying a change would see the present new insurance regulations canceled. The proposal is for compulsory third party personal and property insurance to a much higher level than the present normal limits of QBE and Vero ---- if they will offer cover at all. Regards,

Folks, Given the totality of the Greens' policies ---- not just what might be on the web site, or just what Bob Brown covered at the NPC lunch ---- but consolidating "policy" as expressed by other candidates (particularly NSW Greens) ---- ANYBODY who has an interest in aviation at any level ----- UNLESS that interest is in the destruction of most of what we know of aviation ---- will not vote to further increase the influence of the Greens. For those several of you that want to argue that, somehow, "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" have a different outcome, you are really kidding yourselves. Either way, the intent is to produce "price signals" to reduce the use of fossil fuels --- and what do you think "price signals" really means???? Either one jacks the price up, to "discourage" discretionary use of fuels as a first and foremost aim --- just listen to Bob Brown. Have you actually heard him on the subject of the "future" (or lack of) of airline travel in Australia. And if the whole of Sports and Recreational Aviation isn't discretionary use of fuel, I don't know what is. In reality, it is highly unlikely that anything other than technological answers will solve global warming problems, but one thing is absolutely certain ---- even if Australia reduced it's carbon consumption of fuel to zero, it will not make the slightest differences to the final outcome. So, what is the point of severely constricting the Australian economy, potentially to the point of severe depression ---- for no result other than a "warm and fuzzy feeling". In reality, most of the Greens' policy are the failed socialist policies central planning/big government command economies of the 1920's through to the collapse of the USSR ---- they didn't work then, they will not work now. As one columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald (not a notably right wing paper) wrote yesterday, the Greens should no longer be referred to as the Watermelon Party, green on the outside, but red on the inside, but the Tomato Party --- Red all the way through. If you have any interest in a positive future for aviation in Australia at any level, don't vote Greens. Regards,

Ex Goodby,The Greens and Labor. The Libs/Nats are proposing technology as the long term solution ---- and not a carbon tax that will be a dead weight on every section of the economy ----- and I suppose you will all have noted that the way "progressives" parties in Australia plan on meeting long term targets is to not actually reduce carbon dioxide output, but to buy carbon offsets on the international market, so we meet out "targets" in an accounting sense, not in a "real" sense. One sure fire way of keeping our balance of payments in the red in the long term --- mining booms do not last forever, and iron and coal prices are already coming off their peak, as new mines come on stream in South America and in several African countries, and Leightons is flat out developing huge coal deposits in Mongolia for the China market. Anybody who watched Bob Brown at the National Press Club lunch yesterday will not be in any doubt as to the fact that my original post on this thread was spot on the mark. Not so, I was referring to the nonsense about something called "buffer zones" at Essendon, Essendon satisfies all legal requirements for a certified airport ---- so ---- what "buffer zones"???? Just something plucked out of the air ( or somewhere the sun doesn't shine) by the Greens and their allies ( developers???) on the local council. Regards,

Gibbo,Not so, any model B747 would have no trouble departing Essendon with a light load. Exadios, Not so, and I suggest the council doesn't know what it is talking about. If it is RESA (runway end safety areas) being referred to, those can easily be accommodated with only minor or no effect on ASDA or TORA. Essendon is a fully Certified airfield under CASR Part 139, therefor all the required obstacle clearance requirements are satisfied. As to who stands to make money if Essendon is "sold", I suggest you look very carefully at the conditions under which Linfox operates Essendon and Avalon. Regards,

Windsor 68, Re. Greens policy, I am going on the stuff that has appeared in letterboxes around me, and the pronouncement of local candidates --- did you watch the NSW candidate on Sky this morning. Re. the resources rent tax --- a touching display of "Government Knows Best". The big problem about iron ore and coal is that it is in abundant supply ---- and the Mining Super Profits Tax ---- That's what labor called it, regardless of theory, has pushed the sovereign risk rating of Australia way up, and pushed Australia from second, after Canada, as a place to invest, down to about eight or nine, below even a string of African countries. Aside from the "Big Three", a wide range of projects are virtually on hold, including a major tranche of Fortesque development ---- It is the Australian owned miners that have been hit hard by this proposal. All this is a country absolutely dependent on imported capital for development. Do you actually understand how the Super Profits Tax is calculated ----- the cost of funds, ( although increased from 6% to about 10%) beyond a limited uplift factor, is not allowed as a business expense ---- as I said in a previous post, the tax is more or less on EBIT, not what most of us (including the ATO re. normal company tax) regard as a "profit". What are mining royalties, if not a "resources rent tax". Regards, PS: What an attitude for somebody who professes an interest in aviation to display, re. Essendon, "nothing in it for me (RAOz), so let it go". Airport/airfield closure around Australia are one of the most critical issues facing Australian light aviation. I would have thought that was obvious to Blind Freddy, but it seems to have washed over some.

Re. The Greens, Have any of you actually looked at Green's economic policies ---- besides a whacking great carbon tax that will push up prices across the board. They include: Re-Nationalization of "natural" monopolies. Increased personal tax Increased company tax Increased indirect taxes, including widening the GST base and increasing the rate. Re-imposition of death duties/estate taxes. Removal of many personal tax deductions, ie; no longer deduct the legitimate costs of producing your income. Removal of the health insurance rebate. An even bigger tax on miners than Rudd proposed --- do any of you understand how the mining "super profit" is struck for the super profits tax calculation ----- before deduction of the cost of finance ---- effectively a tax on EBIT ---- because company tax is still payable. That might be OK for the "Big Three" who mostly finance development and expansion from cash flow, but for Australian owned mining companies it is the same kind of financial disaster as the 1961 Menzies budget. That budget disallowed interest paid by finance companies to debenture holders as a business cost, precipitating a raft of major finance company bankruptcies, with tens of thousands of "mums and dads" losing their life savings. Don't anybody forget that it is the mining industry that is financing what is otherwise a major structural deficit in the Australia economy. A myriad of additional auto taxes, to discourage car use ---- great if you have convenient public transport from where you are to where you want to go --- but in general in Australia, that's a rarity ----but as one candidate has alluded --- personal freedom of movement and travel is not apparently regarded as a necessary freedom in the green future. Removing mandatory secret ballots for strike action. Complete removal of the building industry watchdog ---- even Labor left that organisation in place under their new industrial legislation, and the building unions hate it. But wait, there's more!! In addition, bans on hunting/shooting/fishing -----and given the attitude of one candidate from NSW, a ban on other than "essential" aviation would not surprise me---- and that does not include any private aviation, and a tax system to discourage airline travel --- because that has been talked about in recent times. On that gave me a real laugh in the health policy was, wait for it ---- free gender re-assignment surgery --- I would not have thought that was top of the agenda of urgent public health issues. Go check all these things out --- and then come back and say you are going to vote Greens. Bob Brown is a reasonable kind of bloke, but he has some very strange bedfellows in the party. Including some of the remnants of the the old Socialist Alliance. If you don't know what the Socialist Alliance is/was, read Mark Arron's book on the history of the Communist Party of Australia, CPA. In brief, the Socialist Alliance was formed by a group who though the CPA had gone soft, when the CPA denounced the Starlin genocides. In short, of you want to pull the plug on the Australia economy, and create who knows what level of permanent recession and unemployment, vote Greens. Regards,

EX -adios, Is that what you want, adios aviation at Essendon. Are you, perhaps, an EX-parrot????? Do you actually have any idea of the uses to which Essendon is currently put ---- a broad spectrum of aviation businesses ----- if you can't answer your own question in the affirmative, what are you doing here?????

OK, Dunlopdangler, I'll bite, which one that has an established export pilot training industry of any significance.Right now, by my count, NZ has more overseas student at Ardmore and surrounding satellites, than the (diminishing) total in AU. There was only one reason China Southern decided to give Australia away, and go to Canada, sovereign risk, nothing else,trying to do aviation training in Australia became too hard, and as it was all internal training, it had nothing to do with student visas. This from both Australian and Chinese directors of the company, it is an informed statement, not an opinion. You would hardly call the Moncton weather "ideal" year round, but despite such potential for weather disruption of training schedules, away they went. Regards,