old man emu

OK. But you knew what would be correct. The beauty of Western Sydney Airport is that it has, in fact, saved a lot of land from going under tar and cement. Fear not! In ten years there will be houses right up to the boundary fences.

I'm right beside you with that. Proving that element of the offence description would certainly indicate a finding of guilt. What must be put into the mind of the jury is that it is not up to them to do the sentencing. Its job is to come to a decision, based on the evidence produced, if every element of the offence has been proved in a way that rules out the creation of a sensible doubt. After the finding of guilt, it is up to the judge, acting on depositions by the Crown and Defence, as well as advice from experts relevant to the sentencing process, to set a punishment. Obviously, Society would not be calling for the maximum penalty in this case as the lead up to the death did not involve reckless indifference to life, nor of its nature likely to endanger human life. Sounds like the result of the death was precipitated on a landing mishap of a sort not unknown to aviation. How poor maintenance lead to the need for a landing at that place is another matter altogether. Flying without a licence can incur imprisonment for 2 years, so it is a felony. However many felonies can be punished by fine or imposition on a person's free time (community service). Also if he goes down for manslaughter with a prison sentence, the penalties for any other offence would be served concurrently.

RFguy, you are beginning to sound like an Enema of the People.

Bloody morons! They are calling the place Nancy Bird-Walton Airport. Didn't do any research. Nancy never, never , never hyphenated Bird Walton. Oh! and the ICAO code for this airport is SWZ. From a 2015 assessment of airspace during airport planning: Admittedly, is says nothing about transit lanes.

A I said, a bad measurement is better than no measurement. If the manufacturer says that the result should be YY/XX and you get KK/XX, you know that you either have to redo the measurement to eliminate technique error, and if that is OK, go through a logical sequence as indicated by RFguy.

Thank you so much for that post. Now we all know what happened. No more conjecture on the movement of the aircraft. As for the seatbelts, these are the forgotten safety devices in all moving vehicles. Just the other day I was looking at my driver's seat belt in my car. The car is 18 years old. Now this question of seatbelt integrity has come up as a result of this incident, so I Googled "service life of seatbelts" and the first link that was returned was this: And here is a quote from that AWB: The difficulty is, that while seat belt webbing may appear to be free of detrimental fraying, fading from exposure to ultraviolet light, and chemical contamination, the only way of ensuring that seat belt webbing is safe to use, is to test the webbing to destruction. This, of course, renders the belt assembly unusable. To overcome this problem, some rotorcraft manufacturers have implemented a 10-year service life on seat belts and shoulder harnesses. Recommendation 1. Remove from service and destroy all seat belts and shoulder harness webbing when it reaches 10 years time in service. 2. Implement inspection procedures to ensure that safety belts and shoulder harness assemblies, particularly those in the pilot and co-pilot positions, are maintained during the recommended ten-year service life to a standard that requires prematurely faded, chafed, or otherwise damaged or chemically contaminated seat belt webbing to be replaced with serviceable assemblies

Fortunately, in Australia, we don't have that American abomination "Vehicular". In NSW the title of the offence of causing death from a motor vehicle collision is called "Culpable Driving", 'culpable' meaning worthy of blame. On the scale of assault offences, from threatening actions to premeditated murder, Culpable Driving (and Culpable Navigation) are No. 3 after Murder (No. 1) and Manslaughter (No. 2). Interestingly there is no Culpable Pilotage. The offence of Culpable Driving was created due to juries deciding that, although the actions of a driver were worthy of blame, they were not so serious as to meet the criteria for Manslaughter. Culpable Driving is the offence of momentary mistake - an offence of normally law-abiding people. Manslaughter is the offence of self-centred ratbags. As for participating in non-commercial flights, does that introduce "obvious risk"? Look at the definition posted above. That covers just about everything that happens after one gets out of bed. If I am approved to fly say a C-182, and yesterday I chartered one with pilot for a business trip conducte under DVMC rules, is the risk any different if I private hired the same aircraft today to fly away for the weekend with family? The media from 1904 has promoted the concept that flying is tremendously dangerous, and that concept has been ingrained in the minds of the general public so that we end up with definitions like the one posted above applied to an activity that is more controlled and carried out on vehicles maintained to a much higher standard than the activity involved in getting oneself to the airport.

A measurement instrument has two features: resolution and accuracy. Imagine if you zoomed in on this image and there were markings/subdivisions instead of just one big red dot bullseye. That is one way to think of resolution. Accuracy (resolution) relates to how small a difference between two identified points an instrument can show. The diagram shows the same position (the point in the center of the bullseye) measured by two instruments. The two grid patterns represent the smallest objects that can be detected by the instruments. The pattern on the left represents a higher-resolution instrument. For a leak-down test the optimum would be a device that is "accurate and precise", but since we are looking for trends, "precise but not accurate" is sufficient. Note also that "accurate and precise" does not mean the "Robin Hood shaft splitter" shot.

I was once given the advice that any measurement, no matter how dubious , is better than no measurement at all. Skippy's comment is correct. The usual reason for including leak-down testing in a scheduled maintenance regime is to obtain data to identify a trend. If you are servicing your own aircraft, and using the same device all the time, scientific degree accuracy is not required. Every instrument has its own unique inaccuracies, called instrument error, but they remain constant throughout the life of the instrument. It's no use getting an instrument like this gauge calibrated against a known standard. As soon as you throw it back into your tool chest, or knock the gauge on something, it can wander from that calibration. At times there is a need for a one-off test. That is when a normally good engine suddenly goes bad. Then you do the leak-down test to identify the dud cylinder, and go from there. And as with all maintenance - Record, record, record and RFGuy said. If ever you want to sell your aircraft, comprehensive maintenance records return more money than the cost of the time spent writing them.

It is interesting that the boaties haven't taken up variable pitch props.

You only have until 19 May 2023 to get it into the air to fly west for 90 Nm.

We, as people knowing more than the average persons about the legal side of flying, will come to the conclusion that the elements of the offence have been proved. However, a jury will be made up of people most likely not having that knowledge. Juries bring a lot of "There but for the Grace of God go I" to this sort of trial. They simply don't look at the elements of the offence and come to a decision that the allegation has been proved if all the elements have been proved. Guidelines for Judges say in relation to Manslaughter by criminal negligence "In order to establish manslaughter by criminal negligence, it is sufficient if the prosecution shows that the act which caused the death was done by the accused consciously and voluntarily, without any intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm but in circumstances which involved such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment." Before the offence can be committed the accused must owe a legal duty of care to the deceased, such a duty having been recognised by the common law. It is essential that the act or omission that amounts to a breach of duty is the act or omission that causes death. Amongst other elements, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt: The accused’s act/omission amounted to criminal negligence and merited criminal punishment for the offence of manslaughter because: (a) it fell so far short of the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances; and (b) involved such a high risk that death or really serious bodily harm would follow as a result of the act/omission. You've got to watch that "and". "Such a high risk" is another hurdle. Looking at this, I wonder if the Crown will get up.

It doesn't look like these toroidal props are worth the effort. These tests are carried out with 3D printed props, but I think the methodology is sound.

You only need a compressor that can pressurize the cylinder to 80 psi for your particular engine. Basically what a leak-down test says is "If I increase the pressure in a cylinder to a known amount, how much will it keep in. If you had unseated valves or worn rings/cylinder you would not get the sort of figures you quote. How often to do the test? It is a simple, non-destructive test. You could do it every time you clean the spark plugs. The manufacturer's recommendation of every 25 hours lets you monitor trends. Don't forget to record the results in the engine logbook - adds to resale value. SAFETY WARNING Keep away from the propeller while doing this test. You are increasing the pressure in the cylinder well above atmospheric pressure. There is the possibility that the increase in pressure could cause a similar effect to the increase in pressure during a normal combustion cycle and therefore cause the propeller to move rapidly and give anyone in its arc a nasty thump.

I see no difference in my Duty of Care to a passenger, or other people in the vicinity, if I was driving a ground vehicle, navigating a boat or flying an aircraft. That is what is the crux of any offence resulting an any degree of harm to another person, ranging from a simple slap on the face to murder. It is simply that the Law has set a scale based on the degree of harm and the circumstances leading to the infliction of that harm. That is the basis of 'contributory negligence'. Contributory negligence occurs when the injured person themselves is found to have contributed to the cause of their loss or injury. If an applicant has failed to take reasonable care for their own safety or loss then they will be found contributorily negligent. But that only applies in Civil litigation. In Criminal litigation, the onus is always on the actions or inactions of the accused.

I like that opinion. The damage supports it. As does the ejection through the windscreen.

A bloke up in Chinchilla might have one.

Who said the airplane was EXPERIMENTAL? I can clearly see "VH-" on the fuselage. Unless someone knows the airplane from Serpentine in WA. Sorry, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it was charter, RPT or private. The onus is on the operator of a vehicle (in this case and airplane) to ensure it is safe for use. If the pilot was the owner, then it is his responsibility to ensure the vehicle is maintained to the expected levels of safety. If CASA has gone him for being unlicensed, to me that means he never was issued with a licence. I was issued with a licence way back when, and it is still live, but it would be foolish of me even to undertake a solo flight right now as I'm way, way out of currency. In CASA's eyes, being unlicensed means never having passed a theory and practical examinations. There's been lots of discussion about pilots failing to make broadcasts in the vicinity of aerodromes. Ever thought it might be because the pilots are not licensed and are trying to avoid detection?

It's to express the bushranger spirit by flaunting the Law!

If you really want to travel with a group of like-minded individuals you must in the first instance obtain the approval of SHMBO.

A Search Warrant can be issued to a CASA investigator by virtue of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Part IIIA Division 2 Paragraph 32 (AF)

Better than being labelled "Leader of the Pack"

Let's keep an eye on this one. However, I don't see much more of it appearing in the Court List for a few months, and any Trial won't be unit at least this time next year. Just to answer the question, "Why manslaughter? " The elements of manslaughter in Queensland are: (1) the deceased is dead; (2) the defendant caused the deceased's death; (3) the defendant did so unlawfully, ie any defences are excluded beyond a reasonable doubt. The unlawful acts would relate to licensing and maintenance, and since those matters are of the "strict liability" type, a finding of guilt can be the only outcome.

I reckon that has been answered OK and I hope the answer helped. However, we must maintain the culture of this forum an generate more thread drift than a Paddle-Pop stick in a drain after a summer torrential downpour. The anxiety of getting lost is dependant on the distance from your last accurately confirmed location. Do people simply plan to fly long legs from D to P, or do they insert F, J, and L on their flight plan as places merely to be noted in order to confirm Track Made Good? All this denigration of map reading is making me think that a major Search and Rescue operation will be the finale to Winging it Down the Castlereagh. At worst, the flight can be done IFR&R&R from Tooraweenah to Coonamble. The test I have included is getting from Coonamble to Tooraweenah via the designated locations. IFR&R&R: I follow roads, railways and rivers.

That is quite true, and I'm not such a Luddite as to refuse to use these devices. They would not have been invented if they were not convenient to use. The point I am making is that, to my way of thinking, preparing a flight plan with basic tools is part of the enjoyment of recreational flying. Also, if navigating by EFB is so fantastic, why does CASA require the carriage of relevant, current WACs for the proposed flight, and also a compass and clock? When a pilot relies on an EFB, the EFB becomes part of the aeroplane's essential equipment for that flight. If another essential piece of equipment failed, would a wise pilot continue the flight, or put down as soon as practicable to rectify the problem?