Jaba-who

We can only hope that someone in CASA realises from this debabacle that the response to a “real Mayday ” which involves off-airport closure of suburbs, roads and infrastructure is completely inappropriate for a “Mayday fuel” where there is still adequate fuel available to make a normal safe landing (albeit with expeditious routing). Hopefully this same CASA person who has the epiphany will then move to separate the “fuel concern” calls to something more appropriate and then either tells ICAO to do the same or to shove their rules. Is it likely to happen? I’m not going to hold my breath!

Nope. It clearly says when the pilot calculates that the fuel that will be left on landing is below the fixed reserve NOT when you reach the reserve. So in theory this could be quite some time and distance from the landing. “ 5) The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight. The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL. Note The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message.” Well not quite. And clearly says “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY (3 times) FUEL”. Not “Mayday fuel “. And given that a real Mayday call is then repeated 3 times -ie 9 MAYDAYS then odds on that the same pattern will get followed for this call. Which in the real world means that by them time the listener gets to the second or third “Mayday” they are likely to be thinking “emergency”, brain in go-fast mode, miss the fuel bit completely and be off on a tangent of a real emergency management not just thinking “Ho Hum, OK let’s see if we can expedite the entry”.

It depends a bit on the case. But in general defence lawyers want to get rid of citizens who may have preconceived ideas about the guilt of the defendant. So this might include broad generalisations that exclude plenty of people for no accurate reason but there is not need for them to put forward their reasons. Conservative jurors are not helpful. They often have a higher likelihood of finding guilt rather then giving benefit of the doubt. So Frequently older men are broadly not wanted. Equally higher social class background not preferred and the more educated the less they are wanted as these tend to be more conservative. Members or exmembers of defence forces or police or conservative members of society (doctors, businessmen etc). If the defendant is in a racial minority then they tend to want people of the same racial group and don’t want white conservatives. Overall the selection process tends to lead to juries that are for want of a better term, stacked. The biggest problem cited by a magistrate friend of mine is that broadly juries no longer represent society and no longer are the true “peers” of many defendants. If the defendant had more than a high school education then the average jury will often be significantly less educated and less average intelligence than the defendant. They often have limited to no knowledge or experience of the facts of the crime and frequently are unable to understand complex issues. It all has lead to a number of learned legal people calling for removal of the jury system saying it no longer is capable of doing the job it was designed for.

CASA would say that’s proof their program works. A bit like my elephant attack charm around my neck. Ancient African magic charm - it wards off elephant attacks. Been wearing it here in Cairns for 20 years never been attacked by an elephant. Proof that it works!!!

While I agree about what the rules state but like many casa rules the rationale is often wrong. At my airport the huge range of aircraft performance means aircraft starting a roll at the threshold have liftoff distances everywhere from 100 m to about ( at a guess)600 m Some use threshold departures, some intersection departures. By midfield many of them are already at 500 ft and by upwind threshold many are already at 1000 ft. But then some at midfield are barely off the ground and at the upwind threshold are maybe a few hundred feet up. The ag guys when fully loaded are barely off the ground for a km or so out. And for others it’s anything in between. Far too many assumptions in the rules. Entry at any point is just as likely to have a collision. Basically I disbelieve all position calls until I see the aircraft.

I think it's still illegal to do so. Though they have changed the rules so many time since that I have no idea for certain. We had an event here in Cairns that caused the change of law to prohibit local terminology and things could only be used if they appeared named on the VTC ( if one applied to the area. As they do for pretty much all the secondary airports) or were part of a published approach path. There was a conflict between a private pilot and a Qantas big aircraft that caused a separation issue, TCAS alarm, change of or maybe aborted descent of descent path for the jet etc. big issue event. Essentially the Private pilot had been told to track via the "Southern Shores" a well used local term for the southern shore of the bay Cairns is built on which would have taken him perpendicular to and well away from the jet descent path. The pilot thought it meant to follow the western shore to the south which then follows the estuary of the waterway - that then tracked directly head on into the flight path of the traffic descending and landing from the south. Big drama and a change of rules followed. As I said I have no idea if that still applies. They change the rules so much.

A ATC meme that was floating around Cairns about ten years ago. I didn't hear the actual event but relate as it was told to me. Western VFR corridor along the western boundary of city of Cairns includes a common reporting point known as the Earlville Shopping centre. Very large sprawling complex marked on the VTC. Usually easily found by locals. In the sprawling car park stands a giant "statue" of a black marlin ( fish) a type of sport billfish for which the area is known. It is visible from the air if you know where to look. Apparently an itinerant pilot was given directions by ATC to track via Earlville shopping centre and advised to look for the "big fish on a stick!" He responded when he'd found it. Soon followed by several requests from following pilots, " Cns Approach aircraft xyz, request to track via the fish on a stick!"

I'm was being a bit facetious, but just to be argumentative The best "Code Blues" ( in hospital emergency - usually cardiopulmonary arrests etc) with the best outcomes are where you have just the team that's needed and no-one else. You get too many people in the way, too many chiefs etc. and it all starts to fall apart. Everyone either wants to take over or everyone thinks someone else is doing the small but important stuff that gets forgotten. I have worked in places where we had an " once the team arrives - unless you are on the team - get out!" Rule. Sounds brutal but shown to have superior outcome. I have times where I would like the crash cart (essential equipment trolley) to have a set of those stainless steel pillar/posts with the pull out webbing like you see in airport queuing areas. First task is to set them up to keep everybody out!. This guy would probably have the best management with one ambulance vehicle with the one crew of paramedics and one fire truck crew.

One little gyrocopter - 3 fire engines 9 cars a tractor and a golf buggy. Bit of overkill maybe?

I just paid $3200 for aircraft insurance for $80K value - through a broker.

Any airport owner can have anything printed in the ERSA. It does not mean just because a discriminatory rule is published in the ERSA at the behest of the writer that it is constitutionally legal or enforceable.

I have the full suite in my 430. ( same as a 230 but with four seats. I’d probably suggest first redoing the photo at cruise rpm of 2900. The EGTs do a jump up as you transition across the main carb needle step at about 2850 (going downwards in rpm. ) They can be fine above it and jump up below it. I don’t take a lot of notice as to what mine do at low rpms. Better to see what it’s doing at cruise. They might be a bit high but I can’t remember for sure. At 2900 all mine run in mid to high 600s. If they go over 700 at cruise then I start to worry.

Ah. Ok. Now I get it. Too cryptic for me. It would be interesting to see the propagation diagram for that. I would have thought it would be crap. Two lateral lobes and nothing front to back. Not what you want in a transponder antenna. But I must be missing something otherwise they would never have got off the design desk.

Sorry can’t work out what that is. Looks like the business end of a fly swatter. Is that metal or plastic?

So I’ve not seen a shark fin up close. Are they a truly shark fin shaped metal antenna or are they just a stick and ball in a fin shaped plastic cover?

Hangar keepers liability insurance is a slight misnomer. It covers aircraft and/or public liability. We have it for our hangar and have got the broker to outline exactly what it really means because it seemed like we were paying for something we did not need. ( because we don't let anyone else keep their aircraft in our hangar so why would we need it?) We get a new policy every year and the broker gets the best deal from whomever and we have had about three or four different insurers over the last ten years and they have all had the same coverage. So what does it cover? Part 1 covers the OWNER of the Hangar from claims of damage to other people's aircraft that are stored in the hangar. ( we do not have this part) I was under the impression ( but could be wrong) You cannot take out hangarkeepers insurance unles you own the hangar because the liability for other people's property lies with the person providing the hangar space. It excludes any aircraft owned by the policy holder/hangar owner. Part 2 covers claims of injury to persons who are inside the hangar. This is the misnomer bit because it's just personal injury/public liability but with a more expensive twist. Its the same as if the hanger was not a hangar but was say a clubhouse or storage shed etc. doesn't have to have an aircraft in it. But this is the kicker - because it's located on an airfield the policy wording makes out that there is an added risk from being located on an airfield so the premium is higher than if that same building were say a couple of blocks away outside the airfield precinct. It does not cover damage to the hangar itself - specifically excluded and for cover to this we have a seperate building cover policy. Liability for damage (by someone who does not own the hangar) to someone else's property would have to be covered by some other insurance - I would have thought standard aircraft insurance would cover damage to other aircraft caused by a fault in your aircraft ( eg battery catching fire etc provided your policy had a clause covering it. My normal aircraft policy does have cover for damage while on the ground (different clauses for engine running or engine not running) But what it does not cover is if you personally ( unassociated with your aircraft caused damage to someone else's property. Hard to think of a scenario but say you lit up a smoke and someone's aircraft caught fire, or maybe you leaned on someone's rag and tube and put your hand through the skin. But I doubt you could get any insurer to cover you for that if you don't actually have some form of formal responsibility toward the aircraft owner. But that would be same for anyone who was visiting etc and who didn't own an aircraft there. You would not expect them to get an insurance policy before they would be allowed to visit or enter the hangar while a guest. If they did it would be up them to make good on repairs etc and if not you'd have to sue them.

Nothing illegal about denying liability, losing files, asking for resubmissions or requesting medical reports. It’s standard practice. Inconvenient, unconscionable but not illegal. That’s why they do it.

This is an original picture when I first made it and tried it out. The telescopic bit is simply two bits of aluminium tubing that one inserts into the other. The internal shape of the Jabiru panel surround lender itself easily to fixing the outer static tube to the ridged flat inner surface. This photo was a trial with simple plastic saddles holding the tubing in place. I subsequently replaced it with metal saddles. ( not aviation quality I have to admit. I couldn't get anything in aviation aluminium of the size to match the tubing but made the considered judgement that it was not going to be stressed or anything in use so was of no safety consideration that they weren't aviation quality. What you can't see is the two small brackets that join the rear of dash panel to the inner mobile slide tube. Essentially each is just a small section of channel just wide enough to fit across the end to tube and held in place with a single through bolt - allows it to pivot/rotate forward and downward to allow the dash panel to tilt forward to allow access to the back of the panel. The front face of the bracket is pop riveted to the back of the panel. I fabricated a small spring loaded pin housed in a folded metal cage - the pin drops into a hole in the inner tube to prevent the inner tube pulling out all the way and dropping the dash panel into your lap. In the end it was not really needed because once you connect a few cables to the instruments you start to limit its travel anyway.

Yep. That’ll count.

You’ll be lucky if you get any back. Health funds cannot legally give you rebates unless there has been an item number approved by the MBS added by the initiating doctor. MBS item numbers can not be used for medicals. So generally speaking medicals and their associated costs are full cost to the patient. If the test is done as a follow up for a previously evident medical condition then it’s legal to use an item number. So depends a bit on you situation but if it’s a clear cut medical then bad luck!

At one time insurance companies would look for anything that was done wrongly and would (could) refuse to pay out. Arguing that whatever it was that existed, meant the driver or pilot should not have been driving or flying and therefore would not have crashed. Etc. About a decade or so back I am told, legislation was introduced that basically said unless the thing that was wrong was materially involved in causing the event then they could not withhold paying out. But if you do something which is illegal and that illegal act was a direct cause of the event then I guess they would have more of a chance in not paying up. Flying an overloaded or out of balance aircraft is strictly speaking illegal. You are supposed to do preflight calculations - and show them to a CASA officer if they ask at a ramp check. So I would guess they would seize that as an opportunity. Doesn’t stop them trying I guess.

I’m getting a bit cheesed off with these little “on” lights in everything. Wifey and I both have an iPad and an iPhone. Both do on call work so have to have them both on at bedside. iPads for reading before bed etc. put them all on charge and there seems to be lights on everything. The chargers, I bought a new charging cable the other day. Yep it too has a light built into the plug so you can stay awake all night and see that it’s still on. room is as bright as day. Blue lights seem to be the in colour and it’s the worst for making it light.

Broadly speaking Nev I have to agree that at least our taxes generally here are used for the purposes they have been collected. I very recently had to do a trip to South Africa because my wife’s father had a heart attack and was in public hospital ICU then the ward. Now that’s a place where taxes are truly rorted. Politicians there own property and houses worth 40 and 50 times their salaries. No way they got it legally. But while they have that the major teaching hospital in Bloemfontein patients have to bring in their own blankets, their own urinals and bribe nurses to get nursing care. Bronwyn Bishop had to resign here for taking a one hour chartered helicopter flight. There individual politicians get their own airforce squadron of helicopters for personal use. And the streets of the major cities are piled high with uncollected rubbish and people of all colours ( most notedly to me - whites with signs begging for vegetables and other food donations) are begging at traffic lights. Whingers here don’t realise just how good and how little corruption there actually is here. But Tuncks has it also right. Most high income earners ( and these days being a teacher or nurse working shifts and weekends pushes you into the high income earners) are the ONLY ones paying tax. This is something that s..ts me. We have a lot of whingers who call high earners parasites but these noisy buggers don’t pay any tax thenselves. Currently if you have kids then a family has to exceed about $50k before they actually pay any tax. As I am sure most are aware but usually forget, 65% or something like it of the actual $ collected in tax are paid by 25% of the workers. Which somewhat proves that the vast majority of high earners actually DO pay their full share of tax and CAN’T emmbark on tax avoidance as our ( mostly Labor party) “us vs them” Class war mongers try to make out - sadly to a population who are only to glad to believe it too. I actually work from Monday to Wednesday lunchtime “for the tax department” then I work from then till Thursday morning or lunchtime to pay my staff my practice costs etc then after than I start getting some for myself my wife and my kids. No capacity to hide income and no capacity avoid tax. No income AT ALL till Thursday. Thanks to our tax system. Ok I have a social conscience and am glad to pay a fair share of tax to stop being accosted by beggars on every street corner and to be sure people get good teachers, emergency and medical care and we all get good roads. But something that really gets up hard workers noses, who actually worked, studied, bettered themselves often at great expense and effort to get ahead and earn a good living for their efforts and responsibilities is then to have 50% taken off them, and then to be told by real parasites that they don’t deserve what they earned and that even more should be taken off them. Something I have learned is that Australians all seem to have the belief that everyone who earns more than they do, doesn’t deserve it and no matter how much they already pay in tax they always have enough to have some more of it taken off them and they won’t miss it. Reality of course is that no matter what you earn your costs seem to always grow to fit it. I have seen plenty of “rich” people in real financial difficulty and not from just being financially imprudent. But anyway I am sure my thoughts will fall on a lot of deaf ears.

The real world is a bit more complex than that. The large particles don't get generally past the so-called "middle order airways" ( the lower levels are where it needs to get for the fibrosis type diseases we have been talking about) but nothing is ever simple. Upper order airways ( nose, sinuses, throat, trachea and large airpassages in the lungs ) still get a dust load and in those locations there are still severe and chronic illnesses that can result. Some of the large particles get laid down in the air passages (and especially if you smoke ) can then trickle down to lower parts of the lungs and still produce problems. But the major problems we see from constant large particles inhalation is sinus and nasal disease. In tropical areas dust and dirt is commonly contaminated by bacteria and fungi and fungus inhalation is common and can cause lung fibrosis in itself. Nothing is simple and everything is bad for you!

Don't look at me. I ain't helping you!! I'm pretty sure the Hypocratic Oath doesn't extend that far!!!! ( by the way, the assembled masses may be interested to know that doctors don't take the Hypocratic Oath and haven't for decades. I graduated in 1987 and while we were given a nice copy of the oath to put in a framed we never ever actually stood up and recited it, took it or pledged allegiance to it. )