Jaba-who

Lots of info about the area from west of Townsville through to Atherton and then Port Douglas. Basically - yep stay west of cairns. All ctr along the coast. Long long drive for the support cars. Roads there go in huge arcs in places. But it's a long long flight at 60 knots too I suppose. If weather is dodgy don't attempt direct into atherton. High tiger country from Mt Garnet (YMRT) to Ravenshoe to Atherton that clouds in first hint of humidity. Ok to plan it for a clear day but also plan to go up the interior to abeam Mareeba (At about Petford) and come east in the valley from Petford to Dimbulah (YDIM) to Mareeba (YMBA) then back south to Atherton. Let us know when you are gonna be in Atherton. Maybe we can arrange a welcoming party. Plenty more local info that I can add but the list would go on for pages.

Not any more. It's common for people to make a claim hoping to get a smaller payout by the defendant to avoid going to court. They know they may not get far if it gets to court but the cost to the defendant is so high that it's cheaper and easier to just make a smaller offer for an out of court settlement.

Not talking about power production. Talking about weight and w&B The specs say it's 120 kg. The jabiru 6 cylinder is 80 kg. As a percentage 50% more weight and as raw numbers 40 kgs. How many HP it produces is irrelevant when it comes to the weight and balance of the aircraft.

Ok as far as a report from a physio goes it carries no more weight than one written by the little old lady who lives next door. Even a report from an ophthalmologist may be treated with minimal importance. ( I am aware of a case where multiple ophthalmologists stated a pilots minimal defect was irrelevant but the casa doctor (with no ophthalmology qualifications) overroad them. The other thing is that if you get an ophthalmologists report beforehand and casa say they want a report there's no saying that they will stipulate your ophthalmologist as suitable for the report. I've seen them require a report from a specific specialist even though others were available. Suspicion of you engaging a friend or aquantence to give a better than true report perhaps??? So while I'm not advocating a course of action it's up to you. But personally I would leave it all aside and just go for the medical with the dame and don't overemphasise anything just answer the questions truthfully and let all the pieces fall into place as they do. To preempt it with multiple visits to potentially irrelevant specialists whose word will not be taken anyway is just an expense you might not need.

If that weight is correct (122 kg) I suspect it won't be viable. Not in a jab anyway. That's about 40 kg heavier than a 6 cylinder Jab engine. (50% again) Trying to get w & b adjusted will be fun.

Mmm. Sounds like from your description maybe you may have nystagmus - where the eyes get a flicking movement to one side followed by a slower move back to the start position followed by repeated cycling of the flick and return movements. Can be brought by rapid turning of the head or in many people with it simply turning the eyes rapidly to one side. Usually related to underlying cerebellar ( the rear and lowermost part of the brain that mostly controls muscle coordination or some of the tracts deep in the Middle of the brain. I hope it's not what I think because if it was I can't see casa allowing it through. You say you have a report and should you get a second opinion? Have you actually been to DAME yet or is the result you have part of a casa medical - which you have already failed? Or is this report just from your own doctor for a non aviation examination? Something you need to understand is that second opinions ( even first opinions) from doctors who examine you count for nothing for an aviation medical. The doctors opinion about whether are fit to fly are irrelevant. The dame is employed to examine you and report those findings. The findings are compared a list of allowable clinical findings put up by casa. If you tick all the boxes you pass if you don't you are failed by casa ( by not fitting their list of findings) not the dame. If you have something that the DAME finds that CASA considers a fail it's CASA who fail you. CASA will not take any notice of your doctor's opinion, only what they find. So until you have a CASA/DAME medical and you fail it, don't bother about a second opinion unless you want it for your own ongoing medical treatment. And if you have a brain injury with nystagmus I would be very surprised if CASA would ever pass you. But I could be wrong. But you have to approach CASA Avmed about it.

Compare it to the real Oshkosh and the difference is unbelievable. I went to EAA in 2014 and you walked in and around the aircraft. Sat under the wing of something I forget what, to watch one of the flying displays. Complete immersion in the aviation world. Here the nanny state assumes everyone will tamper with or break something, or themselves. Assumes no one is capable of self-control.

This same scenario is common throughout GA flying school establishments. A school is a school not necessarily a hiring establishment. Hiring to non students often involves flights away with time on the ground at the destinations and that time is usually unpaid time. So a flying school may end up having bona fide students unable to fly while an aircraft sits on the ground somewhere while the hirer is at a fly in, camping trip or whatever. Then over time your students get annoyed because you don't have an aircraft when they are able to fly and they go elsewhere. So you lose your core business as well as often get only partial returns for the hours your own aircraft is unavailable to you. Easiest way to keep your aircraft earning is, if you have the student load, keep your aircraft for your core business.

And something else I have just noticed. The camera is being swung left and right as well. Look at the towers on the horizon. When the aircraft touches down they are on the left half of the video field. Ignore where they are compared to the aircraft ( obviously that will change as the aircraft swings) BUT the towers move rapidly left and right in the complete video field and then end up far on the right. The maximal rate of swing is in time and opposite to apparent swing of the aircraft. The camera is obviously being swung left and right to follow the aircraft. That's fine. Im not saying he's doing it nefariously just saying when you add that illusion to the effect of the hairpinbend in the runway it's going to make the whole orientation look much worse then it is. If it were just foreshortening it would remain in same place or at least same side of the video field and be relatively constant. But This is happening in relationship to the aircraft swing and will maximise the illusion of lateral movement. Not saying I know what the cameramans mindset was - accident or fraud but it will have the outcome effect. And another thing - I posted on Cargospotters YouTube page asking politely if he had any video where the runway does not have the hairpin bend in the middle and if so could he post it as well. No surprise my post has been deleted after only 6 hours.

I'm not saying the landing was smooth nor without some lateral movement. What I am suggesting it is no where near as bad as the illusion makes it seem.

The point is that the curve you are happy to accept in the runway Will also affect the view of the aircraft as it too follows that same curve and that same point on the curved runway. That "following the curve" gives an apparent swing even though it may be actually tracking straight. that curve everyone is happy to ignore is the basis for the dismay everyone has, including cries for sacking the pilots and has thrown emirates into a public relations tailspin advising the public their pilots are highly trained, no one was injured and that the airline takes safety seriously. The exaggerated curve (which seems you have agreed is present), is what I'm saying is the cause of the exaggerated illusion of lateral movement. You are right there is good attention to detail but that's not the author per se. The video manipulation programs do that intrinsically. It's the program writers that pay attention to detail. It's well worth the clip authors effort to produce a good clip. If you drag the pixels left they take all the pixels, shadows included. YouTube vids make the poster money per click and Cargospotter has had 7.6 million hits in 3 days and is now claiming to being pursuing legal redress against at least 1 other site who have on-posted his video and several tv stations for running his videos without permission.

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman. That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it. Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs. Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers. Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

The other thing that makes me think it's dodgy is that from touchdown to crossing the piano keys at the far end of the runway is about 40 secs. Even including the bit where he's bouncing and weaving that's very fast to taxi a couple of kilometres. So if the video is sped up (and the image is extremely foreshortened) it's going make the lateral movements look like it's happening really fast when it is probably happening quite slowly.

Well you may be right but I remain unconvinced. For the following reasons: 1. The author "cargospotter" posted it two days ago on YouTube claiming it is his own and he took the video last week. The temps in Düsseldorf were 9-17 for that entire week with huge huge crosswinds. I would have thought that that would negate " heat haze" formation. 2. And when you look at the video except for the runway taking off to the left (The lines, the rubber tire marks) all are clear as day without haze effect. The aircraft has no haze effect as it goes through the same part of the airstrip- in fact you can read the writing on the hull and see the smoke from the tires in quite good detail blowing sideways in the wind. 3. While I agree the landing had some side to side movement with that initial awful bounce but the nose wheel actually lands on the centre line and stays on it for the time the centre line is visible. After that he straightens up and then seems to me to be fairly parallel to the lines - which themselves take off at 90 degrees to the right of view. 4. Sure the rudder moves - they always do when you are making corrections for the crosswind and sure the aircraft swings a bit in the appropriate direction. I'm not disputing it was a real landing with real significant crosswind. But I have doubts that it was anywhere near as bad as the video attempts to show. I'd love to see the video with the runway actually straight

I think it's a hoax/fake video. If you ignore the aircraft for a bit. Look at the runway line markings. Looks like they have a huge swerve in them. And the swerve is in the same direction as the apparent swinging of the fuselage. If you then follow the aircraft and try to see where it is in relation to these wayward lines - it's not that far off staying parallel to the lines. Not exact I grant you but not anywhere near as bad as the video tries to suggest.

The problem of contacting the operator is that these non towered strips are mostly operated by local councils and the "operator" that you speak to when you go phoning the number in the ERSA etc is a receptionist at the council chambers who doesn't know anything but will put you onto the guy who covers the airport along with everything from garbage collection to overseeing the local swimming pool. Usually with no aviation qualifications. I've found the only way to get technical answers a lot of the time is to talk to local pilots. Sometimes the refueller is also a pilot so there is a number that you can ring to start the path of enquiry but often they are just the owner of the local roadhouse so then not much help.

Yep. No one can hold their breath till the end of time.

Isn't there some further rule somewhere that limits the aircraft to a single? Don't know for sure but vaguely recall that something somewhere says singles.

Nope. The RAAus is already trying to add stuff that will undoubtedly have bad backlash. I see this is going to end with a lot of unhappy pilots criticizing RAAus and forming a back to basics break away (with wanting the minimal rules they now enjoy). Every one of the already wanted extras is available in another field of aviation - namely GA (at PPL or RPL level). CASA have been obvious in their actions if not their statements that they want people to who want more to go to GA and that for those who stay in RAAus - they wish to screw them down tighter. WRT the extras - They all have enough difference and complexity in them that in the unlikely event that CASA were to agree to any of them, CASA would also say "We will allow your XXXXX desire but to get it we are adding the same requirements in medicals, training, maintenance etc that applies to the PPL/RPL pilot and aircraft in order to exercise those same privileges. CASA is not in the business of relaxing anything. As proved by their intransigence on the medicals front - despite contrary evidence from all over the world. Australia is "different" and requires different (ie more restrictive) rules. They have already been whittling away at the experimental GA aircraft side for several years, turning that back to as close as they can to certified GA. Builder maintenance is now increasingly restricted compared to what it was when I built my J430. So no don't go there - RAAus already has enough on their plate.

Yep. A boat is a hole in the water you throw money into. A plane is a hole in the air you throw money into. A helicopter is a hole in the air that actively sucks the money out of your pockets.

I'm sure your great extensive knowledge and your position as a law student will be of great comfort to the multiple people whose experience ( which is real and in the public domain) money and outcomes have been the exact opposite of your stated brilliance on the topic.

Well - I have to say that many of the above do represent a lot of best case wishful thinking not necesarily reality. The fact is that when someone builds a home built you have all possible ranges of quality. With no guarantee that it's been done right. It may be done to a meticulous standard ( because as stated many builders lavish care and attention). Or it may be done to a shoddy "slap it together as fast as I can - I want to go flying" standard. And there is no likelihood that every section has been to the same standard. A build takes years and in that time builders learn as they go, have good days and bad days, get confused at complex descriptions in manuals or parts especially after long hours in the shed, or just make mistakes. I have to disagree about kits stopping or even limiting errors. Jabirus ( of which I have been involved with many) are in fact quite complex with many places where poor knowledge/experience or lack of attention can lead to huge variation on quality. We have one here which despite looking all right at preinspection - ended up needing to have so much work done on it it would have been quicker to strip it completely down and rebuild it. And once the kit shell has been completed , stuff like cables, electronics, avionics and set up of control trims etc are completely at the whim of the builder and it's back to anything goes. Our chapter of the SAAA members has a number of aircraft purchased as already-builds which even to pre-purchase inspection looked good or great. It's only later when maintenance happens that the new owners have started to find issues, some serious and some just annoying. Then there is the issue of maintenance - if it's homebuilt and you have to get a LAME you may run into issues of finding one experienced on that model. One of our members bought a fantastic plastic fastest little rocket but then lamented that he paid for his LAME to learn on his plane. While factory builds might have issues on the issues of likelihood of controlled quality, of fallback if there are problems - ADs issued for problems ( and you can check to see they have done) the overall likelihood that it will be safe is much higher in a factory build. Without dragging this post out too long - as sad as it is for me to say ( and I am a Technical Counsellor in the SAAA - if safety is your prime mover then give homebuilts of all types a big swerve and get a factory build.

The usefulness of trusts for this sort of protection is more limited now. The trust has to be at arms length and be set up such that the major beneficeries have limited control over it. If it's obvious that it's just a firewall to save your assets from a legitimate claim for compensation then the courts have means of getting at it. I have explored the option a few times over the years but the costs of set up and running it are not small and the gain in most situations seems to be minimal. The problem of relying on no insurance and no assets is that of course he has assets - his future income. The courts can award against that just as much as against current assets. If he is nearing retirement age then sure not much to get - but jeez no assets? No super no savings? Where is all his life's earnings - has he got it buried in his backyard or given it to his kids ( and hope like hell they don't spend it all and kick him out or put him in the cheapest old peoples home that they can find - I've seen that a few times) These days you can't work in almost any practice or hospital without insurance ( save setting up your own etc) but even then to get loans for equipment etc the banks require proof of insurance. I suspect that sign may not be quite true.

The situation behind the blood sheet waivers is that they are typically "not worth the paper they are written on". While the signer is acknowledging the sport has risks and dangers and they are signing only to say that, "Should an accident happen which is purely the result of the risks of the sport then they will accept the event and its outcome". Intrinsic to this is the expectation that the organizers are not running a secretly shoddy activity whose risks are actually generated by negligent actions of the organiser. You can't get a person to sign a waiver over negligence. They are not signing to say they are giving the organizer the right to be negligent. If an event goes bad the search starts for negligent actions that nullify the signed waiver. And as well, the net gets cast as wide as possible to include seemingly unrelated parties, who may have been even just tangentially involved. The more people you involve the more chance you will find somebody who did something negligent. It may have very little to do with the actual event but it can be skewed into the narrative. And the depth of the pockets of the parties dictates who will be dragged in. If you have insurance, if you are a doctor or wealthy professional, for instance, and happened to be involved you will be dragged in for certain. But if you are a unemployed labourer with no assets and no money even if you were closely involved but not covered by any insurance etc you would probably be left out. No point in suing you anyway. The unfortunate thing is that the outcome dictates the liklihood of having negligence found against you. There have been studies which have shown that bad outcomes skew peoples perceptions to consider even normal standard of care actions as negligent.There have been a couple of published medico-legal studies where series of events has been given to panels of experts. In one series the outcome was bad, in the other (disguised as a different event but was actually the same event) but the outcome was changed to good. There was an 85% concordance rate with the acceptance of negligence when the out come was bad and almost the exact reciprocal amount when the out come was good. The other thing that encourages finding negligence is when a child is the victim. Similar studies showed the same about actions that were probably not related to the event. These showed that if there was a bad outcome then innocuous things were given importance far above their real standing. Sometimes quite tenuous miniscule possibilities were judged as being highly likely to have happened and to carry great significance whereas when similar events occurred (but when the outcome was good) the reviewers accepted that in no reasonable situation could these events actually happen and were thus of no importance in the outcome.

I can give you an actual example of the situation you describe. Atherton has RWY 15/33 with the township on the western side and all circuits to the east. So circuits on 33 are right circuits. Standard practice is to join upwind on descent then crosswinds exactly as you describe. If entering from the north and where the situation demands a full circuit it is on descent on the western side of the strip.