Jaba-who

I think there's a little variation in most cases. It's: Airport built in Non-prime real estate. The good stuff gets sold up over the years and the developers move outward toward the airports. Prime real estate is expensive but some one develops some land near the airport precisely because it's not prime and sells it cheap. People with lower incomes buy it and because they don't do their homework or take much notice of the airport get a big surprise when they start to hear planes. People begin to forget they bought cheap land because it's near an airport and is not prime real estate. They start to make noises and lobby and often use emotive stuff like "we are poor people. If we were rich someone would fix our problem but we are poor and all the rich people have planes and are causing us poor hard working battlers to suffer. "

I think you need to turn your phone off, step away from it, take a deep breath and reassess your place in the world. (And I'm talking from a position where people lives depended on me too, where I was working a rostered 56 hour week but actually working over a hundred. I am in a field where (especially when we are younger my colleagues And I were so convinced the world needed us. ..... But fortunately I managed to actually see that if i dropped dead tomorrow the world would carry on, that someone one else could do the job and if they couldn't It was not my concern. It's not your job to carry the world. Does having your phone on and talking on it, while other people who are trying to do for you what you need them to do mean you are preoccupied and disoordered? Yep, sorry to inform you but it does and you should not be flying if you can't think of anything except when the next phone call comes in. I'm sorry to say this, and it is not meant to be nasty. But as flying colleagues we should be doing the right thing by our flying fellows and pointing out the obvious. Best of wishes.

You have fallen to a trap when you start comparing a aviation engine to a car or bike engine and compare their functional life span. There is not any automotive engine in any car that ever runs full throttle for five to ten minutes every time it's run then often for full throttle a few more times during the use cycle then at a cruise of 75% or so.

Does anyone know if any form of investigation was done and if so what the explanation for the event was. I can speculate on any number of scenarios where either of the participants was in the wrong or where either of the participants were in the right and it was just bad luck. Would be nice to know if there was an explanation.

I did my initial training ( helos) in a mixed pattern. Sometime it was long gaps between lessons due weather, lack of an aircraft then lack of an instructor. So when it became possible I took time off work and did some blocks. What I found was I couldn't do more than two flights a day of about an hour to an hour and a half each. I just found it too exhausting. However later in my training when I was better at it, more efficient etc I was able to push it up quite a bit. The thing to remember is that paradoxically it's early in the training when you want to do more and do it more frequently ( to save on sliding backwards between lessons etc) is when it's more demanding and you will be able to do less without becoming so tired and exhausted that you won't gain as much. Later it will get easier so you can last longer.

Depending on the material it's made from there is an argument for not using a mechanical buffer. Acrylics will heat up with a mechanical buffer and if they heat too much you will temper the acrylic and then never be able to get the scratches out. You can still overheat small areas manually but it's a lot harder to do.

Well, the whole point of my post was that you CAN argue with that ( despite the stupidity of doing it). The rules DON'T say all those things. They say partial things which do not, legally lead from one to the next. The sensible person would accept they should but the wording of the rules do not. That was my point.

Yep. I've used it a couple of times "unofficially" when doing some circuit work for the interest etc but as far as I am aware we aren't "allowed" to use it in Oz.

There's more to it than all of this. Ag ops operate under a different set of rules ( I forget the number but it's something like Part 135 or something like it Agricultural Operations - number given to me by an ag operator when I raised the issue with him. ) as best I remember They are allowed to use AGL as long as they don't climb above 500ft AGL when they have to revert to AMSL. Some other rule changes include self selection of runway against the flow other traffic and a few other crazy things. ) There is no option for helicopters to operate under part XYZ Ag Ops unless they are doing ag Ops but when I was flying Helos we did it all the time and especially out over water flying coastal,or in and out from the reef ( using the same principle that as soon as you climb up you revert to AMSL. I have no issue with any of that except at YATN we have a number of RAAus guys who have begun mimicking the ag guys and using AGL but for ridiculous heights like "microlight XYZ 10 miles south at 3500 AGL" or even greater heights. Airfield is at 2500 AMSL so when they use this it becomes very confusing especially if they have crackly Comms and you miss the "AGL" part. It's been raised and the regs looked at. But surprisingly there actually is no regulation that says in black and white that "calls must be made in AMSL". There is circuitous statements that say altimeters must be calibrated and set to reflect altitude as AMSL and that you must make certain radio call stating your altitude. The average joe would interpret that to infer that the word altitude means what's on the dial as AMSL and you should call what you read on the dial but but nowhere that actually says you have to state the altitude as you read it from the altimeter. We looked at it to try and make these guys call in AMSL but we couldn't find anything. CASA said they interpret it that way but these guys just say "F__k them. It doesn't say that at all and we'll do what we want to do because what we want to do is within what the rules say ". A legal guy ( non aviation) said even though they are stupid they are legally correct. These guys here doing their own calculations and their estimates of the ground level, and where they are ( which could be anything as it's hills, valleys, flats and peaks everywhere) and give calls as AGL which can have no bearing on their altitude AGL in a few seconds time. Very problematic.

yep, my bad! And Alice springs is class d below various steps so you could go in and out in class d and remain outside of class c. But either way you would still not be able to do it on an RAAus licence except outside of tower hours.

At present, as I understand it, there are no "appropriate endorsements" to fly on an RAAus licence in controlled airspace. You have to have an RPL with endorsements or a PPL or CPL etc. ( let's call it an appropriate GA licence for ease of writing. You can fly an RAAus aircraft into controlled airspace provided you as the pilot have: 1. An RAAus certificate to entitle you to fly the aircraft AND 2.an appropriate GA licence to entitle you to use the airspace AND 3. The aircraft is equipped with a transponder and radio. There is a loophole for you though. Alice springs is only class C or D during tower hours 22:30Z to 08:30Z. Outside those hours it reverts to Class G so if you were able to restrict your flying in and out to outside those times you can do it on an RAAus licence.

Without knowing what your set up is like so take this with a grain of salt. You should check the wiring with a multimeter. Sounds like you have a short. If that doesn't help There's another way round it. try to isolate the radio from the aircraft using a jumper cable of some sort ( you might have to make one up ( with an inline fuse in it) and use an external battery and see if the radio works. If it works fine the trouble is in the wiring or cradle if it blows the fuse in your jumper cable then it's the radio.

There are other things that no one has mentioned. Turn off the engine! It's amazing how much thrust even an idling engine produces. Lazy s turns down the runway as wide as your speed will allow without ground looping. Brake handling - especially Jabiru brakes ( prior to the mark 3 s) Repeated apply and release. Don't hold them on - they'll fade then you have nothing. Slower firm application on Wet surface esp grass. - resist all urge to jam em on hard - you'll aquaplan. Learn what your aircraft does with respect to flaps lift vs flaps drag. This is different for different aircraft and where one will jump into the air others will just drop onto the ground more firmly. Pre-plan every take off roll so that if you hit your mark and you aren't flying you'll have plenty of time to pull up. Don't ever go beyond your mark hoping it'll fly. Better to go back and start again.

It's going to be hard to set controls/limits With relying on personal minimas it still has plenty of ways it can go below them. it might be ok on departure but because the weather is so changable and change to ifr while in flight. And how do you enforce personal minimas? If they set an external control - eg an angel flight controller who checked the weather and said yes or no - that person then ends up wearing the blame if it goes pear shaped. I'm afraid I have to disagree about dual pilots. That's asking for trouble. You always end up with one more courageous than the other and unless they work together all the time there's still heaps of potential to end up in trouble especially when the pressure is suddenly on. Something that lay people don't appreciate is the self pressure to go that crew get when there is a medical slant to the the mission. I can recall when I was a flight physician on our rescue helicopter ( before I got my own pilot licence) that I used to get quite annoyed when the pilots would pull the pin on a mission when it seemed to me so imperative that we went to this persons rescue. Later I realised just how dangerous some of those missions would have been. To be honest as altruistic as it is and despite the lump in the throats effect when I see the ads for angel flight I always think to myself we should leave the medical flying stuff to the professionals and if the professional s won't fly in anything unless it's multi-engine ( or a least pt-6 equipped singles in the shape of PC-12s) and the pilot has cpl and ifr rating etc etc then perhaps we should do likewise. Just because it's done out of the goodness of our hearts doesn't mean we should be doing it less safely. Its a case of you can fly thousands of people to their appointments but as soon as you kill just person it is no longer worth the risk.

I think he's talking about the one that went into the ground at Marlborough. ATSB suggested sleep inertia was main cause. Pilot woke to go on mission, didn't go through full fuel calcs and checks due to being still half asleep and they ran low on fuel on homeward leg. Tried to land at malborough but ended up in fog while landing and lost spatial orientation. The medical urgency might have caused a rushed preflight and maybe if it was not as rushed they might have been on the ground longer so the pilot might have woken up more before he did the fuel checks. But that's somewhat speculative. The child patient was stable and the return flight when they ran low on fuel was basically a non urgent flight home. The hamilton island was a cfit ( ocean) due to flying into a black night.

I personally would go for sub-assemblies all together. When I build the Jabiru they had a sort of half and half mixed up system. The majority of specific bits for specific assemblies were on shrink wrapped cards but the majority of the hardware was in tray boxes with bolts nuts etc of same sizes in the compartments. But they also had some hardware on the cards. I found it difficult because some of the time I knew I had the right hardware because it came on the cards and then some of the time I was left floundering because I wasn't sure I had right hardware etc. To give jabiru their due though - the bolts needed often varied from the size specified because the fibreglass layups are, by their nature, imprecise and often I needed to go up or down a length. If your kit is more precise - say a metal kit - I'd be more inclined to suggest each complete sub-assembly should be on its own card in entirety.

Mmm. I could offer a cynical response but will refrain. Have no idea what Clive Fenton has do with anything. I've read his book. So what? As I said, do what you have to, and do just that. Do nothing more. Don't give ammunition to your enemy. (And make no mistake CASA is not your friend.) Nothing culpable or negligent about that.

I would never ever suggest contacting CASA pre-emptively unless you are required to by law. CASA has by their history proven themselves over and over again to be singularly interested in only stopping pilots flying not in helping them to get flying. Read the rules and interpret them allowably your advantage and do what you you feel you can get away with. This sounds somewhat cynical and perhaps even bordering on rule breaking/bending. But you have to remember this is a game not a physical earthly law and you play by the rules of a game. The vast bulk of the evidence is that with the exception of a very few real medical conditions there is both no evidence to support medical restriction of pilot licences and significant evidence to support the safety of flying with many medical conditions. Unlike the biological facts ( like we must have a minimum 200 mls a minute of oxygen or we die) the medical limitations put out by CASA are proved not a problem for large numbers of the population every day who do similar or more bodily stressful tasks and pass the test of life quite successfully. Similarly pilots all over the world fly their RAAus -equivalent aircraft with medical conditions (and no medical licence beyond "safe to drive a car",) and don't drop out of the sky. Proof specific that "If I am considered unfit for a Class 2 am I really safe flying RA? " is a factually pointless question, unless you have some very specific medical conditions that would preclude you driving a car. CASA is involved in a "game" whose rules they have made up (absolutely MADE UP - not determined by evidence) so you are at complete liberty to play their game by their rules. But don't forfeit the game without giving yourself a chance.

Sorry to hear of your plight. Speaking as a doctor, the biggest problem you have is that "cancer" is not a single disease. Cancers of different organs are all different diseases. And even cancers of the same organ are not the same disease - they are often completely different depending on the cells involved, the category at diagnosis and whether there is any spread. And even cancers of the same cells in the same organ are not the same disease depending on a lot of factors at the time of diagnosis. The treatments can have the same highly varied effect on your medical as well. So unfortunately how the disease will affect your medical is so variable that comparing or using how someone else fared is somewhat meaningless. So unfortunately the reality is you just have to step into the tunnel and just take it as it happens. Be flexible.

I wish that were the case. I signed up originally to stay in contact with a relative on holidays. Now the biggest issue I have is that you can't be selective about having to accept all the crap your legitimate friends post. I have had to block or unfollow or delete more than 50% of the legitimate contacts I have had due to overbearing crap they post. - endless pics of their children's first pair of shoes, pictures of people's lunch and what score they got on some stupid on line game. I also get heaps of ads for stuff I don't want and which apparently I am not able to filter due to facebooks need to go further up the income scale. I have put in just about every setting I can to stop the demise of my enjoyment of the site but the spam and crap seems to stay one step ahead.

Don't know if anyone has seen this one but here's a mutt that wasn't secured well!

Seems to me they are saying what they are obliged to say if people are breaking the rules. They are not saying the pilot in question was doing aeros but ( given he has only had the aircraft a short time ) rather there have been reports that lots of people are doing aeros for a fairly long period of time. There is no statement that the aeros are being done in RAAus aircraft but the inference is there. Seems to me it's warning that if you are an RAAus aircraft owner (in that area Particularly) and if you are one of the people doing aeros then stop it. Further inference is, we or casa are going to be watching that area now.

Yep - Same reason you can't compare auto engine reliability with aviation engines. An auto engine in probably all but a very cars/bikes never runs full throttle for ten or so minutes let alone doing it every time it's run. Very little of an aviation engine cycle is at idle while auto and bike engines run at idle for lots of a usage cycle.

Mmm perhaps a little harsh on the baby boomers. Especially when even that tax office admits that baby boomers currently pay almost 60% of all tax that is paid. not talking about tax paid and then returned as family tax benefits and other benefits but tax paid and which stays in the tax pool. Baby boomers pay a hugely disproportionate level of the costs of our community.

Probably no mention of BRS/ parachutes because we been through multiple duscussions before on other threads about pros and cons etc etc of them. This instance - was an apparently single report of a witness stating they saw a wing fall off. No mention of anything since and given the wreckage has been found and that no one has mentioned anything about a wing missing, it makes me think it was not an accurate initial report.