Ignition

Ok, I am over saying my interpretation of the science. Because like it was ever gonna make sense to people already immersed in the Green movement anyway. *sigh* Especially in countries like The Netherlands who are a very big population of push bike riders... Unfortunately Australia has horrible roads infrastructure to allow Bikes, People and Cars a separate patch to move around on, not to mention that pretty much everything is illegal or strict here... You can ride a bike without a helmet in The Netherlands (sure, helmets are proven safety wear, that's not the point before someone jumps on it)... we are stuck in a mothered society where we are padded as much as possible to stop us from getting hurt to the point where we are afraid to go outside... Come to think of it, Australia has shocking infrastructure (for a first world country) and our society is too strict for its own good. Ah such is life, but it'd be nice to have some more freedom and the fear mentality changed to focus on the positives, maybe then we would use more enviro-safe ways by our own choice while keeping the (lost to tax) money in our own pockets. I'll see more of the future than most people in this thread (assuming I don't get hit by a truck by riding my bike on the road because of lack of bike paths), so the environment should concern me more... but the whole 'humans control nature and we need to tax the hell out of our struggling businesses to force them to either close, leaving people jobless and heading for poverty, or change' - I just don't buy it. (ps: I hate taxes. They are so uncreative and the word 'tax' just oozes of cash grab [you can only squeeze the sponge so much before it dries out].) The Green Cult Movement is going about it the wrong way, rather than try to destroy our local businesses forcing everything off shore (which will certainly happen after the way businesses, at least in my own town, have been struggling after the GFC) and try to scare everyone and force them into using alternate technology, why not be a little more creative to bring around more efficient technology while supporting our people. (Just to make sure no one missed my view on efficient technology earlier... I am all for more efficient technology! [Just not for the same reason as the Greenies]) Australia has a long way to go before it will be able to stand up and lead the way without other countries laughing while saying "Lil' Australia wants to change our ways, cute." - we don't have as much influence on other countries as we would like to think.

I didn't disregard his explanation, I offered an alternate explanation and questioned his explanation, seems perfectly reasonable. I give up with you Nerb. You obviously don't understand what I have been saying.

No, they don't need maintenance do they? A quick search and found a Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy document for the Australian Greenhouse Office in the Department of the Environment and Water Resources of the Government of Australia. You aren't necessarily wrong, but maintenance ensures they are operating at the desired performance. (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ee/solar/information/Electricity%20from%20the%20Sun%20Part%20B.pdf) Whether something is affordable or not is a subjective opinion. But if we have no choice because it is forced on us, are we not limited to the one product? You said on the previous page "Make ethanol in fuel compulsory", we would be limited to Ethanol blended fuel... A bit self-contradictory... I am basically saying, offer as many options as possible, and allow people to pick and use what they want to use. Is that not what I am saying, "develop both and use both where they are best suited"? There is also plenty of logic behind allowing people free choice - your point? I currently make the choice to use E10 fuel in my car, but its nice to be able to use Premium occasionally. Exactly, develop both fossil fuel and renewable technology to make them both as efficient as possible and use both where they are best suited. Renewable is still not as sustainable as it seems because they still need materials to be constructed, some people make it out to be magically 100% 'green' - I haven't said anything further by the statement, just the obvious facts that I am sure we all agree with - Renewable Technology also needs materials and maintenance (Are people reading too much into it, it's just a simple factual statement?). I'm not saying don't bother with it, I am in favour of developing all types, rather than disregarding any for whatever reason - as I have said plenty of times in this thread already. Based on your Industrial Revolution theory: In the years leading up to 1900, the world population slowly grew from approx 275 million people in the year 1000, to approx 1.6 billion in 1900; a change of 1.3 billion people in comparison, in the 100 years, from 1900 to 2000, the population grew from approx 1.6 billion to approx 6 billion people a change of 5.4 billion people in 100 years, significantly higher than the 900 years previous - Extreme population growth, Urban sprawl and destroying forests (natures CO2 to O2 converter) - could this not influence CO2 levels too? How can you say for sure that the industrial revolution is the sole cause of the higher changes? (http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm) In relation to the Vostok Chart: The Vostok Ice Samples are averaged over a certain amount of years: 405844 279.7 409022 283.7 410831 276.3 414085 285.5 (Just a quote of 4 samples from the NOAA site from 405,844 years to 414,085 years ago - Roughly 2000-3000 years between sample data) So the CO2 levels during the few centuries at each warmer period of the glacial cycles could have met or exceeded current levels of 360 pmm, but wouldn't be detected in the sample data due to the sample frequency and averaging. The Vostok Chart shows that as each new cycle starts, the variation becomes more frequent, so there could be dramatic changes such as the one in your graph that would go undetected. Can you rule out the possibility that we are still in the last years of the current glacial and that it would not be a natural variation. Yes, but you can see the average stability in the Vostok Chart, and then it has a natural dramatic change. If your 1000-year graph was 10,000 years and averages over the same frequency as the Vostok Chart, it might mean something more and be able to be compared to the Vostok Chart to see if there really is a non-natural anomoly occuring. You can't get a trend out of it because it is too short a time frame, 1000 years is insignificant and also too small a sample to compare. The fact that nature has done it in a cycle over the past 400,000 years at least is enough to say there is a natural process occurring in a cycle, whether there is anything more, we don't know, there isn't enough data. The Vostok Chart is more reliable when looking at trends. This is why I don't like "greenies". There will be another cold period of the ice age cycle when it needs to happen, there is no doubt about that. Just look at history. The Earth will do what the Earth does.

No sources needed, I wasn't saying we should use one over the other, I was saying we should develop both and use both where they are best suited. It's my opinion. You could quite easily do your own research, but you won't find any accurate costs to develop either option, because, like cancer research, you won't know how much money you need until you reach your goal, hence it being research and development (unless you have a preconceived solution for both that you can guarantee will work first time, every time). I don't know what specific maintenance each type need, nor will I spend time researching, however as with everything man made, each will certainly need maintenance; that wasn't the point of my post, the point of my post was that Ethanol (as proven by physics) is not necessarily a better option to Gasoline and that the Carbon Tax won't do anything for the environment. Again, if you really want to know for yourself, you could quite easily do the research. Portion Control/Size/Amount, Ingredients (Fresh Fruits/Veges), less artificial ingredients... I'm sure you get the idea... The Graphs are from wikipedia due to the ease of access as it is already uploaded to a ready source (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png) The graph is of the data taken from Ice Core Samples in Vostok, Antarctica, as reported by Petit et al. (1999), and the raw data can be readily accessed from the US Governments NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Website, part of the National Climatic Data Centre of USA. The raw data was from a joint Russian, French and American ice drilling project which recovered the deepest ice core. Here is a link to the raw data if you would like to draw up a graph for yourself (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html) This would vary person to person and be more affordable for those who have got a higher income or cash they can readily use on new technology such as solar generation. Money is unfortunately one of the most important parts of our modern lives and controls a very big part of living standards. I will not comment further as I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion and I don't wish to discuss my personal financial position with you. Exactly right. You seem to be quite one-sided about the whole thing, I am personally open to any technology advancements, as I stated "I am all for more efficient technology", but I don't believe there is any reasonable logic in saying things should be forced upon us, such as Ethanol, or by using clearly biased or uneducated responses. As I have previously stated, humans are capable of making decisions. No one should ever try restrict our choice to one single product. Remember, Crude Oil is just as natural as Sunlight and it is still energy transforming or converting into useful energy at the end of the day (Law of Conservation of Energy). I would much rather a range of choices and be allowed to make the choice I wish to make.

I would hope that it never becomes compulsory, we should be able to access a variety and make our own choice on what we should use, not have it forced on us. Humans are capable of making decisions. Here's my interpretation of the facts: Exactly right. Energy doesn't magically come from nowhere, it doesn't just appear or disappear, the energy we use needs to be converted or transformed from one source, to another. Physics has already proven this. The process to power an engine is the same (thermodynamics) - fuel goes in (potential chemical energy), burns (reaction and conversion process of fuel & oxygen), comes out converted or transformed to a different energy (heat & kinetic energy), it does the same thing and results in the same end result, Kinetic Energy for motion and by-products (different chemical compounds) as a result of a chemical reaction. When you take solar power into account, Solar Radiation is converted into Electrical energy, which can be further converted (such as the light globe, heat and light as the resulting energy transformation process). If the energy is a form other than thermal energy, it can be transformed with potentially perfect efficiency to another type of energy as thermal energy typically has its limits (second law of thermodynamics). Ethanol combustion produces many of the by-products of gasoline combustion, and significantly larger amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. It results in a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that creates much more ground level ozone in comparison to gasoline; Ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times more ozone than gasoline exhaust. Thus Ethanol really isn't an efficient or necessarily better alternative to fossil fuels such as gasoline. There are basically two options scientists should be looking at: Efficiency - get the most out of the fossil fuel process, rather than trying to stop something completely that we know works while we don't have any large scale renewable and economically viable alternatives, and develop Renewable - Primarily Solar & Hydro, so that it is able to be economically sustainable in a large scale and able to support the energy uses that we want to use it for, to gradually phase over to the renewable energy as a majority with the option to maintain smaller scale fossil fuel energy. By this, I mean, engines capturing the Carbon Dioxide and other chemical by-products, and using the energy of those compounds to get the required energy (Kinetic for engines) to prolong the conversion cycle; basically recycling as much as possible to get the most out of the entire process and research and development of renewable energy so that it can step up to the plate. The technology to Split Carbon Dioxide into Carbon Monoxide and use it as a liquid fuel has been around for a long time (1920's Germany). I'll stand by my statement on the previous page, "Solar, hydro, wind, nuclear and geothermal all need large amounts of equipment produced through methods that generally aren't "green" or "clean" too; that equipment usually needs servicing and a fair amount of maintenance over time too, so it isn't as sustainable as it may seem..." - There is no truly 'green' option, and it will be an awfully long time before something can be developed to claim the title. In regards to the Carbon Tax: As I have said plenty of times in the past (not on here as far as I am aware though); Climate Change/Global Warming in the political sense is a farce, nature controls us, not the other way around, the political sense and understanding of the environment appears to be quite ridiculous as they tend to focus on the smaller scale and not the larger scale, 50 years out of 14 billion years is not a significant amount of time to see any long term trends and we can't influence the global environment any more than the Tooth Fairy can influence the Easter Bunny to provide healthier Easter eggs. Everything happens in a cycle, we are currently at the warmest period of the current Glacial Cycle: over the next ~100,000 years, temperature variation will get colder, carbon dioxide will reduce by approx ~100 parts per million volume - The Carbon Tax in theory can not fail to 'reduce carbon' because science already shows us through Ice Core Samples in Antarctica, that this is exactly what is naturally going to happen over the next ~100,000 years, where the cycle will start again - The Carbon Tax has no effect. (See Diagram Below of Ice Core Data from Vostok, Antarctica - Present Time on the Left, Years are in thousands) Unfortunately for the Carbon Tax (and Mining Super Profits Tax), it is clearly not focused on the environment, how else can the government possibly get a budget surplus from such a major debt, over such a small time period, conveniently in the months proceeding the Carbon Tax and also Mining Super Profits Tax both coming into effect. I am all for more efficient (or so called greener) technology, but not at the expense of living standards; Renewable Technology needs to be developed, but until it can do the things we need it for efficiently and effectively, sticking to our current sources is about as good as it can get for the near future.

It was actually posted to Facebook first, and then to the other forum & here. (Although I had to delete & repost on Facebook after making some changes.) Hopefully that doesn't cause any trouble.

Yeh, Ill just copy & paste what I just wrote on a different forum about basically the same thing... Probably not the best choice of words. I'll change it to 'have a chat', might be slightly better choice of words? (Maybe not? I dunno, but it will do...)

Just reading a few threads that relate to the trike crash on this forum and another; posted this on another forum but feel it needs to be here too... Sorry to anyone who knew the people and are grieving, I won't be sugar-coating my opinion in any way, but this needs to be said. If anyone finds this offensive or has a problem with it, you are a major part of the culture that needs to change. I will be making this as blunt and to the point as I possibly can. When ever I hear of another crash that couldve been prevented, I wonder wtf the people were thinking (Im not a sympathetic person to preventable crashes...) Part 1 - The Problem - Apparently plenty of people saw the trike takeoff at NATFLY... All those people who saw it but didnt even say anything to the people are a bunch of pussies who should be ashamed to even have not given a thought that someone was about to fly a light aircraft at (or close to) night which in turn lead to 2 people being killed - regardless of whether they were going for a single circuit or anything further, they shouldn't have gotten off the ground at that time of night in an RAA aircraft, they made the wrong choice, and everyone who let them, did too. People are too afraid to say something that could prevent a loss of life, why? Part 2 - The solution - I too have had enough with all the crashes, anytime I see someone do something wrong or plan to do something wrong, I will be having a chat with them, screw if it makes people not like me, I'd rather atleast get the people thinking 'maybe this is a bad idea.' than not say anything at all and them ending up dead... Someone mentioned to me in conversation a few weeks ago, Australian Airline Culture is the best in the world, we aren't afraid to speak up if we don't agree with something, I guess this isn't the same in the GA/RAA world, Its about time that changes. If I hear of another crash that couldve been prevented, I can guarantee I wont be sympathetic at all to the people involved, regardless of how well I know them, because of the fact that they made that choice to take a stupid risk and chances are, no one stopped them. I honestly hate that Aussies are becoming a group of weak bitches just like the government and are afraid people will be offended. Who gives a damn what people will think, just make sure you at least make an effort to get that Airline culture in to the General Aviation world. You might just save a life. Too many of the recent accidents and incidents have been preventable and caused by human error, and it's a complete waste and doesn't improve the general public's view of the industry. We have a lot to lose, ask yourself, Should I stop this person from doing this?, Should I maybe mention to them 'Do you have enough fuel and reserves to make the flight?' casually as I am walking past them as they prepare to jump in the plane and depart?, Should I report them for doing something like Aerobatics in a Jabiru over a major inland town? Should I ask this person if their scrappy looking plane is airworthy and registered or if it has working brakes? The answer to those questions: Yes, you should! Don't even think you shouldn't, If you see someone about to make a bad choice, or they are doing something you don't like, say something, say something to anyone and everyone who will listen. Make an effort to get the message across, We do not and will not tolerate people making stupid mistakes and giving us a bad name. If we allow them to get away with it without having a word to them, we are no better than they are, and both should throw in the towel. You are not made for aviation, if you are afraid to step up and try and stop them from ruining your sport. You will be lucky if you get a second chance after making that mistake, there is a big chance you will be dead. If people know they will be ridiculed and people will have a go at them for making the wrong choice, there is a damn good chance they will rethink their decision. The weak lets-be-a-pussy culture in GA/RAA needs to end. Safety Culture Documents that may be of interest: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9DXWIYOAef0J:www.leadingedgesafety.com.au/FolioFiles/175/756-Safety%20Culture.pdf australian airline culture&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShUkBYrfly1OLE5wBN2BkdgxOjaOKwsJjo7pgVFSzKwVd0qOVGHd0dI3HVN3cxdkAIW0cxdPu-lfwKRE-PVqOlVtgwXxfaDPeWCZYluHjo3-5j9IEoFDM0xvDvDkR3GhQ35sbQB&sig=AHIEtbSvGvAvK6PcHZP2-XtnMhlu32Stmw https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:r9LhegoVIEsJ:www.asasi.org/papers/hayward.pdf why the australian airline culture works&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjAkr4F2H-q-FKSz24Wg-O7H0Vmd6WeJF_jQTi0rIThcjT5it4Ng5SYuFaUXb1c0bDPqGCv_lPspJ-_zbmRP4hjPrWYGBm8RFqA8nyVsjeB0Bg3Phvz-cR5y_oP52BLK8i0ITWq&sig=AHIEtbQsXQRqWP8H1BCpGSDPdpMhGcDEcg https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mOwdjKqkFDYJ:www.ageingaircraft.com.au/2011_papers/Achieving%2520Airworthiness%2520Through%2520Culture.pdf+australian+airline+culture&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjaY892qviINmKFuAjw1eFLVWbUkfXAn1Hh-gAMEvCtg66PvnG6xn7YXxWdZfphIZV0GiXIx_Ehhg6_ekPWPK2T1Rs0IpMQjcdc-oofI6frGBKDEbGpbq0kfag_Za0YqHQPlmcG&sig=AHIEtbQg4_hISQAjYVf8xgqV2vv9j8SVwA

Agreed with the others, awesome video! Great camera locations, great scenery, great balance of shots both inside and outside the plane. Which camera did you use?

Not biased (maybe a little), Nikon is the way to go ;) I have a D5000 also, generally I use the sport mode coz Im always taking pictures of aircraft flying around... (although I too am learning all the features... got maybe half of it worked out now.. but theres still a couple buttons I havent even pressed yet...) In the end its up to you whether you go with a Canon, Nikon or any other brand... usually it comes down to preference...

This again CFI??? Assuming you are going on about the same old 1 in 60 debate like last time where it would appear you are saying it is a waste of time and therefore shouldn't be taught, heres my response: There may or may not be anything set in stone saying 'you must do a 1 in 60 rather than other correction methods', I can't be bothered to dig through the RAA website at the moment for relevant documents. How ever, what is the big issue with it? Sure, it may not be the best method in your view, how ever it is one of many as you have already stated. Why not teach your students ALL of the different methods, and let them decide which they feel comfortable with, sure some will pick other methods as their preference, but other students will feel more comfortable with the 1 in 60 method. Ultimately, it comes down to the person flying the plane, everyone is individual, with individual preferences... In a way, saying instructors should completely stop teaching the 1 in 60 is like saying people should stop flying a Jabiru, and instead fly a Gazelle, because you find one is easier. Everyone is capable of deciding which they prefer, so teach them everything you can, and let them decide based on an informed decision with all the options rather than an incomplete list. If you would like CFI, (If they let you through customs) I am sure there are some instructors in Australia, maybe south of Sydney, that would be more than happy to show you how to do a 1 in 60 and why it is a perfectly reasonable and simple method; who knows, after you know how to do it, maybe you'll find that you like it compared to other correction methods. ;)

I got mine today... not too keen on the 'new look'... about to flick through it now... Just comparing the cover of the September Sport Pilot mag, which was also lime green, but in the old-new style, and this January edition, I would definitly grab the September one first...

Geez, for once I'm not the first to get the mag...

we/wē/ Pronoun: Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together: "shall we have a drink?". Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category: "we teachers". In our case, we pilots, as many that are aware of the issues and feel there should be change (Should be a fairly large number, ie. more than one.). And you are correct, AOPA deserve our support, they do need some more awareness out there because I didn't know about their plan until you have linked it just now. We could inform other pilots about it, seeing as we are now aware of their plan. Edit: Also, what is the progress of AOPA's initiative?

Geez, My parents werent even born then... I think what we should probably be doing in regards to this, is to try and remind the government about the history of aviation in this country and show them the direction they are taking it and try and work out a positive action plan to make aviation a main priority as it once was... I have no idea how that would be done, but its something that should definently be considered. (Coz then theyd start building airports again too... ) Edit: Just thought of another idea... Darky for PM/President/Supreme Commander/Queen/Dictator of Australia.

Now that we mention airports, does anyone know what the latest is with Warnervale & Belmont Airports?

Exactly right, Tomo... This should be one of the main priorities, if not, the main priority for RAAus (and other aviation groups) at the moment. We have recently seen Clare Valley open in SA, and Lockyer Valley in QLD approved to be built, which is great, but we need to see more of it. The general public say 'no airfields, its dangerous and noisy with airfields near by.' the issue with that statement is, No, its actually safer; if there are less airports, there are less places for aircraft to land if they have an engine failure or other problem, and therefore would have to use a road, or a park... The noise is not even that bad, I live under the approach to Moruya and myself and my neighbours all agree, it doesn't bother us in the slightest, we barely hear a plane go over unless we are listening out specifically for it (which for me is most the time, because I love flying and planes in general, so if I hear a plane go over, I'll be outside to spot it with the camera). There are far worse things to have a whinge about than some noise for a couple minutes of the day, and most airports tend to finish operations for the day a little after sunset. Airports open up the entire world to the town, they bring in commercial activity, they support the towns... I'm lucky I think, Moruya is probably one of the best regional airports for location (though it could do with an upgrade), and our council do know that many businesses & medical services would cease to exist in the area if the airport was not around, so they are looking forward to upgrading the airport and keeping it active, the only issue is cash, or the lack of it... I personally think it will take a fairly big donation to get the airport upgrade happening, so I can only see the airport being maintained as is for the next 10 years or so, before they can even consider starting the upgrade. So, RAAus & everyone else, what we should focus on is more airports, especially near the cities.

Last I checked, RAAus were allowed to do a deadstick landing in a practice situation with approval and instruction from the CFI? Or has this changed?

Is there a reason why you would be a target for the RAA? Surely if you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about, than there would be no reason why you should be a target for them, and therefore, you shouldn't be worried about them? Moderated

$5000.. Ill take it! I get the feeling they meant $50,000 though... I didn't notice it the first time I looked through the members market. Good find.

Or a fendt...

Not that I could see Col...

Maybe a little.. though this month is a bit late compared to the last few...

So I discovered tonight that the December RAA mag was in the mail box. Gonna keep this short and sweet and do some dot points to what you can look forward to. I think most people will be pleasantly surprised... - The Usual (President's Report, Calendar of Events, Accidents/Incidents, Planes for Sale etc etc.) - A couple training reports (Weight Shift, Drifters etc) - Flight Report on the Super Petrel LS Seaplane - Aeropup Kitbuild - A report on Great Eastern Fly-In 2012 being Canned - Jabiru goes to China - Evans Head 'Whispering Death' Retirement Village - An Airport report about Caboolture - A trip report written by a Kelpie Dog named Barry - A book review by Kreisha - An article about GYFTS - Prof Avius turns into a Fashion Columnist (I think he has found his niche, none of this stop and go business) - A tech discussion on Carby's for the mechanically minded people Plus a couple others. As you can see, theres plenty of juice in this months copy of the magazine; People wanted variety, well... They've certainly gotten it this month and to be honest, despite it being kinda wacky and unusual... I actually like it.