octave

I would suggest mostly number 1. The flying school I hire from regularly posts pictures on FB of the latest solos or certificate attainments and the majority of them are young. I think a disincentive for young people to get involved with organized events and flying clubs etc is that they seem to be mainly populated with older grumpy pessimistic people. Although I am an older person I don't get involved with flying clubs because my experience of them is that they seem to be too many older folks who whinge and whine and talk about how good the old days were (I am old enough to have experienced the old day first hand) There is nothing I love more than taking a young person flying and telling them how fantastic it is to learn to fly, yeah, of course, there are administrative hurdles to navigate around but it is worth it. I don't think it matters so much that the majority are older but if the sport is to continue we need pass on our enthusiasm.

ahead of the curve flak gremlin lighter than air push the envelope seat of the pants wingman

You are flying low - your fly is undone Straighten up and fly right - behave properly

"Balls to the wall" balls to the wall - Wiktionary

What an incredible procedure to have to go through. All the best to her for a speedy (as speedy as possible) recovery.

There are three points made here. The first point is rational and sensible, don't make matters worse or cause further injury. The second point, yes the first and most important thing to do is to call for help. As to the third point, I don't know whether Mr Gibson was offered counselling or not so I can not comment. FT what is it that you would prefer this statement said. What would your advice be to anyone who witnesses a plane crash?

I can only comment on my local flying school but it is pretty busy 7 days a week. Quite often I will chat to new students or people who have turned up hoping to find out how they can start learning and many of them are young. Our school has had quite a few very young people (teens) doing first solos attaining their cert etc. Also embarrassingly for me a couple of young men who after going into my "this is what learning to fly involves" I found that they were both airline pilots with many hours on 737s etc Anyway since starting in 1988 I have had a ball, yeah there are administrative hurdles to navigate but if I was unhappy as some I would either man up and get involved on a board level or leave. I do not own my own aircraft, I did come close to ordering a skyranger but it seemed to me that aircraft owners don't seem to be a happy bunch so I decided to stick to hiring and have never regretted decision.

I look forward to your thorough dismantling of this 117 page study from Liverpool University. I have only just started reading it and it is quite long and detailed but I assume you have read it. When can I expect your analysis?

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/flightscience/projects/cfd/wakeencounter/caa_wind_turbine_report.pdf https://www.pagerpower.com/news/turbulence-caused-by-wind-turbines/

I'm pretty much done, wouldn't mind if it was intellectually challenging. Did you actually read the whole article "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity: I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people."

I am struggling to understand your logic here. I challenge you to point out anything I said that could even remotely suggest I am a supporter of Islam or any other religion for that matter. By the way, does anyone else understand what FB means by this? Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at that comment? As for your second point, I can't make any comment until I have fully read and understood the article. I do note though that in the comments there is a very detailed rebuttal by a poster called Bindidon with a graph asserting that the original graph that Bates relied on was a misrepresentation. Again I am not going to express an opinion until I fully understand it, which I will do over the next few days. PS This is interesting though https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science

49 out of how many? I can see a hand full of retired astronauts, I can see a materials specialist a motion simulator specialist a quality assurance manager. the closest I can see to an atmospheric scientist is 1 meteorologist. These are all undoubtedly smart people but then so is my doctor but he is useless at fixing my car and also my mechanic is hopeless when it comes to a prostate exam. I am still going with the majority. fair enough

https://www.alquemie.com.au/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-update/ This from a company that runs tours We often get asked about the coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and how it affects the guest snorkelling or diving experience at destinations such as Lizard Island, Qualia and Orpheus as well as day trips to the reef from Port Douglas and Cairns. Unfortunately the GBR reef has suffered severe coral bleaching in some areas for two years in a row. Despite this, we believe that a visit to the Great Barrier Reef region in Tropical Far North Queensland is still a highlight of an Australian itinerary – the colourful fish remain and your off-the-reef experience at luxurious properties will relax and delight you. For serious divers there are options for multi-day live-aboard journeys to locations further afield where there has been less bleaching and Ningaloo Reef off Western Australia is also a

Just to be pedantic for a moment, Einstein was not banished to the post office. but rather after graduating from university found it difficult to find a teaching position so he took a job at the PATENT OFFICE. He produced his first paper in 1900 in 1905 he was awarded a PhD. Hardly a maverick outsider. By 1908 he was recognized as a leading scientist. His work although revolutionary was peer-reviewed and eventually accepted. This is how science works, yes sometimes people put forward a hypothesis that is contrary to orthodoxy. If the new hypothesis does not convince the majority of scientists in a particular discipline then the person proposing the new hypothesis must produce more evidence and better quality evidence (Barry Marshall - helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers). It seems to me that if Peter Ridd is correct it would imply an organized and extremely large conspiracy. As with any conspiracy theory (hypothesis), the first thing I ask myself is how is this achieved in a practical sense, what I mean is do these organizations: NASA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration American Meteorological Society National Center for Atmospheric Research University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Royal Meteorological Society European Geosciences Union Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences CSIRO Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society International Arctic Science Committee JPL Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Royal Society Royal Institution British Academy talk to each other every day to make sure they produce data will coincide with each other data. The notion that NASA is manipulating data to get more funds seems a little odd to me. Surely a better tactic would be to go to Trump and say "want us to blow climate change theory out of the water, yep we can do that with increased funding" If 9 doctors tell me I have cancer and one says I don't I may WANT to believe the 10th doctor but I suspect I would act on the advice of the 9, it is just rational. Of course, the 9 doctors could be wrong and if they are I may have spent money on treatment I did not need but it would still be the rational choice to follow up on the prognosis of the 9 doctors. There is little point in us having this debate, neither of us are scientists. Conspiracies are hard to disprove to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist, I know this from debating moon landing, 9/11 and anti vaxers. In a way, it does not matter whether a minority of the community don't accept the evidence because as we are debating this scientists and engineers are working on designing and building more cost-effective and efficient wind turbines, safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste better solar panels, tidal thermal solar, geothermal and engineering a smarter grid and yes even working on cost-effective clean coal. The one thing we can guarantee is that things change and progress.

If the problem of coral bleaching on Great Barrier Reef is a nonexistent problem pushed to stop an airport in North Queensland what about the coral bleaching on the Florida reefs as well as other reefs around the world (for a full list Coral bleaching - Wikipedia ) are these all invented to stop airports or other developments? Can we please take this over to Whats Up forum

reading now!

I agree but I am not sure that the figure was plucked out of the air or by a show of hands. For the record, I am quite uncomfortable with using an exact figure such as 97% of scientific papers but here is a detailed analysis of that consensus conclusion. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience Whether the figure is 97% or not it is still a large majority of respected organisations.

I agree we should be debating facts. As a none scientist, I can only rely on trusted and peer-reviewed sources. Perhaps you would agree that I should probably start with trusted organizations that have a track record in scientific research. I thought this list might be a good start. NASA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration American Meteorological Society National Center for Atmospheric Research University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Royal Meteorological Society European Geosciences Union Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences CSIRO Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society International Arctic Science Committee JPL Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Royal Society Royal Institution British Academy Chinese Academy of Sciences Pretty sure the insurance industry is at least considering the effect of a changing climate on their business model Climate change challenges the insurance industry

FB this was the original question you asked. I posted a link with an interactive map which pretty much answers this question and provides aerial footage. Did you have a look?

FB did you look at the link I posted? Also the pictures and video at different locations? If you explore that web site there are links to many scientific studies that you can read. The fact that there were concerns as far back as 1952 does not mean that the problem is non existent. Coral has always suffered from bleaching and has also recovered but it is a matter of the rate of damage. I feel much more confident in the findings of hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers where the methodology and raw data are available to be scrutinised by anyone rather than what someone "reckons"

Coral Bleaching Map – ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

Can't really find any cases similar to this Qantas event. The only cases I can find are regarding physical injury or phycological trauma associated with physical injury. Based on what I have read it is very unlikely that any of these Qantas passengers would have a case. According to the Montreal Convention, Sanger says, a passenger injured during a flight must prove just two things to be eligible for compensation: he or she was traveling on an international itinerary, and there was an accident. An accident is defined as an “unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger” and can occur during pre-flight activities and when disembarking, as well. Light turbulence does not count, but severe turbulence—like that experienced last month on an United Airlines flight from Houston to London—does. Beyond turbulence, hot coffee spilling on a passenger during a choppy ride, overhead items falling on a customer’s head, or glass found in a salad are all real life examples of in-flight accidents governed by the Montreal Convention. “I had a client whose finger was cut off when someone else pushed the button to raise their seat,” Sanger says. Passengers looking to get reimbursed can seek payment by appealing directly to the airline. If the carrier doesn't pay, the passenger's other option is to file a lawsuit. They can expect to at least be compensated for the total of their medical and treatment bills. (One of Sanger's clients received more than $1 million for a broken neck.) Of course, there are caveats. The pain and suffering must be physical, as case law no longer favors a passenger who may have suffered mental or emotional trauma from a particularly rocky flight. To receive money for injuries sustained during turbulence on a domestic flight, a person must prove that the airline was negligent, which requires a lot more evidence, expert testimony, and witnesses. This additional legal work means the injured passenger could end up paying more in lawyer fees than what he or she would win from a trial, making litigation an unattractive option. Injured Because of Turbulence? You Can Get Money For That

Can you provide links to cases? " But in 2013 the rights to damages for anything other than bodily injuries were stripped away for domestic air travellers by Australia falling into line with a Montreal Convention exclusion of personal or mental traumas for the survivors of international air crashes. (This wasn’t material for Ms Casey as her flight started in Samoa and WAS considered international. However it was the realisation that Australia’s actions had now put all domestic flyers in the same position as Ms Casey found herself that drove much of tonight’s Four Corners edition.)" Pel-Air shock, no trauma damages recourse for victims - Plane Talking

Some years ago I contemplated building a kit aircraft, even sought advice on this forum Skyranger verses X Air Hanuman When I got myself into a financial position to do this I reconsidered. The main reason I decided against it was that almost everything I read led me to believe the rules are too hard and the system is about to fail soon anyway. Perhaps part of the reason people are not building is a lack of positive mentors. When I first staretd flying I was lucky enough to have some mentors who whilst acknowledging the difficulties and frustrations it is all worth it. These days when I am preparing the aircraft I hire it is not uncommon to see someone looking on, often a young person I always invite them over for a closer look and a chat. I tell them whats involved in learning to fly including the negative and frustrating parts of it but in the end I tell them what is the truth for me, flying is awesome and worth getting into. I am no longer in a position to build or buy (spent my money somewhere else) but I made the right desicion. I would imagine any person contemplating learning to fly or build who stumbles accross these kinds of postings may draw the conclusion that it is not an enjoyable pursuit.