octave

This link includes a comment from the pilot

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/pucker-factor-in-a-stinson-7857

Not for me. Only the other one of taking off through the trees.

Just a few observations:

Whilst there are a very small number of maccas that are halal certified, I am not sure how this equates with "us" being forced to change. Does anyone think these fast food outlets have been forced to offer halal? I would say much more likely that individual franchisees have crunched the numbers and as a business decision have decided to offer halal, just like many restaurants offer gluten free or kosher products. If this degrades the non halal product then complain, I am sure any business owner will follow the money.

I arrived in this country in 1964 at the age of 18 months as a "ten pound" immigrant and in my early schooling I was bullied because I was British and apparently we were dirty and did not bathe regularly. Then there were the Greeks and Italians - most of us are mature and intelligent enough to realize that being Italian does not make you a member of the Mafia. In the late 70s it was Vietnamese that were invading us. In my first job one of my workmates used to rant about the asians (although that was not the terminology that he used) He was disturbed and I guess frightened by shops that had signs with Asian writing (or barbed wire writing as he called it).

By the way halal is often used as a bit of a red herring, I would just ask people to do some fact checking - http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/what-a-whopper-spat-rages-over-halal-burger-claims-20120202-1qugs.html

My friend and colleague Azedeh (who's family escaped from Iran when the Ayatollah took over) would like to assure you that she has no interest in what food you eat, she loathes violence of any sort and does not want to kill you.

So got a place on the Surf Coast now and was down there the other day so paid a visit to Barwon Heads not much happening on the tarmac but guess there are a few aircraft in the hangers, anyone based there?Much happening at Lethbridge? Back down there Monday so might have to check it out.

The old board was big on non-disclosure clauses and it was a large reason why CASA was forced to act on the registry. And look at the c0ck ups that uncovered, hundreds of illegally modified planes.The RAA seems to be going down the same path over and over. Eventually CASA are going to have to audit the RAA pilot registry and find out how many are legal.

 

That day comes sooner if the board continues to make bad decisions and try to cover it up.

Can I ask FT (although of course you don't have to answer), if you are a current member of RAAUS?

^ Fake. Nice thought though.

So many points to make here but lets just start with a few

You would also understand the gaps in the fossil record where a lack of transitory fossils exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Dawkins himself is on record acknowledging that the odds are not in his favour, resulting in him voicing the need for what I understand to be a theory of many parallel universes. One universe and given timescale would simply not have the required odds for our world to evolve as we know it.

Finally, you would be aware of the negative impact of observed mutations, which result in more disorder and harm.

But this has all been debated elsewhere on this forum and it is probably pointless and annoying to others.

I am quite interested in the notion of intelligent design. If I understand it correctly it is based on the idea that the universe and the processes in it are so complex that they must have been designed. I would presume that such a complex task would require a designer that is also complex, which does rather beg the question, where did the designer come from? I don't really see the point in explaining one unknown with another unknown.

What if I am wrong and it does turn out that the universe was created by a designer/builder? So what, other than being interesting, what difference does it make what I believe? Unless of course this cosmic architect somehow requires some kind of acknowledgement from me.

Given the number of stars in the observable universe http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html it is hard to understand why this designer would be so interested in this particular solar system and indeed one particular life form on one planet.

You would be rather disappointed if you were able to convince me that there is a creator, I would be just as likely to say "yes now I believe, praise be to Allah" or Prometheus.

The intelligent design hypothesis is an argument for there being a creator, but I suspect that users of this argument have a particular creator in mind.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they are not imposed on non-believers or people who have other beliefs. I do have a problem with the subverting or misquoting science in order to maintain a pre-existing belief or the use of an ancient text to control people.

Cheers

Graham

Agnosticism is the absence of Belief, Atheism is the opposite of belief.

atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. From a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

agnostic - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. From a- 'not' + gnostic known.

Atheism is actually a religious belief... it relies on Faith that there is no God, not evidence. For all they know, there could be a God and he's just hiding from them.Agnosticism now, that is a bit different. A decision to believe or disbelieve AFTER evidence shows up to convince them one way or the other. No faith involved.

Just the usual knockers again. Without RAAus most of us wouldn't be flying. Some of us fly GA so if asked what RAAus has done for them, the answer would be it enables them to fly cheaper, therefore more hours, therefore more current and safer. Years ago I gave up flying GA because of the difficulty of keeping current. The I found AUF and I now fly both RAAus and GA and have built 2 planes.So RAAus has done a lot for me. I don't suppose the cost to RAAus is any more than some people spend on membership of a golf club, or others piss up against the wall.

Couldn't agree more Yenn, I sometimes suspect that amount of whining is inversely proportional to the hours flown

Because it's illegal to allow a passenger to manipulate the controls unless you are an instructor (see applicable CAR), and for very good reason; you have not been trained and qualified as an instructor has, to recover the aircraft from any one of the many situations an inexperienced person pulls it into.

My wife is under strict instructions that if I die during a flight under no circumstances should she manipulate the controls as this would be illegal.

I once accidently gave a post about the tragic death of 2 pilots a funny, I was panic stricken until I managed to delete it. So easy to make mistakes when posting from a phone.

A running commentary is a good idea for example "we have climbed to our cruise height so now I will reduce the engine speed" or "now we are going to descend so I need to reduce the engine power". In my experience, the nervous flyer gets concerned when they hear a change in the engine sound especially if they are looking outside.

I am not sure why we are talking about liability and law suites etc.

these are things that may occur AFTER and accident occurs. Perhaps a thread about "Flying safety" should be about what pilots do to avoid being involved in an accident, avoid the accident and law suites etc are irrelevant.

I am much more interested in what other pilots do to safeguard their own safety. I have a flying regime which I might share later when I have the time and I would love other people to post information about what THEY do to ensure THEIR own safety.

Being well informed about the legal aspects regarding liability may be of some importance but I am not sure whether it is the most important aspect involved in ensuring safety for those of us who are regularly practicing aviation.

Well worth the rap sheet to find out ,i think,,the occassional fine of a couple hundred dollars every 5 to 10 years is still way cheaper than paying for the Quasi GA clan to fly into controlled airspace etc etc etc etc

Just wondering:Would that landing/situation warranted use of the ELB?

 

Why would he have needed to walk to the house and used a mobile phone?

 

Hey, just asking.

My understanding is that an ELB is only for a life-threatening emergency, if you can walk to a farmhouse and call the authorities, then that is what you should do rather than initiating a costly deployment aircraft and personnel.

Thank you and good luck Andy

Some video from my recent flight from Lethbridge to Apollo Bay.

Forget the excuses, just count the number of bullies stacked on GG.

Are you actually defending that outrageous piece of misrepresentation?

Yeah, right Einstein, a "sample" of 1902 out of over 20 million.....................................................

I always try to keep my posts to challenging ideas, not name calling.

Just a reminder that very few Australians listen to or watch the ABC so it aught not be a financial burden on all.

• Percentage of Australians who believe the ABC provides a valuable service to the community: 84%1
   
   
  
• Estimated reach of ABC services via radio, television and online: 71%2
   
   
  
• Average number of users who visit ABC online each week: 6 million3
   
   
  
• ABC Radio’s average five-city weekly metropolitan reach: 4.7 million4
   
   
  
• ABC Television’s average five-city weekly metropolitan reach: 9.4 million5
   
   
  
• ABC Television’s total weekly regional reach: 4.5 million6
   
   
  
• Average national audience for weeknight 7pm News on ABC: 1.2 million7
   
   
  
• 498,900 active users of the ABC flagship app on average each month8
   
   
  
• Average monthly reach of ABC news and current affairs websites: 2.3 million9
   
   
  

References

1. Newspoll, ABC Appreciation Survey, June 2014, national random sample (n=1902) conducted by telephone, people aged 14 years and over.
    
    
   
2. Newspoll, ABC Awareness and Usage Survey, June 2014, in combination with ratings data, people aged 18 years and over.
    
    
   
3. Webtrends Data July 2013—June 2014
    
    
   
4. Nielsen and Gfk from S1 2014, five city metropolitan, people aged 10 years and over, 2013—2014
    
    
   
5. OzTAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014
    
    
   
6. Regional TAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014
    
    
   
7. OzTAM and Regional TAM Consolidated Data 2013—2014
    
    
   
8. Flurry Analytics
    
    
   
9. Nielsen Online Ratings – Hybrid, Australia, people aged 2 and over.
    
    
   

http://www.fabcnsw.org.au/fabc/about_abc.php

It costs 12.2 cents per day per taxpayer, that is $44.53 per year, Gnu if you promise not to watch or listen to any ABC station or web page I will happily reimburse you $44.53

Well you certainly do. I've noticed fundamental Atheists argue from a position of ignorance, proud to be uniformed and incurious enough to remain that way.

You didn't answer my question, how much would you be willing to pay for an area forecast?

Earlier you said the government should only concentrate on "national protection plus law and order."

So you would you be happy to pay for all the other services you receive? Every road a toll road, why should non-car owners pay for roads they don't use?

I would be happy to pay for access to the ABC (where else can you see in-depth documentaries). And according to the the survey the YOU quoted the 85% of the Australian population that say the ABC is a "valuable service to the community" would probably also be willing to chip in, then we wouldn't have to listen to the whining of the 15% who prefer reality programs and cooking shows.

Another question (that I know you will not answer) - Do you think that if your taxes only paid for the services that you suggest - national protection and law and order and you paid for everything else out of your pocket, that you think you would be better off?

Survey confirms wide support. From the Age:

"The ABC and SBS are among the things Australians would most readily cut to balance the budget, according to a survey by Choice magazine."

 

But don't let me interrupt you guy's cozy little session of tickling and scratching each other.

What were the other 15 areas?

I know you don't like bias so in the interest of balance perhaps you should also quote:

The survey results are in spite of longstanding support for public broadcasting among Australians. In 2013, Newspoll found that 85 per cent believed the ABC provided a "valuable" service to the community, with more than half rating it "very valuable".

The headline is somewhat of an overstatement "Consumers tell government to: Cut public broadcasters" but what it should really say is "when presented with a list 16 areas of expenditure public broadcasting comes in at no16", this does not necessarily equate a call to cut public broadcasting. I would be quite interested to see the full survey. Also 26% of how many?

I understand the user pays argument and to some extent I am sympathetic to it, the problem is the many users pays advocates seem to only see the services their taxes pay for that they don't like.

Gnu how much would you be willing to pay for an area forecast before your next flight?