dutchroll

There's actually some fairly illogical reasoning (and some unsupported assumptions about who is happy and who isn't) in that video. It's not actually "rational" to be frightened of 1.6 billion people when a few dozen of them, or even a hundred of them, have planned and committed terror acts. If you want to work percentages versus terror deaths/plots/bombings/threats, we should be very scared of conservative white Norwegians, and absolutely petrified of white American libertarians.

I disagree with that take on the Germanwings incident. Lubitz pre-planned his act for quite some time before carrying it out. He researched cockpit door security and a number of other relevant things. He rehearsed how he would do his descent into a mountainside. He also stated to his former girlfriend that one day he would "do something so that everyone would know his name and remember him". There is every indication that Lubitz had psychopathic, as well as suicidal tendencies. A potent mix. Lubitz knew full well what the consequences would be and he most certainly wouldn't have thought he was "saving" the passengers from anything (as is sometimes the case with family murder-suicides). Rather he was quite prepared to have them die too, to stamp his mark in a major public act. That's just purely psychopathic.

I know it's a technicality, but it's not "known" that it was deliberate (by us here at least). But yes, the signs and odd circumstances do seem to point in that direction. The enormous tragedy is that, if this suspicion is correct, he was thinking both rationally and irrationally at the same time.

What matters is not so much the accident rate itself (though clearly lower is better), but more importantly the reasons for it. There are waves and troughs of accidents, but if we're getting a bunch of weather related ones, or a bunch of engine failures, or a bunch of low flying ones, then we have specific problems to look at and seriously address.

True. The problem I see is the people who want to target an entire large community as a result of these terror attacks, but in doing so, those people distract and dilute the attention from actually targeting the radicals within.

Probably needs to be in the "off-topic" forum. I'm sick of Islamic terrorism too, but it's not a matter of being told to "make Muslims more welcome". It's a matter of having the intellect and the common decency, which seems to be totally absent in some people, to be able to accept that there are two sides here. The Muslim community is a sadly divided one these days. There's the majority side which just wants to be left alone to pursue a better life and survive, and the minority radicals who want to go out and terrorise and destroy everything, including mostly their own people, and who don't care much whether they live or die. It's a simple, plain, empirical fact that IS mostly brutalise and murder their own people, but their own people do not have the weapons or support to be able to fight back. This is quite obviously why people are fleeing that region in very large numbers, which was not the case before the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rise of ISIS. It's about perspective though. Islamic terror is a big problem today in terms of world stability and it needs to stomped on. "Crushed", if you like. But mouthing off or spitting at a woman in a hijab buying groceries with her kid in the local shopping centre, as generally happens following these events, is not the way to do it, and only demonstrates how to be an a***hole. So too does a lot of the commentary on social media following it. IS are lashing out with dramatic effect because they are losing ground big-time in the middle east. A number of their strongholds there have fallen recently and their military power has been severely depleted. This effort from the West needs to be strengthened not weakened, but in the meantime we may well unfortunately see more of these terror attacks from localised cells involving fairly small, but occasionally effective, numbers of terrorists.

I guess it's possible but I would've thought with the alternator running you'd have a good bus voltage to provide normal transmit power, even if your battery was low. I've started my plane with very low battery voltage (air start system so it only needs enough power to crack open the air solenoid valve) and the radio, once the engine was running, has been fine.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not saying a "45 minutes" mandate per the draft instrument for all VFR aircraft under all circumstances is necessarily the right way to go and perhaps there's a case for something slightly less. However that should be politely and logically argued with CASA rather than just telling CASA they're a bunch of d*ckheads, which will get no-one anywhere and might well put the recreational/private aviation community in a worse situation than it already thinks it is. I'm also pointing out that it is not "45 minutes" in the sense that most of us would be tempted to think of, due to the way it is allowed to be calculated at a substantially reduced fuel flow. Additionally you can dance around the word "advisory" in "Civil Aviation Advisory Publication" as much as you like (CASA even publish a definition of what a "CAAP" means to them), but for a decade now the CAAP on fuel requirements has stated that you should (the exact word) carry 45 minutes and CAR 234 for as long it has existed states quite bluntly that published CASA guidelines must (the exact word) be considered by a Court in any criminal case against you. So really, what's the actual practical difference here aside from leaving no-one in any doubt as to precisely what they are requiring? If CASA says you "should" do something and you habitually don't, and one day something goes wrong and they find out, where do you think you stand as far as compliance goes? This is the case right now as we speak. In my remarks about the skydiving and commercial operations I wasn't really trying to compare the two operations - just the attitude to fuel carriage of some pilots which spans across aviation communities. But honestly, if some people have talked themselves into believing they're complying with the current CARs by routinely carrying 10 minutes fixed fuel reserve (or whatever number less than 45 you like), go for it. Good luck, and I hope they don't get involved in something which draws investigative attention to what they landed (or crashed) with, because they might then see it with a different perspective.

The attitude towards carrying fuel (among other things) in some sections of GA and private flying is astonishing, and this is sometimes why regulators do the things they do and why that section of aviation has the reputation it does. If people are going to be d*ckheads about fuel, they can expect no mercy from a regulator about it. In those cases, I have no sympathy at all for them either. Not even a little bit. Zero. Nada. I've seen it happen among the big boys too, though very rarely. Some idiot goes out to prove how little fuel he can order for an 8 hour flight and ends up diverting before he even gets there, while everyone else gets in just fine. Sure fire way to track direct to the Chief Pilot's office when you get back for "tea and bikkies" (cold tea, bring your own bikkies).

"....approach the planned fixed reserve quantity..." is typically vague. However it's a good example of where a bit more flexibility based on aircraft type and operation (eg within the training area of its local airport) needs to be applied.

Yeah Launceston is not an ideal choice especially in crappy weather. Melbourne is not that much further, but way more options with relief crew, ground handling, instrument approaches, passenger handling, alternate flights, etc.

I solemnly promise not to unload any RPT gripes here! No, seriously I've witnessed mostly good controlling, some really impressive controlling, and occasionally some where the guy should've stayed in bed that day. Much like what happens in the cockpit!

I think if you look at the sheer number of flying hours Navajos do, you might get a different picture. As for feeling safer in a single Jabiru compared to a piston twin? I don't understand the logic there at all, I'm sorry. My M14P is as reliable as engines get. If it has fuel and oil, it just runs. I treat it very kindly but I know of guys who don't, yet still they keep going. I'd still feel safer in a piston twin.

I guess folk would generally be less worried about these types of changes if CASA's track record for targeting the right people was better. There are people attacked who should probably be given some benefit of doubt, but also I know of people who CASA really should target getting away with stuff until someone dies. Not quite sure what the solution is to that problem, but nothing much seems to be changing.

You could justify a 20 litre fixed reserve for a Pitts S-2 if you really want to. I can't ever see anyone trying to get airborne in a Pitts for an aerobatics display with 20 litres of fuel in the tank. Well, not anyone with any sort of desire for longevity. You going to declare a Mayday for estimated arrival fuel a litre or 2 below? Probably not, unless the weather's bad or whatever. Unless you drain the tank completely, how do you (or CASA) know exactly what's in it? Certainly not by the fuel gauges that's for sure. If you have a good fuel flow setup you might know a bit more precisely. A little bit of common sense needs to apply here, but while we accuse, rightly or wrongly, CASA of not using common sense, we sometimes fall into the trap of not using it ourselves.

Waiting......waiting......waiting.......

I'll bet some haven't even looked at what they can get at an endurance/minimum drag fuel flow and translated that into 45 minutes. That's the sort of thing which should be determined during test flying or the very early stages of getting to know your plane. My 21 litres fixed reserve would get me only 20-30 minutes of flight even at economy cruise before the tank ran dry, or 8 minutes endurance at full power, but it's still a legal 45 minutes fixed reserve so it's not particularly onerous for me at least, even when doing aerobatics. And if I have 21 litres left in the tank and I'm still doing aerobatic stuff at high power in all sorts of attitudes, I have serious problems (not the least of which is that I'd be an idiot). "But what about me?" I hear you ask. I agree that CASA need to take into account some other types of aircraft or operations in their instrument. I don't think the CAR 234 draft is an issue personally, but in the instrument which clarifies the details, the categories are probably too broad if they're apply it to private aircraft. People should take a serious look at how they can scrounge that 45 minutes before organising the street protests.

Interesting thread, and if AOPA are unhappy about the draft CAR 234 then it would appear to me that they haven't read either the new one or the old one. There's a degree of "barking up the wrong tree" here. Not carrying enough fuel has always been an offence of strict liability under Civil Aviation Regs. Nothing changes here. Not even the penalty changes. The draft CAR doesn't specify fuel at takeoff or landing. It simply says that CASA can issue instruments relating to fuel requirements. They can actually already do this, but the draft CAR just makes this very clear. The old CAR 234 already requires a Court to take into account CASA guidance material on fuel requirements. It is not optional. In other words, if the CAAP says you should have 45 mins fixed reserve, which it has for as long as I can remember, and you are involved in a fuel exhaustion incident, then the court must take into account that you've disregarded the CASA advice or recommendations when determining your liability. You're in the sh*t either way. The 45 minutes fixed reserve does seem onerous for some aircraft types and that has always been a problem. I think CASA should make some leeway there (like maybe more like 30 mins) especially if you're tooling around 5 minutes from your home airstrip. But don't forget that is at "holding speed". What is holding speed? You hold at your best endurance speed, generally. In other words, at the speed which gives you the absolute minimum fuel flow without falling out of the sky. If you work this out properly for your aircraft, you may be surprised at how little fuel that can actually be. For my aircraft I can get that down to 28 litres/hr, or a fixed reserve of 21 litres of fuel........in an aircraft that burns 2 1/2 litres a minute at full power. I can tell you if was approaching the airfield with 20 litres of gas left, I would be fair dinkum about to crap myself and if I had to do a go round for whatever reason, well that'd be one new seat cover required. This is why we have fixed fuel reserves. You come in with minimum fuel, someone makes you do a go round, you pour on the power and pull the nose up in a low fuel state.......now what? So before we get all upset, let's carefully look at the real legislative differences, whether these affect the CAR, or the instrument (an instrument is a lot easier to change) and whether these make any practical difference to the current situation which already specifies FFR of 45 mins and although being "advisory", still requires a court to consider whether you've deliberately disregarded that advice. Maybe use it as an opportunity to talk sensibly about how CASA should manage things when it comes to very low endurance aircraft, and I agree they definitely need to look at this.

You have to tread carefully. I've seen a claim/complaint made against a person which had very little solid or verifiable evidence behind it. It didn't go well for the complainant.

Waypoint "wener" is only about 15 nm to the south of the intersection of the SA, WA and NT borders. This is one of our main air routes from Sydney to Singapore and is very busy.

I'm not one to care about feathers in my cap, as anyone who knows me in real life will attest to. Nor do I keep a diary of who agrees with me and who doesn't. It's just that reading some of the throwaway commentary from some individuals brings back fond memories of the schoolyard in Grade 5. I've moved on since then. Others maybe not so much.

I think you missed my point.......

Why am I not surprised at this quote?

On the M14P, any significant prop strike involving any type of propeller can transmit substantial damage to the accessory drive shaft while not dramatically affecting the rest of the engine (including the crankshaft). The problem is that if your accessory drive shaft later fails, the engine will stop.

I'll see you in hell. We'll have a beer together.