youngster

I've often wondered how many false positives they get in Emerald, Roma, etc with lots of mine workers passing through, some of whom work with explosives all day.

I know nothing about such things, so I'm not criticising. Just wondering!

It was kind of cool to sit behind it and feel the prop wash, even from 20m away. My wife thought it was a gust of wind!

I was having a gander at the GA part of Coffs Airport yesterday with my boys (1 and 3 years old, so they love planes!), and had to stop and drool over a PC-12 on the GA apron. The pilot taxied to the short runway (one-zero, 849m), backed up as far as he could, held the brakes on for as long as he could, and then took what seemed to be the whole runway to get airborne. The wind was not strong.

Coffs has a 2000m long, 45m wide grooved main runway. Why would you take a chance on the short runway when the long one is available? Any thoughts on why you would make such a decision? It's only an extra 1 min taxi, and there was very little traffic, being a Sunday afternoon.

Yes I do like the Foxbat. I saw one in Murray Bridge. I will have to try and get a fly in one at Gawler one day. My wife is a photographer and would love the Foxbat.

What's in a name...

There's a brand of soft drink in Malaysia called "Kickapoo" and it seems to sell pretty well, despite the name. I don't think the name matters, as long as the content remains good!

The theory behind the Mosquito was to build a bomber so fast that it would not need a fighter escort or gun turrets. Nothing could keep up with it (from either side, even a Spitfire or ME109).

100NM would allow a trip from Coffs Harbour to Armidale. That is a long trip for a low hours pilot, and I certainly would not feel comfortable doing that without Nav training. 25NM is an arbitrary number, but I think it is about right. Any less would make taking off for a joyflight pointless. Any more would be allowing you to fly cross-country without the necessary training.

I'm not an aircraft engineer, but Qantas seems to be making sense on this one. Why would you use the same maintenance and inspection regime on modern planes as you do on 40 year old planes? They're designed differently. Just like new cars, which require completely different maintenance than a forty year old Holden. Plus, the other Australian airlines are already using the new maintenance regime, so why should Qantas not use it? As far as I see it, it's just Qantas unions trying to cling on to any power they can.

These babies are built for speed! I saw a four-seater advertised in the US with a 450HP Corvette V8! You could squeeze 300 knots out of it!

Looked at the last photo and I have absolutely no idea why you are coming back to queensland to fly your plane. Doesn't Coffs have a very nice airport, and there aren't even any F111's to annoy you there anymore.

I've never flown a Jab 160, but I have flown a Foxy, and they are beautiful to fly. They take off very quickly, land slowly, stall gently, fly hands-off, respond crisply, and have that Rotax reliability. The only Jab I have flown, an LSA55 was not particularly pleasant, and the build quality was awful.

One could almost argue on the style thing too, only thing missing was a flaming ball of fire, but perhaps he could work on that for next time!

Man alive, that's something to put in the log book eh?! But certainly something you wouldn't see me doing!

This sort of thing falls into the Buzz Lightyear category - "That's not flying, that's falling with style!"

I've recently come across the US EAA Sport Aviation magazine, which is pack full of useful and interesting stuff. Every magazine going back years is available online at: http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/

To be able to view every edition, on-line, free, and without infringing copyright, is quite nice.

Another great read is "Wild Blue" by Stephen E Ambrose, about George McGovern (Former US Presidential candidate) as a bomber pilot in WWII.

That certainly is a great read - I first read it about the age of 8, and have read it a number of times since. While the man may have quite bombastic and arrogant, he was also incredibly determined and passionate about flying.

I enjoy a good book, and always seem to have a pile next to my bed waiting to be started or finished. I picked up Reach for the Skies, by Paul Brickhill at a second-hand book sale a couple of weeks ago, and found it fascinating.

For those not familiar with Brickhill's book, it tells the story of Douglas Bader, a British double amputee who went on to become a WWII fighter ace. Brickhill artfully details Bader's determination, flying skill, courage, and leadership.

For anyone with an interest in flying or WWII history, it is a must read.

I got my Sport Pilot mag today, which was a little light on anything interesting and very heavy on random pictures from Natfly.

The headline stood out the moment I picked up the magazine: "A perfect Natfly weekend". Didn't a couple perish just a few minutes after taking off from Natfly? I can find no mention of the incident in the mag. I completely understand that we dont want to dwell on the negatives (not that a fatal accident is a mere "negative"), but surely we can't just pretend that it never happened?

On a less weighty note, the headline was backed by a picture of a paddock, some wispy smoke from a plane doing aerobatics (which can't be done by RAAus aircraft), and some fluoro orange safety barrier stuck up on a star picket. Not exactly inspiring stuff.

I just saw this place on-line: http://www.georgescreek.com/index.htm

It says it has a strip for private planes. Guyra is a beautiful part of the world!

Surely there must be a competency-based regime in place for BFRs! While we all fly different types of aircraft, there are basic skills with which we must all be familiar and competent. If you cannot demonstrate the technique to manage an engine-out approach, engine failure on take-off, steep turns, recovering from stalls, etc, you have no business being in the air. As a student pilot, I would not dream of taking off unless I knew I had the basic skills to deal with any forseeable emergency or situation. Endorsing someone to fly for another two years without possessing all those skills is irresponsible.

The monstrous runway at Coffs sure does provide a margin for error!

So...there must be a story to the dissapearance of the red foxy? I thought it was partially provided by Coffs Christian community school and Mike was training in that? I guess the only advantage...if one at all...is that the flying club has a 160 or 170......Andy

I had my first lesson this morning in the LSA55, and it was certainly different to the Foxbat. The build quality is awful, the layout is not particularly intuitive, and it is very small. But, it was not too bad to fly, although it was nowhere near as responsive as the Foxbat. You get very little feel through the controls.

Haven't gone solo yet, and the school no longer has the Foxbat, so the LSA55 is all I can fly at the moment. I have my first lesson on the Jab tomorrow (Wx permitting). Apparently it does need to land at a much faster speed than the Foxbat (65kts I think), just to maintain some rudder authority.

Smokeybear, I've already done some glide approaches (from downwind, base, and final), and I have every confidence that my instructor is teaching a good range of pilot skills. He has over 8000 hours up, and spent years flying for MAF in PNG. I haven't heard a person yet question his professionalism and competence as a pilot.

HITC, you've got me a bit worried. I was just starting to get the hang of the Foxbat, and now I've got my first 55 lesson booked for next week. Perhaps it's not a bad thing learning on something that a little hard to handle. Although compared to the Foxbat, I reckon anything would be hard to handle.

I've spent six of the last nine weeks away from home. Another weekend away would not have gone down well with Mrs Youngster and the younger Youngsters!