jimecho1

Hi Pete, Good thinking. That sort of thing would probably be possible whether the system was a device-to-device system, or a standalone. As for detecting the ground and getting annoying, If I'm that close to the ground, I'm prepared to be annoyed until I can land and switch the alarm off.

Hi HPD and Browng, If I lash out ten to twenty grand for a three or two-axis aircraft (both uninsurable against air accidents) I'd be happy enough to pay a couple of hundred bucks for a gadget that might prevent a wreck. Everyone who signs a release form and wraps an ultralight pod around himself is taking risks, but it's only common sense to minimise those risks. BRS systems, for instance, are pretty pricey. I don't think I could afford a plane with a parachute on it. So, when the time comes to lay out my hard-earned, I'll probably settle for something reasonable that HASN'T a chute in preference to something I don't like that HAS one. Of course, if I can afford something with both, I'll more-or-less happily pay for it. But some sort of collision-avoidance system that costs maybe a couple of hundred bucks? If I haven't got it, I'll borrow it from the wife.

Browng's idea of a wide-angle or "fisheye" mirror is good, but the weakness is that the mirror is, indeed, wide-angle. As with such mirrors on a car, an object needs to be very close (maybe forty feet) to be seen, simply because the mirror distorts size. Even with that weakness, a wide-angle mirror would probably be effective looking UPWARD, with the "other" aircraft outlined against the sky. Looking DOWN might be a problem, as it would be hard to pick anything out against the background clutter, unless it was VERY close. Matt's right. The things we consider gadgets today will eventually be modified to become compulsory additions to all aircraft. Car manufacturers - and many drivers - once objected to things like seatbelts, collapsible steering-wheels, bans on forward-pointing hood ornaments ... and yet all these things are compulsory today AND road deaths have halved.

Maybe it's time designers took into account potential blind spots in their aircraft. Pitts may have other reasons to provide visibility, but the idea's worth considering. There are more and more transparent materials being developed, suitable for both rag-and-tube and for the new composites. Remember the old sailboards? Those who sailed them very soon got together to pressure the makers for sails with a transparent patch through which to look for approaching "enemy" vessels.

Tony, I believe you're quite right. Everything that brings sight to blind spots would be a help.

Hi Nev, I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying it would be better not to know there's another plane close to you when you're landing? As you're an experienced pilot, I'm sure you don't mean this. What I'm trying to do is start a discussion about options. We all have a problem with uncontrolled airports, where, I believe, a huge portion of accidents occur - simply because our birds have to take off and land from them. Browng's idea of a proximity alarm based on a car's is probably a better one than my own, as it does away with the necessity for the "other" aircraft to have a similar system installed. (I'm not sure how they work. It's either on a "radar" type principle or it's a detection system, picking up when there's a mass of metal near you. I'll look it up when I have my second coffee). The thing is, insofar as in-flight collisions at uncontrolled airports go, we're not much better off today than we were twenty-five years ago. We need to talk about it.

Hi Pete. Well, if I was coming in on final, satisfyingly alone on the circuit, concentrating on a good landing, I'd be a bit shocked if my proximity alarm went off. No, I wouldn't know where the other plane was, but I'd be looking everywhere but into my inner child. If a burglar alarm goes off, it doesn't tell you in a cultured voice that the burglar is stealing the cutlery from the dining-room cabinet. It just shrieks that there's a burglar SOMEWHERE in the house. That's when you call the missus to take the family shotgun downstairs while you call the police. An alarm is just that - an alarm. In the case of aircraft, it simply tells you that there's traffic where you thought there was none. It makes you take a second look.

With respect, Ian, nothing is foolproof, the "good pilot" least of all. If electronic close-proximity warnings were found to be viable, they would probably also be made compulsory. If this were to happen, the things would be about the size of a cigarette packet and wouldn't be THAT hard to accommodate. Assessing the situation of on-finals collisions, the options I weigh up would surely include everything reasonable to warn me that a GA aircraft with a wide nose might be dropping on me. I would also not be unhappy with the idea of that pilot becoming aware that I'm tooling along below him, unseen, in an ultralight. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm a ham-fisted and terrified learner and I'll be a hundred-and-fifty before I'm anything approaching a good pilot, but from my observations, there are a lot of me about. Again, with respect, Ian, anything that will allow me to live to 150 should be considered.

I'm as ignorant of electronics as anyone, Browng. However, I think the idea of a SHORT-range transmitter-receiver (with a range of as little as, say 100 metres), might be a lifesaver in conditions such as those in which the LV incident occurred. 100 metres is such a small distance. An aircraft flying that close to another aircraft simply shouldn't happen, unless in the circumstances of formation flying. As a fairly ham-fisted and terrified student, I'd be extremely unhappy if someone was flying the circuit 100 metres from me - even if I could actually SEE the bugger.

True, HPD, but we're not talking about avoiding collisions in two dimensions. Cars don't move around above and below each other. I agree with you that collision / proximity warnings on cars are often worse than useless. However, when sitting in an aircraft with wing and cabin blocking everything out but more-or-less straight ahead, an indication that there's an aircraft within two or three hundred metres could be a valuable warning. Not so necessary in a Drifter, of course. I'm not saying that VFR shouldn't be strictly adhered to, but human factors mean that there'll always be lapses. A little cheap insurance wouldn't hurt.

I'm wondering if we're not rehashing arguments already put forward in cases of previous such incidents. Keeping a good lookout, clearing the nose, instructor's duties etc are all good practice, but they're all subject to human error. Maybe a bit of electronic insurance should be taken out in the form of a small transmitter-receiver device which results in an audible / visual warning when the limited-range (maybe 200 metres) devices detect the presence of other such devices. This sort of thing wouldn't help much if aircraft were converging along a horizontal line, but very possibly WOULD make a difference when two planes are descending / ascending towards each other vertically. Expense? I have a Dick Smith FM transmitter I bought for sixty bucks a dozen years ago. It runs on a AAA battery and transmits over 100 metres. I'm sure receivers are even cheaper.

The ABC talks about a 65-year-old ultralight pilot and a 15-year-old student pilot driving a Cessna. I wonder if they're mistaking a Jab for a Cessna, though. I was thinking about dropping in to watch the Saturday morning show as I drove past this morning, but thought it a bit blowy for there to be much happening. I'm glad I didn't turn off. These things are tragic enough without having to dodge the news media. Fly safely

I think it IS real. Look at the smoke coming off the nose wheel tyres. You don't get that effect on models. Models are too light and come in too slow. Also, stop the film when the striped building and the power poles are in the frame. They aren't models. I'm pretty sure that a shortish aircraft, such as the one shown, could behave like that, given the conditions. For example, the first impact of the nosewheel results in a bounce that slams the tail back, which in turn bounces back, aided by the slipstream, which, naturally, is forcing the tail level. As the velocity of the aircraft decreases, the wind becomes less of a factor and the plane finds its correct attitude. Looks as if the wind was strong and gusting at the time of landing. I'll bet the pilot cringes when he sees this video. I also wonder if he's stiill flying.

Yes, it's the same incident. You certainly wouldn't want two like it on the same day. The aircraft seems to have been a pulsar. They've recovered the tail section and that might tell investigators why the plane spiralled in.

Brisbane Courier Mail, 7.10 pm TWO people have been killed in an ultralight plane crash off the coast of Caloundra. A police spokesman said the plane was seen spinning in the air about 2.40pm before it spiralled towards the water. The spokesman said the plane ditched into the ocean 2.5 nautical miles southeast of the Caloundra Bar, between Caloundra Beach and Bray's Rocks. Australian Search and Rescue spokeswoman Rhianne Philip said a 53-year-old man and a woman were the only two onboard. She said people on a private boat were in the area when the plane crashed. The were first on the scene and retrieved the bodies from the water. They then handed the bodies over to water police who arrived on the scene. Miss Philip said the ultralight was a privately owned plane. Pilot of the Energex Rescue helicopter John Hodges said when he and intensive care paramedic Dan Statham arrived about 3.25pm they could see the tail of the aircraft, some fuselage and a lot of debris in the water. "It had disintegrated on impact and all that was left was debris that was spread about 1km over the water," he said. "The tail itself was broken into two separate pieces and secured behind the coastguard boat to be towed." Caloundra resident Keith Eglen said he did not hear anything when the plane crashed but looked out of his Kings Beach home and saw the tail of the plane in the water about 3.20pm. "I didn't see it go in but the tail seemed to be floating for a while and poking out of the water," he said. "When I went back to look about half an hour later it was gone. "By then there was a police boat there and a couple of people on jetskis." The dead have not been named. Recreational Aviation Australia Executive director Paul Middleton said the ultra light plane was registered with the organisation but he could not elaborate further at this time. He said an investigator was on his way to assist police with their investigation. Mr Middleton said ultralight planes were regulated to fly up to 20km offshore, depending on the type of equipment on board. He said items such as life vests were required to be on board the aircraft.

That's because George was teached that recorded history began in 1492.

You meet all kinds in this aviation game. Historians, anthropologists, mathematicians, theologians ... Now I know why I left school at fourteen. I was waiting for flying forums to be invented. Keep it up, fellas. Between you and Wikipedia, I'm going to be an educated man at last! Cheers, Jim

Thanks Baphomet. I hope I have the same good fortune when I start hunting one in earnest early next year. Jim

Sorry, wrong link. That's all mini-pics. This is the right one http://microaviationsa.co.za/pages/photo_galleryban.htm

Gasp! Choke! Hell, that's my front lawn! Who needs the Moller Skycar? Seriously, Darren, that's remarkable. Thanks for the info. You really could get into some interesting places with a Bantam. I notice that there's a fleet of 'em patrolling some of the South African game parks. The Bantie's apparently selling well in that country. http://microaviationsa.co.za/photo_gallery.htm

Bantams seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth (pardon the pun) on the second-hand market these days. Maybe the owners can't bear to part with them. If I can ask, Baphomet, is yours pre-loved or new? And is the STOL performance as good as claimed? Jim

The video shows a mix of animation and real film, I think. The VTOL bit is genuine (and impressive) as well as one or two flyovers / flypasts, but the rest is cartoon. It's still got more promise than the skycar though. It IS a gyro, isn't it, albeit with a redesigned, wider-bladed rotor?

Wow. It'd make one's head spin, wouldn't it?

I really don't know, but I'm dubious about anything that uses animations to prove its existence, then asks for deposits on the first aircraft off the production line. Refundable, of course! Still, at least it has more technical elegance than Moller's elephantine monster.

These things have been around since the late sixties, but few of them have got off the drawing board. The Moller Skycar (see http://www.moller.com/skyc.htm ) is just another in a long line of slightly higher-flying hovercraft. Just like the emu, the cassowary and the helicopter, the damn things were never meant to fly. There, I've said it and I'm GLAD! Beam me up, Scotty.