Garfly

The perspective from 15 years ago: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-01-10/maroochy-council-rejects-airport-planning/2169516

The French flyer Frédéric Peuzin who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel about his Jodel (SpeedJOJO) adventures, came up with an automatic tilting door for the top of his cowl: He describes it here: https://speedjojo-blogspot-com.translate.goog/search?updated-max=2019-02-01T18:21:00%2B01:00&max-results=2&start=27&by-date=false&_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_sch=http And it can be seen in action here:

BTW, here's the final ATSB report of the PA28 / ATR72 airprox mentioned above. Near collision between Piper PA-28, VH-XDI and ATR72, VH-FVR Albury Airport, New South Wales, on 19 October 2019 ao-2019-066_final.pdf From the report (published in Nov. 2020): "What's been done as a result // ... Virgin Australia and Airservices Australia have begun discussions to convene a cross industry stakeholder meeting to include operators, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, ATSB and the broader industry to discuss the ongoing risk to operations at non-controlled and airports in Class D airspace. "

Interesting that OzRunways were able to incorporate the frequency changes in AIP SUP H50/22 (Ballina MBA/SFIS) on their version of the charts whilst the feds missed the deadline for their own new document releases. s22-H50.pdf From OzRWYs email circular: Meanwhile, there's a spirited discussion re the new arrangements on pprune https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/647146-casa-government-mates-invent-new-airspace-classification.html As one contributor puts it: 0th Jun 2022, 00:51 #5 (permalink) 43Inches Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Aus Posts: 1,548 It's not just in Australia, the FAA is still trying to nut out the problems with high traffic CTAFs such as in Alaska, where there have been multiple mid air collisions. So far the only thing working is when all aircraft have some form of ACAS/TCAS fitted, yet all agencies seem so reluctant to mandate working transponders in these areas. The last major collision was between aircraft where both had ACAS, but one had it switched off. Yes ADSB can be swamped but the system tends to prioritise close contacts so that means that unless you have 18+ aircraft within 5 miles it should still work fine. Class D can not work in the Ballina area, its way too complex to efficiently operate a tower there and blocking out airspace for CTA will then condense the VFR private traffic even further creating more risks for them. Move into the 21st century guys, get transponders, use them and its all good. As for separation standards in class G, don't collide, sounds great, but TCAS applies a bubble around those fitted so when you sneeze close to each other you get an RA and that's a mandatory report to be investigated. 11th Jun 2022, 02:05 #11 (permalink) 43Inches Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Aus Posts: 1,548 Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Fairless Alphacentauri - you think Airservices "agreed" to SFIS, about which you are surprised. I took part in preliminary Zoom meetings with Airservices and can assure you that they invented it, CASA is simply their echo chamber when it comes to airspace. Various royal commissions into other aspects of government refer to this as "regulatory capture". I also totally agree with your comment about Airservices business model. 43 Inches - I agree that eventually "ATC" might devolve to separation based on "sense and avoid". However, I also believe that this concept is much further in the future than we are being led to believe by the driverless car industry and the driverless drone industry. The question I am posing is what do we do in the meantime? The point of this thread is that ICAO provides rules and procedures that member nations have signed up to, they include the airspace categorisation. The Minister is allowing CASA and Airservices to ignore those rules and procedures and invent a hybrid which may or may not work. (I am also pretty sure the Minister would not understand the nuances) Airservices claims to have written a safety case around SFIS, but has refused to release the document. CASA OAR wrote a report about Mangalore which apparently decided SFIS would not work. I say apparently because the report was removed from the CASA web site almost as soon as it was posted. No doubt at the behest of Airservices. The very essence of a safety case is that it should be public (not to mention how a publicly owned government agency is allowed to have secrets!). So my only conclusion has to be that it contains conclusions that SFIS created either a Class A (unacceptable) or Class B (can only be accepted by a General Manager) risk that is being withheld from the flying public. ICAO tells us that we can choose Class G, E or D (C, B and A are not necessary). In my opinion, a Class D Tower with enhanced low level surveillance would provide acceptable safety. You also assert that "Class D can not work in the Ballina area, it's way too complex to efficiently operate a tower there and blocking out airspace for CTA will then condense the VFR private traffic even further creating more risks for them." I'm not sure whether you are an air traffic controller or pilot, but I can assure you that I have seen Class D operations in far busier environments than Ballina, and they work just fine. ATC facilities need to be concentrated where they will have the most safety effect, statistically this will be around runways where there is "competition" for the airspace caused by speed and other performance differentials. Classically, a Control Tower resolves these issues by knowing pilot intentions, and aircraft performance, in order to ensure that pilots, IFR or VFR, are in the right place and the right order to operate the aerodrome safely and efficiently. The fact that other pilots may avoid the airspace only serves to remove flights from the terminal airspace that do not need to be there. This removes the "way too complex" you refer to and is in use all over the world. The problem is not that class D won't work AT Ballina, but the problem is the multiple close CTAFs causing this problem and the traffic between them. If this was a simple case of one airport that is saturated by its own traffic that would be a simple answer of, yes, a class D is required to sort it out. However, as it is, Ballina and Lismore traffic already have IFR approach conflicts and then there's all the private traffic between several ports. Hence why I say this has more in common with the issue in Alaska than any other place in Australia, lots of CTAFs in close proximity all with their own traffic blasting randomly in all directions. In regard to ACAS/TCAS, this is nothing new to aviation. I'm not at all saying the aircraft takes over and flies, it is a system that first of all alerts a pilot to other aircraft in proximity, and then some will direct a course to avoid. Being alerted that something is near you is all that is required, with almost all giving you some picture of where it is. Radio alerts are vague and prone to communication error, both in what is said, overtransmits blocking information and lastly interpretation and understanding there is a conflict, let alone being unfamiliar with local terms a local may use, fine in light traffic, ask for clarification, in heavy traffic another conflict will come up while you clear up your ambiguities. A device in the cockpit that says something is close, and look out, is much easier for all to understand and the required technology has existed for 30 years. TCAS/ACAS are a last line of defense, this is after you have communicated via radio and looked out the window to see and avoid. Talking is fine when you have 2-3 aircraft communicating, several aircraft in a similar location will just turn into a squeal of noise. Class D is not a quick fix, it requires infrastructure and provision of trained controllers, plus fields like Lismore will be severely impacted by the airspace, let alone the large amount of through traffic as Sunfish points out. Lastly a PA-28 almost collided with an ATR in Albury Class D airspace when there was pretty much no other aircraft in the area. This line from the report "The crew of the ATR were aware that there was traffic in the area but did not assess the position of the PA-28, in relation to their aircraft until activation of the TCAS TA". So Controlled airspace, Class D, radio communication, three parties aware of traffic, and TCAS most likely saved the day. Last edited by 43Inches; 11th Jun 2022 at 02:25.

There was a good discussion on the topic of fuel return lines a few years back in this thread:

I'm not sure what you're reacting to, Nev, but I reckon the saying he puts up at the end and what you're saying amounts to the same thing, no? "Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training."

Speaking of Hornets; a recent test flight video of a Tassie one: A bunch of really interesting (home) build videos of it here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-UJmXg0f6MCu19kFnAKLAQ

Heck, we have our own Hornet STOL for that: https://aircraftkits.com.au/blank-2/ (Easily bored? Go straight to 4:06 ;- ) And across the ditch even Skyrangers get into it:

For the opposite approach jump to 7:47

This guy took his sister for a fly ... she seemed to be enjoying the whole thing immensely, until ...

Another non-fatal with some HF lessons - even for bug-smashers.

n

Ha, ha ... where is it, anyway, Wal? Somewhere between Kabul and Tranquility Base?

That's good to know. It set me a googlin' to discover if an old Garmin GPS 12 I have hanging around could still be expected to work. This is what Garmin says: Garmin Support Center GPS 12 Time and Date are Incorrect We’ve identified an issue with this product that causes the date and/or time to be wrong after the GPS Rollover on April 6th, 2019. However, all functions not dependent on date and/or time will continue to work normally. Due to the age of the device we have determined we will not fix this issue. What does that mean for my Garmin? The date and/or time determined by the GPS will be wrong Position, velocity, navigation, and all other functionality not dependent on date and/or time will continue to work normally What is GPS Week Rollover? The GPS satellite system communicates the date via a week number that is limited to 1024 weeks (about 20 years). On April 6th, 2019 the week numbers broadcast by the satellites will “rollover” to zero. If GPS receivers don’t account for this rollover in their software, it will calculate the wrong date and/or time.

I'm not sure if these make it much clearer than the pics already posted. They're just a couple of clips taken last year of Pylon500 at work on some other of his projects. However, the subject of this thread (his original design for planet47) can also be seen. In the first shot we pan past it from the front. In the second clip, it can be seen from the rear in the background as Pylon tells me about the almost finished wings of that other project on-the-go. front view.m4v rear view .m4v

The writer of this article in Aviation Safety Mag seems to agree. His essay is long and detailed and deserves to be read in full, but I excerpt a few bits to indicate the drift. What a Pushover Unloading the wing can prevent a stall or spin, but only if you're aggressive enough https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/what-a-pushover/ " .... // If the airspeed is rapidly approaching stall speed, even with full power, you need to act aggressively in getting the nose down, and this may require unloading the wing to 0 g. You can prevent a stall and maintain some measure of control. If a crash is inevitable, it is better to crash wings level with some control than to crash out of control and with the airplane in a bank. .... // The altitude loss that results from such an aggressive pushover is not much greater than in a normal stall recovery, but by unloading the wing you will prevent both a stall and a possible spin.You will be able to continue flying the airplane until the recovery is complete, and not experience a momentary loss of control as in a full stall or spin entry. .... // ... when the airspeed is bleeding off rapidly, aggressively pushing the airplane over to a 0 g state will keep you from stalling and spinning. It retains your lateral control and gives the airplane higher acceleration or slower deceleration until you can get the airplane flying normally again. Wing loading may seem like the province of aeronautical engineers, but knowing the dynamics of reducing the load may give you the ammunition you need to kill a low-altitude stall/spin before it happens." by Michael Friese Michael Friese is an ATP, CFII and airframe mechanic. He is a former assistant chief pilot at Embry-Riddle and currently flies for the U.S. government. And, right on cue, unfortunately, another illustration ... and similar analysis and advice from Blancolirio.

Some interesting recent vids on the topic

STOL Pilot Warned To ‘Lower Your Nose’ Before Crash By Russ Niles Published:June 1, 2022 https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/stol-pilot-warned-to-lower-your-nose-before-crash/ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ch3o26Y5_0E

Speaking of WX; this recent AvWeb article is a good read (needs some down-under adjustment, of course) Weather Deconstructed As a kid, did you ever take something apart to see how it worked? Let’s do that with the atmosphere to better understand it. By Tim Vasquez Published:May 30, 2022 https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/risk-management/weather-deconstructed/