Garfly

Indeed! That much we can both agree on. ;- )

I'd like some more detail on that survey of yours. Ask around and you'll get the answers you need. To me, the thrust of Nev's argument is that a pilot's having been 'trained' and 'tested' under a (marginally) superior licensing regime is not much guarantee of anything regarding weather wisdom. He keeps stressing that even ATPL met savvy ain't enough to keep you out of trouble. I would add that making use of "Windy" (inter alia) is no indication of meteorological slackness. Quite the opposite in fact.

I agree. For example, I think that in recent years, I've learned more about 'safe' recreational flying on this forum than anywhere else (especially if we include the various aviation videos we share). Actually, I've always thought it a pity that there's so little cross-over between Rec. Flying and RAAus cultures; they seem totally discrete entities, mutually hostile even, at times. I guess there are hard-to-avoid reasons for this but still, it's a bit of a shame, and a bit counter-productive.

Me too. I'm with the devil on this one. I have my own gripes about RAAus safety-messaging (e.g contradictory attitudes to new EC/traffic awareness tech) but when I read here CEO Matt's chatty newsletter piece being torn apart for teeny weeny dogma deviations, or slip-ups in statistical science, I'm loathe to jump on the bandwagon. Sheesh, no need to be more pious than the Pope ;- )

As to whether weather theory offered in basic flight training is or 'should be' sufficient, I can but quote the opening lines of this Air Safety Institute film "Weather Wise: VFR Flight Planning." "Most of the time weather is the biggest variable in flying. But when it comes to figuring out what the weather's actually going to do, and what that means for a potential flight, many of us have relatively little real-world training to rely on. 'The majority of the training experience for most pilots is in the local area focused on manoeuvre based training ... and so for that practical exam you know that what you're working towards is a single cross country flight and that's essentially the extent of it.' " And as to whether Meteorology is a 'weakness' in the RAAus curriculum, this raises the question, just how deep an understanding of the science of weather might be deemed enough; just how much theory is most likely to contribute, in practice, to safer piloting decisions. Being a 'weather-wise' pilot and having an academic understanding of meteorology are not one and the same thing. (Though any knowledge, per se, is unlikely to be a burden.) As in all things aeronautic, practical experience is vital and yet, one could graduate as a pilot without so much as seeing a cloud close up, let alone facing complex grey-area, life-or-death weather decisions. That's the point.

What about it?

Awful news. Mat Farrell had posted on here only a few weeks ago. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-20/mount-beauty-plane-crash-victim-mathew-farrell-mourned/101458134

Bosi72, I am gutted to hear this news. I was following the search yesterday but didn't think to make the connection to the Matt we were chatting with recently on here. So he was your friend. Very sorry. I never had the pleasure of meeting him. gary.

Yes, the whole local aviation mapping integration (or lack thereof) is something else again.

Hi CC, yes, some years ago I imported a Kanardia "Horis" PFD for my Skyranger direct from their factory in Slovenia. (At the time, they were the only ones offering such things in the 80mm round format.) I found them great to deal with; quick to respond, savvy and honest. And I've been very happy with the device.

Hi Glen, I haven't turned up the flight path image yet but I came across this from a Colorado based newspaper: "Both aircraft were about 7,000 feet above sea level when the Cessna 172 made a right turn, and the flight paths of the two planes merged. Both aircraft descended rapidly, said Folkerts. The accident sites were not far from where the collision occurred. Neither aircraft was in contact with an air traffic control, and neither craft was equipped with a collision avoidance system, Folkerts said." Of course, that's probably only a couple of thousand feet AGL at that spot. https://www.coloradohometownweekly.com/2022/09/17/report-three-dead-after-two-planes-crash-in-boulder-county/

Yeah, that's the Cirrus on Metroliner midair near Denver last year, right? In that case, a simultaneous parallel approach problem. https://kdvr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2021/05/Report_CEN21FA215_103073_5_24_2021-3_19_37-PM.pdf

RFguy said "we need a TCAS for light aircraft. having a sky echo and a tablet is one thing , but having a self contained box listening to ADSB broadcasts , with alarm and some indication of where to look is another." Yes, the Qld. based AvTraffic app (with some EFB integration) has made a (low cost) start on this idea. https://avtraffic.com/index.html

It seems the feds, too, are less than convinced (you even get a special mention): GEN 3.4 - 20 23 MAY 2019 AIP Australia 4.14.2 ... // Examples are as follows: QLINK 122: QLINK ONE TWENTY TWO; QANTAS 1220: QANTAS TWELVE TWENTY; CAR 21: CAR TWENTY ONE; CLASSIC 12: CLASSIC TWELVE; VIRGIN 702: VIRGIN SEVEN ZERO TWO; BIRDOG 021: BIRDOG ZERO TWENTY ONE

As the G&S ditty goes: Things are seldom what they seem, skimmed milk masquerades as cream (vice versa, too ;- ) As it happens, our SP has close to 30,000 stick and rudder hours as an aggy/fire guy - with a soft spot for all manner of flying things. But he insists he's still learning; thus the moniker. (One of these days he'll pass that test and get a licence. ;- )

In this video, the Dark Aero project designers discuss flutter (aeroelasticity) as they get close to flight testing their new bird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZGo-R2mtb8

Yeah, it can get tricky. If Rans S-21 Ravens become popular in Oz it'll be interesting since 'Raven' is the callsign for certain ADF helos. (On the plus side, such a rego prefix might get you quick clearances through Amberley, among other jurisdictions ;- ) Some other Amberley ambiguities (regarding ultralight callsigns) might be: Brumby Cheetah Cruiser Hornet Kestrel Mustang Vampire But, to be fair, the AIP (as far as officialese permits) does address issues arising from ambiguities and basically urges common sense wherever confusion is likely. I imagine that the two-group preference applied to four-digit rego/flight numbers, is an attempt to avoid confusion with other important four number phrases such as transponder codes and QNH values.

Yes, precisely: 4.19 Callsigns - Full and Abbreviated Formats 4.19.1 When establishing two way communications and for subsequent communications on any frequency, Australian registered aircraft must use one of the following callsigns: a. for VH-registered aircraft, the last 3 characters of the registration marking (e.g. VH-TQK “TANGO QUEBEC KILO”); or b. the approved telephony designator of the aircraft operating agency, followed by the last 3 characters of a VH registration marking (e.g. “QLINK TANGO QUEBEC KILO”); or c. the approved telephony designator of the aircraft operating agency, followed by the flight identification (e.g. “VELOCITY EIGHT FIFTY SIX DELTA”); or d. for recreation-category aircraft, the aircraft type followed by the last 4 characters of the aircraft’s registration number (e.g. “JABIRU THIRTEEN FORTY SIX”). // 4.14 Flight Number Callsigns - Using Group Form 4.14.1 Within Australian airspace, “group form” is the preferred means of transmitting callsign/flight number. Group form should also be used with military and other aircraft using a rootword callsign with numeric suffix. 4.14.2 Group form is the grouping of numbers into pairs ... // 4.14.3 Pilots and ATS should be aware that the preference to use “group form” does not invalidate any transmissions made in conventional formats. However, to retain the integrity in the communication between ATS and operators, the identification format used should be consistent. 4.14.4 A pilot not using “group form” in establishing communication, but subsequently addressed by ATS in this format, should adopt the use of “group form” for the remainder of the flight in Australian airspace.

As it happens, there are a couple of Bristells with 'phone-number' regos that regularly operate in and out of YSCB as trainers - so Canberra approach and tower will know precisely what to expect. I've noticed that the preferred RT format there for RAAus craft is the two pairs of numbers - just as you use. Actually mine is 5001 but "fifty, zero-one" sounds awkward to me and, I imagine, hard to mentally process. So (in CTAF comms, at least) I stick with "five-zero-zero-one". I believe both are acceptable but if ATC started the transaction in one way, I'd just follow their lead. [I've also heard 0000 operating in and out of Canberra. That's a challenge. "Uh-oh, Uh-oh" would be fun. Not sure what it is.]

Kerry visited Lavrov in Moscow mid-last year. It was not only Kerry who was concerned. They seemed to agree that it wasn't any kind of religion that was melting the Siberian permafrost, much to the locals' alarm. And both sides were keen to lower the heat, both globally and diplomatically. So "global warming hysteria" was not the only reason for that visit (facts getting in the way of a good story again) : "Biden has used the non-confrontational issue of battling climate change to smooth over relations with the Kremlin in the past. Putin took great offense when Biden agreed with an interviewer in March that the Russian leader was a "killer." After Biden called him in April, Putin accepted the olive branch, first attending the White House's virtual climate summit, then agreeing to meet in Geneva. // The Russian president has evolved on climate Putin, who rules a carbon superpower with vast deposits of oil, gas and coal, used to be a climate skeptic ... [but] Putin has begun to address the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This month, he signed a law requiring Russian businesses to report carbon emissions starting in 2023." https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016526228/the-u-s-climate-envoy-went-to-moscow-and-talked-about-more-than-climate

No I didn't and no it doesn't. But never mind. It's complicated.

Sure ... we're in furious agreement over the facts shown here. But this clip shows little of "Trumps views on Russia" (always as incoherent as they are self-serving) and quite a lot about the longstanding US posture on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (as discussed in the articles above). US sanctions, aimed at de-railing Germany's sweetheart deal with Russia, actually became tougher under Biden than under Trump (until they failed finally and were dropped) but the reasonings of successive administrations were mash-ups of instincts; not wanting to give Russia long term energy leverage over Europe, not wanting to weaken Ukraine by letting existing pipelines get by-passed and, oh yeah ... another little issue (about which Trump would've been lobbied by one Senator Ted Cruz) : "Why did Cruz take lead in opposing Nord Stream? ... Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn, a fellow Republican cosponsor of his sanctions bill, represent Texas, the nation’s largest producer of liquified natural gas. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany and other European states might buy more Texas gas. “I’m not even sure he really cares about Ukraine,” Daniel Fried, who worked as the State Department coordinator for sanctions policy under President Obama, told the American Prospect in December. “It’s just politics.” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/no-ted-cruz-was-not-right-about-russias-ukraine-invasion/ Interestingly, this was the reverse of the US energy sector's attitude in Reagan's day. Back then American companies were heavily invested in Russian pipelines and thus opposed State Department moves to contain Russia's capacity to use oil and gas in geo-politics. Anyway, notwithstanding the tragic impact on millions of lives, it looks like the war could end-up a long-term win for all except Putin's Russia. It might finish with Volodymyr Zelensky, Greta Thunberg and Ted Cruz (even most Germans) all glad to see the back of Nord Stream 2 - under circumstances nobody saw coming. History has a habit of throwing a spanner into the simple narratives we try to pull from it.

PenName's already known around here for keenly seeking answers through further training: