68volksy

I've got a Suunto watch also. Couldn't tell you exact model but it's got compass, barometer, altitude etc. Great value for what you get and has nice big numbers that are very easy to read at a glance. I wouldn't be wearing it out to dinner necessarily but for a flying watch I think it's great.

Are there any aircraft deisgned in such a way? I think the new sportstar comes with a rollover hoop? If you've ever been beside a formula 1 car you will note that you do not need much room to install the crumple zones you talk of. Are there many aircraft out there that have been designed with a decent crash structure? I know the new Boomerang has a 12g tested roll cage.

A simple question... There are many statements floating around and people standing on soapboxes preaching the glorious stregth of carbon fibre and other newer synthetic materials. I have always assumed that Carbon Fibre can be created to many different thicknesses and strengths similar to steel, alloy and aluminium. Therefore the statement that "Carbon Fibre is stronger than steel" is utterly incorrect without the qualifier "of the same weight". Is this assumption of mine correct? Is anyone going to tell me that one strand of carbon fibre is stronger than a 16 metre wide strand of steel? My point is that Carbon Fibre is only stronger if it is made to be stronger. I am aware that making it is a very expensive and complicated process. Otherwise due to its light weight every aircraft in existence would have a full carbon fibre roll cage, similar to Formula 1 racing cars. I've seen those things stop dead from 200km/hr with the drivers walking away.

You guys want it all. First of all there is the very strong (and seemingly justified) call for no more rules and regulations in order to keep costs down. Then this is followed by slamming the only investigation that will be afforded the accident and calling it lax in many areas. From the way I see it this is all the investigation that will occur as this is all the money that we are willing to pay. You get what you pay for. The alternative is either paying more for full ATSB-like investigations or asking the Coroner not to investigate deaths. If all that RaAus and its members asks for is one inexperienced Coroner to look into the accident and determine how and why it occurred then this is all that we will get. What is most scary is how many questions the process raised and how many remain unanswerable by the current requirements of RaAus. From my two cents we have to accept this and make it perfectly clear to the public (and the Coroner) that this is what we want in order to keep costs down. The other option is moving into a tighter regulatory system. Turboplanner - I agree that the laws are already in place and the stickers already exist. What I would like answered is why the Coroner simply didn't state "They flew this plane at their own risk and in line with the current requirements. End of report." From what I see she didn't tie it up in this manner because she did not see that as an acceptable solution to the general public.

I don't think anyone would argue that the cause of the accident is due to many factors. You will read in the report that no blame can be layed on any one incidence. It's the other side of what the Coroner uncovered that is vastly worrying. The fact that the rules and regulations that Recreational Aviation told the government, pilots and the public were put in place have never been enforced. What's the point of putting the rules in place, rules that every member of this society relies upon, if no-one ever checks they are being followed. For my mind I would rather just plaster over every aircraft in massive lettering "Fly at own risk. Assess all previous aircraft owners skill, honesty and diligence before entering". At least no-one would ever be blamed for not telling it how it is.

I know that i'd be noting anything wrong. My memory can't be relied upon in most cases. Also be put on a big yellow post-it note "Plane is broken - get fixed"

It's another case of greed overwhelming good from the face of it. Recreational Aviation works on the whole because it is our hobby/passion and we enjoy spending the time to make it safe and keep our machines in good order. The people who enter the arena to make money are really the ones who possess the greatest motivation to bypass the rules and regulations. Many of these people are good honest folk also however I believe the motivation is there and needs to be kept in check.

Reports are the Mr Coates and Mr Allen were warned on several occasions by the Coroner that they should stop talking. They chose to ignore her advice though. Eventually one of them got further legal counsel about what they should and shouldn't say.

The altimeter comment is due to oil being found in the altimiter tube. They figured that the oil blocked the tube and kept the pressure constant. What caused the vibrations is anyones guess. I think that's why the coroner got a little frustrated at the lack of record keeping by the previous owner.

The fact she was most concerned about was the lack of checking and sanctioning by RaAus due to the structure and funding of the organisation. There are rules in place that state how things are to be done so as to protect us as pilots and those whom we choose to carry as passengers. The facts in this case showed that the prior owners of a very fast and very light aircraft ignored the rules. Is that the only purpose of Recreational Aviation? Remove the checks and balances developed by General Aviation over a hundred years and start again from scratch? This is what has happened in this case. But now we're starting from scratch with hugely advanced and increasingly complicated aircraft.

Basscheffers, you will note that the report did not attribute the cause of death to any one issue. What it did uncover was the atrocious attempt at "record keeping" and a blaise attitude towards the protection of others. Basically, someone was not doing the right thing and there was no mechanism in place to catch the wrongdoing. As for safety - I know i'd rather hit the earth hard in a big old warrior or the trusty gazelle than in something designed with pipe cleaners for legs to save weight. I'll be offending someone and starting an all new discussion with statements like that though...

This is an ideal. With the intimidatory tactics employed in this instance though who exactly is going to really stand up? What power does anyone actually have in this instance? As an auditor I'm only too aware that fraud is not meant to be discovered. The fraudulent activities in this case were also not meant to be discovered and it took the lives of two experienced and dedicated pilots to uncover them.

The Recreational Aviation movement is now so big. How do we stop this kind of thing from happening?

RaAus is meant to be a self-regulating body and we are all supposed to be responsible for this regulation. If they allow such an utter breakdown in regulating activities as occurred in this case then what choice does the government really have? The primary area of concern is the sale of aircraft. I would like to have some level of confidence that the aircraft I am purchasing has never had any major accidents, has been serviced appropriately and is registered legally and properly. At the moment there is no mechanism to prove this occurs.

I don't have a link but they emailed me a copy rather quickly. I think I have attached it correctly. If I should not be posting this for any reason (privacy or something) can someone please let me know. I think the information is readily available to the public so I assume it can be placed on here. Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.DOC Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.DOC Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.DOC

Howdy, Has anyone had a read of the Coroners report and recommendations surrounding the Goulburn Sting incident? Anybody got any comments about the recommendation or findings? Mr Coates and Mr Allen did not get painted in a very attractive light at all.

Hi All, The Southern Highlands Aero Club is holding its last BBQ for the year tomorrow at midday. As it seems like it might be a rather pleasant day I thought it worthwhile to invite all and sundry to attend. See you there if you can make it.

You've hit the nail on the head there Futura. A private owners plans for their privately held land are their own business and no-one elses. You seem quite willing to state with authority however that there will be increased usage and that the increased cost of the facility will be borne by this increased usage. Surely this is pure speculation also?

It seems plainly apparent that the decisions regarding the future of the airport and its intended usage/charges have been set in concrete. How else could someone say with confidence that $25 million is to be spent on its refurbishment? That's not a small amount in anyones book. My point is that if enough detail and costing has been prepared on infrastruture and facility consruction as there must have been to come up with the $25 million, then there is no doubt in my mind that figures regarding expected costs and estimated usage would also be readily available? $25 million is a lot of money to be throwing into a "If you build it they will come" philosophy. An open mind is one thing but it seems plainly obvious that the future of the facility has already been decided upon. The proponent has made clearly apparent that their is a plan to spend $25 million. What has not been made apparent is what this money will be spent on and how they plan to turn the investment into a profit making venture.

True we should all work together. I just think it's important that if people are on here singing the praises of $25million airport redevelopments then at least a word of caution should be raised for those of us who fly $25,000 aircraft. Our lives are more important than money. On another point would someone like to propose just what a "fair market charge" for access to an airport that is worth almost $30 million might be?

Futura, You honestly see a happy mix of Industrial development, the proposed international freight hub and GA/Recreational flyers? Honestly, combining these three things is a recipe for the deaths of ultralight pilots. I'm still not sold on the idea that safe flying at Goulburn can coincide with Massive hangers and jet aircraft. Slarti, the Council failed to mention the $60,000 they receive in income each year from the airport. They also failed to mention that the $65,000 expenditure includes an allowance of $12,000 per year for the runway resealing. They then claim that it will cost an extra $150,000?

Glad you found us Futura. Dick's definition of a "good" coffee is different than the Aero Clubs unfortunately. If we knew he was coming of course we would have got the Barista in... The major concern of the Aero Club is any further subdivisions or hangers at the airport. Even the existing stage 3 subdivision would be atrociously dangerous for many of our flyers if it were built out with hangers. Even the Corporate Air hanger has put some people off using runway 26 to land on a windy day. The concern with purchasing land is that the airport can change hands at any time. To invest in land at a privately owned airport with the history of Cooma, Bankstown, Canberra, Hoxton Park etc. still fresh in your mind would be a brave move wouldn't it? There's no choice of which runway to use - not much different from someone turning your driveway into a toll road... Anyway, as far as the Aero Club is concerned it is in its best interest to work with whoever owns the airport. My personal opinions will give way to the needs and concerns of our members and friends. I look forward to the meeting in the new year.

Unfortunately the decision to sell the airport is not a planning decision nor are any decisions about the fees and charges or access to the airport. I actually work for a planning consultancy and have used all the planning laws that could be mustered. We can object to the development but unfortunately here in NSW the planning system is vastly different to anywhere else. The objectors very rarely win as the legislation is usually cut and dry with no room for movement. Basically unless he misses something or stuffs up there's nothing that can be done. The Councillors each have their own agenda, some of which have a more ethical basis than others. There is a covenant restricting use to airport use only however there is nothing to stop him putting up a fence and denying access. An airport is still an airport even if no-one uses it... When the proponent asks questions such as "Could I charge fees for taxiway usage?" we got a little concerned. I think it'd be easier to just relocate.

Last night four of the seven Councillors in attendance voted to sell the airport. Goulburn airport is now owned and run by Mr George Tzovaras of Domain Real Estate. He wooed Council with his plan to spend $25 million dollars on the airport land over the next seven years. What it will be spent on no-one knows. It is a sad day for aviators and their friends and family in Goulburn. Just another indicator of how dead the sense of community in this town actually is.

I'm all for Plan C - the new airport. Upper Lachlan Council appears to be very amenable to the idea in their area. They like the idea of self-funded retirees bringing their small aircraft to the region. This airport, and the players involved, make Goulburn a very hard place to like at the moment. I have seen copies of letters from users since 1992 offering to help Council clean up and maintain the airport. All answers have been a quick and resounding "No" from the Council. People used to do little things out there such as mow and maintain the "Goulburn" sign laid in the grass. They were told they were not allowed to do this anymore. Councillor O'Neill is being shown up as a moron (by the staff?) who have obviously never forwarded our offers to her.