Markdun

A flying trip up to Longreach a few years ago had a few doozies. I then had an ASIC and an anti-terrorist Aircraft lock comprising of a soft thin walled aluminium tube with a ‘crusader’ brand padlock purchased fromClints for $1.49. This went over the throttle and met the standard. I think it was Bourke where the sign on the code locked gate stated ‘Lift flap for code’. I felt like adding the Arabic translation as it gave unfair advantage to English speaking terrorists. At another ‘security controlled aerodrome after refueling I telephoned the fuel agent/aerodrome operator to find out how to exit. I was told the locked powered gate had the chain removed from the sprocket and so one just had to give it a hard push and it would slide open. I asked whether the security fence was effective in keeping malfeasants out and was told, ‘Nah, but it’s bloody great as we no longer have to do a run down the runway in the ute to get the kangaroos and emus a few minutes before any RPT lands, and the guys from town had a few great nights shooting the roos and emus inside the fence when it was just built’. I don’t think many people actually believe the ASIC or airport security in general is effective in reducing the risk or incidence of security related incidents. The whole lot is just theatre, providing a facade or fig leaf …. Not to hide the falsity that flying in RPTs is dangerous,,, because the facts show the opposite, but to convince the public to return to buying tickets because of the perception that there was a high risk following 9/11, that is to maintain the revenue for commercial airlines (& perhaps the psychic benefit of the travelling public feeling safer), and give the appearance that our governments/politicians are doing ‘something’. My whinge is that the ASIC is totally disproportionate to its costs, particularly the burden imposed on us. I also maintain that the ASIC reduces ppl’s vigilance on security….. the guys in the hanger don’t need to worry about security because ASIC and the security guys handle that. Nev, the crime of ‘incite’ like I said is difficult to prove, and secondly has to be more than just some guys yacking. There has to be some actual physical steps taken to encourage the other person to commit the crime; signing an agreement to pay them, giving them the tools to do the deed etc. If that wasn’t the case I reckon nearly 100% of boys aged 14-20 (and ‘boys’ older than 65) would be guilty.

Let’s put this in perspective. I personally know of a serial paedophile, Aaron James Holliday, who while in remand in gaol in the A.C.T., conspired with another inmate to pay $10k to have a 12 year old boy kidnapped, forced to give a video statement that his brother was lying (about the sexual assault) and then to be ‘knocked’. The evidence presented to court was notes written by Holliday, and the testimony of the prisoner Holliday asked to organise the kidnapping and murder. A jury found him guilty of kidnapping but not of conspiracy for contract killing because the prosecution did not provide evidence that in ‘crim talk’ having someone ‘knocked’ meant having them murdered. The High Court overturned the guilty conviction on appeal. Convictions for encouraging other ppl to commit crimes (so called ‘inchoate’ offences), like telling them how to avoid prosecution, are notoriously difficult to prosecute…even proven paedophiles get away with it. So it’s not just ‘get a life’, but also ‘get real’. That said everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have no ill feelings to those that like the ASIC arrangements.

I can beat that Spacey. I wore my climbing rope, iceaxe, ice hammer, climbing hardware (karabiners, ice screws, crampons), also to NZ because hand baggage wasn’t weighed. No problem with security, though Flight attendant did warn me that she didn’t think the rope would be long enough if I wanted to abseil from the aircraft. My mountaineering partner’s girl friend gave him a large Xmas cake (+3kg) wrapped in foil…. Could have been mostly hashish knowing what those two got up to (but it was just cake)…. Again no one cared less. On arriving in NZ the customs guys kindly cleaned our boots. And recently in Australia I had about a metre of stainless steel ‘safety wire’ that was in the bottom of a daypack confiscated…go figure.

Surprising, as my brother a senior officer in Airservices (now retired) once (& only once) wore his security pass returning to Australia via Kingsford Smith Aerodrome from his many many many international ICAO and other meetings about ADSB, and was given the exact opposite treatment. ‘Never again’ was his decision. The view taken by the aerodrome authorities was that he wore his ASIC while being a passenger because he had something to hide. Area51 I think you must live in a parallel universe because by my reckoning things like an ASIC discourage people being alert…and situationally aware because they assume, like you assume, that people with a displayed ASIC are somehow less of a threat. Just like many pilots don’t triple check the controls on an aircraft after work has been carried out on the controls by LAMEs or L2s. Same as I’ve had an instructor suggest I don’t need to do a walk around on an unfamiliar aircraft I was going to fly for a BFR because they had already done the DI. ‘No thanks, I like to check myself’. Spacesailor, my beau recently had the same experience with recent international travel. She is currently on the list for a hip replacement. She was treated like a Queen in every country EXCEPT Australia. On return at Sydney International she, and the other wheelies, were just dumped at immigration and customs minus wheelchairs. Total disaster. She finally got some assistance from terminal staff whose job was to assist disabled ppl to get herself to where I was waiting to pick her up, except they didn’t know where the disabled parking was and so that took another 3/4 of an hour.

Yes there is a lot of BBB (bullshit baffles brains) that’s for sure. But one of the biggest problems is that politicians have this idea that you can never oppose ‘more security’. However in doing so over the last couple of decades the States and Federal Parliaments have unwittingly put in place the legal infrastructure to destroy our liberal democracy with things like detention without conviction, police powers on ‘prevention’’ (recent convictions of climate activities for refusing to give police access to the phones & computers desire to ground they had committed an offence) secret ‘Star Chamber’ trials, whistleblower convictions, allowing malfeasance in public office and misconduct in public office go without consequence (Robodebt, Hurley/Morrison’s secret ministries), authorising short detention and search without warrant by officers of Home Affairs with the officers in balaclavas and with no requirement to identify themselves etc etc etc etc. The one common thing with all these laws is that they are generally ineffective against terrorists or insurrectionists albeit they appear ‘tough’ in appearance, but more importantly they are then used improperly against whistleblowers like Collaery, animal and climate activists or journalists (like the Ffriendlyjordie) etc. So I agree that we are pissing into the wind if we think the stupid ASIC arrangements. For my sins I once reviewed the Federsl Radcoms Act and the one success I had was abolishing the reqt for pilots and bodies to have a radio operators licence to operate a vhf radio and for each aircraft or boat to have an ‘apparstus licence) to install a vhf radio. At the time compliance with the legislation was less than 2% for aviation and about 40% for marine. When it was abolished we got heaps of complaints from State govts because volunteer marine rescue organisations lost income training radio operators. No complaints from aviation because they just never complied with the law in the first place. I also mention that the States and Federal govt have ‘Law Reform Commissions’ whose job is to make recommendations to parliament about reforming current legislation (as well as parliamentary committees). Most Depts/Ministers proposing new legislation or regulations usually have to offer up legislation to abolish (itsits badged as red tape removal but is bullshit really). There is no convention about the Opposition not blocking supply. The Constitution prohibits the Senate initiating or amending a money bill. If there is a convention, it would be that the Senate cannot block a money bill; but if that was the case why has the Constitution given the Senate the power to do so. Related to this, each member of the HoR or the Senate has one vote. So they would only have power if they have a majority if they can negotiate with enough other Senators to form a consensus of a majority of Senators.

I do not believe there is any recognised convention about the Opposition; it’s certainly not in the Cth Constitution, but then neither does it mention the PM or Cabinet. And as far as I can tell it is not mentioned by Quick & Garren in their book about the Cth Constitution either (they attended the conventions and drafted many of the provisions in the Constitution leading up to the establishment of the federation. In fact a lot of the founding rules of our democracy are not in the Constitution, for example Cabinet and Responsible Govt (other than a provision that prohibits a Minister being sworn in by the GG while not being a member of parliament for a period longer than 3 months). And that’s why Morrison and Hurley should be prosecuted and gaoled for their crime of misconduct in public office for the secret ministries scandal. While it might be true they didn’t breach any of the black letter law of the Constitution, the Constitution is founded on the basis that the executive govt must have the confidence of the HoR. And how the fuck could Hurley assess that if the HoR didn’t know who he was appointing as Ministers? It really was our equivalent of an attempted coup…luckily unsuccessful. Democracy can be, or is often, a really shit form of government The ASIC bullshit is but one minor part. But it is the least worse. I wonder whether Skip has rung up his local federal member and whinged at him/her?

Skip, that is what the parliament is for, & why it is seperate from the PM and Ministers who form the executive arm of government which is normally referred to as just the govt. I think what you are suggesting is like the USA Federal system of government where the parliament (congress & senate) is truly seperate from the ‘executive’ arm (president & secretaries of state) of government. In our system of ‘Responsible government’, the executive (pm & ministers) are responsible for the actions of government according to legislation and the parliament is separately responsible for making and amending laws just like the USA, however our system requires the executive to be members of the parliament. The theory is that in our system the executive (pm & ministers) are ‘responsible’ (meaning accountable) to the people through parliament. This is meant to avoid stand off/conflict between the executive and the parliament like the Not infrequent government shutdowns they get in the USA. Sunset clauses are not unheard of in our system. They are mostly in subordinate legislation like regulations, Ministerial decrees/determination and ‘orders’ where legislation allows these. But what usually happens is they are just rubber stamped to roll-over. Things won’t change until governments don’t have a majority in the parliament…. then our representatives will better apply their minds to legislation instead of just voting as the party whip tells them too…. Like in many European countries.

But it is worse because the ASIC process is privatised. If you try now to abolish it, all the private corporate interests will act to protect their income streams…. you know, the ones with paid lobbyists who have access to ‘our’ representatives in Parliament House and a ‘Voice’, unlike actual citizens of the country. It’s why we still have other completely useless industries like superannuation, retirement advisors, private health insurance, migration agents, and electricity prices skyrocketing despite the input cost of production massively falling. KG, your letter to the minister was a joy to read. A similar minded bloke once wrote to my Minister but included a shovel and a $10 note. Telstra had been haranguing (harassing really) the citizen trying to get him to pay the telephone debt of his recently deceased son. The shovel was to to be given to Telstra so they could dig up the deceased to recover their money and the $10 note was to provide the Telstra employee responsible ‘grief counselling’. I had the letter, shovel and $10 note set up in one of our art exhibition places in the foyer of the Dept until the Secretary had it removed…(the Minister loved it). The shovel should not be in archives and the $10 has been deposited in the Cth consolidated revenue fund but can’t be spent by the gov except for the purpose it was given to them for.

Why is ‘ID’ so important? You need ID for contracts (so you know who to take to court for breaching the contract). I can’t see how the government knowing who they issue an ASIC card to makes a brass razoo difference to ‘safer skies’. The only part of the ASIC process that might make a difference is the bit about providing a reason for having one. Is it like the declaration you sign on the entry card to the USA that the purpose of your visit is not terrorism?…..I’m sure that really is an effective deterrent (sarcasm). And it’s not a ‘high security’ vetting process. I had a Top Secret clearance as I was routinely dealing with federal cabinet papers and preparing briefing for a Minister for each meeting. That involves the spooks actually interviewing my associates, my GP etc etc etc. And even then I was asked to explain why I hadn’t divulged my criminal convictions…which was easy as I didn’t have any…but according to the hapless AFP, I did. I told them to provide the court details or shut up…they shut up. Also I reported to the spooks when asked about a lower security clearance for one of my staff that I believed had an allegiance to a foreign power, regularly attending their High Commission etc, and that prior to my arrival thought nothing of accepting the loan of a Porsche motor car from the peak private industry association relevant to the Department I was in. They still cleared him. BTW, the fact that you already have a federal security clearance is irrelevant when applying for an ASIC. As for providing jobs…ffs. Yes, providing jobs is something governments can do, but surely the jobs should be doing good…. Like planting trees, running the railways or airlines and other sheltered work places. In my view if ASIO is doing their job, they should be identifying potential threats (aviation or not) which the ASIC would not help, rather than us collectively expending significant amounts on the ASIC and the imposed burden on us flyers.

Interesting. Here at Mt Fairy oat 20C at 5500asl at 9.00am and 25kt NNW. Nah, sink is not as strong as up from thermals….. But it can easily be in wave/rotor or hill lee. Don’t you have GNAV or GLS to maintain the runway track after T/O instead of the runway bearing?

Skip, I think there is a big difference. The reqt for an ASIC card is regulatory reqt and not subject to either ‘consumer law’ but admin law. The fact that you buy it from a private firm means that is subject to the laws of contract, which does require a ‘consideration’ from both parties. However, legally the fact that a consideration is useless or isn’t value for money does not mean it is lacking. It’s been some decades since I was knowledgeable of the federal Trade Practices Act, But I would think that the usual ‘ consumer’’ protections would not apply as it is not a service or good for sale to normal householders. In any case successive LNP govts & the ACCC since Fells left, have been gradually hamstringing consumer protection. For example, many sugary fruit drinks are labeled as having ‘no added sugar’ or as ‘nectar’, when in fact the drink has a high sugar content (from the fruit) and for the ‘nectar’ is not actually nectar (which from flowers) but from pulped fruit….. And despite this being factually wrong and leads many consumers to erroneous conclusions about the products, they get away with it. It’s worse in relation to health claims on processed food. As to Qantas tickets issue, it seems to me the issue is not contract law but either equity law or consumer law, in particular, the concept of deceptive and misleading conduct, unconscionable conduct or equitable estoppel. Qantas’s written contract (terms and conditions) is probably water tight. In assessing deceptive and misleading conduct the legal precedent is pretty clear: if the conduct of the defendant would lead a consumer of average intelligence (not to dumb, not too smart) to make a false conclusion, then that the elements of the ‘offence’ are made out. It has been held that even factually correct statements can be misleading given the context etc. Courts also give short shrift to all those small print and end of advertisement assertions. Equitable estoppel is when a court will put aside the terms of a contract if one party makes representations, or by their conduct, that the other party doesn’t need to comply with the contract. The most usual thing is a representation that the contract doesn’t need to be completed in the specified period. The key elements are that the offending party has to know that the other party would rely on their representation and that party did actually rely on the representation. I once (20 years ago) ran a case against Telstra for selling unclassified porn to a minor through their 1900 premium call agents, and many of my claims were based on these sort of principles…it gets very complicated and in the end the judge found a technicality (that I had not argued) to give me a win and which let him off from making a decision that would have been a huge problem Telstra.

Skip, you pay and receive the card, and the issuing company has supposedly done a check. So the contract would have sufficient ‘consideration’ to be valid. My whinge is why it is not ‘user pays’; ie. If commercial operators of RPT want the theatre of having apparent but ineffectual security to mislead the travelling public, why don’t they ensure their aircraft are guarded whenever on the ground by their personnel? Why pass on the cost to us? It’s just yet another example where regulation is misused to provide an opaque subsidy to corporate interests. I suppose to be expected given the corporate voice to parliament.

Big topic drift, but lots of metals burn, not just Mg… just need the right conditions. I ignited a solid fuel rocket (with a parachute flare) for the King of Tonga in Nuku Alofa harbour in 1985 by lighting steel wool (mostly Fe) with a 12V car battery. The steel wool was packed under the solid propellant. The original potassium chromate igniter was too wet. I’ve also read that DC3 aluminium alloy wing spars didn’t last too long after an engine fire. That all said, there’s still a lot of advantage in an aluminium aircraft structure in terms of fire resistance vs composite. The only really big disadvantage of s metal structure is the heat conduction issue, particularly for fuel tanks; that can be important. I’ll certainly be relooking at everything firewall fwd in my J200 for sustaining a fire, and reviewing procedures, including immediate shutting down of engine (no fuel, no rotation) to stop supplying fuel or oil to any fire; no ‘nearest airstrip’ diversion, just land asap.

Aluminium better for sure, but it burns too. Ask the British navy about that.

Danny, I dunno too. There was also that Jab at Wagga a few years back that landed with a fire, & then completely burned and both occupants escaped unharmed. And I feel the Jab might perhaps provide 30 seconds to a minute more than my all wood (mostly large matchsticks) Corby, or my fabric covered steel Cygnet. It would be good to have some analysis of what data there is. I also know of a guy (& his wife) that were left standing in just their swimmers when their 11m sailing catamaran caught alight. They parked it on a sand bar in the Gulf of Carpentaria as you do. While doing a little bit of fiddling the commutator spark from a 12v fan to keep them cool in the cabin while waiting for the tide to come back in, ignited some acetone vapour used to clean a paint brush. Despite having fire extinguishers and sea water and two fit and active ppl to hold the hose/toss the bucket, the whole thing burnt down in minutes.

Three points. First, from my boating, the explosive combustion mixture range for petrol is extreme; not so for diesel/kerosene. Second, from my repair of a Jab flap where I wanted to determine what the fibreglass reinforcement was in the layup, I burnt some small damaged segments. It pretty much caught alight like a candle; the epoxy melting and wicking along the fibreglass fibres…self sustaining very very quickly, not as quick as Stits doped fabric for sure, but fricking quick, and much harder to blow out than a candle. Three, how much combustible plastic firewall fwd eg. airbox, starter motor cable insulation, plastic relay housing, coolant overflow bottle. Don Kendall always said the main decision for an on flight fire is whether to jump out to have a short, certain, sudden death vs the alternative.

He only recently had the Gen1 3300 in his J160 replaced with a Gen4 by Jabiru at Bundaberg (3 months ago). He was selling his old Gen1 3300 which has 860 hours on it. So unlikely to be lacking experience or being current. Moderator edit: Comment posted 3 times. Extra copies deleted.

Glen, if it had a glass panel there maybe data on a chip ( that’sa very big maybe though). I know ATSB has some skills at trying to recover data from chips burned and smashed because my brother did a course on this prior to retirement. He was amazed at what could be recovered. Still there focus was on heavies and it’s most likely they won’t consider it worthwhile for a GA non-commercial flight.

There were lenticular clouds over Mt Palerang ( 15nm south) earlier in the morning. My view is that there were two different air masses: lower down light winds from the WNW, unstable and moist; higher up (over 6000’) winds from the SSW and stronger. On my EFIS OAT at 5000’asl was 2C at 11 am. I’m told that turbo prop commuter services between Canberra and Sydney were stopped because of the severe turbulence.

Yep. If it was an engine failure at 9500’ he would have easily glided to Dick Smiths place or to Currendooly or the other side of Lake George, or the quarter horse race track at Collector, or the hwy But the ADSB data shows the plane went down from 9400’ baro. Glen, the track prior to the problem seems to indicate the AP was not engaged as the track meandered quite a bit…. Maybe it was not a GPS track AP but was on a heading. He lost some altitude just prior to the crash, then regained it, then terminal. My first thought was catastrophic structural failure, then perhaps a w&b issue (wife in back with one of the kids…& then unrecoverable stall & spin), but I agree with Glen that it could be flight into IMC and then a spin. Seemed a very quick loss of 6500’. Bad, the whole thing.

I know that area pretty well. Ground is around 3000’asl; Canberra control lower level 3500. So if you are VFR there’s not a lot of room and not many paddocks, but the new and old Federal Hwys would be suitable. I flew today on the other side of Lake George a couple of hours earlier: cloud base was at 4200’ (11 am) and rising with 6/8 coverage with cloud tops at 5500. Quite unstable air. Wind on ground was less than 10kt westerly.

Sounds good. Having radiators in series like you describe means you need twice the pressure differential (entry minus exit pressures) for them to work which would be hard to do, particularly at low airspeeds. A friend’s Tecnam has the oil and head cooling radiators facing the airstream (like my J200) which gives you plain ram air pressure at the entry and engine cowl pressure behind on both radiators. Lots of air leaks, and with two small cheek vents and a small exit, it’s not surprising he has high OT two up in the summer. Its 24 registered so no playing with it.

That’s good. There are some articles on this in either Kitplanes or EAA (RV focused). Seems the critical thing is not having the inlet too big, having a smooth transition as the inlet expands so the airflow stays attached, & having a big expansion chamber. The Jab standard cooling plenums apparently fails on all three. It’s also a factor for the cooling air exit; but there it is a matter of accelerating the now slow warm air up to your airspeed. Theoretically you can gain thrust with an exhaust augmentor, but I think the practical goal is to reduce drag by providing for the exit air to accelerate (as opposed to putting in a large ramp/skirt angled down fwd of the air exit). Some racers put streamlining on their bottom engine mount tubes and ensure all fuel/oil tubing is neatly tucked away so as not to disturb the exit air smooth flow departure. We are talking about a 100-200kias aircraft aren’t we? Another point to keep in mind is that even though ‘the radiator is the only exit for the air’, it will only work IF there is a pressure difference. If the air pressure behind the radiator is close to ram pressure because you have two large cheek inlets filling the engine cowl with air at ram pressure, then it’s doomed to failure. When I did the LCH conversion on the J200 I had to reinstall the jab fibreglass cooling plenums, because without these the pressure behind the radiator was too high (as well it left the cylinders not well cooled). When I find a round tooit that I’ve lost I’m gunna halve the cheek inlets’ aperture and construct lighter cooling plenums from those cheek inlets directed to cooling the barrels. I might also then halve the exit air outlets & chop 15cm off the exhaust so the exhaust can help accelerate & extract cooling air.

Skip, maybe some semantics. Stay away from ‘mat’, like ‘chopped strand’ mat unless you are building an anchor. You want cloth fabric with warp and weft around 200gsm or less. For larger surfaces go the woven rovings but I’d say 600gsm is way too much. Your goal is that fully wetted fibreglass/ carbon/Kevlar with epoxy has less than 50% epoxy resin. If you want more stiffness in the layup do one or all the following: increase compound curve, introduce a layer of foam, even 2mm between two layers of cloth glass (Jab do this on their cowls) & epoxy, or use carbon cloth or lay on some ‘stringers’ (strips of poly rope with a layer of cloth on the bias laid over it). My LCH J200 has a Gen3 Jab3300 in it. ‘Pressure recovery chamber’ is where you have an expansion chamber after the air inlet to reduce the kinetic velocity of the ram air which is converted to pressure as per Bernouli to increase the air pressure differential across the radiator (which is the beginning and end of liquid cooling). The RV racing guys are the full bottle on this for their engine cooling plenums. It allows you to reduce cooling drag to a significant extent if you are going fast. A simple scoop (or a radiator facing plain ram air like mine) is like a dragging a flat plate through the air like a parachute.

Try some vinyl hose ( say 10mn od), cut a longitudinal slit in it and fit over edge, hold it down how you want the radius to be like with fine safety wire or hot glue…. Coat in pva release agent. Another method is to supa-glue light braided polyethylene ‘rope’ to the edge and just wrap the fibreglass around it, leaving the ‘rope’ in the layup. Remember also that in laying woven fibreglass cloth, it will go around small radii if you lay it ‘on the bias’, ie the warp and weft go +45 and -45 degrees to the edge. It’s a real bugger if you have any fibres aligned 90 degrees to the edge. A ‘scoop’ is going to be draggy & inefficient. Why not have a pressure recovery chamber? Is space an issue? Not that I’m fussed about this as my LCH J200 has the radiator full frontal between the prop and oil cooler inlet. Mark