SDQDI

Exciting is not the wordid use. I’m with Kyle

Yeah if that was legit and not faked that is way to close, bit like that video of the glider being winched up with a small fixed wing passing under him very very close to the cable

 

 

By would you be wanting to check this by correspondence, and on a forum at that? What happened to the Instructor who trained you? Or was there one?

Why would anyone ask anything on a forum!

The main reason is IMHO if you go to the source and get the proper info the conversation is over in a matter of minutes whereas on a forum we can have a variety of facts and drag it out for much longer and we all enjoy interaction so that is obviously the way to do it! (Not meaning this thread in particular but speaking generally)

 

 

That 3 knots above stall was for short field so not something to do all the time. Also that was with 2 stages of flap so probably still works out to 1.3 times stall speed.

 

I don't know much about the foxbat but I do find the 99 knots rough air speed to sound a bit high?

 

 

Well technically you can run out of fuel without taking off..................

 

But as for fly straight on takeoff and landing, I think that no matter how careful you fly there will always be a potential for having to turn even a little at low level.

 

 

.....or avoids doing a little low level flying.....

So never take off? You can avoid the low level flight after takeoff by not taking off but once you have taken off and got up to altitude you WILL be forced to do some more low level flight eventually.

Just saying don't fly low is simplistic and totally misses the point.

 

 

Nev: I agree entirely, that LL expertise had almost everything to do with this situation. But: RAA can hardly be linked with training/bfr for a Beaver pilot, surely?

Well the RAA specifics probably don’t have anything to do with but at the same time they might have everything to do with it.

The dangers of LL have similar results for a RAA or ga pilot and if (obviously I don’t know about this particular crash so am speaking generally) it is something that can kill experienced pilots then I think us recreational pilots should be even more aware of it. If talking about it causes one more person to do a little low level instructed flying then I am all for talking about it in every thread.

 

 

Very well written.

 

We all can understand how our body can trick us when in imc but it never ceases to amaze me just how much our eyes can trick us in those low level situations. It is well worth doing some low level training, bit of a broken record but it is true.

 

 

Cliff was living at Wedderburn some years ago as was Steve Cohen. Perhaps someone from the forum also resides there.

He has moved up to near YQDI but has been overseas with a sick relative for a while now.

 

 

Turning downwind definitely decreases airspeed just as turning into the wind increases airspeed, but only to the degree that the wind speed increases. If wind was gusting, then that could happen, or if a geographical feature altered the wind, then that would happen. It is a form of windshear, or at least acts like windshear.

I disagree with your first sentence here. Your second sentence is more on the money, yes if the wind is gusting ect that can and will change your airspeed BUT doing a nice balanced turn in a stable wind won’t have a different result going upwind or downwind. The only difference is in your ground speed.

 

A 30 degree bank (balanced turn) increases stall speed by 7%, because of the increased wing loading. (The wing has to accelerate the aircraft around the turn, as well as keep it off the ground.) So, the poster was saying, that if an aircraft turns downwind, there are two factors that combine to increase the stall speed that are both acting together, and that increases the probability of stalling. A 30 degree bank is just a rule of thumb.

Flying downwind in no way whatsoever affects your stall speed, bank angle does increase stall speed but exceeding 30degrees doesn’t magically induce a stall.

 

 

Me thinks you are a casualty of propaganda, or fanatical conservatism, or just jealous. What's stopping Australia from producing advanced aircraft of this ilk............??????

Sorry for the funny Skippy. I guess it was my pessimistic side laughing at the thought of anything being manufactured here.

 

 

The prevailing at the time of the incident at Gosford was moderate NE. So turning left would immediately reduce airspeed.

Is that really how it works? Maybe I need to refresh my understanding of physics but I would have thought if a plane is flying balanced and turned downwind it would NOT change airspeed any more than turning upwind.

 

Doing a plus 30 degree turn at MAUW will induce a stall has happened many times

Unless this comment relates to specifics of this particular plane i have trouble understanding it. I am guessing you mean 30degrees angle of bank rather than just turning 30 degrees left or right, but I don't understand how passing the 30 degree mark somehow induces a stall? Again assuming a balanced turn I would say it would increase your stall speed but to say that would induce a stall i find a bit simplistic.

 

 

If you think electric aircraft for the masses are far off just Google "Electric Aircraft". You will get around 4.9 million results. Airbus will be testing its VTOL unmanned electric aircraft this year and manned next year. It is designed to be pilotless but will have a pilot & 4 passengers until regulations allow.

Getting google results in no way indicates a sure thing.

The tech for electric planes for the masses is already there, the tech for multi rotor electric aircraft is also already there BUT I don’t see it becoming overly affordable in the near future.

 

As for new battery tech, even if a miracle battery was invented tomorrow it would be at least a decade before it became cheap enough to be competitive.

 

That is without talking about certifying/certificating and any nescesary regulations (mainly thinking about fairly automated multi rotors)

 

 

How does a yank, with no brains, take credit for something that is nothing to do with him, oh well, as they say, only in america...lol. This is Australia, we do better...lol

Have you listened to any of our pollies lately? (Like in the last decade or ten!)

They are always taking credit for their predecessors good outcomes and always blaming their predecessors for things that are going wrong. It is so childish that it is depressing.

 

 

I've written a few hundred Annual Reports, so I'm disqualifying myself as having a conflict of interest, but perhaps you would be good enough to explain how falling assets can be a good thing for members, and running deficits isn't going to take the organisation out, and how we can actually now see the profit/lost result of the Magazine, compared to the good old days, and so on.

Well firstly the falling assets. I would not expect the building/land to fall (for us on the farm the land is the only asset that does not fall in value) and that is curious that it is. I am not sure of the reason for that as I would doubt real estate would be falling in the ACT so could it be that it was over valued previously? Or is it a case of conservative accounting? (Which should be a good thing) or is it something untoward? (I doubt it as what benefit would there be in that?) I don't know enough about it though to say either way. Obviously the assets like computers and equipment are going to fall in value and that is something every good business owner would expect. So is falling asset prices good? Obviously it would be better if they didn't but in the real world assets other than land/water generally fall so it may not be good but it is reality. (I forgot about the cash savings which obviously should grow except when using them in a deficit year, I am far from an accountant!)

 

As for the deficits that is similar to robinsm's post

 

I could never understand how a business/body could run at a loss or deficits as a normal thing and consider themselves to be successful. If you or I did this then we would go out the back door very quickly...just sayin

I agree that deficits as a "normal" thing is not sustainable BUT I don't think deficits are always a bad thing if done for good reasons over a reasonable timeframe.

 

For example our farm last year had a large loss which was the first loss that we have had for many years but the improvements made have set us up to do much better in the future.

 

Now as we know with RAA they have updated the system so that we can do a lot more online and so that in the long run we can run a lot more efficiently. Now we can all argue how this could have been done better or cheaper but only a fool would say it didn't need doing. This has put a huge dint in our profit loss sheets but I would certainly expect that in this financial year or the next those setup costs will be gone which will go a long way to helping the long term viability.

 

I am even less knowledgable on the magazine so I had better leave that for someone who knows more about it.

 

In summary I would expect the RAA to be breaking even this or next financial year and then I would be expecting to see only black ink and would have questions to ask if that didn't eventuate.

 

 

Steep mountainside or not that is still an unbelievable outcome.

 

It is hard to see too much detail in the pictures but I can’t really see a long impact area down the hillside which you would think would be needed to slow the fall slowly enough.

 

 

So why have the deficit been constant for the last 3 years then if costs are dropping ,,as I see it costs are increasing for travel and such , but the big thorn that all the raa lovers have used as an excuse for increasing costs [ the magazine ] has actually dropped and administration is now the biggest bleed of funds??????And just on the subject of natfly,,,,do you know how much that monstrosity of a fence has cost RAA for the full 5 days of hire and erection and disassembly???bit more than a small amount I would think.

Bull I think if you have a full read of the financial report that a lot of your questions would be answered, pay special attention to the explanatory notes that are throughout it as they do explain a lot of the why’s.

 

 

Reading a financial report is a little more than looking at the profit loss page.

 

It is an interesting report with a lot of explanatory notes which are worth reading. Imo it is a well set out report and again imo seems to be a lot easier to access now than in the "good old days"

 

 

The news article mentions catastrophic wing failure...Question - How many here fly gliders too?

Well that is a fairly harsh "I told you so" nobody. I don't mean any criticism to you nobody but it does come across a tad harsh.

 

 

Paint job looks the same but that could be a coincidence.

 

Having said that surviving a wing fold is amazing. (Was trying to think of something else to say but amazing just about covers it)

 

 

On quite a different note, I notice that KP has taken a holiday and chosen not to respond to my post #152.Hopefully, KP is having a well-earned respite from his travails against the RAA - and long may you prosper, KP.

 

But when you return, I still want an answer.

Now where is the optimistic like:wink:

 

 

Aparrently it is because of some social media posts by recreational pilots saying they are going to boycott asic, they are increasing policing.

 

This post is not to be taken seriously, anyone taking this post seriously doesn't know me very well. To put it plainly this post is a joke! (Well it is meant to be one, take it as you may)

 

 

You're on the right track, Col. The more of our roof we cover up, the better insulated our homes. If that roof covering pumps power into the grid, all the better!

We are hoping to do some house extensions in the next year or two and I have been seriously considering taking our home off the grid altogether.

It is costing us over 2000$ a quarter now with 600 odd dollars just going to gaurentee of supply. I looked into going solar and connect it to the grid but a few things are pushing me away from that.

 

Firstly our planned extension will be directly underneath the power line that supplies our house so I will have to have that removed, I had planned on putting it underground but the cost of that goes a long way to setting up the solar.

 

Secondly, I discovered the tesla powerwall, a battery setup which has a 10year warranty. 10 years of paying over 2000 a quarter is over 80000$ Which more than pays for itself.

 

Thirdly if setup correctly you don't have the power outage problems that are grid related.

 

 

A minimal thin tech approach would probably have CASA grounding us all these days......... déjà vu?

 

 

Costs have gone up because of ever increasing demand for MORE,,from the exGA mob,,,,more weight / more access/fancy new public face for the big wigs etc

So nothing else has affected the cost rise?

You are dreaming if you believe that Bull. Convenient though it may be I still think it isn't that simple.

 

 

Well surely we can’t blame any material cost rise as being an RAA thing?

 

Just what exact cost is it that has made it so hard?

 

Membership and registration costs are very reasonable imo (have you noticed how much more expensive it is to register a car now than it was in the auf heyday?)

 

If it is just registration have you considered lobbying for a cheaper rego for home built? I think I recall the RAA sending out an email a year or so ago discussing that but could be mistaken.

 

Costs have gone up across the board in nearly every avenue of life, it would be foolish of us to think that flying could be immune from that.