Jump to content

Mriya

Members
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Mriya

  1. Spot on JJ. Many people are unaware that they are obliged to perform all maintenance per the manufacturers schedule. I've seen aircraft with no logbook entries for 3-4 years and people saying that it was all ok because the aircraft is registered by RAAus, not CASA. All that had happened was a few undocumented oil changes. I sympathise with Mike's thoughts re unnecessary invasive maintenance, however a good example of applying this is already possible using 'on condition' provisions for running engines past their TBO hrs or calendar time. This is done quite successfully when appropriate monitoring of compressions and metal in the oil is carried out. However the manufacturer's schedule is designed to detect items before they actually break. There is no getting away from the need to inspect for developing issues, and unfortunately this sometimes requires disassembly for access. The key to conducting this safely is to be methodical and work within your capabilities in order to prevent errors during reassembly of said items.
  2. Regarding the Sale incident, the report I heard is no-one hurt, so that is the main thing. Aircraft can be fixed. Not much more to say...
  3. I have no problems with your policy here. SOAP's are an extra diagnostic check and if not required as part of a manufacturers schedule, I see them as an optional extra, however as mentioned, once an engine is 'on condition' you have by default moved outside of the manufacturers recommended schedule (at least for the engines we are talking about here). I therefore see SOAP checks as a wise precaution to help detect trends in an engine that is now operating beyond the manufacturers schedule.
  4. As a maintainer I recommend them, but as highlighted already they provide most benefit in allowing identification of trends over the longer term. If an engine is running 'on condition' I will automatically do SOAP test. Some older aircraft only have oil strainers, so with no cartridge filter to cut open, regular oil analysis is another tool to monitor the health of your engine. Not a bad record to be able to show to a prospective buyer when the time comes to sell. They will have extra confidence that the engine internals are healthy if you can show them these results. The cost is 'chicken-feed' compared with the investment in your engine. Well worth the investment IMHO.
  5. Good evening. Great to see you on this forum. Regards, Justin
  6. To answer the basic question. Aviation hardware standards were established a while back now and have USA military origins (AN = Army Navy, MS =Military Std, etc). Civil Aviation in the USA adopted these standards and seeing as the US have been such a large player in aviation, these standards became common worldwide. Of course some British aircraft from yesteryear use Whitworth hardware and with the rise of European LSA's we now see much more metric hardware in use too, however the AN, MS, NAS standards are so well established and proven it is hard to see a need to discard them.
  7. I second the comments regarding decision making with a go around. I will of course always remember my first solo, however it felt really good on the day when I decided to do my first command go around. The satisfaction of knowing a good decision had been made in the pressure of the moment on short final when things had stopped going to plan. Reflecting after and knowing that I had done the right thing despite 'sacrificing' my 100% command landing record till that point was almost a relief. In hindsight it seems like a silly % to brag about. Thinking logically, it is much better to have a 100% safe 'landing without breaking the plane' rate than to maintain a 100% 'landing from each approach' rate. Well done...
  8. I can't quite believe I am reading this thread. I think anyone who has been on this forum for a while recognises the significant contribution that Ian has made to the Australian recreational aviation community. I'd hate to think how many hrs and $$$ have been poured into this effort and I for one am willing to say good on you Ian for all you do even though I have not met you in person. It is an unfortunate fact that it is impossible to please everybody. If it is any consolation though, this thread caused me to go to the Clear Prop Shop and browse around to become more familiar with the range of products you offer. When purchasing products either personally or for my maintenance workshop I will now try to keep in mind your product range and will now try and consider you a 'preferred supplier' if I am faced with a choice of suppliers for a particular product. I hope that anyone who appreciates this forum will try and do the same, thus supporting both Ian and this website.
  9. You could try Alexander Hopkins &Co (formerly Christopher Leech) This company has had a long association with airline employees (Pilots and Engineers) and runs an office in Mascot & Sutherland. I have been happy with their results both for many years as a LAME with QF and for the last 7 years involved in General Aviation. They can advise on circumstances where flight training and proficiency/renewal costs can be claimed either as a work expense or as part of your continuing professional development. As a creature of habit (and happy customer), I continue to use them each year for my tax return despite now living in Victoria.
  10. It would seem that this is an appropriate time to sign out of the conversation given the last few posts. It was never my aim to engage in pointless conversation, although I recognise that discussions about religion (and politics) will never result in everyone agreeing with one another, and of course some may find it boring or irrelevant, but no one is forcing you to read a particular thread. I thank everyone for more or less remaining cordial in this discussion, and appreciate those who haven't 'written me off' despite some obvious differences in our respective worldviews. You can be assured that in debates such as these, questions that people raise result in me going back to various sources and re-evaluating the evidence to ensure that does not conflict with my worldview. As you have seen, I do not blindly defend the church and know that much evil has flowed out of corrupt people and systems that have at times flourished within her walls. Despite this human corruption, I do still believe that the fundamental christian message is one that can radically change lives and provides a hope and meaning to life. It is just a pity that so many people manage to corrupt the message so completely that insttead of it being a compelling and attractive possibility, in the minds of many it ends up stinking! From this discussion I now have some homework. As I said at the start I am but an amateur regarding some of these matters and so your links and thoughts will certainly be considered. To that end I do consider that I take a logical approach, despite what some may think. In the meantime, on some matters we will probably have to agree to disagree. Thanks one and all, Justin
  11. Sadly, I agree with you on almost everything you just posted. It is my belief that in large part the Catholic Church has lost its way and often teach a form of Christianity that is legalistic and hard to reconcile with the bible. I do not doubt that there are some Catholics who understand the type of Christianity that I speak of, however, sadly the experience you speak of is all too common and this denomination has successfully turned a whole generation off anything to do with Christianity through the way they chose to conduct themselves. I subsequently have very little respect for this organisation as do many others, such as yourself. In contrast to the Catholic churches defence of their real estate assets in light of the widespread institutional abuse of children (including religious and non-religious groups), I would point out an example of how some other churches have tried to approach the problem. The Anglican Church in Tasmania decided that it should sell it's bishops grand residence to help pay proper compensation to victims that suffered under their care. They considered it immoral to seek to protect a significant asset and avoid proper compensation. This appears very different from the approach taken by the Catholic church. The only point that I would question in your post regards your concerns about tax treatment of churches. My understanding is that as a not-for-profit community organisation any church is entitled to tax relief. Further to this many sporting clubs and community organisations rightly gain a range of concessions including access to sports fields provided by local councils, which allow them to function without undue burden to their members. It should also be remembered that Christian groups generally are 'punching way beyond their weight' in regards to providing social support and services to the wider community. This generosity is funded in large part straight out of the donations of members who are committed to social justice and support for anyone who is marjonalised in their community. This generosity and action results in lower demand on government welfare and support and so I see no net benefit to the tax-payer in governments shutting down tax concessions to religious organisations, when the end result will be less resources available for social welfare and support activities that rely on this income.
  12. I was nearly going to give you a 'like' as I agreed with aspects of your post. In my opinion you are 100% correct in noting that all religions CAN'T be right. Whether Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, or any other worldview you care to be, it is likely that you will believe that you are right and the others are wrong. First question is whether you believe that a deity exists at all - that groups togther the atheists. If you think a deity does exist you then need to examine the various competing claims that the various faiths have to know God (or the gods). The big distinction I see that sets the Christian faith apart from others is that it is not about keeping rules to earn God's favour or reward. The Christian faith centres on what Jesus has done for us, not on what we do to please Him. In contrast other religions (and Christian sects such as Mormons & JW's) are about earning favour with God through good deeds (which for some religions such as Muslims can include rather dubious practices such as killing the infidels that surround them). Personally, I see enough evidence in the historical Jesus, documented eyewitness accounts, predicted events and outcomes in Jewish history that pointed to Jesuscoming, the intricate design that it embedded into every aspect of the world in which we live and the accurate assessment of human nature and corruption including rejection of God resulting in a broken and divided world. I imagine many others will look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions. That is the right of us all, and one would hope that just because we hold to different worldviews, doesn't mean we can't respect one another. World history (and current events in Iraq & Syria) warn us of what can happen when any one worldview decides that they have a right to kill people who don't agree with them. This is never the right response and if anyone claims that such actions are sanctioned through their Christian faith then I would question their true standing and motives. They are certainly not aligned with Christian princples.
  13. George Carlin obviously knows nothing about what being a Christian is. It has nothing to do with living a life 'good' enough to please God or keeping commandments but rather speaks of a God who has made it possible for imperfect people to come to him because of Jesus. However the abuse of power for selfish motives is a blight on aspects of the church and these abuses rightly make people skeptical of religion generally. Money is obviously needed in order to keep any group functioning, which is why you will be pursuaded to contribute to any group you belong to from RAAus to your sporting or interest group. One thing that I like about churches that I have been in relates to their desire to uncouple from this stigma that the community has about religion. In one church I was a part of, they deliberately had no offering, but simply have a donation box at the back where members can contribute to costs without any compulsion or pressure. In my current church, although an offering is collected a point is regularly made that there is no obligation to give and in particular visitors are told to simply 'pass the plate' on. People are not getting rich in the circles I move in. I have no doubt that some people abuse the power and get rich, through corrupt religious activity, much like people can do in politics, sports, or any other organisation where money changes hands. This corrupt activity does not mean that the core activity is wrong, but rather serves as a warning of what our human nature is capable of if we have the opportunity and don't think we will get caught.
  14. I did already say that, just as the odds of life beginning spontaneously defy explanation, Neither can the existance of God be scientifically described. However, I (and other christians) would argue that God is not 'unknown' as you describe. Christians claim that God has revealed a great deal about himself through Jesus & the bible. The evidence contained within these sources has convinced many people that God can be very much known and trusted. Obviously not everyone is convinced though. Once again as I said in another post just before, too much drift from the original topic already to open up another front here, but if anyone cares to know more pm or start a new thread on the topic and I'll be happy to participate.
  15. You raise a real question that has been the subject of much theological debate (and of cause much hurt and pain in our world). This thread has probably drifted off topic way too far already for me to open up a new discussion front here. If you are simply making a statement, then it is probably not fair for me to launch into a theological discussion on suffering now, but as you would expect, there is a great amount of material that tries to make sense of this tough issue. If you did want to discuss publically or privately, then maybe a new thread devoted to this or pm would be appropriate.
  16. Having beliefs without evidence is not logical. Some would call it blind faith. Blind faith will likely end in despair and uncertainty. Each of us automatically filters evidence according to our worldview. As is evidenced on this thread a number of people reject any notion of God. Subsequently any evidence that they see will be filtered by this worldview. They will see complexity of life and interpret it as an amazing display of nature at work. A christian might observe the same evidence and due to their worldview interpret it as an amazing display of God at work. I'm guessing other religions will attribute the same thing and attribute it to their deity of choice. It is obvious to me logically that each of these observations can't be simultaneously correct as they are mutually exclusive. I can no more prove God to an atheist, than an atheist can disprove God to me. The concept of God by very definition sits outside of scientific bounds, as does all spiritual belief. I presume that atheists deny that a spiritual realm exists, however the experience of the majority of the world population suggests that a spiritual realm does exist. For some they will be able to describe the evidence that pursuaded them, while for others it may be just blind faith. I am not the type of person who likes to operate from blind faith and therefore require evidence. At the end of the day each of us needs to be comfortable with the choice we make. It seems obvious to me that when we get to the end of our lives it will become obvious who was right, but until then we will all need to get on with those around us, recognising that a range of beliefs exist.
  17. Here is a youtube link which includes Dawkins describe a possible 'multiverse' universe solution. I came across this some time ago when trying to research info regarding the cosmological constant and the problem that the required fine tuning of this number in order for our universe to work. I am not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of other claims in the video, and to be honest aspects of it make me cringe. The presentation is done a very tacky and embarresing way, however the video section of Dawkins is some of what I was referring to. It is also fair to acknowledge I had an incomplete memory of the specific content and have incorrectly attributed Dawkins multiverse theory to the small chance of evolution occurring, when in fact he wss referring to the problem of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant that is needed for our universe to function. It was some time ago when I saw the video and it was even a challenge to find it again. Sorry again for the cringeworthy video, I post it only to answer the query regarding what Dawkins suggests regarding what I understand he is describing as many parallel universes to make the odds of a feasible universe believable, and simply do not know enough about the cosmological constant to verify how much of a problem it presents to physists.
  18. Thanks 2T for the response. You give this amateur some homework and as I mull over your points (and those of Octave) it may take a little time for a considered response to the points raised. On the issue of natural selection though, the distinction come via the fact that the genetic variation already existed in the base population. No new code is added, but rather particular aspects of existing code provide a natural advantage to individuals in the population. Natural selection is a process which occurs and is acknowledged by all, however it does not prove evolution as the required shift from one species to another has not occurred. My understanding of natural selection can be seen in human skin colour. Before the age of transport and mass migration that we are in people groups remained isolated from one another by and large. In some areas of the world dark skin colour provides natural advantage, while in other areas this was not so. A divergence occurred, however the fundamental genetics that classes us all as human remain. Interbreeding (for want of a better term) is fully viable and ultimately the genetic code for dark skin vs white skin was not created through the process, but rather became common through the natural advantage they gave the individual. Natural selection is often touted as evidence for evolution, however it does not demonstrate an ability for the change in genetic code required to shift from one species to another. Regards, Justin
  19. Care to elaborate? With your studies, you will obviously be very familiar with the complexity of DNA/RNA that I speak of. You will also be aware of the atrophy of this chemical coding over time which is in opposition to direction required for natural evolution (though not a problem for theistic evolution). You would also be well aware of the difference between natural selection within a species, vs macro evolution resulting in a change from one species to another. You would also understand the gaps in the fossil record where a lack of transitory fossils exists. Finally, you would be aware of the negative impact of observed mutations, which result in more disorder and harm. I can't claim any PhD's and am but an average Joe who looks around at this world and marvels at the complexity in every direction. Whether it is marvelling at how some ingenious soul designed the GPS system, or how incredibly complex the chemical programming and communications are within a single living cell I will never cease to be amazed. Some people may be able to discount all this as able to occur via a natural evolutionary process, but I find this doubtful in the extreme. I understand that if one is to remain an atheist, they have little option but to hold to naturalistic evolution (I haven't heard of any other theories that don't involve a deity). Please elaborate on where this amateur is so badly askew in their thinking...
  20. Dawkins himself is on record acknowledging that the odds are not in his favour, resulting in him voicing the need for what I understand to be a theory of many parallel universes. One universe and given timescale would simply not have the required odds for our world to evolve as we know it. Dawkins, as an atheist however has completely ruled out any explanations involving God. It is actually quite sad to hear him utterly discount God in one breath, then propose in all seriousness the possibility of aliens seeding life on our planet. This is all in an effort to explain the otherwise doubtful odds of life starting spontaneously. Our world and life is obviously here though, and one possibility for explaining that is involvement of a deity. Naturally an athiest will reject this option. Theists however can keep this option open. This results in a diversity of opinion (at least in christian circles with which I am familiar). Some christians will hold to belief in short-earth creation and believe that significant geological evidence exists for a catastrophic flood event. Others hold a 'theistic-evolution' position and believe that God acted as an intelligent designer, adding to the genetic diversity over a long timeframe. I have deliberately withheld my hand and not revealed which of these two groups I belong to. Ultimately each person needs to be comfortable with the position they hold. A range of options exists and each of them will have consequences on how we live now. Some of these choices are: -Atheism - Believe that no god exists and natural processes only, brought about life. -Theistic Evolutionist - Believe God brought about evolutionary changes. -Creationist - Believe God worked in a supernatural way to create life. -Buddhist- Life is a repeating cycle, come back as a higher/lower form based on this life. -Agnostic - Sit on the fence and wait for convincing evidence one way or other. And on the list goes... Although atheists often accuse christians of not being able to follow a scientific method, they too by nature of their worldview have ruled out any possibility of Theistic involvement in life. The experience of billions of people is that a spiritual dimension exists, yet an atheist closes their mind to the concept, refusing to consider that a realm my exist beyond what they can touch or measure physically. An Atheist is ultimately just as bound by their worldview as a Christian or someone from another religion. Further to this a Christian can still recognise and study the amazing complexity of the world that surrounds us and be just a scientific in their approach to studying the world and our interactions with it. Everyone ultimately brings their worldview and compares it with the evidence. You are entitled to believe in the improbable spontaneous start of life through natural processes if you wish, however for me, I am very comfortable with recognising the creative handiwork and complexity was influenced and initiated by God (as improbable as you think his existence is).
  21. You are confusing natural selection with macro-evolution! Natural selection within a species is an observable process where individuals within the species adapt to their local environment based on variation in genetics. Darwin observed and documented this during his famous trip to the Galapagos Islands. Individuals within a species had adapted to the individual circumstances. Birds from the same species had shorter or longer beaks depending upon the local food source. However this didn't mean they were no longer from the same species. Natural selection within a species is a process understood and accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike. Natural selection is also known as micro-evolution, however this process is driven largely by the natural genetic variation that already exists within a species, not by genetic mutation as you suggest. Macro-evolution is theory which has never been scientifically observed in action. I know this is a big claim, but if you think I am wrong show me one observed and scientifically documented example of one species actually mutating into another species. It has never been seen and proven, therefore ultimately remains a theory. For that matter, creationism has not been scientifically seen or documented either, so it too is a theory. All we can do is look at the observable world and consider the possibilities. Speaking of mutations (which are to my understanding an essential aspect of evolution), we are very aware of the effect of mutations as they are pretty much universally equated with a corruption in the genetic programming of previously healthy DNA. Cancer is an example of this. As a species, dispite our all too common experience of genetic mutation, I have never heard someone speak of a 'good' mutation that added genetic complexity and value. Yet the very premise of evolution is that these 'good' mutations are required. Simple scientific observation that is possible within the time constraints of our lifetime paint a picture of a world in genetic decay, not advance. Our fossil record is rich in examples of the many species that have roamed on Earth, including many variations brought about by natural selection, yet a simple google search reveals that even in 2015 people keep referring to new finds as a possible 'missing-link'. For people to keep using this term implies that it remains just that. Despite a very complete record of the individual species a fossil record of the millions of required transitions remains missing... In the world that surrounds us we see progress brought about when intelligent design is applied to a problem. Aviation is a classic example of this. I have spent several years now expanding my knowledge from my mechanical background and training, to now include avionics. There are some seriously clever people designing and building the avonics that we now take for granted in our machines, however this advance is the direct result of intelligent design. It certainly didn't happen by a random process in the Dynon design office. The theory of intelligent design in relation to the origin of the universe uses a similar approach. It looks at the complexity of design and order needed for even the simplest lifeforms to exist. It observes the natural decay of systems when intelligent design and input is witheld and concludes that an intelligent designer played a part in the establishment and sustaining of our universe. I trust that this helps answer your question regarding intelligent design. As I see it, a lot of 'faith' is needed to conclude that our world came about without the input of a designer. The complexity required within DNA is exponentially greater than a Skyview. It is ludicrous to suggest that a 'mutation' or accident saw this technology arise. I propose it is equally unlikely that our world and life spontaneously burst into being and developed in complexity without a designer. I am satisfied that sufficient evidence exists to believe in more than a sky-fairy. If others feel no evidence can be observed, that is most certainly their right, however atheists are a minority global group, with many people being convinced that a spiritual dimension does exist. Many different worldviews, however logically only one can ultimately be correct. In the meantime I guess we all need to find a way to respect diversity and as much as it is possible live at peace with one another.
  22. History is full of all types of people doing really bad stuff. In just one lifetime between Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot atheists decimated millions of people. Others like Hitler did likewise, claiming religious endorsement, yet finding themselves at odds with some very brave christians who opposed him and paid with their lives at the hands of nazi 'justice' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer Bottom line is that people will use all types of excuses to justify their actions, but ultimately it is their actions that reveal them as frauds. Yes, I claim to be a christian, however I reject many things that evil people have done in the name of christianity over two millenia. Their actions reveal them at best to be mistaken and at worst to be deliberately acting with evil intent. Jesus is quoted as teaching people to love their enemies. Crusades, massacres, oppression of the poor, religiously motivated executions all flow from a mindset that is decidedly antichristian. It is interesting to note that during the period of 'The Reformation' in Europe, one of the most dangerous professions was to be a bible-believing christian. People such as Luther, Tyndale and Wycliffe who had the gall to translate the bible into the local language of the people found themselves as 'enemies of the church'. I reject this corruption, which people are so prone to given when given religious or political power and opportunity. Many have abused religion, but many have managed to be just as evil while denying God altogether.
  23. If you are looking for 'flat-earth' creationists to tease you will be in for a long wait. There was a period in time when both science and religion believed in a flat earth, however the overwhelming evidence brought about change of both of these groups. Interestingly the bible actually has references to a round earth suspended in space! I am not about to defend 'flat-earthers' who used religion to further their own empires/purposes. History rightly judges them harshly for their actions and choices.
  24. I really admire your desire to find a way to make things work out, and I was in no way implying that you are immature. As an employer in the industry, the enthusiasm you display is one one the key qualities that I would look for in anyone i was considering hiring. My concern was that you could find yourself going the wrong way financially very quickly if something goes wrong. Trust me I know as a spur of the moment decision, made by an experienced LAME which seemed reasonable at the time during a maintenance check has left me with a repair bill in the order of $3000 and a 2-3 week delay in returning the aircraft. Incidents like this can strike suddenly, with little warning and I'd hate you to get caught out with an expensive repair bill when you were simply trying to earn a few $$$. One of the other suggestions that you offer to help out in someones hangar for experience is a great idea though. Firstly, you should then be covered by their hangarkeepers insurance if something goes wrong + you get training and mentoring along the way. What starts as sweeping/cleaning out a hangar could progress to full involvement in maintenance as you demonstrate commitment and aptitude. I wish you all the best as you start out. Aviation has much to offer young people, willing to work hard and give it their best shot.
  25. Robbo expressed my thoughts upon reading this post well. I hate dampening enthusiasm, but if done incorrectly, aircraft washing can do heaps of damage. I'd hate to see you owing someone lots of money, when the aim was to earn some. All too easy to even break off something like an antenna, which say it is a transponder, could easily cost a few hundred by the time it is replaced and a new AD/RAD/47 inspection is done to confirm ops. Scratch someone's windscreen and it could be $$$thousands to replace. Do your homework, I'd also think insurance is wise if you were offering commercial cleaning services.
×
×
  • Create New...