Jump to content

Nobody

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    720

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nobody

  1. Nobody
    Thats my point. The title of this thread is a gross over exaggeration of the situation.
  2. Nobody
    Except that the headline of the article isnt supported by the facts!!!!!! If the numbers in post 2 are right the number in 1980 was ~827,000. the current is ~617,000. Yes a reduction and worthy of discussion but not a half!!!!
  3. Nobody
    It is also possible that the media report is either wrong or missing information that explains the situation. Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions.....
  4. Nobody
    good move to know when you are better off on the ground. I do wonder though if the ABC is reporting things correctly. Overdue between Dalgete and Jindabyne, yet lands in Khancoban.. The flight path doesn't seem to stack up.
  5. Nobody
    looks great!!!! I can't wait to see more pictures....
  6. Nobody
    That is true but if I understand Dick Smith's plan correctly (not sure that I do) there would be more class E in areas that do not have class c above as it is in the USA. The other big difference between here and hte USA is that the size of the class c zones over there is much smaller making transits by VFR aircraft much easier.
  7. Nobody
    I dont want facts to get in the way of an argument but for fixed wing per hour flown the USA is slightly safer than OZ. Because the USA doesn't have the equivalent of RAAus you need to add these (taking into account the hours flown) from the Australian data to get a meaningful comparison. Australia https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/ar-2014-084.aspx USA http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/General-Aviation-Statistics/General-Aviation-Safety-Record-Current-and-Historic
  8. Nobody
    In the USA in Class E you dont need a transponder except in a few cases( above 10,000 feet, or in class e that is above or under clsss C )
  9. Nobody
    I suspect that Gary was exaggerating slightly when he says 75% but... Being legal doesn't mean that you are always safe under all circumstances. A good pilot will always need to exercise judgment to operate in a way that minimizes risks. You can be legal having not flown all that much in the previous 12 months but just completed a BFR. Safe to fly a few circuts in an aircraft that has been tried and tested, sure. A first flight. Perhaps not... Gary's caution about first flights in any aircraft is warranted, I can think of 2 fatal accidents on first flights in recent times.,the one in the Hunter recently and the one at Lismore a few years ago, the aircraft is untested and the pilot if the builder is extremely excited and nervous.
  10. Nobody
    You will need to do a FAA flight review before you can use your FAA license. It won't be too difficult if you are current in aircraft in Australia. The minimum is 1 hour of ground and 1 hour of flight and if you don't scare them straight off then the flying part won't be any longer. Have a read of the FAA practical test standards and read up on "ground reference maneuvers". They aren't in the Australian sysabus but form part of the flight test and likely part of a flight review. Expect a pretty detailed discussion of the airspace rules and how to read a vfr sectional for the ground part. It won't really be much more that what someone would want to do before renting you an aircraft anyway.
  11. Nobody
    I cant listen to the sound here at work but I wonder how much noise a jet engine still spinning but not producing thrust makes. It might sound quite loud.
  12. Nobody
    do you think if could be an engine out landing? That would explain the tight turn to final and the high rate of descent...
  13. Nobody
    ENR 1.7-2 paragraph 2.1.2 is pretty explicit.
  14. Nobody
    No that's not what I am saying. The transponder transmits the altitude assuming that the setting is 1013. The screen ATC see does the conversion. If it was based on what setting the pilot was using there would be errors all the time. What I am saying is that some transponders have a readout showing what altitude is being transmitted. To compare that to the altimeter in the aircraft you need to make sure that the altimeter is set to 1013.
  15. Nobody
    I guess thats one way to ensure that Queensland always win the State of Origin, noone else would have any people...
  16. Nobody
    Check (or get whoever does your maintenance to do so) that the transponder encoder is correctly connected to the aircraft static system. It could be that the encoder is using the pressure in the cockpit which is usually lower than the true static which would give a higher reading(first situation) and in thermally conditions would give a fluctuating reading as the gusts pass(your second situation). Some models of transponder allow you to see the altitude that the transponder is outputting. For example refer to page 7 of this. You could compare that to the altimeter reading but note that the transponder is transmitting the altitude with 1013 set as the pressure setting. You can either adjust the altimeter to 1013 to compare or use the approximation that each millibar is 30 feet to convert. I suspect that a number of violations of controlled airspace are due to transponder altitude problems and not true violations.
  17. Nobody
    Refer to the details here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=126217 The ditching was the result of a mid air collision during a formation airshow display.
  18. Nobody
    There is some good background reading on flight testing in this reference in canse you hadnt seen it: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2090-89A.pdf
  19. Nobody
    Please post the link to the article. Dick has been badly misquoted if that is the impression you got from it. Dick was arguing that if Australia wants to have Qantas as a national airline it can't be expected to compete with airlines with a Chinese cost base. We can't have it both ways where we enjoy cheap airfares but also want our pilots and maintenance engineers paid at Australian rates.
  20. Nobody
    This place is a forum for people who are interested in aviation to come together to share their passion. Many of the jokes told in the Aviation Laughter section are in poor taste. The jokes are likely to be a turn off for a large section of the community, limiting broader participation in recreational aviation. Would you let your daughter read this website? Given some of the jokes I probably wouldn't which is a sad reflection on what could be a great communication resource about aviation.
  21. Nobody
    They are pretty amazing aren't they!!!! But I suspect that the light wing loading(at 29kg/m2 about the same as a puchacz) is the reason for the ability to turn tight rather than the short wings. What I still don't understand is how reducing the span and keeping the wing loading the same by increasing the wing chord, as Gary says he is planning on doing, will result in an an increase in the performance of his motor glider in tight coastal thermals.....
  22. Nobody
    That seems counter intuitive. All the derivations for turn radius I have seen involve only speed and bank angle. To turn tighter, you have to fly slower and bank more. Now higher angles of bank an lower speeds, require higher angles of attack and higher lift coefficients which everything else being the same should favor a wing with a higher aspect ratio.
  23. Nobody
    The FAA produces some pretty good guidance material on these subjects. This first reference talks about 5 hazardous attitudes that a pilot may have. My concern with some of the incidient write up is that it tends to reinforce "it wont happen to me" attitude. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/phak%20-%20chapter%2017.pdf This second reference is also worth reading for its discussion on the attitudes that lead to errors. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management_handbook/media/rmh_ch02.pdf
  24. Nobody
    I think that the issue is that many accident write up focus on what happened not why it happened. This is works well when the reason for the incident is a mechanical issue. When a pilot issue is identified then the focus on what happened leaves the reader thinking "I would never make that mistake, I am better than that guy." Everyone has probably read a story of a case of VFR flight into inadvertent IMC. It is easy from the armchair to conclude that you wouldn't do it but people still do. They are not more reckless than others. Any write up of an incident involving poor pilot decision making needs to be read with the right mind set. The reader need to be constantly thinking at what point would I make a different decision.
  25. Nobody
    Great news!!!! It would be great to see some pictures. You must be the first glider pilot to wish for shorter wings!!!!:cheezy grin:Unless they are de-rigging. How will shorter wings work better in tight thermals? Less flex?
×
×
  • Create New...