Mike Borgelt

I had an hour in that sim at Tauranga about 10 years ago. It is loggable time. I had a young blonde female aero club instructor of 21 as the instructor. I had no trouble taking it off and landing it 4 times. Wouldn't even have stressed the aircraft and stopped on the runway each time. Hours help I guess as I had 2700 in gliders and about 600 power GA plus about 17 hours in MB326H in 1972 to 1975. The ailerons have a centering spring with a reasonably high breakout force so gentle pressure doesn't move them. Maybe the elevator and rudder too, I can't remember. I'm told by a friend who flys them for a living that this is like the real aircraft. Sad thing was that the instructor was dead 6 months later. On a cross country with a student in a Cessna 150 they failed to outclimb terrain. Student survived, instructor died.

Yep, they got Skidmore to say that CASA took out the "ran out of fuel incidents". I have no idea whether this is so but Skidmore better hope it is.

If you've noticed, in GA CASA has off loaded any responsibility to the overseas manufacturers and the aircraft operators for keeping up with ADs, maintenance schedules etc. If they deal with Australian manufacturers they must take responsibility themselves for AD's issued. You can draw your own conclusions about what game is being played here. Neither Skidmore nor Aleck looked impressive IMO.

No, I meant the Earth X gives weight saving of 5 kg which you could have confirmed by doing a quick search: http://earthxmotorsports.com/product-category/experimental-aircraft

The Earth -X guys seem to have a good product with appropriate safety features and charge protection built in. I think I'd still put them in a container which vents overboard to prevent the choking white smoke problem. Excellent weight saving at 5Kg for a PC680 size battery. BTW lead acid batteries can fail too.

This is such a sensible idea it will never happen. When listening to the back and forth "where are you" drivel on CTAF it has occurred to me that use of radial/distance would be concise and precise. So we're not allowed to use the GPS. How many here have looked outside and had a serious conflict between current GPS position and position by pilotage? The gliding community worldwide has been using GPS flight recorders for contest position recording for 20 years. The GPS receivers are normal commercial units, not fancy TSO'd units . They also use commercial GPS based traffic warning systems (Flarm). I'm unaware of any serious position fix issues there also. If CASA was interested in aviation safety this would happen ASAP, but they aren't so it won't. We are really talking about a crude Flarm with a human in the loop that uses VHF instead of a peanut whistle low power transmitter with airframe shielding issues.

Himat, thanks for linking to the Doug Maclean video. In 1990 I built a couple of precision altimeters for RAAF ARDU. They read in one foot increments and had to be temperature stable. The RAAF was just getting the PC-9 and found conflicting data on position error on the airspeed system in the certification data provided to the FAA and the flight manual so decided to measure it themselves. The idea was to have one altimeter in the back seat panel of the PC-9 and another on the ground and fly the aircraft over it at various airspeeds at something like 100 feet AGL while tracking it with a kinetheodolite to measure the actual height difference. By noting the readings as the aircraft flew over and knowing the real altitude and temperature the position error could be computed. This all actually worked although nowadays you just use GPS. Most interesting was the sudden decrease in the ground altimeter reading as the aircraft passed overhead. Clearly the down wash exists!

I thought that might be your father. I first met him around 1959 at the Causeway, flying control line models. He helped me out with machining parts a couple of times for which I was very grateful. Just checked your comment on the Youtube video. I think you are right. Sold the Salto in 1979, got a Mini Nimbus, sold that in 1984, bought an ASW20B, then sold that, got a Ventus C "a" fuselage I still own and had a Nimbus 3DM for a couple years . Also have a BD-4 for getting around. Might be leaving for Perth in it later next week. The Ventus is in the process of mounting 2 AMT Titan turbines, fully retractable. Should be ready early in New Year.

Heck no. I wasn't dumb enough to fly in the Macchi with Sambo. Lots of other instructors though. Only time I got in the same cockpit as Sambo was the Perth Gliding Club's Cessna 180 after it got a new wing after hitting power lines. Lots of time flying cross country in gliders with my Salto and his Phoebus though. " never fly in the same cockpit as someone braver than you are"

I think the NASA lady had a couple of things wrong. The Horten lift distribution actually has negative lift on the outer part of the wing which is why there is proverse yaw as you are reducing the amount of negative lift on the upgoing wing as you roll. Far from being "tailless" the Horten wing has two tails - one on each wingtip with a relatively short moment arm. Likely you do better with conventional wing and tail layout where the tail can be smaller because of the longer moment arm. I did get to sit in the Braunschweig SB-13 tailless glider in 1988 just before its first flight a few days later. It wasn't exactly a raging success which is why modern sailplanes look like they do and to the uninitiated, pretty much all the same.

This was discussed on Avweb a while ago IIRC. The point made was that the cases where the pilot turns back and successfully lands go unreported, hence only the stall spin accidents make the news. Make of that what you will but I'd suggest some practice 2000 feet above the ground to see just how much height you lose turning back and at what speed. It will depend on the aircraft type, how well it climbs and glides and at what speed. I know it is possible in a glider from under 200 feet (been there, done that). You might want to review your stall/incipient spin recovery procedures at a much greater height before doing this. My BD-4 takes 400 feet to get pointed back at the runway. Depending on the weight, density altitude obstacles, I'm not sure it would always make the actual runway though. I wouldn't think about a turn back under 1000 feet AGL. I got to test my reactions one day just after getting noise cancelling headsets when my wife switched on the noise cancelling just as I was looking left to turn crosswind. The co-pilot now has instructions to tell me before doing that. I once read that famous UK pilot Derek Piggott used to note getting to 60 knots or so on aerotow at zero feet essentially because he reckoned he could do a 180 degree turn from there. The MB326H was recoverable to the cross strip at Pearce after an EFATO if you had got to 180knots after takeoff. Fun aircraft that I got quite a few rides in.

Try 76 cm of mercury or 760mm for one atmosphere. The Russians used to set their altimeters in mm of Hg.

Nailed it, Ada Elle.

Sounds like the 40 accidents thing from the attempt to force fixed ELT installations in aircraft in 1994-95. Three were actually boats, IIRC.

Same old, same old. Utterly clueless baggage is Truss. At least the agrarian socialists may be some small restraint on the new PM.

Those who imagine spin training is a panacea should remember the US and Canadian experience. The US abolished spins for private in around 1947. The Canadians kept the requirement until the early 21st Century. Then they abolished it because it wasn't making any difference to the spin in rate for private pilots except that they WERE losing the odd student and instructor while practicing spins, so they said in all conscience they couldn't keep the requirement. The GFA spin requirement at annual checks hasn't been rigidly enforced and this hasn't been a problem. Many experienced glider pilots look upon spinning as a hazardous, unnecessary thing (a modern glider is generally fairly reluctant to spin, the wings are heavy and it doesn't happen all that quickly. Simply moving the stick forward will prevent the spin. The hazard is that it breaks into a spiral, you don't recognise it immediately and then take spin recovery action, which has been known to cause structural failure). The GFA will now enforce this requirement which should see a few more people seen off out of gliding and will likely kill some more students and instructors. Total lack of appreciation of what "risk management" means. The simple thing to improve safety is make it MUCH harder to get and keep an instructor rating. 250 hours minimum to begin training as instructor and 50 hours a year instructing plus say 20 hours as PIC. This would hopefully lead to fewer people, who imagine they are flight instructors, imposing their incompetence on innocents. Yes you might actually have to pay the fewer instructors but as has been said "what you get for free is worth what you pay for it".

The real problem is the general structure of sport aviation regulation in Australia. What a shambles! Multiple bodies, compulsory joining and myriad confusing different airworthiness certification, maintenance and pilot certification requirements, none of which have much logic or reasoned justification behind them. Now with even more CASA embuggerance in the offing if the report in Australian Flying magazine's website of threatened increased activity by the CASA Sport Aviation Office is true. Back in 2002-2003 CASA actually floated a discussion paper proposing a CASA Recreational Pilot Licence which would be available for ALL forms of sport aviation. This included a real "Driver's Licence Medical" like the current RAAus one with the specific statement that while some people might be unhappy about this there was NO evidence to suggest that this was in any way a safety problem (in fact I know of 3 major studies going back around 45 years in the USA which came to the same conclusion - there was some evidence that NOT having a formal aviation medical actually had slightly better outcomes - you can find these the way I did, by doing a web search). The proposed licence would have had various endorsements for different classes of aircraft (GA types, ultralights, gliders etc) including cross country and transiting controlled airspace. So what happened? Hall and Meertens from GFA and Middleton from RAAus got a meeting with the Minister and demanded that this be not proceeded with for gliding and ultralight aviation. This, despite the fact that the proposal was to let those happy with the current arrangements for these activities to continue to operate under them. Probably the greatest single act of stupidity and bastardry in the history of Australian sport aviation. The Minister, the insipid John Anderson, went along with them. I know the GFA at least never asked their members what they thought. What to do? Bring this back so people can operate reasonably within the LAW, not exemptions from the law. Institute the Canadian owner maintenance system for your own aircraft - canot ever be used in commercial or training ops. Training aircraft can require a qualified maintainer. Airworthiness certification standards ? Any of the Part 21 amateur built, VLA CS22, CS23, FAR 23 etc but certified by the designer and manufacturer that the aircraft was designed to one of these and a statement of what test flying was done. Anyone in his or her right mind will use one of these to at least determine a reasonable flight loads/speeds envelope. The GFA, RAAus etc can then go back to being voluntary promotion and education organisations instead of spending valuable time and money being a regulator. Also political lobby organisations to prevent CASA from doing anything too stupid.

Use vinylester but use kevlar cloth instead of glass. Will eggshell but not shatter in event of accident. Also lighter than glass.

The energy advantage of launching at 65000 feet or at say 40000 feet isn't all that significant. What a launch at 65000 feet mainly gets you is the ability to optimise the engine bell for vacuum instead of having to optimise for sea level or close to it. The extra specific impulse gets you a lot. Look up "rocket equation" and plug in some numbers. It can make a significant difference to the mass delivered to orbit on an SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) vehicle or even make one feasible.

I was sorry to hear that. Jim was very helpful when we re-furbished our aircraft. The BD-4 is a simply brilliant design. Ours does 140+KTAS at 7500 feet at 75% on a 150 hp O-320. It flys high, far and fast carrying 2 people, 54Kg of baggage and fuel for 7+ hours. He well deserves to be remembered for that design.

Mate, I'd happily ban anyone under 18 from setting foot in any kind of sports aircraft so this kind of emotive claptrap didn't happen. Somebody was responsible for the 5 year old girl being in the ultralight. Why for heaven's sake did they do that? Then again a 12 year old girl was killed when someone flew into power lines, licensed private pilot, standard GA aircraft AFAIK. Where do you draw the line? I see you actually have a problem with the concept of freedom. I'm sorry for you. Once you start with regulation it is difficult to stop unless you have some kind of moral compass or philosophy. Engendering personal responsibility is more difficult but ultimately gives better results. What was the civilian helicopter accident rate in the US? 2.74 times ours and according to Bill Hamilton a similar situation exists in fixed wing GA. I don't think Dick got the system he wanted. We got a start on an Australianised, bastardised version which should by now have been pretty much the US ATC system. Why the hell can't a controller under the circumstances you outline give the traffic? He suddenly could when the guy filed IFR? Wonderful. I think we're in furious agreement here and I'm pretty sure Dick Smith agrees. I guess you never had to look at the budget and make the decisions. Talk is cheap and I suspect most people weren't across the issues or the details. Dick was in the hot seat. Frankly I can't fault what he tried to do in aviation regulation until getting shafted by John Anderson. I find it amazing that after 22 years some people STILL haven't got over losing Flight Service.

[ Governments do have the ability to totally kill (and I mean totally kill, not just almost kill as it now stands) all forms of affordable recreational aviation just like they have the ability to upset any small subset of the population without consequence. . Yup and I know exactly how to do it (there's a precedent) whether you want to talk affordable or not. I'm sure not going to mention it anywhere on the internet in case anybody gets ideas.

No worries. The obvious solution is to have the Class E below 8500 (I'd prefer 10000 or 9500 maybe) without a transponder requirement. Still fixes the problem of IFR guys in IMC blundering around trying to self separate which is what Dick was talking about. When VMC you'll get anyone with a transponder and maybe the odd primary return although I suspect the software is normally just set to filter that out. That may be the reason for the transponder requirement here. Sometimes though it is best to settle for less than 100% solution to a perceived problem.

I think you're making my earlier point for me. Are you a free citizen or a subject? In my experience the USA is happy for you to kill yourself but draws the line at killing others. The Europeans generally simply ban all that is not expressly permitted. Australia is somewhere in between but getting better in some ways, worse in others. CASA pretty much doesn't care of sport aviators kill themselves (except when it suits them to make rules) or anyone silly enough to fly in the same aircraft with them. They have to try to ensure the safety of those on the ground, many of whom think aircraft are inventions of the Devil and of the other airspace users. The FAA has the same mandate but seems to do it all in a much less heavy handed fashion. Well I've had some experience with the Richmond CTR. I've been refused clearance more than once, flightplan or not. Once was when I could tell that something was going on at 20,000 feet and the bloke couldn't be bothered so we went over the mountains via Katoomba. It was possible that day. Another time, coming in from the north to go to Camden at about 4pm on a Friday afternoon I was refused clearance and an indefinite delay promised so again we flew over the mountains. So coming back a couple of days later I put in a plan, launched within a couple of minutes of estimate, called the controller at the VFR reporting point north of Camden only to have him tell me he didn't have my plan (lodged a couple of hours earlier) and where was this place I was talking about? They must have rummaged around on the floor and found it as several minutes later I got the clearance. Great stuff being exposed to the risk of engine failure over the Blue Mountains when a safer alternative exists. Have a look at Oakey. Right in the middle of some of the safest, nicest glider flying area in Australia. They are lucky to put half a dozen helicopters in the air at once and when the basic and advanced training goes to Nowra there might be 20 helicopters based there plus the Singaporeans who don't seem to fly all that much. I know a young friend who flys the ARH Tiger had trouble a couple of times doing a formation ride as they couldn't get 2 of the 7 to work at the same time. For this we have a vast amount of controlled airspace? I'd share airspace with a few VFR helicopters in VMC any day without any control. Your second to last paragraph pretty much sums up what Dick is saying. What a stupid rigmarole and how well was the bloke looking out while transmitting his IFR plan? Was there other traffic simply transiting the area that he didn't hear? Affordable safety must be one of the most misunderstood concepts ever. There is actually no such thing as "unaffordable safety". It will simply cause the activity to cease. Dick has explained it many times - spend the money where it does the most good in terms of accidents prevented or lives saved. Resources are always limited so if you don't do this, the activity will be more dangerous than it needs to be.

Looks like the system put some of my replies to dutchroll in his quote. Apologies. It is all there.