aplund

My comment wasn't about the charges per say. Vector graphics for computer assisted plotting has been around in one form or another since the mid 1960s. Postscript as a standalone vector rendering format since the 1980s. Encapsulated postscript and PDF has been around since the early 1990. Transferring ~10mb files on the internet has been a thing since the mid 1990. But yet, charts for Australian airspace have been unavailable for low cost distribution on the internet until 2017! For "safety" reasons perhaps?

Yay! The 21st century has arrived!

This is what I was wondering above. Lead poisoning - Wikipedia Doesn't sound like a "high" worth having.

I was more thinking about the exact chemistry of 100LL w.r.t regulations. This is, as far as I know, the last fuel with lead additive still in active widespread use. Presumably it's the sniff-ability of the fuel that they are after and not the effects of Lead poisoning (correct me if I'm wrong). But to create new formulations which meet the required performance numbers which don't have lead and are unsniffable will require new investments and regulations or somehow a mass migration off to unsniffable unleaded MoGas?

Arnhem Land children sniffing aviation fuel in 'public health emergency' Urk. I cannot imagine the thought processes that lead to doing this to yourself! The fuels and the engines they are used in are highly regulated. It will be interesting to see what long term solution the regulator will have.

I'm sorry, but this is a non-sequitur. Just because there exist incompetent people in politically powerful roles making terrible decisions, doesn't mean this has to always be the case.

I would have to (sadly) largely agree with this. But it is not a fundamental constraint on IT. "New" does not have to mean "unreliable". Obviously they have QoS guarantees built into their system and new systems can offer this too! It sounds like there is a pretty vast potential to do more in realtime with the data that they have as well has having much better coordination between sets of data and delivery locations. Perhaps this is what OneSky is addressing. OneSky wasn't talked about during the evening. Given that the timescale for delivering OneSky is of the order of 10 years, one has to wonder. It is possible to have your cake and eat it it too; i.e. QoS and agile systems. But the processes (and contracts) need to be very carefully considered (as was not the situation with the ABS census).

I managed to go along to a pilot information evening last night at the Brisbane Centre facility. It was an extremely eye opening time and I'd recommend going along to one of these nights if for nothing else to see and have a normal conversation to the people behind the radio when you press the button on the area/approach frequency. But, yet again, it was one of those surreal moments that aviation keeps dishing up to me. And please, don't let what I'm about to write be a reflection on the _people_ working in the system, for as far as I can tell, pretty much everyone understands their role really well and executes it fantastically. Let me just describe the history of what I mean by "surreal moments". The first for me was getting into the C172N model that I did the latter half of my training in. I literally felt like I had stepped into a late 1970s film set. I was suddenly a member of my father's generation! Only to be outdone by going to Gil Layt's flying school! (<-- recommended if you haven't done it.) Next was Archerfield tower. When I went there, I felt like I'd advanced about 10 years into the 1980s (save perhaps the computer monitor that had the radar information). Then we come to Brisbane Centre. Again, another 10 year advance. I literally walked into the computer systems we all desired when I finished high school in the late 1990s. I'm in an amazing job where I literally get to see where technology is going and where those advantages lie. But I think I will now never buy the line that aviation is a technological wonder. This is certainly true if you are about two decades behind in your expectations. There is literally a huge potential for efficiency and capacity (and safety) gains. But for some reason, progress is glacial.

This is not the report database. This includes results with no ATSB report. Those with a report have a report number associated with them. I tried to find accidents listed on the RAAus report available on the website and those in this detailed database and they can all be found. The problem is that it doesn't list registration. And the Operation Type seems to be somewhat oddly assigned. Many in the RAAus report are listed as Private. Never-the-less, about 1/2 of the overall (22 out of 38) seem to be findable by the "Sports Aviation" operation type. That's compared with the numbers in this report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5743306/AR-2015-082%20FINAL.pdf Still not found any evidence of most of these, and particularly the recent ones, being due to medical incapacitation, which was the original claim. Still could be true, but it's not totally clear from what I've found.

Due to my choice of search parameters or the contents of the database?

Just out of interest, I tried to see if the ATSB data is consistent with the claim in the discussion paper. I went to ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search. I entered this search. Date range: From 04 Mar 2004 to 03 Mar 2017 Location: All Occurrence Category: All Occurrence Type: All Aircraft and Airspace: Aircraft Type: Aeroplane. Operator Type: Sports Aviation - All Injury Level: Fatal There were 28 results with 5 ATSB investigations. Each has a short summary in the data returned if there is an investigation or not. Most just say collided with terrain without giving a reason. Is it that the ATSB don't report reasons like incapacitation even if that information is known? Does "Sports Aviation" pick up all RA-Aus flights or am I missing lots of results here?

I think it's abundantly clear that DAMEs aren't doing it to be rolling in cash. I've had to change because one I was seeing got jack of it all and thought he'd be better off being an "normal" doctor exclusively. The question should always be is the cost worth the benefit. And by cost, I don't mean monetary costs alone. For a class 2 medical, why is it better to have someone removed from your personal doctor, that most people have to made special arrangements and time to see? The list of tests and examinations performed doesn't seem to need medical training outside of the ordinary. For class 1 medicals, there certainly might be an argument for some kind of specialist knowledge, though I haven't looked into it. But for class 2, I don't see the need. Particularly given that AV Med, also someone removed from the medical history of the person, seems to order extra tests and have the final decision anyway. If it is an issue of trust, then you are going after the wrong profession. As I stated above, the whole thing is based on reputation and competence. Sure the media have stories of rogue operators, but what exactly is it about CASA's system that ensures there won't be rogue DAMEs? The thing is, I'm arguing that there be less demand for DAMEs, which is likely to cause some people grief if they have set themselves up in such as way as to rely on having this custom. This is a situation I fully understand. Back on the CASA discussion paper though, the quantitative statements made without reference to quantitative evidence is of enormous concern. Anyone who find the scientific method appealing will see this as an obvious oversight. Easily fixed though. Give us the citations to substantiate the "several recent medically related fatalities in the latter group" claim. Then the role of the lack of a Class 2 medical can be examined more closely. Without this, it's just an argument based on 'truthiness'.

That's pretty much crazy. Particularly when you consider that this is _not_ your regular family doctor (if you have one of those) doing this. Good luck with this system detecting pathological liars. I had a chest X-ray checking for TB 15 years ago which was negative (there was an international student at uni who tested positive). I'm meant to report this? What purpose does it serve? What about dental x-rays? I've had a bucket load of them.

SPECI YBHM 280133Z AUTO 27075G122KT 0900 // BKN008 OVC010 34/34 Q//// RMK RF00.4/019.4 Alternate required? Doesn't sound like paradise on Hamilton Island today.

In terms of the Class 2, it is unclear to me why a DAME is in a better position to fill in these forms than your regular GP. The whole medical profession is based on reputation and competency. The new US basic medical which gets your regular family doctor to oversee the tests seems to be a bloody good idea to me. In my case, I had a condition in 2012 which I brought up with the DAME when I first had the medical done. He listed it on the form (as he should have), but didn't have the full information so I had to go to my GP to get a few pages printed out. AVMED granted me the Class 2 medical but only for 12 months. I have to get a medical done every year even though I have my GP and specialists giving me written evidence with pathology that I am remiss of my condition and that it is unlikely to return. This now annual class 2 medical exaimation was decided by someone at CASA who is 3 steps removed from the process. When I rang AVMED, they could not give me any advice as to when the audit requirement will be lifted. The issue I have with this is that I cannot see any tangible benefit from getting me to do a complete class 2 medical with all of the tests unrelated to the condition which has not affected me for years. If it really did return, it would be because I declare something to the DAME. Which, when you think about it, is really pretty silly as it gives one an incentive _not_ to declare a full medical history.