Jump to content

Mike Borgelt

Members
  • Content Count

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Mike Borgelt last won the day on November 25

Mike Borgelt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

450 Excellent

About Mike Borgelt

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member
  • Birthday 08/22/1948

More Information

  • Gender
    male
  • Country
    Australia
  1. Mike Borgelt

    Were the Wright Brothers in Newton's camp?

    Gustave Whitehead - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Seems to be a bunch of unlikely to be true claims and "recollections" years or decades after the alleged events. The article seems to be fairly balanced.
  2. Mike Borgelt

    Were the Wright Brothers in Newton's camp?

    Have a careful think about leaving the ground in a flying machine over which you have no control.
  3. Mike Borgelt

    Were the Wright Brothers in Newton's camp?

    So lets see.... it wasn't a military secret or classified by the government, various experimenters around the world were working on the problem and a bloke in the USA succeeds and NOTHING more comes of it even though he didn't kill himself. No Whitehead Aircraft Company, no passing on of how he did it, no plans sold, etc etc. Yeah, right. As for " The Wright Brothers' method was empirical. They theorised; tested their theories by experimentation and utilised the best results of those experiments" is a good description of the scientific method. Not only that the Wrights tested the older theories from other people and concluded that they were wrong, hence their own experimentation and theorising. Engineering education is interesting. It helps to know enough to figure out what you need to learn to do the job at hand. Some of the better engineers didn't have a formal engineering education. Irv Culver of Lockheed was one (he gave the Skunk Works its name). It was reckoned he simply figured out what he needed to learn and did so to solve the problem. I met him once. One thing is for sure and that is that our aeronautical pioneers were very fortunate indeed that they didn't have CASA, RAAus, GFA etc "helping" them. Imagine the Internet if CASA had been in charge of its oversight.
  4. Mike Borgelt

    Small Flying Schools

    I love the magical thinking that pieces of paper ensure safety. What next, pieces of paper to cure cancer, eliminate poverty and ensure world peace? If you submitted an SMS and didn't get acknowledgement of its acceptability to the authorities demanding it, I'd, as a matter of urgency, enquire as to why and demand a response in writing. Otherwise if you encounter a problem down the track you may find they deny all knowledge of it and you are the bunny. Got to protect the relationship with the insurance company. As for responsibility, if an authority demands you have one and are required to submit for approval it and you get it, the responsibility falls back on the authority. Funny how EASA has stated that an SMS is not required for operation of small aircraft. They apply to commercial/airline operations. All that an SMS does is, by specifying in detail how you operate, is make your operation inflexible and gives the authorities ammunition to use against you. CASA isn't interested in aviation safety - they are interested in making so many rules that inevitably one or more are broken in your everyday operation so that if things go wrong they can point to a broken rule, fine or jail you and publicly look like they are doing their jobs. As facthunter points out, safety is a mindset a safety culture not a rules culture.
  5. Re the Senate hearing: I think Carmody may have been set up by guess who? Wonder how long before he resigns? He said that it was open to AOPA to be a Part 149 self administering organisation. This would be news to ELAAA I guess who have been trying for how long? Ben Morgan needs this information to pass to the Senators before the next CASA appearance if any ELAAA people are reading this. There was a 2011 or 2012 position paper by Dr Jonathan Aleck of CASA where he states that there need be no more than one organisation for each branch of aviation. Of course once an organisation takes on the job it completely ceases to be an effective political lobby group for its members. Just take a look at RAAus and GFA. CASA lapdogs. It also begs the question of why private individuals or their organisations should actually be doing the jobs of public servants. There is a Civil Aviation Act passed by Parliament and CASA was set up to do the job of administering civil aviation safety in Australia. If they aren't doing it they need have their employment terminated and replaced by those who will. We don't have the motoring organisations in charge of driver licences, roadworthiness and law enforcement. Once again, self administration isn't the answer. The problem is the rules. Better to have dis-interested public servants administer them than fanatics on a Mission from God.
  6. Another point that Jim didn't mention: the glider does not have to be maintained in a professional licensed workshop to fly in CTA. There is plenty of owner maintenance going on although the owner needs the GFA rating to do this. It is another example of Australian overkill with usually 2 full 8 day courses of 10 to 12 hour days required to gain the rating. Completely ridiculous of course when a USA maintenance rating for LSA is 16 hours of instruction. Just shows how self administration doesn't help reduce stupid bureaucratic requirements. Both GFA and RAAus have become what they were originally set up to avoid being.
  7. One very minor point Jim, you probably won't get a clearance into controlled airspace without a transponder in your glider nowadays. Class D which is meant to be non radar tower airspace may be OK but I know that the tower guy at Albury has radar information. Albury is a great example of Australian airspace overkill. In the US it would be most likely 5 nm radius and 2500 feet AGL for the Class D and Class E outside that.
  8. Mike Borgelt

    Small Flying Schools

    You actually cannot use a private GA aircraft for "hire or reward" either if you have a PPL. Are there two definitions of this at CASA?
  9. Mike Borgelt

    Small Flying Schools

    Instead of surveilling how flying schools operate we could adopt the US system. They have flying instructors (called CFIs - Certified Flight Instructors) who aren't necessarily operating in a school. Find one and he or she can agree to teach you to fly. When ready for the licence checkride(s) the CFI organises a designated examiner who tests the student on the ground and in flight and then can issue the certificate if the student is up to standard. Put up three students in a row who fail and your CFI ticket is suspended. The only people required to be supervised are the examiners. Beautiful simple system with built in quality control. Too easy for Australia I guess. Not enough opportunities for grift like building unnecessary empires paid for by honest men and women.
  10. Mike Borgelt

    Small Flying Schools

    At least under RAAus, once trained (just like GA) you can buy your aircraft and fly near where you live. The GFA insists you belong to a gliding club which requires a gliding CFI to be in charge (they are allowing non training clubs now - allegedly - but I'm sure they will make that as difficult as possible) in order for you to fly at all. All in the name of "safety", meanwhile running the most dangerous form of aeronautical hooliganism in the country - with lots of paperwork making it "safe". There used to be lots of small bush gliding clubs and the ones that haven't gone extinct yet are struggling. Meanwhile the GFA leadership, if you can call it that, bemoans the lack of people wanting to glide.
  11. Mike Borgelt

    An excellent accident-reduction strategy:

    Good idea before broadcasting on a given frequency. I know of one gliding club that used to teach put your left index finger above and to the left of the ASI after a winch/autotow launch failure to make sure you have enough smash (1/2 * rho* V^2) before trying to do anything else.
  12. Mike Borgelt

    CASA Briefing Newsletter - October 2018

    The announcement that the new GA rules will be based on those of the US should be welcome. Now watch CASA stuff up the implementation.
  13. Because then, according to CASA, the aircraft must be registered with RAAus. This is another anomaly. What does the aircraft REGISTRATION have to do with pilot capability? That was a remarkably dumb post. RAAus and its members is rapidly sinking in my estimation.
  14. If Ben Morgan had done his homework he would mention that GFA glider pilots can fly motor gliders of up to 850 Kg gross weight, with a self declaration/private driver's licence medical INSIDE controlled airspace. This is also regarded as "safe". Ben really ought to talk to people who are trying to help him.
×