Powerin

Hi Jeff, looks like some of the links are broken...I believe this is the image you want.

Let me echo the sentiments here Motz. The courage and cool-headedness shown by you and your staff in the face of danger and tragedy was exemplary, but not surprising coming from the sort of person we've come to know and respect on the forums and chat. Best wishes as you, Cory and others involved work through the trauma and sincere condolences to the families of those lost. Peter

Will the ATSB actually investigate (despite what the media says)? As a general rule they don't investigate accidents which occur as a result of inherently "high risk" activities such as aerobatic flight.

I have to say it gives me some confidence in Rotax as a manufacturer when their last few ADs have been from potential faults discovered in a manufacturing review rather than actual faults discovered from in-flight failures.

A flat plank will fly....just not as efficiently as a curved aerofoil. One example is a paper aeroplane. A ceiling fan with just flat blades works fine and shifts air. However I'm perfectly willing to settle for the "majik" explanation as the alternative is trying to understand fluid dynamics and bound vortices etc etc.

Yes, thanks OME! Maj, you knew what you were talking about, you just had the wrong name and I couldn't think of what it was either. Just knew it wasn't Coriolis I knew someone would pull me up on it . Yes, water curving against a spoon is caused by surface tension not Coanda. But I reckon it's still a good visualisation of the effect.

Ian, You have an admirable dream in trying to provide a one stop online aviation experience and I can see the appeal for you. However, the problem I can see is that it is reliant on commercial third parties (manufacturers, aviation retailers etc) providing you with content (videos, photos etc), expertise (online help) and then paying for the privilege. In my short exposure to the aviation industry, especially the RA side, manufacturers seem to be flat out spending money on a basic website for themselves, let alone putting together content and providing online experts for a site such as this. What you have built here is a strong online community with lots of activity. That's why most of us come here. The members here, and their contributions of knowledge, time and content such as photos and videos are the life blood of this site. Members provide this content free of charge. By all means follow the dream. You have to pay the bills somehow. But beware of damaging the community you have taken so long to build up.

I don't think that is Coriolis Maj. If memory serves that is the force caused by circular/twisting motions such as that caused by the Earth turning. Airflow sticking to a surface has to do with viscosity and boundary layers (laminar flow puts in an appearance too I think). But yes, it is very important in lift. When the boundary layer separates from the upper surface of a wing (ie...the air stops sticking to the wing) you lose the majority of your lift...which of course is exactly what happens in a stall. Edit- you can see the same effect if you hold the back of a spoon against a stream of water from a tap. The water sticks to the spoon and curves around it. Edit 2: here's a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrwlpHE7P8Q. It has a heap of tufts of wool/twine stuck to the upper surface of the wing to show the airflow. When the wing is flying normally the tufts are dead straight. When the wing begins to stall (and the flow separates) the tufts are all over the place showing the turbulent airflow that occurs in a stall.

Exactly. The downward movement of air is what gives the lift (via Newton), but there are several things that cause it. And yes, I can't see how a venturi can exist in an open (ie above a wing) system. ...and he almost certainly will

I much prefer the 4/5 point. However I'd be interested to know if their are any statistics that compare the safety of 3 point vs 4 point. I guess 4/5 point is easy to fit to our 2 seat RA aircraft, but it would be more difficult to fit 4 point to the front seats of a GA 4 seater.

My understanding is that it is a combination of processes (including Bernoulli) that produces lift. But the net effect of these processes is that air is turned downward and that is what causes lift. Low pressure above an aerofoil certainly occurs, but in itself it is not responsible for lift but contributes to changing the direction of the air. I always like to think of a propeller, which is a moving aerofoil with an angle of attack. It's obvious to me that the net effect of that moving aerofoil is to throw huge amounts of air backwards which in turn produces a forward force (every action produces an opposite and equal reaction). No one can tell me that an aircraft is pulled forward purely by an area of low pressure in front of the prop. It is certainly there as evidenced by a prop sucking up debris in front of it, but it is only part of the process that results in a large rearward movement of air. Wings work the same way as far as I can see (but vertically).

One day I am planning to have a 800m x 10m trial plot on my property with which I will testing the viability of growing short grass and seeing how it will stand up to constant mowing. It may be that such a trial plot will be found essential now and then for conducting precautionary landings with an aircraft that I am flying...

I don't particularly have a problem with them flying low over our property, and I'm happy for the electricity guys to inspect lines...less chance of fires, blackouts etc. But I do wonder about big corporations bypassing the laws most of us have to live by. I know it's usually for the "greater good" and all, but still.... And thanks Sue (edit: and Kaz) for those observations. I think it goes to show that we have limited "ownership" of our land. Rather, it's probably a bit like copyright in that we are buying a licence to use our land for approved purposes until the Government decides it has a better use for it.

Yes....how do the power companies get past the 500ft permission rule? We've also had a helicopter land on our property momentarily for a magnetic survey (for mineral exploration). We got a letter in the mail warning us this may happen...but no permission was sought. How do they get past the permission requirement?

From what I understand the new RAAus website has been taken away from the original developer and is now being handled by an RAAus member who is also a developer of a well known EFB. Hopefully, if the aircraft register is on some sort of database, it should be easy for any developer to have an easy system for staff to update the website register weekly or daily.

Once you are flying along the beach it's pretty much the beach or bust for emergency landing...if you can dodge all the 4WDs!

Win, I doubt that you'd see any fog at Albury in early April. Usually hot and dry down here then. How about this....RPT to Sydney, train from airport to Sydney Central ($12) then catch the CountryLink train (XPT) to Cootamundra (5hrs) and CountryLink bus to Temora (40mins). Sydney to Temora (train+bus) would cost $84.15. Wagga-Temora on CountryLink train/bus is about 3.13hrs at $26.51 and Albury-Temora is 4.35hrs at $53.03

By the way, for those that haven't seen it, the new Natfly website is up and running. It has a bit of info about getting there and staying there on the survival guide page.

David, as far as I can see the basic common law doesn't put a limit on the height of airspace you own. But as you go higher other laws come into play with give rights to others in the way that airspace is used. There have been court cases where celebrities have tried and failed to sue paparazzi for trespass into the airspace above their properties. Here's one simple explanation of US laws (not an authoritative source!)...our laws may be similar.

I guess it comes down to which costs we are willing to share amongst our membership and which costs should be user-pays. Like most aviation enterprises I get the feeling running an FTF is not a high revenue activity and margins are tight (if there are any margins). So the cost of audits of FTFs would be passed right on to students, or alternatively a potential FTF would look at the bottom line and say it's not worth the extra cost and shut up shop or not open in the first place. Auditing of FTFs is something that hopefully ensures the safe and proper training of RAA pilots and as such affects the safety of all members and the reputation of the RAAus as a safe organisation. That benefits all of us. But I can see the point about us subsidising commercial operations. I guess spreading the auditing and inspection cost over all members could be said to be encouraging more flight schools and lowering costs for students which may increase the membership of RAAus and grow the organisation. Whether that's a good or bad thing is another question.

I was always under the impression you do not own any of the airspace above you property but researching it now it seems you do. So I guess it could be argued that you can legally fly your own aircraft in your own airspace. However the law allows for the public good (for example you cannot play loud music on your own property if it affects others) and does not allow you to infringe on the rights of (or endanger) others. The law also allows aircraft to use your airspace, but not under 500ft without permission. I suspect if you fly unregistered and unlicensesd above 500ft you would start breaking other laws such as those pertaining to controlled airspace, even though it is notionally your own airspace.

Absolutely win...and thankyou DBI, your post on the low costs of early ultralight flying helped me understand.

Win, don't know if you can get a discount but Virgin flies jets into Albury from Sydney. Otherwise Rex and QLink fly Sydney to Wagga. From both Wagga and Albury you can catch a train to Cootamundra and bus to Temora. But Canberra-Temora may be a less circuitous route.

How would this change what we have now in the RAAus for LP flyers? Why would this make your flying experience any different than it is now? Why would this change what aircraft are being "offered"? What would change? I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to understand how LP flyers are being disadvantaged by the way things are now. I have no axe to grind. I'm not interested in this pointing fingers at HP flyers and saying it's all their fault because they have too much money. I'd be interested in hearing what needs to change in the RAAus to make things better for LP flyers, and why. What are these "basics" that RAAus needs to get back to?

I have no answers...that's why I started the thread. The whole thing puzzles me. I know nothing about these old boys clubs or about lobbying anyone. In my case I saw a nice aluminium aircraft with numbers on the side at a show a couple years ago. It looked like a solid and safe aircraft. The guy in the tent said he could teach me to fly this aircraft for an amount of money that was far cheaper than anything I had heard of before. Suddenly an impossible dream seemed affordable if I dipped into some savings. So the guy in the tent is now my instructor. I fly for fun.....I just don't fly a minimalist aircraft. Does that make me an "old boy"?