Jerry_Atrick

You're only as young as thewoman you feel, they say ;-)

@APenNameAndThatA, I do disagree and the reason is you are picking an arbitrary comparison for a start... Based on @M61A1, post citing c. 90% of motorcycle accidents happen on days in good weather, and a good deal of those on the weekends, then this would imply two (or more, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at two) things: a) Motorcycles are generally only ridden in good weather and mainly on the weekends; or b) of all the motorcycle trips that are ridden, 90% of accidents occur in good weather and of those, most occur on the weekend. There is a subtle difference between them, because, it may be that 90% of all motorcycle kms or hours ridden are during the week and variable weather and for work (courier, emergency services, etc) or to commute. If it is more towards the latter, then that would imply a few other things, namely either most of the good weather/weekend riders are recreational only - only bring their shiny chromed machines out on good days and although they may be travelling somewhere, the main purpose for the ride is to enjoy the ride.. the sort of equivalent of the $100 hamburger.. or that all those motorcylists that are extremely careful and safe during the week and in bad weather become lazy when they are recreationally riding. What matters is if you are lumping everything together, you are not making any meaningful comparison of risk, because recreational flying (be it in RAA or GA machines) will not nominally have the same characteristics by which to comapre risk. For example, the professional rider is riding much more frequently, in different conditions and in a different state of mind; he (or she) is more concerned with miles covered and getting to and from their destination in the quickest and (hopefully) safest time as their livelihood (and possibly someone else's life) depends on it. His bike is a means to the end. The recreational rider, like the recreational flyer, is more interested in enjoying their pastime - the journey is more often than not the reason for picking that mode of transport; taking in the sights, enjoying the weather, enjoying their destination, but possibly not bhe the main reason for their destination. Also, they are generally lilely to be periodical users of their aircraft - maybe once a week, fortnight or even month... (yes some are more frequent), and what about in the winter months (although granted, winter in most of Australia is a more forgiving environment for aviaton than winter in the UK). The professional motorcylist is likely to find themselves in urban and suburban situations; stop-start, slow traffic, etc (as well as other risks such as peds, dogs, stoopid drivers and the like). The recreational rider is likely to be on urban/suburban roads for the period it takes to get to the freeway/highway to get to the mountains or ocean roads, etc.. but they are more likely to be in rural or open road situations. The bike for the recreational rider, like the aircraft for the recreational flyer is, if not the end in itself, a big part of it. How you would compare the risk of flying to urban riding of a professional is a leap of statiscial analysis I have yet to see made valid. So, in order to compare the risk, you have to compare most like-for-like. We would remove the professional daily rider (or rides) from the equation because in terms of environmental, purpose, state of mind and other factors, they are not in anyway a valid comparison of correlative factors that make up the risk (except that they are both a mode of transport - may was well compare them to shipping accidents in the atlantic ocean). By the way, by cleansing the data, I am making recreational flying seem even more safe compared to our motorcyling brethren. Picking factor to express risk has to be valid, too.. The distance travelled, I think is not valid and here are the reasons: - As recreational biking, driving or flying is concerned, distance travelled is probably not the key purpose of the trip - the time on the favoured mode of transport is. If you decide you want to do a day trip, you work out how long you want to be flying/riding, pick a suitable destination and go for it. In when biking, we may look at a distance, but it will be based on how long it will take to get there at a speed, which is pretty constant. In flying, we may pick a destination, but due to a stonking headwind component, may bin it for something else in the time we have available; or we may extend the entire duration of the trip (say to an overnighter) so we spend a comfortable x hours in the aircraft. My point is for recreational biking/driving/riding/cycling/whatever, it is more about time (for flying, your licence requirements are measured in hours with only the x-country component requiring min. distance). - Comparing distance based on an average calculation of speed is erroneous. We are comparing ground speed to airpseed and in the air, we are almost always subject to a wind component that speeds us up or slows us down.. and I don't think one can reliably assume a net zero for many reasons. inclduing prevailing winds, time of day, rarely are routes flowin reciprocally, etc. At a couple thousand feet, you can easily experience a 20+kt headwind and by the time you get to your destination, the wind has dropped and you are experiencing a small tailwind on the way back. This does not affect ground vehicles in the same way. As another example, we have heard on these fora how people have been able to almost hover their aircraft in stiff headwinds; you may in theory take off into a 50kt headwind (somehow) and hold it there for your friends to see your death defying skill and get absorbed by it all that you forget that you had only an hours fuel, exhaust that fuel, stall, and lights out. You have not flown 1km, but have been aloft an hour.. To me, per hour seems a more realistic risk comparison. Going to your project analogy - say we were comparing the risk of bespoke software development and implementation v. buy off the shelf and implement. Th risk we are comparing between them is failed software development. Sounds reasonable, but I would not use the average of all software implementations - SCADA and ERP are different beasts with different risk profiles that makes the comparison meaningless. If I was doing an ERP implementation, I would strip out from historical data non-ERP projects.

I don't think it's double standards at all.. They have to take practical decisions; normally, the decision is to impose and enforce appropriate social distancing. For the demonstrations, it was a question of allowing it to happen to minimise as much as possible the contravention to social distancing; and as I understand they were conducted under a watchful eye in case things got out of hand - or interfere and guarantee maximum social interaction - and also put your police at unnecessary risk as well.. They had a developing situation for which they had to assess and determine the best (or in this case, the least worse) course of action. We may differ in our assessment of what the appropriate course of action was, but it is not a double standard. Any of those protestors in the normal course of events breaching or endangering social distancing et al would have been dealt in the same way as those in Rye - or anywhere else.

Of the airfields/airports I have been to, it is still one of my favourites, but I was filthy at them knocking down the playground to put up an office for Oxford Aviation...

Just picking up this thread and haven't looked at the maths in great detail, but if we are talking comparing risk of flying to risk of driving (or more accurately road use), then it is an almost impossible comparison. For example, we could use the absolute fatalities per time unit (hours) or distance travelled, but at best, both are crude comparisons best left to the senationalistic press. For example, what is the big factor (outside of the pilot/driver/rider/pedestrian) missing from this the above that would have a major bearing on the numbers if it were consistent between the two? Weather. If we took away all of the accidents that happened in driveable, but poor weather (and assuming most LSA flying is done in good weather, of course), we may find the statistical averages of fatalities per hour or per distance travelled quite different for the road users.. .but would that not be a more valid comparison? Also, traffic density... and other obstructions/distractions... In financial engineering, we have to do back testing of our risk models. This means that we have to effectively scrub yesterday's and historiucal and current data sets from all the noise that will distort the key findings and then apply the models. The maths applied to the scrubbing is usually as complex as the models themselves. Referring back to scrubbng the datasets so that we can approximate the weather conditions and model accordingly, well, you do the math.. It is not simple. Wherever we are with respect to operating vehicles, we can mitigiate most of the risks, but not eliminate them all.. But we should strive to minimise it to the lowest practical value.

@Roundsounds - I said get the nose over ASAP (for low mass types) - not ram it over - subtly different. @andy310r - at Royal Vic, their emergency checklist for PA28s when I was learning there was something alonng the CMF checklist... Very first item: Convert Excess Speed to Height. Over here it's trim for best glide, find a field then try anf find what you can to get it started. When I fly, I realise - especially as I get older - that I want to eliminate as many things to worry about in the event of things going awry. So, I always have enough fuel in the tanlks for at least 50% longer than my trip (or leg if it requires a refill on the way) and while I am flying, I try (don't alkways do it) to identify a good landing field if the engine gives up the ghost. When I am out of glide distance of that, I find another (always ahead of the nose). They have to be close to easily identified landmarks so I can get back. I sometimes forget to update the landing field as I fly out of glide distance of the previous one. But the idea is that if the engine gives up the ghost, I already know the field and don't have to to the WOSSSS (Wind, Obstructions, Size, Shape, Surface, (S)civilisation) and using precious time to ensure everything goes right.

LSAs are basically lower-regulatged GA machines these days... They give the GA pilot a great alternative to full GA. Over here, a suitably equipped LSA can be approved for instrument flying under what is now known as an Instrument Rating (Restricted); oddly enough, only available in the UK from all European countries.. Thrusters, Ikarus, et al are the domain of the British Microlight Aircraft Assocation. There was an attempt to merge with the Ligh Aircraft Association (LSAs), buit it failed because, apart from the peronality issues, they seek two different types of flying. Microlight flying is more expeinsive than ever, and I can't understand why. An Ikarus C42 has been around for a long time and is a basic aircraft, yet the cost for dual intruction at the local school is £148/hr. The GA school scharges £180/hr dual for a C150 - much more expensive to run and insure. I have to be honest, at a $32/hr difference when the price would be less than half to run even though they have to be slightly more regulated than non-school machines would move most people to the GA side. A C152 is still grass roots flying; A PA28 or C172 is really also.. The cost difference between them would be about £1500 all up... but give me much more flexibility and onluy a check out for the microlight.. apparently.

You beat me to it, @Flightrite. Also, increased urbanisation, public transport and ebikes are not the reasons urban kids are abandoning getting their car licence - computer games and interactive technology where kids can real-time communicate with others across the globe are a big part of it.. Unlike the games of my generation - those with enough money to have a colecovision, a Commodore64 or whatever could be geeky, but they still had to emerge from the BO-smelling rooms to interact with people. While some are happy never to interact with another soul, most need interaction. Today's technology, where you can multi-play games over the internet and at the same time talk to your team playing the same game and orchestrating against another team - and aspire to become an e-sports team member where they earn much more that AFL footy players - well, it's a lose lose and I genuinely worry about the next couple of generations. This is having the biggest effect on car licences.. games and tech are far more important.. In fact, I can comfortably tick off the list some countries I was going to visit because of the quality of tourguide webcasts and youtube videos. For private flying, the biggest issue is that satisfaciton of the senses for everything these days has to be gratuitous and immediate. How long and what sort of perseverence do you need to get a RAA ticket? A PPL here is now 9 exams (though the content hasn't changed) with all sorts of whacky rules if you don't pass one in a number of sittings (which is not what you think). Then you have to do all the training, etc. For a much lower price, you can get a VR simulator and enjoy it without the risk of crashing - no exams, learn as you go, etc. Though, I think flying is less impacted than driving. As a kid, I had no flying heros - I just loved aeroplanes and being in the air. I can't recall stories of any great flying heroes being regailed at any air league camps I went to . So, kids with an innate interest in aviation will take to the skies (finances providing) in the same way kids with an innate desire to drive will take to the roads (or, if they have a need). Also, in the old days, those Sandmans were decked out to attract another form of entertainement and I could never believe how successful they were (nor impressionable the willing participants were). They don't seem to hold the same allure these days. With respect to the market, I can only speak to the CoA aircraftover here.. It seems at the moment to be holding steady. In fact, I have noticed the asking prices of TB10s have been increasing steeply. Yesterday I sold my TB20 share more than I paid for it, but it had a bare metal respray.. in real terms I got my capital back as we contributed the difference to the resprary. However, I wasn't actively selling... since I am now out of London and the TB20 is based near London and the buyer was enthusiastic, it was a good time. He paid as much for my 1/8th share as a shabby but perfectly useable C150. Private (well, any) flying is a discretionary expense. In recessions, those whose spending power is most at risk will tighten their belts first. Which means, the bottom feeder aircraft prices will suffer as the people who can barely afford those will fall away. The higher end will probably hold steady or may take a slight hit. Think of the GFC - Sirrus and Diamon twins weres still doing well, thank you very much. Piper Malibus were still doing well, Archer DXs, not so.. The second hand and old twin market dies a horrid death - the latter never to recover; the former recovered slightly. In the UK, this could be a boom time for LAAs and BMAAs.. Except for the top end Vans, et al, which command pretty heft prices for what are two seat plastic fantastics, which will probably hold their value more or less anyway as they are top-end machines, bottom feeder CofA private flyers may well throw it in for the cheaper and moer grass roots LAA and BMAA flying. One can get decent one or two-up performance that competes with the 80 - 100kt range of bottom feeder GA planes for a fraction of the money... For example, my income has dried up with COVID.. COVID just brought it forward, it was a declining area I was working in; the problems was I was working on the next career transition (about the third) but it put paid to that. So, I am now contemplating what my next aviaiton move is.. There is a C172 non equity share (private rental agreement) at Exeter not too far away with a pretty good hourly rate compared to a school. There is a microlight school at Dunkeswell I am thinking of speaking too as well (problem is - dual instruction not allowed). I may well make the transition which will add 1 to the LAA membership.

I didn't know abouth Heath's vids, but often watch Scott's...

Would glide pilots requie ASICs if they oeprate from a field that requires ome?

I have to admit, I don't get the convert excess speed to height- maybe at low altitude and fast speeds.. but if I am crusing at even, say 5k' and I gain an extra 200' or even 500 - so what? I hae lost that time climbing and keeping an eye on the airspeed and then pushing over the nose, rather than looking for a good landing site (if I didn't already have one in mnd). If fact, over here, they teach just trim for best glide.. Obviosuly in a low mass RA, it is nose down ASAP.. but for your average GA even at 2,000', trimming for best speed while finding a good field sooner is better than pointing the nose up as you will get time at that height and not looking at the sky. . Also, imagine if you had an EFATO - habit to pull the nose up will kill you.. no worries, there.

Welcome back, Bcav!

Welcome, Fred.. Warriors are great, reliable planes. I used to fly with RVAC.. They still have a few of the Warriors I used to fly many years ago...

The go arounds were the right thing - so no mistakes... And some of those landings were smooth compared to mine ;-) Great vid.

Makle or female, compared to what we have today, an astounding achievement.!. For women, more so because while there is still a way to go in terms of gender quality, it was far more dofficult for them them. I top my hat to her (and all the others above). They have done much better than me.. and I have arguably had much more opportunity!

Welcome ol' chap! Let us know a but about yourself and your flying! JA

When we moved back to Aus we went with a service that provided an all in cost. About half was the landing fees and duties...

Hi Dave., Not on the other side of the world for some ;-) Welcome to the forums... JA.

Hi Andy, Welcome... I did it the other way round to you.. although not the CPL.. I flew from Redcliffe while I lived in Brissie for a short while -great aeroclub...

Many congrats @GoFly241! The C172 is a great platform (although I still prefer manual flaps and a low wing). Of course, there are LSAs that are quicker and use less fuel, but there is something about Cet a/c that keep me with them...

Welcome to the forums, @BreezyLog .. Given users can get their data at any time, your product should be a hit. Interested to know what tech stack you used to develop and deploy BreezyLog. I am using Java with a Postges DB.. Postgres good; Java bad... It really ius carp - don't know how a whole industry fell for it like they did.. Should read the Python books (or go back to COBOL! ;-))

I am sure, with the pints that are drink here, it would not be as "stiff" competition as you think.. ;-)

Many happy returns for your 70th, squire.. Glad to hear you will be spending it with family, even if distanced by 2m (these Aussie whimps can only cough 1.5 metres, it appears ;-))

I have spent the last 15 years earning realtively good money ding carp I hate.. I look back now and owuld have preferred earning enough to get by and doing stuff I love (ironically, when I lfeeted with the idea of being a professional pilot, night freight was where I wanted to go). As a very smart young woman said to me.. how often, on your death bed do you look back and think how great your working life was (compared to family and friends).. The reality is, if you can look back on your death bed with fond memories of work, then it doesn't matter how much you made as long as it kept the wolves from the door.