Jerry_Atrick

Oxford Kidlington airport is the closest field to Oxford. From a flight school perspective, it is primarily for commerical students. I haven't been there for years, so can't really give any advice, apart from checking the web and calling/emailing; maybe GoFly - they seem to do PPLs as well. If you have a car or access to transport, Enstone Flying Clube (https://www.enstoneflyingclub.co.uk/) would be my choice. Bicester is prrobably closer, but I think it is gliding only.

Blimey.. all this debate about climate change on a change of CEOs in an airline; thought you chaps were onto how airliners are a contributor to climate change.. BTW, on climate change, opinion is often mistakely claimed as fact. But one of my favourite quotes is "Facts don't give a sh!t what poeople think". Back to the matter at hand I can only respond in this way:

He certainly has had his fair share of issues lately, but he soldiers on and appears still have that same optimistic approach he has always had: https://news.sky.com/topic/richard-branson-7594 (Sky News UK has nothing to do with Murdoch anymore)

The reality is, the airline business seems to have been a race to the bottom for a long time; I think you can thank another Irishman for that one - Michael O'Leary. Ex-KPMG, he was recruited to Ryan-scare after consulting to them . It was all about cost reduction and fare competition; get the prices cheap and the customers will take it over being shafted when things don't quite go right. I don't know about today, but back in the day, their business model lost money on ticket sales; they often sold for the prices of taxes and charges only. They made money on other things, like stiffing customers when things went wrong. People will take a significant cost saving where they can, and Ryanscare made it their mantra. They started taking market share in Europe, and then airlines had to react, but they had to cut corners and were not adept at running the low cost operation that Ryanscare was. Then it builds into the international space, and suddenly load factors are decreasing for the more branded airlines, and as Kev notes, you don't want a plane flying half full. Sadly, I guess it cares little to be one of the world's most celebrated airlines when the bottom line isn't where it should be. Better to be just another in the pack but making more money that revered but losing it. That sort of is how the punches roll in the airline business as far as I can tell.

To play devil's advocate, if you are an investor in the airline business and invested in QANTAS when Joyce started his tenure, you would be hard pressed to find a CEO that has delivered better results (even in the dips). I am sure someone will find an airline or two that have, on relative terms performed better, but I did a quick look across the main international US, Europe and SE Asian airlines as well as a NASAQ Airline Index and the QANTAS graph looked good against most (JAL had a bumper time in the early 2010's when everyone else faltered a bit). Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said he has a decidated 1-800 number he calls whenever he thinks about investing in an airline to counsel him out of it.

One other.. The CASA website advice seems to be out of date compared to the regs. On my last trip to Aus, I went the RVAC to talk abour the arduous route described on the websitte to get an Aussie PPL off the back of my EASA one (yes, I decided to keep the EASA one rather than go British); and I found that it was almost as simple as the FAA's piggy back licence. For once, though, CASA had the right approach from a reg perspective.

Yes.. Would expect somthing to do with the crankshaft resulting in vibration (and ultimate failure), but the also have shaken their props off: (the same incident): https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=122713 And there are more of the same incident.. I guess I should check outside the forums!

Something to do with props falling off the particular engine they use.

https://flyer.co.uk/cirrus-grounds-aircraft-after-engine-problem-revealed/

Cirrus aircraft are made there?

Well, the Ukraine has had its electical infrastructure bombed the carp out of... As someone who has worked in the nuclear generation industry, I would dispute that, except there was a vid on helium cooled reactors in Japan that may be a game changer in that area (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Japanese-gas-cooled-reactor-restarts). These would be ideal for Australia as you don't have to site them near sustained water supplies. But you still have the issue of waste and managing it, which is currently an expensive exercise. And the reactors themselves are an expensive exercise. In the mean time, there are cheaper, safer and more practical game changers in solar (and other renewables).. and the tech will move much more rapidly: An example of not needing the diesel generator is hereL https://chargearoundaustralia.com/ . After all, the sun is the solar system's biggest nuclear reactor - fusion, as it transpires.. we have yet to be able to scale it, though it is the holy grail.. So why not utilise the sun? EVs, by the way, are not going to solve climate change.. but they are far less polluting in other ways.

Clearly a comedy video, but by the looks of the comments on it, people actually think he is making a serious point? What those who took it as gospel forgot to note what that he ignored an amazing energy source right above his head; the sun... Which companies are learning to exploit to move away from fossil fuels. One example is here: https://www.solarsense-uk.com/commercials/commercial-ev-charging-and-solar-carports/. Just google solar ev recharging.. Now, of course, they won't quench the thirst of massive trucks (and maybe trucks in the outback aren't suitable for EV-ifying), but maybe the new solar tech being pioneered in SA may solve that. And of course, drilling for oil is sooooooooooo environmentally friendly.. at least virtually all minerals and materials used in EV world are recyclable. BTW, EVs won't solve the climate warming issue, but they are a lot cleaner in the cities, and they are a heck of a lot more pleasant to drive.. and give a lot better low-down power (or delivery of it, anyway), which is about the only place a good deal of power makes sense in Aus, thanks to the revenue raising higher speeds provides to the government.

Looks like the privte jet franternity complained enough, but the airlines will have a bit to do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

True, but when I was running market risk projects, I gave up on the maths PhDs.. they knew the theory alright, but applied it to the wrong data.. with a lot more cost than you think, and more risk to boot. I don't want to be sitting on teh poop-house that falls over as the inputs were wrong; or the airlined that runs out of fuel because they used kgs in the calcs when they put in lbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider) Obviosuly, tolerances are built in... But when I fly, I never fly to keep the costs down. I prefer the brick poophouse approach

I think the main reeason for coughing up the $33m as a settlement is to minimise the payment that will have to be made rather than to cover up anything. The lack of admission of liability is common in these sorts of proceedings is common to minimise further potential liability. There have been cases where liability was admitted and additional "victims" who would not have been able to claim have successfully lodged claims, and those that agreed with the settlment have been able to get more. No one would settle unless, on the balance of probabilities they would lose.. and they would only lose because, on the balance of probabilities, they are liable. Given the Supreme court have to approve the payment, If the government don't look into this, they are derelict in their duty... There are some farily serious assertions which have not yet been legally tested.

Reviving a very old thread, but some students look like they will get something back.. Box Hill College of TAFE will pick up the bill, though.. Privatising profits, and socialising losses, and all that: https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/soar-students-in-line-for-33-million-payout

In honour of QEII, the mecca of British aviators (GA, LSA and others) has renamed itself as "Le Touquet-Paris-Plage Elizabeth II.". Apparently, the airport was founded by a Brit, anyway. Good on Le Touquet.. Of course, on Tuesdays, it will still be an AA airport, which I was hoping meant Alcoholics Always, but is French for French speaking only. I am sure, the late Lizzy spoke French anyway! https://www.timeout.com/news/this-french-resort-is-renaming-its-airport-after-queen-elizabeth-ii-092022 Normally, I would say that name will be a bugger on the radio, but thankfully, but, when flying in Frande, we are expected to quote ICAO codes for airfields (slight sarcasm with respect to another thread some time back).

Maybe.. it was probably closer to £300...

This one brought back memories of my first UK flight (as the onoy time a pax in a PA28), and then my own flying. The flight planning/nav software is Skydemon, which is fantastic to use (sorry OzRunways), and submitting the flight plan was a push on a button in Skydemon. Note, in France, French pilots do RT in French.. which is a bummer for situationa awareness. Grand flying:

I agree they shouldn't be able to dictate to the government anything,, but the headlline about Melbourne Airport "whacking" tie Vic government is out of line with reality - or at least what The Age were reporting, which was airport management expressing a preference and working "in good faith" - which doesn not appear to be "whacking at all".. However, as a taxpayer to the state (payroll taxes, land taxes, etc) as well as indirectly via federal taxes) as well as being directly impacted by the government decision, should they not be able to express their opnions and even facts, and that they are considered regardless of whether they participate in elections (wich corporations, otherwise known as legal persons, are not allowed to)?

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fight-or-flight-conflict-with-airport-looms-after-government-reveals-sky-rail-plan-20220920-p5bjmp.html has detail of the spat (open in private mode). It isn't quite a whack, but the Herald Sun is the Herald Sun. No mention by Melbourne Airport management of an existing underground station.. Having said that, I would want to make sure there were multiple completely covered areas to get to an above ground platform.. and I would personally perfer an underground station. The Melbourne Airport management have expressed a preference for an underground station given they are planning additional terminals and see a need to have a second station sometime in the future. That, and the aesthetics seems to make the difference. Obviosuly, to keep the costs "down", they are looking at integrating into the existing network, and the new loop.. Would it have been better to run it from Spencer St. Station, direct - there are a couple of new stations planned, so I am thinking there won't be too many epxress trains for the city.. which, when I am in Melbourne, am in the SE 'burbs, so probably will find alternate transport.. Stopping in Sunshine... buggah that!

Not after the taxman got his grubby mits on the profit

Sincere condolences, Bosi72.

Hi Noel, Just saw this.. I do still have it.. and when flying, still use it.. Not for sale just yet, anyway. Lance (Jerry's just my pseudonym)

I saw this property come up... sadly the £ has tanked against the Aussie, otherwise I would only be about 9.5m off