winsor68

Its not a concern, more of an observation derived from years of reading inflated claims about sport aircraft performance.It is to be expected that a manufacturer/sales team will endeavour to cast their product in the 'best light" . All to often this marketing "understanding" is abused by highly improbable claims - particularity (but not exclusively) of high speed cruise, take-off, climb and range performance.

As an example - It might be worth checking out the wide range of light aircraft powered by the ubiquitous Rotax 912 ULS (100 hp). It is just not credible that a larger, heavier aircraft can outperform a lighter, slipperier aircraft fitted with the same engine, however there are a host of very sexy looking models that claim just that. There are a small number of Rotax 912 ULS powered aircraft that have had their performance independently verified. One such is VH-SGS built & modified by Robin Austin. Compare his world class performance with the unverified claims of so many others.

 

In my humble view, if an aircraft performance claim can not be supported by impartial testing/test data, the potential customer should view such claims with a very high degree of suspicion.

Did you have to sound so stilted, and use so many zombie nouns and unnecessary words? For example, "Quite clearly this inquest has brought into the open the fact that" could have been left out. Instead of "place a great deal of reliance [zombie noun] on", you could have said, "rely [verb] on". You are changing how you audit - which is humble and self-reflective - but the way you announced it made you sound pompous.

Documenting it seems to have become the goal of WH&S to the serious detriment of actual safety. I've seen it everywhere in the workplace today. We are fxxxxxd!

I sent to following to the organisations for whom I conduct management audits. I think the message is well worth posting here.

DreamWorld and the Importance of Records of Training

 

There is a Coronial Inquest being conducted at the moment in Queensland into the deaths of four people on a thrill ride at the DreamWorld theme park in 2016. The evidence already given to the Inquest should be ringing alarm bells and waving warning flags in the face of every organisation that has a legal responsibility to safeguard the safety of persons (Work, Health & Safety) and the environment.

 

The evidence so far is pointing to a corporate culture in which training (in this case, of safety related matters) is haphazard. There also appears to have been no documentation of the content of the training topics, nor of the successful completion of the training by recipients.

 

Earlier, a former Dreamworld employee described witnessing an incident in which four rafts collided on the Thunder River Rapids ride over 15 years before the tragedy on the same attraction in 2016. Joe Stenning was beginning a shift as a deckhand on the ride in January 2001 when the empty rafts collided, forcing one to flip over. Mr Stenning said he couldn’t recall if he underwent any emergency training or retraining on the Thunder River Rapids ride after the incident.

 

The Inquest heard Dreamworld staff had openly discussed among themselves their desire to undertake emergency drills, a Queensland Inquest has heard. Training and compliance officer Amy Crisp told the court that emergency training was something staff were keen to receive.

 

“It was something that as operators we talked about wanting,” Ms Crisp told the Inquest. “It was just in conversation with other operators that there was an operator that used to work at Movie World and at Movie World they did things like this.” Ms Crisp is just one of several staff to tell the Inquest that not only had she not undertaken any emergency drills at Dreamworld she also had no CPR or first-aid training.

 

What has this got to do with Environmental Management?

 

Quite clearly this Inquest has brought into the open the fact that, if an incident occurs that gives rise to an inquiry with legal ramifications, either criminal or civil, then the inquiry will place a great deal of reliance on documentation of procedures and records that show that persons required to carry out those procedures have been adequately trained (including exhibiting their competence in following the procedure).

 

During audits conducted by Shark Consulting, attention is paid to the existence of this documentation, and related records. At previous audits, the focus has been on the practicalities of environmental risk management, and not so much on the documentation and records. This previous focus has proved effective for most client organisations.

 

Commencing with the 2018/2019 triennial independent audits, the focus will be on documentation, training and records. Not because these things are niceties, but because these things are an organisation’s insurance policy if it is drawn into an inquiry having legal ramifications.

I found this on Youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VqXlxk629o

It took a while to think about what to write here. In the end I decided to just say it straight.

Maj is gone Ryls. He was fatally injured following a crash while test flying a friends aircraft. It was a couple of years ago. Check the date of the thread.

CHECK YOUR SIX!!!

RAT !!TAT!! TAT!!!!!!!!!!!

4 knots is a LOT of airspeed in an Ultralight Aircraft.

I am confused.

Did a "previous model" of this aircraft stall at 38 knots? Or did the same aircraft just have it's paperwork rewritten more accurately to indicate it's differing performance figures to those published? Did you order a Mk1 Bushcat? Or a Mk2 Bushcat? Or did the Mk1 become a Mk2 on paper?

It's amazing what can happen when you roll the dice.

I do reckon they need to check more than the seat safety pins.

I've never had a problem with a platform including the one just gone but for the first time I really just didn't like the new platform. It didn't have half the features or useability of this one so I was missing that. It did look pretty. I am certainly glad to be back to this one.

OH THANK DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ATTACH]38546.IPB[/ATTACH]reparing a new (as yet unflown) Lanzo Record Breaker for a Old Timer Texaco event this weekend.  

[ATTACH]38548.IPB[/ATTACH]

 " Most U/L''s will never last as long as a C

 

 Most U/L''s will never last as long as a C 152 though That's also why reporting faults you find, makes the whole scene safer.   A very lightweight structure by it's very nature cannot be long lifed.  

 

Says it all really...

I don't think he's doing it to build a plane that's going to last years.  He has a very clever business method going on here.  Firstly, he's getting stuff like electric motors for hugely discounted prices - if not free - because he's showing their product in the build.  Then he's getting the "wow, this guy built a plane out of normal stuff" buzz going so his youtube views go through the roof.  As his profile grows, his money from advertising grows, and he gets to do the stuff he always wanted to do anyway and has his lifestyle completely funded.Good on him, and I hope he has fun.  I reckon he'll fly each plane a few times and quietly cannibalize all the useful stuff out of them.

Yeah.  He already did all that with his last electric plane?   

I just hope he doesn't kill himself.  I wish he would stick to model (UNMANNED)  aeroplanes.  He did what he set out to do with the last one.   He built and flew an electric aircraft using hobby grade materials.   Now move on Peter please.

We need a US style Part 103 under but outside of ALL of this.

We could go back to 300kg and stay inside the fence.

And just why is that so comical to so many pilots?    Sorry.  GA Pilots.

The fat lady has sung.

I read...though I don't remember where...that the fuel system was set up this way because the original owner was trying to avoid having fuel system pipes or parts in the cockpit.Hindsight is 20/20, and especially when sitting safely on the ground, but it seems astonishing anyone would put such an essential piece of equipment out of both easy reach and sight.

My instructors have only ever really pulled the power from upwind to abeam the threshold on downwind. If we're talking about a standard by-the-book circuit, should i be able to make the field from the base turn point? Or mid-base? Or the turn to final? If I'm on the "correct" glidepath I think i would struggle unless the wind was favourable. Maybe i should be turning base earlier. I dont know. I have never actually tried a glide approach from past the abeam threshold point on downwind. 

There is no guarantee you will or should make the field from anywhere.  

That is an impressive little aeroplane.    Wasn't there a big version of that little Lightning some years ago?

So is yours the first Faeta NG operating locally?   The company appears to turn out some very impressive aircraft.  You'd have to kick yourself to at least not test fly one of these if you were in the market for a new aeroplane.   

But some ideas have drawbacks not imagined:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5817679/Eagle-trained-bring-terrorist-drones-attacks-girl-five.html

I call baloney.   Eagles aren't stupid.  I couldn't imagine one would mistake a 5 year old kid for a drone.