APenNameAndThatA

You still don't get it. When you wrote the scenario, what was in your mind was engine power. But once you posted the question, the answers depended on the question not what your intention. The correct answer was wind. If then engine lost power, the aircraft would have lost height (and you did not give enough detail to suggest that a different less likely outcome would have arisen). You were wrong and lacked the grace to admit it. That is the fault of you and your question, not the fault of the people who responded to the question. Re: "I'm sorry no one had the ability to look at the main point." If you had said "I am setting a question and I want you to guess the answer, but you need to remember that the objective is for you to work out what I am thinking, not what the best answer is based on the question," then that would have been more honest and more insightful. Stated differently, it doesn't matter if the question is not debugged when you post it. The question would have given you a different answer to the one you expected. You lacked the humility and mental flexibility to say, *very* early on, "Oh, s-, wind is the obvious answer". That's on you. Re "I was going to pose another question on something else, but I can't be bothered to minutely inspect every syllable to ensure that what I write is blatantly obvious. Maybe I should work backwards. Provide the answer, then ask people what the question is", the obvious solution is to pose the question and see if you were right. Why on earth do you suppose that the answer has to be certain before you post the question? You. Still. Don't. Get. It.

Which is why your "Diagnose This" question was wrong.

By having the aircraft maintain height, you actually eliminated a magneto failure from consideration. 😂

You wanted to eliminate it from the question. Which is why you, and your question, are wrong. If the engine lost power, you would have lost height. Instead you said that the aircraft was slow. The way the question was written, wind is the correct answer. Thanks for coming.

That's about 7 kg of fuel. So, your question is wrong. People keep mentioning the wind because it is the correct answer.

There is one fatal accident per 100 000 hours. So, if you fly 50 hours per year, you have a one in 2000 chance of dying. The baseline rate of deaths for middle aged people is about 1 in 1000 per year. The baseline rate of deaths for kids is about 1/2000. So, if you regularly take your kids flying, and they die, its probably going to be in your airplane. The road toll is rightly a big concern. IIRC, It is the number one killer of people in their early 20’s... and it is much much safer than flying RAAus. So a) RAAus could do with being safer, and b) this is nothing to do with the straw man of saying people say that every flight is a flight into catastrophe. 🙄

It turns out aerobatic pilots wear helmets for hitting their head in flight, not when they crash. Who knew? The poor student. A really close call through no fault of their own.

Suppose you are trimmed and flying along. Eventually, your aircraft will become lighter. Does the aircraft maintain the speed it is trimmed for and gain height?

A trimmed aircraft would have list heigh, not speed. 🙄

The real value in this question was working out where it is wrong. The question states “the aircraft was trimmed nicely”. Aircraft are trimmed for speed, not altitude. Therefore, if the engine lost power, the aircraft would lose height, not speed. For a trimmed aircraft to lose speed but not height, it must have lost power AND have a trim problem. So, it was a systems problem after all! OME wins! Well, he would have, if he had told tge readers to ignore wind. The forecast and lack of turbulence are, of course, nonsensical nonsense.

So, the answer should have been. "Check to see if you are no longer at 75% power, your revs dropped or you are flying slower than normal". No knowledge of systems was required to do the first step and check if you are flying slower than normal. S T U P I D

If you are maintaining 75% power, like the question says, then it will be wind. I suppose the answer you want is to check for carburetor ice.

I've got $10 that says that this is going to be nonsense.

182 RG? *Technically*, just because a plane is $10k more than it was does not mean it is bad value.

That was me being wrong. But if you have a Class 1 or Class 2 medical, you can fly above 10 000 ft

Flightscope Aviation at Archerfield works for me.

I think that you might be mixing up RPL with RPC. RA-Aus give people *certificates* so they can fly LSA's. RPL is a licence, issued by CASA, that allows you to fly a GA aircraft, but still with only one passenger. I think that if things go well, going from RPC, to RPL to PPL will be cheaper than starting with RPL and then going to a PPL.

So... Airedales had a nasty reputation for lacking rudder authority? No? Didn't think so.

The Lincoln project was formed by Republicans who hate trump. Sure Trump sucks. My big concern is that both sides of US politics have lost their way. The Dems selected Joe Biden who has age-related cognitive decline as far as I can tell (i.e. early dementia), and they failed to condemn the looting and destruction that took place with the BLM protests. Both moves were insane.

Looks like inattention with or without panic.

I'll stick my neck out and say that that photo is of rain from convection and that abrasion of the prop is the last thing you should have been worried about. If you want to fly through rain, fly through rain from stratus clouds.

I don't buy the idea that lap sash belts should used in aircraft because four point harnesses because of the extra time it takes. The preflight means that going flying will always take vastly longer than hopping in a car. There is just no comparison. I think that GA aircraft have lap sash belts because the old ones were certified 50 years ago, and the new ones wanted to be fashionable. I only just learned that apparently the reason aerobatic pilots wear helmets is the risk of banging their head when they do aerobatics. It's not actually for when they crash. In Flying once I read about a pilot who hit her head in mountain turbulence but was okay because she was wearing a mountaineering helmet! The take-home message is that four-point harnesses are for turbulence as well as crashes. And the other take-home message is that you should tighten the lap belt low and tight around your hips. As for aircraft not having a place to anchor the top seatbelts, well, you need to get an aircraft with a roof.

I admire you, but you can fly that by yourself.

He didn't impose his anything on anyone, FFS.

Reply Night VFR will always be more dangerous than day VFR.