APenNameAndThatA

Just listened a bit further. Its an ad.

Do VG's really give you more rudder authority, as he claims?

As far as I can work out, if the vortex generators are fitted, then the angle of attack at stall will be increased, the stall warning will go off at the same angle of attack as usual, and therefore the stall warning will go off at a higher speed above stall speed. So, if the warning usually goes off 5 kt before the stall, and the stall speed is lowered 5 kt, the stall warning will go off 10 kt before the stall. I agree with you that having the stall warning go off during a turning final is not a good idea. I the first landing, the stall warning went off *and* he did not use close to all the strip. I would have thought that the safer thing to do would have been to come in faster and use more of the strip to stop. Disclaimer: I have a massive 76 hrs.

Yeah, including that most confidence-inspiring aeronautical unit of measure, the slug.

But they do fly when it is pretty dark.

I would communicate in writing with the airline

I have the purple ATC book about using the radio. Not nearly as much help as the ap.

Snarf gave the best advice. Another option is the app LiveATC. Humans learn language by imitation. At Archerfield, I was not ready to repeat back the instructions “On bravo, cross 04 right, cross 04 left, hold at bravo 5 for 10 left.” There are only two taxi instructions that are usually given, so there is a finite amount to learn.

The high-wing brumby does not have great payload even with a Rotax, IIRC. There is no way that I would get a Lyco when I could get a Rotax. Disclaimer: low hrs pilot. Why would you prefer a Lyco?

Celebrities need to know that their presence can distract pilots and also cause get-there-itis. (Which, technically, would be inflammation of the get-there.)

I'm pretty sure that I twigged that the accents were the main issue.

I doubt it but am not an expert.

I'm waiting to get shouted down, but here goes. What the Casa brochure Be Seen Be Heard Be Safe says as an example call is this. "Parkes traffic, C172, ZTQ one-zero miles north inbound on descent through 4,200, estimating circuit at three six, Parkes." The first three bits are simple: Where you are calling, "traffic", what you are and who you are. The next bits are complicated. 1. Distance away. 2. Bearing (from their perspective). 3. What you are doing overall: "inbound" or "overflying". 4. What you are doing for altitude, if anything: climbing, descending. 5. Current altitude. 6. "Estimating" 7. What you are going to do, again: "circuit" or "overhead" 8. "At" 9. Time. Then, the place is simple. If you were really supposed to say who you were talking to, who you were, where you were, what you were doing, time and place again, you would say. Parks traffic, C172, ZTQ, 10 miles north 4500 feet, descending, inbound for circuit (or not "circuit" because if you are inbound, a full stop is assumed) estimating at 36, Parks. Which I think would be better. But improving on the rules is the last thing that I would want do do. What is going on? Is there some reason it is like this? I don't want to improve on the rules. Saying what people expect you to say, when they expect you to say it, is much more important than improving on the standard procedures in one's one idiosyncratic way.

Work 5 days a week. 17% decrease in work. 100% increase in time off.

"15" might be the runway. So, no.

Are RAAus aircraft allowed?

Yes, modifying the base rates is a good idea. I know that I won’t drive drunk. With the flying accidents, I tell myself that if other people made those mistakes, then so can I.

My understanding is that the police would like to stop using motorcycles but that they can do things that cars can’t. That’s not very specific info, I know.

I suspect motorbikes are safer than quad bikes.

The point about insurance companies is very valid. Money talks and bullshit walks, as the movie said. Apparently, in the early 1900’s insurance companies already knew that asbestos was bad. Actually, the Romans knew to give their slaves pig skin masks if they worked with asbestos, to help the slaves live longer. As far as I can remember, insurance companies take a dimmer view of aircraft than motorcycles.

In this situation a bit if toxicity might help.

Your are being too all-or-nothing about whether or not data has any value, and dumping the data just because it is imperfect. Take the comparison of death rates between car drivers and motorcyclists: most of the the fatalities might be from weekend riders and most of the kilometers might be from professional riders during the week (I don't know). That does not mean that the comparison is meaningless, it just means that you need to take that into account when you are deciding if buying a motorbike to ride on the weekend is a good idea. It is wrong to say that you cannot compare risks when someone rides for a certain amount of time, and fly for a certain distance. It does not matter what the motivation is. The further/longer you fly/ride/drive, the greater the risk. Simple as that. As for the idea that comparing distance based on speed being erroneous, it's not. LSA's fly in a pretty specific speed band. The issues of headwind are going to be smaller than the individual differences in LSA speeds. As all winds are headwinds, as it were, you could take headwinds into account by saying that there is, on average, a 5 kt headwind. It does not make a difference. If someone is wanting to work out how safe flying is, they can compare it to driving *or* riding a motorbike. If someone wants more accurate data, they can drill down and modify the *base rate* of risk by taking into account their hours, temperament, aircraft, weather and etc. ------------------- Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions. 1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car? 2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike? 3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above? 4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue? 5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

That is fascinating. The calculations that I had done in the past, when I was considering flying, were as follows. 1 fatal per 100 000 hours. That means that if someone flew 50 hours per year, there was a 1/2000 chance of dying per year. The base mortality rate for people who are about 40 or 50 is about 1/1000. Importantly, that includes people who were already *known* to be at risk, such as people with severe medical illness. I reasoned that if I flew, I would roughly increase the chance of me dying by 50%. As for flying with kids in the plane: their base rate risk of death was 1/2000, and they did not have a chronic illness. That means that, if you fly with your kids a lot, if they are going to die, it will probably be in your aircraft. Flying: it's not dangerous, but it's not safe.