aro

Camden has 3 inbound reporting points within 15 miles, why does The Oaks inbound point even exist? Get rid of it and create a danger area 3nm radius around The Oaks to 2500'. Seems like a simple solution.

Where do you reckon coal, oil and gas come from? At least with batteries the minerals are recyclable. Coal and oil you just burn them and have to dig up more.

Snowy Hydro have been doing it for decades, they pump water to the top when there is excess power and use it to generate power when required. These days, big batteries are cheaper, simpler, faster to respond and generally more flexible.

Creating hydrogen by electrolysis is just chemical storage of energy - the same thing a battery does. The only difference is the source of the chemicals. A battery is self contained, but making hydrogen you can take water from the environment, and release the oxygen into the environment. Releasing the energy you can take oxygen from the air, and release the resulting water into the environment. Advantages of hydrogen: 1) You don't need to store all the chemicals for the reaction 2) You can easily divide it up into smaller quantities e.g. dispense by the litre Advantage of batteries 1) They are self contained - you put electricity in, get electricity out. You don't need separate equipment to manage the reaction (electrolysis equipment, engine or fuel cell). Right - you are storing energy, so you need to put the energy in before it can be used. Hydrogen is attractive to fossil fuel companies because so much of it currently comes from gas, so promoting hydrogen is a way to extend the dependency on gas & oil. Batteries seem to be easier and cheaper for almost all uses.

Right. Which is why if you measure the speed of an aeroplane with a radar gun from a balloon, you would get an accurate measurement of its true air speed (assuming the aircraft is travelling directly towards/away from the balloon)

GPS is ground speed, so it is influenced by the wind and is not a measure of airspeed. With a low stall speed and strong wind, you can fly with GPS speed of zero. TAS is the actual speed you are travelling through the air, i.e. the speed someone in a balloon floating with the wind with a radar gun would measure. IAS is indicated airspeed, the speed that is shown on the airspeed indicator. CAS is calibrated airspeed, which is what a perfect airspeed indication system would show. Airspeed indication systems are not perfect. IAS and CAS should be very close at cruise speed, but IAS often has large errors at high angle of attack, i.e. close to the stall. IAS and CAS reduce approximately 2% per thousand feet due to reduced air density. Aerodynamic loads e.g. lift are relative to CAS so we can use indicated airspeeds for stall speed, approach speed etc. Vne could be limited by aerodynamic loads, or it could be limited by flutter. Aerodynamic loads are related IAS(CAS) but flutter is relative to TAS. Typically, small aircraft have a limited service ceiling, so if the ceiling is 14000 and VNE is 130 knots they might test for flutter to 190 TAS and just give the one number 130 IAS. If an aircraft has a higher ceiling e.g. gliders where altitude is not limited by the reducing engine power, VNE can be TAS or can change as altitude increases. The biggest problem is e.g. experimental aircraft where people put a big engine in that allows it to go faster and higher. The spread between IAS and TAS can be bigger than was assumed when the Vne was set originally, so you can reach a higher TAS than it's designed for. Summary: Certified aircraft: Vne is whatever it says in the POH. Could be IAS, could be TAS or IAS changing with altitude. Non-certified: There's no guarantee how Vne was tested. It is conservative to assume TAS, particularly if it has a larger engine than the original design.

Why? It seems like it would just pollute the forum with non-aviation topics, and drive away aviation users. There's already too many non-aviation arguments here already.

The engine was probably the most mature part!

You don't see e.g. removing the history of the Tuskegee Airmen, women pilots etc. from government websites as a symptom of a problem? Whatever your opinions of previous governments, this one is in a totally different category.

Maurice Blackburn saying that's what they're doing might be a clue.

We don't, although there may be some truth to the idea that CASA wants someone else to blame rather than them. Which is fine, until insurance companies decide they don't want to be CASA's patsy.

The whole point is that if you remove ANY link in the chain the accident wouldn't happen. But the question is whether RAAus failed, not whether there was something else that would have stopped it. Overconfident pilots are not exactly unheard of.

I assume you are familiar with the idea that accident's don't have a single cause, they are a chain? The chain here was: 1) he was overconfident 2) he was given a license without the required training 3) the weather was bad 4) he look off into bad weather #2 is the direct responsibility of RAAus. Worse, #2 is supposed to mitigate #1 and reduce the chance of #4. Bad weather happens - i can't be changed.

Mr 32,000 posts! At least this thread is (was) still on topic

This is nonsense. An ASIC card won't let you on to "do maintenance". You need company ID etc. The ASIC card is for the secure area of the airport, and it failed completely.

I have an ASIC, it doesn't mean I can walk up to a Jetstar aircraft, flash the ASIC and get on. He didn't have a boarding pass or company credentials - that was what stopped him, not the ASIC. The ASIC is supposed to stop unauthorized people from accessing the secure area. It obviously failed spectacularly here. Even then it only works if someone is denied the ASIC - there's no evidence that an ASIC would have been rejected if he had applied. Claiming this is an ASIC success is desperation/delusion.

Great example. I could show you several places where people park their trucks near their homes, the neighbors hate it but it doesn't mean they need to get council approval for a truck park.

Big difference between building an airstrip and landing your aircraft on your property. Kind of like parking a car in your backyard vs building a carpark.

Totally dependent on engine design. Look at modern engine design and rpm vs older engines and the comparative efficiency and lifespan.

Did you learn about best angle of climb, best rate of climb and best glide in your training? All I said was higher speed aircraft often have trouble meeting the 5200 rpm minimum at best angle/rate of climb speeds. You are arguing with that but somehow saying you don't need to fly at those speeds? Yes, "subject to terrain clearance" is the important bit. There have been many accidents that might not have happened if the pilot had flown the correct speed for best performance. The quoted performance figures (takeoff distance, landing distance, rate of climb) are null and void if you don't fly the specified speeds. Flying small aircraft requires accuracy, when you care about performance.

Maintaining rpm above 5200 by adjusting attitude/angle of attack is not climbing at best angle or best rate airspeed. Faeta best rate seems to be 59 knots (the POH isn't completely clear). 5200 rpm at 59 knots and 120 knots at 5500 is double the speed for only a 6% increase in rpm. Pretty good, if true.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Pilots often have a personality where they don't like being told they can't do something. But the reality is this sort of thing impacts all of us, because it ultimately results in extra restrictions being imposed. We should be aiming to enjoy our hobby as much as possible without making other peoples lives worse. Taking off/landing low over a neighbour's house obviously makes their life worse. Don't do it, unless you have discussed it with them and have permission. A related situation, a person I know built an airstrip on their property. The local flying schools found out, and started using it for practicing precautionary searches. The neighbour was OK with the owner using it, not so much with multiple aircraft making multiple low passes over their house. The flying school's attitude, at least initially was "it's legal you can't stop us, bad luck". Like I said, these attitudes impact us all.

Don't believe everything you read! People would rarely use best angle, but when you really need it you don't want to be worrying about your engine. I think many Rotax powered aircraft with cruise over 100 knots or so have trouble meeting the 5200 rpm minimum at their true best angle/best rate speeds. I know e.g. the RV-12 recommended below 5200, despite Rotax recommendations. They now use the injected engine, which is a lot more flexible. Evidence? If you operate WOT below 5200 there is a higher risk of detonation and sudden failure, other than that I haven't seen any credible claims.

The 5200 minimum is full throttle (wide open throttle/WOT). It's related to the propeller not the throttle position. Closing the throttle for lower rpm is no problem. Some say it's better to operate the engine above 5000 rpm but I've seen no convincing evidence. Personally, I don't like hitting the thermals hard and using more fuel just to keep the rpm over 5000.

True, I left out part of the statement: The static rpm that results in a minimum 5200 rpm WOT in climb will depend on the propeller and aircraft speed. I knew what I meant! With a draggy aircraft, going faster gives up a lot of climb rate. A leisurely climb is fine once you have some altitude, but initially you want something close to best rate so you have options in case of a problem. I do tend to climb less steeply above circuit height for more rpm, but it takes a significant increase in speed for a small rpm increase.