Ian

I'm struggle to see your point or maybe I stated it poorly, by definition an engine which always runs with excess air is lean of peak and is a lean burn engine (ie diesel) and an engine which requires operation rich of peak is not (ie o360). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean-burn It's a little more complex but in general it is true. Most Airplane engines are designed to use excess petrol for cooling and reduce detonation and may only be run lean as lower power settings. Modern car engines are not, demonstrating that this is possible not an inherent issue but a design choice. Diesel engines are essentially constant airflow, only fuel flow changes during throttling not airflow. So they operate to the oxygen rich side of stoichiometric. ie diesels normally operate at ratios between 17:1 and 70:1 however stoichiometric for a diesel is about 14.6 an tends to leave lots of soot in the exhaust due to the slower burn of diesel. The guiberson diesel from ww2 era was normally aspirated and designed as an airplane engine. It's power to weight was reasonable and it's efficiency was better than most modern cars including a prius. Turbo's can improve the power to weight and allow increases in power at the same rev range. Due to the combustion properties of diesel they tend to have a narrow rev range in which combustion can proceed efficiently. This is why forced induction, allowing more air to be pushed through the engine without changing the rpm is popular. Always is a very strong word, the guiberson has a power to weight of 0.781 kW/kg and the junker ju 205e 0.903 kW/kg and 0320 makes 0.99kW/kg in comparison. So generally works for me. I'm sure there's engines outside this rule and if I stated always someone would just prove me wrong. Also electronics are pervasive however they're on an inherent part of a diesels operation, however you can't design an otto engine without an ignition system.

To be clear a few of the advantages of diesel engines using diesel Better thermodynamic efficiency from higher combustion temperatures (due to higher compression) Higher energy fuel per litre 36.9MJ/l compared to 33.7MJ/l. Excess air ensures creates a leaner burn Max power occurs at RPMs that are suitable for propellers without reductions gearboxes Generally can run on Jetfuel (lubrication of the injectors can be an issue). Less flammable fuel Can be electronics free. ie no requirement for ignition. Some disadvantages are Power/Weight generally worse than petrol Power pulses tend to the stronger so items designed for petrol may endure. Limited track record Low temperature cloud point and pour point issues. Generally require turbos to bring them close to petrol engine performance. But I must admit I would be jealous if someone flew in an filled their piston powered plan with jetfuel.

It's a tragedy for all involved. All engines, airframes and pilots can fail, lets hope that there's a few lessons in the washup from this that we can learn from.

It's a manual process which is a bit unwieldy. The following article gives a bit of an overview of the principle and operation of a couple of commercial kits. https://www.aviationconsumer.com/maintenance/engine-dehydrators-engine-saver-prevails/ There's also the DIY approach https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/engine-dehumidifier-diy.115754/ It's not an elegant solution by any means and your mileage may vary.

The key problem is that the airspace in the crankcase is moist regardless of whether you use water injection. Yes it may result in the exhaust stream being going through the block and existing via the breather beingslightly more humid however there is a significant amount of water either way. Steam passing over hot components won't condense so condensation occurs for a short period after starting and once the engine turns off and the crankcase cools. Condensate in the oil will evaporate after extended runs and exit via the breather. This is why systems which actively ventilate the crankcase with dry air after parking should reduce internal corrosion for planes which are kept sitting for extended periods.

It's from the "ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY REPORT Aviation Research and Analysis Report" in 2007. It just wouldn't be possible for it to be incorrect. I think that both domestically and internationally there has been a trend towards experimental and light sport aircraft at the expense of the commercial GA streams. This report has some interesting facts. The best selling piston airplane manufacturer shipped 79 aircraft in the quarter. That's ~320 per year for the best seller worldwide. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/may/19/not-all-pistons-remain-popular

Personally I think that there is a strong conflict of interest in this area which should be articulated by the commitee, and a key requirement being harmonization of the medical requirements between the different streams of aviation.

Because it's a win, both politically and for people in these areas, It is a good thing. Government in Australia is about the delivery of common goods. There is a clear and justifiable common good associated with this activity which is why they should nurture and support it. Their primary consideration should be safety however they should use a risk based approach which incorporates all factors including the fact that regional areas have demonstrably poor health outcomes. I don't think their approach came anywhere close to these goals. As I've stated a risk based approach would be better as well as allowing the consumers of the service to participate in this risk process. I'm aware that there are those in the aviation sector and CASA who think that Angel Flight is a shanker on the prick of aviation, however I think that view is wrong. Volunteer work when properly supported an nurtured can complement and fill areas of need which are difficult to prototype and fill. Often volunteer or charitable services are more efficient mechanisms for delivering services. For example the RFDS was originally a completely charitable organisation without Government support which combined two new technologies to pilot and prototype a new type of service and the Federal Government provides funding of 1B over the next 10 years. The whole point isn't about cost, its about access. Angel Flight as a charity covers the cost. The fact that someone is considering using an U/L for a service which people in metro areas take for granted is telling. It's the sheer dislocation associated with the process which is inherently difficult. As I said, rather than wasting time and efforts commenting here reach out to the political elite to make sure that the Government bodies which are meant to support aviation continue to do so. One of the reasons that I think that experimental aircraft should be included in the mix is that based on recent trends these aircraft will eventually dominate the fleet. For Angel Flight to continue to work aircraft need to be available.

This is not a job normally done by a qualified pilot. It's normally done by a family member or some other sap and it's not without risk. A relative died in a car accident on a country highway on her way back from medical treatment in a head on accident. My father had to travel over 5 hours each way to receive treatment for a bone infection for a number of months in Brisbane by car because RPT wasn't available at suitable times. This is common story for people in these areas and any volunteer support to these people is good. He is more than capable of acknowledging the risk that Angel flight wouldn't provide a service as safe as commercial air transport. There's a perception that those running small aviation businesses connected to CASA have an axe to grind and think that Angel Flight is interfering with their revenue stream. The reality is that it is unlikely that Government is going to fork out the requisite funds to improve these health outcomes, at least without something demonstrating the concepts feasibility. There is also leads to a inherent conflict of interest when these parties are involved in the debate. Angel flight has a wide support amongst the RPT transport pilots, no so much with the small aviation operators. If the funding did become available to provide free medical flights as required then the whole reason for the existence of Angel flight would disappear however even in this scenario there would likely still be gaps. I actually think that significantly wider adoption of angel flight could form the basis of wider ranging business case for better public funding in this area. The reality is that there are literally thousands of excess of deaths in regional and rural areas and while increasing the scope of RPT to provide twice daily flights to all these areas back to capital cities would be the best and safest solution it's not likely to happen. To me Angel Flight is an example of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". There is nothing inherently wrong with providing a "free" service to people in need and it's the context of the risk that is important.

I've got a pretty thick skin and would be happy to have a beer and chat with flying bikini without resorting to fisticuffs. 😉 It's not my job to do your homework even though I did provide you with the EPA document which has instructions on how to download their datasets over the internet. The bottom line is that there are a number of reports with similar findings. (also referenced in the biblio) Given the fact that the petroleum industry also has access to the same Government grants don't you think that if there was the slightest chance that the research was bogus they'd be in there "boots and all" demonstrating the counter argument. If you read the paper it explains the methodology and where they got their data. Your side of the argument is spurious and consists of lots of handwaving, rather than rational considered thought. Knocking down your arguments is about as exciting and challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. For example, you have made multiple reference that sea water and sea spray is a source of lead, trying to equate leaded fuel exposure to family friendly activities like visiting the beach. (Classic handwaving/misdirection argument by the way) Would you be able to explain your belief in this as you've mentioned it many times. Or point to any research that indicates that people living near the coast have statistically higher levels of lead or something to hang your hat on in this regard. Basically the reverse is true, as the chloride in the salt ie sodium chloride, tends to form compounds with lead that precipate out of the water. Otherwise I'd like you to eat a bit of humble pie and admit that you were well an truly waaayyyy off base with this claim. I mean different planet off base. (This doesn't mean your whole argument is wrong though but it does create a couple of credibility issues though) If you think about basic chemistry you'd understand why this is so. It also explains why those undersea vents which you were fond of mentioning deposit lead out of solution. However the oceans are big and the huge slug of lead that we've pumped into the oceans will take a long time to settle out in the deeper water. This is also why uranium is pretty much uniformly distributed through the oceans and lead is not. However we have gone a long way from the topic of why the GAMI initiative is so important and a good thing for the aviation community. Especially in airports that have a large population centres nearby as we can substitute unleaded fuel to counter arguments that we're poisoning children. (Which the research says we're doing) Which I think everyone will agree is better than shutting them down.

Some aircraft may require active treatments like MW50 or water injection. It worked for the germans in WW2

No I'm not however the compounding effects of poor decisions may have been mitigated by better technologies. Yes multiple decisions which in hindsight were poor, however in the final instance assistive technologies may have helped. The pilot ultimate ended up in a situation beyond his abilities to manage. Expecting people to consistently make good decisions completely ignores the track record of flying accidents. Seatbelts in modern cars don't mean that you should drive in a more reckless manner however they do save lives. Technology in RPL has demonstrated it's ability to reduce the accident rate by reducing pilot workload.

Where do you get the notion that going to the beach exposes you to lead? Lead in water needs to remain soluble, however aqueuas lead is poorly soluble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_chloride Or from another of those dodgy government publications ] https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines/guideline-values/default/water-quality-toxicants/toxicants/lead-2000 Lead speciation in seawater is dominated by chloride complexing, which becomes negligible at salinities below approximately 6%. Hence increasing salinity reduces toxicity. Lead can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms but it is generally not available at sufficient concentrations to cause significant problems. You may also note at the beginning of this article it states that So it's those pesky planes fueled on pure lead poising the planet 😉 Anyway this is a silly argument. Leaded fuels will be removed from circulation in the near future and future generations will be astounded that it took so long. ps I wouldn't invest in plane that struggles with unleaded fuel. (remember with investment it's the timing that's important)

I agree there is a strong conflict of interest area the medical specialists area however that's not the whole story. The real culprit has been the rise of industrial medicine and mega hospitals. The equipment and capabilities associated with a high grade hospital facility make it tempting financially to have fewer larger hospitals. However the side effect of this is that people away from capital cities no longer have access to these systems. For example a high end MRI done in a capital city hospital may provide a significantly better scan than the low end systems available. A 3T scanner gets you to a resolution of about 1mm and there are now 14T MRIs. Your garden variety one is 1.5T with about 2.5mm resolution with few scan capabilites.

This is one of the factors why, as soon as you leave the major metro centres that life expectancy declines significantly. The burden in time and financial expense of leveraging appropriate health services is too high. From an image perspective I think that this has a lot to offer the aviation community and reinforces the public goods that maintaining a local airfield provides. as opposed to something like leaded fuel 😉

Maybe, however I'm not sure where you got the 70% figure from. If its facebook, brietbart, youtube etc. I'm not really interested, research from a peer reviewed journal, major university or Government sponsored paper might get my attention. Yes there are problems with people falsifyng research however they're generally weeded out and disgraced however all in all it's the best source of information. I gave you the paper which provides the EPA airport data as well as the estimates lead emissions from each site. This is a furphy which you have repeated a number of times but it's just not true. While lead occurs in the environment naturally, everything that I've read states it typically only occurs at very low levels. Do you have any research which shows these high levels of naturally occurring lead? The vast majority of lead pollution be it around Broken Hill or in inner city precincts is man made not natural. For example the picture shows lead in older areas when it was a commonly used industrial compound. By the way it's Sydney. This organization https://www.360dustanalysis.com/ has been doing soil analysis is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021002075?via%3Dihub

If the Doctor covered the expenses, it would be reasonable but angel flight already has a good operating model To help offset the pilots’ operating costs Angel Flight Australia subsidises fuel used on flights, negotiates the waiver of landing fees at many supporting airports around the country, and arranges the credit of any air navigation charges thanks to the support of Airservices Australia. Angel flight specifically requires a referral from a health professional. Also the scope of activities which are excludes are What circumstances are not suitable for an Angel Flight? International requests. Unaccompanied minors. Nursing home relocations. Adults who are not able to enter or exit the aircraft unaided. Passengers requiring a rescue service or an air ambulance service, or who need monitoring by medical staff or medical equipment during the flight. Passengers who are not medically stable or whose medical condition is unsuitable for transport in a non-pressurised light aircraft. Passengers travelling for critical care (for example, an organ transplant) as flights can be delayed by the pilot or cancelled at short notice due to unsuitable weather conditions.

It doesn't impact me however my glasses have lightweight flat metal arms. So no not personally. Straight arm glasses exist for aviatiors And helmets with integrated visors, that way you get head protection and oxygen as well

Given your willingness to contest the vast majority of climate change research your definition of crap research could be considered somewhat arbitrary. When reading research papers, especially ones from good sites and journals check the bibliography. Unlike facebook and headline grabbing news sites that people often quote as gospel. The research appears reasonable and is based on the following North Carolina has an acknowledged lead problem and they have a program of testing for lead in children. This includes their place of residence and the age of residence in many cases. Rather than forcing the lead issue without solid research the EPA provides grants to agencies related to their areas of interest. Someone figured that they could use this data combined with the UPA documentation on airfield lead emissions to see if their data bore this out. They provided the source of their airport "Data U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Estimated Pb Emissions from All NC Airport Facilities. Washington, DC:U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. " You can still source this data, instructions below. They only used counties which had good housing age data, this allowed them to control for lead in older buildings. They point that they're making is that lead solution from avgas created a measurable impact on the blood lead levels of children. The effect wasn't large but it was there, also some of the airports weren't large either. This is bad because there's no safe level for lead exposure, only levels which are tolerable because we've spread it around so much. I expect that it is research like this which has driven the sudden approval for unleaded avgas by FAA. Politically poisoning children is a bad look and doesn't win votes. By the way I've attached the instructions on how to obtain the data referenced in the paper. EPA maintains historical data and provides access for this purpose. As you'd expect, that wasn't the focus of the paper. I wouldn't expect a paper which is focused on the efficacy of lead testing coverage to somehow include a section to specially call out airport lead emissions. Also I meant to give a bit of a rebuttal to the book "Unsettled". But rather than that I'll let Scientific Amnerican and Inside Climate News do it for me. What isn't known is that he was employed as a known contrarian of climate science so that policies in this area would pass the guantlet of a know "Devil's Advocate" ensure that the research was incredibly solid. Koonin, the author is a fellow of the "American Enterprise Institute" which is funded by Kock and other Industries with significant fossil fuel investments to the tune of $380M USD. P100WYC3-1.PDF

Angel Flight is a charitable service that operates successfully already and people are dealing with these issues already. It's a volunteer service which covers fuel costs etc. Do you help an old lady across the road or walk away because of the fear of liability. It's your choice. Personally I also think that it should be the choice of the passenger as to the aircraft and pilot they travel with.

Horses for courses Angel Flight doesn't replace emergency services, it complements them. Sometime people just need to travel for a scans such as an MRI or a specialist appointment and for that role sport aircraft might fit the bill. They don't need hand holding on the flight, they just need to get to and from the appointment in a day. When a carer is needed larger aircraft are needed however the key point is its not a one size fits all scenario. Comparing the requirements for emergency response vehicles to general transport is a bit out of the ballpark. It's like comparing an emergency response vehicle such as an ambulance or fire-engine to an uber or taxi. It is not that the requirements are particularly onerous, it is the general undertone that as a service Angel Flights or anything similar should be banned. Rather than the current adversarial ham fisted approach, a set of guidelines aimed at educating both the pilots and the passengers assisting with a risk based approach could have been taken. https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-comparing-the-rates/ analysis indicates that the accident rates of experimental aircraft while higher than certified isn't enormously higher. I'm not sure that it's quite as cut and dried and a more nuanced approach could be more productive. The average age of the certified fleet is over 40 years and often their instrumentation reflects that age. For example the plane at the centre of the ATSB investation was a 1980s era certified aircraft. If the plane were equipped with autopilot and more modern instrumentation it may have ended differently. Certainly being able to press a button to fly straight and level after becoming disoriented might have facilitated a better outcome. Designs such as the RV series built to a standard design have accident rates similar to the certified aircraft. The big picture outcome is to facilitate better healthcare. If you live in outer regional or beyond your life expectancy is between 2.8 and 13.9 years lower. This is 10% of the countries population which means that between 1096 and 5646 lives are being lost every year in aggregate premature deaths. 26000000*.1*2.7/(80*80) or 26000000*.1*13.9/(80*80). The assumption is that the average age is 80 years, dividing by 80 again gives an annual result. Compared to the risks posed by experimental vs certified aircraft is like being concerned about the air temperature on impact velocity when you're skydiving without a parachute. Something which would be nice to see are more major hospitals built next to airports so there is no a commute for those needing treatment.

Regional areas are pretty poorly serviced by the medical services and Angel Flight in Australia has been a community response to meet some of the needs of people who need healthcare. The problem is very real with concept such as "Burdern of Disease", From the AIHW comes this statement A few of the aviation governance bodies haven't particularly taken a shine to the service and have effectively been trying to reduce it's scope of operations. However rather than trying to restrict these operations this type of ground roots aviation should be encouraged and expanded in scope. There is a simple calculus associated with the availability of healthcare and morbidity and death. Investigations by the ATSB into accidents related to Angel Flight appeared to be almost a vendetta against the concept and the organisation, however this completely misses the point that thousands of premature deaths and extended suffering are occurring because of a lack of access to medical facilities in a reasonable and convenient manner. A couple of questions for the group who may be understand the background and context of the current state of affairs. Why is there the degree of antipathy to the concept of Angel Flight from CASA and ATSB. Is it possible to garner greater support in regional areas by getting local GA to other local organisations like Lion/Rotary etc. What percentage of you have written to your local member to get this fixed. The current Minister for CASA is Catherine King Given that there's an increasing number of amateur built aircraft, wouldn't it make sense to include these in fleet of vehicles if the end users are happy to accept the risks. People are grown up and can read and accept a risk assessment. Basically it's and issue of equity and cost, and by any measure the current status quo is failing. I'd encourage you to reach out to these ministers and shake the tree https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/contact https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/mcbain/contact https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/brown Offer to take them up for a flight to an airport with a twice a week service and explain how hard it is to get an MRI if you have kids, or have dependents or are a carer.

If we could go back to just environmental lead you would have about a 99% reduction. The reality is that the natural geological processes to use your phrase emit "1/16 of a poofteenth of sweet f-all." Historical levels of environmental lead is pretty easy to measure as things like ice cores provides a nice record. The simple truth is that Aviation using leaded fuel is a bit shit. It makes aviation in your area look bad and will provide another nail to hammer into the coffin to those who want to close down airports. Because aviation has dragged their feet for so long they've become completely disconnected from the expectations of the community at large. Most people driving don't remember lead in fuel and consider it a joke. Trying to justify it's continued existence just make the entire industry look like a joke as well. It a bit like trying to argue that climate change is just hysterical nonsense and supporting clowns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Yup, it all a conspiracy, lead's good for you, climate change is a mass hysteria phenomenon and those Government types are alien reptiles and they're covering up the coming invasion. If it's too warm the planet won't be suitable anymore. I think that you're in the position that the science is still out on what reasonable lead levels are even though Government health bodies have been consistently lowering the reasonable thresholds The recognised safe levels of lead have been progressively reduced as the toxicity has been recognised. Australia still has a Pb threshold of 10. There have been a number of comments that lead is naturally occuring substance and in the environment anyway. That's not true in to any reasonable extent. Atmospheric Lead created by leaded fuel spewed a huge amount of lead into the environment basically creating a nice lead right across the planet. This increased our environmental exposure by about 200x over normal, pre-industrial exposures. There is no safe level of exposure to lead so every reduction helps. For that reason the GAMI alone program should be lauded, tolerating lead in avgas has gone on for far too long. Yes lead was naturally occuring however the naturally lead minerals tended to stay put, locked away geologically. The fact that you can liquefy lead at room temperature and include it is fuel still blows my minds. Also in relation to Bromine it's the Bromine based fire retardants which are being increasingly viewed as high risk chemicals. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/chemicals-management/brominated-flame-retardants

You're as bad FB just believing stuff, have you had it measured? 😉