Ian

I'll use one of the online dictionaries definition which probably aligns with what I was thinking, "characterized by grotesqueness, extravagance, complexity, or flamboyance", I could l have used baroque, byzantine, complex, complicate, complicated, convoluted, daedal, elaborate, intricate, involute, involved, knotty, labyrinthian, labyrinthine, sophisticated or tangled but you get my drift. It appears to be significantly more complex than it needs to be to perform the function which is required, especially given modern technology.

Yes, the principles are applicable to piston aircraft. If you need more range your best bet is ground effect. :-) The pilots of WW2 knew this.

Thanks for the input and information, I'll have to do some reading, It would be nice to see some research which indicates that there is actually a quantifiable benefit in this regard. From what I've seen there's the hypothesis that "Integrated training" provides an outcome however I haven't seen anything which indicates that this is actually true. If there's no supporting evidence it would be nice to see both sets of requirements aligned. Simpler, less paperwork for the bureaucracy to maintain and lower cost. Given the recent experience with building inspectors the separation of functions would provide a benefit, especially if testing the school didn't have the ability to cherry pick testers. For example CASA should provide a pool of independent examiners chosen at random based upon location and availability. I also noted that ICAO Annex 5 is related to units. I'd really like to see this area progress and the imperial spagetti go down the toilet. I do understand that there's a lot of people who are used to dealing with these things however once that bandaid is ripped off things become much simpler. When I was at Uni many years ago I worked with a surveyor and had to deal with miles, feet, chains, links, inches, decimal inches and a whole other lot of rubbish. It still pains me when I seen calculations based on foot pounds, gallons and other rubbish. To me that all belongs in the "Vintage Aviation" category.

So from the above, there's no research demonstrating the advantages of either approach, so logically they should have the same baseline requirements. The fact that they don't would indicate it is most likely to have occurred as part of a sweetheart deal to advantage section of the training community and disadvantaging others. The structure that I was alluding to was the whole requirement for a "school". The reality is that to fly a plane I need two things, an understanding of the theory and practical instruction. Theory can be imparted using a variety of methods using textbooks, classroom time, videos or other mechanism. A variety of mechanisms can be used to assess this knowledge however examinations are simple and accepted practices. Personally I prefer reading textbooks and journal publications however other learn most effectively using other methods. Flying instruction is performed by your instructor (who CASA agree is competent and up to the task) and assessed by a flight test and practical examination by an assessor, there's no requirement for a school per se. With COVID the concept of what a school is has become far more fluid as more online resources have been used. For instance one piece of knowledge which appears to be poorly understood by a number of pilots is fuel consumption optimization and how it relates to altitude. I've attached a good paper on the subject, the issues is confused by turbine engines because these engines can't throttle efficiently. Piston Airplane Cruise Performance.pdf

In relation to the Integrated vs non-integrated for PPL and Commercial licences their appears to be a theory that schools operating "Integrated courses" can train people better with reduced flight time. It may be simply due to the fact that they acknowledge that a compressed, regular learning schedule is more productive however that has nothing to do with "integrated" nature of the package. Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 35 hours of flight time, including 10 hours solo, five hours solo cross country and two hours instrument time. Non-integrated courses require an additional five hours flight time (40 hours in total about 15% more hours). For a commercial licence Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 150 hours of flight time for the aeroplane category rating and 100 hours for the helicopter category rating. Non-integrated courses require 200 (an extra 33% practical flying time) hours for the aeroplane category rating and 150 (an extra 50% practical) for the helicopter category rating. Have there been any studies which suggest that Integrated courses of study develop flying skills better and faster than non-integrated or was this approach the result of lobbying by those running integrated courses? Given that there are two components of the courses and that the theoretical knowledge is tested by an examination process it doesn't appear to make sense

If you're sick of piston engines you might want one of these. Ex RAAF PC9, It will be interesting to see what they sell for. Though the running costs might be a bit high.

Is there any fundamental requirement for the baroque flight school structure in Australia or is it simply a relic of the days of yore? I'm not sure of the approaches which other countries have taken however other flight programs such as RAAUS appear to do without the structure so why hasn't it been reformed? You have people of talent bound to a structure which artificially limits their opportunities which is always a poor industry practice. From a learning perspective they aren't required, the instructor instructs depending upon his skills and qualifications. Flight examiners are effectively the delegates of CASA so they're not impacted. From a management perspective with the wonders of modern communications it doesn't appear to be required. With online technologies the physical classroom doesn't need to exist anymore. Of course new skills are required. The owners of flight schools may be impacted, however if the structure isn't providing any useful outcome that's a pure business risk. I'm also curious about the concept of some programs being able to shortcut the hours required for commercial pilots. Are these programs better or is this simply the result of industry lobbying? Anyway if you're aware of alternative approaches adopted in other countries I'd like to know.

Does anyone know what alloy Jaribu use for their heads? That would at least provide some basis for picking temperature limits. Also have the alloys changed over time?

I've flown into there a few time and it's been really nice. The local Government appears to have slowly grown the capability so it's become a bit of an aviation hub as opposed to some other councils. While there are very few traffic lights there's a lot of bitumen between Canberra and Cowra. I understood that the flight schools use tankers full of Mogas which they go through very quickly. Doing those kind of hours any issues with the approach would become apparent very quickly. Happy for someone to correct this viewpoint if it's incorrect.

I did, specifically about the reduction in CTR airspace. It would have been significantly stronger with local knowledge of the terrain and the weather conditions around that area. as it would provide additional airspace and associated flightpaths for GA providing some mitigation against the type of accident which occurred in Coffs a few years back The initial study recommended a smaller CTR airspace in line with International standards The initial study was a joint study which Defence participated in and they couldn't provide a justification for a larger CTR. What I suspect has happened is that Defence, while not being able to justify the existing CTR was an unwilling participant in negotiations. To comply with the recommendations they needed to reduce the CTR and the reduction from 12 to 11 was the smallest reduction that they could provide and still be seen to comply with the recommendation. You also have to view the public service in the context in which is exists. There are a group of people who care and work very hard, there's a group of dead wood and there's a group who are happy to box tick and close off projects and issues regardless of the outcome simply so they can say the case it closed. The third group tend to move up in management simply because they're perceived as kinking goals (even when they're own goals). For example the "Aeronautical Study of Coffs Harbour" in 2010 identifies Coffs as having a population of 20,000 and being a resort town. The population is about 75000 and it has a pretty diverse industry base. It has also been filed under Tasmania. CASA also is an acknowledged poor performer in the Federal Public Service and hopefully they can improve this status over time however they have been somewhat disinclined to remediate what ails them to this point which is disappointing. They are also at grave risk of regulatory capture as their focus is primarily on RPT and associated lobby groups. However that being said I'd encourage everyone to respond to these issues and cc their local member and the minister for transport. The public service is at heart a political beast and politics is about people. A key advantage is that flying has is that it exciting and that there are a lot of people interested in it. I'd like to see more people offering to take their local member or local council members up for a flight, it gives you the opportunity to point out the holes in the runway and show them the view that visitors to the area might get. As they say a picture speaks a thousand words. Also the spelling of embuggerance wasn't quite correct, it's not my word and seems to have come from the UK where the Government is similar enough for feelings to translate well

Any thoughts on the contents of a first aid kit in a plane. It might be good to look at what caused pilot incapacitation and see if the contents of a first aid kit would help. Should you have an epipen, as it's a broad spectrum treatment for a number of ailments though they're a bit difficult to get over the counter.

I'm not against medical assessments per se, as the person with the risk factors often doesn't perceive the risk well. However the reverse it also true where it's often difficult to discount a condition with a demonstrably low risk. There is often an issue of perceived risk vs actual risk and this appears to be significantly higher when dealing with medical issues. For example I have very mild asthma, which tends to only flare up when I am ill and leads to me feeling uncomfortable rather than suffering respiratory distress. During my initial medical assessment my DAME agreed that it was so mild as to not present an issue and not to require any special controls. CASA required further investigations which led me to spending many hundreds of dollars which demonstrated that my Spirometry results were normal. However the recommendation was that I am to carry an inhaler when I fly. While this is a fairly minor embuggerence, I did review the literature as published by ATSB and FAA relating to the incapacitation of pilots during flight which spans over 50 years, both in Australia and the US and could not find a single case of pilot incapacitation due to asthma. Heart attacks, stroke, multiple instances of food poisoning, aerobullosis (the bends), nausea, respiratory infection etc but not asthma. I did point this out to both CASA and the specialist however to no avail. So apparently statistics is no match for the vibe when considering risk so I duly pack an asthma puffer in my flight bag even though I don't have one in the house, or car or when I travel. pilot-incapacitation-atsb.pdf faa-in-flight-incapacitation.pdf

One thing that I was wondering about, the initial proposal for the Williamsdale strip was prior to the creation of solar farm. Has any of the infrastructure associated with the solar farm impacted the viability of the proposed airstrip. I noticed that the substation and the associated High voltage wires about 2k to the south. There also appears to be some new power lines between angle crossing and the site that weren't there previously. It does seem a bit odd reading through the history that the local Government suddenly cooled on the idea of the airstrip and then the solar farm pops into existence shortly after. Were they mutually exclusive?

All Good, I've done that more than once myself. So far I'm happy though I do get a bit envious of the STOL capabilities of something like the Foxbat. If only I could justify two planes 🙂

Thanks, how recent is this info and do you know if there is actually any space available. Not that it's within my budget. Where have you ended up housing your plane?

A Rutan Defiant, as with anything it's a compromise, hopefully they're compromises I can live with.

Yes apparently he needs more stables.

Noisy, inefficient and limited yes however remember that the wright flyer only went 36m. As a kit you might be able to squeeze this into an experimental category. Ducted fans/bigger props could probably significantly increase it's efficiency so it might be able to lift Clive Palmer or blow its range out to 50km. If I lived in Sydney or Melbourne I'd be more interested. For instance, working at Macquarie Bank HQ, I could live on the Northern beaches and get to work in 10 minutes. At least until the neighbours complained about the giant hornets or a storm hit. With ADSB and a single guidance computer with autopilot you could have a 1000 of these in the sky safely.

Back to the topic at hand, the point mentioned earlier related to the proposed 11nm CTR vs the recommended 8nm CTR. Does the smaller CTR free up addition flight paths which would provide safer routes through this airspace? Would anyone familiar with this airspace and associated terrain be able to comment? If there are benefits send an email to Airservices [email protected]

From the CASA website the following endorsements can be added to an RPL. They don't mention retractable gear, centreline thrust etc. If they can be added it might be good to get CASA to update their website. The following endorsements can be added to an RPL: controlled aerodrome endorsement (RPCT) controlled airspace endorsement (RPCA) flight radio endorsement (RPFR - requires an aviation English language proficiency assessment) recreational navigation endorsement (RPNA - requires minimum flight time of five hours solo cross-country.

It might make a difference you write a letter or email to the relevant minister? Passive protests generally don't work because people are unaware that you're protesting and just end up with people going postal. You're obviously literate so start smoking those public servants with your wit and whimsy. Why not even offer a few of them a ride in your plane so they can witness the issues first hand. Flying is a hell of a lot more exciting than sewage works. Laws are there to be changed, funding is there for common goods, some Government decisions are dumb however if you don't point them out dumb wins, good government requires you to point it out to your local member and government reps. It might be worthwhile to point out that Government security clearance to the Secret level is valid for around 10 years, a Top Secret for 5 but for some reason an ASIC card is only valid for 2 years. Why can't ASIC clearances be available for the same period as a NV2 or TS clearance? The process behind the first two is a far more involved. From the technology viewpoint the ASIC cards aren't good, they're just a bit of plastic with a hologram, even a phone card SIM is millions of times more secure, it reeks of security theatre. I don't think that phone apps are particularly secure however they're orders of magnitude better than an ASIC card. The 9/11 attacks demonstrated that you can weaponize public transport however there were many mitigations which would provide a more effective control than ASIC cards and fences and security guards around regional airports are an expensive folly.

So the multiple burner turbine gains efficiency by a second or third burner stage between the turbines to keep the peak temperatures down but the average temperature higher, improving efficiency? Out of curiosity, what are the physical dimensions of such a creature as it would no longer have the high bypass section just the core. Essentially if you needed a lightweight portable power source what sort a minimal footprint are you looking at if you're willing to sacrifice the secondary efficiency measures that you're normally concerned about with power generation.

I meant to say "Aviaiton Turbines" 😉 Stationary turbines and marine turbines have achieved greater efficiencies as shown in the embedded link. It is an interesting time for engines as most research dollars will be going into electric. An indication of how difficult it is to make turbines efficient is this article where a rotary engine is embedded in a turbofan type engine. As rotary car drivers know they're thirsty but it would appear that they can provide a better combustors than a can. Not that is was a successful concept.

Hi, Generally in the GA market turbines aren't popular because their efficiency doesn't match that of their piston driven brethren, especially during part load conditions. As Geoff pointed out this is limited by the compression ratio and the temperature in the burner, turbine inlet area. You can gain some additional efficiency using a recuperator but it's fundamental physics that limits turbine efficiency. Turbines can be efficient however this is at the cost of exotic techniques and materials and generally only happens in large engines. Piston engines for all their faults efficiently provide high compression and high combustion temperatures especially with diesel engines, however average temperatures are low as combustion is intermittent. Piston engines also tend to run more efficiently under part load scenarios whereas turbine engines tank under these scenarios. So really you need two engines for takeoff and cruise on a single engine. I would like to know more about this engine, especially what the pressure ratio is and what the combustion/turbine temperature thresholds are, and if there is a working prototype. Continuous combustion is a hard engineering nut to crack compared to intermittent processes. If as you suggested you're using commodity materials I'm struggling to see how this can be achieved, but I hope that you succeed. There's a nice article on BFSC on wikipedia where they've collected information on lots of engine. Notice how the smaller turbine engines efficiencies tend to suck. Another key feature is that WW2 piston aviation engine efficiencies still beat the best very best turbine engines. I occasionally wonder what they could do with modern injectors and turbocharger technology.

There was some prior flying and there are also US based schools which offer 21 day programs so its not out of reach. The key point is that due to the nature of the program the instructors are very aware of your weaknesses and can tailor the day's program to bolster those skills. Luckily they could offer to instruct 7 days a week. They were very clear up front that there were no guarantees. One other thing that I did was take a PC, flight sim, large monitor and the peripherals with me to practice during the off hours. This was mostly to effect consistency of the mechanics rather than polishing techniques. I don't find the experience in a flight simulator translates particularly well however aspects of it help. As has been pointed out there are weaknesses with the approach but on balance I did start out on the other pathway and it wasn't working for me. One other benefit is the completion rate. Even if you don't get through, you're 95% of the way there, it's much easier to finish. I'd really like to know how many people do a few lessons and then give up after life gets in the way, there could be twice the number of people flying if these completion rates were better.