old man emu

OK Nathan. We'll get serious from now on. Good luck sharing expenses.

OME

Haha maybe the cattle should invest in floats also

OME

I went past The Oaks yesterday. Is your plane on floats?

OME

Sometimes I try to be amusing, but when I'm talking about looking after an airplane, I am being serious. So how could my post (No 7 above) be called funny?

OME

Bloody Win 10. Now its changed the keys so that if I try <Shift> <hash> I get this: £

Even if he had punched out, the plane would still have impacted on or near the road. Maybe could have been worse as a result of Newton's 3rd. The reaction force to the ejection could have caused the trajectory of the plane to change away from the direction the chair went. That would have made the point of impact before the M27 and debris could have shot across a wider swath.

OME

Take a look at the map: www.google.com.au/maps/@50.8362215,-0.2980305,15z and see how the airfield aligns with the A27 bypass.

OME

DON'T EVER BLOW INTO A CONNECTED PITOT TUBE unless you have the time and money to invest in replacing the pressure instruments. Disconnect the line from the instruments, and only then can you blow back towards the pitot tube.

Suggestion: If you leave your airplane in the open consider inserting an in-line joiner near the pitot tube. That way, you can pull the pitot tube off, plus a shortish length of tubing, to make blowing the pitot out easier.

Be on the lookout for insect activity in Spring. Mud-daubers and wasps are looking for places to set up their nurseries.

OME

Isn't one of the possibilities at the bottom of a loop to enter a high speed stall due to the AoA? If that happens, then the inertia of the plane sends it along a path which is tangential to the loop, but in a descent. You don't see the nose drop or wing drop that you learn to associate with a slow speed stall.

I was amazed to see the airplane was virtually intact when it came to rest. Makes one wonder what caused the fireball.

OME

One of the cars was a wedding car, a Rolls-Royce which had its roof taken off.

My wife's comment to me after watching the video and Facebook entries: ''And that's why you are never going to an airshow.''

OME

Sorry, can't see the Point's in the picture, if dentist was male ther'd be no humour in the sketch.Which shows the pictour is Not not sexually bias !.

spacesailor

OME

Sorry, can't see the Point's in the picture, if dentist was male ther'd be no humour in the sketch.Which shows the pictour is Not not sexually bias !.

spacesailor

OME

Poor piloting. Didn't he see the nice little primary school just off the threshold of Rwy 31? Could've landed on that!

OME

As I said earlier: "I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce." It's all about distribution of property and access to the laws governing the dissolution of relationships. Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'

As for allowing politicians a 'conscience' vote. The only conscience vote a politician ever truly takes is when choosing which Party to join and promote its philosophy. A politician is returned to parliament by the votes of the enrolled members of one electorate to bring the will of that electorate to the parliament. They must do what the electorate tells them, not enforce the politician's personal beliefs to a topic. It would seem that the majority of Abbott's electorate support the alteration to the Marriage Act, either actively or through apathy to the subject. So he is duty bound to represent that support in parliament. I for one do not wish to deny him his personal opinion, but that personal opinion cannot reject the opinion of his electorate.

OME

As I said earlier: "I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce." It's all about distribution of property and access to the laws governing the dissolution of relationships. Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'

As for allowing politicians a 'conscience' vote. The only conscience vote a politician ever truly takes is when choosing which Party to join and promote its philosophy. A politician is returned to parliament by the votes of the enrolled members of one electorate to bring the will of that electorate to the parliament. They must do what the electorate tells them, not enforce the politician's personal beliefs to a topic. It would seem that the majority of Abbott's electorate support the alteration to the Marriage Act, either actively or through apathy to the subject. So he is duty bound to represent that support in parliament. I for one do not wish to deny him his personal opinion, but that personal opinion cannot reject the opinion of his electorate.

OME

Crickey! All this discussion over a noisy fart gun. What's needed is an aerosol can of bu||sh!it repellent.

OME

Crickey! All this discussion over a noisy fart gun. What's needed is an aerosol can of bu||sh!it repellent.

OME

There is no need for a Referendum because there is no change to the Constitution involved, merely an amendment to an existing Act - as was made in 2004.

I would love to see the results of an opinion poll in Abbott's electorate. If it came back overwhelmingly in favour of altering the Act to remove the words relating to gender of participants, then would Abbott have the budgies to accept that is the will of the people he represents, or would he continue to enforce his personal opinion on that electorate.

I think the the majority of Australians fall into one of three groups: Anti-change; Pro-change and "For fu*k's sake, let's get onto something that affects each and every one of us, like taxation, or keeping ownership of our country and resources.

OME

There is no need for a Referendum because there is no change to the Constitution involved, merely an amendment to an existing Act - as was made in 2004.

I would love to see the results of an opinion poll in Abbott's electorate. If it came back overwhelmingly in favour of altering the Act to remove the words relating to gender of participants, then would Abbott have the budgies to accept that is the will of the people he represents, or would he continue to enforce his personal opinion on that electorate.

I think the the majority of Australians fall into one of three groups: Anti-change; Pro-change and "For fu*k's sake, let's get onto something that affects each and every one of us, like taxation, or keeping ownership of our country and resources.

OME

Have any of you actually read the Marriage Act that is Australian law? The only reference to the gender of the participants comes in the Section that deals with definition of terms used in the Act. Here is the definition of "marriage" as it appears in the Act: marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. For the rest of the Act, the term used to describe any or both parties is "person/s".

The definition of "marriage" was only added to the Act in 2004 (Act No 126 of 2004). All that has to be done to include "same sex" unions under this Act is to replace the words "a man and a woman" with the words "two persons".

I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce.

Old Man Emu

Have any of you actually read the Marriage Act that is Australian law? The only reference to the gender of the participants comes in the Section that deals with definition of terms used in the Act. Here is the definition of "marriage" as it appears in the Act: marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. For the rest of the Act, the term used to describe any or both parties is "person/s".

The definition of "marriage" was only added to the Act in 2004 (Act No 126 of 2004). All that has to be done to include "same sex" unions under this Act is to replace the words "a man and a woman" with the words "two persons".

I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce.

Old Man Emu

Step 1: Check all wiring for loose connections or shorting.

Step 2: Check for any chaffing of wiring.

KISS

Old Man Emu

And I don't mean osculation

Step 1: Check all wiring for loose connections or shorting.

Step 2: Check for any chaffing of wiring.

KISS

Old Man Emu

And I don't mean osculation

Okay! Okay! Okay.

I don't like the way this thread has gone off the rails. The very first post drew our attention to the robotic application of aviation security rules. GG was unwise to link two events in Ireland together and attempt to draw humour from our long standing use of the Irish as the butt of jokes, and then the fight started.

Please cease references to an act that a minority of humans engage in, and return to the initial point - robotic application of aviation security rules.

As for the Fart Gun - I love being woken by a blast from one in my ear and my 3 year-old grandson's cry of "Wake up, Poppy! Wake up!" I also love his giggles when I sneak up on him while he's engrossed in something on the TV and let the gun rip.

OME

Okay! Okay! Okay.

I don't like the way this thread has gone off the rails. The very first post drew our attention to the robotic application of aviation security rules. GG was unwise to link two events in Ireland together and attempt to draw humour from our long standing use of the Irish as the butt of jokes, and then the fight started.

Please cease references to an act that a minority of humans engage in, and return to the initial point - robotic application of aviation security rules.

As for the Fart Gun - I love being woken by a blast from one in my ear and my 3 year-old grandson's cry of "Wake up, Poppy! Wake up!" I also love his giggles when I sneak up on him while he's engrossed in something on the TV and let the gun rip.

OME

The museum at bankstown is moving to Camden soon...

OME