skippydiesel

I have ordered the necessary (I hope) Bluetooth connecting device - will wait until it arrives before accessing the 4 month trial, if still available.😈

Would contacting Sonex /Aero V engines help?😈

RAA members; Exclusive 4-Month AvTraffic Premium Trial 😈

RAA members: Exclusive 4-Month AvTraffic Premium Trial 😈

"Fagend" - Yep the end of a cigarette, picked up by a down & out person for a quick puff. Term used to describe overhearing a bit of conversation or using just a bit of a longer conversation - probably English in origin. 😈

Ha Ha! We now have one saying my "fagend of a conversation" is UNTRUE, the other saying TRUE and BOTH sighting RAA - Please don't come to blows🤣 😈

Burnie me mate, I hope I would never post/repeat something I know little about, that I had heard from another, as fact ie I will always use words like speculation/rumour/caution to worn the reader that its something I wont standby/defend.- ie not know to be fact. I thought that this little bit of information, that I had not previously heard of, may be of interest to pilots who are RAA endorsed on diffrent types of aircraft (not I). It is for them to follow up/check to see if right/wrong.😈

It has been speculated that the decision, to require separate BFR for each category, has come out of the incident where a person transitioning from weight shift to conventional fixed wing (Jab) took of, against all advice, into bad weather and died as a result. The perception was that the transitioning pilot had not received sufficient training/testing (BFR) in the higher weight, performance, more complex aircraft and this may have been a contributor to the incident. If memory serves - many of this Forum members, felt the pilot , was a known risk taker, that it was just a matter of when rather than if, he was involved in an incident of this kind.😈

Thanks for the second (to my) caution- What do you know or not?😈

CAUTION this may be inaccurate I have heard that RAA members, with more than one aircraft type endorsement , will no longer be able to maintain BFR currency by siting the one biannual review ie each aircraft type will require a separate BFR.😈

Agreed - Those apposed would label you and I "Sovereign Citizen" without some much as shred of evidence for this libalest talk. My guess, they do this because they : Don't actual read what we have said, rather substitute their own biased thinking. Have such poor English comprehension, so misunderstand. Are so set in their ways, they cannot entertain an alternative rational. I think you & I have tried very hard to present polite, logical, well thought out arguments, without stooping to name calling/labeling. Nuff said - will try to avoid (not promising) responding to any more irrational arguments. 😈

All these interesting stories about people falling off ladders/crashing cars, are only slightly related to the core topic The Right OF An Adult To Take Risks With Their Own Welfare - to wit the pilot who installed a home made duct in his aircraft. I contend that is is an inalienable right, that all mentally competent people have, on reaching their legal majority. This right does not nullify an individuals responsibility to his fellows - Duty of Care (DofC) ie must not involve others in potential injury/death/loss of assets, due to their risk taking. Nor does it give the individual the right to wilfully ignore, with impunity, rules made by Clubs/Business and similar organisation who have a DofC to their membership/employees. Where this does occur the organisation must in the first insistence council/educate the individual, if if this fails to acheive adherence, dismissal is the only option. The above approach should not and can not be readily applied to society - an adult who refuses to wear a seat belt, is in my view stupid, however I defend their right to make this decision, without legal repercussion. This does not mean that an insurance company will or should accept a claim, where such an action has resulted in injury/death. The last point needs clarification: We can not avoid our history. There was a time when religion and Government were combined. Religion is all about control of ALL aspects of the individual, from birth, reproduction, diet, behaviour, thought, death the "after life" - the ultimate "Big Brother". Religion has given us many things, both posative & negative. One of the negatives, is the concept that the State (religion) owns the individual (akin to slavery) so they have no rights over their own person. This was fine in the past, the rare expression of individuality, by the common man, usually resulted in banishment/imprisonment/death. In extreme instances this also applied to the ruling classes . We live in diffrent times - A significant number (the majority?) claim no religious affiliation and we are supposed to have a separation between Church (religion) & State ie no direct influence. Despite the illusion of no religious influence, we still have this ridiculous idea that the State has the right to intrude, on what should be personal decisions ie the State owns you and will make decisions, as it sees fit, for the maintenance of its asset (your welfare) . I contend that the State should have no input into the personal decisions/actions of the adult individual, where that input is primarily design to protect the said individual from themselves. eg wearing of car seat belts. I also support the need for the population to be protected, by the State/law, from wilfully dangerous actions of individuals. Further, I support the actions of the State where is tries to foster by promotion/non direct action (laws) a culture of safety that will be willingly adopted by the vast majority. In contrast we have a Government culture (Nanny State) that seeks to protect us from our own actions, not by education/training but by draconian (often illogical) restriction, safety systems designed to reduce injury/death, rather than prevent accidents.😈

Part of the above response was lost: Does this story support the right of the driver to not wear a safety harness? The drivers stupidity (assumed to be an adult), in not wearing a safety harness, (taking an unnecessary risk) may have been the prime factor in his death. No matter his stupidity, I believe that was his right to decide not to wear the harness. Assuming he was driving under some sporting organisation that had a rule about using safety equipment - IF The Steward (mentioned) failed to notice that the driver was suitably strapped in at the start - this may be seen as a Failure of Duty of Care (FODOC)and proportionate blame may result The drivers was known to do this and allowed to enter the competition - as above There was some practical way that the organisation could monitor the use of safety equipment and this was not implemented - as above The driver removed the harness after the start and there was little/no possibility for this being observed - the fault is the driver alone. I find it extraordinary that most of the apposing respondent's on this subject, are or have been, pilots. This would suggest that, at least for some time in their flying activity, they have been exposed to risks, that the average Joe would think unacceptable, ergo you are risk takers. That you now wish to impose restrictions on other like minded people is hypocritical.😈

Does this story support the right of the driver to not wear a safety harness? The drivers stupidity (assumed to be an adult), in not wearing a safety harness, (taking an unnecessary risk) may have been the prime factor in his death. No matter his stupidity, I believe that was his right to decide not to wear the harness. I find it extraordinary that most of the apposing respondent's on this subject, are or have been pilots. This would suggest that, at least for some time in their flying activity, they have been exposed to risks, that the average Joe would think unacceptable, ergo you are risk takers. That you now wish to impose restrictions on other like minded people is hypocritical.😈

Do you have an English comprehension problem.? Quote where I said that all emergency workers are payed for their service. Mind you the community ends up footing the bill for your activities, one way or another. There is no such thing as free service - someone always pays. You and your good volunteers are but one organisation in the emergency response services - most of of the others are payed, its their job. 😈

Turbo You are extending the basic argument to a ridiculous/illogical extent. I will try & simplify it for you; John builds an aircraft . John, without any third-party inspection/authorization, takes off. The aircraft is uncontrollable & crashes - John is dead. John leaves a widow & 12 kids The fire that ensued from the crash burnt 10Ha of bush, owned by National Parks (us) and various emergency services were involved in recovering his body/putting out the fire, cleaning up the mess. Family devastated & destitute. Tax payer down a few $k for emergency service costs. Its likly John has broken several laws. What to do? Who to blame? Who to sue? We are not talking about wilfully risking third parties (passengers, etc). We are talking about the inalienable right (however ill advised) for an adult human, in a free society, to take whatever risk to themselves alone that they wish. Whats next - horse riding will be illegal, skydivers jailed, etc etc???? Closely allied to this argument is suicide; While I may lament the desperate act of suicide & wish to prevent it, the authorities have come to the conclusion that this is not an illegal act ie a survivor is no longer penalised. ergo he/she has a right to risk their life should they so choose.😈

No one is advocating ".....do what you like, any time you please" - this hysterical reading of my opinion is wrong. "Rules and regulations for the preservation of a safe and civil society, govern almost every move we make - from speed limits, to noise limits, to unacceptable social behaviour, to laws that jail us for serious crimes." I agree with the above , subject to the laws being applied with common-sense/ logic, which unfortunately is often not the case. "You may think you can tear off and kill yourself in a high-risk exercise, if you decide to do so" Anyone can do this anytime, subject to not being physical restrained from doing so. Its impractical to assume/think otherwise. The best that any of us can hope for is that there is a culture in place that may guide the so motivated person to manage the risk , such that they have a higher chance of living trough it without injury/dying. "The problem is, your death from that high-risk adventure comes with an impact that affects a lot of other people - even though you try to make out it doesn't." Where on earth did you get this idea from?? Of course there is a cost to injury/death (as stated earlier). Those adults who wish to indulge/pursue high risk activities, are fully aware of the possible outcome and flow on effects - would you prevent people from skying, horse riding, skindiving, skydiving, cave diving, etc etc, etc. This is one of the costs we should accept, when living in a supposedly free society. "Emergency service providers................" Its their job, they knowingly sign up to deal with emergencies, which may involve injury/death. There are many occupations, out there , that have a not so pleasant aspect, whats so special about emergency service providers?? . "A "Duty of Care" Invoking DofC is a long bow ie out of context to this debate. If if you don't agree, consider this - the dead are very hard to penalise.😈

Yes. In all my Bluetooth "pairing" to date, ithas been between devises so capable. I am now contemplating empowering my non Bluetooth David Clark headset, with a Bluetooth adapter. My confusion arises from; Barrynel's system which seem to involve hard wiring. The systems I have been looking at are - plug headset in male jack/ female end of Bluetooth adapter - Bluetooth adapter plugs male jack into female panel socket of Comm system. Bobs Your Uncle, we now have a Bluetooth connection (subject to pairing) with iPad running AvTraffic alerts (have Barry's phone number so will call for enlightenment)😈

Barrynel, You are not communicating with "the sharpest tool in the shed" especially when it comes to electronics. So a few questions; "I bought a standard Bluetooth transmitter with an av input,... What is a "standard Bluetooth transmitter with an av input,... ". ? I understand that a Bluetooth devise must receive a signal from?? to act/show data. Is "av" an abbreviation of aviation or something else? How is the device, you seem to have modified, diffrent to the crop of aviation headset Bluetooth adapters, that are currently available? "i then ran a av cable with one end where i cut the plug off and soldered the two wires into the microair radio plug as it gives you audio in" This reads like you have hardwired your Bluetooth into your transceiver?😈

Thanks BrendAn, You have understood that I am talking about - an adult (18+ in this country) making a decision, that may involve enhanced risk, about themselves alone. Once you bring others into the equation, then there must be protection, by law, from the actions of the instigator. To clarify the last point - An individual who takes a risk, that results in their injury/death, will effect others, emotionally and possibly financially, HOWEVER this is a cost that we must accept IF the individual freedom to be responsible for our own wellbeing is to be preserved. I am a vocal advocate for the maintenance/creation of a strong safety culture.

I am all for fostering a safety culture BUT NOT for imposing on the rights of the adult individual to take whatever risk they deem appropriate, as long as that risk is taken by them alone ie by flying an experimental aircraft, you are not endangering others on the ground or in the air, any more than that imposed by a certified aircraft. I may call those who do not follow available safety precautions/systems "stupid" however I am ideologically apposed any attempt to force an adult, to adopt measures for their own wellbeing/safety. Of course this is conditional on the adult not risking the safety of others (on the ground/in the air). Australian authorities have been over regulating/eroding individual freedoms in this sort of area for many years - its time this stopped and laws forcing the individual to adopt safety measures for their personal well being repealed.😈

"The aim for RA should be to strive for less failures, less injuries and less fatalities." This is the Big Brother/Cotton Wool approach - it's not the job of RAA to become directly involved in overseeing/controlling individual risk taking. For sure RAA should be fostering a culture of risk management/awareness but should never ever stifle innovation. The very fact that you can get into a machine, that is reasonably airworthy/safe and fly, is the result of generations of aeronautical risk taking.😈

More details please. Photos would be great. What traffic system are you running?😈

Just be careful😈

Kitplanes is better than Sport Pilot, by a very large margin but then, with the exception of the articles by RA staff, SP is rubbish.😈