turboplanner

Turbo was wounded by the quick mood changes of Captain and One Trick, the Lilo and Stitch of the aviation industry. "How could they say I'm illegal" he said "I'm the only person in the meat industry that isn't under attack from the vegans for killing animals with stun guns. My cat farm is pure, the cats kill and eat the rates and the rats kill and eat the cats, so I don't even kill animals for food" "What about that Roo?" asked Hi Ho, not really aware of how delicate this discussion had become........

With regard to fires, does anybody know the cause of the Jabiru fire while in the air at Bundaberg?

 

They landed the plane, which subsequently burnt, while the fire brigade were kept out by a locked gate.  The aircrew got out ok.

 

That's about all I know, so I am curious about the event.

 

It's about ten years ago, and I think we found out it was a procedural decision not to drive in and up to the aircraft, and I think it was an electrical short (not systemic to the Jab's system.)

That’s shock. I came across a fatal head-on collision on a country freeway one night. The driver who died had drifted off to sleep and the car came through the centre median strip brush. Both cars were on the road and as I was setting up my car to protect them with flashing lights one of the passengers his bare chest bleeding from the successful seat belt restraint walked off up the highway in the middle of a traffic lane into 100 km/hr traffic. He disregarded me telling him to get off the road, couldn’t see why and I had to gently put a hand on each shoulder and walk him off the road explaining he’d been in an accident etc until he recovered enough to function properly.

Firstly, his private life has nothing to do with anybody else.

 

Next, I have read an article somewhere about Qantas financial history but can't find it now. Joyce did not save Qantas. The artlicle laid out how much Qantas made before Joyce, it was considerably more in less time under the previous CEO.

 

You're talking about a different time scale, I was referring to a more recent and shorter time scale from a crisis point, so both are correct.

McDonalds business model is based on real estate development.

 

Yes that's the primary business model, which I should have mentioned.

The one I did mention fits into that, and really is the franchisee's model.

...nothing for Captain who normally just insulted them with LGBTIFA jokes sending them into hissy fits fighting each other.

But these were Burkina Faso Lions, not on the normal tourist track, much bigger, and not a XXX one amongst them.

They all focused on the scrawny little Captain, they knew there would be slim picking on those mangy bones, and they started to move closer in a circling move, ever tightening. Captain wet himself.

Just then Turbo's rich Royal voice boomed out  "Nukumo Eato!" which in the Ouagadougou language means "Don't eat him, you'll stink for days!", and the lions obeyed the Prince immediately....

But surely, somewhere along the way, people will wake up to the rort of "loyalty points". There are already plenty of articles from educated people warning others of the fallacy of "chasing points".

 

You're attacking a market strategy which works for many businesses, which would fail without them.

Other industries, the stock industry and real estate industry use the artificial price stter, the auction system, relying on fear and greed.

An old fruit market man once told me a story of several fruiterers at the Adelaide market all selling cases of oranges and struggling one day, while another fruiterer was underselling them and sold out his entire stock. The old fruiterer went over to him at the end of the day and said, "You know we all buy from the same wholesaler at the same price, so what's the point of selling at a loss?" The other fruiterer replied "Yes, I'm making a loss on every orange, but I'm not selling oranges, I'm selling cases.

That example taught me a lot about marketing; compounding also taught me some amazing methods of successful selling.

There were some, in the 1970s that started asset stripping; buying an old company with plenty of real estate but running at a loss. They would sell the real estate, relocate to rented premises, then sell the company for its big book profits. It would then collapse after a couple of years, but their marketing strategy was "a good time for a short time". In the 1980s some people crossed the legal line and would up with the law after them.

Warren Buffet bought Berkshire Hathaway, which owned cotton mills, intending to consolidate the mills and produce a reliable income. It was about the time the Chinese exploded on to the market with cheap cotton T Shirts, WindCheaters, Jeans, and no matter what he did, and how efficiently BH worked, they were heading for extinction.   He'd also been observing the Insurance Company model and had noticed that regardless of the magnitude of claims they just offset them like horse racing bookies, and they got their money sometimes years before they had to pay out, so he could invest that money. His genius wasn't to buy an Insurance Company, it was to get Berkshire Hathaway to buy an insurance company, so suddenly they had a massive income stream which bought them time to wind down and sell their mills and get out of the cotton industry and into financial investment, and he saved tens of millions in losses, and quickly became the second richest man on earth. Even now in his '80s I think he's about No 4.

McDonalds is simply achieving turnover with under-age wage earners; compounding does the rest.

The reason I mention these cases is that there's no point in outsiders focusing on a companies internal business model unless it is operating illegally, or effecting shares they own, because in most cases they are not going to be able to do anything, or need to do anything about the business strategy.

Qantas doesn't make money flying people around the world - it only makes money, because it rorts every FF points holder - to the extent that the FF programme is actually more valuable than Qantas.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-frequent-flyer-program-turning-into-airlines-biggest-money-spinner-20170512-gw34wq.html

 

The customers don’t care; they’re loyal to the airline. The shareholders don’t care; they’re making an income. Qantas is a business first and then an airline. It’s never worked the other way round.

....emasculate him, which had always been his preference, but thought he would settle for taking an arm of and feeding it to his favorite Hyena Giggles.

Or he could...

“We’re supposed to have some anonymity on this site” said Turbo “and now it’s come out that I’m the Crown Prince of Ouagadougou and will be restricted in what I can say; that XXXXXXX Captain!”

......North Face over the ice with....

OK that’s another vote for no money.

If the man from Govt says I'm here to help you, you know you're about to be screwed.  

 

I'll give some examples that is a reason to abandon a fantastic opportunity offered by Govt.  Just one should do.  It's offered by Govt.  

 

Well with that public statement, I couldn’t see the advisors and assistants too worried about leaving RA out. So you can be happy.

....ski to work and........

A full helmet fitted with sound will also add to fatigue. We’ve got a little slack with aircraft specifications in recent decades. The full harness used to restrict the extent of upper body movement. 

It is true that Turbo ran into some trouble at the cat farm when the cats at one point became inbread and breeding numbers were down, which meant he had to hand feed the rats to save them from starving and ran late with his tax payments, but that was all smoothed over, and Turbo has continued to run a legitimate, albeit unique business, and is in the process of franchising it to places like   XXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX, and XXX, and then....

[Nice try MOD, Turbo can neither confirm nor deny rumours like that, but he knows where he lives]

There have been occasions where such things were happening and a truncated course was available but things being what they are, I haven't heard of such a thing for a long time now. I think AOPA might have some record of it and have little doubt they would be for it ,as I am. There's NO benefit  (for the CASA) in CASA  going along with such an idea but that doesn't mean it's not a good one and would save lives.. Your wife could always get a full licence or  CERTIFICATE but also she doesn't have to finish ANY course, does she?  Plenty of untrained wives have got the plane down by being talked through it when someone was incapacitated. That's why you have two pilots in all Larger Airliners. Its a matter of using a potential resource that's there with you. 

 

   IF a pilot became very ill in flight you would get medical aid to him /her if possible. you wouldn't say he's not capable of passing a medical to fly today so don't bother  and IF you do he can't exercise the privileges of his licence because he's had this turn, so we all sit back and die.. Nev

 

Sorry, I should have made it clear that once she's trained she can call a Mayday, and regardless of the legal outcome, she has a better chance of living. I wasn't suggesting doing three or four hours and then taking over now and again in normal operations.

If you're concerned about what would happen if you were incapacitated with your wife on board; a good solution is to get your instructor to teach her how to keep the aircraft in the air and land it. She will be learning other things as part of that, but the time taken to learn survivable landings is quite short and not expensive.

It may be an excellent idea to get help when needed, but CASA are not going to condone that, unless they do away with their "Strict Liability" clause.

 

That clause says it all. There is no room for common sense.

 

That clause would get you a heavy fine, and yes CASA would prosecute.

However, go back to post #2. 

There's a rule there which is unambiguous; the student who asked the question received the answer immediately; it's not rocket science to understand.

Because there is a safety rule there, you owe a duty of care to your passenger to follow it.

If you don't and your passenger's back is broken your insurance or you will be paying for him, probably for the rest of his life, if he proves you negligent.

Not only that, but this one is so straightforward that you would probably face a manslaughter charge.

I'm intrigued that, once again after someone provides an unambiguous answer, there are people who just can't help chipping away post by post until by some stretched and cracked logic, it's Ok in their eyes to do something that is prohibited. They're a little bit like the factory employee who sits next to an unguarded saw, or twirling spokes, and sticks his finger out again and again so see what happens, until the end is chopped off.

In the cases I have followed,  class actions empower people who otherwise would not be able to afford to sue.

 

I can imagine that any action against CASA, for example, would require a class action because CASA has unlimited resources and the individuals do not.

 

Funding such things is a new idea to me...  gosh, the funder would have to be confident of a win. But why do they need to wait for  a class action? I thought the whole idea was to share the costs among the class.

 

Most cases are brought by individuals.

The deep pockets thing promoted by some is a myth. What is FAR more important is for you to present facts which are factually correct and are legally supported, leaving the other side nowehere to go, no matter what the depth of their pockets.

In my experience most people don't bother to do that and wonder why they lose.

The funders operate the same way as insurers; they can lay off the odds because they have a succession of wins and losses like insurers.

Bear in mind Class Actions usually have thousands of plaintiffs, which is why they are not of much interest to us.

Many years ago I owned a Cherokee.  I could not really afford it then.  I opted to insure the passenger liability for $250,000 a seat.  At the time I was told by the insurance agent to make sure that I killed passengers and didn't maim the that was much cheaper. 

 

In the mid 1980s we survived by insuring each race meeting for $1 million doing it that way about 100 tracks around Australia could afford to cover themselves for virtually any eventuality if a car went into the crowd.

Your colourful agent was telling it like it still is. Today, very roughly, a fatality including legal costs is around $3 million,  a quadriplegic around $14 million.

The reason for the higher cost is rebuilding the house for maybe 40 years of life on a bed, suitable car equipped with medicals to carry a prone quadriplegic, 24 hours qualified nursing for life (again maybe 40 years), medical/hospital treatment for life.

So the basic principles haven't changed much, but the key factor which you control is the plaintiff has to (a) make a claim and (b) prove you were negligent before any serious legal activities will gain traction.

..........................................................The Incident actually started in Proserpine, a greasy dirty town with haf-empty shops and beady eyes looking out from behind old 1920s cash registers painted silver,  the sort of place where you start looking behind you five minutes after you've arrived in town to find the service station out of fuel. You hear rustling from the seven years worth of dried palm fronds, and somewhere an old FJ Holden starts up.

It was here that my friend bull dropped in for a hamburger one cold night, many years ago. Naturally the shop was shut and he was just standing there shivering beside his Ford Customline, and wondering where he could go next. "If only there was a tourist town within fifty miles" he thought "there's always a shop open all night in those towns". There was a mild rumble and a big big burly cop riding an African American 350 Matchless stopped and asked him his name. The problem wasn't the name bull, it was when he murmured "with a small b" that the trouble started......................

Glider landings are outlandings; a glider has different control surfaces, brakes and pilot training; landing without power is a 100% occurrence.

A powered aircraft has forced landings; practicing forced landings in a powered aircraft, believe it or not, is an integral part of training, or should be, and so should practicing landings solo.

HOWEVER, what's missing from the above posts is what makes it a forced landing. It's one thing to decide to do engine-off landings at an airfield.

It's pretty much the same thing where your instructors says "We're going to do forced landings today"

In both those cases you're operating on conscious brain impulse, so prior to the event you're getting ready, to decide to cut the power, or for the instructor to cut the power, even though he does it without telling you.

It's a whole lot different when, at the most inconvenient time the engine stops, and your brain is in that 2 to 3 second "This can't be happening" mode.

In those 2 seconds your hands should already have pushed the stick/yoke forward and trimmed for POH glide speed.

Congratulations to the UK pilots; but here the aircraft have been going out of control at flying height, with, as far as I can tell, none of the fatals being collisions after a 45 kt touch down. We're still exposed here.

Having said that, when someone gives some examples that’s not a reason to totally abandon a fantastic opportunity offered by the government in favour of a frenzy of self-indulgence.

 

[Murray has submitted a complaint to the forum police too, and is unhappy about his length being discussed so publicly ..... MOD]

 

Turbo apologises for this unthinking slip and can see how the Murray River could be traumatised for years as a result of mentioning its XXXXXXX.