turboplanner

There's a related story of another gyro crash on February 7, 2019 at Capel near Busselton.

 

Father & son killed, making "metallic" noises as it flew over.

 

 

So if you pass the L1 and stuff up, causing an accident, or not really an accident, but someone gets hurt, then you are not responsible.

Yes you still are; ALL the people involved are responsible, so the L1 missing links should be addressed.

 

 

So no motorist should be allowed to touch their cars? All mechanics must prove full training in using any tool they might use to work on your car?

 

Consider the risk difference ... a ton of steel and fury 1m from another ton of steel and fury at a speed difference greater than many light aircraft ... and all with innocent non participating public standing and walking around without so much as a guard rail.

 

Would you advocate for something similar and cars nowhere near people ?

In general terms, if you've been working on a non-safety item (90% of the car) and you accidentally half shear a bolt, cross thread, stretch something, use the wrong torque, use a sub standard hose etc, a car rolls to a stop and leaves you stranded whereas an aircraft either folds a wing etc. or presents you with a forced landing.

 

Unskilled people working on car safety items like suspension, steering, much of the braking system can present the same risk as a similar mistake on an aircraft.

 

Auto mechanics work on an apprentice system being trained how to perform functions, are supervised by a Service Manager and receive written certifications as they progress through to full qualifications.

 

Sure there are unqualified people working on cars, but the key point here is that NONE of them have been given official backing by a qualification such as L1.

 

L1 certification meansx that someone else has taken responsibility for their skills.

 

 

How can you maintain something if you haven’t been trained how to measure and use sophisticated tools, work with aluminium, and manage critical systems.

 

 

Sorry TP, I don't follow?????

Facebook Group discussions cover everything from someone's last lash tint to who should win the election in the one area. The wall moves fast but the subject matter usually disappears in a couple of days.

 

Rec Flying allows subject matter and enthusiasts to group with like people and the subject matter is more readily available and the conversations usually follow a straighter path.

 

I don't think anyone could complain about the RF splits:

 

Just Landed

 

Student Pilot

 

Incidents & Accidents

 

General Discussion

 

US/Canada

 

Other Countries

 

Trips

 

Governing Bodies

 

Aircraft

 

General discussion

 

Engines & Props

 

Instruments, Building & Design

 

Recreational Aircraft Usergroups

 

(18 makes of aircraft for specific discussions)

 

Other aircraft

 

Trikes & Microlight

 

Rotorcraft

 

Gliders

 

Powered Chutes

 

GA Aircraft

 

7 Aircraft makes + "other"

 

Commercial

 

Aerobatics

 

Warbirds, Vintage, Classic

 

Enthusiasts

 

Military

 

Remote Control

 

 

On Facebook yes, but not when someone sets up a site with categories to discuss all those things in detail, and particularly not when such a serious subject is under discussion.

 

 

You can't compare U.S. numbers and events to Australian numbers and events. In Australia, a good entertaining event might bring in 5,000 spectators.

 

A similar event in the U.S. will bring in 100,000 spectators, just simply because they have nearly 14 times the population of Australia - and also because the spectator entry fees are generally less, due to event costs being spread over a much bigger number of spectators.

You can’t compare the numbers, but the principles are the same.

 

 

Totally forgotten what this thread is about=successful derail again=nobody is going to do anything to fix it.

 

 

The Avalon Airshow drew 175,000 people in Year 1, and the last figure was 210,000 for 2017

 

The Carol Richards organised Natflys at Narromine were huge

 

I went to an International Aerobatics competition at Ballarat and the attendance was big

 

The organisers need money from entry fees and the general public to finance the event, or TV contracts

 

The participants either need to totally finance their appearance, or obtain money from sales from advertising or sponsors

 

Any sponsors need to obtain their money from sale of goods or sales from advertising.

 

Offshore boat racers seem to be spending on the wrong side of a million dollars to compete in events from north Queensland to Western Australia without bothering about spectators

 

If you happen to see a few of them in the town chances are that if you watch from the headlands in the next couple of days you'll see them out there in the distance, pretty much silent.

 

The Southern 80 ski races on the Murray are right in your face, and thousands of spectators attend.

 

Formula 1 is partly in your face and pulls big attendances for the atmosphere and sound, but the money train is through sponsorship (teams), but ultimately world wide television advertising to the extent that the races are at unpopular times here and in other parts of the world because F1 is glued to prime time Europe.

 

As soon as you need other people's money for your sport the key to success is understanding that you are no longer out there to be a champion, you're there to be an entertainer; to put on a show.

 

CAMS motor racing nearly died out in Australia, coming to a head when the Group C cars which used to race at Bathurst were replaced by a technically correct improvement which had no attraction to the fans. They compounded the problem by being autocratic about venues and classes; once again being technically correct, but they lost their audience. An independent group started up "V8 Supercars, made their own category rules" and brought car racing close to the people. The sponsors were able to make their money (I designed a B Double for one team just for their marketing items; turnover $3 million at Bathurst), the TV advertising poured in money, and it has been a success.

 

In the US, the Indianapolis 500, and the Daytona 500 motor races have managed to combine close up spectator areas and a choreographed show

 

Daytona 2006 had 20 million TV viewers, Indy 500 5.4 TV viewers and a purse of $13 million to attract competitors.

 

That purse is what pays for your machine, its repairs and upkeep, and your travel costs.

 

We were having a similar discussion to this one with one of the speedway classes which was showing up with only 3 or 4 cars to complete, and insisting on at least three heats to decide the final start positions and other time wasting activities

 

The Spectators lost interest, the Promoters needed spectators and the class was in danger of becoming extinct.

 

The sponsors had long gone, so I set up an arrangement where there was a $50.00 entry fee but the prizes went from ribbons only to $1,000/$500/$200 for first second and third, and the races were handicaps where the fastest car started rear of field. Within a few months we were fronting with 30 cars and being invited back to the big tracks. It was all about entertainment.

 

Harness Racing spectator number fell away a few years ago, but regular racing was needed to sustain the TAB gamblers.

 

Shepparton Racetrack solved the problem by closing their race meeting to the public, and just running TV cameras with a commentator.

 

The operating costs reduced to a viable level and the general public around Australia didn't notice the difference.

 

I'm not sure why the Ballarat aerobatics event hasn't been back; possibly the logistics cost to bring the aircraft out vs income.

 

It had a component where we would get very close to the aircraft, with marshals manning the barriers, but they were specs in the sky, and the rules weren't spelled out, so you couldn't pick a winner yourself. So it wasn't a good package for income success.

 

Getting back to Red Bull, if we assume the decision was based on cost (which it may not have been), there is the difficulty of world wide logistics, which F1 have succeeded in mastering, but at a cost, and the difficulty of enclosing all the spectators behind entry gates in places like Perth, but maybe also getting the numbers of competitors to each race.

 

 

I suppose I could have said PA28 where the F%$# are you. That might have got his attention but then why didn't he pay any attention to my downwind, turning base and final calls. He was either away with the fairies, decided he didn't need to tell anyone else where he was or was so used to a controlled aerodrome where downwind is often the only call you make as the controller will then provide instructions like "Continue No X to the Cessna on base for Y or Cleared to land".

 

If I hear a downwind call when I am already established there I'll make sure the following A/C knows that I am turning base & final. I don't assume that because he is behind me he can see me. To do that is either arrogance or stupidity & I lean towards the latter.

He also could have been on a long flight and forgotten to switch to the local frequency, and thinking how quiet it was, which would also add to the danger.

 

 

Are you sure you don't mean GA aircraft M61A1. I arrived overhead at an airfield at 1500 & announced joining crosswind from the dead side. I heard a PA28 announce down wind for the runway I think was the one in use but wasn't sure so thought I wait for his next call. I let down to 1000 joined crosswind turned & announced downwind. No further calls were heard. I slowed to 70 knots & extended flap & announced turning base. I wondered where the PA28 was but as there were several airfields on the same frequency not far away I thought he must have been at one of them. I announced turning final & then heard a call from an aircraft starting up on the ground advising there was another aircraft in the circuit. There was nothing in front of me so I landed. I later found out that I'd turned in front of the PA28 who I did not see and had not made any radio calls since the initial down wind when I was at 1500 on the dead side. I fly compact circuits but flew PA 28s for about 15 years & can't understand why anyone needs to fly enormous circuits like he must have done & not only that with just one radio call. His approach must have been very shallow & not a good option if the engine had stopped.

Agree, a PA 28 can fly a very tight circuit, but there are people out there who've taken the see and be seen rubbish to heart and have argued on here over the years in favour of not using radio, and people it seems who have not been taught to fly circuits, as unbelievable as that may seem. To set up the base turn the PA 28 has one of the best wing references at 45 degrees from the end of any strip I've seen, so no reason at all for cross country downwind or extended base turn.

 

 

I’d have to caution on the likelihood of forecast accuracy for runway/circuit activity.

 

Personally I’d say it’s almost never what’s forecast.

 

Usually the winds forecast are area winds at higher altitudes. At ground level they often bear no resemblance to the wind forecast nor to the winds even a couple of hundred feet up.

For cross country flying the pilot will usually checking position every 10 minutes, along the route, so should be adjusted to the destination airport by the time he approaches. If traffic is transmitting that will tell him/her the duty runway, if not a check of the windsock on let down (based on the last 10 min check) should clear things up.

 

Northern Australia and Southern Australia have at least two quite different weather patterns, and in the south I'd say the wind directions are more stable. If you're flying from say Victoria to South East Queensland in one day, that constant checking tells you what the weather is doing area by area very well.

 

 

Know a bloke who had an engine fail at 200' in a C206 flying survey on a downwind run near Kalgoorlie. Just happened to be a dirt track in the right place at the right time..... and put it down without a scratch.

 

Sometimes you get lucky but not this time.

So far there’’s nothing to say whether this is an engine failure gone wrong, fuel exhaustion, cloud, turbulence, hitting a tree, hill by accident etc. A C210 has quite a lot more work load and less time to do things than the basic C172 so it’s very easy to get behind the aircraft, particularly down low where prop pitch changes, gear etc were added work

 

 

I'm not promoting activities the Industry isn't training for and I cant see how you could take that position from what I've said. I'm suggesting the training is not adequate in some, perhaps MOST cases. when accidents result.

I'm not making any other case than what you have just written.

 

 

Thinking you can generally do your flying life without exceeding 30 degrees bank is like thinking you can drive a car all your life without getting into a skid. Planes don't fly on rails and the air is "alive" with currents that you generally can't see that can change your aircraft's attitude (and speed and altitude). fast. There are a few "natural" instincts for Pilots that they must be trained to resist.. Fear of being "not straight and level" is out there. There are many times when getting back to S&L comes second to getting a few essentials under control involving speed and AoA. first.

 

Most students are not mechanically minded, they come from all walks of life including Doctors, lawyers, business owners etc. so they don't usually have a fixation with 30 degrees of bank or wanting to fly straight and level. They are just taught to fly well inside the envelope and during the teaching fatality rates are the lowest.

 

Sure, what you're saying is correct if you want to fly a twitchy aircraft like the ones you described, or for some reason you wanted to turn sharp corners, but why are you promoting activities that the industry isn't training for? Where's that going to send the fatality rate?

Its all a bit of a crock.... The problem started when the big 3 didn't produce planes that permitted you to conduct fully developed spins (in the 60's) like the previously used and up till then available ex service trainers DID..

Prior to the big three "flies like a car" push to get families up into the air, spins were a primary cause of death (See Ernest K. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter", so it really was necessary to train pilots in recovery from spins. As a student I dropped a Chipunk out of the sky, and would have had no hope of working out which way was up let alone what to do next is the Instructor hadn't been there smirking.

 

WW2 produced some military aircraft that would drop out of the sky if you blinked. The Beaufighter was apparently one of these, but by the end of the war the engineering of aerodynamics had moved forward a generation, and the Big 3 aim was to have as much of the population doing business and going away on their holidays by air, so the development continued.

 

You are supposed to do stalls to wing drop recovery and now never go over 30 degrees Bank (emphasized in LAW)

I haven't looked to see if there was a 30 degree law, but in GA we were trained on the basis of keeping well away from the edge of the now much bigger envelope by:

 

Using 30 degree (Rate 1) turns in the circuit, with, above 3000 feet a clearing turn, then a power increase then a 45 degree bank. In the Big 3 these required virtually no rudder skills other than leaving it alone.

 

This was based on the principle that rather than touching a 240 volt wire to know what it was like to get a shock; you were told that touching it would give you a shock, so you stayed out of that part of the envelope. It has worked in GA for decades.

 

In RA, the rule is a maximum of 60 degrees, but there's not the same emphasis on why and the aircraft are built to a much lower degree of aerodynamic safety (to save the extra millions of dollars which would make the aircraft non viable financially), so most of the aircraft have issues like adverse aileron yaw which requires training in use of the rudder, and the GA 30/45 degree lessons seem to be missing.

 

we get people turning partly on rudder unbalanced rather than doing a steeper (Now illegal) turn with Ball in centre BALANCED, if they wish to turn more quickly. . A far more dangerous trend or approach to the job of flying safely We now have pilots who have never done a steep turn or who would be totally confused perhaps even fearful if they ever get in a rotor near a mountain ridge or wake turbulence and end up near vertical bank without doing anything to cause it. An unusual attitude so called. Unusual attitudes in very small planes are not able to be avoided sometimes. Be nice if you can cope with that situation If/when it does. Nev

Most recreational pilots will see out their flying life without ever having to do anything other than a 30 degree turn. Airfield circuits are based on that. I'll admit that once licensed I adopted the smart alec habit of using 45 degrees for all turns where people might be watching, but after seeing video which looked like I was doing a lazy 20 degrees, and reading The Killing Field, I've never done one since. But let's say you had an odd airfield in the mountains which was a legal ALA, or you just wanted to feel safe; all pilots including students have access to organisations which teach aerobatics or recovery from unusual situations. The instructors are qualified to teach that level of flying in aircraft which are suitable for that type of flying, and all I've ever heard from people who have taken a few lessons is superlatives.

 

 

The Libs have even less RA aviation policy than Labor - but I guess with the election result, we just know now, nothing is going to change.

 

What I can't understand is why so many people voted for ON (8%) and Palmer (4%), quite likely not understanding that a vote for either, was simply a vote for the Libs. Preference deals are what decides election results today.

I don't know why you'd want a policy on RA, it nests too far down the cost chain and it would have to be more intrusive.

 

There haven't been any changes to the preference system. Campaign Directors need to be watching at National level, State level, District level and Booth level bfore they decide what to do and where. The best person I've even seen at this was Henry Bolte. Don't forget this time around if you voted Greens you were voting for Labor so it can be ugly when you stand back but politics requires pragmatism.

 

 

You can't trust super either....

 

I had a friend who was in a good working position but was older (50) with 2 young children.

 

He decided he wanted to be "setup" by 60 and came up with a "salary sacrifice into super" plan with a financial planner.

 

He was sacrificing 70% of his pretax salary and everything was moving according to plan UNTIL the govt decided to change the super rules.

 

Totally ruined his projections and planning and the stress gave him mental issues.

 

The govt talk about planning for the future...... you make the plan..... then they change the rules.

 

A total scam, the lot of it...

Buy the Warren Buffet books and you won't use a Financial Planner, or if you need to, you'll spend more time researching for a long term performer than you took to build your plane.

 

You don't lose your money just by salary sacrificing, but 70% of your income being paid into your Super fund would be an extreme, and I take it the rule change was to lower that rate.

 

What Buffet says over and over again is no Financial Planner can pick the stock market well enough to beat the market index increase year in and year out, so you are better in a reputable index fund is you manage your own Super.

 

The beauty of compound interest is you don't have to get a big percentage to make a lot of money over a few decades, which most Super finds can do. At the same time, if the modest income is white anted by annual fees, the net income per year is a lot flatter, so you have to compare interest income and fees of the various Superannuation funds at regular intervals. Just at a rough guess right now I'd say you would be looking at a starting income of about 8 - 12% pa after fees with a stable Super fund, that could show you 20 years or so of consistent earnings.

 

You also need some courage at times. During the Global Financial Crisis fund balances went down by about 25 to 30%, and I have friends who cashed in their finds for hundreds of thousands of dollar losses in their life savings. The funds came back up and into profit within a couple of years for those who just let the market do its thing.

 

 

The reason we oldies relied on the pension is that part of our taxes went to fund the pension, until the government reneged on the deal.

 

Good to hear that a couple of the old pollies look as if they are candidates for heart attacks. We need to get them off our backs.

The pension has been reduced based on people living too long and the push for self- funded superannuation. Problem is there’s not enough phase in time and quite a big group only started paying in five years before retirement. Someone who is now 21 will be able to maintain their lifestyle but for the older group franking, dividends etc can be the lump that buys the groceries.....so they reacted.

 

 

I reckon it's a sign of bad driving training if a driver has to refer to a speedometer to control speed. How many of you concentrate on the ASI while in cruise? You know that a certain RPM setting will produce a certain air speed. It's the same with a car. I have a 2.7 litre V6 engine connected to an automatic transmission. I know that 1500 RPM = 60 kph; 2000 RPM = 80 kph; 2250 RPM = 100 kph, and 2500 RPM = 110 kph. I don't have to look at my speedo, with its numerous marker for intermediate speeds. I just look at my big figure tacho and I know how fast I am going.

You have to look at something to know you're not exceeding the speed limit + 3 km/hr tolerance in order to avoid speed camera fines, or point to point radar fines. The reason you need a good reference is that the standard of driving has increased enormously over the past 30 years; the old fogeys who used to move along at 50 in an 80 zone have all died off, and the bottom end speed is quite close to the speed limit. As a consequence of that everyone knows what distance they need to react to the next person's probable action, so we are able to process higher volumes of traffic with less accidents.

 

 

Rather a moot point, now. All Hail the status quo.

Well theoretically Albo, who had his hair styled recently should become too busy leading his Party, give or take some infighting and Caucus. The old guard are a bit thin on the ground now, so a new face could come to the surface and give us a surprise.

 

 

Dick Smith got hammered for saying that " Australia needed an affordable air-safety system" .

 

So true that it didn't seem worth saying.... the alternative being an unaffordable system.

 

But this didn't save Dick from the mob of idiots.

Google the man's background! Why would you be hanging on every word he said about aviation? (and I'm not referring to Dick)

 

 

Well he did enough to get himself booted out.

 

These people don't get to make individual missions relating to farms or flying; they are required to vote on the Party Line, and many of them only wake up to that after they've been elected.

I had great hopes when Andrew Broad got into parliament, on account of him being the local member for the farm plus a brumby owner. I even wrote to him and got a politician's reply. Alas, he did nothing.

Well he did enough to get himself booted out.

 

 

name an issue Albanese has any influence over in the last 5 years? take your time

Television make up technology?