turboplanner

Anyone know if grass has ever been used for aircraft take off and landing?

No, that's not so. I'd suggest that the majority of folks in Australia have regularly driven or walked on oiled roads and pathways. Unless you're extremely versed in the method you would never recognise it.The oil doesn't transfer back to the tyres, it's not slippery and it certainly doesn't 'layer and clump', whatever that is ...Whatever, like I said, it's been used successfully, unobtrusively and unintrusively for 100yrs or more in low rainfall areas, but what would the old bushies know anyway.

 

Come to think of it - who rushes off to wash their car or aircraft with degreasing detergent after landing or driving on bitumen? There's not much difference in practical terms except the oiled road is softer and the aggregate is smaller.

It's collected and recycled in city areas but not in regional areas. Further out the service stations are still very happy to get rid of it any way they can. A lot of it gets burnt off at the tip. Quite a bit more gets used by the road-gangs when repairing potholes to soften the existing bitumen - it saves on the amount of diesel they have to use.I don't know if Soleair is far enough out for there to be a surplus of it, but I doubt it's collected for recycling further than 50km or so from a major city because there's probably not enough of it to make it viable.

What...the cops or the youths?Sometime I'm sure it's what the offenders deserve, which is great right up until they (cops) decide you're one of those offenders.You should visit the real world occasionally Turbo, those sorts of accounts are common place.

 

Check out Chris Hurley's past. He's not the only one, he's the only one that got caught on video.

It might help if they chose either GA or RA to operate in, and preferably RA so it is feasible.

Fiction

Oops

I went to the previous Mangalore show, and it was fantastic, with a mass takeoff and flypast; looked like a scene from Mad Max with all the different shapes an engine configurations. Not sure what ended it because there were plenty of paying spectators.

I believe they are a handfull

Alex, what I do in the States is use regular airlines to cover the big distances, and when I want to see something, hire the aircraft with an instructor. It's his job to do the radio, navigation, any flight planning for long trips - much easier and probably less cost.

...from "expert" "witnesses" and emergency workers at the scene, plus phoning the local aero club.

LMY is a PA28-151 Cherokee Warrior

It would be nice if a lot of other POHs were as comprehensive as this one, particularly for flight planning: http://www.aviators-bfi.com/siteassets/warrior_PA28-151_POH.pdf

It would be regarded as crap. As a happy Jabiru owner I can say with authority.

It all depends on how you define "perpetrator". When you can be charged with participating in an "unregulated high risk activity", it would seem that they can charge you for almost anything that they can determine to be "high risk" using their wonderful little risk matrix, almost anyone could be a "perpetrator" for almost anything.The very idea that that govt regulators feel the need to regulate half the stuff they do says a lot about the silly state we're in.

True, but whether it fell out of the sky, was in the process of making a forced landing etc

Specifically, they want the perpetrator to weat the cost; not that hard to understand.

Amazing that no one knows what happened.

Good work; got it down, walked away.

While not suggesting the good ol’ US of A gets many things right something that I read somewhere was about the allowance of aviation activities and went something like “in the USA in deciding what will be allowed the starting premise is the activity starts from a position of it WILL be allowed and can only be stopped if there is good reason to disallow it. In the rest of the world the starting position is “the activity WILL NOT be allowed until sufficient reasons can be found to allow it to happen.”

Moi Aussi mon ami.

If you read any international social media,. . . ( Not the MSM of course ) you MAY have noticed that we have a regular thing here in the UK where 'Immigrants' of an unmentionable doctrine, seem to like mounting the pavement whilst driving automobiles,. . .in order to hurt people that they don't like. These 'Incidents' when the media is forced, by too many witnesses, to actually report,. . .the charge is always attempted Manslaughter,. . . where it is fairly obvious that the perpetrator simply wished to mow down a load of people, not particularly bothered whether they were killed or not. Thus is the famous British Justice system being distorted in favour of a minority of nasty buggers who really need shooting. The last joke was the conviction of a young man (23) who left a home made bomb on a tube train in London. The bomb was made from 2.5 Kgs of a very high explosive, and contained within a 10 litre paint bucket. but the guy didn't construct the detonator properly, so the man charge didn't go off. Only 23 people were severely burned in the resulting fireball inside the train carriage. The charge ?. . .'Attempted Murder' the Brit judiciary are terrified of using the 'T' word nowadays. . .bad press for the immigrants and most unfair apparently. . . .

I agree completely that road vehicle crashes should be no more acceptable than aircraft crashes, but from what I have seen, magistrates seem to be rather kind to car drivers. (especially older ones)I have seen instances where murder should apply, but I would hazard a guess that at worst it still just be manslaughter at best. By that I mean I have seen drivers do some incredibly dangerous things deliberately, probably not with intent to kill, but clearly there could be no other likely outcome from their actions.

In United Kingdom Law, as long as I can remember. . .MURDER can only be levied as a charge when there is a provable INTENT to kill, irrespective of the method, or weapon employed.

I think therefore that in almost every case where there is a death in a motor vehicle crash involving 2 or more vehicles, one of the parties is generally grossly negligent and should be charged with Manslaughter. This does happen but not as often as it should. Perhaps it is because car crashes are acceptable in the public eye and aircraft crashes are not.

The chances of an airframe failure compared to and engine failure are very small.